Midnight Cowboy (1969)

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Which is hilarious and shows just how much misinformation is passed around as fact on here.

Did you come up with proof yet that MIDNIGHT COWBOY was photochemically dyed teal, rendering the Criterion disc accurate to Schlesinger's initial visual intentions? Didn't think so. Until then, kindly pipe down about the pinkish MGM disc which, as far as you know, is closer to an accurate presentation.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

Did you come up with proof yet that MIDNIGHT COWBOY was photochemically dyed teal, rendering the Criterion disc accurate to Schlesinger's initial visual intentions? Didn't think so. Until then, kindly pipe down about the pinkish MGM disc which, as far as you know, is closer to an accurate presentation.

The transfer and print referenced for the Criterion release were supervised and approved by the guys who actually made the film. I’ll trust them over some guy on the net who keeps having rage fits with every second post. You seriously need to take a long hard look at yourself if, in a conversation with Bates_Motel of all people, HE is coming across as the sensible one.

[koberulz]

I still can't tell if Harryhausen's post is serious or sarcasm.

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

The transfer and print referenced for the Criterion release were supervised and approved by the guys who actually made the film. I’ll trust them over some guy on the net who keeps having rage fits with every second post. You seriously need to take a long hard look at yourself if, in a conversation with Bates_Motel of all people, HE is coming across as the sensible one.

You're parroting yourself, anti-genius. Also, don't think for a second that you're in any way better than Bates Motel.

[I KEEL YOU]

I'm not saying that Midnight Cowboy was definitely not tealed during its original release, but it will be pretty much impossible to prove that it was. And no, people who have been involved with the making of the film saying how the film should look today is no proof. There are too many instances of film makers altering their work, again led by the Friedkin example.

The one instance where I know we got a rare form of definitive proof about how a film that old is the vast difference between these two caps from 1966's Pierrot Le Fou:





The Criterion blu ray is the top cap and the Studio Canal is the bottom. By freak fortune we have a 1966 review of the film by Rogert Ebert, where he specifically mentions this scene and the color in it, and where he specifically mentions that the part with Samuel Fuller was not dyed like the other parts of the scene, so we know for a fact that Criterion's green cap is wrong.

So if you show me a 1969 review of Midnight Cowboy where the reviewer mentions a teal push in color, I'll back off and accept it. I'll take that over anyone who was involved with the making of the film saying how the film should look today.

Until there is definitive proof of stylized colorization, I will lean towards what looks more neutral and natural. And the magenta push on MGM doesn't make the whites as distant from pure neutral white, as the teal push does on the Criterion release.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Until there is definitive proof of stylized colorization, I will lean towards what looks more neutral and natural. And the magenta push on MGM doesn't make the whites as distant from pure neutral white, as the teal push does on the Criterion release.

Except that if you look at it fairly, the Criterion looks more natural in the sense that it looks like photochemically-finished film. The MGM is one of many telecines that was "naturalized" meaning artificially messed around with to give the illusion of being natural. It doesn't help that it was mastered for older technology, so now it's even further away from the intended look of the film.

The Criterion had both a print and the DP as reference. Much more reliable than incorrect old masters and people who don't know what they're talking about who think that anything other than pure white on older films is revisionist and unacceptable despite the fact that pure whites on projected film isn't actually white anyway.

Would be a lot better if those people just came out and admitted that they wanted the perfect digital image and stopped pretending to act as if they care about how the film originally looked.

[koberulz]

I do like how pretty much everyone has acknowledged there's no evidence, and from there drawn the conclusion that the one they like better is obviously right.

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Would be a lot better if those people just came out and admitted that they wanted the perfect digital image and stopped pretending to act as if they care about how the film originally looked.

I just want it the way it appeared in 1969. If someone were to offer irrefutable proof that the Criterion is a perfect representation of the original intended look, I'll be over the moon with my purchase and will watch it with an entirely different attitude (although I'll still question the creative intent behind some of the scenes in which teal is extreme). Until that happens, I'll have no choice but to be frustrated with the presentation. Again, it seems that such a color push would have been addressed and likely discussed among cinematography enthusiasts over the years, and that there would have been a big fuss about the fact that no video release on any format retains that bluish lean.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

I just want it the way it appeared in 1969. If someone were to offer irrefutable proof that the Criterion is a perfect representation of the original intended look, I'll be over the moon with my purchase and will watch it with an entirely different attitude (although I'll still question the creative intent behind some of the scenes in which teal is extreme). Until that happens, I'll have no choice but to be frustrated with the presentation. Again, it seems that such a color push would have been addressed and likely discussed among cinematography enthusiasts over the years, and that there would have been a big fuss about the fact that no video release on any format retains that bluish lean.

There are plenty of color pushes in film that existed back in the day that haven't been commented on. Something looking like the Criterion Blu-ray wouldn't be commented on, it's not like the film was dyed in the same manner as some silent films. It wouldn't look out of the ordinary back in the day especially considering the inconsistencies in prints from even reel to reel and shot to shot.

