Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DVD' started by Michael Osadciw, Oct 28, 2003.
What you are saying sounds nice until you figure in that the Criterion Laserdisc and all earlier VHS releases of the film had the same "enhanced" blue hues that the 99 transfer does. So that would show that the blue hues were always there and they were muted and washed out in the new 2003 transfer. The new version was altered not the 99 version. It was just restored.
Agreed. There is no definitive version. I myself own the 1999 DVD, the 2003 DVD, and the Criterion LD (for the extras that didn't hit DVD, like the Siskel and Ebert review).
Unfortunately this happens a lot. I own Criterion's The Game LD, Image's The Game DTS LD, and I want to get the Japanese DVD (for the 16x9 transfer).
Such is life for movie lovers.
DVD allows for brighter and sharper colors than Laserdisc and VHS. So what I meant is that the blues were there and the 99 DVD brought them out stronger and the 2003 DVD removed them. I have all the versions to compare on my setup. Although I returned the 2003 version. I would choose the Laserdisc over this mess. It makes the movie look like a made for TV remake of the original.
OK people, I went to the John Carpenter talk last night. He had some interesting points on censorship, which were mostly related to censorship of grade school textbooks and aptitude/achievement tests. Only a few comments about film censorship. I can't say that I agreed with everything he said, and I'm sure that a few of them were factually wrong, but that happens. Wait, I just realized that you don't care about this and I'm just jerking you around.
I did have the good fortune to meet him before his speech. As I walked up to the building, he was outside talking to a small group of fans, signing autographs, respectfully answering questions (many of them the same questions he has answered in hundreds of interviews). I pulled out my copy of the new Halloween release, which he was nice enough to sign for me, and asked him about the color issues in the new version.
He said he had heard about the color issues (probably because someone on the forum contacted his assistant), but had not seen the new release. Nor will he be seeing it, because, he "can't stand to watch it [Halloween] anymore." So that's that.
So, in my book the final word on color is the 1999 Cundy transfer (btw, I agree with most of Gordon McMurphy's theory). As much as I like having 100% correct color in all my DVDs, the increase in detail in the 2003 release is just too much for me to resist. But that's just me.
We all have a choice here. Perfect color or top-notch detail. We can't have it both ways at this point. No point in denigrating someone else's choice just because it's different from your own.
The 99 transfer was remarkably detailed. I don't see why defenders of the 03 version keep saying its not. Its grainier yes but this is a low budget film and thats the way it should look. Removing all the grain in the new version gives it a digital, artificial, non film like look. That seems to be the issue here for the supporters not the color or original look but that the new disc is more demo like with its pretty picture. Its the same issue as pan and scan and remixing mono to 5.1. Original intent versus home theater demo quality.
There's one thing that we are all forgetting...
We have a choice!
So many releases out there don't give you any option.
I own both. I also own the Criterion Laserdisc.
Out of all of them, my personal favorite is the Laserdisc.
It may not be the right choice for everybody but I think the laser has a "warmer" feel to it. However when people come over to watch this film I would probably put on the 25th Anniversary disc. I feel the average person just wants the cleanest and not the most accurate version of the film. I own a video store and I cant tell you how many more times the new Psycho goes out more than the original! Now that’s a sin! I know not everybody has the money to re-buy every movie that gets a re-release on DVD. (I have 5 versions of 2001:A Space Odyssey on laserdisc just to have every version...they are all different!)I suggest rent them both...make a decision...and buy the one YOU like better. It is also easier now to unload older DVD's, whether its on E-bay or you local Video Store.
well i have the super old 97 dvd of halloween. i was hoping to upgrade but after this whole debacle i think i'll wait for the inevitable 30th anniversary version.
Anchor Bay could have taken the new D5 1080P transfer with the incorrect color timings and then done a tape-to-tape color correction in the digital domain to recreate the color timings of the 1999 release. HDTV-to-HDTV tape-to-tape color timing can do wonders, hell look what Robert Harris was able to do using an existing HDTV transfer of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. That way, you'd have the best of both worlds- the greater detail of the new transfer, with the correct colors.
At the very least, I hope Anchor Bay does such a tape-to-tape color timing with their D5 master tape before they release the inevitable HD version of HALLOWEEN.
Although it bugs me that in this new release the colors don't make the film look like it takes place in the fall season, I can get over it. I suppose this is the way the film looked in theaters, and since the quality is better than the past release, I really can't complain and am glad to own it.
Even if you fix the "fall colors," there's still the "daylight" issue. Laurie's friend picks her up to go babysitting at 6:30, yet it's still daylight. On Halloween, it would be dark at 6:30 (DST always ends before Halloween night).
I watched it Halloween night and thought it looked spectacular. Still creepy as hell, too.
I have a few questions about the Extended Version of Halloween on DVD:
1. Is it still in print?
2. Does the extra footage improve the movie?
3. Is the video quality better than the regular version since there is only one version of the film and no extras on disc? I would think there would be some kind of improvement.
"Manifold and multiform are the horrors that infest the visible ways and the ways unseen. They sleep beneath the unturned stone; they rise with the tree from its root; they move beneath the sea and in subterranean places; they dwell unchallenged in the inmost adyta; they emerge betimes from the shutten sepulcher of haughty bronze and the low grave that is sealed with earth. There be some that are long known to man, and others as yet unknown that abide the terrible future days of their revealing. Those which are the most dreadful and the loathliest of all, are haply still to be declared. But among those that have revealed themselves aforetime and have made manifest their veritable presence, there is one which may not openly be named for its exceeding foulness. It is that spawn which the hidden dweller in the vaults has begotten upon mortality".
- Clark Ashton Smith, The Necronomicon
Even John Carpenter doesn't like the extra footage- in fact, they aren't even true DELETED SCENES. They were shot two-three years later during the making of HALLOWEEN II because they needed to pad-out HALLOWEEN's running time for network TV. After the network censors got through with HALLOWEEN, the film was too short to fit in a 2-hour time slot with commercials, so they needed to fill out the running time. Carpenter complied and quickly wrote and shot the new scenes while everybody was gathered for the making of HALLOWEEN II, and also used them to try and tie Michael's motivation in HALLOWEEN with what they were doing in HALLOWEEN II (i.e., making Laurie Strode Michael's sister).