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

[beadelf]

this film seems to be more popular than I thought!!! lol

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by ghostwhowalks

My 2 arrived yesterday!

Just picked mine up today a few hours after I posted

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by Whirlygig

I don't even know why you and I are apparently arguing about anything...
You will find absolutely no argument from me about the fact that posting photographs of TVs is a terrible idea. Here are things you will find me arguing:

- This thread has had a significant number of screenshots in it that were not altered.
- Suggesting, even alluding to, otherwise is factually incorrect.

I don't know how far back you went, but here are where I see the first pictures rolling in, and these appear to be screenshots, unaltered.




Psicon and auz (I believe the original source of the one quoted above) post more screenshots, people post photos, more screenshots, etc. The video does not show up until some time later.

I doubt any of the photographs were altered either, they're just a piss-poor basis for any discussion.

I even doubt that video was altered, outside of unavoidable compression by YouTube or the software that rendered it (which as you can see completely eradicated the [still dark] detail in the truck's grill).

Regardless, all of them -- photos, screenshots, videos -- do convey a drastic difference between the other home video releases and this Blu-ray.

Who's arguing? I'm not. Why do we need to be arguing? We have quoted each others posts what like twice, and I can't see any arguing from me amongst those posts, only a calm discussion. If that's the way you see everything then no wonder this thread is f*cked. As for the remainder of your post, I'll responded to it later, as I can't be bothered right now.

[Whirlygig]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Who's arguing? I'm not. Why do we need to be arguing? We have quoted each others posts what like twice, and I can't see any arguing from me amongst those posts, only a calm discussion. If that's the way you see everything then no wonder this thread is f*cked. As for the remainder of your post, I'll responded to it later, as I can't be bothered right now.

So far I essentially agree with everything you've said (except for possibly the definition of "screenshot" and the precise order of events, which may be hard to look back on now if any posts were deleted). I'm just clarifying my own position since you've been responding directly to me as though you are somehow opposed to some part of that position ("then you didn't look hard enough"...etc).

If people say "the Blu-ray doesn't look the same to me on my TV as the screenshots/photos do on my computer", that's fine. I won't disagree with them, though I might try explaining why, from a technical standpoint, that may be the case. However, if they in any way hint that people may have been deliberately attempting to mislead them with altered images, then I'll vehemently disagree. Conspiracy theories are ridiculous, especially in a situation where there is no denying the overall point that the film has been drastically altered toward an incredibly, surprisingly dark appearance.

When I look back at photos people took, you know what's funny? In many cases the photos end up looking brighter overall than the screenshots. In some cases they do look more blue, but at the same time brighter -- and that might actually make the photos give a more positive impression of the end product than the screenshots. For one example of this, see the photo HyperRealist re-posted a couple pages back, and the same frame I posted from HD Goofnut's screenshots directly above it.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by stephenwilson04

Finally received my copies of NOTLD and Enemy Mine here in Scotland. I can stop worrying now. Hope eveyone gets theirs.

International mail always takes much longer in transit and to be delivered because, the mail is entering into another country from the U.S, and it's a requirement for all incoming mail to pass through customs.

[stephenwilson04]

Originally Posted by slimdude

International mail always takes much longer in transit and to be delivered because, the mail is entering into another country from the U.S, and it's a requirement for all incoming mail to pass through customs.

Just don't understand why it takes a week and a half longer than other people in the same country when it was mailed at the same time .

[JoeDeM]

Originally Posted by stephenwilson04

Just don't understand why it takes a week and a half longer than other people in the same country when it was mailed at the same time .

I blame it on the postal workers, they stop at the local pub for a pint, and decide to push the delivery to the next day just be happy you got it.

[dantexaiver]

Originally Posted by JoeDeM

I blame it on the postal workers, they stop at the local pub for a pint, and decide to push the delivery to the next day just be happy you got it.

Well if I find out the reason I still do not have my copy was because some postal worker wanted to bugger off for a drink I will be pissed

[thephantomcat]

Originally Posted by dantexaiver

Well if I find out the reason I still do not have my copy was because some postal worker wanted to bugger off for a drink I will be pissed

I often get delivery notifications from the early morning and when I check my P.O. box in the afternoon, it's empty and it doesn't show up until the next day. This is often the case on Saturdays and long holiday weekends and I have to wait till Tues to pick up my packages. I can't help but feel that the Post office workers just want to go home for the weekend. They even leave the little yellow cards in my box letting me know I have a package when they could have left me a key for one of the large mailboxes. The post office is the bane of my existence.

[Dex Robinson]

Originally Posted by dantexaiver

Well if I find out the reason I still do not have my copy was because some postal worker wanted to bugger off for a drink I will be pissed

Mine came today...two weeks and a day after the shipping notice. That's WAY later than the normal week it usually takes.

