Twilight Time September/October 2012 Releases (1 Viewer)

[haineshisway]

I see a big difference between changing a films content and changing a film's look, why did Tom Savini not film day for night twenty years ago, no one is asking that question.

Did you see the film twenty years ago in the theater? Just curious. I didn't, therefore I cannot say with a certainty whether that was the original timing or intention. It was a very low-budget film that was a box-office failure. Most people's experience with this film has been with lo-con TV, cable, and video transfers. The assumption that those are correct is something that always happens when that is what people are used to. Ride the High Country's DVD has day-for-night scenes printed as if they were happening in daylight even though the characters are going to sleep. Should we assume that's correct when it clearly is not, just because it was on the DVD. And that is hardly the only DVD with mis-printed day-for-night scenes.

 

[rsmithjr]

Filmmakers have the right to approve/disapprove or change their material. 

Well stated.
I would point out that the "filmmakers" are not necessarily the "copyright holders". The legal rights adhere exclusively and unconditionally to the copyright holders.
There are many examples of copyright holders changing films against the wishes of the film makers. There are a lot of really odd things that have happened. Copyright holders have even tried to completely eradicate films against the protests of the filmmakers as well as everyone else. [Example: Porgy and Bess.]
As to what rights the "filmmakers" independently of copyright, that does get us into the moral area where there are a lot of arguments in all directions.
I certainly want to limit the moral rights of "filmmakers" to change their films! Of course, these "moral rights' have no legal existence, but they can be brought to bear in many ways.

 

[rsmithjr]

I don't see that at all. We have a reaction ... hardly a creative process.

Audience and critical opinion are a part of the whole cycle of creation. Films are not just strips in film cans or digital files, they exist together with their viewers and the social context in which they exist.
The volumes of writing about Hitchcock clearly reshaped what the films meant. Vertigo, for example, may be the same image and sound (approximately) today as in 1958, but it is hardly the same artistic creation as it was in 1958. I saw Vertigo on opening day in 1958 and have watched the overall creative process unfold for the last 50 years with that film.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Robert, there's also international law at play - As I mentioned earlier, the Danish DGA on behalf of Sydney Pollack brought suit against the pan and scan showing of 3 Days of the Condor in Denmark. Now a director would not have such standing here, but does there, so the absolute rights of copyright holders don't exist in every territory.

 

[Jason_V]

Originally Posted by rich_d /t/321400/twilight-time-september-october-2012-releases/270#post_3983565
What ... the part that they used actors?

HAHA! Yeah, I thought I'd make a funny and see what everyone said here!

 

[rsmithjr]

Robert, there's also international law at play - As I mentioned earlier, the Danish DGA on behalf of Sydney Pollack brought suit against the pan and scan showing of 3 Days of the Condor in Denmark. Now a director would not have such standing here, but does there, so the absolute rights of copyright holders don't exist in every territory.

Yes I was aware of these exceptions.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Originally Posted by David Weicker /t/321400/twilight-time-september-october-2012-releases/240#post_3983242
What I don't understand is the lack of ire directed at Twilight Time. If this had been another studio - say Olive or Universal or MGM, and they had released the same press-release response word-for-word, they would have been slaughtered six-ways-from-sunday here on these forums. And yet Twilight Time is praised for their class.
It is apparent that some people are finding this release less than perfect.
I don't know if NOTLD is correct or not. I do believe TT when they say that it was approved, and is what they were given. And it was a classy statement.
Its just the inconsistent reaction here on HTF that I find puzzling. The blind adoration vs. the ranting hatred towards the rest.

I don't think its blind adoration (or ranting hatred). In the real world stuff happens. Its how you deal with that stuff that defines you in my book. In this case Twilight Time received some complaints. They didn't say "doesn't matter, already sold out" and walk away. They communicated openly (here and on Facebook) and quickly to get to the bottom of it and came back with an answer. On top of that they told people if they weren't happy with that answer they could return it for a refund, no questions asked.

 

[Alan Tully]

Oh well, you can buy the DVD for next to nothing from Amazon Marketplace.

 

[Paul Penna]

Its just the inconsistent reaction here on HTF that I find puzzling. The blind adoration vs. the ranting hatred towards the rest.

What I scratch my head over is the more general preoccupation on the part of some to get wrapped up in good guys/bad guys love/hate affairs with studios, as if they were political parties, religions or football teams. They're commercial enterprises offering products for sale as far as I'm concerned. If I want what they're selling at a price I'm willing to pay, I buy it; if not, I don't. How they run their business otherwise makes no difference to me. I'm not seeking to be friends or get warm fuzzy feelings from them.
(I'm not directing this at you, just using your post as a convenient springboard for my rant.)

