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

[metropolis]

Originally Posted by Yankees0222

A pretty fair review of the film:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/58319...ition-blu-ray/

And we got a shout out! Score!

Review says Savini signed off on the transfer, and that is so misleading.

Good to see he was able to write his review from what he learned here.

[Yojimbo68]

I've been thinking...what if TT went to Sony and purchased another 3000 copies but released the theatrical version but with the original color timing? They could call it the "original theatrical edition" or something. Everybody would win. Another sellout for TT, Sony gets it's money and fans displeased with the tinted version get what they want. Sounds like a win-win to me.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by BJQ1972

As usual, a very interesting and well informed post from a much maligned member of this forum.

Thanks BJQ1972, you too oildude, Blu, and #Darren. It was just a background thought that has been nagging me thoughout all this. Even when I eventually see this movie (should arrive by mid next week), and let's say I have no big problems with the PQ and AQ in terms of basic movie enjoyment, it still doesn't absolve the revisionism here.

It's certainly possible that the VHS, LD, and DVD transfers for NOTLD 1990 were too bright - I never saw them - or maybe the original film was a bit darker than those video releases - I barely remember it - but the most accurate caps here from pscion and HD Goofnut clearly show that for a considerable stretch of this film it has been subjected to dramatic recoloring. And whenever that kind of radical departure occurs, even if it's a creative correction closer to the filmmaker's original intent, then all we really need for that to be palatable is a context, plus the original unaltered movie as a point of comparison. Simply replacing the original as if it never happened just never sits well with me. In the digital realm, we've seen too much of this obsessive 'when-is-it-ever-really-finished?' tinkering.

So I'm genuinely torn here. Even if I enjoy this particular edition, and it's already a surefire collectible, it still bugs me that this will likely be the only version that more passionate fans of NOTLD 1990 ever see in the Blu-ray format. I mean, I know how I felt when I saw Paramount's 2005 remastered DVD of George Pal's War of the Worlds which was dramatically "brightened" and "desaturated" from the look of its original primary red-blue-green 3-strip Technicolor. Although much cleaner and sharper, its colour grading was just plain wrong...to the extent of revealing more wires on the models than were ever visible theatrically, making some wonder "How did this ever win the Oscar for FX in '53?" Easy...the original 'less modern' color grading was consistent with all the painstaking work on set to paint those filaments so that they blended better with the cyclorama. But which version do you think we will get when Paramount eventually gets around to releasing a Blu-ray? Such wonky transfer choices have a way of proliferating and supplanting the original work...thus, over time, making a hash of its history...basically counting on less discriminating audiences to eventually neither know nor care.

Originally Posted by BJQ1972

One thing about Star Wars, and the notion that Lucasfilm pretend the original versions of the films don't exist - the 2006 (I think) DVD releases of the films DID contain a copy of the original theatrical versions. They were transferred from the laser disc and are only 4:3 letterbox, but it is better than nothing. I am sure they claim there are no prints of the original films to do a new scan from.

Yes indeed, and those unaltered 2006 letterboxed DVD transfers from Laserdisc now go for a bundle, lower rez video warts and all. To a lesser degree something like that might be what will happen here with NOTLD 1990 vs. NOTLD 2010...I mean, how many posters will be hanging onto their legacy DVDs or looking for HD streams and downloads of the unfiltered version? For every fan who has gone off the rails in righteous indignation and reckless blame, there are just as many or more who have seen this kind of thing before, and don't trust the studios, or the filmmakers themselves, to ever admit their revisionist choices were wrong, or invest in a correction.

So if you're a passionate fan of this movie, my recommendation would be to hang onto the best transfer you can find with the original coloration. And even hang onto this controversial DP-supervised and Director Approved 'remix', because I have little faith NOTLD 1990 will get done again. Maybe in 3 years for its 25th Anniversary, but just as likely Sony has washed their hands of this title in hard media form.

[Crom1]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo68

I've been thinking...what if TT went to Sony and purchased another 3000 copies but released the theatrical version but with the original color timing? They could call it the "original theatrical edition" or something. Everybody would win. Another sellout for TT, Sony gets it's money and fans displeased with the tinted version get what they want. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Really what TT should do is create a properly colored blu and ship them free of charge to purchasers of the original 3000. Selling crap in a box, then charging a second time for what it should have been in the first place isn't a customer friendly solution.

