Twilight Time Discussion Thread

[oildude]

Originally Posted by ROclockCK

Aren't 'disaster-romances' the same thing?

Especially when they include purple-tinted vampires from India!!!

[arcadeforest]

Originally Posted by JoeDeM

Nothing definitive, but hopeful for a release, at least I am.

I'm with you, big fan of 1980's fantasy. Krull, Willow, Conan, Red Sonja, Beastmaster, Excalibur, Legend, Dragonslayer, Time Bandits, The Sword and the Sorcerer, Ladyhawke, Highlander, Master of the Universe, etc, etc, etc. While these film will not crack any AFI all time films list I love them.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by oildude

Especially when they include purple-tinted vampires from India!!!

...with Welsh accents.

[HDMe]

I don't know anything about those movies, but I actually like the covers.

[ROclockCK]

The guy who does their covers, Louis Falzarano, has just been short-listed for The Hollywood Reporter's Key Art Awards...nominated for his Bell, Book and Candle cover.

[HyperRealist]

I like the covers.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

I think most fans should be satisfied with that statement, even if they don't agree in principle with some of the changes done to NOTLD90. Twilight Time has acted appropriately and swiftly to the situation; nothing short of buying the film rights and commissioning an entirely new transfer was ever going to please some customers.

What I find interesting is that it really drives home the depth of Sony's distinterest in taking its catalogue titles to Blu-ray. I mean, here we have this 2010 DP-Supervised transfer originally produced for a 20th Anniversary Special Edition. The scanning and remastering work was already done. And geeeez, can you get any more commercial on home video than the Horror genre? Especially with Romero's name above the title? Yet Sony still chose not to release it themselves, preferring to license to TT instead.

The irony is that everyone who is currently panicking, trying to unload their NOTLD90 disc on eBay and Amazon, seems to be forgetting one essential fact: Overnight, this edition has now become even more exclusive, something that might never again appear in any hard media format. Essentially what we have here is Sony's never-before-seen *lost* 20th Anniversary Director Approved and DP Supervised version. That's certainly a distinction of considerable collector interest. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody actually designs a custom sticker or sleeve for it.

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

I look forward to Christine on BD and whatever other genre movies Twilight Time can rescue from the studios for release.

Now that the NOTLD90 board seems to have run through Kübler Ross' 7 Stages of Grief, uneasily settling on some kind of 'Acceptance', I think even the fans who are most upset must realize how silly it is to say "No more. Never again." Regardless how one feels about this specific title, too much work of 'reel' value goes through the TT funnel to totally dismiss them like that.

But one of the best things to come out of this - for all of us - is TT's renewed pledge to note whenever one of the HD masters they've acquired represents any kind of artistic (or technical) departure from what has previously been seen, either theatrically or on home video. IMO that's actually a "salient" feature of such releases, and any 'About this Edition' backstory would certainly warrant a few extra lines on the SAE site as well as well as within the pages of Julie Kirgo's essays. Just look at all the previously unknown tidbits we've already gleaned from this drama...that it was a 2010 rescan, a DP supervised transfer/colorization, some hints at why it was done that way, and what it was originally planned for by Sony. It shouldn't take a blow-up like this to reveal all that intriguing background stuff...which, frankly, is even more tantalizing to collectors...at least that's the way I'm wired.

I still haven't seen NOTLD90 - who knows, I might end up disliking Prinzi's color grading myself, just because film revisionism is anathema to me - but no way would I consider dumping such a day one video rarity...especially after what we've since discovered about its genesis*.

* ...unfortunately, the hard way.

[HyperRealist]

I don't look at as if it were more collectible. I have 22 good TT BDs. One meh (Demtrius) and one pos. I wish all of them were as good as possible.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by HyperRealist

I don't look at as if it were more collectible. I have 22 good TT BDs. One meh (Demtrius) and one pos.

By my count, based on your own photo HyperRealist, you've only seen two of them.

[HyperRealist]

so what?

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by HyperRealist

so what?

Well, I just think you're missing some terrific movies, many of them total MIAs on home video, which have almost uniformly been very well presented by TT.

I can understand why your cinema comfort zone might not include something as arcane as The Wayward Bus or High Time, but gee...what about Rapture...or Swamp Water...or Mysterious Island and The Egyptian...or even Bite the Bullet? These are just great home video experiences...not only content but also presentation.

Didn't The Big Heat make you want to explore...crave more? This isn't a criticism; I'm just curious.

