Midnight Cowboy (1969)

[Fat Phil]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

People have always used and will forever continue to use the "approved" label when it fits their agenda. There are several examples that show the "approved" labeling is worthless. You have a Shout Factory and Arrow's releases of The Thing that were somehow both approved by the cinematographer yet look completely different.

Would you be willing to make "this guy thinks he knows more than the director" jokes if I said that the second release of The French Connection beats the first one?

We find some common ground here. Like you, i'm a little skeptical about any 'approved/supervised' label because it could mean pretty much anything (different levels of involvement etc). What is far more important to me is provenance i.e. some mention of what has been used as a reference for colour correction. Criterion's Midnight Cowboy transfer does specify a reliable source - you just don't like the end result.

Criterion's Bull Durham looks 'off' to me. It was approved by the director but I would like to know more than just that. I really want to know how they arrived at those colours - what reference was used other than memory? I'm definitely curious to see if they've specified anything in the accompanying booklet. Time will tell.

Originally Posted by RCRochester

No, I wouldn't. Because William Friedkin outright admitted that he deliberately altered the look of The French Connection for its first blu-ray release. The second release came about because its DP, Owen Roizman, spoke about against what Friedkin did and became involved to ensure that the new release looked correct.

That video of Friedkin supervising the colour correction is unintentionally hilarious

[tama]

This shot says it all with how horrendous the magenta push on the old MGM disc is.

https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?g...18567&i=12&l=1

[JoeBuck]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

And despite how you may feel about the MGM looking like s*** (I happen to think it looks acceptable, not great, but acceptable), the MGM has a pretty good excuse for looking like s*** - it's a 2011 release sourced from an ancient master.

And I don't really have anything against you preferring the color of the Criterion, as long as you don't deny that the Criterion has been tealed. If you like revisionist teal, then cool. As long as you don't try to use crap excuses like "fluorescent lighting" to justify the insane amount of tealness in screencap 7, when in fact there is a clear evidence of tealing on screencap 1 that is an exterior shot on a sunny day:

http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=...9&l=1&i=0&go=1

Those must have been some powerful fluorescent lights they used if they were capable of overpowering the sun itself.

Funny, a person who has yet to watch the disc whatsoever trying to make bullshit claims without watching the actual disc. Problem is is that YES screenshot 7 IS the goddamn lighting, you would know this had you, I dont know, seen the actual transfer. Its really easy to see the glow off them when watching the movie.

The only part that looks off is the opening 5 minutes under the credits, the rest looks glorious. I know this because I own and have actually watched it in motion.

You can try and deflect as much as you want but your opinion is totally useless without watching it from beginning to end.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

You'd think that some people actually thought that what what is captured on film by a camera should look like how the human eye sees it or that color timing didn't exist before O Brother, Where Art Thou?

People are so used to seeing white balanced DVD masters that look nothing like film, that when they get something that actually looks like film, they freak out and spam threads with Blu-ray.com buzzwords.

Imagine these people while watching the original 35mm prints for these films back in the day where colors would sometimes change from shot-to-shot, or one reel would be greener than the rest of the film.

Also, where is the proof that this is "revisionist". If you are going to make claims and use typical Blu-ray/OT.com buzzwords then at least peovide some evidenve to back up your point.

There have been far too many instances of posters in the past attacking a "revisionist" Blu-ray, only for them to go silent when it turns out that the original prints looked that way while previous home video relases didn't or that a specific process was used to create a more sttlish look. Do these people ever learn? Of course not, they just move onto another disc to attack and the process repeats itself giving this site a bad reputation in the eyes of those who actually work in the industry.

[I KEEL YOU]

Again, all the e-experts on how "film is supposed to look" need to contact the little label with the horrible track record called Arrow, who refused to release Criterion's tealed up version of The Tree of Wooden Clogs and instead of taking the cheaper route and releasing the tealed up master, they decided to color time their own release from scratch:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film6/blu-r...gs_blu-ray.htm

Also, I would really like to hear the opinion from the experts on how "film is supposed to look" on the vast color difference between the two cuts of The Color of Pomegranates:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film6/blu-r...es_blu-ray.htm

They can't both be equally accurate.

And funny how you attack me for admitting not seeing the blu ray release and basing my opinion off screencaps (and numerous other instances where I DO own the blu ray and find the tealed up caps to be accurate). I'm just curious, what would your reply be to this guy here:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=127

[Fat Phil]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Again, all the e-experts on how "film is supposed to look" need to contact the little label with the horrible track record called Arrow, who refused to release Criterion's tealed up version of The Tree of Wooden Clogs and instead of taking the cheaper route and releasing the tealed up master, they decided to color time their own release from scratch:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film6/blu-r...gs_blu-ray.htm

Also, I would really like to hear the opinion from the experts on how "film is supposed to look" on the vast color difference between the two cuts of The Color of Pomegranates:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film6/blu-r...es_blu-ray.htm

They can't both be equally accurate.

