Midnight Cowboy (1969)

[sperezmore]

Criterion has a history

The green looks familiar?

Criterion - Dressed to Kill


Arrow Films - Dressed to Kill


Criterion - Dressed to Kill


Arrow Films - Dressed to Kill


Criterion - Dressed to Kill


Arrow Films - Dressed to Kill


Criterion - Scanners


Second Sight - Scanners


Criterion - Scanners


Second Sight - Scanners


Criterion - Scanners


Second Sight - Scanners


Criterion - Midnight Cowboy


MGM - Midnight Cowboy


Criterion - Midnight Cowboy


MGM - Midnight Cowboy


Criterion - Midnight Cowboy


MGM - Midnight Cowboy


Criterion - Midnight Cowboy


MGM - Midnight Cowboy


For the record, I do love The Criterion Collection. In my Blu-ray/Blu-ray Audio/DVD/SACD/DVD Audio collection with more than 3000 titles I proudly own 147 criterion (Blu-ray/DVD) titles and hopefully many more in the future.

Kind regards,

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

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”?

I think it's 6 of one and half dozen of the other. I'm not well versed on how this looked theatrically like I am other films that have had revisionist color gradings, but just looking ta caps, neither the old blu OR the new blu look correct. Whites on the old blu (in those green scenes) look nice, but the rest of the image pulls red. Whites on the new blu lean green and the whole scene leans green, although (and this is where it's interesting) the blacks seem solidly black. Many of the problems of recent remasters is to "cool" the blacks into the blue spectrum, which is much more bothersome to me than grading other colors. My guess would be the "proper" theatrical version may lean somewhere in between, but different film stocks push different colors into blacks and highlights. That's where scanning form the negative then re-grading becomes problematic, because it's tough to know exactly what was originally times out chemically unless there are very solid prints still in existence. And even then, it depends on color gamut (often times, like the 4K HDR versions of, say, Blade Runner and Wild, the 4K disc looks much less teal/green than the blu because it has a wider spectrum and colors don't mush together).

Originally Posted by AnamorphicWidescreen

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.

Basically, I don't care what the artists made and wanted, I just want it MY way. Entitlement culture at it's finest.

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Basically, I don't care what the artists made and wanted, I just want it MY way. Entitlement culture at it's finest.

Actually, I want the PQ, sound, and color to look it's best. This is why I'm an HD fan in the first place. If this means I prefer a print that's an obvious improvement on the original artist's "vision", then so be it.

If you don't like the way a film looks in a certain format - or by a certain manufacturer/distributor - you're free to vote with your wallet & not purchase the film in that format or by that distributor. This is why threads & screen caps like this exist - so that we can get an idea of the film prior to seeing/purchasing this. I myself will be sticking with the 2011 MGM Blu of MC, since I don't see that the Criterion version's PQ is any better - in fact, I see it as being worse.

If you want to spend money on the new Criterion MC transfer with an obvious greenish tint, more power to you. But, I for one am not drinking the Criterion MC Kool Aid. Yes, I appreciate the fact that Criterion brings older films out of obscurity & makes them available to a wider audience - and, typically I find that, for the most part, they do a good job on their film transfer(s). However, they're not infallible & I'm not always impressed by their prints - and, I'm definitely not impressed by this forthcoming MC release.

That all being said, I am a fan of the new MC Criterion disk cover art - however, it's not worth it to me to get a film just for the cover.

[sperezmore]

Originally Posted by AnamorphicWidescreen

Actually, I want the PQ, sound, and color to look it's best. This is why I'm an HD fan in the first place.

If you don't like the way a film looks in a certain format - or by a certain manufacturer/distributor - you're free to vote with your wallet & not purchase the film in that format or by that distributor. This is why threads & screen caps like this exist - so that we can get an idea of the film prior to seeing/purchasing this. I myself will be sticking with the 2011 MGM Blu of MC, since I don't see that the Criterion version's PQ is any better - in fact, I see it as being worse.

