A Few Words About A few words about...™ Halloween 35th Anniversary -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Dave H]

And William Friedkin swore up, down, left and right that he always intended The French Connection to be tinted purple, like the first Blu-ray release - until he reissued it later without the purple tint and suddenly claimed that he never intended it to be purple, and insisted that it was all somebody else's fault, even though we have him on camera saying that he wanted it tinted purple.

George Lucas still wants us to believe that he always intended Greedo to shoot at Han Solo first, but just didn't have the technology available in 1977 to have the actor remove the gun from his holster before Harrison Ford did, until CGI finally made that possible 20 years later.

I have no reason to doubt Dean Cundey's word that the new Blu-ray is correct. However, I also reserve the right to remain skeptical. Filmmakers sometimes say things that are convenient to make us believe that what they're selling us today is what they always wanted decades earlier.

Not fair to lump Cundey in with the other two.

 

[DVDvision]

It's certain that the 1999 DVD, (color timed by an award winner, no less) was 100% the intended look at the time, unlike the variations that came later.

The production diaries clearly spell it out that the movie works better with the autumnal leaves in the daylight scenes.

I figure that this choice made then, not having been reproduced by Cundey on the Blu-ray now, must be either he forgot about this, or they didn't have the time to adjust these scenes. Maybe he only made sure to correct back the very important Blue shades and forgot the rest.

All in all, it may be accurate to original VHS transfers or past transfers, but it's not accurate to the storytelling.

No wanting to derail the thread, but The Godfather restorations did made color choices that made the movies different (for example, the original scene where Pacino kills the guy in the restaurant was originally all bathed in blue), yet no one or nearly no one complained, because the changes made worked for the storytelling. This I believe comes with the territory of remastering. It's not revisionism, it's adjusting to the current medium so that the film experience is best.

For Halloween, I say the clearly spring shots in the daylight scenes, are distracting to the storytelling. I would have done them as Adam Adams did, because unless you compare, it's a subtle adjustment that is invisible, and it works for the visual coherence, and elegance of the film.

 

[Robert Crawford]

It's certain that the 1999 DVD, (color timed by an award winner, no less) was 100% the intended look at the time, unlike the variations that came later.

The production diaries clearly spell it out that the movie works better with the autumnal leaves in the daylight scenes.

I figure that this choice made then, not having been reproduced by Cundey on the Blu-ray now, must be either he forgot about this, or they didn't have the time to adjust these scenes. Maybe he only made sure to correct back the very important Blue shades and forgot the rest.

All in all, it may be accurate to original VHS transfers or past transfers, but it's not accurate to the storytelling.

No wanting to derail the thread, but The Godfather restorations did made color choices that made the movies different (for example, the original scene where Pacino kills the guy in the restaurant was originally all bathed in blue), yet no one or nearly no one complained, because the changes made worked for the storytelling. This I believe comes with the territory of remastering. It's not revisionism, it's adjusting to the current medium so that the film experience is best.

For Halloween, I say the clearly spring shots in the daylight scenes, are distracting to the storytelling. I would have done them as Adam Adams did, because unless you compare, it's a subtle adjustment that is invisible, and it works for the visual coherence, and elegance of the film.

Maybe for you it is, but many others don't agree with that assertion.

For those arguing back and forth, I wonder if all of you have even watched this latest BD?

 

[Dave H]

It's certain that the 1999 DVD, (color timed by an award winner, no less) was 100% the intended look at the time, unlike the variations that came later.

The production diaries clearly spell it out that the movie works better with the autumnal leaves in the daylight scenes.

I figure that this choice made then, not having been reproduced by Cundey on the Blu-ray now, must be either he forgot about this, or they didn't have the time to adjust these scenes. Maybe he only made sure to correct back the very important Blue shades and forgot the rest.

All in all, it may be accurate to original VHS transfers or past transfers, but it's not accurate to the storytelling.

No wanting to derail the thread, but The Godfather restorations did made color choices that made the movies different (for example, the original scene where Pacino kills the guy in the restaurant was originally all bathed in blue), yet no one or nearly no one complained, because the changes made worked for the storytelling. This I believe comes with the territory of remastering. It's not revisionism, it's adjusting to the current medium so that the film experience is best.

For Halloween, I say the clearly spring shots in the daylight scenes, are distracting to the storytelling. I would have done them as Adam Adams did, because unless you compare, it's a subtle adjustment that is invisible, and it works for the visual coherence, and elegance of the film.

I'm sure Mr. Harris could speak to this, but that Godfather shot on the left looks like a very faded, deteriorated shot in no way representative of how the movie originally looked.

 

[Mark Booth]

Maybe for you it is, but many others don't agree with that assertion.

