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

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

I preferred the more subdued look and it feels more accurate to what Coppola's intentions were. It has a more timeless quality to it IMO. Either way, it was approved by Zoetrope and I'm sure Coppola signed off on it at some point.

With regards to NOTLD, someone said they saw an original print of the film not too long ago and that it looked like the DVD edition.

I can understand a preference for the new color palette, but surely not the darkening of the image? The last cap I posted, all those beautiful sets that people spent hours building, are now invisible

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

I can understand a preference for the new color palette, but surely not the darkening of the image? The last cap I posted, all those beautiful sets that people spent hours building, are now invisible

It doesn't look that dark on my plasma.

[surfinhank]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, can't keep up with all these pages, but...

There's a transition scene about 19 minutes in which shows in succession: the sunny sky with some clouds/ the sun in the sky a little before sunset/ dark clouds/ and then the moon rising. Now to me, that kind of negates the whole "intended look" or "day-for-night" arguments. Those first 20 minutes happen during the DAY (a sunny day, no less). There's no reason it should be as dark as the caps suggest.

Comments?

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

It doesn't look that dark on my plasma.

Actually I think you're right. I recall checking my disc when first seeing comparisons years ago, and noting the darkness wasn't as bad. It's just too bad about the color.

[risky1975]

HELLO!!! THEY DONT CARE!!! YEA IT"S TRUE THEY DO NOT GIVE A $@!T.. and while i love the movie... as well (Clearly not as much as some) that sums it up.. and tommorow will be another day.. no go out side and throw that football around .. get some sun and exercise.. JK LOL

Originally Posted by odriley

So.... we should accept the altering and changing of our favorite movies because Sony will get mad and take their toys away? Wouldnt it show them that there are a lot of people passionate about this movie. Instead of what you guys are doing which is showing them that we will gobble up any crap release they hand us.

I still cant believe film fans could actually be ok with the altering of a film from how its been for 20 years.. im sorry I just will never get over that.

[UNCMT9]

Originally Posted by odriley

So.... we should accept the altering and changing of our favorite movies because Sony will get mad and take their toys away? Wouldnt it show them that there are a lot of people passionate about this movie. Instead of what you guys are doing which is showing them that we will gobble up any crap release they hand us.

I still cant believe film fans could actually be ok with the altering of a film from how its been for 20 years.. im sorry I just will never get over that.

Once again, it's subjective. I'm sorry this was a complete botch job for you, but at 3,000 units, I'm not sure this will get a rerelease. No one is asking anyone to be quiet about it, but it's a Sunday and this release has been out for two days. Give it time.

[Tybo28]

Originally Posted by surfinhank

Not sure if this has been mentioned, can't keep up with all these pages, but...

There's a transition scene about 19 minutes in which shows in succession: the sunny sky with some clouds/ the sun in the sky a little before sunset/ dark clouds/ and then the moon rising. Now to me, that kind of negates the whole "intended look" or "day-for-night" arguments. Those first 20 minutes happen during the DAY (a sunny day, no less). There's no reason it should be as dark as the caps suggest.

Comments?

Yep. Agreed.

[odriley]

Originally Posted by surfinhank

Not sure if this has been mentioned, can't keep up with all these pages, but...

There's a transition scene about 19 minutes in which shows in succession: the sunny sky with some clouds/ the sun in the sky a little before sunset/ dark clouds/ and then the moon rising. Now to me, that kind of negates the whole "intended look" or "day-for-night" arguments. Those first 20 minutes happen during the DAY (a sunny day, no less). There's no reason it should be as dark as the caps suggest.

Comments?

EXACTLY!!!! I was just watching the dvd and thought the same damn thing. Theres a scene that SHOWS the passage of time. It shows it go from Day...then the sun setting..into night. Haha. That scene is now completely pointless since it gets dark on the bluray way before that scene.

[risky1975]

For the record this thread is way more entertaining then the damn movie!!

[AndrewFM]

Originally Posted by BluRayFiend

Like I stated before I saw this at the midnight movies a few years ago an the film reel used was an original reel from 1990 that theatre had shipped to them. An I'll tell you right now the dvd an the original film reel are the same with a little more grain every now an then on the whats on the dvd but color wise they are identical.The blu ray is altered slightly yes but what I want to know what kind of blu ray player are some of you using when you watch this no one ever answers that?

An why on earth does everyone keep talking about Savini he could give to craps less what happens with this .John russo himself said to my friends an I Tom needed some help that it wasn't just him directing no shock their. Its sony who will have the final say unfortunatley. An you can tell that hands down the blue/darkness you see stands out way more in the zombie scenes thats where people are correct the rest of the film is very normal

That's JOHN RUSSO, the most self-serving and idiotic man associated with the Pittsburgh bunch. Look online for testamonials, say, from the man who directed "Children of the Living Dead" or other people who have worked for him? Or read the interview with him in THE COMPLETE HISTORY OF THE RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD where he essentially puts down his contributions to the film (THE TITLE) as being essential to it's success. That means....NOTHING!

