Halloween 4K UHD (1978)

[JohnCarpenterFan]

The 35th was supervised and approved by both Cundey and Carpenter. The aim when it came to color timing was to replicate the original colors, hence why it doesn't look like the 1999 DVD. It looks very close to the original prints I've seen, unlike previous editions.

The only other release Cundey approved was the 1999 DVD which was color timed by someone else and merely had Cundey's approval. Cundey himself stated that the 35th anniversary was the first time that he had real pull regarding the look of the finished product. The 1999 DVD was altered to look more autumnal whereas the 35th was left unaltered.

That's all there is to it. Don't get caught up in the comments from those who are going on a Cundey witch hunt trying to accuse him of supervising masters that he himself has publicly decried and pay no attention to the absurd claims the 1999 or god-forbid the Divimax masters are more accurate. People make this shit waaay more complicated than it actually is.

[JohnCarpenterLives]

Originally Posted by monstermidget

I may be pulling this from my behind... but I feel like I remember an interview at the time saying John did sit in on the 35th anniversary release with Dean, remarking that he could see details in the film now that he couldn't see at the time of its original release or something along them lines.

Although I never see this mentioned when folks are discussing the various releases/color timings so maybe I just imagined it!

I want to know the correct color-timing.
Edit: Read follow up comment by JohnCarpenterFan. If that's the case....and if the UHD audio is ORIGINAL mono...this will be THE single definitive home release in my opinion.

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

The 35th was supervised and approved by both Cundey and Carpenter. The aim when it came to color timing was to replicate the original colors, hence why it doesn't look like the 1999 DVD. It looks very close to the original prints I've seen, unlike previous editions.

The only other release Cundey approved was the 1999 DVD which was color timed by someone else and merely had Cundey's approval. Cundey himself stated that the 35th anniversary was the first time that he had real pull regarding the look of the finished product. The 1999 DVD was altered to look more autumnal whereas the 35th was left unaltered.

That's all there is to it. Don't get caught up in the comments from those who are going on a Cundey witch hunt trying to accuse him of supervising masters that he himself has publicly decried and pay no attention to the absurd claims the 1999 or god-forbid the Divimax masters are more accurate. People make this shit waaay more complicated than it actually is.

As far as I'm concerned, the 1999 THX DVD IS more accurate when considering the time of year and part of the U.S. the plot is supposed to take place in...even if it's not "accurate" with regard to what they may have originally been going for with color timing, vision, etc.

The DiviMax, on the other hand, DEFINITELY altered this work of art and it's a shame that many still argue its "merits" of being "the absolutely correct version" or the "best-looking variant;" sure, it made things brighter and perhaps more vivid, but it is far from "intent."

[Colson]

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

As far as I'm concerned, the 1999 THX DVD IS more accurate when considering the time of year and part of the U.S. the plot is supposed to take place in...even if it's not "accurate" with regard to what they may have originally been going for with color timing, vision, etc.

The DiviMax, on the other hand, DEFINITELY altered this work of art and it's a shame that many still argue its "merits" of being "the absolutely correct version" or the "best-looking variant;" sure, it made things brighter and perhaps more vivid, but it is far from "intent."

It's more accurate to the fiction, but not the the original film.

The original film, quite famously, does not look like fall, because it was not filmed at the right time of year. IIRC they spray painted a bunch of leaves and dumped them all over the streets and sidewalks in order to make it appear like fall.

The movie was made on a shoe-string budget, and it looks like it. That's okay, and it's accurate to the original film.

I want my home video releases to reflect the original color timing. If you prefer extremely revisionist color timings, you probably won't find too many people around these parts agreeing with you.

In general, when people refer to a color timing as "accurate," they mean accurate to the source, not to the lore of the film.

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by Colson

It's more accurate to the fiction, but not the the original film.

The original film, quite famously, does not look like fall, because it was not filmed at the right time of year. IIRC they spray painted a bunch of leaves and dumped them all over the streets and sidewalks in order to make it appear like fall.

