Midnight Cowboy (1969)

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Not that I think that it will matter to you because I can see that you're ferociously fighting the good fight and you'll just find some new excuse, but for those who are more objective, here's a screencap from this site, with a color sample taken from a shirt that is clearly supposed to be white:



This is the color from the black square:



And this is what white looks like:



If you don't believe me, feel free to do the color sampling yourself.

I’m not ferociously fighting any good fight, I’m honestly asking in earnest for people who are expert at this to give me an assist. My understanding of transfers that have a blanket teal is that they have a very blue cast over the entire image, much like that example provided of The King And I. I’m just not seeing that in any of these images.

I have already acknowledged in a previous post that some shots look green. Some people have posted that this could be due to the lighting or possible colour choices by the DP.

That leaves shots like that one of Brenda Vacarro. There is no blue (or green) to be seen. The whites look white, skin tones look natural. Does that happen where only certain scenes are given a weird colour “bath”? Because my impression was that it’s usually something that affects the whole film, a la the yellow tint on The Good The Bad and the Ugly.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

The funny thing is that when you watch a 35mm film being projected, the whites aren't actually pure white anyway yet if a Blu-ray release's whites aren't #ffffff it's somehow revisionist.

Back in the day people would just sit down and watch films when they were first released and nobody would even think of complaining about the color timing even though you'd see plenty of films that look like their respective 4K remasters/restorations.

Nowadays you have people that freak out and start using buzzphrases like "blanket tint", that nobody who knows what they're talking about would use unironically, when a remaster doesn't look like "real life". Obviously people that have zero clue what they are talking about and people who have been proven wrong with undispiutable evidence in the past when they falsely accuse something of being revisionist when it's not, while they ironically barely ever criticise garbage from Ritrovata and Eclair which in most cases is revisionist.

It's got to the point that you have people wasting countless hours of their lives removing "blanket tints" that don't even exist from Blu-rays while labeling their revisionist fan edits as preservations. Yet these same people wonder why professional colorists and film preservationists don't take them seriously, and they wonder why not everybody else is willing to sheepishly follow their lead.

I haven't seen Midnight Cowboy in 35mm but the Criterion sure as hell looks more like a photochemically timed film than the MGM which as I've said before looks exactly like every other one of MGM's older masters. As always, these "debates" mostly always come down to people not knowing about photochemical color timing, different lighting methods, what happens when you shoot tungsten in daylight without an 85 filter, etc., just a bunch of people on some sheepish "blanket tint" witch hunt throwing out the same old regurgitated phrases which barely ever apply.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Obviously people that have zero clue what they are talking about and people who have been proven wrong with undispiutable evidence in the past when they falsely accuse something of being revisionist when it's not, while they ironically barely ever criticise garbage from Ritrovata and Eclair which in most cases is revisionist.

I criticise anything that I think looks off no matter who released it or who remastered it. I don't play favourites and have no relationship with any company.

If Midnight Cowboy looks teal now when it didn't before, how are we, as consumers, supposed to tell if that's accurate, as opposed to, say, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, which isn't?

I could easily envision a situation whereby I make a post here suggesting that TGTBTU's teal was down to intent and then get flooded with responses along the lines of 'it's obviously been tealed, you idiot!'.

What makes MC different? And how can we tell?

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by AnamorphicWidescreen

I've been a huge fan of MC for years. And, I just recently re-watched the film on the 2011 Blu.

And - after seeing the trailer for the Criterion Blu-ray (several posts back), I honestly cannot see a significant difference between the 2011 Blu & the PQ/color of this new Criterion Blu.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=156

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Yeah, the sunlight that is clearly piercing through the window on the left side of the shot sure is fluorescent.

There is a lot of denial about this. Many people on here have accepted that explanation hook line and sinker for why so many old films have green hues when they turn up on blu remastered. Are we really supposed to believe that BS? That every single goddamn video or theatrical version we saw in the past was wrong until now?

I'd wager that is the exception rather than the rule.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Markgway

I criticise anything that I think looks off no matter who released it or who remastered it. I don't play favourites and have no relationship with any company.

If Midnight Cowboy looks teal now when it didn't before, how are we, as consumers, supposed to tell if that's accurate, as opposed to, say, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, which isn't?

I could easily envision a situation whereby I make a post here suggesting that TGTBTU's teal was down to intent and then get flooded with responses along the lines of 'it's obviously been tealed, you idiot!'.

What makes MC different? And how can we tell?

Fans who post on here have multiple IB Tech prints of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly which don't look anything like the remaster, I've seen a recent showing of a 35mm print, the colors in the Ritrovata remaster cause purely digital anomalies that wouldn't be seen in a photochemically-timed print.