[odriley]

Originally Posted by risky1975

HELLO!!! THEY DONT CARE!!! YEA IT"S TRUE THEY DO NOT GIVE A $@!T.. and while i love the movie... as well (Clearly not as much as some) that sums it up.. and tommorow will be another day.. no go out side and throw that football around .. get some sun and exercise.. JK LOL

Ill make you a deal. Learn to type and spell and ill throw a football around. Good?

[jjdpw50]

Originally Posted by risky1975

For the record this thread is way more entertaining then the damn movie!!

Hell yeah! I checked this thread like 20 times today.

[BluRayFiend]

Dude cmon hes way more personable then Tom all I care about now is my fading acting career Savini.
An him an others associated with things he's done will explain them selves an tell you the hole story ,do I always believe what people say eh I take it at face value.

AndrewFM sorry for Return of the living dead check your source man he did a little more then what you know I met the hole cast an the director an asked some good questions pertaining to him being involved your mistaken.

An Ill tell you man SAVINI is a snake ask around about the story how savini was going behind actors backs
cause he did the f/x on one of the earlier friday the 13th movies an was sellling the mask molds without permission an keeping all the royalties for himslef an now which the hole thing has gone to court check that out.

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by surfinhank

Not sure if this has been mentioned, can't keep up with all these pages, but...

There's a transition scene about 19 minutes in which shows in succession: the sunny sky with some clouds/ the sun in the sky a little before sunset/ dark clouds/ and then the moon rising. Now to me, that kind of negates the whole "intended look" or "day-for-night" arguments. Those first 20 minutes happen during the DAY (a sunny day, no less). There's no reason it should be as dark as the caps suggest.

Comments?

The entire darkening of the scene where Ben arrives make ZERO sense. The rays from Sun are beaming off Ben's forehead and the shadows are almost even with the objects blocking the Sun....its midday not dusk.

[odriley]

Originally Posted by UNCMT9

Once again, it's subjective. I'm sorry this was a complete botch job for you, but at 3,000 units, I'm not sure this will get a rerelease. No one is asking anyone to be quiet about it, but it's a Sunday and this release has been out for two days. Give it time.

i AM giving it time. If I wasnt giving it time, my copy would have been sold by now. However I was under the impression that this was a message board... where you are able to SPEAK *type* about things that bug you or things you enjoy. Especially about a controversial bluray release... on a BLURAY FORUM. Just because your opinion differs from mine doesnt mean I cant talk about it. If thats the case, what the hell is the point of these forums? If not for people being able to speak their minds.

[AndrewFM]

Originally Posted by BluRayFiend

Dude cmon hes way more personable then Tom all I care about now is my fading acting career Savini.

He's also terminally talentless and self-serving. He is, by most accounts, a nice guy. But he is full of crap and makes awful films. It was his idea to remake NOTLD to "get some of those royalty payments we've been missing" (ie. to relive the only good moment of my 'career'). If it wasn't for Romero and Savini steering it in the right direction, it would've been as bad as the 30th Anniversary (remember that? That's Russo) or the sequel to it, Children of the Living Dead.

[thephantomcat]

Originally Posted by jsvg00

I think I read somewhere that Shout factory/Scream Factory put in a bid for the Sony Horror catalog but Sony wanted to go the limited edition route. I'm sure CMAC can shed some light on this topic.

Twilight Time's interview on their Facebook page makes it pretty clear why studios like their business model. Twilight Time makes a one time payment of all the accociated fees with printing 3,000 copies and the studio cashes the check and never looks back. They don't have to hire someone to keep track of how much money the label is supposed to be paying them and then having to review quarterly reports and all that nerdy expensive accounting stuff.

In and out. One and done. Set it and forget it.

[UNCMT9]

Originally Posted by odriley

i AM giving it time. If I wasnt giving it time, my copy would have been sold by now. However I was under the impression that this was a message board... where you are able to SPEAK *type* about things that bug you or things you enjoy. Especially about a controversial bluray release... on a BLURAY FORUM. Just because your opinion differs from mine doesnt mean I cant talk about it. If thats the case, what the hell is the point of these forums? If not for people being able to speak their minds.

Relax buddy. I dont know why you took offense to that.

[odriley]

Originally Posted by AndrewFM

He's also terminally talentless and self-serving. He is, by most accounts, a nice guy. But he is full of crap and makes awful films. It was his idea to remake NOTLD to "get some of those royalty payments we've been missing" (ie. to relive the only good moment of my 'career'). If it wasn't for Romero and Savini steering it in the right direction, it would've been as bad as the 30th Anniversary (remember that? That's Russo) or the sequel to it, Children of the Living Dead.

Aw come on! Why did you have to go and remind me of the 30th Anniversary edition. Ugh.... so horrible.

[odriley]

Originally Posted by UNCMT9

Relax buddy. I dont know why you took offense to that.

I didnt, im just in defense mode. Haha. Sorry. I know you werent being a dick. I get what you are saying and my point is I am waiting to see what happens. Just venting.