The Devil Rides Out (1968) - October 22,2012

[JimDiGriz]

I think I know which scenes they are talking about and I can see why they felt the need to do it - it does look very ropey and would look worse in HD of course.

Still feel we should have the choice though. Either way Im still buying it.

[Mr Mojo]

Originally Posted by JimDiGriz

I think I know which scenes they are talking about and I can see why they felt the need to do it - it does look very ropey and would look worse in HD of course.

Still feel we should have the choice though. Either way Im still buying it.

Same here. I have no fondness for those f/x shots in question so I'm very interested in seeing the enhanced result.

Not a deal breaker for me.

[EddieLarkin]

The link posted yesterday seems to suggest they have also (badly) altered the close up of the Angel of Death's face. This was always just a practical effect, not a really shoddy optical like the tarantula. Sprucing up crappy opticals, which have a sort of digital look to them anyway, is one thing. Changing a practical effect to a digital one is blasphemous. And not something I'm willing to put my money down for.

[Mr Mojo]

These are most obvious in this scene – the spider is made much more effective, the arrival (and facial close-up) of The Angel of Death arguably less so (simply because they are more obvious digitally created). None of these changes alter the dramatic thrust of the film, and I’d argue that even the most questionable are actually improvements over what was there to begin with – Hammer purists, however, might want to hold on to their old DVDs as well as own this.

"arguably less effective" doesn't equate to "badly altered" to me.

As always I'll judge for myself after it arrives and I get a chance to view it.

[EddieLarkin]

True, the wording gives us little idea of how good any of this will look. But I should have been more clear; I don't care how good a digital effect looks, if you can tell that it's digital, it's junk compared to the practical effect.

[bgart13]

Here's what we're in for:

http://m.sfx.co.uk/2012/09/28/blog-e...r-desecration/

[ste71]

I think they look great! (coming from a Hammer fan like me)

*runs to take cover*

[MondoRick]

I don't think this would be an issue for anyone if Hammer would simply include the original effects shots via branching.

[Judex]

Originally Posted by ste71

I think they look great! (coming from a Hammer fan like me)

*runs to take cover*

I have to agree, It does look alot better.

I hope they haven't added any effects to the Tarantula, that thing scared me enough as a child.

[EddieLarkin]

Eh, they're fine I guess. The face hasn't been replaced with a digital version like the previous article suggests, just a digital background. The lightning fork looks pretty stupid though.

Would love some caps of any alterations to the tarantula

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by ste71

I think they look great! (coming from a Hammer fan like me)

*runs to take cover*

I actually like them too, but I just think the backlash is just for lack of choice between this and the original. If they included both versions in this package, this would be a non-problem with people.

[ghostwhowalks]

Originally Posted by MondoRick

I don't think this would be an issue for anyone if Hammer would simply include the original effects shots via branching.

This.

[MondoRick]

Originally Posted by ghostwhowalks

This.

Actually That.

[ghostwhowalks]

Originally Posted by MondoRick

Actually That.

But now... THIS!

[Show spoiler]

[MondoRick]

Originally Posted by ghostwhowalks

But now... THIS!

[Show spoiler]

Oh now dammit, I'm gonna have nightmares...

[Arkadin]

another article about the "enhancements"
very disappointing from a purist standpoint to say the least.
grrr.............
http://www.sfx.co.uk/2012/09/28/blog...r-desecration/

[Brett C]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

another article about the "enhancements"
very disappointing from a purist standpoint to say the least.
grrr.............
http://www.sfx.co.uk/2012/09/28/blog...r-desecration/

I am fine with this as long as you have the choice of the original version being included.

[ghostwhowalks]

Originally Posted by Brett C

I am fine with this as long as you have the choice of the original version being included.

You don't.

[John Hodson]

Frank Collins review:

...Putting the ethics of whether you should go back and revise or enhance films to one side, I believe not including the original, restored version without the enhanced effects on this release is an error of judgement. Both versions should have been on the disc to satisfy fans, old and new, and to quote Marcus Hearn, fulfill 'the efforts that have been made to present [these films] as most British audience-members would have originally seen them.' Clearly they never saw the film with CGI clouds, smoke and water and I'm sure many of us would like the choice to see the restored film as such...

[Brett C]

I don't know what irks me more, this Luscafilm edition or the serious botch job on Curse Of Frankenstein.

All I can say is hang on to the DVDs of Devil, as they will become highly sought after!