Bram Stoker's Dracula Blu-ray

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by kurtis21

Unfortunately...I believe that I read somewhere before that Coppola actually "surpervised" the blu-ray treatment and that he wanted it to look like an old film. So going by that....I doubt there will be a new release with better PQ unless the studio puts one out themselves without Coppola's input...

Not true, one of Coppola's assistants "approved" this color timing. Coppola has never given his opinion on the matter in public.

I'd like to see Sony give it a new 4K transfer, but they need to find the correct color balance. I don't believe this will get a new 4K transfer until the next home video format comes along.

[Kryptonic]

So there's no version anywhere in the world on BD that uses the old master for the new transfer? I'm watching the Superbit DVD I bought for a couple of bucks and it looks really great. I can only imagine how good a BD of this master would look.

[bcmlt91]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

So there's no version anywhere in the world on BD that uses the old master for the new transfer? I'm watching the Superbit DVD I bought for a couple of bucks and it looks really great. I can only imagine how good a BD of this master would look.

No, Looks like only Sony has the right for Home releases of this movie, and this is the only blu-ray transfer that was done by Sony. Maybe they'll release another batch of releases with a 4K Master, and this one might be in the batch. I don't own the Blu-Ray version of the film, but I own the SuperBit DVD. From what I'm reading the Superbit DVD is the best transfer so far. I think I'll buy the Blu-Ray release, soon enough though, it's one of my fav. movies.

[billyearle]

Originally Posted by ravenus

Not at all. In fact, my main grouse with the film is its title. It is NOT the Dracula that Stoker created. The closest I have seen is the BBC 1977 TV version (Count Dracula) with Louis Jourdan. Obviously, it's nowhere as visually spectacular, but the characters are a good deal closer to the source - Renfield especially is fantastic in that one.

I think it was pointed out somewhere in the extras that they titled it "Bram Stoker's..." because they couldn't get the rights to use the title "Dracula", (and it was too soon to call it Dracula 2000).
Agree with your comments on the TV film, I remember it was pretty hard to sit through. Jess Franco's Dracula is also claimed to be the most faithful film to the novel, until he ran out of money and had to come up with a slapdash ending.
It also is a bit slow, but worth checking out.

[KMR]

Originally Posted by billyearle

I think it was pointed out somewhere in the extras that they titled it "Bram Stoker's..." because they couldn't get the rights to use the title "Dracula", (and it was too soon to call it Dracula 2000).

I can't imagine who could have claimed exclusive right to the title "Dracula". Since that was the title of a work that was long in the public domain, and had been used as the title of many adaptations by many different creators over many decades, how could it have been given trademark status? If any entity actually had been granted ownership of a "Dracula" trademark that prevented any other entity from using that as the title of a film, then there's something very, very wrong with intellectual property law. (Well, I guess the last part of that sentence is a given anyway...)

[TheFilmmeFatale]

Originally Posted by KMR

I can't imagine who could have claimed exclusive right to the title "Dracula". Since that was the title of a work that was long in the public domain, and had been used as the title of many adaptations by many different creators over many decades, how could it have been given trademark status? If any entity actually had been granted ownership of a "Dracula" trademark that prevented any other entity from using that as the title of a film, then there's something very, very wrong with intellectual property law. (Well, I guess the last part of that sentence is a given anyway...)

My guess would be Universal Pictures has something to do with the trademark.

[warrian]

Originally Posted by TheFilmmeFatale

My guess would be Universal Pictures has something to do with the trademark.

They don't. Anyone who wants to can stamp Dracula on something or feature him in anything they want without paying a cent to anyone. As has been proven thousands of times.

Coppola's reason's for putting Stoker's name (and Mary Shelley's on Frankenstein) above the title are well documented. He had already done so with The Godfather films and had very much wanted to with The Outsider's as well.

[bigdaddyhorse]

Originally Posted by KMR

I can't imagine who could have claimed exclusive right to the title "Dracula". Since that was the title of a work that was long in the public domain, and had been used as the title of many adaptations by many different creators over many decades, how could it have been given trademark status? If any entity actually had been granted ownership of a "Dracula" trademark that prevented any other entity from using that as the title of a film, then there's something very, very wrong with intellectual property law. (Well, I guess the last part of that sentence is a given anyway...)