And funny how you attack me for admitting not seeing the blu ray release and basing my opinion off screencaps (and numerous other instances where I DO own the blu ray and find the tealed up caps to be accurate). I'm just curious, what would your reply be to this guy here:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=127

Your argument is certainly a wild ride. You're all over the place.

Of course Arrow's Tree of Wooden Clogs is more faithful. They actually specify a reference for colour correction - "A 35mm vintage print preserved by Cinecitta was used as a grading reference." just as Criterion have provided a solid reference for (drum roll)......Midnight Cowboy.

Tree of Wooden Clogs was a 'restoration' done by the hacks at Ritrovata and like all their other 'restorations', it was severely compromised by incompetence. Criterion stupidly released it as it was provided to them when they should have done the due diligence. Their mistake.

Having said that, none of your talk about these other titles strengthens your argument about Midnight Cowboy. You still have not provided a single shred of evidence (hard or soft) to back up you claim that the Criterion is incorrect and as such, you're wasting everyone's time.

As for how i'd reply to that guy's comment you linked to. The guy who saw Midnight Cowboy 'countless times' nearly fifty years ago and can remember how it looked. I'd laugh for a while, then maybe fall to my knees laughing, then i'd perhaps roll around on the floor and laugh a little more, dry my sweet laughter tears. Then say "bulls***"

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Again, all the e-experts on how "film is supposed to look" need to contact the little label with the horrible track record called Arrow, who refused to release Criterion's tealed up version of The Tree of Wooden Clogs and instead of taking the cheaper route and releasing the tealed up master, they decided to color time their own release from scratch:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film6/blu-r...gs_blu-ray.htm

Also, I would really like to hear the opinion from the experts on how "film is supposed to look" on the vast color difference between the two cuts of The Color of Pomegranates:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film6/blu-r...es_blu-ray.htm

They can't both be equally accurate.

And funny how you attack me for admitting not seeing the blu ray release and basing my opinion off screencaps (and numerous other instances where I DO own the blu ray and find the tealed up caps to be accurate). I'm just curious, what would your reply be to this guy here:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=127

At least do some research before posting such ill-informed misinformation.

The Tree of Wooden Clogs and The Color of Pomegranates were done by Ritrovata, not Criterion. Arrow have used plenty (more than Criterion actually) botched Ritrovata "restorations" in the past, so they're not "innocent" themselves. They just took what they were given, just like Criterion have done.

As for what experts think about these Ritrovata remasters, actual colorists and archivists have called their work out plenty of times and with good reason:

*Their remasters have been proven inaccurate in the past when compared to actual prints of the films they remastered.

*Purely digital anomalies appear in their remasters because of the color. Nothing of the sort appears in Midnight Cowboy.

Memories from five decades ago regarding the specific look of a film mean nothing. Same applies to those who say that it does look like how it looked when first projected. I don't even trust my own memories from when older films first came out, I'll only comment on the look of a print if I've seen it projected recently.

Comparing an MGM remaster supervised by the DP with a print approved by the director and producer to Ritrovata remasters is comparing apples to oranges. The fact that you're trying to compare the two tells me that you aren't informed about the situation at all and definitely shouldn't be labelling the Criterion Blu-ray of Midnight Cowboy as "revisionist" when there's nothing of the sort that suggests it is.

You can play a victim and act as if you're getting attacked all you want. You just called out a Blu-ray as being revisionist without any evidence at all, and are being challenged. Deal with it.

[I KEEL YOU]

In other words, you essentially admit (with the Tree of Wooden Clogs example) that Criterion has no problems with releasing tealed up transfers, even though they could've made them look more natural if they wanted to, like Arrow did with their release?

And since you admit that the Tree of Wooden Clogs Criterion was a faulty master that wasn't made by them, but just released by them, then please tell me, which of these two pairs of interior shots are color timing buddies:









Someone who was defending the faulty (admitted by you as well) tealed-up Criterion release of The Tree of Wooden Clogs could just as easily have cried "fluorescent lighting", "supposed to look like that", "you don't know anything about how film is supposed to look", etc.