[HyperRealist]

I want to watch Rapture. I like B&W scope. But I have hundreds of other BDs to watch. It's not easy picking one. These summer moneths I haven't felt like watching many films. I should get back into this winter. I have like 170 some Criterions to watch too.

[LucasM2012]

Originally Posted by ROclockCK

But one of the best things to come out of this - for all of us - is TT's renewed pledge to note whenever one of the HD masters they've acquired represents any kind of artistic (or technical) departure from what has previously been seen, either theatrically or on home video. IMO that's actually a "salient" feature of such releases, and any 'About this Edition' backstory would certainly warrant a few extra lines on the SAE site as well as well as within the pages of Julie Kirgo's essays. Just look at all the previously unknown tidbits we've already gleaned from this drama...that it was a 2010 rescan, a DP supervised transfer/colorization, some hints at why it was done that way, and what it was originally planned for by Sony. It shouldn't take a blow-up like this to reveal all that intriguing background stuff...which, frankly, is even more tantalizing to collectors...at least that's the way I'm wired.

I still haven't seen NOTLD90 - who knows, I might end up disliking Prinzi's color grading myself, just because film revisionism is anathema to me - but no way would I consider dumping such a day one video rarity...especially after what we've since discovered about its genesis*.

* ...unfortunately, the hard way.

I agree wholeheartedly: that TT's new interest in giving detail on any changes from what previously was seen of any given movie was a good outcome from the 'blow up' (though I also agree it would have been nicer had it happened spontaneously beforehand). That this release was basically a special 20th Anniversary DP-directed transfer approved by the creators does indeed make it of more interest to film aficionados I should think. Much like the Director's Cut of Blade Runner is now thought to be the 'genuine' version of the film, despite it not being what appeared in theaters, this may ultimately be thought the 'valid' version of the film (or at least 'a' valid version of the film).

I also feel that alterations of films are repugnant. I am just as bothered now by the release of films which say "enhanced for 16x9 TVs" for films shot in 1.65:1 [*cough*Disney*cough*] (but especially those 'enhanced' from 1.33:1 [*cough*someWBcartoons*cough*]) as I was when Pan & Scan was the norm. Because having their tops and bottoms hacked off does the exact same kind of damage to the presentation of the film... just in a different screen dimension.


Too late [with your comment "film revisionism is anathema to me"] I realized that the response to NotLD90 was very much like the response to early Turner colorization of B&W films... [only in this instance, the colorization was simply 'blue'. ]

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by HyperRealist

I want to watch Rapture. I like B&W scope. But I have hundreds of other BDs to watch. It's not easy picking one. These summer moneths I haven't felt like watching many films. I should get back into this winter. I have like 170 some Criterions to watch too.

If you're a B&W 'Scope fan, then you might find The Wayward Bus interesting after all.

Actually, I hope TT unearths a few more of those...there's just something so weirdly beautiful about monochrome at 2.35:1.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by LucasM2012

[Show spoiler]I agree wholeheartedly: that TT's new interest in giving detail on any changes from what previously was seen of any given movie was a good outcome from the 'blow up' (though I also agree it would have been nicer had it happened spontaneously beforehand). That this release was basically a special 20th Anniversary DP-directed transfer approved by the creators does indeed make it of more interest to film aficionados I should think. Much like the Director's Cut of Blade Runner is now thought to be the 'genuine' version of the film, despite it not being what appeared in theaters, this may ultimately be thought the 'valid' version of the film (or at least 'a' valid version of the film).

I also feel that alterations of films are repugnant. I am just as bothered now by the release of films which say "enhanced for 16x9 TVs" for films shot in 1.65:1 [*cough*Disney*cough*] (but especially those 'enhanced' from 1.33:1 [*cough*someWBcartoons*cough*]) as I was when Pan & Scan was the norm. Because having their tops and bottoms hacked off does the exact same kind of damage to the presentation of the film... just in a different screen dimension.

Too late [with your comment "film revisionism is anathema to me"] I realized that the response to NotLD90 was very much like the response to early Turner colorization of B&W films... [only in this instance, the colorization was simply 'blue'. ]

Well, having still not seen NOTLD90, that will be my biggest hurdle going in...not what was done...but that it was done at all.

Which relates to another thing that this brouhaha has driven home LucasM2012...how truly 'elastic' movies have become in the digital age...and not necessarily in a good way. Back in the photo-chemical era, we routinely saw variable length cuts for different markets, roadshow vs. wide exhibition etc., but rarely such a dramatic change in a movie's very DNA. Today, it's becoming harder and harder to pin down the definitive version of anything, because in the digital realm, a completely different 'look and feel' is not only possible, and relatively affordable, but too tempting for some filmmaker's to resist, even when they should know better to leave well enough alone.

