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

[retablo]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

And the recent Children of Paradise, which reviews indicate is abysmal. Yet barely any of the vitriol over that release has been directed at Criterion, but rather Pathe, the company that did the restoration.

I don't mind the Children of Paradise disc. I think it looks quite lovely, and some reviews have been unjustly harsh. It's not perfect, but its still the best it's ever looked.

[Tybo28]

Originally Posted by retablo

Agreed, but they are just the middle man. TT isn't an authority on the color timings of films, nor should they be. They aren't creatives. They are passing along a product they paid for the rights to sell. Now, yes, that product should come to them correctly... And there's where the fault lies.

Right, I agree, Sony is 100% responsible for this disaster of a transfer. But when I see TT first say there is nothing wrong with it, then admit they don't have ANY idea of how the movie ever looked or know what it is supposed to look like... and they are targeting an audience with it, the majority of whom would only pay this price for an almost bare-bones release, because they love the movie...well, the only thing I hear from them is $$$$$. I recognize they made a mistake, and are making some effort to address it. But I hope they learned that you have to take SOME interest and know SOMETHING about the product you are selling, especially when your consumers know it so well.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Tybo28

Right, I agree, Sony is 100% responsible for this disaster of a transfer. But when I see TT first say there is nothing wrong with it, then admit they don't have ANY idea of what the movie even looked like or is supposed to look like... and they are targeting an audience with it, the majority of whom would only pay this price for an almost bare-bones release, because they love the movie...well, the only thing I hear from them is $$$$$. I recognize they made a mistake, and are making some effort to address it. But I hope they learned that you have to take SOME interest and know SOMETHING about the product you are selling, especially when your consumers know it so well.

But outside of paying to have the director or DP involved- and that would come at the mastering stage, not the distribution- how do you "know" what's correct? Many home video releases we think are correct actually aren't, and are products of a contrast-boosted DVD era. So what then?

If Sony and other companies are dumping catalog titles to sub-distributors, they certainly aren't going to pay extra to have directors involved to supervise these transfers. Sad but true.

[Tybo28]

Originally Posted by retablo

But outside of paying to have the director or DP involved- and that would come at the mastering stage, not the distribution- how do you "know" what's correct? Many home video releases we think are correct actually aren't, and are products of a contrast-boosted DVD era. So what then?

Then admit that you're aware its not what the majority of those 3000 people were expecting. Admit that you know its completely different. If they had ever seen any transfer of any kind, they would immediately be able to recognize the difference in this one. They could have inquired about it beforehand, and when this hoopla started, explain that the studio wanted it that way. Post some screenshots, announce that it has color-time changes...I don't know, something. Think of how much easier it would have been for them to say as soon as people complained, "it's right. That's how they want it. Return it if you want" they didn't do that. They had absolutely no clue what was going on, because they had no prior knowledge of the product they were putting out, whatsoever. Im not trying to be argumentative at all! And I'm not going to hold it against them in the future, but I don't think it's fair to say they have no responsibility for their product. Their name is on it. And now, THEY are the ones getting the complaints. They should be anything but surprised by this reaction. I bet they won't let it happen again...

[JYokogawa]

Originally Posted by retablo

But outside of paying to have the director or DP involved- and that would come at the mastering stage, not the distribution- how do you "know" what's correct? Many home video releases we think are correct actually aren't, and are products of a contrast-boosted DVD era. So what then?

If Sony and other companies are dumping catalog titles to sub-distributors, they certainly aren't going to pay extra to have directors involved to supervise these transfers. Sad but true.

I'm fine with the first part of your statement, but to say that what they put out "looks right," is far from correct. There's no way you can sit there, tweak the color, and say that looks like how it originally looks.

Personal bias aside, maybe some do like the color change, but you're messing with how the film is supposed to look. Sure, maybe the DVD/VHS aren't right, but it definitely isn't what we got on the Blu-ray disc.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by HyperRealist

I hope TT asks Sony about the missing audio.

Yes.

[HDMe]

I know people are trying to lay this all on Sony... and IF Sony mucked it up, then absolutely they would deserve the lion's share.

But...

Twilight Time needs their own quality control process... otherwise, what's the difference between them and Echo Bridge or Mill Creek?

People gripe that those companies just slap a transfer on a disk and blow it out the door... Based on Twilight Time's "we don't know what it is supposed to look like" response, that kinda says they aren't doing any more then those budget release companies.

