Re: A few words about...™ Halloween -- in BD
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paul Arnette
If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that the "truth" about the color-timing of this film probably lies somewhere in-between the Divimax and the Cundey-approved transfer. Sure the Cundey-approved transfer is, well, Cundey-approved, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be revisionist coloration.
|
After comparing both DVDs to two different laser editions and two different VHS editions, there has
never been a doubt in my mind that Cundey's transfer is wildly revisionist, AND so fuggin' dark that it's a wonder you can see anything. I'm still mystified by the insane adoration people here give that awful disc time after time. Perhaps this is the one everyone has seen so many times that they now think this is the way the film is "supposed to look". And even I'll admit, if Cundey says so, maybe this is the way he always
wanted the film to look.
But the film
never looked like that. Sorry THX-disc fanboys, but it just didn't. I'm not saying it looked exactly like the Divimax disc either (it didn't), but judging from the screencaps alone, the BD disc is spot-on to the way Halloween has always looked pre-1999. Cundey's attempts to digitally create fall from spring may look pretty, but pretty and accurate are not the same thing (see Lawrence of Arabia Superbit for further clarification).
Using the THX disc as a guide to how the film is supposed to look is just going to get you in trouble. The same issue keeps cropping up every time someone wants to use the older 007 DVDs to bash the new ones. It's a DVD, not an archival show print. Of course, I don't have access to one of those either, but if 5 different video releases over three decades look one way, and one release looks completely different, which do
you think is logically the wrong one?