For those arguing back and forth, I wonder if all of you have even watched this latest BD?

I haven't watched the entire disc, but I have popped it into my Mac and watched a few scenes here and there (including the tree-lined street scene with Meyers by the hedge). To this photographer's eyes, the 35th Anniversary Blu-ray is absolutely gorgeous! I found the overly bright colors of the first Blu-ray were not in keeping with the mood of the movie. The new Blu-ray fixes that.

I'd have already watched the entire movie but we are planning a horror movie night in the Booth Bijou Garage Theater in October. Halloween will be the main presentation (along with 'The Thing') and I'd rather save watching the entire movie for that evening.

Mark

 

[JoshZ]

Except they don't. The scene highlighted here- http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/326593-a-few-words-about%E2%84%A2-halloween-35th-anniversary-in-blu-ray/page-2#entry4003461 - shows that the grass is still green while the color of the leaves in the trees has been changed, something only possible via digital color timing using picture windows.

Vincent

OK, I'll take your word for it. I don't have the DVD. I was just responding to haineshisway's post where he said, "When you wash an entire transfer so that the leaves look golden and there is less green to the greenery, then every other color in the scene is not what it should be and that's the case with that DVD - skin tones are off as are other colors - that's pretty clearly obvious." Unless I'm misinterpreting his intent, he seems to be saying that everything in the DVD transfer was washed in the new colors.

When did Friedkin say he wanted THE FRENCH CONNECTION to be "tinted purple"? He did say he wanted a muted "pastel" look akin to the 1950s version of MOBY DICK, but he never said anything about "purple", and the problems with the first Blu-ray certainly had nothing to do with it being "purple". The main issue was the technique he used to achieve the look he said he wanted caused really awful color bleeding, especially in the reds.

Vincent

Friedkin's "pastel" processing of the first French Connection Blu-ray left much of the movie with a disturbing purple tinge. That may be the fault of the color bleeding (too much blue and red, and not enough green). Regardless, the end result is that much of the movie looks like it's been tinted purple.

When the remastered Blu-ray came out, Friedkin claimed that the original disc was never what he wanted. It was all some random studio technician's fault. He was lied to and shown a master that looked good, but what wound up on the disc had additional processing and was turned ugly.

The problem with this story is that, if you watch the Color Timing featurette on the original Blu-ray, you can see footage of Friedkin sitting in the studio mastering suite, looking at the ugly contrast-boosted, color-bled, purple-tinged transfer on the video monitor in front of him, boasting about how great it looks and how it's exactly what he wants.

Also, the new Blu-ray transfer looks almost identical to the unprocessed "before" clips in that same featurette. The new Blu-ray does not represent Friedkin's stated desire for "pastel" colors. In fact, colors on the new Blu-ray are often oversaturated, which is precisely what Friedkin said he didn't want the first time.

I have nothing against William Friedkin as a person, but in this instance, he is clearly changing his story as he goes and trying to pass the buck on problems that he himself caused.

My point being that sometimes we need to take filmmakers' claims about something new being "exactly what I always wanted all along" with a grain of salt.

 

[cafink]

When the remastered Blu-ray came out, Friedkin claimed that the original disc was never what he wanted. It was all some random studio technician's fault. He was lied to and shown a master that looked good, but what wound up on the disc had additional processing and was turned ugly.

Where did Friedkin say this? I distinctly remember the featurette from the original disc, and I remember the release of the remastered version, but this is the first I've heard of Friedkin commenting on the remastered vesion.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

As to Godfather, if I recall, Mr. Harris has spoken about how shots from that scene were mis processed by the lab initially which is why they had that look, the current restoration was able to fix the shots to what was intended all along.

 

[JoshZ]

Where did Friedkin say this? I distinctly remember the featurette from the original disc, and I remember the release of the remastered version, but this is the first I've heard of Friedkin commenting on the remastered vesion.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/william-friedkin-talks-killer-joe-and-shares-some%2C83023/

Oh, The French Connection Blu-ray, the master that we made was absolutely perfect. Then when Fox took it out to reproduce it, mass production, it goes through four different companies. It got screwed up badly, and I didn’t know that. I had only seen the master; I never saw any of the playback copies. And Owen Roizman, the cameraman, got a copy at Best Buy and said it looked like shit! He denounced it. I said, “What are you talking about?” He brought his copy in, and we ran it next to the master, and he was right. The prints were badly made. So we remade them, he and I supervised a new version of the Blu-ray, which went into a Best Buy exclusive, for I think six months, and then it’ll go broad—it’ll replace the other one. What I learned was that Fox, when they put that DVD out, there was a little warning inside the box that said, “This may not play well on your home receiver. If it doesn’t, write to w-w-w dot so-and-so, so-and-so. We’ll send you a disc that will make your own playback receiver compatible.” This was like a caveat emptor. And Roizman was right. The copies were all over the place. That’s not a perfect process, either. We made new ones that should be great, because we had a different company do the mass release. They’re at Best Buy, and when their exclusive expires, they’ll be everywhere.

http://twitchfilm.com/2012/07/billy-friedkin-talks-killer-joe-and-so-much-more.html

Q: Can you address the similar debacle with the French Connection Blu-Ray?

The original master that we made back then, what I saw, is perfect. I never saw any of the copies they made. The copies go through four different companies, making different stages of the disc.

Owen Roizman, the cameraman, bought a copy at Best Buy. He took his copy home and it looked like shit.
He went nuts, and he called me, and I said, “Hold on Owen, the master looks great”, and he said, “this copy is shit, Billy!”
He brought his copy into the video house where we made the masters, and we put them up side by side on monitors, and he was right, the master was great, the copies were grainy, and the colour wasn’t there, he was correct. We ran both the master and copy on different systems, and the copy was bad.
In fact, when they sold these copies, they put in the little leaf, inside the front cover, as a warning to buyers that you might find that this copy doesn’t play well on your home video receiver, so send us an email to www something, and we’ll send you a disc that will run through your playback device to make it compatible with this new technology.

And this was bullshit.

So, we made a brand new Blu-Ray of the French Connection, and I brought Owen in with me. As far as we know, the copies they made, from one house now, by a different manufacturer are fine. And those are signature copies, it has my signature on the front cover of the film.

The other copies are shit!

I can’t look at every damn copy they make, it just so happened that the cameraman bought one, and it was terrible, and it’s his work, and he was right!

Q: One thing that came out of this were those arguing about whether it’s your right for the film to look the way the director wants it to look, even if it diverges substantially from the original intent of the first release.

The choice of the colour and the density is mine, but the point of it is, all I was ever trying to do was make it look what it looked like when I looked through the viewfinder. I wasn’t trying to change anything!

Now, you have to adapt to the new technology, if there’s scenes in black or darkness, you have to make them blacker in a video procedure, it’s not the same as printing 35mm. The difference was not to change the look, it was to revive the look to what it first looked like when we printed it.

I supervised all the prints when they went out originally. I never thought I had to supervise copies of a digital master, and yes you do! So I hopefully will never make that mistake again. So, it was a series of errors, that I know hurt the film on digital. But, I felt that the cameraman was right – he had been long retired, I didn’t even contact him to look at the master, I simply told him, you know, all I plan to do is make it look like when we first saw it, and he said, “great!”

He came in and looked at the master, and said, “Great, the master’s wonderful!” So I brought him in on both Exorcist and French Connection while we were colour timing them.

 

[JoshZ]

^ I should also point out that the Color Timing featurette that shows Friedkin bragging about the first goofy-looking transfer was conveniently omitted from the re-release disc.

 

[Mark Booth]

More evidence that the 1999 THX DVD is completely revisionist! In a post in another forum, a person that owns the Criterion CAV Laserdisc has posted this:

[font="Verdana;font-size:13px"]With all the disagreement about what constitues the original version of [/font]Halloween[font="Verdana;font-size:13px"], it persuaded us to reconnect the LaserDisc player and dig out the Criterion CAV edition, and after the nostalgia cooled, we can report the following things[/font]
1) The greens of the bush Meyers is hiding behind are not quite as verdant as those found on the 35th edition, but are nowhere near approaching the orange of the more infamous copies.
2) As the Criterion edition uses the original mono mix, we can confirm that it does indeed contain a "clicking" as Pleasence tries to fire his empty gun. It only clicks once, and this is live sound - as recorded on set rather than added in a dubbing studio.
As Criterion as legendary for being anal about their materials, then the colour timing and audio will be as close as possible to the original source. LaserDisc was for enthusiasts who wanted the best and most accurate representations of their favourite films, not existing just to sell copies by making them more acceptable to the masses by altering their colours, grain, etc.
It's a pity that we threw out our old UK Media tape last year, but we suspect it would have been the same, save for the obvious restrictions of VHS and suspect prints.
BTW, the extras on the LaserDisc are terrific, but haven't been released anywhere else.