 

[Michael Elliott]

Did you see the film twenty years ago in the theater? Just curious. I didn't, therefore I cannot say with a certainty whether that was the original timing or intention. It was a very low-budget film that was a box-office failure. Most people's experience with this film has been with lo-con TV, cable, and video transfers. The assumption that those are correct is something that always happens when that is what people are used to. Ride the High Country's DVD has day-for-night scenes printed as if they were happening in daylight even though the characters are going to sleep. Should we assume that's correct when it clearly is not, just because it was on the DVD. And that is hardly the only DVD with mis-printed day-for-night scenes.

I often roll my eyes at people who talk about framing from something they saw 40 years ago but I finally realized that certain fans do remember certain films for the rest of their lives. I'm sure our eyes trick us from time to time but I do believe some might have a certain experience that makes that film stick in a viewers mind for the rest of their life.
I was 10 when this movie was released and to this day I still remember the theater I went to, who I got dropped off by, buying the tickets and hell, I still remember what I ordered before the movie. I say this because since this debate broke out I couldn't believe that someone would say that tinting was correct or even looked good. I still remember watching this film 22 years ago and it's just crazy to me that this tinting is being approved by people and especially Savini. Maybe he wanted it this way or perhaps he's getting money by discs selling. I'm not sure if he gets any cash back from 3000 copies being sold or waht but I'd have a hard time seeing any artist coming out and telling people not to buy their film.
Something that has confused me and perhaps it has been brought up before. I believe they are saying this here is a new transfer that was done a couple years ago. If my memory serves, one of the pay stations showed a remastered version of this film a year ago and it was the original color and not this new thing. So, if a new transfer was just recently shown, I'm not sure how this thing happened two years ago and wasn't already being shown.
I wasn't buying the Blu anyways but it's good that alternate versions of the original are out there. I just checked one of the streaming sites and the print is much better than the old DVD but it contains the (IMO) correct colors.

 

[Persianimmortal]

Couldn't agree more.  If you don't like it, don't buy it.  It's as simple as that.  If no one bought the SW releases because of the omission of the original original trilogy in hi def, that might send a message.  But lots of people grabbed the sets. 
Filmmakers have the right to approve/disapprove or change their material.  And we have a right to not spend money on the product if we choose not to.

Agree 100% with this. People seem to forget that their rights end at a certain point. As consumers of entertainment products, our powers and rights end at the point where we say Yes or No to purchasing something. Being a fan of a film does not give me ownership of that film. As frustrating as it can be at times, the only way to send a message to creators/owners is to go without their products if we don't like them. Unfortunately this also requires some level of personal discipline and sacrifice, both of which are anathema to the average consumer.

 

[Jason_V]

Originally Posted by David Weicker /t/321400/twilight-time-september-october-2012-releases/240#post_3983242
What I don't understand is the lack of ire directed at Twilight Time. If this had been another studio - say Olive or Universal or MGM, and they had released the same press-release response word-for-word, they would have been slaughtered six-ways-from-sunday here on these forums. And yet Twilight Time is praised for their class.
It is apparent that some people are finding this release less than perfect.
I don't know if NOTLD is correct or not. I do believe TT when they say that it was approved, and is what they were given. And it was a classy statement.
Its just the inconsistent reaction here on HTF that I find puzzling. The blind adoration vs. the ranting hatred towards the rest.

I don't have a horse in this race, to be honest, but here's another thought a lot of people have hit on: TT didn't create this transfer. They were given elements to work with and produced a disc. So the outrage and ire should be at whomever created this particular transfer, not the distributor. This is akin to being mad at AMC or Regal if you don't like a movie. They didn't make it. Be mad at the producers and talent behind it.

 

[David Weicker]

I don't think its blind adoration (or ranting hatred).  In the real world stuff happens.  Its how you deal with that stuff that defines you in my book.  In this case Twilight Time received some complaints.  They didn't say "doesn't matter, already sold out" and walk away.  They communicated openly (here and on Facebook) and quickly to get to the bottom of it and came back with an answer.  On top of that they told people if they weren't happy with that answer they could return it for a refund, no questions asked. 

I wasn't saying that Twilight Time didn't do a good job at responding. In fact, I think they did do a good job at responding. It was the reaction here vs. the types of reaction in say, the Hitchcock thread, or the Bond 50 thread, or the Olive High Noon/Invasion threads (or prior threads from/about those studios). In those threads there have been various levels of studio response (oftentimes very similar to TT's) that was met in a much different manner.
David

 

[rich_d]

What I don't understand is the lack of ire directed at Twilight Time. If this had been another studio - say Olive or Universal or MGM, and they had released the same press-release response word-for-word, they would have been slaughtered six-ways-from-sunday here on these forums. And yet Twilight Time is praised for their class.
It is apparent that some people are finding this release less than perfect.
I don't know if NOTLD is correct or not. I do believe TT when they say that it was approved, and is what they were given. And it was a classy statement.
Its just the inconsistent reaction here on HTF that I find puzzling. The blind adoration vs. the ranting hatred towards the rest.