It's ironic that someone named JohnCarpenterFan hypes up the approval of a cinematographer considering that the cinematographer of a John Carpenter movie approved two releases that look as different as this:

http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=11006&d2=11009&c=4380

And since you talk about research, you've got it the other way around:

A 35mm theatrical print made for the 2004 twenty-fifth anniversary of the film -- supervised by director John Schlesinger, producer Jerome Hellman, and cinematographer Adam Holender -- was referenced for color correction. The 4K digital restoration was approved by Holender.

The 2004 print was "supervised". The new 4K restoration was "approved". Not that I really trust in those terms anyway. And 1969 to 2004 is a lot of years for someone who doesn't even trust his own memory to trust the one from another. Especially a JohnCarpenterFan, whose cinematographer approved two releases of The Thing that were released a year apart, and that look as different as these two releases of Midnight Cowboy.

My "revisionism" statement wasn't meant for this particular release of Midnight Cowboy alone, I was talking about the whole phenomenon of tealing that plagues many newer releases (The Tree of Wooden Clogs, Bull Durham, Scanners, The Terminators, etc.) Midnight Cowboy clearly falls into this category as well.

I'm not playing victim. I've been here long enough to know what was going to happen as soon as you attack Criterion, so I was expecting this to happen.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

In other words, you essentially admit (with the Tree of Wooden Clogs example) that Criterion has no problems with releasing tealed up transfers, even though they could've made them look more natural if they wanted to, like Arrow did with their release?

And since you admit that the Tree of Wooden Clogs Criterion was a faulty master that wasn't made by them, but just released by them, then please tell me, which of these two pairs of interior shots are color timing buddies:

[Show spoiler]

Someone who was defending the faulty (admitted by you as well) tealed-up Criterion release of The Tree of Wooden Clogs could just as easily have cried "fluorescent lighting", "supposed to look like that", "you don't know anything about how film is supposed to look", etc.

It's ironic that someone named JohnCarpenterFan hypes up the approval of a cinematographer considering that the cinematographer of a John Carpenter movie approved two releases that look as different as this:

http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=11006&d2=11009&c=4380

And since you talk about research, you've got it the other way around:



The 2004 print was "supervised". The new 4K restoration was "approved". Not that I really trust in those terms anyway. And 1969 to 2004 is a lot of years for someone who doesn't even trust his own memory to trust the one from another. Especially a JohnCarpenterFan, whose cinematographer approved two releases of The Thing that were released a year apart, and that look as different as these two releases of Midnight Cowboy.

My "revisionism" statement wasn't meant for this particular release of Midnight Cowboy alone, I was talking about the whole phenomenon of tealing that plagues many newer releases (The Tree of Wooden Clogs, Bull Durham, Scanners, The Terminators, etc.) Midnight Cowboy clearly falls into this category as well.

I'm not playing victim. I've been here long enough to know what was going to happen as soon as you attack Criterion, so I was expecting this to happen.

Those two images have nothing in common. One is the result of fluorescent lighting, the other is the result of a badly messed-up LUT from Ritrovata. The former is possible on film, the latter, not so much. Big difference, unless you're one of those people that just wants everything to look like real life regardless of artistic intent or how the look was achieved.

As for your comments about Cundey (which have nothing to do with this conversation), I said at the time SF's The Thing came out, that something was wrong with The Thing and a handful of other SF titles released around the same time. The producer of The Thing stated that the color looked like a "mistake" on the SF because it was apparent that there was some sort of error introduced when it was being ported to disc. Ditto for Road House and Transformers: The Movie.

The print was supervised by the director, DP and producer. People who have intimate knowledge of the film. They are much more reliable than an audience member who just observed the film a couple of times decades ago, because they knew what went into making the film look how it does. On the Criterion Blu-ray there's a feature where the DP talks in-depth about the choices that went into creating the look of Midnight Cowboy.

Your comments about "tealing", "revisionism" and the like are all recycled and ignorant arguments that get parroted around on sites like this and Original Trilogy. I know nobody that works as a colorist that uses those terms when it comes to color timing, they are all just buzzwords made up by people who have no idea what they are talking about and the people sheepish enough to jump onto their bandwagon without looking at a shred of evidence.

This comment sums it all up:

"In other words, you essentially admit (with the Tree of Wooden Clogs example) that Criterion has no problems with releasing tealed up transfers, even though they could've made them look more natural if they wanted to, like Arrow did with their release?"

In other words, you don't care about how a film was intended to look or did originally, you just want everything to look "natural" as if you were looking out your window. Newsflash, making films look "natural" that were purposefully unnatural is revisionism.