I think there was just a routing screw-up with that side trip to Chicago taken by many Canadian packages.

Remain optimistic. I had given up on mine when my regular mailman failed to deliver it today. Half an hour later, it showed up in my mail box...likely dropped off by a postal truck.

[ghostwhowalks]

Originally Posted by #Darren

Just picked mine up today a few hours after I posted

Good one!

[Belloche]

Originally Posted by Dex Robinson

Mine came today...two weeks and a day after the shipping notice. That's WAY later than the normal week it usually takes.

I think there was just a routing screw-up with that side trip to Chicago taken by many Canadian packages.

Remain optimistic. I had given up on mine when my regular mailman failed to deliver it today. Half an hour later, it showed up in my mail box...likely dropped off by a postal truck.

Mine showed up today too. I was starting to get a little worried because I didn't pay for the insurance. I can still say I've never lost anything in the mail.

[Kriztoffer Swank]

Crossin' my fingers I get the VUDU HDX version for a mere two bucks. Bringing my Blu-ray into Walmart tomorrow. If they try to mark my BD or case in any way, however, I'll have to pass... (Marking a limited item like this is no good.) I've got a $6 credit I could alternately use to get half off the regular price.

I watched a two-minute preview in 1080p. Sadly only the opening so there's not a whole lot to look at and decipher the quality, but it was looking pretty peachy, I thought. It'll be good to download that to my PS3. Again, I like the look of the BD, but I wanna see the older color timing as well.

[Scottie]

I just watched this and I don't see why there's all this hate about the transfer.

[Dex Robinson]

I'm so late to the party because my copy was so late arriving. It's not as much fun getting into the fray after the action is largely over.

I watched this tonight. I do own the DVD but haven't watched it in years. There's an obvious problem trying to be objective when I've seen all of the posted screen caps and comments.

One thing that comes to mind is that, had I not been aware of the controversy, I doubt that I would be at all troubled by the new look of the film. For me, it works just fine. I don't sense it as either too dark or blue. Of course, I am aware of the controversy and I do understand that it doesn't look like the bright DVD. So for those who are annoyed that it doesn't look like it used to, I can acknowledge your complaint.

While I am a fan of the movie, I'm not schooled in it sufficiently that I have good recall of how it has looked in the past. This is reminiscent of the controversy over the DVD and BD of the original HALLOWEEN. Ironically, I think that controversy centered around the fact that blue tints were removed. I saw HALLOWEEN in the theater twice when it was originally released. I loved it and saw it again in another theater the following year. Later, I would buy the first DVD followed by the later "Divimax" DVD. The later release, like the BD, was skewered for the color timing. It was given a 1.5 star review by an obsessively irate reviewer with a "Skip it" recommendation. I actually loved the Blu-ray because, despite having seen it theatrically and on home video, I hadn't committed it to memory. So it looked fine despite people telling me it was wrong.

That's the situation I find myself in here. There's a lot of very irate viewers who have the look of this movie committed to memory and they are not happy. And I have no reason to argue with them. If they are not happy, I understand. But, although I've seen NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD before, I just never really took special note of the color or brightness.

One the one hand, I can accept that it doesn't look the way that serious fans are used to. On the other hand, as a casual fan, can't say I was bothered by the way it looks. I thought it was good transfer and I have no personal complaint about it.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Dex Robinson

I'm so late to the party because my copy was so late arriving. It's not as much fun getting into the fray after the action is largely over.

I watched this tonight. I do own the DVD but haven't watched it in years. There's an obvious problem trying to be objective when I've seen all of the posted screen caps and comments.

One thing that comes to mind is that, had I not been aware of the controversy, I doubt that I would be at all troubled by the new look of the film. For me, it works just fine. I don't sense it as either too dark or blue. Of course, I am aware of the controversy and I do understand that it doesn't look like the bright DVD. So for those who are annoyed that it doesn't look like it used to, I can acknowledge your complaint.

While I am a fan of the movie, I'm not schooled in it sufficiently that I have good recall of how it has looked in the past. This is reminiscent of the controversy over the DVD and BD of the original HALLOWEEN. Ironically, I think that controversy centered around the fact that blue tints were removed. I saw HALLOWEEN in the theater twice when it was originally released. I loved it and saw it again in another theater the following year. Later, I would buy the first DVD followed by the later "Divimax" DVD. The later release, like the BD, was skewered for the color timing. It was given a 1.5 star review by an obsessively irate reviewer with a "Skip it" recommendation. I actually loved the Blu-ray because, despite having seen it theatrically and on home video, I hadn't committed it to memory. So it looked fine despite people telling me it was wrong.

