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

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

Well, looks like it WAS botched. 'Tis a shame.

My two copies are still sealed. Guess I better put them up on the bay soon.

[Mr Kite]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

Well, looks like it WAS botched. 'Tis a shame.

How do you know?

[Forever Knight]

I'd like to punch the ******* who decided to make this release so dark.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Moonpie

How do you know?

The DP who Sony consulted with (over the phone) for the remaster said it looks terrible. Clearly it's not what he intended it to look like, which means Sony messed this up.

[Mr Kite]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

The DP who Sony consulted with (over the phone) for the remaster said it looks terrible. Clearly it's not what he intended it to look like, which means Sony messed this up.

Again i really think that someone has to pass this alteration off and Sony must have shown this transfer to someone, it just does not make sense for them not to have done so and would be the first time i have heard of this.........this needs to be cleared as to who did it.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Moonpie

Again i really think that someone has to pass this alteration off and Sony must have shown this transfer to someone, it just does not make sense for them not to have done so and would be the first time i have heard of this.........this needs to be cleared as to who did it.

And how often do you hear about the restoration details of minor films? This isn't Lawrence of Arabia or something, the fact that there is little interaction between the DP and Sony doesn't surprise me at all. It just sounds like you refuse to accept reality. The facts were provided, and it's very likely they played out exactly as stated. There's no evidence right now to say it's anyone but Sony who is responsible for the final look, whether you want to doubt these facts is up to you.

[Mr Kite]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

And how often do you hear about the restoration details of minor films? This isn't Lawrence of Arabia or something, the fact that there is little interaction between the DP and Sony doesn't surprise me at all. It just sounds like you refuse to accept reality. The facts were provided, and it's very likely they played out exactly as stated. There's no evidence right now to say it's anyone but Sony who is responsible for the final look, whether you want to doubt these facts is up to you.

In answer to your first question, all the time. For a major colour change such as this there has to have been direct interaction, after all this is not a problem such as DNR or Compression artefact's this is direct alteration to a film and finally can you answer me this as you a clearly a Sony insider why would they change it so drastically ............just to piss people off ?

PS
I have not seen any facts as yet.

[MifuneFan]

The DP said he has never seen the transfer until I linked him to screencaps of it. That's not a fact? Are you saying he's a liar?

Furthermore We have statements from the DP saying that he wish he was sent a first draft and that this happens often in the business, so maybe your vision of how these things takes place isn't in line with reality. And I would say Frank Prinzi probably knows more about how this industry works than you do

[Mr Kite]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

The DP said he has never seen the transfer. That's not a fact? Are you saying he's a liar?

Nope, just that he had been shown some screen grabs and not the Blu Ray. I am not defending it one way or another simply putting facts as they are at this moment in time..........and i still ask the question why would Sony do this of there own back? Nobody yet has answered that one.

PS
I do know one thing though if i was that unhappy and had nothing to do with it i would Sue Sony's ass off and TT, because surely they would be wide open for it, ( bet he doesn't though).

[joie]

It could be that people at a studio have several "what if" versions around, and the studio mistakenly sent a "what if" version to the licensee.

As far as director/whatever supervision/approval goes, we can never know the extent of that supevision/approval, can we? It's not hard to imagine a distributor contacting a director to ask whether he would like it to do a release of one of his films. If he says, "yes," and that is the extent of his involvement, then they could claim that their release is "director approved," even if he never sees the product.

[MifuneFan]

Whether people want to believe Prinzi or not is up to them. He really has no reason to lie. The guy sounds incredibly sincere in my opinion and didn't sound at all like he was aware of what the final picture looked like. When linked to the caps he said they looked terrible and essentially that it's not what he wanted it to look like.

Now what does this change? Well, in all likelihood, that means Sony was ultimately responsible for the changes made. Whether you like it or not shouldn't change based on this new information, you just know who to ultimately blame (or thank) for this result. The DP doesn't like it, but Savini saw it and still liked it so there's always that.

[Mr Kite]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Whether people want to believe Prinzi or not is up to them. He really has no reason to lie. The guy sounds incredibly sincere in my opinion and didn't sound at all like he was aware of what the final picture looked like. When linked to the caps he said they looked terrible and essentially that it's not what he wanted it to look like.

Now what does this change? Well, in all likelihood, that means Sony was ultimately responsible for the changes made. Whether you like it or not shouldn't change based on this new information, you just know who to ultimately blame (or thank) for this result. The DP doesn't like it, but Savini saw it and still liked it so there's always that.

Again mate he seen the screen grabs and for this film to have been altered in this way is ultimately down to someone involved in the film............Sony have i am sure no wish to deliberately alter someones work without their approval as it leaves them wide open to all sorts of legal stuff i am sure.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Moonpie

Again mate he seen the screen grabs and for this film to have been altered in this way is ultimately down to someone involved in the film............Sony have i am sure no wish to deliberately alter someones work without their approval as it leaves them wide open to all sorts of legal stuff i am sure.