The movie was made on a shoe-string budget, and it looks like it. That's okay, and it's accurate to the original film.

I want my home video releases to reflect the original color timing. If you prefer extremely revisionist color timings, you probably won't find too many people around these parts agreeing with you.

In general, when people refer to a color timing as "accurate," they mean accurate to the source, not to the lore of the film.

I specifically stated why my preferences were what they were with regard to "accuracy" on this title -- I understand that the look I'm preferring wasn't the originally intended presentation...but, to me, it still "looks right" and has been my go-to version since the DVD came out.

That's okay that not many people would agree with me -- everyone is entitled to opinion. But I can tell you that there ARE plenty of fans who DO enjoy the THX DVD for its presentation - in this thread and forum alone - irrespective of the fact that this wasn't the intended resulting look.

[monstermidget]

Its fine and dandy to prefer the golden hues of the THX DVD, but you can't call them accurate or "more" accurate.
This look was cooked up by colorist Adam Adams for said DVD, it involved digital tricks like selectively spot colouring trees ( and not even that consistently) and is revisionist as revisionist can be.

[grodd]

The current transfer and the Criterion Laserdisc with a bit more color would be closest to a print. The Divimax for the daylight scenes isn't bad but pushes a bit red. The daytime scenes bother me the most with the current transfer.

The extra detail of the current transfers makes it impossible for me to watch the older versions.
I still like the Criterion Laserdisc for sound the best. I also like some of the original TV version sound effects like when the stinger hits after Laurie leaves the house with Tommy.

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by monstermidget

Its fine and dandy to prefer the golden hues of the THX DVD, but you can't call them accurate or "more" accurate.
This look was cooked up by colorist Adam Adams for said DVD, it involved digital tricks like selectively spot colouring trees ( and not even that consistently) and is revisionist as revisionist can be.

I know this was worked on by Mr. Adams for the THX DVD (working alongside Chace, which did the surround remix for the disc), but I still call this more accurate in a PERSONAL sense; I PREFER the look of the film in this variant. I am not advocating that this is the preferred look as envisioned by Carpenter, Cundy, Hill, Akkad or anyone else involved in the project.

You want to talk about "revisionist"? How about those glowing green lawns on subsequent releases beginning with the DiviMax transfer, or Anchor Bay's first BD release (a disaster, IMO)...to me, I'll take the orange/autumn hues selectively injected into the THX print over the super-bright/stylized variants any day.

Now, as for the 35th Anniversary or 4K versions -- I cannot speak about those because I never viewed them.

[Colson]

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

I still call this more accurate in a PERSONAL sense; I PREFER the look of the film in this variant. .

Calling something accurate is a very different thing from saying that you prefer it.

It's okay to prefer inaccurate transfers, which is clearly the case here.

I disagree, but it's okay that we disagree.

[monstermidget]

I have no problem with, nor take any exception to the THX timing being you're personal preferred look, just with your use of the word accurate.

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by Colson

Calling something accurate is a very different thing from saying that you prefer it.

It's okay to prefer inaccurate transfers, which is clearly the case here.

I disagree, but it's okay that we disagree.

It's not a different thing when the individual states "it's accurate to ME."

I don't understand where all this hostility comes from whenever this title is up for discussion (it happens on every notable HT hobbyist forum when Halloween is either reviewed or discussed, to the point it drives people to insult matches that degrade into really mean-spirited banter, eventually leading to a thread shutdown); there are plenty of people who LIKE the look of the THX DVD and who feel THAT'S the version that deserves a place in their hearts. I myself am friends with at least a dozen.

Again -- I'm not advocating that the Adams-colored version was the accurate print as sanctioned by anyone involved in the project. And I cannot say for sure that the 35th anniversary Blu-ray is closer to any one vision because I never saw it or bought it -- if THAT master is closer to what Cundy and others envisioned or intended, so be it. I still prefer the LOOK of the THX disc over the original Anchor Bay Blu, at least.

