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

[PowellPressburger]

From all the screenshots I've seen I kind of prefer the old way it looked before the tinting.. that being said I'm not giving up my TT Blu unless they issue a whole new one.

[Rhoq]

Originally Posted by Dickieduvet

Nothing yet mate, Hopefully something later

The last I saw is this, it was posted by the Twilight Time account in reply to a post someone made on their wall regarding whether or not shipping costs would be refunded to those who decided to return their discs for a refund.

Yes, everyone will be notified at the SAE website. Only one of two things will happen this week: 1) Sony confirms this is the correct look for the film in which case the disc won't be repressed; or 2 )Sony confirms an error was made and in which case the disc could be repressed/exchanged. In either event consumers will have the opportunity to return their copy for a refund. But think about it, if what happens is 1) would you really want to return your copy given there is a possibility this will be the only BD release of the title? Something to think about.

[AndrewFM]

Originally Posted by xiaNaix

4. Twilight Time dismisses the situation, saying the version released was given to them by Sony and was "obviously" signed off by the director....

The disc was marketed directly to fans of the film as a limited edition. First Twilight Time denied there was anything wrong with the disc. Then more screenshots were posted by fans of the film and they announced there would be an investigation but the director must have signed off on these changes. Then fans contacted Tom Savini, who knew nothing about it. Fans then noticed that even the trailer on Twilight Time's own disc does not have the modified color palette. The fact is that, all the while, Twilight Time has only been reacting to what the fans have uncovered. I think fans have every right to be angry here.

You're grouping a lot of things together. Technically speaking, there's nothing WRONG with the disc. It's what Sony gave them - their quality control obviously includes checking through the disc, swapping audio tracks, etc. So there isn't anything "wrong" with the disc, from their point of view.

Second of all, the guy doing the Facebook status updating may have been totally in the dark, ignorant or fed misinfortmation about the transfer.

[AndrewFM]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Also, at least Echo Bridge fixes their mistakes, like re-releasing 2.35:1 films that were originally released by them on BD in 1.78:1 in their proper aspect ratios.

Have they? Have they reissued Halloween H20 in 'scope? Nope. Good job I got my Alliance disc from Canada to make up for it.

[thephantomcat]

Originally Posted by ScooterMan

Excellent points, and I absolutely agree.



A good chunk of it would go away, yes.

I'm sorry. So you'd perfer for only people who agree with you to post on this forum and anyone who disagrees should just leave? Besides, you're just upset because you bought 10 copies and you're afraid you're going to have to take a loss on that investment. I have no sympathy for a scalper having to take a bath on trying to take advantage of true fans.

[AndrewFM]

Originally Posted by thephantomcat

I'm sorry. So you'd perfer for only people who agree with you to post on this forum and anyone who disagrees should just leave? Besides, you're just upset because you bought 10 copies and you're afraid you're going to have to take a loss on that investment. I have no sympathy for a scalper having to take a bath on trying to take advantage of true fans.

I'm still laughing at the people who thought that your "Don May is Mr Savini's assistant?" question was a serious query.

Oh, and yeah I'm with you. Like any of these eBay sellers would accept returns based on rejection of the product's contents:

"Where's the original Ultra-Stereo track? It's just 5.1"

"No refunds! That's the way it's been reissued, take it or leave it!"

[Dickieduvet]

I'm sure nobody thought that was a serious query

[bboisvert]

Originally Posted by AndrewFM

Second of all, the guy doing the Facebook status updating may have been totally in the dark

... no pun intended.

[AndrewFM]

Originally Posted by Dickieduvet

I'm sure nobody thought that was a serious query

Then why bother with a short biography, jumping through hoops trying to establish Mr Don May Jr's credability? As is my understanding, he has a lot of credability as a film restoration expert, especially in genre films. What that has to do with credability in second-hand information, I do not know. Since his Facebook wall is private, the information is distanced a further level beyond that. I side with thephantomcat on this one.

[popeflick]

Originally Posted by ScooterMan

Excellent points, and I absolutely agree.



A good chunk of it would go away, yes.

Well you and the poster you agree with have jumped to the worst possible conclusion and are ignoring basic business facts. People have explained them here to you but they've been willfully ignored.

What's a shame here is the TT guys are movie fans who are taking a huge risk out of their own pocket to provide great films. Some like the LE aspect and some don't. But the bottom line is when they make these things they don't get to kick it back to Sony even if they agree with all the hyperbole driven hysteria in these forums. The look, unless it got cocked up at the encoder or the BD burning (completely unlikely, more likely encoding if it was even that), was set by Sony they bought it like that and it gets sold to us like that.

But your claim "they're showing their true colors" or "they don't care" is bullshit pure and simple.

[Whirlygig]

Originally Posted by thephantomcat

I believe that the photographs people are posting probably look worse than what they look like on an actual television. The smaller an image, the darker it appears. That can be seen from this forum alone as the largest screen caps look the least extreme and the smallest ones look incredibly dark.

First of all, I recall only seeing one pair of images that were clearly photographs. They made no effort to obscure this, you can see their media rack and TV stand in the pictures. They did so intentionally. The rest I have been assuming were taken the proper way, as direct frame grabs from the discs. Their quality alone is enough to suggest this. Do you have some reason to suspect that most of them are actually just photographs of a TV screen?

Secondly, hopefully you realize that the size of the images can create optical illusions of darkness due to the surrounding content of your screen. This forum, for me, is white and gray in the background, and if you put a tiny thumbnail in the middle of a vast ocean of LED-backlit white and gray, that thumbnail is going to appear quite a bit darker to your brain as the brighter surroundings overtake it. If you expand the image to fill the entire screen, you've won half the battle, and if you turn the lights in the room off, even better.

Normally I would not even say a word about "tinting" and similar controversies, because trying to get a sense of how a film will look from a frame grab on a PC monitor is pointless. Even more pointless and just downright ridiculously ignorant in the case of photographs over frame grabs. In this case, though, it is just too glaringly obvious that things went way overboard. The least dark of the images I've seen here are not all that bad, but the darkest ones are just plain awful, and even if they were done deliberately the person who did them would have to admit he went a bit far or I would think him a liar.

[AndrewFM]

Originally Posted by popeflick

Well you and the poster you agree with have jumped to the worst possible conclusion and are ignoring basic business facts. People have explained them here to you but they've been willfully ignored.

What's a shame here is the TT guys are movie fans who are taking a huge risk out of their own pocket to provide great films. Some like the LE aspect and some don't. But the bottom line is when they make these things they don't get to kick it back to Sony even if they agree with all the hyperbole driven hysteria in these forums. The look, unless it got cocked up at the encoder or the BD burning (completely unlikely, more likely encoding if it was even that), was set by Sony they bought it like that and it gets sold to us like that.

But your claim "they're showing their true colors" or "they don't care" is bullshit pure and simple.

Bingo. They don't need fans like these brats. It's really bothering me that Christine is probably going to be cancelled because of all this overreaction to what is, ultimately, just a faulty blu-ray. People act like the vaccination given to their children was the HIV virus or something.

[thephantomcat]

Originally Posted by AndrewFM

Then why bother with a short biography, jumping through hoops trying to establish Mr Don May Jr's credability? As is my understanding, he has a lot of credability as a film restoration expert, especially in genre films. What that has to do with credability in second-hand information, I do not know. Since his Facebook wall is private, the information is distanced a further level beyond that. I side with thephantomcat on this one.

[Ill_Be_Back]

Originally Posted by thephantomcat

Maybe 3 years from now, Sony will have been inspired by the passion of the fans and release a newly remastered unrated cut with a transfer approved by Tom Savini and George Romero with newly produced HD featurettes and more attractive artwork. If not, I'll still have my copy.

Now that would be awesome

[thephantomcat]

Originally Posted by Whirlygig

First of all, I recall only seeing one pair of images that were clearly photographs. They made no effort to obscure this, you can see their media rack and TV stand in the pictures. They did so intentionally. The rest I have been assuming were taken the proper way, as direct frame grabs from the discs. Their quality alone is enough to suggest this. Do you have some reason to suspect that most of them are actually just photographs of a TV screen?

Secondly, hopefully you realize that the size of the images can create optical illusions of darkness due to the surrounding content of your screen. This forum, for me, is white and gray in the background, and if you put a tiny thumbnail in the middle of a vast ocean of LED-backlit white and gray, that thumbnail is going to appear quite a bit darker to your brain as the brighter surroundings overtake it. If you expand the image to fill the entire screen, you've won half the battle, and if you turn the lights in the room off, even better.

Normally I would not even say a word about "tinting" and similar controversies, because trying to get a sense of how a film will look from a frame grab on a PC monitor is pointless. Even more pointless and just downright ridiculously ignorant in the case of photographs over frame grabs. In this case, though, it is just too glaringly obvious that things went way overboard. The least dark of the images I've seen here are not all that bad, but the darkest ones are just plain awful, and even if they were done deliberately the person who did them would have to admit he went a bit far or I would think him a liar.

I addressed the size of the screencaps as their particular variable and the variables of the available photographs (of which there are at least two sets) separately. But I think each individual should decide for themselves how bad it looks when they watch it on their own tv.

[thephantomcat]

Originally Posted by Ill_Be_Back

Now that would be awesome

I want head shots and exit wounds in glorious HD!

[whitesheik]

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.



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.

It's amazing how many Blu-ray transfers are damned because it doesn't look like the DVD. As you correctly state, many DVD transfers were done overly bright and don't look anything like they should - but it's not what people are used to, what with most people's experiences with films that are pre-1990 only based on home video, and even if they'd seen the film during its release, their "hundreds" of home viewings would supplant any memories of the original release - that's why people swear and stomp their feet and scream that they absolutely saw the "To be continued" card when they saw Back to the Future in the theater. Many DVD transfers were taken from fading elements but if that's what people are used to when they get the correct color they scream bloody murder. Well, they don't really have the right to, do they, given that the real color is finally being presented correctly? I mean, they will, but they shouldn't, but they have no frame of reference.

[Whirlygig]

Originally Posted by thephantomcat

I addressed the size of the screencaps as their particular variable and the variables of the available photographs (of which there are at least two sets) separately. But I think each individual should decide for themselves how bad it looks when they watch it on their own tv.

Where did you do this? Honest, I've been doing my best to follow this thread, but when entire pages fill up in seconds with one-line b****slapping back and forth over irrelevant nonsense, it's hard to catch everything.

[thephantomcat]

Originally Posted by Imrahil2001

Of course, everyone would demand that it cost $9.99 or less.

[Trekkie313]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

It's amazing how many Blu-ray transfers are damned because it doesn't look like the DVD. As you correctly state, many DVD transfers were done overly bright and don't look anything like they should - but it's not what people are used to, what with most people's experiences with films that are pre-1990 only based on home video, and even if they'd seen the film during its release, their "hundreds" of home viewings would supplant any memories of the original release - that's why people swear and stomp their feet and scream that they absolutely saw the "To be continued" card when they saw Back to the Future in the theater. Many DVD transfers were taken from fading elements but if that's what people are used to when they get the correct color they scream bloody murder. Well, they don't really have the right to, do they, given that the real color is finally being presented correctly? I mean, they will, but they shouldn't, but they have no frame of reference.

The movie wasn't that old when it hit DVD and I highly doubt the prints were in a rough condition.