I don't think its blind adoration (or ranting hatred).  In the real world stuff happens.  Its how you deal with that stuff that defines you in my book.  In this case Twilight Time received some complaints.  They didn't say "doesn't matter, already sold out" and walk away.  They communicated openly (here and on Facebook) and quickly to get to the bottom of it and came back with an answer.  On top of that they told people if they weren't happy with that answer they could return it for a refund, no questions asked. 

I wasn't saying that Twilight Time didn't do a good job at responding. In fact, I think they did do a good job at responding. It was the reaction here vs. the types of reaction in say, the Hitchcock thread, or the Bond 50 thread, or the Olive High Noon/Invasion threads (or prior threads from/about those studios). In those threads there have been various levels of studio response (oftentimes very similar to TT's) that was met in a much different manner.
David

David,
If you visit their Facebook page, you'll find a lot of posts from a lot of unhappy campers. That said, TT also has more than their fair share of fanboys/apologists. I guess it goes with the territory. I'd suggest that it's not happening here as much - because for most of us - this is not our first barbeque. I'd also agree with Adam ... the difference is how you deal with adversity. And TT did not run and hide but has been communicating openly and rather quickly. And not to put too fine a point on it, but other far bigger organizations could learn from that. And since you mentioned the Hitchcock thread ... Universal is a sad example of what I mean.

 

[David Weicker]

David,
If you visit their Facebook page, you'll find a lot of posts from a lot of unhappy campers. That said, TT also has more than their fair share of fanboys/apologists. I guess it goes with the territory. I'd suggest that it's not happening here as much - because for most of us - this is not our first barbeque. I'd also agree with Adam ... the difference is how you deal with adversity. And TT did not run and hide but has been communicating openly and rather quickly. And not to put to fine a point on it, but other far bigger organizations could learn from that. And since you mentioned the Hitchcock thread ... Universal is a sad example of what I mean.

Except in the Hitchcock thread, Universal responded by saying they were delaying their release to fix the problems, and the response was laughed at (to put it mildly).

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Except in the Hitchcock thread, Universal responded by saying they were delaying their release to fix the problems, and the response was laughed at (to put it mildly).

And with no indication of what was being fixed...

 

[rich_d]

Except in the Hitchcock thread, Universal responded by saying they were delaying their release to fix the problems, and the response was laughed at (to put it mildly).

If Universal responded "in the Hitchcock thread", please quote who their representative was and chapter and verse because I obviously missed it.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

If Universal responded "in the Hitchcock thread", please quote who their representative was and chapter and verse because I obviously missed it.

I dont think anyone from Uni responded directly, but their press release was posted there. I think that's an honest misunderstanding...

 

[Persianimmortal]

The Universal/Hitchcock Set situation is completely different. Some of the changes were actual undeniable mistakes, and none were director approved. Furthermore Universal owns the material, and created the transfers. Finally, Universal has not provided any clear updates as to what is being done to rectify the various issues. They have simply said "Certain imperfections with the product have come to light and, as a result, we are delaying the release date to correct these points." There is insufficient detail to judge whether they should be fully applauded until we see the finished product. If they address all issues then I'm sure they will get kudos for the delay.
Twilight Time on the other hand does not own the material but is a licensee, did not create the transfer, the changes are not a mistake and meet with director and DP approval, and TT has provided regular updates clarifying the situation, along with providing the option for a refund.
So there is really no comparison as to the two situations.

 

[Jason_V]

Originally Posted by Persianimmortal /t/321400/twilight-time-september-october-2012-releases/300#post_3983836
The Universal/Hitchcock Set situation is completely different. Some of the changes were actual undeniable mistakes, and none were director approved. Furthermore Universal owns the material, and created the transfers. Finally, Universal has not provided any clear updates as to what is being done to rectify the various issues. They have simply said "Certain imperfections with the product have come to light and, as a result, we are delaying the release date to correct these points." There is insufficient detail to judge whether they should be fully applauded until we see the finished product. If they address all issues then I'm sure they will get kudos for the delay.
Twilight Time on the other hand does not own the material but is a licensee, did not create the transfer, the changes are not a mistake and meet with director and DP approval, and TT has provided regular updates clarifying the situation, along with providing the option for a refund.
So there is really no comparison as to the two situations.

Bingo. The same would go with CBS and the recent TNG S1 BD's. They found a defect and it was remedied very very quickly. I appreciated their quick response and acknowledgment of the problem. I am a happy camper with CBS despite the problems. I've stated as much in the thread here on HTF.