At the end of the day, like most here, I look forward to seeing the 4K version from Lionsgate if only to take in the extra detail the 2160p transfer may bring to the images we all know and love; but this will have to wait (for me personally) until I get a UHD disc player.

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by monstermidget

I have no problem with, nor take any exception to the THX timing being you're personal preferred look, just with your use of the word accurate.

Well, I feel it's accurate, compared to the different versions of the film I've seen on home video up to the 35th anniversary release (I never saw that transfer). The DiviMax and original Blu-ray from Starz!/Anchor Bay came off as looking like California in the spring/summer -- not Illinois in the fall.

Look, I understand that one of these "brighter" prints may have been the 100-percent accurate rendition of the intent here with this title (again, I never saw the 35th anniversary) -- let's just all agree that this is a great October-time flick that should be watched every year, regardless of format (save for a VHS copy!)...

Speaking of which...I actually had the Blockbuster version of the VHS release...

[grodd]

Its a historically debated title, so its understandable. A lot of misinformation still floats out there. For example some still think the 1999 DVD is what the original movie (and Criterion LD) look like. When in fact they all look nothing alike.

https://bluray.highdefdigest.com/940...ween_35th.html
During the course of those small corrections, it would also seem as if Cundey must have forgotten about the correct color timing, which to date is only available on the Criterion Collection laserdisc and THX-certified DVD.

[bradnoyes]

Do leaves ever turn yellow and brown in LA?

Anyway, I do like the look of the more autumn colors in the revisionist version but I just want this movie to look the way it's supposed to look.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by IntelliVolume

Well, I feel it's accurate, compared to the different versions of the film I've seen on home video up to the 35th anniversary release (I never saw that transfer). The DiviMax and original Blu-ray from Starz!/Anchor Bay came off as looking like California in the spring/summer -- not Illinois in the fall.

Look, I understand that one of these "brighter" prints may have been the 100-percent accurate rendition of the intent here with this title (again, I never saw the 35th anniversary) -- let's just all agree that this is a great October-time flick that should be watched every year, regardless of format (save for a VHS copy!)...

Speaking of which...I actually had the Blockbuster version of the VHS release...

Accuracy and personal preference are completely different things. It may please you but if it doesn't look anything like how the color originally looked then it's just not accurate.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by grodd

Its a historically debated title, so its understandable. A lot of misinformation still floats out there. For example some still think the 1999 DVD is what the original movie (and Criterion LD) look like. When in fact they all look nothing alike.

https://bluray.highdefdigest.com/940...ween_35th.html
During the course of those small corrections, it would also seem as if Cundey must have forgotten about the correct color timing, which to date is only available on the Criterion Collection laserdisc and THX-certified DVD.

And people will blindly accept that as fact and spread ill-informed, ignorant and completely false comments online. Then we get what we have here, misconceptions based on false information.

Pfft. The original color timing can be found on the 1999 DVD and Criterion LD... both of which look nothing alike. In fact, IIRC it's the Criterion and the 35th anniversary Blu-ray that look very similar.

[Rich Pure Doom]

I just can't believe this argument which has been a dead horse many times over, has been brought back to life with such vigor.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by bb8977

Am I the only one who prefers the warmer look of the 2007 release ?

It doesn't really matter what any one "prefers." What matters is how it was originally made, which is the only way it should be seen.

[Rich Pure Doom]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

It doesn't really matter what any one "prefers." What matters is how it was originally made, which is the only way it should be seen.

While I GENERALLY agree with you, some people grew up with certain versions they saw many times over, and got attached to that look. That is THEIR vision of the movie. It doesn't make it correct, but people are allowed to like or want their preferences.

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by colson

calling something accurate is a very different thing from saying that you prefer it.

Originally Posted by intellivolume

it's not a different thing when the individual states "it's accurate to me."

lmao.