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

[odriley]

Listen..haha.. im happy that you guys enjoy the darker version better. Can you at least understand that it has NEVER looked like this? Not even in the theater. If Savini had no input in the transfer, that means that Sony changed it of their own doing. Do you not see anything wrong with that? Its a 20 year old movie and now they decide.. hmm it should be a different part of the day there. I know I keep mentioning Star Wars but its the first one that comes to mind with changes. Dont a lot of people argue that it should be left alone to be how it was originally released? Why is it so acceptable to some of you to change how this movie has always been? It should be how every other format of this has looked. Period. If you like it darker, you could change the darkness on the picture to make it more suitable for your tastes. For those of us that want it how the movie has always looked, we have no choice. No setting fixes that. I mean.. am i crazy here?

[Tybo28]

Originally Posted by arcadeforest

Well I just got finished watching this. I need to state that I have never seen this before. No prior theater, no vhs, no laser disc and no dvd viewings for me. As a result I do not have any pre-reference to go by.

I thought it looked good. The questionable period to me (as debated in this thread, cemetery to dark - ending roughly 25 minutes into the film) appear to steadly grow dark. I did not see it as "blue" as much as I saw it as twilight / filtered moonlight. I may be crazy but it looked natural to me . You could see shadows cast off the moonlight. Leaves in the trees remained green while the white on the house / porched looked to be bathed in a moonglow. When Todd's character went from under the porch to out in the moonlight he lit up like you would expect someone going from the shadows into the moonlight. Yes, at times the film appeared dark but I could not really see this working all lit up like it was still daylight outside. In the house there were times when the characters faces were dark but I believe that was the intention - especially considering one of those scenes Todd's character strikes a match and his face lit up nice / natural as one would expect.

I'm sorry for those hardcore fans that are having a problem with this release. If a favorite film of mine failed to reach my expections I could see be unhappy as well. Like I mentioned I had never seen this before so I have no previous frame of reference. Just wanted to relay my thoughts as a first time viewer. I though it looked good, felt like a zombie / horror flick, good story, good acting. Overall I'm happy I got to see this and will gladly keep my copy.

For those posting what is the closest town to where this was filmed? Would like to look it up in Google Earth at some point.

West Middletown, PA. Near Washington, PA.

[odriley]

Originally Posted by arcadeforest

Well I just got finished watching this. I need to state that I have never seen this before. No prior theater, no vhs, no laser disc and no dvd viewings for me. As a result I do not have any pre-reference to go by.

I thought it looked good. The questionable period to me (as debated in this thread, cemetery to dark - ending roughly 25 minutes into the film) appear to steadly grow dark. I did not see it as "blue" as much as I saw it as twilight / filtered moonlight. I may be crazy but it looked natural to me . You could see shadows cast off the moonlight. Leaves in the trees remained green while the white on the house / porched looked to be bathed in a moonglow. When Todd's character went from under the porch to out in the moonlight he lit up like you would expect someone going from the shadows into the moonlight. Yes, at times the film appeared dark but I could not really see this working all lit up like it was still daylight outside. In the house there were times when the characters faces were dark but I believe that was the intention - especially considering one of those scenes Todd's character strikes a match and his face lit up nice / natural as one would expect.

I'm sorry for those hardcore fans that are having a problem with this release. If a favorite film of mine failed to reach my expections I could see be unhappy as well. Like I mentioned I had never seen this before so I have no previous frame of reference. Just wanted to relay my thoughts as a first time viewer. I though it looked good, felt like a zombie / horror flick, good story, good acting. Overall I'm happy I got to see this and will gladly keep my copy.

For those posting what is the closest town to where this was filmed? Would like to look it up in Google Earth at some point.

