Hammer's DRACULA Restored! - Page 3

Re: Hammer's DRACULA Restored!

A photo that made the rounds in the late 50's and 60's, particularly in FAMOUS MONSTER OF FILMLAND magazine, shows Chris Lee on the floor at the film's climax, his face burned and peeling, whereas in every print I've ever seen, this shot never appears - we go directly from Lee covering his face with his hand to a shot of his hand drawing down to reveal a completely burned-away torso. Was the shot I mentioned ever actually filmed, or was it only a publicity shot? I have wondered this for decades.

Re: Hammer's DRACULA Restored!

I'd like to see that photo.....are there any fan sites that discuss the deleted scenes, and show photos of them? I did a search, but I got so many results I couldn't really weed out the irrelevant ones.

Re: Hammer's DRACULA Restored!

I've been trying to recall the title of one of the imported magazines I used to buy as a kid for simply ages - 'Famous Monsters of Filmland' it was; that's that itch scratched!

The British Board of Film Censors had real problems with Dracula; the US version currently on DVD is some 20 seconds or so longer than the film as shown theatrically in the UK. When the film was restored, there was much talk of reinstating footage from gorier Japanese versions, but personally, I didn't see anything like that isn't already extant on DVD.

From this page:

These two final shots have, however, been the cause of some confusion. Anthony Hinds was quoted in the British Press as having sanctioned a special edit for the Japanese market that contained 'more blood'. But director Terrance Fisher dismisses the possibility of additional gore for Japan as a 'load of nonsense'. Certainly the version despatched to Japan containing the offending scenes were longer than the British, and even the American versions - up to 20 seconds of extra footage - and the reels in question match with the scenes that were cut from the British edit, specifically the final reel, which contained Dracula's disintegration. After the initial theatrical run, the Japanese distributor for Dracula handed the reels over to the National Film Library of Japan. Unfortunately, the Library refuses to allow people to view or rent their films and so, for the moment at least, it's impossible to check whether the two 'missing' scenes still exist.

I wrote a little about the controversy surrounding the BFI restoration here last year, which may be useful, but to be honest, I'm still a little confused by the whole thing.

Re: Hammer's DRACULA Restored!

How can they do that legally? Technically the print is still the property of the studio, isn't it? So if the studio needs it to do a restoration, how can the Japanese film library prevent them from getting access to it?

Re: Hammer's DRACULA Restored!

Has there been any further news about the DVD of the restored version

In the UK, this film, Curse of Frankenstein and The Mummy went OOP about a year ago - US DVDs are still avaliable. What's going on? A restored Curse (with reinstated gore shots) would be nice!

Re: Hammer's DRACULA Restored!

I hope Warner will not repeat the mistake of the first release and fail to include Christopher Lee for a commentary on Horror of Dracula, Curse of Frankenstein and The Mummy. I've been watching some of my old Anchor Bay Hammer releases and its such a joy to hear Mr. Lee and others reminisce about Hammer. I am so glad they went the distance for those DVDs.

Re: Hammer's DRACULA Restored!

Well Mr. Lee does have a rather funny attitude about discussing "THAT character" since he's hit the big time again

Re: Hammer's DRACULA Restored!

He conducted a wonderful audio commentary on the Scares of Dracula DVD.

Re: Hammer's DRACULA Restored!

I heard back in 2004 (from a particular genre magazine writer) that Warner actually had asked Lee to do commentaries for their key Hammer titles like HORROR OF DRACULA, but were turned down.

Re: Hammer's DRACULA Restored!

I heard something similar (can remember where) with the twist that he'd agreed, but Warners said his payment demands were prohibitive.

Re: Hammer's DRACULA Restored!

Has anyone heard news of the restored (HORROR OF) DRACULA being released on dvd by WB? Or, how about new transfers for HoD and CURSE OF FRANKESTEIN, and even THE MUMMY? I think I remember someone from WB admitting that these dvds needed to be fixed as they weren't mastered the best (and could be improved upon).

Perhaps this is a good question (or set of...) for the chat on the 23rd?

Ben

Re: Hammer's DRACULA Restored!

Good question. I wonder what century this DVD is coming out in?!

Re: Hammer's DRACULA Restored!

Well, we saw what Warners had to say in the chat:

any chance of seeing where eagles dare or hammer films on blu ray this year?

WHERE EAGLES DARE coming to BD next year......No Hammer for BD yet...but we have hopes for those to come shortly.

Now, I'm reading that as no Hammer BD, but coming soon again on SD?

Re: Hammer's DRACULA Restored!

That would be annoying.

Re: Hammer's DRACULA Restored!

I viewed this last night for the first time in ages. A class film & a really nice looking transfer, but....I'd forgotten just how bad the framing problem is! There's a shot of Dracula just before he kills Harker, & on the trailer (in 16.9, like the feature) you can see all of his head plus a gap & then the frameline. The same shot on the film the frameline is half way up his forehead. This is not just 16.9 when it should have been 1.66, it's much worse than that.

Re: Hammer's DRACULA Restored!

Presented at the (correct) 1.66-1 ratio, the top of Dracula's head is still clipped (and I even think that shot is hard matted). The DVD's problem isn't so much wrong aspect ratio, but bad framing all around.