So, how can they justify the $30 price and talk about "high quality" to the consumer? Answer... they can't.

I will say this, though... there is an innocent party in the mix here.

Screen Archives.

They are the retailer... they don't have to know boo about the stuff they are selling, because they are just selling shrinkwrapped stuff... they aren't making any of this... they are just providing the retail front, much like Wal-Mart.

So... Screen Archives is no more to blame for a bad transfer than is Wal-Mart or Best Buy.

Twilight Time has to share the blame with Sony on this... but Screen Archives is an innocent middle-man in all this, so I hope they aren't catching flack.

[Kryptonic]

There's missing audio too?

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Tybo28

Then admit that you're aware its not what the majority of those 3000 people were expecting. Admit that you know its completely different. If they had ever seen any transfer of any kind, they would immediately be able to recognize the difference in this one. They could have inquired about it beforehand, and when this hoopla started, explain that the studio wanted it that way. Post some screenshots, announce that it has color-time changes...I don't know, something. Think of how much easier it would have been for them to say as soon as people complained, "it's right. That's how they want it. Return it if you want" they didn't do that. They had absolutely no clue what was going on, because they had no prior knowledge of the product they were putting out, whatsoever. They should be anything but surprised by this reaction. I bet they won't let it happen again...

Again, you're assuming - for some reason - that TT somehow knows what the original shod look like. Why should they? They are a distributor. They are selling a product given to them by a studio. It should, by all intents and purposes, be correct at this stage. There's no reason they should have to go check every frame of every film they release to see if the color matches a previous DVDm which in itself may or may not be "director-approved" and correct. They are talking about refunds, which is all they can really do.

Originally Posted by JYokogawa

I'm fine with the first part of your statement, but to say that what they put out "looks right," is far from correct. There's no way you can sit there, tweak the color, and say that looks like how it originally looks.

Personal bias aside, maybe some do like the color change, but you're messing with how the film is supposed to look. Sure, maybe the DVD/VHS aren't right, but it definitely isn't what we got on the Blu-ray disc.

Who's supposed to be saying it looks correct? TT didn't tweak the color. Sony did. Therefore, why should TT have to say anything? They aren't responsible for whatever changes were made during the mastering. You're placing blame in the wrong place.

And I never said anything about anything "looking correct". I said, quite correctly, that the only ones who really know what's correct are the original filmmakers. Just because people on the Internet saw an old DVD version doesn't mean they know what's correct, either, because not every DVD had the correct color timing.

[HDMe]

Originally Posted by retablo

Again, you're assuming - for some reason - that TT somehow knows what the original shod look like. Why should they? They are a distributor. They are selling a product given to them by a studio. It should, by all intents and purposes, be correct at this stage. There's no reason they should have to go check every frame of every film they release to see if the color matches a previous DVDm which in itself may or may not be "director-approved" and correct.

Actually, not quite correct.

Screen Archives is the distributor, as I just noted in a post a few minutes ago. Screen Archives is the 100% blameless party.

Twilight Time is a co-author.

Sony is handing over the transfer, yes... but Twilight Time is authoring the master disc themselves. Sony isn't delivering a complete master to Twilight Time that they aren't allowed to touch.

Twilight Time, as the co-author of the disc, owes it to their customers AND themselves to see if they are in fact getting the high-quality and correct transfer that they are advertising to their customers.

You can't make a reputation on bringing quality to the consumer AND then say "but it wasn't our fault" if you get a crap transfer.

As I said... heap most of the blame on Sony IF it turns out they gave them the master with this change... but you can't leave Twilight Time blameless. Unless they want to admit they are the same as Echo Bridge or Mill Creek with a higher price, then they MUST do more to verify before they go to production.

IF the argument is Twilight Time is not expected to watch the movie and verify it... how do they know if they get a cut/censored version? how do they know if they get a version with missing scenes? how do they know if they get a version with bad/missing audio or even a wrong language track? how do they know if they even get a movie transfer at all?

I mean... surely they verify that they were given what they were promised, right? That's not an unreasonable expectation. And they claim to be producing movies for "fans and collectors" so... doesn't it behoove them to make sure they are in fact putting out the quality product that they claim?

[retablo]

Originally Posted by HDMe

Actually, not quite correct.

Screen Archives is the distributor, as I just noted in a post a few minutes ago. Screen Archives is the 100% blameless party.

Twilight Time is a co-author.