Unless you think Blu-ray.com's screencaps are significantly different from the actual Blu-ray with regards to color, it shouldn't make much of a difference whether he's seen the BD or a screengrab. As for the legal angle, Sony owns the picture, they have more control over any changes made in home releases than anyone else.

[Kentai]

Originally Posted by Moonpie

In answer to your first question, all the time.

I can't remember hearing anything about a second-tier catalog title master. Considering most that studios don't consider their "A+" material were given HD masters several years ago for HDTV and DVD, it's largely in their best interests for, say, Universal NOT to mention that they didn't spend the money to do a new 4K scan for Jurassic Park, or for MGM to point out that Straw Dogs' Blu-ray is made from the same master as the Criterion DVD from nearly 8 years ago.

For a major colour change such as this there has to have been direct interaction...

According to the director and the DP, there wasn't. You're calling them liars at this point, and considering they probably don't see a dime from this release, I don't see why they'd bother.

I am now curious if Sony was prepping a 30th anniversary release and then pulled the plug part-way through, leaving the mastering team with a new telecine and zero input from the film makers themselves. At that point a courtesy call might have been made to Prinzi, since the transfer was half way done to start with... and this, for better or worse, was the result.

Suggesting that a contracted film maker can sue for a crumby transfer is... well, frankly it's absurd. Directors typically don't own their movies, the producers at the studio who made it do (which is why bad sequels happen). It's not uncommon for those studios to invite the directors and DP's to take a look at the work being done - both as a sign of good faith to the creators, and to give us consumers a bullet point convincing us to buy it all over again - but this one... this didn't pan out.

I'm actually frustrated to hear this wasn't a film maker going bananas (ala Friedkin) and ordering the look of his own film be destroyed; rather, someone at Sony went bananas and then they blamed it on the notes passed down by the film makers. Weak, Sony. Very weak.

[Mr Kite]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Unless you think Blu-ray.com's screencaps are significantly different from the actual Blu-ray with regards to color, it shouldn't make much of a difference whether he's seen the BD or a screengrab. As for the legal angle, Sony owns the picture, they have more control over any changes made in home releases than anyone else.

Some of the ones floating round for some movies on here are.........i have not seen NOTLD yet and will be viewing it in the coming weeks. Hopefully with the correct settings on my tv.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by vidjunkie

***also want to thank HDGoofnut for helping me sort out how to do these fancier thumbnail screens, so Thank a ton HD!***

You're welcome.

[Mr Kite]

Originally Posted by Kentai

I can't remember hearing anything about a second-tier catalog title master. Considering most that studios don't consider their "A+" material were given HD masters several years ago for HDTV and DVD, it's largely in their best interests for, say, Universal NOT to mention that they didn't spend the money to do a new 4K scan for Jurassic Park, or for MGM to point out that Straw Dogs' Blu-ray is made from the same master as the Criterion DVD from nearly 8 years ago.




According to the director and the DP, there wasn't. You're calling them liars at this point, and considering they probably don't see a dime from this release, I don't see why they'd bother.

I am now curious if Sony was prepping a 30th anniversary release and then pulled the plug part-way through, leaving the mastering team with a new telecine and zero input from the film makers themselves. At that point a courtesy call might have been made to Prinzi, since the transfer was half way done to start with... and this, for better or worse, was the result.

Suggesting that a contracted film maker can sue for a crumby transfer is... well, frankly it's absurd. Directors typically don't own their movies, the producers at the studio who made it do (which is why bad sequels happen). It's not uncommon for those studios to invite the directors and DP's to take a look at the work being done - both as a sign of good faith to the creators, and to give us consumers a bullet point convincing us to buy it all over again - but this one... this didn't pan out.

I'm actually frustrated to hear this wasn't a film maker going bananas (ala Friedkin) and ordering the look of his own film be destroyed; rather, someone at Sony went bananas and then they blamed it on the notes passed down by the film makers. Weak, Sony. Very weak.

I am not calling anyone liars but someone is not being wholly up front with the facts........unless you have inside information...... do you know who?

Again you are talking scans etc.............this is a million miles away from altering the colour is it not and have you seen it done anywhere without some involvement from those that worked on the film?

[nagysaudio]

It boggles my mind that this complete botch job is still defended by some. DP dictated the new color timing over the phone and now thinks it's terrible. This speaks volumes. This should be recalled by Sony and Twilight Time immediately. This might be the worst release of all time.

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by joie

It could be that people at a studio have several "what if" versions around, and the studio mistakenly sent a "what if" version to the licensee.

As far as director/whatever supervision/approval goes, we can never know the extent of that supevision/approval, can we? It's not hard to imagine a distributor contacting a director to ask whether he would like it to do a release of one of his films. If he says, "yes," and that is the extent of his involvement, then they could claim that their release is "director approved," even if he never sees the product.

Totally agree.

[Clark Kent]

People have to understand that rarely does the director's stamp of approval on a home video release mean much of anything. It often means they simply glanced over the transfer on a small display and didn't even watch the entire movie. Some DPs/Directors are more interested in current work than something they worked on twenty years ago. There are the obsessive directors like Peter Jackson and James Cameron, but many Hollywood directors are not as involved in the transfer approval process as some imagine.