Re: Hammer's DRACULA Restored!

Yes, zoomed in too much. Another gain from 1.66 is that you'd get a lot more picture left & right. You lose a lot of picture left & right on a domestic TV, with 1.66 you just lose the black side bars. It's a shame that Warner is in no rush to correct this.

Re: Hammer's DRACULA Restored!

I emailed BFI about this, and they responded by saying my note was being passed to another office there. Then, they also encouraged me to contact Hammer directly. Shall see...

Re: Hammer's DRACULA Restored!

This is a true classic. Thanks for the review.

Has anyone picked up the DRACULA - FOUR FILM FAVORITES budget release on dvd? I'm asking because it was brought to light last week/weekend that the Amazon Unbox VOD of HORROR OF DRACULA is a different transfer than the original WB dvd. Since reading this, I purchased and downloaded it myself and it is indeed true. The framing, colors and details is better/more accurate (the only drawback is the format, DRM and compression issues). On top of that, I've started to notice that when sets like this are released by some companies, they sometimes slip in new/different transfers without making it known (for example, the recent John Carpenter set).

Can anyone give some info on this?

 

Thanks,

Ben

I bought this at Best Buy yesterday for ten bucks, in the hopes that your information had some merit. I compared the HORROR OF DRACULA transfer here to the one of the original single release, and there isn't a speck of difference that I can spot. I am most disappointed that Warner bros did not even deem the now-available restored version important enough to include as a standard DVD in their Archive series, let alone as a Blu-ray commercial release. I am rapdily growing disenchanted with them. God, Universal is doing a better job laterely, and that ain't sayin' much.

Any of the Warners four films in one series is using the existing transfer.  They are not remastering or going back for new elements.  This is just a  re-package.

Well, I picked up the 4 pack a few weeks ago and I noticed the framing was different on Horror Of Dracula. The framing was no longer tight and looked natural. It would not be considered "remastering" if WB fixed the framing just as MGM fixed the tight framing in a couple of shots of Pit & The Pendulum (compared to the LD) without actually creating a new master.

Whatever the case, on my parents 55" and when viewed with my video projector, the framing on the 4 pack version is spot on. No chopped off heads, etc. I didn't compare the 4 pack version with the standalone (couldn't find it) but the difference struck me right away.

Now, I am currently making a deal for a Super 8mm film print of Horror Of Dracula which is supposed to be matted to 1.85:1. If the deal goes through it will be interesting to see how the framing is. If anyone's interested I'll post my findings when the print gets here.

Well, I'm certainly interested.  I'd still like to know if that 4-pack is actually better framed than the standalone.  If so, I'll be happy to go out and buy it, but on another website someone suggested that the transfers were identical.

Tom M, if you can provide some screencaps from the 4-pack DVD, it would be much appreciated!

I would be happy to do some screencaps. Might be a day or two though.

One more thing I forgot to mention in my last post and it concerns a possible DVD re-release of this title. When Universal made the Bela Lugosi film in 1931, they copyrighted the title "Dracula".

Since then, any Dracula made by a studio other than Universal cannot use just "Dracula" without risking copyright infringment. Universal renewed the copyright when they made the 1979 Frank Langella film.

Dracula movies made outside the US can use the single title but when they come to the US, a title change is necessary.

It's possible WB is trying to find some workaround so the movie can be re-released with it's original title intact.

You can't copyright a title-- you can trademark one, but in this case, you can't trademark a work that's already held under copyright by someone else (at the time, Stoker and his estate).  Since the original novel is now public domain, anyone can make or release a picture called "Dracula."

I wouldn't count on WB using the BFI restoration (which looks terrible in density, to my eye-- way too many highlights being blown out).  For WB, a US for-profit to license the BFI (a non-profit from the UK) would be difficult, and WB has original elements and would likely do their own new transfer.

IIRC correctly, the reason for the title change was simply that the 1931 version was still being reissued in the US when Hammer's film was released and it was to avoid confusion.

As I understand it, there was a good deal of ballyhoo about the BFI 'restoration' which was both of a new print - which confused many folk who saw it because it looked pretty murky - and a digital copy (which I saw projected and it looked damned good). In fact the work was done in conjunction with Warner (they were credited with such), the whisper being that they'd done the lion's share. At the time - 2007 - they said a DVD was in the offing 'later in the year'.

Last I heard, Warner still held the home video rights in the UK, though their UK DVD went OOP some while ago; FWIW there are 'net rumours that they've been talking to the BFI about the latter bringing out a new DVD/BD and while there's nothing concrete, I wouldn't put anything past this brave new home video world.

In my defense, my information on Universal copyrighting the title Dracula came from a documentary I saw in the 1990's about Dracula films. The film historian being interviewed said it was, "The smartest move Universal ever made". I cannot remember the title of the doc but I remember that quote.

It's possible I misunderstood what that historian was saying. I wish I could remember the title of that doc as I've always wanted to see it again.

Anyway, I'll try and get the screenshots done soon and have them up by week's end. If someone could give me timecodes of anything they want to see, that would be helpful instead of me just taking random shots.

I can't think of any timecodes, I'm just looking for some clear evidence that the framing is actually different between the two releases.  I remember hearing a lot of complaints about the tops of heads being cut off.