It's their choice for what they want their reputation to be, to me I hope that good movies are sent to other companies instead of TT in the future.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Crom1

Really what TT should do is create a properly colored blu and ship them free of charge to purchasers of the original 3000. Selling crap in a box, then charging a second time for what it should have been in the first place isn't a customer friendly solution.

It's their choice for what they want their reputation to be, to me I hope that good movies are sent to other companies instead of TT in the future.

The thing is, TT was not responsible for this transfer. Even if the "rights" for this film had been sent to another company it was Sony who did the scan and color re-grading two years ago. The release would've been the same, unfortunately (because it really doesn't look very good compared to the original.)

[HyperRealist]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

The thing is, TT was not responsible for this transfer. Even if the "rights" for this film had been sent to another company it was Sony who did the scan and color re-grading two years ago. The release would've been the same, unfortunately (because it really doesn't look very good compared to the original.)

Not if they sent them the transfer that streaming services have.

[Whirlygig]

Originally Posted by Yankees0222

And we got a shout out! Score!

Why is it so surprising (and apparently annoying) to reviewers and others that on a discussion forum, people discuss things? 10 posts or 5500, who cares, except maybe the guy paying for the disk space and server bandwidth?

[Yojimbo68]

Originally Posted by HyperRealist

Not if they sent them the transfer that streaming services have.

Yes. It seems to me that NOTLD90 has 2 HD masters. As long as TT verifies that it is indeed the theatrical HD master, we should be good to go.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by metropolis

Review says Savini signed off on the transfer, and that is so misleading.

Good to see he was able to write his review from what he learned here.

Not misleading at all, if you choose not to skew it to create an argument. It doesn't say he supervised the transfer, just that he "signed off" on it. Many directors watch a finished product without actively being involved. By watching it after the fact and giving it his endorsement, that's signing off on the product. So what the review states is true.

[Yojimbo68]

Originally Posted by Crom1

Really what TT should do is create a properly colored blu and ship them free of charge to purchasers of the original 3000. Selling crap in a box, then charging a second time for what it should have been in the first place isn't a customer friendly solution.

It's their choice for what they want their reputation to be, to me I hope that good movies are sent to other companies instead of TT in the future.

I'm trying to be realistic. In a perfect world what you suggest would be the order of the day. But I'm offering a solution where fans could get what they really want while TT and Sony get paid for their efforts. Yeah, us fans pay in the end but then again...we always pay.

[HyperRealist]

Someone should ask Savini what he thinks of the VUDU HDX.

[HorrorBlu]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo68

I've been thinking...what if TT went to Sony and purchased another 3000 copies but released the theatrical version but with the original color timing? They could call it the "original theatrical edition" or something. Everybody would win. Another sellout for TT, Sony gets it's money and fans displeased with the tinted version get what they want. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Here's an official answer to that question from Twilight Time, posted on their Facebook:

We offer the version approved by the studio and the filmmakers...no other versions.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by HyperRealist

Not if they sent them the transfer that streaming services have.

Has it even been confirmed that this is based on the new master?

I haven't seen any 1920X1080 comparisons between the blu ray and the streaming service presentation, but it's possible that it's just an upscale... or that it's a transfer from an older, inferior master.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by Blueoktober

Yup and the folks are TT are @ssholes. You forgot to add that.

No, TT is not the "@sshole", it's the people who're continually accusing TT for an act, for which they are completely innocent of any wrong doing. This HD transfer of NOTLD was issued to TT directly from Sony as is, to be released on blu-ray. Have it ever occurred to you, this is the way Tom Savini wanted the movie to look in the first place, not how it looked theatrically and on DVD, but didn't have the modern technology (that's available today) to do it?

[EddieLarkin]

I imagine that if the transfer used for streaming was suitable for Blu-ray, they wouldn't have bothered with a new transfer in 2010. Its probably just the same DVD-era HD transfer, which would provide little upgrade on a BD disc.

[EmpireSB]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Have it ever occurred to you, this is the way Tom Savini wanted the movie to look in the first place, not how it looked theatrically and on DVD, but didn't have the modern technology (that's available today) to do it?

The technology to darken the picture and make it blue? Did that not exist in 1990?

[HyperRealist]

TT is really scraping the bottom of the barrel with some of the reviews they are posting on facebook. Doesn't do much for your credibility when you post a review from Joe Blow's blog.

[mayorofsmpleton]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Have it ever occurred to you, this is the way Tom Savini wanted the movie to look in the first place, not how it looked theatrically and on DVD, but didn't have the modern technology (that's available today) to do it?

