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

[mjcavinder]

Originally Posted by Whirlygig

It was posted here earlier. We laughed, we cried, then the mods came and deleted it all. Not sure why. Maybe they don't want the place degrading into a meme warzone.

I didn't have time to read 277 pages of previous posts...I like the film myself.

[Whirlygig]

Originally Posted by mjcavinder

I didn't have time to read 277 pages of previous posts...I like the film myself.

Not your fault, you wouldn't have found it if you tried. There was no trace left behind.

[BJQ1972]

Originally Posted by ROclockCK

.

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

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.

[retablo]

The color timing is still wrong? The film is still blue?

The director still loves it and the DP approved the transfer?

Just checking to see if all the bickering changed anything.

Didn't think so.

[oildude]

Originally Posted by BJQ1972

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

From what I can tell, ROclockCK doesn't get bent out of shape, despite being maligned every now and then.

[Crom1]

I didn't want to complain until I had the chance to watch it. My copy arrived yesterday and I could only stand watching the first 15 minutes. I switched to watching the DVD after that, as its 100 times better.

Even the shot of the moon was a deep blue.

Completely terrible dark blue tint, the worst bluray in my collection by far. I'm never buying anything from Twilight Time again. I hold TT responsible for the quality of what they sell, and this Blu is garbage.

[Mr Kite]

Just been reading an interview with Tom Savini and a particular section regarding NOTLD done some years ago.

Quote:

" Tom: It was the worst nightmare of my life. No, I still have nightmares of being on the set directing that movie. It all started before the movie. It was a plethora of why and how dare you?! I'm getting the same slack now because I'm in the remake of Dawn of the Dead. Listen the thing that kept me going on the Night of the Living Dead set was that George asked me to do the FX on the original film back in 1968. But I was in Vietnam when he shot that. You know I had enlisted in the army and they called me in. So what kept me going on the set was that I realized that I didn't get to do the first movie and now here I am directing the remake. My problem with the remake and the reason I call it a nightmare is because you know I had lots of ideas. I had some eight hundred-story boards and the whole movie was actually shot on paper. See George Romero wasn't there. George was off in Florida writing the Dark Half. I got stuck with these two idiot producers that didn't know anything and their careers prove it and you know I didn't want to make their bad movie for them. You know my hands were just slapped all over the place I couldn't do a lot of stuff. The movie is about forty percent of what I intended. It would be a much better movie if I had got to put in all the stuff I really wanted to do. Then the MPAA hit us hard. You know with my name on it and George Romero they were waiting for us. And they made us cut some more stuff so it's kind of a sterile film with mine and George's name on it and that's not what the fans expected "

[BJQ1972]

Originally Posted by oildude

From what I can tell, ROclockCK doesn't get bent out of shape, despite being maligned every now and then.

I'm blaming the auto correct for that one.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by Whirlygig

You seem like a rational guy so let me ask you something.
You followed calibration procedures. You sat a proper distance from your television. You adjusted ambient room light to the levels you expect to watch films in. You then carefully calibrated your brightness, contrast, sharpness, tint, color, etc, one by one, to bring your television's output of the video content to where it would appear, in your room, on your display, as close as possible to how it looked on the (hopefully) professionally calibrated monitors used by the very professionals who authored that video content. And life is good.

Then, you picked up a camera. One with its own unique quirks in its CCD or CMOS sensors as far as color accuracy, etc. Probably with several automatic adjust features enabled, brightness...focus... Maybe with, maybe without a flash. The point being that by the time you snapped the pic, all color/sharpness/etc information on your TV had been filtered through God knows what to create a new image on the camera.

But let's assume you have a fully calibrated camera as well, and you know as much about photography as any professional...you know every last camera behavior and feature and how to manipulate them, and you know to perform a white balance, and you know all the ins and outs of how lighting affects your camera performance...so you are actually reasonably certain that camera image contains information as close as possible to reality.

But then you posted that image on a forum. Where people will be viewing it through yet another display. Most likely a computer, tablet, or phone screen. Which most likely has not been calibrated at all, least of all to the rigorous standards you used on the TV. And those types of displays are not typically physically capable of the same degree of uniform image reproduction as a high end HDTV. What's more, you have no idea what lighting conditions they'll have in the room as they casually read a forum, probably not the same as when they watch movies. And their reactions in this thread to actual screen captures direct from a disc is full of evidence of the above, which is even from an actual disc, not some picture taken of the disc image filtered through a calibrated TV filtered through a camera.

My question then is how can you expect your photograph to have any chance of representing anything useful to anyone? Those with properly calibrated screens don't need to see what a calibrated screen looks like, they know...and those without sure won't be able to tell anything from your photo while looking through their uncalibrated screen. And that is all assuming the photo itself has not been distorted by the camera technique or technology.

I just never understood how people can simultaneously understand the benefits of calibration, and yet not understand the futility of snapping photos when they are done and showing them to others.

LOL you deserve some sort of prize for this post

[#Darren]

What are NOTLD90 BD's going for on ebay unsealed?

[Mr. Thomsen]

Originally Posted by slimdude

An HDTV shouldn't have be be re-calibrated specifically to watch one movie, especially if the HDTV has been previously calibrated professionally by an certified ISF Technician.