Sony is handing over the master, yes... but Twilight Time is authoring the master disc themselves. Sony isn't delivering a complete master to Twilight Time that they aren't allowed to touch.

Twilight Time, as the co-author of the disc, owes it to their customers AND themselves to see if they are in fact getting the high-quality and correct transfer that they are advertising to their customers.

You can't make a reputation on bringing quality to the consumer AND then say "but it wasn't our fault" if you get a crap transfer.

As I said... heap most of the blame on Sony IF it turns out they gave them the master with this change... but you can't leave Twilight Time blameless. Unless they want to admit they are the same as Echo Bridge or Mill Creek with a higher price, then they MUST do more to verify before they go to production.

Then be prepared to pay an even higher price, so they can use that money to hire the original DP or director to supervise the transfer. Otherwise, you're pretty much stuck with what companies give you.

[Tybo28]

So, if it looked like some shoddy DVD-upgrade, they should release it anyway? If the entire movie was suddenly in black and white, they shouldn't at LEAST question such a drastic change for a product they are putting their name on? Sounds like bad business to me. That's how you end up in the $5 bin with Mill Creek and Echo Bridge.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by retablo

Again, you're assuming - for some reason - that TT somehow knows what the original shod look like. Why should they? They are a distributor. They are selling a product given to them by a studio. It should, by all intents and purposes, be correct at this stage. There's no reason they should have to go check every frame of every film they release to see if the color matches a previous DVDm which in itself may or may not be "director-approved" and correct. They are talking about refunds, which is all they can really do.

Because studios make mistakes too. They're authoring the discs as well. At some point, they should review the contents and make sure that everything is squared away. One look at the new transfer and it's easy to tell it looks drastically different than all other versions. At that point, an inquiry should be made as to who approved the transfer and what is the reasoning behind the drastic alteration. This isn't complicated. Both Sony and TT f'ed up.

[Tybo28]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Because studios make mistakes too. They're authoring the discs as well. At some point, they should review the contents and make sure that everything is squared away. One look at the new transfer and it's easy to tell it looks drastically different than all other versions. At that point, an inquiry should be made as to who approved the transfer and what is the reasoning behind the drastic alteration. This isn't complicated. Both Sony and TT f'ed up.

Totally agree.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Because studios make mistakes too. They're authoring the discs as well. At some point, they should review the contents and make sure that everything is squared away. One look at the new transfer and it's easy to tell it looks drastically different than all other versions. At that point, an inquiry should be made as to who approved the transfer and what is the reasoning behind the drastic alteration. This isn't complicated. Both Sony and TT f'ed up.

And what if it's the previous versions that have been incorrect all this time, and the new version is actually correct? Just because its on DVD one way doesn't always make it right.... for the 100th time. Not sure why DVD is looked at as some holy grail, when in fact many DVD releases were often color boosted due to the low resolution of the format.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by MaCruz

Just finished my copy. There is noticeable "darkness" during the daytime scenes in the beginning of the movie. I wouldn't worry about it too much because it only last maybe 30 minutes.

30 minutes is one third of the movie. I consider that too much.

[HDMe]

Originally Posted by retablo

Then be prepared to pay an even higher price, so they can use that money to hire the original DP or director to supervise the transfer. Otherwise, you're pretty much stuck with what companies give you.

Who said they have to supervise the transfer?

I think most are saying they should check out what they are given and not take it blindly and run with it.

If they aren't given a quality transfer, they should reject it and kill the deal OR get a new proper transfer from the studio. If they don't... then you might as well have Echo Bridge or Mill Creek release it, because at least those outfits aren't pretending to do anything but pass along what they are given.

[HDMe]

Originally Posted by retablo

And what if it's the previous versions that have been incorrect all this time, and the new version is actually correct? Just because its on DVD one way doesn't always make it right.... for the 100th time.

If they make daytime scenes appear to be nighttime scenes... right before you see a montage where the sun goes down... that kinda says this version isn't correct doesn't it?

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by retablo

And what if it's the previous versions that have been incorrect all this time, and the new version is actually correct? Just because its on DVD one way doesn't always make it right.... for the 100th time. Not sure why DVD is looked at as some holy grail, when in fact many DVD releases were often color boosted due to the low resolution of the format.

The original film prints and DVD had the same color timing and appearance.

[Tybo28]

Well, perhaps this is what the studio wanted and im not saying it isnt. someone obviously did this. But, even if...I highly, highly doubt this is what was originally intended.