Source: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?p=8173295#post8173295
Two messages later, a different person posted this link to a screen shot from Criterion's site for the Laserdisc version:

Source: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?p=8173316#post8173316

With regard to the trees, quite obviously, the Criterion Laserdisc's color timing for that scene is far more similar to the 35th Anniversary Blu-ray and decidedly NOT similar to the color timing used on the 1999 THX DVD. The other areas of that scene have a deeper contrast than the 35th Anniversary Blu-ray, making thinks a bit more vibrant. Overly vibrant and contrasty, in my humble opinion.
The 1999 THX DVD is a revisionist release and it is NOT how the movie originally looked in theaters. PERIOD!
Mark

 

[bgart13]

Is that the full image from the LD? If so, it's revisionist! It's not 2.35:1. : P

 

[Mark Booth]

Is that the full image from the LD? If so, it's revisionist! It's not 2.35:1. : P

I did a little searching and figured out he got the image from this article at Criterion's site:

http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/898-halloween

Not sure why Criterion cropped it for the article (good catch, BTW) but, based on descriptions by others, that is indeed how the Criterion Laserdisc looks (color timing wise).

Mark

 

[Kevin EK]

Regarding The Godfather, RAH can speak very well for himself on this, but on the Blu-ray, there's a featurette called "Emulsional Rescue" where he lays out what happened with the Sicilian Restaurant killing. I believe one of the two nights of shooting had its footage mis-processed, something that caused a major headache and resulted in the sequence not looking the way Gordon Willis had intended at the moment they had rolled the cameras. Willis made it work for the theatrical release, which is all anyone knew of the issue until RAH's restoration work. When RAH got into it, he saw the mess and was able to correct the problem to finally get that sequence the way Willis had wanted it to look for the original release. Willis and Coppola approved the fix, particularly since this is what they would have done in 1972 had they been given that ability. And to be careful with the terminology, this wasn't a change in Willis or Coppola's intentions. This was a technical problem that they were happy to see fixed. For myself, I see it as akin to the stabilizing of a single shot in Out of Africa for the Uni 100th Blu. Although in that case, the director was not alive to see and approve the correction. A purist would say that they shouldn't have stabilized the shot. I look at it that it was clearly a mistake that was left in and not an abomination to correct.

Regarding the intentions of DPs, we must keep in mind that they can change over time. We had a debate on this forum about the Blu-ray of Do The Right Thing four years ago, because the heavily warm filter had been removed for the Blu. People speculated that Ernest Dickerson and Spike Lee must not have been shown the new transfer and that someone at Universal had fiddled with the knobs and blown the transfer. After more theories than I can count were played out here, I wound up on a stage with Dickerson and directly asked him about the transfer. As it turned out, Dickerson had supervised the transfer, just as he had with the Criterion Edition years earlier. He told me that if there was a difference in the way the movie looked, it was due to the way he was seeing it today versus when he originally shot it and when he supervised the Criterion release. He said he felt the movie still looked plenty hot but acknowledged that it didn't look nuclear hot.

Based on this encounter, I think it's possible that Dean Cundey may have had different feelings about the look of Halloween over time. It's entirely possible that he was happy with the 1999 DVD as an attempt to get the movie to look closer to an October Haddonfield color scheme. And it's also possible that he was happy to be allowed to do more work with it for the new Blu-ray. The only way to know for certain would be for someone to contact him directly and ask him the question, as I did with Ernest Dickerson. All else is speculation. Mark's excerpt would seem to indicate that Cundey views the new Blu as the most accurate reflection of his intentions. But I don't see any question to Cundey there specifically asking about the 1999 DVD that he supposedly approved. I'd want to see what his response would be when directly addressing the other time his name was included as an endorsement.

 

[Patrick Donahue]

Let me just say that I have no clue how "Halloween" is supposed to look, but I love the fact that there are a lot of people out there who DO care...As a movie lover, I thank you

 

[Rob LoVerde]

If I were Dean Cundey, at this point I'd wish I'd have filmed Halloween in black & white.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Maybe for you it is, but many others don't agree with that assertion.

For those arguing back and forth, I wonder if all of you have even watched this latest BD?

Not I. I haven't seen the thing but I did call it the best looking of the screenshots posted. This discussion also made me turn away from the 1999 release as being how the film should look so something positive has come from it. Now the discussion is about which one is correct and the various bits and pieces that have been said in the last 14 years supporting various sides of the debate.

My friend does own it and I'm sure he'd let me watch it after the Reds game Friday.

 

[Michael Elliott]

If I were Dean Cundey, at this point I'd wish I'd have filmed Halloween in black & white.

I've got a source who says Anchor Bay and Cundey are planning this for the 45th Anniversary release.

 

[Jari K]

If Cundey says that the 35AV is his "original look" of the film it should be enough for the fans.Then again we have DOPs like Storaro who suddenly said that 2.20:1 is the "corret aspect ratio" (or something) of Apocalypse Now some years ago. Even artists can change their minds or even forget their "original vision" over the years.

 

[FanboyZ]

Also, you can't compare normal humans to William Friedkin.