Midnight Cowboy (1969)

[Scottie]

Courtesy of Svet.

[RCRochester]

Argh, so jealous of you guys with your early copies.

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

Thanks for the screen-shots of the forthcoming Criterion MC disk. I am still not planning on getting this because I don't see it as an upgrade over the 2011 Blu, but it's nice to see the comparisons.

Re: the green/teal over some of the scenes, I still don't think this looks good - regardless of what others claim. The scene of the man washing dishes in the beginning is especially egregious. Even if this isn't present throughout the whole Criterion disk & only in some scenes, it shouldn't be there at all.

The only good thing I can say about the Criterion release is that the cover artwork is truly fantastic. The colors/imagery are excellent, and encapsulate both the late 1960's pseudo-psychedelic aspects to the film (the intentionally frantic editing in some scenes, the iconic Andy Warhol-ish party scene, etc.) & the friendship between Ratso & Joe. I would definitely buy a poster of this cover in a heartbeat - if one is ever released.

If my local library gets a copy of this Criterion MC Disk I may check this out - but I'm not spending $ to buy the disk.

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by AnamorphicWidescreen

Re: the green/teal over some of the scenes, I still don't think this looks good - regardless of what others claim. The scene of the man washing dishes in the beginning is especially egregious. Even if this isn't present throughout the whole Criterion disk & only in some scenes, it shouldn't be there at all.

Just because you don't like how it looks; don't claim "it shouldn't be there at all." There's cases of real revisionism (Most of Leone's films, Pathe's release Le Samurai, Shout's release of The Thing) and then there's restoring films that had stylized lighting and coloring.

[The Sovereign]

Damn, I love the inside of this one.

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by The Sovereign

Damn, I love the inside of this one.

It must be the "raw" photo, or at least an alternate, of the poster art.

[captainjoe]

That's a poster I should get for my living room. It'd look great next to my One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest poster

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

Originally Posted by Dailyan

Just because you don't like how it looks; don't claim "it shouldn't be there at all." There's cases of real revisionism (Most of Leone's films, Pathe's release Le Samurai, Shout's release of The Thing) and then there's restoring films that had stylized lighting and coloring.

The 2011 MGM Midnight Cowboy Blu doesn't have any of the green/teal coloring, and looks fine. So, I don't see why the Criterion version added/revised the disk to look this way. If the green/teal color had been there in the film from Day 1, I could see that it's removal would have been changing the way that the film was supposed to look. However, that obviously wasn't the case here.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

The vast majority of MGM's old DVD/Blu-ray masters were revised to look more "natural", they are all telecines that were color timed to have the same color balance which is why all of MGM's older masters look so similar. They wouldn't even involve the DPs or directors when making these masters so they wouldn't have any clue as to what was going on. All these heavily stylized films were "naturalized" against the wishes of the filmmakers. For example, when Vilmos Zsigmond found out that The Long Goodbye (which was a stylish-looking film which had its negative flashed) was "naturalized" and revised by MGM, he wasn't happy at all.

This seems like another case of people who claim to be anti-revisionism favoring revisionism whenever it suits them and results in a more "natural" looking presentation instead of accepting a stylized film for how it's supposed to look.

[The Sovereign]

Originally Posted by Dailyan

It must be the "raw" photo, or at least an alternate, of the poster art.

Yeah, it looks like an alternate from that shoot, but the wider shot is killer. It's a perfect contrast to the colorful outside cover, which I also like.

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

The vast majority of MGM's old DVD/Blu-ray masters were revised to look more "natural", they are all telecines that were color timed to have the same color balance which is why all of MGM's older masters look so similar. They wouldn't even involve the DPs or directors when making these masters so they wouldn't have any clue as to what was going on. All these heavily stylized films were "naturalized" against the wishes of the filmmakers. For example, when Vilmos Zsigmond found out that The Long Goodbye (which was a stylish-looking film which had its negative flashed) was "naturalized" and revised by MGM, he wasn't happy at all.

This seems like another case of people who claim to be anti-revisionism favoring revisionism whenever it suits them and results in a more "natural" looking presentation instead of accepting a stylized film for how it's supposed to look.

Re: the above portions of your post that I bolded - with these statements, are you you implying that the green/teal color present in many of the scenes in this forthcoming Criterion MC Disk were what the original film-makers intended the film to look like back in 1969? If this is what you're implying, how do you know this?! This film is almost 50 years old at this point, and many involved with making this film have died. So, I'm unclear how anyone now could "know" what the film-makers wanted the film to look like - unless they mentioned this in an old interview, etc.

[KMR]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

The vast majority of MGM's old DVD/Blu-ray masters were revised to look more "natural", they are all telecines that were color timed to have the same color balance which is why all of MGM's older masters look so similar.

I have no idea what kind of experience these posters have with theatrical moviegoing, who claim that the teal-and-orange color grading of catalog titles is a return to the original coloring. But with 5 decades plus of moviegoing behind me, I can say that this modern color grading trend is quite unlike nearly everything I ever saw in theaters.

