Horror of Dracula (Dracula 1958)

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

Nigel Phelan! You're back. Weren't you banned for stalking and thread
crapping? banned under your other names Jasper, topdollar, adamhopelies,
youworkemen, alias number 23? how many names did you sign up with
this time? You signed up yesterday and already your attacking Bob again.
Same arguments, same language, some posts only now your dannywilde
from The Persuaders.

I thought that whole line of criticism about old film magazines from the 50s sounded familiar.

[monwobbbo]

wow i though the NOTLD 90 debate was tough. WB is gonna make it as they see fit and i doubt that they are looking at this thread thinking "hope those guys at blu-ray.com forum are pleased with this". most of us are going to buy it regardless. the few that won't probably won't kill the sales numbers in any way (i'm thinking this will be a huge seller).

[Richard--W]

partyslammer, in his post above, expresses my own view that the aspect ratio may not be
what is preferred but it's so close it's not a dealbreaker. It's not worth all this debate.

The salient issue with Horror of Dracula now is how it is sourced, is the scan optimal,
and is grading and color timing what it should be.

This is a special film, much beloved by fans of classic horror films, who are entirely
justified in expecting that it be treated with meticulous care and given the commentaries,
supplements and packaging it deserves.

[Midnight Rambler]

Originally Posted by SMOOT

I think the colors will look much like the new HD that TCM-HD aired last month.
It had never looked that way on TCM before.
It was the best that I have even seen on any television broadcast. More reds and not all the cold & pale blue of the BFI Blu-ray. Looked really good.

Your post made me go back and watch that Oct. 10 telecast of HOD on TCM which I had DVR'd. Indeed it does look a lot better from a coloring standpoint. It's still a little lacking in detail ... for example, when Van Helsing (Cushing) opens Harker's diary at the inn to read it, the title page text is pretty "blurry".

[SMOOT]

Originally Posted by Midnight Rambler

Your post made me go back and watch that Oct. 10 telecast of HOD on TCM which I had DVR'd. Indeed it does look a lot better from a coloring standpoint. It's still a little lacking in detail ... for example, when Van Helsing (Cushing) opens Harker's diary at the inn to read it, the title page text is pretty "blurry".

I think the more rigorous encoding for a Blu-ray will really bring out the detail.
TCM-HD can look pretty good with a black & white movie in HD
(and I enjoyed watching their HD broadcast of 1949's "Ma & Pa Kettle" the other day)
but even a black & white film looks a bit better on Blu-ray than a TCM-HD broadcast, and color films score even better on Blu.

[Richard--W]

The extra sliver of information at the bottom does make a difference.

HORROR OF DRACULA scrapes by at 1.85-1 although it loses needed visual story-telling
information at the bottom. It's too tight. 1.66-1 is a little loose, but it doesn't put the
composition off-center like 1.85-1 does. I'm inclined to agree with Bob Furmanek that
1.75-1 is the preferred ratio; it has the symmetry and balance that Terence Fisher
composed in. He had a certain frame area to work in and he provided for the three
contingencies.

HORROR OF DRACULA is a beautifully composed film. For the most part the camera is
locked down. It doesn't move. But when there is action, he moves it from background to
foreground usually at a diagonal with a short pan or a tilt. Dracula is introduced deep in
the frame and at the top, steps downward then walks up to the camera and stops at the
edge of focus; he's right in your face. To cut too much of the bottom off Christopher
Lee's countenance is to destroy the beauty of the choreography and the composition.
Later, in the first of the film's great action scenes when the bride tries to seduce Harker,
Dracula is again set deep in the frame. A horizontal table divides the frame in background.
Dracula bursts into the room, steps over the horizontal line to grab the bride in foreground
-- again putting him right in your face -- to yank her away from Harker. To zoom in too
tight would flatten the distance he travels and diminish the force of the movement into the
audience space. So I can live comfortably with 1.66-1. If Warner Archive were giving us
1.85-1 like on the DVD I'd be really annoyed.

[EManT2200]

Great, now we go through the same "currently unavailable" claims AFTER placing a pre-order that we did with The Thing from another World blu-ray. Was able to get my pre-order in before it changed. Oh well, at least it is finally being released.

