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

[thephantomcat]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I don't see why you wouldn't just sell them. That's what you originally planned to do with the 10 copies no? I don't see why there would be any moral attachment to doing so since you didn't make the transfer. All you'd have to do is just give a warning or link to some reviews and let buyers make their own choice. It would have been easy money in the bank, which to me is a better way of showing it to TT than just getting a refund. They'll probably jsut sell them on ebay themselves now

Some people have never heard the saying "don't cut off your nose to spite your face."

[EddieLarkin]

[QUOTE=ScooterMan;6556266]
Every single one of you who bought this andlike it" know in your hearts that if this were a widespread/non-limited release, there'd be line-ups of all of us returning them at retail levels./QUOTE]

Actually, what I know in my heart is that if this was a normal non-limited release that people had paid a normal price for, no one would be returning squat, and barely anyone would be complaining. Evidenced by the comparatively small outrage on Bram Stoker's Dracula, which made much bigger revisions to brightness and colour, yet complaining was limited to the more technical forums, and no one spoke of returning.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by AgentOrange

Sounds good to me.

I was about to say .... is that a serious question ???

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo68

Part of a review from this very site for Bye Bye Birdie..."This is yet another revelatory transfer from Columbia-Sony and Twilight Time."

I'm sure TT sent an email to the reviewer to let them know they had nothing to do with the transfer. Right?

You stated clearly that Twilight Time was taking credit for the good transfers. I pointed out to you that that wasn't the case EVER. So, what do you do? You post a quote from a review here. Well, Twilight Time didn't write the review. But this is what you do. YOU WERE INCORRECT. All you really need to do when you're incorrect is apologize, not try to do what you're doing, which just makes you look foolish. The real question is, why do you feel this compunction to do what you do?

[thephantomcat]

Originally Posted by BluPat

I got the UK set for $53. Yes. I'm MORE than satisfied.

Charging $30+ for a barebones movie with a sub-par transfer just because they can, is absurd in this day and age.

The transfer is stellar. Free of all dirt and scratches or any other other blemishes associated with older movies while still retaining it's filmic look. Detail is solid throughout. The director of photography was consulted so it looks exactly how he wanted it to look. And the reason they charge the amount they do is so that they can afford to pay the liscensing fees upfront and make their money mack more easily, not just because they can.

[jjdpw50]

The review here is spot on. I can live with this one, but I will go to my DVD or Encore HD version first. I may not view it for 6 months at least, after watching it twice this week.

This will be a faint memory in a few weeks. We have U&S, Prometheus, ET, Amazing Spiderman, Black Friday deals, Dark Knight Rises, etc, coming soon. I was annoyed at first, now... who gives a ****.

I will be worried if TT gets The Blob '88.

[Lemmy Lugosi]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I don't see why you wouldn't just sell them. That's what you originally planned to do with the 10 copies no? I don't see why there would be any moral attachment to doing so since you didn't make the transfer. All you'd have to do is just give a warning or link to some reviews and let buyers make their own choice. It would have been easy money in the bank, which to me is a better way of showing it to TT than just getting a refund. They'll probably jsut sell them on ebay themselves now

Let them sell 'em, I don't care. I want no part of this release of NOTLD and/or TT whatsoever.

Originally Posted by thephantomcat

Some people have never heard the saying "don't cut off your nose to spite your face."

Some people have no scruples, either. Me? I refuse to sell things I feel are such low quality that I wouldn't want to own them myself. And, IMNSHO, it's most definitely a garbage transfer, and I do not want it.

Now, in the words of Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that." M'kay?

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by jjdpw50

I will be worried if TT gets The Blob '88.

Why? This whole fuss has proven one thing: no matter who released NOTLD, Twilight Time, Sony themselves, or any of the other third party distributors, all of their releases would have featured the revision.

So there's no need to worry about future releases just because they're coming from TT.

[whitesheik]

A couple of things about Mr. Kauffman's review: Did he see this in theaters? And I don't believe Mr. Savini ever made a statement that he was happy with the changes made to the look of the film - I believe his statement was he thought the transfer was terrific. If he made some other statement about the look of his film being changed, I'd appreciate seeing it here.

[BluPat]

Originally Posted by thephantomcat

The transfer is stellar. Free of all dirt and scratches or any other other blemishes associated with older movies while still retaining it's filmic look. Detail is solid throughout. The director of photography was consulted so it looks exactly how he wanted it to look. And the reason they charge the amount they do is so that they can afford to pay the liscensing fees upfront and make their money mack more easily, not just because they can.

Well, if you can't afford to put out a quality product at an affordable price for EVERYONE, then don't do it to begin with. Those money hungry price gougers need to leave the Blu-ray releasing to companies who give a shit about the consumer. And from those screenshots, I would hardly call THAT 'solid'. But of course, that's just me. And if they have the money to be making deals with studios for films, then they have deep enough pockets to not want to take more than a fair amount from consumers.