There is absolutely zero evidence going against the look of Midnight Cowboy. It is unfair to criticize it especially when the people already throwing around labels haven't even seen the disc. Not to mention that this happens with so many remasters: folks see screenshot comparisons, freak out then go silent when the disc is released because they realize that nothing was wrong with the disc in the first place.

This behavior has gotten so bad that some labels have started completely removing on-set stylish lighting caused by color gels, intentional color biases and the like because people see it as a flaw and it's not "natural" enough for them. Too many people want your typical MGM magenta-pushed DVD masters, filmmaker intentions be damned.

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

This behavior has gotten so bad that some labels have started completely removing on-set stylish lighting caused by color gels, intentional color biases and the like because people see it as a flaw and it's not "natural" enough for them. Too many people want your typical MGM magenta-pushed DVD masters, filmmaker intentions be damned.

At this point it’s cringeworthy when people cry “teal” or they have no clue how color timing work. The mentality for a lot of folks is that if an older film is not “neutral” or “natural” it’s not good. There are real cases of real revisionism like with Shout’s release of “The Thing” that looks dramatically different from every home video release and how a lot of people were okay with it.

[myway]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

The funny thing is that when you watch a 35mm film being projected, the whites aren't actually pure white anyway yet if a Blu-ray release's whites aren't #ffffff it's somehow revisionist.

Back in the day people would just sit down and watch films when they were first released and nobody would even think of complaining about the color timing even though you'd see plenty of films that look like their respective 4K remasters/restorations.

Nowadays you have people that freak out and start using buzzphrases like "blanket tint", that nobody who knows what they're talking about would use unironically, when a remaster doesn't look like "real life". Obviously people that have zero clue what they are talking about and people who have been proven wrong with undispiutable evidence in the past when they falsely accuse something of being revisionist when it's not, while they ironically barely ever criticise garbage from Ritrovata and Eclair which in most cases is revisionist.

It's got to the point that you have people wasting countless hours of their lives removing "blanket tints" that don't even exist from Blu-rays while labeling their revisionist fan edits as preservations. Yet these same people wonder why professional colorists and film preservationists don't take them seriously, and they wonder why not everybody else is willing to sheepishly follow their lead.

I haven't seen Midnight Cowboy in 35mm but the Criterion sure as hell looks more like a photochemically timed film than the MGM which as I've said before looks exactly like every other one of MGM's older masters. As always, these "debates" mostly always come down to people not knowing about photochemical color timing, different lighting methods, what happens when you shoot tungsten in daylight without an 85 filter, etc., just a bunch of people on some sheepish "blanket tint" witch hunt throwing out the same old regurgitated phrases which barely ever apply.

If you needed to be a photochemist to have an opinion on how a movie should look then this site wouldn't exist

The guy's wearing a white shirt and it looks aqua-green in those caps. Even if it would have looked like that projected somewhere 50 years ago, I don't think that's an appropriate standard for us today.

[CinemaScope]

Well I know how colour timing works. I was a colour grader in a film lab for 20 years & a Telecine Colourist for another 20, & yes, there's a lot of crying wolf, but people should be allowed air their views on sites like this. I'm old enough to have seen these films at the cinema all those years ago, & I suspect a lot of the colourist working on them now weren't even born then. When they work from the original they can do any look they like, all bets are off, but a lot of the time the results look great, Ben-Hur, Lawrence Of Arabia, Spartacus, My Fair Lady, One-Eyed Jacks & many more. The cool look seems to be in right now, actually I'm not a fan of this film, so I'm not bothered about it, but I don't like colour washes, blue greys (greys should be neutral) or crushed blacks (just so many reasons not to like The Good The Bad & The Ugly), & I don't always assume that the DVD was wrong.

[CQD84]

It seems like I'm in the minority of folks who'll buy this movie and enjoy it no matter what the color grading is. I understand that some of you care deeply but from the posts I've read, it's extreme nitpicking.

[The Sovereign]

Originally Posted by CQD84

It seems like I'm in the minority of folks who'll buy this movie and enjoy it no matter what the color grading is. I understand that some of you care deeply but from the posts I've read, it's extreme nitpicking.

Yeah, same here – might be a good time to remember that we don’t all see color the same way. And white isn't always white. Go check out a paint store if you don't know what I mean.

Regardless, I’ve yet to see anything that convinces me of a teal conspiracy. The diner – like many diners – has a pastel color scheme. Got it. The walls are a sea green. But I can still focus enough to see a white shirt, a white plate, a white dishrag, and a white napkin. Brown, black, pink, cream, green, grey, beige, gold, and white skin tones are all coexisting nicely. I’ve looked at twenty other screen shots that contain no blue, green or teal at all. I’ve seen a couple of others that do. But for it to be a real issue to me, I need to see it across the board in every shot. I don’t, so it’s not.