Glad you dug the movie itself. Its a great one. You can see the house here on wikimapia. This is how I ended up figuring out exactly where it was:


http://wikimapia.org/#lat=40.222012&...3&z=18&l=0&m=b

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by odriley

Listen..haha.. im happy that you guys enjoy the darker version better. Can you at least understand that it has NEVER looked like this? Not even in the theater. If Savini had no input in the transfer, that means that Sony changed it of their own doing. Do you not see anything wrong with that? Its a 20 year old movie and now they decide.. hmm it should be a different part of the day there. I know I keep mentioning Star Wars but its the first one that comes to mind with changes. Dont a lot of people argue that it should be left alone to be how it was originally released? Why is it so acceptable to some of you to change how this movie has always been? It should be how every other format of this has looked. Period. If you like it darker, you could change the darkness on the picture to make it more suitable for your tastes. For those of us that want it how the movie has always looked, we have no choice. No setting fixes that. I mean.. am i crazy here?

That will definitely be an ongoing discussion until we find out who instigated this change. Savini, the DP, or Romero himself might be the one responsible. I doubt some unknown person at Sony decided to drastically alter the shading.

[Liquid_Swords]

Originally Posted by odriley

listen..haha.. Im happy that you guys enjoy the darker version better. Can you at least understand that it has never looked like this? Not even in the theater. If savini had no input in the transfer, that means that sony changed it of their own doing. Do you not see anything wrong with that? Its a 20 year old movie and now they decide.. Hmm it should be a different part of the day there. I know i keep mentioning star wars but its the first one that comes to mind with changes. Dont a lot of people argue that it should be left alone to be how it was originally released? Why is it so acceptable to some of you to change how this movie has always been? It should be how every other format of this has looked. Period. If you like it darker, you could change the darkness on the picture to make it more suitable for your tastes. For those of us that want it how the movie has always looked, we have no choice. No setting fixes that. I mean.. Am i crazy here?

+1

[arcadeforest]

Originally Posted by Tybo28

West Middletown, PA. Near Washington, PA.

Thanks, my mom's side of the family is all from northside Pittsburgh. I used to live out towads Oakdale as a kid back in the mid to late 70's.

[HyperRealist]

Originally Posted by arcadeforest

For those posting what is the closest town to where this was filmed? Would like to look it up in Google Earth at some point.

40°13'19"N 80°21'27"W
http://wikimapia.org/8014987/Night-o...ead-1990-House

[arcadeforest]

Originally Posted by odriley

Listen..haha.. im happy that you guys enjoy the darker version better. Can you at least understand that it has NEVER looked like this? Not even in the theater. If Savini had no input in the transfer, that means that Sony changed it of their own doing. Do you not see anything wrong with that? Its a 20 year old movie and now they decide.. hmm it should be a different part of the day there. I know I keep mentioning Star Wars but its the first one that comes to mind with changes. Dont a lot of people argue that it should be left alone to be how it was originally released? Why is it so acceptable to some of you to change how this movie has always been? It should be how every other format of this has looked. Period. If you like it darker, you could change the darkness on the picture to make it more suitable for your tastes. For those of us that want it how the movie has always looked, we have no choice. No setting fixes that. I mean.. am i crazy here?

No doubt and I feel for you as I do for everyone else in the thread who have loved this movie over the years and are used to it being a certain way. For once it may benefit me being a noob when it comes to watching a film as at this point the only frame of reference I have to go by is this release. At some point I want to watch the DVD with the "lighter" look to it.

[Troy73]

Originally Posted by odriley

Listen..haha.. im happy that you guys enjoy the darker version better. Can you at least understand that it has NEVER looked like this? Not even in the theater. If Savini had no input in the transfer, that means that Sony changed it of their own doing. Do you not see anything wrong with that? Its a 20 year old movie and now they decide.. hmm it should be a different part of the day there. I know I keep mentioning Star Wars but its the first one that comes to mind with changes. Dont a lot of people argue that it should be left alone to be how it was originally released? Why is it so acceptable to some of you to change how this movie has always been? It should be how every other format of this has looked. Period. If you like it darker, you could change the darkness on the picture to make it more suitable for your tastes. For those of us that want it how the movie has always looked, we have no choice. No setting fixes that. I mean.. am i crazy here?

I actually agree with you. I've noticed this trend with horror titles over the years. Halloween, Phantasm and even Bram Stoker's Dracula have all suffered from this revisionist darker/blue color timing. While some fair from the results far better than others that doesn't excuse it.

Many on here feel that the darker image suits the film, the problem there is it's not what suits us as much as it is how the film was intended to look. This film has never looked like this before and no where is there any mention to the fact that the director intended for it to look like the TT release.

I have watched this film from start to finish tonight and it is still a great remake and TT actually gave us some features this time. However, the most important feature on this release was inaccurate and even though I can live with it, it still bugs me.

As a film fan, I'm a bit frustrated right now. For those that like it, cool. You have every right, but the darker/blue image is buggin' the hell outta me!

[Yojimbo68]

I watched the Blu-ray this evening. I had seen the film upon it's initial release in the theatre. I probably saw it about 2 years later on TV. That first 20 minutes has definitely been darkened. This effect is like in some old school horror films where they film in the day but use a filter to give the appearance of night. I think the problem is that they just went a bit too dark. Other than that, I thought the Blu-ray looked and sounded really good. I didn't remember the snapshot sounds at the end but it is unfortunate that it's missing.

[arcadeforest]

Originally Posted by HyperRealist

40°13'19"N 80°21'27"W
http://wikimapia.org/8014987/Night-o...ead-1990-House

Wow, thats less than five miles from where my cousin got married a few years back. I guess if I knew more about this film at the time I could of taken a drive by myself. I take it that cemetery right up the hill is where they filmed the opening scenes as well.

[bgart13]

After watching it, my feelings are:

- Sharp looking transfer, some great detail in it with minimal grain (not DNR'd but fine).
- Color scheme has been desaturated and contrast (or whatever the term for this element) has been dimmed (or made darker).

Much of it works for me, but I agree this is different than how it's been presented before. The effects design for the corpses is different due to the saturation/color changes (Savini said in past interviews he wanted a realistic quality for them, yellowed and rotting) -- the corpses now have a pale look to them. I think the technicians -- with or without the filmmakers' involvement -- decided to try to update the image design to be more modern and realistic, maybe more polished than it originally appeared. In fact, THE WALKING DEAD might be to blame for a lot the changes.

I'm... unsure... how I feel about the alterations at this time. I'm not a die-hard fan of this remake, I think it's a bit of a wasted effort honestly and the effects/gore were under-used to the detriment of the final product. It didn't need to be done as there's absolutely nothing about the original that could be proved upon.

[odriley]

Originally Posted by arcadeforest

Wow, thats less than five miles from where my cousin got married a few years back. I guess if I knew more about this film at the time I could of taken a drive by myself. I take it that cemetery right up the hill is where they filmed the opening scenes as well.

No, actually the cemetery from the opening scenes is a few miles further down the road. Movie magic

Its called the West Middletown Cemetery. Heres a couple pics from when I was there:

[donidarko]

Originally Posted by ScooterMan

All I want is Night of the Living Dead, not Night of the Living AvatarFolk.

Someone made the decision to alter the original look of this film. Who knows if it was the director. Someone from Sony or Twilight Time needs to explain this alteration. People paid good money for a limited edition. This is not the movie fans remember.

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by Troy73

I actually agree with you. I've noticed this trend with horror titles over the years. Halloween, Phantasm and even Bram Stoker's Dracula have all suffered from this revisionist darker/blue color timing.

It's funny you mention Bram Stoker's Dracula. The color palette on that film was completely decimated on the Blu-ray release and it looked awful compared to the DVD. Perhaps tellingly, it was a Sony release. Maybe it's just their MO to desaturate these vibrant and colorful 80s/90s films to give them a modern look.

Unlike Dracula though, I feel this look does suit NOTLD better than the previous one. But I'm completely against revisionism in all forms, even if it goes against my own preferences, and really wish Sony hadn't bothered.

[odriley]

im sorry you dont enjoy a little humor. Just tryin to have a little fun with it.

[manta53]

Originally Posted by odriley

im sorry you dont enjoy a little humor. Just tryin to have a little fun with it.

Your beating a dead horse at this point.

[harry keogh]

Originally Posted by manta53

Your beating a dead horse at this point.

So he should just conform?

[odriley]

ill beat the horse till I feel I got my 34.99 worth. Thanks.

[HyperRealist]

It's not beating a dead horse until there is an explanation. This sucks like Sony's Dracula.