The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) now with 2025 Hammer Editions

[ghostwhowalks]

Ugh. Looks like I'm not getting this then. What a major disappointment.

"If the HD version looks “softer”, it’s because the resolution is better and any flaws are being highlighted to a greater degree."

<- Hammer Restoration Team

[evilzedar]

Cancelled my preorder of this. May order later, or may not...

[NoirFan]

I received this email from Amazon:

The manufacturer has let us know that two special features that were originally advertised as being included on these discs have been removed. The features were:

- The Tale of Tales of Frankenstein (new & exclusive Ted Newsom documentary)
- PDF Original shooting script

[Davy]

It just gets worse and worse for these Hammer blurays. I hope people didnt get ride of all their hammer DVDs before this reissue campaign.

[Braktastic]

Originally Posted by NoirFan

I received this email from Amazon:

Not the PDF Original shooting script!

Seriously though, I always thought this release was poorly planned out. From adding random and unrelated features like The Four-sided Triangle and a Tales of Frankenstein documentary (Yes, I know, at least that's Frankenstein-related) to offering two types of framing, and then getting at least one of those wrong.

Hammer needs to reign it in and focus on what's important. Namely, OAR, PQ, and AQ. Once you've got that sorted out, go add whatever bells and whistles that are relevant and won't detract from the feature presentation.

Man, this shit is not hard. Why do all the studios not seem to grasp this?

[bgart13]

Actually, FOUR SIDED TRIANGLE isn't so far off from Frankenstein. I'm disappointed Ted's doc won't be on it, though -- esp since I know him.

But I agree -- get the video/audio correct, then worry about the other junk.

[NoirFan]

On their blog, Hammer state that the Tale featurette was dropped 'due to space issues'. Again, why duplicate the other extras then, especially if it means omitting one for the sake of including others twice!

[insomniac013]

Then why even try to include them all on 1 BD? Just make a second disc only for special features and ditch the DVD copies!

[TJ Doc]

What a mess.

I like that they're trying to make sure both DVD and Blu-ray camps are equally catered to... but come on.

[jwf]

Ah, well. It'll save me a packet. Most of the Hammer titles would've been day one purchases for me, but given Hammer's reluctance to give films the presentations they deserve (and let's face it, it's the films that should come first, not features) I'm more than happy to wait for the inevitable el cheapo box set in a couple of years time.

I know my purchases are pennies in the grand scheme of things but still... their loss.

[mr young]

This has gone up to £32 on HMV Pre Order.

[herge65]

My copy should be here today. My gut reaction from the reviews and comments here is to return it immediately but I'm going to keep it, take a look and make up my own mind. Can it really be this bad? I can live with a little cropping. Academy Ratio usually loses a little info at the sides anyway. And you'll also find that the same aspect ratios (1.85:1, 1.66:1 etc) will have been cropped slightly differently in different cinemas. So a pure/perfect solution is always going to be hard to come by. There will always be some 'tolerance' space.

[ghostwhowalks]

Hammer's response to criticism of TCoF is forthcoming on their Restoration Blog. Should make for some fine reading.

[ptb2010]

Originally Posted by herge65

My copy should be here today. My gut reaction from the reviews and comments here is to return it immediately but I'm going to keep it, take a look and make up my own mind. Can it really be this bad? I can live with a little cropping. Academy Ratio usually loses a little info at the sides anyway. And you'll also find that the same aspect ratios (1.85:1, 1.66:1 etc) will have been cropped slightly differently in different cinemas. So a pure/perfect solution is always going to be hard to come by. There will always be some 'tolerance' space.

Can it really be this bad? you ask. Yes. the Blue Ray doesn't look like a Blue Ray! The colour is all washed out, and the image is really fuzzy at times. This is nowhere as good as the last dvd release. Rip off!

[herge65]

And here's the blog response.

http://blog.hammerfilms.com/

The OAR argument works for me!

[NoirFan]

Originally Posted by herge65

And here's the blog response.

http://blog.hammerfilms.com/

The OAR argument works for me!

There's still no explanation as to why the Frankenstein doc was dropped so that other extras could be pointlessly duplicated on both the DVD and Blu-ray. I asked, and my comment was deleted.

[Brett C]

That blog response is a joke! Projectionists at the time tilted up or down for tight shots in theaters, so what is any different in doing it for the 1.66.1 BD version? People with decades in the industry have mentioned this to deaf ears.

I would say they intentionally left it center-framed just so they can say, look how tight it is!

Saying the 1.66.1 version was center-framed in that period and the Warner framing is a modern tinkering, only makes Hammer come off as hypocrites, Can anyone say, The Devil Rides Out!

I will wait for the Warner BD if it ever comes out.

[ghostwhowalks]

Going to try not thinking about what might have been.

[jacobvongunten]

Considering how stunning Quatermass and the Pit was, this range is becoming more and more disappointing with each release, such a shame. Hopefully there will be no problems with Dracula.

[DaiShuryou]

I received my copy today and I can confirm that the movie looks very soft. I wonder what happened, because their 'Plague of the Zombies' and 'Reptile' releases were top-notch and according to some first reviews 'Rasputin' too. Maybe those really were the best elements available for them? I haven't watched the entire movie yet, but what I saw so far looked very soft. But the color boost was nice and the print seems to be in a great shape. I will write a detailed review, as soon as I had the time to watch the entire disc.