There was something in the Ed Wood movie (based on reality) about not being able to use the Dracula name, which was cleverly side-stepped by naming Lugosi's character Doctor Acula then abbreviating to Dr. Acula. It might still be trademarked or whatever, but there are tons of movies with Dracula in the title or as a character since Ed's days.

[billyearle]

Like you guys are saying, I think Universal simply threw their weight around and threatened to sue, whether they really own the copyright or not, so Copola backed down. I know I heard about this somewhere "reliable" I was almost sure it's mentioned somewhere in the bluray extras, but if not I read it in some other article that seemed authoritative. It wasn't just some guy who posts a lot on bluray.com & people believe him cause he's a "bluray samorai" making this claim. (not sayin most samurais are like that)

[yellowcakeuf6]

I was thinking of watching this again recently and checked this site for their take on the Blu-ray, and was shocked to see they have never reviewed this BD(?) - which was released in '07!

[Rizor]

Originally Posted by billyearle

Like you guys are saying, I think Universal simply threw their weight around and threatened to sue, whether they really own the copyright or not, so Copola backed down. I know I heard about this somewhere "reliable" I was almost sure it's mentioned somewhere in the bluray extras, but if not I read it in some other article that seemed authoritative. It wasn't just some guy who posts a lot on bluray.com & people believe him cause he's a "bluray samorai" making this claim. (not sayin most samurais are like that)

Yeah, I imagine it could be a case of Universal just getting all contentious about their claims to the title. Similar to how Warner Bros. didn't want The Weinstein Company to use the title "The Butler" because they had an old silent movie with the same title. Due to that debacle, we know that studios are part of some sort of title protection organization and if a member studio has an issue with a title being reused, they can throw a hissy fit and the case will be heard and ruled upon.

The 1931 Dracula was the first official Dracula film. As far as I know, the only other movies with the title simply as "Dracula" are the 1979 remake, the 2013 TV series, and possibly the upcoming Luke Evans movie (they may have renamed it). All are produced by Universal. Even the Hammer Dracula was retitled to Horror of Dracula in the US. I think there are some smaller BBC versions of Dracula that retain the title, but maybe television is exempt. So even if the title isn't trademarked or anything, it seems Universal does have some sort of claim to using it for films.

[HyperRealist]

Originally Posted by yellowcakeuf6

I was thinking of watching this again recently and checked this site for their take on the Blu-ray, and was shocked to see they have never reviewed this BD(?) - which was released in '07!

They would have gave it 5 stars like they did the original Patton.

[filmmusic]

How I wish we could get a new restoration!! :-(

[Chris60119]

This is on BBCAHD right now and it looks really good. Why the poor video review?

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by Chris60119

This is on BBCAHD right now and it looks really good. Why the poor video review?

The HD TV transfer may be more in tune with the older, brighter look of the film. The Blu-Ray was darkened drastically as per Coppola's wishes (whether he has stated as much publicly or not, that's what American Zoetrope says and there's no proof otherwise).

[Chris60119]

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

The HD TV transfer may be more in tune with the older, brighter look of the film. The Blu-Ray was darkened drastically as per Coppola's wishes (whether he has stated as much publicly or not, that's what American Zoetrope says and there's no proof otherwise).

Is the bluray just darker? As long as theres no grain I'm fine with it being darker.

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by Chris60119

Is the bluray just darker? As long as theres no grain I'm fine with it being darker.

Significantly darker. Also, grain is inherent to 35mm film. If the grain's not visible then that's not a proper transfer.

[Chris60119]

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

Significantly darker. Also, grain is inherent to 35mm film. If the grain's not visible then that's not a proper transfer.

I'm not seeing much if any on BBC right now. Movie looks great. Watching it on a 60" Plazma

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by Chris60119

Is the bluray just darker? As long as theres no grain I'm fine with it being darker.

It's not that is just darker.
It's that you can't see the writings that were imposed on the picture as a special effect, as they were supposed to be seen!

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by Chris60119

I'm not seeing much if any on BBC right now. Movie looks great. Watching it on a 60" Plazma

IIRC the TV master is different.