That's not entirely correct. Or rather that is only correct if you watch in a light controlled environment like a completely dark home theater. If you watch in your living room, however, you should ideally have calibrated settings for both daytime and evening/ nighttime watching. Watching a movie in the evening on a TV that was calibrated for daytime watching does not give you correct color reproduction.

[bigdaddyhorse]

Originally Posted by #Darren

What are NOTLD90 BD's going for on ebay unsealed?

Just go look. Ones ending soon are bid up $50-65, don't think I see anything over $65 opened though, so I'd say right in there for a break even after ebay fees (I haven't bayed for a while but here the fees are out of hand).

What I'm curious to see is where will they be in a few months when the dust settles, returned copies find new homes, people who paid over $100 find out about the tinting and revive these threads with a whole new level of pissedoffedness... Then the real test begins!

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by Mr. Thomsen

That's not entirely correct. Or rather that is only correct if you watch in a light controlled environment like a completely dark home theater. If you watch in your living room, however, you should ideally have calibrated settings for both daytime and evening/ nighttime watching. Watching a movie in the evening on a TV that was calibrated for daytime watching does not give you correct color reproduction.

I'm fully aware of this information, but the results will not be a major difference as in night and day to even bother.

[Arlington]

I apologize if this has been asked before, but ain't no way I'm searching through this thread

Are the Amazon Streaming and Vudu streaming versions the same? If I were going to buy one of those versions to have, is either one more faithful to the original look?

[xiaNaix]

Originally Posted by Arlington

I apologize if this has been asked before, but ain't no way I'm searching through this thread

Are the Amazon Streaming and Vudu streaming versions the same? If I were going to buy one of those versions to have, is either one more faithful to the original look?

No, they are not the same as the Twilight Time disc. They have the proper color.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by xiaNaix

No, they are not the same as the Twilight Time disc. They have the proper color.

No, I think they're asking if the VUDU and Amazon streams differ from one another. From what I've seen, they are both from the same master with the correct lighting and color. The VUDU one is in full 1080P, I'm not sure if the one from Amazon is as well. If I had to choose, I'd go with the VUDU one personally.

[xiaNaix]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

No, I think they're asking if the VUDU and Amazon streams differ from one another. From what I've seen, they are both from the same master with the correct lighting and color. The VUDU one is in full 1080P, I'm not sure if the one from Amazon is as well. If I had to choose, I'd go with the VUDU one personally.

I agree. I'd choose VUDU over Amazon.

[manta53]

Originally Posted by Inspector Toschi

Damn, I ordered 5 titles. I really hope I don't get hit now. Although during their Fright Night signed-copy giveaway I ordered 6 titles and didn't get hit.



I think they're just referring to the last checkpoint it passes within the US.



They offer 3 different choices for shipping to Canada. If you pay the extra for registered, it includes tracking.

Hmmm I guess I do have tracking now, I didn't before, its completely useless though as its last update was September 28th.

[OldPangYau]

Originally Posted by Blueoktober

He keeps coming back because fanboys that are so blinded by their fandom will still pay $40 to have their pic taken with him. The organizers don't give 2 shits how the guests react... they make money. As long as people show up, he comes. And guess what?! The same people who go to these cons dont hit the same ones each year. The one here has grown so big that people fly in from all over the place for it, and this year they have pre-sold more than ever.


Take my word for it? Google it. (Tom Savini is and @sshole) He talks shit about every one in the field that is a threat to him.

One of thousands of stories that pop up..

[Show spoiler]"I continued on with my feeble reporting techniques throughout the night, and all things seemed about as peachy as can be.

Until I found my way to Tom Savini’s booth.

I approached Tom, identified myself and thrust my media credits in his face, expecting a warm smile and at least a few moments of chit-chat. The lack of spectators surrounding his booth should have afforded ample warning.

Tom looked thoroughly inconvenienced to be a part of the convention. He stood with a gnarly smirk on his face, hands folded over his chest, emitting a genuine air of complete indifference… either that or complete disgust. Nevertheless I approached the famed make-up maestro and attempted to engage in conversation. After introducing myself he offered me a patronizing “Great.” Undeterred I pressed on, determined to crack the rugged shell of Savini. That shell refused to crack. I asked him how he felt about attending these events, to which he replied with something (this is not verbatim!) along the lines of “If I get paid, I’ll show up.” That’s an interesting attitude for a man who certainly isn’t hurting for money. Still, I pressed on with a few more quick questions, each one resulting in sharper responses from Savini.

After about two minutes I’d had enough, and I opted to depart Savini’s booth. I left the man with a respectful “Well, it was nice to meet you.” His response was a staggering, “Yeah.”

To counter this post, PJ Soles, Robert Englund, Gunnar Hansen, Michael Berryman, John Carpenter, Heather Langenkamp, Doug Bradley, Kane Hodder... the list goes on and on... are all NICE AS THEY CAN BE. They love their fans. I know this has nothing to do with the post, but after 30 something horror cons, I can tell you who is nice and who is not.

I met Savini back in '05, and he was pretty decent at the time. Maybe he got more jaded in later years. As for the others you mentioned, I only met PJ Soles, and yes, she is so sweet! I was hanging out with someone else who was getting her autograph and a pic with her, and she asked me if I wanted a pic as well. Considering pics were free, I told her I would've felt like a freeloader, but she said "oh no, don't worry about that!" Easily one of the sweetest and most approachable people I've met at a con!

[Yankees0222]

A pretty fair review of the film:

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

And we got a shout out! Score!