[yellowcakeuf6]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

That video of Friedkin supervising the colour correction is unintentionally hilarious

That was earlier in the format, and it looks like Friedkin was not familiar at all with the process, or fully aware of the revelations of HD transfers. He was like a kid on Christmas morning that just got a new electronic toy and wanted to push every button on it. I'm sure he was taken aback by how many savvy consumers weren't having it. I let him slide on that one though, because he knew enough to swallow the first BD, and be involved in getting the next one right. He could've stood his ground with the first transfer, and said that is how he wanted the film to look.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Those two images have nothing in common. One is the result of fluorescent lighting, the other is the result of a badly messed-up LUT from Ritrovata. The former is possible on film, the latter, not so much. Big difference, unless you're one of those people that just wants everything to look like real life regardless of artistic intent or how the look was achieved.

As for your comments about Cundey (which have nothing to do with this conversation), I said at the time SF's The Thing came out, that something was wrong with The Thing and a handful of other SF titles released around the same time. The producer of The Thing stated that the color looked like a "mistake" on the SF because it was apparent that there was some sort of error introduced when it was being ported to disc. Ditto for Road House and Transformers: The Movie.

The print was supervised by the director, DP and producer. People who have intimate knowledge of the film. They are much more reliable than an audience member who just observed the film a couple of times decades ago, because they knew what went into making the film look how it does. On the Criterion Blu-ray there's a feature where the DP talks in-depth about the choices that went into creating the look of Midnight Cowboy.

Your comments about "tealing", "revisionism" and the like are all recycled and ignorant arguments that get parroted around on sites like this and Original Trilogy. I know nobody that works as a colorist that uses those terms when it comes to color timing, they are all just buzzwords made up by people who have no idea what they are talking about and the people sheepish enough to jump onto their bandwagon without looking at a shred of evidence.

This comment sums it all up:

"In other words, you essentially admit (with the Tree of Wooden Clogs example) that Criterion has no problems with releasing tealed up transfers, even though they could've made them look more natural if they wanted to, like Arrow did with their release?"

In other words, you don't care about how a film was intended to look or did originally, you just want everything to look "natural" as if you were looking out your window. Newsflash, making films look "natural" that were purposefully unnatural is revisionism.

Yet the Criterion releases of The Tree of Wooden Clogs and Midnight Cowboy end up looking way more similar than the Arrow release of The Tree of Wooden Clogs and the MGM release of Midnight Cowboy.

Not to mention the fact that there is a clear teal push on sunlit and exterior shots of the Criterion Midnight Cowboy release as well, which you keep dodging.

And I suppose it's impossible that this tealed-up "DP approved" Criterion release of Midnight Cowboy might also have an error like the "DP approved" Shout release of The Thing then?

Even though someone who was involved with the making of the film was involved with the release, the question is whether their intent was to make this new release look like:

A. How they want it to look today
B. How they would've liked for it to look back when it was released
C. How it actually looked like when it was released

It's been proven on several occassions that films need to be protected from their own directors, most notably the Friedkin example, and there is a much, much bigger example that I won't get into.

I doubt that the director of photography says that their intent for the film was to have a teal filter over it, but even if he said that, I would still doubt that is how the film actually looked in 1969.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Yet the Criterion releases of The Tree of Wooden Clogs and Midnight Cowboy end up looking way more similar than the Arrow release of The Tree of Wooden Clogs and the MGM release of Midnight Cowboy.

Not to mention the fact that there is a clear teal push on sunlit and exterior shots of the Criterion Midnight Cowboy release as well, which you keep dodging.

And I suppose it's impossible that this tealed-up "DP approved" Criterion release of Midnight Cowboy might also have an error like the "DP approved" Shout release of The Thing then?

Even though someone who was involved with the making of the film was involved with the release, the question is whether their intent was to make this new release look like:

A. How they want it to look today
B. How they would've liked for it to look back when it was released
C. How it actually looked like when it was released

It's been proven on several occassions that films need to be protected from their own directors, most notably the Friedkin example, and there is a much, much bigger example that I won't get into.

I doubt that the director of photography says that their intent for the film was to have a teal filter over it, but even if he said that, I would still doubt that is how the film actually looked in 1969.

You do realize that color timing existed in 1969, right? Plus there was no bizarre campaign to take the films away from the creators and make everything look completely neutral to please a few posters on this site.

There is nothing on Midnight Cowboy that looks like SF's The Thing which showed clear signs of there being an error due to diminished range, complete loss of nuances, etc. Midnight Cowboy looks absolutely fine and has no technical issues. You are just looking for excuses to put this release down because the people who prepared the master didn't cater to your specific demands.