[thephantomcat]

Originally Posted by ScooterMan

Now, in the words of Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that." M'kay?

If only we'd said that two days ago.

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

If he made some other statement about the look of his film being changed, I'd appreciate seeing it here.

To be honest, he didn't even acknowledge it had been changed. At least not drastically.

In response to seeing one of the comparisons between the BD and DVD:

"Yeah, I saw that pic...but my copies look terrific. I wonder what's going on. Could there be a bad few and you are lucky to have one?"

[thephantomcat]

Originally Posted by BluPat

Well, if you can't afford to put out a quality product at an affordable price for EVERYONE, then don't do it to begin with. Those money hungry price gougers need to leave the Blu-ray releasing to companies who give a shit about the consumer. And from those screenshots, I would hardly call THAT 'solid'. But of course, that's just me.

So people should stop manufacturing Mercedes cause everyone can't afford them? It's called capitalism. They can charge whatever they want and if you don't like the price, you don't have to buy it. Just because you like something, doesn't mean it has to come with all the bells and whistles and be 99 cents.

[UNCMT9]

Originally Posted by ScooterMan

Let them sell 'em, I don't care. I want no part of this release of NOTLD and/or TT whatsoever.



Some people have no scruples, either. Me? I refuse to sell things I feel are such low quality that I wouldn't want to own them myself. And, IMNSHO, it's most definitely a garbage transfer, and I do not want it.

Now, in the words of Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that." M'kay?

Funniest avatar ever. I don't think I've ever seen such an over the top reaction to a movie. I actually applaud you, sir.

[jjdpw50]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

Why? This whole fuss has proven one thing: no matter who released NOTLD, Twilight Time, Sony themselves, or any of the other third party distrubtors, all of their releases would have featured the revision.

So there's no need to worry about future releases just because they're coming from TT.

It would have been much cheaper released by anyone else, that's the problem. If it was only $10, there would be less crying imo. The MGM horror titles are 7.88 right now, TT is a ripoff. I don't care if it's a "collectable" or not. Halloween 2 and 3 were worth the $20.

I know.....

[retablo]

Originally Posted by jjdpw50

It would have been much cheaper released by anyone else, that's the problem. If it was only $10, there would be less crying imo. The MGM horror titles are 7.88 right now, TT is a ripoff. I don't care if it's a "collectable" or not.

I know.....

...to you, maybe. OIt's only worth what you think it's worth, and since that varies from person to person, neither you nor anyone can say anything is a "ripoff". If it's a film I love, I'll gladly pay whatever the price, since you can't put a price on art. If you do, then you dont love it that much to begin with.

[bboisvert]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

A couple of things about Mr. Kauffman's review: Did he see this in theaters?

Why would it matter to you if he did? I did, and mentioned it, and you immediately dismissed it out of hand, saying that "I'd imagine you've seen this film on home video a lot more than your one (two?) times in a theater when you were a teen." So it doesn't seem to matter to you if someone saw it theatrically or not. Your dismissal of opinion is identical either way.

And, again, I don't understand the relevance of having seen it in the theater or not. Do you think that this darkening/blue tint was there in the theater and everyone is misremembering? That the visual and aural cues in the film that it's daytime -- and the dissolve to a sunset -- those were all mistakes and it was supposed to be dark with a blue-ish/gray-ish push all along?

[UNCMT9]

Originally Posted by bboisvert

Why would it matter to you if he did? I did, and mentioned it, and you immediately dismissed it out of hand, saying that "I'd imagine you've seen this film on home video a lot more than your one (two?) times in a theater when you were a teen." So it doesn't seem to matter to you if someone saw it theatrically or not. Your dismissal of opinion is identical either way.

And, again, I don't understand the relevance of having seen it in the theater or not. Do you think that this darkening/blue tint was there in the theater and everyone is misremembering? That the visual and aural cues in the film that it's daytime -- and the dissolve to a sunset -- those were all mistakes and it was supposed to be dark with a blue-ish/gray-ish push all along?

I see a significance. If one has never seen it in theater or a different format, it may not look bad to them. Once again, some casual fans of the film have made it clear that they didn't experience a whole lot of blue. If they are viewing for the first time and/or have no other benchmark for comparison, they're not going to be as dissatisfied.

[HyperRealist]

I want to know how the audio experts at TT let a film pass with missing sound effects.

[bboisvert]

Originally Posted by UNCMT9

I see a significance. If one has never seen it in theater or a different format, it may not look bad to them. Once again, some casual fans of the film have made it clear that they didn't experience a whole lot of blue. If they are viewing for the first time and/or have no other benchmark for comparison, they're not going to be as dissatisfied.

But my point was specifically for whitesheik. It seems like he has the same response either way...

"You didn't see it theatrically? Then you don't know what it looked like!"

"You did see it theatrically? Well, that was 22 years ago and you've seen it at home much more. You don't remember what it looked like!"


If he's going to have the same reaction either way, the question isn't relevant.