[zepol]

Originally Posted by captainjoe

.The other scenes people are showing just look to me like a more balanced image and in no way have a "tint." Criterion is better than the MGM simple as that

Those screen shots leave me thinking of not buying it now.

[bad future]

Originally Posted by AnamorphicWidescreen

Re: the above portions of your post that I bolded - with these statements, are you you implying that the green/teal color present in many of the scenes in this forthcoming Criterion MC Disk were what the original film-makers intended the film to look like back in 1969? If this is what you're implying, how do you know this?! This film is almost 50 years old at this point, and many involved with making this film have died. So, I'm unclear how anyone now could "know" what the film-makers wanted the film to look like - unless they mentioned this in an old interview, etc.

I was reading this thread and just signed up to respond to this, because it *seems* like it might be as simple as pointing you to the Criterion release's copy on the restoration, as per the main Blu-ray.com review, in case you haven't seen it?

The relevant portion seems to be "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."

So it does seem like the color grading was arrived at through a conscious effort to be true to the director+DP's intent. One would assume that the print they jointly prepared in 2004 would be a reliable representation of their intent, and even if something was askew there, it seems like Holender at least would have had the opportunity to say so. I don't know if this will put to rest any doubt that Criterion got an accurate representation of what Schlesinger and Holender were actually after in 1969, but at least if they didn't it wasn't for lack of trying. I'd feel better about a restoration that involved the original creatives in some capacity, than one that didn't.

[_Ewan_]

Originally Posted by bad future

I was reading this thread and just signed up to respond to this, because it *seems* like it might be as simple as pointing you to the Criterion release's copy on the restoration, as per the main Blu-ray.com review, in case you haven't seen it?

The relevant portion seems to be "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."

So it does seem like the color grading was arrived at through a conscious effort to be true to the director+DP's intent. One would assume that the print they jointly prepared in 2004 would be a reliable representation of their intent, and even if something was askew there, it seems like Holender at least would have had the opportunity to say so. I don't know if this will put to rest any doubt that Criterion got an accurate representation of what Schlesinger and Holender were actually after in 1969, but at least if they didn't it wasn't for lack of trying. I'd feel better about a restoration that involved the original creatives in some capacity, than one that didn't.

Also if you look at the DVD released around 2004 and compare the screenshots on DVDbeaver, some of that has a slightly greenish lean especially when you look at the shot of the dice. Surely that transfer used the 25th anniversary print as a reference?

[Fat Phil]

Awww yeah - my copy has arrived. Looking forward to checking it out tonight. We'll see what's what with these colours.

[PowellPressburger]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

Awww yeah - my copy has arrived. Looking forward to checking it out tonight. We'll see what's what with these colours.

Please give your thoughts on the new transfer and colors.

The one shot that was posted on previous page of the diner IMO looks horrible with the new tinting. No way Schlesinger wanted those whites tinted. I can almost forgive the color tinting on fanatsy scenes but again it comss with the question why does Criterion believe it should be tinted and why did they do it?

Anyone can chime in with thoughts.

I kept my pre-order for the commentary etc... plus the original audio if push comes to shove I will just sync up the old disc with the new for the audio mix lol

Shame the tinting is just not leaving me very happy, for those who defend it would you have cared if it remained the natural way? Chances are no one would have cried foul.

The tinting just makes me more frustrated when Criterion announces a new BLU becuase then you have to wait and see if they will alter it so drastically.

[MifuneFan]

"This new digital transfer was created in 16-bit 4K resolution on a Lasergraphics Director film scanner from the 35mm original camera negative. A 35mm interpositive was used for some sections where the negative was damaged. 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. Thousands of instances of dirt, debris, scratches, splices, and warps were manually removed using MTI Film's DRS, while Digital Vision's Phoenix was used for jitter, small dirt, grain, and noise management, and Pixel Farm's PFClean for flicker and chroma breathing

[PowellPressburger]

Yep I get the usual Criterion transfer note hj

But is it really true ? Should it have rec’d the tinting and what did MGM use for reference for their BLU? (True an older master)

It would take a lot of convincing to make me believe that the new color choices were always supposed to be that way.

I do know Dressed to Kill does look like a better transfer but the color really has me still watching the MGM disc

[JoeBuck]

Originally Posted by PowellPressburger

Please give your thoughts on the new transfer and colors.

The one shot that was posted on previous page of the diner IMO looks horrible with the new tinting. No way Schlesinger wanted those whites tinted. I can almost forgive the color tinting on fanatsy scenes but again it comss with the question why does Criterion believe it should be tinted and why did they do it?

Anyone can chime in with thoughts.

I kept my pre-order for the commentary etc... plus the original audio if push comes to shove I will just sync up the old disc with the new for the audio mix lol

Shame the tinting is just not leaving me very happy, for those who defend it would you have cared if it remained the natural way? Chances are no one would have cried foul.

The tinting just makes me more frustrated when Criterion announces a new BLU becuase then you have to wait and see if they will alter it so drastically.

You mean the whites that are white? There are no "tinted whites" in that scene, aside from when Ralph is standing under the fluorescent lights at the dish pile. I've got more notes that are being written under another open tab on my computer right now.
Aside from the first few minutes under the opening titles it all looks completely natural.