[Midnight Rambler]

Originally Posted by SMOOT

TCM-HD can look pretty good with a black & white movie in HD (and I enjoyed watching their HD broadcast of 1949's "Ma & Pa Kettle" the other day) but even a black & white film looks a bit better on Blu-ray than a TCM-HD broadcast, and color films score even better on Blu.

I caught that too, Ma & Pa never looked better. Good 'ol Pa ... who else would have been disappointed to win a house instead of a new tobacco pouch !

[Sergeant Howie]

Originally Posted by EManT2200

Great, now we go through the same "currently unavailable" claims AFTER placing a pre-order that we did with The Thing from another World blu-ray. Oh well, at least it is finally being released.

Some of us snoozed whilst it was available for pre-order, and now it isn't.

[CinemaScope]

Originally Posted by Sergeant Howie

Some of us snoozed whilst it was available for pre-order, and now it isn't.

It will be again, just like all the other Archive releases that come & go on Amazon (& the same with The Sea Hawk).

I'm in the UK so will be buying from Wow (it's still up on their site), once it goes below £15 (the VAT customs limit).

[Midnight Rambler]

Originally Posted by Sergeant Howie

Some of us snoozed whilst it was available for pre-order, and now it isn't.

Oddly enough, DD now has HOD available for pre-order. Usually they are among the last to cue up new releases from Warner.

[EManT2200]

It's $17.99 at Deep Discount.

[Midnight Rambler]

Originally Posted by EManT2200

It's $17.99 at Deep Discount.

It's showing up as $18.56 right now, $15.77 if you qualify for the 15% discount.

ImportCD's has it for $15.18 but their shipping is not free.

I went with DD and their 15% off as they also have a decent price on the Bowie Glastonbury set.

[CinemaScope]

Originally Posted by CinemaScope

It will be again, just like all the other Archive releases that come & go on Amazon (& the same with The Sea Hawk).

I'm in the UK so will be buying from Wow (it's still up on their site), once it goes below £15 (the VAT customs limit).

For UK fans this is now below the customs limit at Wow.

https://www.wowhd.co.uk/horror-of-dr...8/888574561376

[Pecker]

Can we all agree that, that if WAC were to provide some sort of reasoning for their aspect ratio choice, together with any evidence to support that reasoning, that'd be very welcome indeed.

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Can we all agree that, that if WAC were to provide some sort of reasoning for their aspect ratio choice, together with any evidence to support that reasoning, that'd be very welcome indeed.

Why? It wouldn’t change anyone’s mind, evidence provided earlier just got dismissed anyway.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Can we all agree that, that if WAC were to provide some sort of reasoning for their aspect ratio choice, together with any evidence to support that reasoning, that'd be very welcome indeed.

No, because Warner don't have to justify themselves to a bunch of anonymous message board posters on the internet. If you're not happy with the aspect ratio of the release, don't buy it.

[Harryhausen AF]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

No, because Warner don't have to justify themselves to a bunch of anonymous message board posters on the internet. If you're not happy with the aspect ratio of the release, don't buy it.

Bob Furmanek is not an anonymous message board poster and he says that 1.66 is wrong and 1.75 is right. Armchair experts just dont want to accept the truth that 1.66 is wrong. There is no evidence that it should be 1.66 because no evidence exists as 1.75 is the original as proven by Bob Furmanek. This release should be boycotted especially since Christopher Lee passed not that long ago. This movie should be shown in the original ratio. Warner have to justify themselves since they said that 1.66 is the original ratio when it is not. If they said revised 1.66 ratio then it would still be poor but at least they would not be lying about the original ratio.

[iamnoone]

Boycott?!?! Hahaha, good luck with that. Can't wait for this release.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by Harryhausen AF

Bob Furmanek is not an anonymous message board poster and he says that 1.66 is wrong and 1.75 is right. Armchair experts just dont want to accept the truth that 1.66 is wrong. There is no evidence that it should be 1.66 because no evidence exists as 1.75 is the original as proven by Bob Furmanek. This release should be boycotted especially since Christopher Lee passed not that long ago. This movie should be shown in the original ratio. Warner have to justify themselves since they said that 1.66 is the original ratio when it is not. If they said revised 1.66 ratio then it would still be poor but at least they would not be lying about the original ratio.

Not to be snarky, but Christopher Lee passed in 2015. And to your other point if you feel like not owning this movie at all is the best alternative then definitely dont buy it, but I dont think the message you're trying to send is the one WB is going to receive.