"Has" it ever occurred to me? No.

Savini has previously stated that he shot the opening in the bright and sunny day to directly contrast the horror to come. He also complained that zombies were typically shot grey/blue looking and that they didn't look like real corpses in zombie films -- he preferred that they look yellow in his film.

Both of these things are alterered now. The zombies look grey, and the whole film is bathed in darkness. This isn't a case of "they always wanted it this way!"

It's more likely that the DP wanted to use the work as a reference to getting more gigs so he updated the look. I have no proof of this but I'm slightly cynical and it wouldn't surprise me.

The film was intentionally shot to look DIFFERENT than all the other zombie films up until that point. With natural lighting/color. Look at all the comments about the new filtering "It looks like a Resident Evil movie! That's how a zombie movie should look!" "Looks more like a typical zombie movie now!" etc. The comments supporting the change. Yes it looks more typical of a zombie film... but that's exactly what they were trying to avoid.

It looks 'appropriate' for a zombie horror film in the year 2010 -- but that's not how they envisioned the film in 1990, or how they shot it. They could have easily shot the opening at dusk in 1990, or legitimately shot it day-for-night... as someone mentioned an episode of Tales From the Crypt did it on a 90s TV budget. This is no better than releasing a 'colorized' version of the 1968 film and saying "Romero would have shot it in color but they didn't have the budget then!"

Perhaps that's true... but Romero DIDN'T shoot it in color and to alter that would be wrong. (a colorized version has been release for the film, on VHS).

Regardless, I agree -- Twilight Time is not to blame here. It's absurd that they would have expected Sony to have done this. It's also absurd they should have known the intended look of the film. Perhaps they could have done some research but that wouldn't have changed anything. All that would have happened was they would have been a little more prepared to explain the alterations to the fans.

The changes don't render the film unwatchable but let's be honest -- it's not how Savini and Co. intended for it to look. They may have given it the thumbs up now -- but one wonders if he would have done the very same thing to a non-filtered version he popped into his "blue-ray" player. I'm guessing he would have.

Any blame here should be directed at Sony. Had TT not licensed this film, they would have either released it themselves at some point (though it sounds like it was shelved for at least 2 years... so perhaps not) or licensed the exact same master out to a different studio... so the only difference would have been a non-limited run and a lower price point.

It sounds like the complaining is that people want TT to provide the original color timing on BD. They can't. Sony will have to make that call in 3 years. I'm guessing they will based on the complaints and the popularity of the title but expecting TT to do anything more than refund the product is absurd. They've handled this situation with a lot of class. Would I have preferred a little more attention to detail? Of course. It sounds like they've learned their lesson going forward though.

[mayorofsmpleton]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

I imagine that if the transfer used for streaming was suitable for Blu-ray, they wouldn't have bothered with a new transfer in 2010. Its probably just the same DVD-era HD transfer, which would provide little upgrade on a BD disc.

That's the point. It's an old master and Sony was intending to do a 20th Anniversary Edition -- they're definitely not going to slap an old master on a disc being that BD is their format. The new transfer was done to attempt to modernize the film. Then they stopped releasing a lot of catalogue titles and shelved the new master. TT comes along and snags it.

Had TT released the original master on BD the complaints would be all about how it looks too soft, there are dirt/speckles all over the print, etc. "This is clearly an old master..."

TT isn't responsible for the mastering job Sony did in 2009/2010. This is all they were given and to the best of their knowledge it most represented the intention of the film-makers.

Most of the complaints just seem to be from people who don't understand the studio business models, how film/TV production and video releases work and how production deals like this work either.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by mayorofsmpleton

That's the point. It's an old master and Sony was intending to do a 20th Anniversary Edition -- they're definitely not going to slap an old master on a disc being that BD is their format. The new transfer was done to attempt to modernize the film. Then they stopped releasing a lot of catalogue titles and shelved the new master. TT comes along and snags it.

Had TT released the original master on BD the complaints would be all about how it looks too soft, there are dirt/speckles all over the print, etc. "This is clearly an old master..."

TT isn't responsible for the mastering job Sony did in 2009/2010. This is all they were given and to the best of their knowledge it most represented the intention of the film-makers.

Most of the complaints just seem to be from people who don't understand the studio business models, how film/TV production and video releases work and how production deals like this work either.

People don't understand the business models at all. All people think and care about, typically, is 'I want that, and they better give it to me'.