I'm just old fashioned enough and purist enough to wish it wasn't so easy for...say...a Ridley Scott to spit out a new and different version of Blade Runner every few years. Unfortunately, that's where we're at with the tools now. Simply too tempting for the obsessives...

[Geode]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

I think David and Bathsheba would make a suitable release for Twilight Time. It's still relatively popular on DVD for its vintage (Costco has carried it as recently as this year) and there is no chance Fox would release it themselves on BD. The Gregory Peck fans demand it.

I once thought there was no chance Fox would release it on VHS and was proved wrong. Then I thought it unlikely that Fox would issue it on laserdisc and was wrong. Then I thought they might not issue the DVD. I bought it in all formats, and a few months ago on a blu-ray in a release in Norway. Unfortunately it was barely better than the DVD. This needs re-mastering, so if Fox bothers to do the re-master I personally hope that it is not released by Twilight Time at $39.99 and that Fox releases it at a price that is more reasonable.

One thing I would like is for the original trademark to be restored. I think it was in the 80's when Fox mastered a version on tape for distribution in place of film copies. They put what appears to me to be a circa 70's trademark on it instead of the gorgeous early 50's version that should be in place. All the video versions to date have the wrong trademark.

[EddieLarkin]

Really dig the Ranchipur cover, but did they have to decapitate Lana Turner? I assume that doesn't happen in the movie...

[BJQ1972]

Comparing what I saw on TV the other day to the Rains of Ranchipur cover they have seriously messed up the colour timing on this transfer. The cartoon image of Richard Burton clearly looks brown whereas in the movie he is whiter than Fred MacMurray. I demand to know who is responsible for this travesty so I can mount his head on a pike!!!!!

[LucasM2012]

Originally Posted by ROclockCK

Well, having still not seen
Which relates to another thing that this brouhaha has driven home LucasM2012...how truly 'elastic' movies have become in the digital age...and not necessarily in a good way.

[Show spoiler] Back in the photo-chemical era, we routinely saw variable length cuts for different markets, roadshow vs. wide exhibition etc., but rarely such a dramatic change in a movie's very DNA. Today, it's becoming harder and harder to pin down the definitive version of anything, because in the digital realm, a completely different 'look and feel' is not only possible, and relatively affordable, but

...too tempting for some filmmaker's to resist, even when they should know better to leave well enough alone.

I'm just old fashioned enough and purist enough to wish it wasn't so easy for...say...a Ridley Scott to spit out a new and different version of Blade Runner every few years. Unfortunately, that's where we're at with the tools now. Simply too tempting for the obsessives...

Granted, it was my example originally, but with Blade Runner there was a bit of a difference: many of the things that people didn't (ultimately) like in the theatrical version were things the studio basically forced Scott to add (e.g. the voice-over), or to remove (e.g. a second or two of additional 'gore' to the eye-gouging scene). The former changed the film's tone significantly, the latter only very minimally.

With some films, film historians would love to get lost footage back (e.g. I'd love to see the spider pit from the original King Kong restored). But the celluloid is long gone for that.

But it is not just film that is so easily alterable in the digital age. I am still sad that Frank Zappa (a known obsessive/perfectionist) altered virtually all of the noticeable lead guitar on the album Apostrophe'. This is particularly bothersome in the title cut where it was a live in-studio jam including Jack Bruce. Having listened to the altered CD track so many times I can no longer recall what the lead guitar notes were on the vinyl, but I still remember clearly, and with great sadness, that they had more LIFE to them. Since Frank was the one to change it, it is unlikely any of his children will go against dad's wishes and allow the original track to ever see the light of day again. And that is a loss to music history.

I believe that if there are to be 'changed' versions of any artistic 'event', then the originals should also be able to still be accessed. [Understanding, of course, that more cost is involved, both in the restoration of two (or more) of whatever, but in the presentation of it (more discs/packaging).] Things such as in the 5-disc Blade Runner box set, the 20 Million Miles to Earth anniversary release (with colorized and B&W original BOTH in the package), and so forth. But the frequency of that is so incredibly low, that I cannot - offhand [at nearly 6am] - think of any other examples.

[CinemaScope]

Originally Posted by HyperRealist

I like the covers.

Yeah I like the covers. The Rains Of Ranchipur original poster art isn't that great. The German Blu Rains Cover is awful, but then again it is only 10 Euro. I shall wait & read reviews.