There is no "teal filter", errors or anything of the sort. Maybe if you actually watched the disc and educated yourself on color timing and actual errors then you would realize this.

It's funny that when a more accurate version of a film comes out that doesn't have "natural" color timing, everybody gets their pitchforks out. Yet when a film like Heaven's Gate gets rid of the vintage pseudo-sepia tint that was there theatrically and is made to look natural by the wishes of the director, there's not a peep from anyone.

[nitin]

Some shots do look a little off but come on there is no blanket teal filter here, unlike the Ritrovata and Eclair stuff.

From the Criterionforum review (which I usually find pretty balanced):

Scenes can be a bit more distinct colour wise, some taking on a more blu-ish/green tint while others can take on a warmer, or more natural look, depending on what the film calls for. Despite this colour saturation is still excellent, even the dirty browns and grays looking sharp.

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Yeah those DVDBeaver caps are not reflective at all of the actual disc; of course you would of known that had you actually watched the disc instead of basing it off of screenshots. I think you just don’t want to accept that you’re wrong.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Dailyan

Yeah those DVDBeaver caps are not reflective at all of the actual disc; of course you would of known that had you actually watched the disc instead of basing it off of screenshots. I think you just don’t want to accept that you’re wrong.

And they keep zeroing in on the same frigging screenshots that everyone who has seen the disc has repeatedly pointed out (a) were taken from scenes taking place indoors with fluorescent lighting and (b) don't actually look that extreme when watching the disc.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

And since you talk about research, you've got it the other way around:

The 2004 print was "supervised". The new 4K restoration was "approved". Not that I really trust in those terms anyway. And 1969 to 2004 is a lot of years for someone who doesn't even trust his own memory to trust the one from another. Especially a JohnCarpenterFan, whose cinematographer approved two releases of The Thing that were released a year apart, and that look as different as these two releases of Midnight Cowboy.

I noticed how you conveniently left out this part of the text:

Transfer supervisors: Lee Kiline, Adam Holender.
Colorist: Gregg Garvin/Roundabout Entertainment, Burbank, CA."

[CineSicko]

Watched the Criterion last night. Stunning transfer, with considerably more detail than the MGM, but that teal push got on my nerves. There were several scenes in which it wasn't distracting, but many shots (and some whole scenes) prompted me to shake my head in disappointment. It reminded me of Criterion's THIEF, which also looked amazing but for the extreme teal agenda on parade. The fact that the black and white segments in MIDNIGHT COWBOY have a teal cast is very telling. Schlesinger and company may have supervised a teal-favored print that Criterion used for color correction, but that just means that the revisionism likely started there. Nice release overall, but it could have been better had Criterion opted for comparatively natural colors, or at least a considerably less aggressive teal shove.

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

Watched the Criterion last night. Stunning transfer, with considerably more detail than the MGM, but that teal push got on my nerves. There were several scenes in which it wasn't distracting, but many shots (and some whole scenes) prompted me to shake my head in disappointment. It reminded me of Criterion's THIEF, which also looked amazing but for the extreme teal agenda on parade. The fact that the black and white segments in MIDNIGHT COWBOY have a teal cast is very telling. Schlesinger and company may have supervised a teal-favored print that Criterion used for color correction, but that just means that the revisionism likely started there. Nice release overall, but it could have been better had Criterion opted for comparatively natural colors, or at least a considerably less aggressive teal shove.

Agree with all of this. Criterion's MC Blu is a nice release with amazing PQ, but would have far superior if they hadn't been pushing the teal. This is why this Disk - as nice as it is - will never fully replace my MC MGM Blu (2011).

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

Schlesinger and company may have supervised a teal-favored print that Criterion used for color correction, but that just means that the revisionism likely started there. Nice release overall, but it could have been better had Criterion opted for comparatively natural colors, or at least a considerably less aggressive teal shove.

Originally Posted by AnamorphicWidescreen

Agree with all of this. Criterion's MC Blu is a nice release with amazing PQ, but would have far superior if they hadn't been pushing the teal. This is why this Disk - as nice as it is - will never fully replace my MC MGM Blu (2011).

[I KEEL YOU]

Stop blaming DVDbeaver's screencaps when in fact the tealest cap of them all comes from the most reputable screencap site on the Internet:

http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=120...73&i=6&l=0&a=1

And stop crying "fluorescent lighting" when the evidence of a teal push is present on outdoor shots as well. Here is a zoomed in patch of the bus on the outdoor screencap 9 from this site, which is from an outdoor scene:



And here is a zoomed in patch of the sign on the screencap 10 from this site, which is from an outdoor scene:



And here is pure white for reference: