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

[Trekkie313]

Originally Posted by UNCMT9

You seem to be taking this personally. Everyone that remotely doesn't have a problem with it, you insult them. You can get a refund, sell your copy, or choose another viewing option. It's not complicated. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you have to belittle anyone that does.

How did I belittle anyone?

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by iamsometal

Tom had nothing to do with it, don't boo him. Boo whatever schmuck at Sony that decided to do this.

100% agree with the review @ HDD. The transfer belongs on a budget bin disc, not on this release.

As you now know, the "schmuck" was the film's director of photography. I'm just going to posit a guess and say he would know more about his intentions than you. That's just a guess, though.

Isn't it funny - when pressed, all these people who talk about the original look of the film turn out to be a kid at the time of the film's release and didn't see it in the theater. What does this mean? It means their only experience with this film has been from cable and home video, in which low-con source material was used.

[bboisvert]

Originally Posted by PuppetMasterBlu

Of course they aren't. IF they are getting rid of it, it's going up on ebay. I know people are saying this blue crap is effecting the aftermarket but they are selling for 75 to 100 right now and im sure it will only go up once the market is less flooded.

Exactly. People can likely sell it for $70 right now. Why would they return it to SAE for $35?

(There are currently two 'used, watched once' copies up on Amazon just days after they shipped out... so some people *are* getting rid of these. Just through a more lucrative means than the SAE/TT return.)

I'm sure a handful might, just because that's easiest. But most will just dump this on the secondary market as a "collectible". For better or worse, that's even what TT has advocated in their initial responses on this issue. It's the whole dynamic that has been set up around this release.

[bboisvert]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

Isn't it funny - when pressed, all these people who talk about the original look of the film turn out to be a kid at the time of the film's release and didn't see it in the theater. What does this mean? It means their only experience with this film has been from cable and home video, in which low-con source material was used.

I was 19 and I *did* see it in a theater. There was no blue filter and the first 25 minutes of the film took place in daylight, as is painfully obvious from the shadows, birds chirping, transition dissolve at the 21-minute mark, and comments from cast/crew that have been recorded over the past 2 decades.

Your point?


EDIT: Are you claiming that the film has always supposed to be that way? And that everyone in the world (including the DP, etc.) has just ignored it for the past 22 years?

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

I said this long ago - that it looked like someone was almost trying to sabotage the release because none of the caps could possibly look that dark on the disc itself - and all along many people who were actually watching the disc said that very thing.

Ugh, this again.

The caps are accurate.

Screencap a specific portion of the film and it will appear the same.

How it appears on your display is down to your display and your pair of eyes but when someone grabs a frame from the BD, assuming they did it properly, that's exactly what is on the disc. There is no grand conspiracy to make it seem "darker" than it is.

People said the same thing about FotR. "It's not that green, I just watched it." Yet when they actually grabbed a screencap it was indeed that green...

The good news is Enemy Mine looks fantastic. I watched it and NotLD today. NotLD does not look good, Enemy Mine looks great though.

Originally Posted by dantexaiver

To all the naysayers here quite your *****ing I have yet to receive my copy here in Canada until then your not going to convince me to jump on the crybaby wagon.

Too bad for you, a lot of crazy sexy things go down on the back of the crybaby wagon.

[jjdpw50]

I don't care who approved it. I'm keeping my blu but I'm not real happy with it. The darkening from 5 mins in to Cooper's appearance does bother me. After that I'm ok with it.

The screenshots are a little darker than what I'm seeing for the most part. Don't see why we needed a blue newsguy though.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

Isn't it funny - when pressed, all these people who talk about the original look of the film turn out to be a kid at the time of the film's release and didn't see it in the theater. What does this mean? It means their only experience with this film has been from cable and home video, in which low-con source material was used.

What are you babbling on about?

It has been confirmed that is was drastically changed from the original theatrical appearance, so much so that Twilight Time has promised to inform us if a film has been changed in this way (from the original presentation) in the future. There is absolutely no doubt the color timing and contrast has been heavily tweaked.

[antmumford]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Ugh, this again.

The caps are accurate.

Screencap a specific portion of the film and it will appear the same.

How it appears on your display is down to your display and your pair of eyes but when someone grabs a frame from the BD, assuming they did it properly, that's exactly what is on the disc. There is no grand conspiracy to make it seem "darker" than it is.

People said the same thing about FotR. "It's not that green, I just watched it." Yet when they actually grabbed a screencap it was indeed that green...

The good news is Enemy Mine looks fantastic. I watched it and NotLD today. NotLD does not look good, Enemy Mine looks great though.



Too bad for you, a lot of crazy sexy things go down on the back of the crybaby wagon.

Good to see that other people are still talking sense on here and no I'm not being sarcastic.

[Clark Kent]

There were always a few voices of reason about this release in this very thread, but the tone got very shrill very fast because the new disc didn't exactly duplicate the DVD.

I suspect the level of vitriol would have contained less angst and pathos if most of the posters hadn't paid $35 for the BD. I'm just glad most of us can move on and enjoy the BD now. I liked it that Twilight Time saw fit to include the original theatrical trailer, that is always one of my favorite extra features. Hopefully this situation won't discourage Twilight Time from releasing other horror and genre movies.

[UNCMT9]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

What are you babbling on about?

It has been confirmed that is was drastically changed from the original theatrical appearance, so much so that Twilight Time has promised to inform us if a film has been changed in this way (from the original presentation) in the future. There is absolutely no doubt the color timing and contrast has been heavily tweaked.

I think he meant the source was never really that strong. The image that some saw in theaters and home video was incorrect to begin with. At least that's how I take it.

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

What are you babbling on about?

It has been confirmed that is was drastically changed from the original theatrical appearance, so much so that Twilight Time has promised to inform us if a film has been changed in this way (from the original presentation) in the future. There is absolutely no doubt the color timing and contrast has been heavily tweaked.

It is not me who's babbling. Please post the direct quote saying that it was drastically changed from its original THEATRICAL appearance - I believe what you are referring to states it has changed from its home video appearance - that is what I'm babbling about. Why don't you go get some air.

[RelicUK]

Is it just me or does all TT seem to care about is how much of a "collectible" this is and how much this will "skyrocket" on ebay...

And why should they care, they have your money and practically NO ONE is going to return it to SAE when they can sell it for 3 times the amount on ebay, everyones a winner! ..except the hardcore fans of the film

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by UNCMT9

I think he meant the source was never really that strong. The image that some saw in theaters and home video was incorrect to begin with. At least that's how I take it.

For many films, I believe that's plausible.

However, this is a different case altogether. There are portions of this film that clearly take place under a blazing sun and are intended to be bright and sunny. This hasn't been just "slightly" tweaked here; it has been changed so greatly that it now appears to take place at dusk. This makes absolutely no sense... the sun is in the sky and the birds are chirping away during these portions. Then, many shadow detail that were once so clearly visible in other places have now been crushed away almost entirely.

It isn't a slight differentiation. It is a night and day difference.

Pun wicked intended.

[AndrewFM]

Okay, just because this disc is being "offered for sale" at inflated prices, I see no evidence of anyone biting. So it's not being "sold" at $70.

And has anyone noticed the vitriol changing forms numerous times here? First of all it was this is different. Then it was wildly exaggerated by, apparently, doctored screenshots in an effort to paint the disc as faulty and not just different, presumably in an attempt to initiate a recall and get the original colour scheme back. When it became clear that these screens were inaccurate, the screaming paranoids fell back, and gave way to "Who cares if it's good, it's different, we should have been told", which is a reasonable point of view, but not when it's used to support the unpleasant abuse aimed at Twilight Time, who despite numerous selfish demands from spoilt fans that this problem be solved yesterday, stayed calm, only occasionally speaking up and sharing opinions, which yes were sometimes poorly worded.

Now, after Tom Savini's endorsed the disc, people are calling him names (ScooterMan on Amazon.com refers to him as a "shill" along with Don May JR) and saying he's blind. How many more shapes is this hysteria going to take?

[FlyBry]

I was a nay-sayer about the new transfer. Don't like it. Never will. I don't give a s___ who likes it. I don't. I'm disappointed I paid 30 bucks for something I didn't get. Which was an exact replication of the theatrical presentation. Pretty much the Star Wars argument. Don't force feed me something for 20 years and then tell me I don't like the taste of it. However, I'm a big boy and I can wipe my own ass. I now have 2 versions of a great film.

My main argument is that future horror nuts like me will discover this film many years from now and this will be what they see. Let's hope that down the road, this film shows up on another label...with both versions to enjoy as one wishes.

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by bboisvert

I was 19 and I *did* see it in a theater. There was no blue filter and the first 25 minutes of the film took place in daylight, as is painfully obvious from the shadows, birds chirping, transition dissolve at the 21-minute mark, and comments from cast/crew that have been recorded over the past 2 decades.

Your point?


EDIT: Are you claiming that the film has always supposed to be that way? And that everyone in the world (including the DP, etc.) has just ignored it for the past 22 years?

My point is simple: The DP supervised and signed off on this transfer. I would assume he knew what his and Savini's original intentions were. You don't have to like it, and I'd imagine you've seen this film on home video a lot more than your one (two?) times in a theater when you were a teen. I have never seen the film but I would dearly love to see a release print at this point - it would be very interesting.

[MrClarke]

Finally watched it last night. I was expecting really bad, but either my tv is broken or everyone else's is. It was a LITTLE darker than I remember, but those blue screen caps are heavily exaggerated.

[AndrewFM]

Originally Posted by FlyBry

I was a nay-sayer about the new transfer. Don't like it. Never will. I don't give a s___ who likes it. I don't. I'm disappointed I paid 30 bucks for something I didn't get. Which was an exact replication of the theatrical presentation. Pretty much the Star Wars argument. Don't force feed me something for 20 years and then tell me I don't like the taste of it. However, I'm a big boy and I can wipe my own ass. I now have 2 versions of a great film.

My main argument is that future horror nuts like me will discover this film many years from now and this will be what they see. Let's hope that down the road, this film shows up on another label...with both versions to enjoy as one wishes.

And what argument is that? most of them will see it on TV or on the DVD, same as always.

Originally Posted by MrClarke

Finally watched it last night. I was expecting really bad, but either my tv is broken or everyone else's is. It was a LITTLE darker than I remember, but those blue screen caps are heavily exaggerated.

It's the chorus of that same song! I keep hearing this! And yet some people STILL say the worst of the screencaps WERE ACCURATE!!

[kinkyqueen]

Did everyone who did not notice all the 'darkness' and 'Smurfs' see it on a Panasonic plasma?

I got a Panasonic plasma and did not see it. Who's with me?

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by AndrewFM

Okay, just because this disc is being "offered for sale" at inflated prices, I see no evidence of anyone biting. So it's not being "sold" at $70.

And has anyone noticed the vitriol changing forms numerous times here? First of all it was this is different. Then it was wildly exaggerated by, apparently, doctored screenshots in an effort to paint the disc as faulty and not just different, presumably in an attempt to initiate a recall and get the original colour scheme back. When it became clear that these screens were inaccurate, the screaming paranoids fell back, and gave way to "Who cares if it's good, it's different, we should have been told", which is a reasonable point of view, but not when it's used to support the unpleasant abuse aimed at Twilight Time, who despite numerous selfish demands from spoilt fans that this problem be solved yesterday, stayed calm, only occasionally speaking up and sharing opinions, which yes were sometimes poorly worded.

Now, after Tom Savini's endorsed the disc, people are calling him names (ScooterMan on Amazon.com refers to him as a "shill" along with Don May JR) and saying he's blind. How many more shapes is this hysteria going to take?

On this page alone, apparently many. But such is the way of the world. All those people who say "we weren't bashing Twilight Time" well, short memories are wonderful, but this thread speaks for itself. It was vile, the bashing, and TT are owed apologies from all who took part in the lynch mob. But, as I said many pages ago, no apologies will be forthcoming - just people denying they ever bashed or saying I'm okay with it now that I know Savini and the DP are, or I hate it and don't care what the filmmakers say because it doesn't look like all the home video versions I'm used to. But most of the most vitriolic of the posters simply disappear until they have something else to go on about, not that they will have actually seen the disc itself - which was the case in this very thread with this very film.