Night of the Living Dead (1990) - Out of Print

[vidjunkie]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo68

Hee hee. This release made for an exciting and funny thread at times but the Blu-ray is a revisionist version of the film. Just like what Lucas did to the original trilogy of Star Wars films. Even though the Director and DP do sign off on it, it's not the film they released in 1990. But I guess I'm beating a dead horse. BTW, does anyone prefer this version or do most prefer the original color timing?

edit: So the DP hasn't even seen the new transfer?! Wow. Just Wow. Me thinks that in 3 years time this will surface again with a less dark transfer. I wish I could bet money on it...

I myself do not prefer it but it is not all that bad, not great lol, but not a total waste, it is a little to dark at times, and the blue is a little over bearing, but the original colors are just way to bright, to me a happy middle ground would have been ideal, soon as I get time I will show you what I mean with some screens.

So in short I do not feel I wasted my money at all, I am still glad I own it, as well as the DVD.

[oildude]

Or....it is exactly the way the DP specified. This isn't one person giving directions to another over the phone on how to color a picture with crayons. Conference calls, monitor linkups, images get exchanged, color timing settings adjusted, brightness, contrast, etc etc.


You guys are a riot. Reminds me of this:

She's a witch! - YouTube

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by oildude

Or....it is exactly the way the DP specified. This isn't one person giving directions to another over the phone on how to color a picture with crayons. Conference calls, monitor linkups, images get exchanged, color timing settings adjusted, brightness, contrast, etc etc.


You guys are a riot. Reminds me of this:

She's a witch! - YouTube

Except he said he hasn't seen it. It's more than likely that he gave his intentions over the phone and that was that. None of that back and forth that you seem to imagine happening.

[lifepawn]

Originally Posted by vidjunkie

I myself do not prefer it but it is not all that bad, not great lol, but not a total waste, it is a little to dark at times, and the blue is a little over bearing, but the original colors are just way to bright, to me a happy middle ground would have been ideal

Yeah, what he said.

[HyperRealist]

[HyperRealist]

[wormraper]

HaH!!!, nuff said, this was a BOTCHED transfer. simple and plain

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by HyperRealist

Looks like they made a call or two to the dp, but he had zero direct involvement with this....not surprised.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by wormraper

HaH!!!, nuff said, this was a BOTCHED transfer. simple and plain

Yep. We can now call it the DP Disapproved edition

[Yankees0222]

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Yep. We can now call it the DP Disapproved edition

[Mr Kite]

People lets take a deep breath here. So far we have Tom Savini liking it, Frank Prinzi (DP) not seeing it but not liking the screen grabs and someone at Sony taking it upon themselves to make a major colour change to the film. Now for me Sony had to have had some sort of input from and agreement with someone involved in the movie, as they i can promise you will not have done this of there own back, so this had to have been passed off with the agreement of the DP etc.
Someone for some reason is telling porkies otherwise why did they change it surely it would have been far easier to put it out the way it was or with a less drastic a colour change.
Until either Tom or Frank put out a statement clearly saying one way or another what has been going on we have to accept the new print.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by Moonpie

Someone for some reason is telling porkies

you got that bit right

[hamchuck1]

are people honestly using the theatrical viewing from 22 years ago as a point of reference? Freaking ridiculous.

[bigdaddyhorse]

Originally Posted by HyperRealist

Last thoughts on this release:
How can you work on visuals without seeing them, even after they are done?

At least with Star Wars, that was Lucas making his changes to his films. This sounds like Frank wanted to try and fix an old issue (to him and Tom I would assume), but he didn't. He told someone over the phone what to do, and we fans got a disaster for it. For these reasons, it's far worse than the revisions of SW. It's not so much the filmmakers intent as it is some guy over the phone doing the tweaking how he sees and hears fit.

But if they wanted these scenes at dusk or early evening, why not film them during a darker part of the day to begin with? Or, I know this is crazy but bear with me, hang tarps or something to block the direct sun out if you want a nighttime look.

Will the defenders of this revision keep going, knowing now what the DP thinks of the finished product? I guess you always have Tom's blessing!

I'm so torn. The opening and closing minutes look great on blu, the audio is a huge improvement even with a couple things missing (I could hear empty gun clicks, and like the end without camera sound better too). When the zombies were busting in and the sub was kicking is sounds to behold. But 75%+ of the film looks wrong despite sounding great.

I think Sony owes us an explanation at the very least. I'm sure they don't care and figure they can listen to and ignore 3000 complaints (tops, some like it) without a worry. As a fan of the film I'm bummed and sad for what should've been.

Would anyone be crying about "it's too bright", if it came out looking like the dvd? Why do some act like Blu can never be wrong and dvd has to be shit? It's been proven over and over that anything can be ****ed, and anything can be great. Definition is just an added bonus of Blu, but a shitty master is gonna look like shit no matter what format!

[#Darren]

[HyperRealist]

Originally Posted by #Darren

I just got done reading about the price gouging going on the hurricane areas. I hope the people they are busting get huge fines.

[NoirFan]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyhorse

Would anyone be crying about "it's too bright", if it came out looking like the dvd?

Of course, but as a general aesthetic criticism, not necessarily a technical one. I never saw it in the theater, but always thought the film's look (meaning the DVD) was completely inappropriate for the material - drab, bland, flat, bright, ugly, and devoid of any atmosphere at all, which was the primary reason I had never warmed to the film. I never knew that it was intended to be far darker, but it does make complete sense. Whether the color timing on the Sony disc represents an accurate representation of the original intent is not for me to say, but it was one ugly-looking movie before.

[Mr Kite]

Sony contacting someone over the phone and asking how they want there film to look just doesn't ring true for me.

[mzupeman]

Well, looks like it WAS botched. 'Tis a shame.