People have gotten so used to white balanced and consistent digital presentations that they don't even know what film looked like. It's only in recent years that people have taken a stand against it because optimized (for their time) digital recreations have set an unrealistic standard. It's actually shocking to some that not every film pre-O Brother, Where Art Thou? didn't look exactly the same.

There's nothing wrong with Midnight Cowboy like there is with your typical Ritrovata remaster, people just have a prejudice towards somehing that differs from their ideal vision of what a film should look like and they're taking their frustrations out on it instead of thinking rationally and fairly.

[KMR]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

There are plenty of color pushes in film that existed back in the day that haven't been commented on. Something looking like the Criterion Blu-ray wouldn't be commented on, it's not like the film was dyed in the same manner as some silent films. It wouldn't look out of the ordinary back in the day especially considering the inconsistencies in prints from even reel to reel and shot to shot.

People have gotten so used to white balanced and consistent digital presentations that they don't even know what film looked like. It's only in recent years that people have taken a stand against it because optimized (for their time) digital recreations have set an unrealistic standard. It's actually shocking to some that not every film pre-O Brother, Where Art Thou? didn't look exactly the same.

There's nothing wrong with Midnight Cowboy like there is with your typical Ritrovata remaster, people just have a prejudice towards somehing that differs from their ideal vision of what a film should look like and they're taking their frustrations out on it instead of thinking rationally and fairly.

Having watched movies in theaters from the early 1960s on, I can state with extreme confidence that the teal (or cyan) and orange push that is so prevalent today was quite, quite rare--if it even existed at all. Since I have not yet seen the Criterion Midnight Cowboy, I will not offer any opinion on it, except to say that some of the screencaps that have been posted are totally unlike my memory of the film when I saw it in a theater in the mid-70s. In fact, the color tones are unlike any other movie I have seen in a theater until very recent times.

[koberulz]

The most annoying piece of revisionism to me is the kazoo in City Lights. I remember seeing that in the cinema when it was first released, and it sounded slightly different.

[CineSicko]

Let this be my last post on the subject: I'm no longer concerned with the color on the Criterion, revisionist as it may or not be. I simply can't deny the extreme leap in image quality the Criterion provides over the MGM, and frankly I'm surrendering to the color pallet on display in the Criterion. Besides, it's based on a 2002 print that Schlesinger co-supervised, so I'm willing to let him have his way. I'm loosening my belt about directors tweaking their movies years after the fact, mostly out of necessity as it's such a trend now.

I'll hang on to the MGM disc, for completist purposes, but that Criterion is too impressive - and far too detailed - to ignore. Perhaps now that I know to expect the occasional burst of teal I'll enjoy it next time without distraction.

[CarlosMeat]

Originally Posted by KMR

Having watched movies in theaters from the early 1960s on, I can state with extreme confidence that the teal (or cyan) and orange push that is so prevalent today was quite, quite rare--if it even existed at all. Since I have not yet seen the Criterion Midnight Cowboy, I will not offer any opinion on it, except to say that some of the screencaps that have been posted are totally unlike my memory of the film when I saw it in a theater in the mid-70s. In fact, the color tones are unlike any other movie I have seen in a theater until very recent times.

Can't agree more ! This is it for me in a nutshell.

[benskelly]

Well, I’m opening myself up for Attack... But I just watched the old Blu-ray and the new Criterion, one right after the other. To me, these eyes, there is no question. It’s not even close. The “greening” of the Criterion just looks wrong and (for me) erases the value of the improved clarity and depth. I could argue about many scenes and sequences - the opening is incredibly bad - but the dead giveaway that something went terribly wrong with the color timing are the “blue” Black & White sections of the movie. There is no way in hell that Schlesinger or anyone intended those B&W scenes to be BLUE! Watch the old disc, then the Criterion and tell me which looks/works better. It’s a pretty dramatic difference. But all through the film, there seems to be an inordinate amount of green in the background. It’s weird. And actually makes Voight’s eyes stand out LESS.

Anyway, that’s my opinion - sorry, I’m a Criterion-lover myself, but I think they really messed this one up. I got it for half-price at B&N and I’m glad to have the extras, but some UK release that fixes this problem (ala The Thing) would absolutely get my money.

It’s too bad...I always want the Criterion to be definitive. This ain’t it.

[CarlosMeat]

Originally Posted by benskelly

Well, I’m opening myself up for Attack... But I just watched the old Blu-ray and the new Criterion, one right after the other. To me, these eyes, there is no question. It’s not even close. The “greening” of the Criterion just looks wrong the opening is incredibly bad It’s weird. And actually makes Voight’s eyes stand out LESS.

Anyway, that’s my opinion - sorry, I’m a Criterion-lover myself, but I think they really messed this one up. I got it for half-price at B&N and I’m glad to have the extras, but some UK release that fixes this problem (ala The Thing) would absolutely get my money.

It’s too bad...I always want the Criterion to be definitive. This ain’t it.

What I noticed was the sclera were cyan, the blue eyes looked teal sky was also cyan colored not to mention there is no white in the entire film.

Watching Dunkirk again last night one can see very similar looking bias but not exact of course.

[Khronikos]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Except that if you look at it fairly, the Criterion looks more natural in the sense that it looks like photochemically-finished film. The MGM is one of many telecines that was "naturalized" meaning artificially messed around with to give the illusion of being natural. It doesn't help that it was mastered for older technology, so now it's even further away from the intended look of the film.

The Criterion had both a print and the DP as reference. Much more reliable than incorrect old masters and people who don't know what they're talking about who think that anything other than pure white on older films is revisionist and unacceptable despite the fact that pure whites on projected film isn't actually white anyway.

Would be a lot better if those people just came out and admitted that they wanted the perfect digital image and stopped pretending to act as if they care about how the film originally looked.

I was taking a look here at DVD Beaver to see what the fuss is about. The Criterion version looks severely tinted in some scenes. In others it fares better, but I would never buy this, and ultimately prefer the color timing of the MGM. This does not look like how anyone would actually color a film in the time period. The icy tones and color look absolutely off in some shots.

While I agree the MGM is a touch red like a decent amount of 70s/80s flicks it looks much more natural. Look at the chef in the DVD Beaver shot. Holy crap that looks awful on the Criterion lol.

This film in my opinion has definitely been recolored in the wrong way.

BUT! We don't know if it was colored for 4K HDR and just ****ed up in the process either. I mean we all saw what a hack job the Matrix Bluray was. I expect Criterion is making 4K HDR cuts for the future.

But come on folks you can't honestly think this is how the film looked back in the theater.

I'm not saying artists cannot redo their work. I really like the new color timing of say Blade Runner, and I like Terminator 1 and Alien as well. I think the color timing fits those films. But this is not sci-fi.

I won't be buying this though. I don't invest in weirdly colored blurays anymore if the 4K is just going to be shoved out the door within 5 years.

[Khronikos]

Also, Criterion, unless it is out of their hands, absolutely needs to be called out for this crap. This is not acceptable in any way, and the apologists are being ridiculous.

[Khronikos]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

There are plenty of color pushes in film that existed back in the day that haven't been commented on. Something looking like the Criterion Blu-ray wouldn't be commented on, it's not like the film was dyed in the same manner as some silent films. It wouldn't look out of the ordinary back in the day especially considering the inconsistencies in prints from even reel to reel and shot to shot.

People have gotten so used to white balanced and consistent digital presentations that they don't even know what film looked like. It's only in recent years that people have taken a stand against it because optimized (for their time) digital recreations have set an unrealistic standard. It's actually shocking to some that not every film pre-O Brother, Where Art Thou? didn't look exactly the same.

There's nothing wrong with Midnight Cowboy like there is with your typical Ritrovata remaster, people just have a prejudice towards somehing that differs from their ideal vision of what a film should look like and they're taking their frustrations out on it instead of thinking rationally and fairly.

Nah, not really. I am one of the most accepting people of recoloring films to fit the director's INTENT IF THAT RECOLORING fits the major themes and photography of the film, e.g., Alien, Terminator, Blade Runner. This in no way looks natural or normal. The chef looks almost blue lol. This isn't some experiment psychedelic film. It has always had a natural sheen since I first saw it. That doesn't mean that was the exact look as intended, but what they have here looks ****ing ridiculous in too many scenes.

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by Khronikos

I was taking a look here at DVD Beaver to see what the fuss is about. The Criterion version looks severely tinted in some scenes. In others it fares better, but I would never buy this, and ultimately prefer the color timing of the MGM. This does not look like how anyone would actually color a film in the time period. The icy tones and color look absolutely off in some shots.

While I agree the MGM is a touch red like a decent amount of 70s/80s flicks it looks much more natural. Look at the chef in the DVD Beaver shot. Holy crap that looks awful on the Criterion lol.

This film in my opinion has definitely been recolored in the wrong way.

BUT! We don't know if it was colored for 4K HDR and just ****ed up in the process either. I mean we all saw what a hack job the Matrix Bluray was. I expect Criterion is making 4K HDR cuts for the future.

But come on folks you can't honestly think this is how the film looked back in the theater.

I'm not saying artists cannot redo their work. I really like the new color timing of say Blade Runner, and I like Terminator 1 and Alien as well. I think the color timing fits those films. But this is not sci-fi.

I won't be buying this though. I don't invest in weirdly colored blurays anymore if the 4K is just going to be shoved out the door within 5 years.

DVDBeaver caps are not at all accurate to what the disc looks like. They have been known to showcase their screenshots in the wrong color space.

[Khronikos]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

The transfer and print referenced for the Criterion release were supervised and approved by the guys who actually made the film. I’ll trust them over some guy on the net who keeps having rage fits with every second post. You seriously need to take a long hard look at yourself if, in a conversation with Bates_Motel of all people, HE is coming across as the sensible one.

We have more than a few instances where people messed up major films when the director or someone else was not involved, and even then we have instances where the director or cinematographer was involved and still messed it up. This is not a sci-fi film. There is no way this film was supposed to look this blue. That is my opinion.