That's the situation I find myself in here. There's a lot of very irate viewers who have the look of this movie committed to memory and they are not happy. And I have no reason to argue with them. If they are not happy, I understand. But, although I've seen NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD before, I just never really took special note of the color or brightness.

One the one hand, I can accept that it doesn't look the way that serious fans are used to. On the other hand, as a casual fan, can't say I was bothered by the way it looks. I thought it was good transfer and I have no personal complaint about it.

I think that's a very fair assessment

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by Dex Robinson

I'm so late to the party because my copy was so late arriving. It's not as much fun getting into the fray after the action is largely over.

I watched this tonight. I do own the DVD but haven't watched it in years. There's an obvious problem trying to be objective when I've seen all of the posted screen caps and comments.

One thing that comes to mind is that, had I not been aware of the controversy, I doubt that I would be at all troubled by the new look of the film. For me, it works just fine. I don't sense it as either too dark or blue. Of course, I am aware of the controversy and I do understand that it doesn't look like the bright DVD. So for those who are annoyed that it doesn't look like it used to, I can acknowledge your complaint.

While I am a fan of the movie, I'm not schooled in it sufficiently that I have good recall of how it has looked in the past. This is reminiscent of the controversy over the DVD and BD of the original HALLOWEEN. Ironically, I think that controversy centered around the fact that blue tints were removed. I saw HALLOWEEN in the theater twice when it was originally released. I loved it and saw it again in another theater the following year. Later, I would buy the first DVD followed by the later "Divimax" DVD. The later release, like the BD, was skewered for the color timing. It was given a 1.5 star review by an obsessively irate reviewer with a "Skip it" recommendation. I actually loved the Blu-ray because, despite having seen it theatrically and on home video, I hadn't committed it to memory. So it looked fine despite people telling me it was wrong.

That's the situation I find myself in here. There's a lot of very irate viewers who have the look of this movie committed to memory and they are not happy. And I have no reason to argue with them. If they are not happy, I understand. But, although I've seen NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD before, I just never really took special note of the color or brightness.

One the one hand, I can accept that it doesn't look the way that serious fans are used to. On the other hand, as a casual fan, can't say I was bothered by the way it looks. I thought it was good transfer and I have no personal complaint about it.

Mine finally arrived too Dex, and you just prevented a rather long post from becoming even longer by pretty much summing up my own feelings...I'm right up the middle on this one too. However, if my sympathies were to tip either way, it would be ever so slightly toward those über committed NOTLD90 fans who not only didn't get what they were expecting, but got it without any warning or context.

I mean, we all have 'touchstone' movies that we've known throughout most of our life, and if suddenly one day, one of your faves...say...Bye Bye Birdie...had shown up in a limited edition Blu-ray with radically subdued, more 'realistic' or just 'dreamier' color grading, I'm sure you'd yelp "W-T-F?" too...even if approved by the DP, the Director, or Ann-Margret herself! I know how I felt over Paramount's modernist brightening and desaturization of The War of the Worlds for its special edition DVD a few years ago. Nice looking, I guess, as long as you've never seen an IB print of the original Technicolor film. But many like me had, and we were appalled by the liberties taken with that classic movie's intended primary red-green-blue 'look'.

So on the one hand, NOTLD90 did look marvelous - certainly much better in motion on my calibrated monitor than via screen caps on my uncalibrated laptop. Even in the most controversial shots, I saw more overall dustiness and muskiness than blue tinting, plus a whole schwack of detail in those blacks*. This wasn't a shoddy master or encode by any stretch. And yet, on the other hand, just doing something so different with the film was, by definition, extremely revisionist. I guess if we'd got that planned Sony 20th Anniversary Special Edition in 2010, possibly with both versions on it, then there might have been another type of debate altogether here. Sure, heated arguments would have ensued over the merits of each transfer, but each side would still have its preferred version to fall back on for subsequent viewing. As it is, we essentially got only half of that NOTLD90 SE project, with none of the backstory (except via jigsaw puzzle snippets after the blow up), and that just wasn't fair to 'core fans to have this Blu-ray land in their laps that way.

The thing is, TT is a collector label owned by collectors, who have shown their passion for such production esoterica so many times already, not the least via their choices of some otherwise forgotten deep, deep catalogue titles. So I'm inclined to believe they simply didn't know the full backstory on this radical DP re-grading of NOTLD90 prior to release. I mean, heck, they had a fully QC'd and Approved Sony transfer here - as close to a 'gold standard' as we've got in the Blu-ray format. Why on earth would they - or anyone? Bueller? - question the creative choices that went into that master?

Glad I saw the film again. Glad this Blu-ray turned out as well as it did. Not glad how blithely it rewrote film history.

* I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that this originated as a 4k scan like Fright Night. It sure wasn't a lazy SD recycle-job!

[Inspector Toschi]

Originally Posted by Dex Robinson

[Show spoiler]I'm so late to the party because my copy was so late arriving. It's not as much fun getting into the fray after the action is largely over.

I watched this tonight. I do own the DVD but haven't watched it in years. There's an obvious problem trying to be objective when I've seen all of the posted screen caps and comments.

One thing that comes to mind is that, had I not been aware of the controversy, I doubt that I would be at all troubled by the new look of the film. For me, it works just fine. I don't sense it as either too dark or blue. Of course, I am aware of the controversy and I do understand that it doesn't look like the bright DVD. So for those who are annoyed that it doesn't look like it used to, I can acknowledge your complaint.

While I am a fan of the movie, I'm not schooled in it sufficiently that I have good recall of how it has looked in the past. This is reminiscent of the controversy over the DVD and BD of the original HALLOWEEN. Ironically, I think that controversy centered around the fact that blue tints were removed. I saw HALLOWEEN in the theater twice when it was originally released. I loved it and saw it again in another theater the following year. Later, I would buy the first DVD followed by the later "Divimax" DVD. The later release, like the BD, was skewered for the color timing. It was given a 1.5 star review by an obsessively irate reviewer with a "Skip it" recommendation. I actually loved the Blu-ray because, despite having seen it theatrically and on home video, I hadn't committed it to memory. So it looked fine despite people telling me it was wrong.

That's the situation I find myself in here. There's a lot of very irate viewers who have the look of this movie committed to memory and they are not happy. And I have no reason to argue with them. If they are not happy, I understand. But, although I've seen NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD before, I just never really took special note of the color or brightness.

One the one hand, I can accept that it doesn't look the way that serious fans are used to. On the other hand, as a casual fan, can't say I was bothered by the way it looks. I thought it was good transfer and I have no personal complaint about it.

This is basically my assessment as well. After weeks of waiting, I finally received my copy and saw it for myself.

Taken on it's own, I thought the PQ/transfer was actually quite good. To a first-time viewer, I don't see how one could really find too much fault with the transfer. But I'm not a first time viewer, and a portion of the film has definitely been noticeably altered. It was really only noticeable during the first half hour though. Once it actually becomes nighttime within the film, it was always a rather dark image IMO. So I don't hate the image because I didn't find the change too intrusive, it's just different. This has already been discussed endlessly though, and I'm certainly not going to get into it all over again.

So while I'm a little annoyed about the change, I can actually live with it as I found the PQ quite good overall. But I can certainly understand those who are unhappy about it, especially given the situation in how one must purchase it.

[Forever Knight]

Nabbed a copy of Ebay for $50 (with shipping). I'm very curious to see what all the anger is for.

[Dex Robinson]

Originally Posted by ROclockCK

I mean, we all have 'touchstone' movies that we've known throughout most of our life, and if suddenly one day, one of your faves...say...Bye Bye Birdie...had shown up in a limited edition Blu-ray with radically subdued, more 'realistic' or just 'dreamier' color grading, I'm sure you'd yelp "W-T-F?" too...

Funny you should mention that.

BYE BYE BIRDIE is a movie that I do have committed to memory . My obsessive fandom for the film is no secret. I bought the DVD for the princely sum of $35.00 about a dozen years ago.

In fact, when I first started watching the new Blu-ray, my very first thought was: "Hey, this is DARKER than the DVD". And there's no question that it really is darker.

After the initial impression of the "new" look of BYE BYE BIRDIE passed, I realized the Blu-ray was certainly correct. I have been saying for years that most home video transfers are too bright. I've also mentioned the photographers maxim that you have to protect highlights ("Shadows must die so that highlights can live"). I posted about this when Twilight Time released the BD of COVER GIRL which many people thought was too dark.

I realize that the situation with NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is NOT directly comparable. With the aforementioned BYE BYE BIRDIE and COVER GIRL, there seemed to be a simple exposure adjustment...just drop the light by an f stop...basically a correction. With NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, it seems somebody has re-engineered the look...not just corrected it but really changed it.

And let me say that there are many, MANY Blu-rays and DVDs that I haven't bought because I don't like the looks or the changes made. I'm not suggesting that people just roll over and buy things they don't like. I once refused to buy an entire boxed set because TWO WORDS had been omitted from one episode of a TV show! So I truly am sympathetic to the perfectionists.

My main bone of contention here is that this transfer has been portrayed by some as almost unwatchable. And, seeing some screen shots, I might have come to that conclusion myself. But, again, to the average fan of zombie movies, this is a perfectly watchable, enjoyable movie with nothing that overtly announces problems or changes.