If you want to spend money on the new Criterion MC transfer with an obvious greenish tint, more power to you. But, I for one am not drinking the Criterion MC Kool Aid. Yes, I appreciate the fact that Criterion brings older films out of obscurity & makes them available to a wider audience - and, typically I find that, for the most part, they do a good job on their film transfer(s). However, they're not infallible & I'm not always impressed by their prints - and, I'm definitely not impressed by this forthcoming MC release.

That all being said, I am a fan of the new MC Criterion disk cover art - however, it's not worth it to me to get a film just for the cover.

Please, rent the criterion disc and make your own decision, do not base your decision only on screen caps and reviews from other sources. Personally, that's what I do. (That's what I did with Dressed to Kill, the Arrow Films blu-ray release was my pick after checking the discs)

Kind regards,

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well, you were kind of making a reasonable point until that last paragraph. That's kind of a ridiculous statement to make, particularly if the crisper, clearer picture is the total opposite of what the film is supposed to look like. The Predator Ultimate Hunter Edition has a crisper, clearer picture, are you one of the few who prefer that one too?

Originally Posted by sperezmore

My advise,

Please, rent the criterion disc and make your own decision, do not base your decision only on screen caps and reviews from other sources. Personally, that's what I do. (That's what I did with Dressed to Kill, the Arrow Films blu-ray release was my pick)

Kind regards,

Well, for some people renting isn't really an option. You're right about checking around various sources and making your own decision, after all you're the one watching the movie and if the MGM disc is what makes you happiest, go for it.

I would strongly advise though at relying on caps posted by DVD Beaver. He recently posted caps of the Twilight Time release of The Seven-Ups which, in comparison to the European releases, did make me a little worried. But when I watched the actual disc, it looked amazing! Recently caps-a-holic posted screencap comparisons which made it very evident that the Twilight Time is superior in every way to the noisy, washed-out looking European discs.

PS - I clicked on your home theatre photos, looks like a cozy place to have a few drinks and watch movies!

[sperezmore]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Well, for some people renting isn't really an option. You're right about checking around various sources and making your own decision, after all you're the one watching the movie and if the MGM disc is what makes you happiest, go for it.

I would strongly advise though at relying on caps posted by DVD Beaver. He recently posted caps of the Twilight Time release of The Seven-Ups which, in comparison to the European releases, did make me a little worried. But when I watched the actual disc, it looked amazing! Recently caps-a-holic posted screencap comparisons which made it very evident that the Twilight Time is superior in every way to the noisy, washed-out looking European discs.

PS - I clicked on your home theatre photos, looks like a cozy place to have a few drinks and watch movies!

Thank you

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Well, you were kind of making a reasonable point until that last paragraph. That's kind of a ridiculous statement to make, particularly if the crisper, clearer picture is the total opposite of what the film is supposed to look like. The Predator Ultimate Hunter Edition has a crisper, clearer picture, are you one of the few who prefer that one too?

I have no idea, since I've never seen the Predator Ultimate Hunter Edition.

[BluProofie]

Originally Posted by 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.

Ignoring the different color timing, the Criterion is definitely clearer and more detailed.

[Shanghai Express]

Definitely sticking with my MGM on this one. It may not be the absolute clearest, slickest, most detailed and up-to-date presentation of the film, but at least it doesn't look like it had an Instagram filter dropped on it. When I think of Midnight Cowboy I think of the look of many other films made in NYC in the late 60s and 70s. Gritty, grainy movies with muted, neutral colors and all that stuff. On the clothes, in rooms, in the streets. The MGM gives me exactly that. I'm a Criterion fan for life but I'll never be convinced this new release is the truest Midnight Cowboy we've yet had. If that is so, why hadn't anyone involved in the film spoken up about the inadequacy of previous prints and releases? These are not minor changes; these are two completely different looks to the film. The kind of thing someone would have noticed in fifty years. That cap of the dishwasher alone... I laughed when I saw it. It's just not realistic.

Also, I noticed that Criterion is including the mid-2000s DVD trailer instead of any of the theatrical trailers. Why? That DVD trailer looks fanmade and has neither artistic nor historical value.

[JoeBuck]

Originally Posted by mrmikefern

Definitely sticking with my MGM on this one. It may not be the absolute clearest, slickest, most detailed and up-to-date presentation of the film, but at least it doesn't look like it had an Instagram filter dropped on it. When I think of Midnight Cowboy I think of the look of many other films made in NYC in the late 60s and 70s. Gritty, grainy movies with muted, neutral colors and all that stuff. On the clothes, in rooms, in the streets. The MGM gives me exactly that. I'm a Criterion fan for life but I'll never be convinced this new release is the truest Midnight Cowboy we've yet had. If that is so, why hadn't anyone involved in the film spoken up about the inadequacy of previous prints and releases? These are not minor changes; these are two completely different looks to the film. The kind of thing someone would have noticed in fifty years. That cap of the dishwasher alone... I laughed when I saw it. It's just not realistic.

Also, I noticed that Criterion is including the mid-2000s DVD trailer instead of any of the theatrical trailers. Why? That DVD trailer looks fanmade and has neither artistic nor historical value.

Thankfully the Criterion doesn't look like it had an Instagram filter applied either which is obvious while looking at the caps from the party scenes and various other screenshots.
I could care less how some shots look beside screenshots from the old release, wanna know why? Because I'm only going to watch one disc at a time.
The criterion release of Dressed to Kill looks beautiful on my tv and this will too, despite differences in a few scenes.
Will be sure to post the findings from the new interview on the visual style of the film too.

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

Originally Posted by BluProofie

Ignoring the different color timing, the Criterion is definitely clearer and more detailed.

I disagree with this. The MGM print is lighter in many scenes than the darker Criterion print - therefore, the scenes are more difficult to make out in the Criterion version.

[myway]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

From the Blu-ray.com review



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



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.

Right; and you think the filmmakers intended that guy's white outfit to be teal? You think there was fluorescent lighting on the beach?

[jackinbox]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

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.

I totally agree. The problem is that we don't know if the Criterion is truly representative of what was intended.

Didn't Schlesinger supervise the Criterion LD? Perhaps someone should take a look at that. Yes, it's an old transfer, but it should give us an idea of what sort of look he was going for.

[UseY0ur1llusi0n]

Originally Posted by Dave Mack

the clips in the Criterion Trailer look wonderful imho

You realize they're based off the old MGM master, right?

[UseY0ur1llusi0n]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

[Show spoiler]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.

Great post as always JC. The compression's still trash tho... and inexcusable for someone like 'Criterion' to have the audacity to shit out.

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by UseY0ur1llusi0n

Great post as always JC. but the compression's still trash, and inexcusable for someone like 'Criterion' to have the audacity to shit out.

You'd think that with Criterion that at least 35 mps would be the standard with the majority of their releases. They should take notes from WAC.

[JoeBuck]

Originally Posted by UseY0ur1llusi0n

Great post as always JC. The compression's still trash tho... and inexcusable for someone like 'Criterion' to have the audacity to shit out.

I still don't know how you people ever notice this shit, because I've yet to see any problems with these supposed problems when watching them on my tv.
Chances are it won't with this one either, thankfully.

[UseY0ur1llusi0n]

Originally Posted by JoeBuck

I still don't know how you people ever notice this shit, because I've yet to see any problems with these supposed problems when watching them on my tv.

This? It's blatantly obvious in the caps and pretty common to see spotty pixelization on various Criterion discs these days... it's become a literal trend with them (and their 'cheap' 4K restorations).

[UseY0ur1llusi0n]

To be fair though, it doesn't inflict all their releases. It's a total crap shoot.

Also, I don't always watch my BDs via TV. Sometimes I feel like watching it on my PC. It's unfortunate every time I want to pause the freakin movie some frame looks like a crappy macroblockfest. It won't just 'go away'. It's there forever. I've seen Mill Creek discs compressed better.

But OF COURSE, there'll always be "you people" continually defending shoddy encoding practices (ahah)

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by sperezmore

Criterion has a history
Kind regards,

Checkmate.

This debate is over.