[Namuhana]

Thank God I'm color blind.

[Egbert Souse]

Criterion should stop consulting DoPs and referencing original prints in favor of asking the internet for advice on how to color grade transfers.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

I’m not ferociously fighting any good fight, I’m honestly asking in earnest for people who are expert at this to give me an assist. My understanding of transfers that have a blanket teal is that they have a very blue cast over the entire image, much like that example provided of The King And I. I’m just not seeing that in any of these images.

I have already acknowledged in a previous post that some shots look green. Some people have posted that this could be due to the lighting or possible colour choices by the DP.

That leaves shots like that one of Brenda Vacarro. There is no blue (or green) to be seen. The whites look white, skin tones look natural. Does that happen where only certain scenes are given a weird colour “bath”? Because my impression was that it’s usually something that affects the whole film, a la the yellow tint on The Good The Bad and the Ugly.

The problem with these discussions is that everyone keeps throwing around the term "blanket teal." There's no blanket teal on this. They didn't just throw a teal filter over everything. People should learn about color grading first THEN come in to make a discussion.

There are close to pure whites in other scenes., this no "blanket" teal. But certain colors have been times cooler for sure, and in other scenes, a little more yellow. They didn't;t just throw a filter on it and call its day, the film was graded scene by scene.

So people can stop with the "blanket" statements because it's 100% false.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

The problem with these discussions is that everyone keeps throwing around the term "blanket teal." There's no blanket teal on this. They didn't just throw a teal filter over everything. People should learn about color grading first THEN come in to make a discussion.

There are close to pure whites in other scenes., this no "blanket" teal. But certain colors have been times cooler for sure, and in other scenes, a little more yellow. They didn't;t just throw a filter on it and call its day, the film was graded scene by scene.

So people can stop with the "blanket" statements because it's 100% false.

Thank you. And for those scenes that people seem to be having the biggest problems with, the green in the diner scene, do you believe there’s a reasonable explanation for that besides people’s complaints about “revisionism”?

[Kyle15]

There's definitely not a blanket tint to this at all and I'm no expert on the subject. It's clearly scene by scene and even then I don't notice any swathes of color invading the image.

[sperezmore]

Does anybody can see the green?

Criterion


MGM


Criterion


MGM


Criterion


MGM


Kind regards,

[JohnCarpenterFan]

From the Blu-ray.com review

Adam Holender - in this brand new video essay, cinematographer Adam Holender discusses in great detail the visual style of Midnight Cowboy and specifically how light was treated in various key sequences to get the right ambience. Also, there are excellent comments about specific location shots as well as unique lensing choices. Fantastic information. The essay was created exclusively for Criterion in February 2018. In English, not subtitled. (26 min).

No doubt this will be very informative and will shed light on why the film looks the way it does.

Originally Posted by myway

If you needed to be a photochemist to have an opinion on how a movie should look then this site wouldn't exist

The guy's wearing a white shirt and it looks aqua-green in those caps. Even if it would have looked like that projected somewhere 50 years ago, I don't think that's an appropriate standard for us today.

These films should look like how they were intended to look by the filmmakers themselves. If people are repulsed that a film from 50 years ago doesn't fit today's standards then they shouldn't be watching them. Expecting the filmmakers to ruin the integrity of their film to meet the demands of entitled whiners who want every film to look the same is ridiculous.

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

The comparison screen shots above between the MC 2011 MGM Blu & the forthcoming Criterion Blu are very informative.

I strongly prefer the 2011 MGM Blu. The PQ is lighter, clearer, and doesn't have the "green-ish" tint in each scene. In these three scenes, the most obvious green tint are the ones with the dishwasher in TX (in the beginning of the film), and the scene with Ratso shining shoes.

However, in Ratso's fantasy sequence at the pool, you can see some obvious green coloring there as well in the Criterion shot; conversely, in the MGM shot the colors look more "normal", and you don't see as much - if any - green. Notice the colors of the pool & the colors of the wall in the back; these are green-ish in the Criterion shot, and are more natural colors in the MGM shot.

And, I could care less what the "film-makers intended" when they made the film 50 years ago. My strong preference is to see a crisper, clearer picture instead of a dark, muted picture.

[captainjoe]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Yeah, the sunlight that is clearly piercing through the window on the left side of the shot sure is fluorescent.

Do you mean the sunlight behind them that's not casting light on the front of them? There's a different colour temperature of fill light that's not 5600k