3D Amityville 3D Blu-ray release confirmed by Scream (aka Shout) Factory (1 Viewer)

[Ejanss]

Andy Warhol's Frankenstein aka Flesh for Frankenstein was released many years ago by Criterion on video. Maybe they will re-release it 3D? It would be there first feature film in 3D.

Well, that was Bob's whole point: Criterion would have to pay for it, since Morrissey was too much of a freeloader.

No word from Shout about who paid for Amityville if MGM didn't, but it must've been worth the expense if Shout did it themselves.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

MGM didn't pay for it.

If you'd like to do the Morrissey work for free, I'll send you his phone number!

 

[FoxyMulder]

MGM didn't pay for it.

If you'd like to do the Morrissey work for free, I'll send you his phone number!

Does someone at Shout like to use the de-noise tool too much. ?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

It will take massive doses of noise reduction to try and hide the convergence errors in that film!

 

[bgart13]

Two things --

First, that is heartbreaking that Sherman thinks he deserves millions to fix up the Naschy movie. Have you considered contacting the original Spanish owners? Or perhaps Naschy's son? A very nice Spanish dvd was released of the movie, superior color and detail - but not in 3D. If it's a possibility for you, I'd recommend talking to Mirek and getting his son's contact info. Here's examples of how good the Spanish dvd from VellaVision looks (unfortunately, it is not English friendly...officially).

Second, regarding Shout, if they are doing the transfer work themselves, there will not be any DNR. Cliff does not believe in using it and does his best not to employ it. I also recommended to him that he contact you, Bob, and Jack but was told they were already halfway through the transferring process.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Mr. Sherman told me that his element was perfect and ready to go although it hasn't been touched since 1972. I later found out that it was a dupe neg made from a composite print by Linwood Dunn's optical company, Film Effects of Hollywood. In a 1974 American Cinematographer article:

The first had to be printed from a 70mm release print because no intermediate master film was available. The projection set-ups for 35mm 3-D were totally inadequate and the results were just what the title of the film, "FRANKENSTEIN'S BLOODY TERROR", would indicate.

Mirek recently visited for a screening and we briefly discussed this film. We're going to pursue it and see what we can do. Thanks!

 

[Ejanss]

Now, at this point, I'm confused: WAS Paul Naschy's Frankenstein's Bloody Terror released in 3-D?
(I'd just assumed the earlier post mentioning Paul Morrissey got the title mixed up with Flesh For Frankenstein, and we were kidding the mixup.)

 

[Bob Furmanek]

It played a few theaters in Hollywood in 3-D but that's about it, so far as I know. I've never fully researched the 3-D release on this one.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Here's an accurate article: http://www.depthsploitation.com/2010/04/frankensteins-bloody-terror.html

 

[Brandon Conway]

Andy Warhol's Frankenstein aka Flesh for Frankenstein was released many years ago by Criterion on video. Maybe they will re-release it 3D? It would be there first feature film in 3D.

Pina was Criterion's first 3D release (in January '13).

 

[RolandL]

Pina was Criterion's first 3D release (in January '13).

Yeah I knew about that, but since Pina was a documentary, I wouldn't call it a feature film.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Yeah I knew about that, but since Pina was a documentary, I wouldn't call it a feature film.

Why wouldn't it be a feature film? It's not a feature narrative film, but that's an additional qualifier. A feature film is simply any film 40 minutes or longer.

 

[Ejanss]

Why wouldn't it be a feature film? It's not a feature narrative film, but that's an additional qualifier. A feature film is simply any film 40 minutes or longer.

The point is, it was ALREADY digital. Criterion didn't have to do too much work. (For free or otherwise.)

 

[Brandon Conway]

The point is, it was ALREADY digital. Criterion didn't have to do too much work. (For free or otherwise.)

That assertion wasn't made in the post I responded to either. You guys should warn me when you want to continually move the goal posts.

 

[RolandL]

For those who think we have some kind of a bias with respect to post-Golden Age 3-D features, I'll share the following.

I've recently had personal discussions with Sam Sherman and Paul Morrissey over their respective 3-D properties. Mr. Sherman felt that FRANKENSTEIN'S BLOODY TERROR would make millions (in one weekend) if released theatrically in 3-D, and wanted nearly as much cash upfront to access his poor quality 35mm dupe negative.

Mr. Morrissey couldn't understand why FRANKENSTEIN needed any adjustments to the 3-D convergence. When I explained how we could fix the alignment now on the various rip-out-your-eyes mistakes, he said that's how he shot it and didn't want any changes.

He then asked if I'd be doing the work for free.

Yep, eating once in a while is a bad habit of mine.

Like Greg, I'm for ANY vintage 3-D film getting a Blu-ray release, whether it be ROBOT MONSTER or HOT HEIR. But if they're going to get done, I'm 100% in favor of correcting the stereoscopic mistakes and doing it right. I saw every one of the 1980's features in theatres when first released and believe me, they need a LOT of work.

Flesh for Frankenstein is available in Japan in September on Blu-ray but in 2D.

 

[pinknik]

Just got this title today and watched the first 25 minutes or so. It looks pretty good for this era of 3-D. Good color, clean, steady transfer and reasonably sharp in spots, while soft in others, which is pretty much how single strip 35mm 3-D looks. Objects on the edges of the screen tend to have a little color fringe due to the optics. The 3-D looks generally decent, but it does have some things that may be corrected in a more thorough transfer. For instance there are objects in a lot of shots that are placed in front of the screen, but are cut off at the edge of the frame. One shot was converged fairly close to the camera for an out of screen effect, so the background diverged too far. I think the type of 3-D correction that Bob Furmanek and company do may have kept these issues in check. Still, I'm happy to have my first decent copy of an 80's 3-D "classic".

 

[Bob Furmanek]

We have not seen the Blu-ray but from what we've been hearing, it appears that none of the alignment issues have been corrected.

This is very unfortunate.

The 3-D Film Archive could have created the optimum, restored stereoscopic version of this film...

www.3dfilmarchive.com

 

[pinknik]

I think, like the DCP of Jaws 3-D, it must just be a straight transfer. I don't find it unwatchable, though you might. I'm really looking forward to your Bubble/Fantastic Invasion blu-ray and Dragonfly Squadron. On Amityville 3-D, I fully understand where you're coming from, and would have loved a corrected transfer, but I enjoyed what I watched.

 

[Richard--W]

Didn't the producer and the director of JAWS 3-D say there had been some correction in the transfer at the Expo? I don't have access to the interview so I can't check.

 

[pinknik]

Didn't the producer and the director of JAWS 3-D say there had been some correction in the transfer at the Expo? I don't have access to the interview so I can't check.

I'm not sure, Richard. I was just going by something I read elsewhere. If it has been corrected, so much the better. That's another disc I'd buy right away.