A Few Words About A few words about...™ Dracula aka Horror of Dracula -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[tanaleaf]

Which forum is that? Blu-Ray.com?

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/mon...f-dracula-1958-coming-via-wac-t71617-s60.html

I've been hoping for a U.S. Blu-ray that includes the lost disintegration footage since it was discovered in Japan, a few years back.

So, to me, this is a disappointment -- a lost opportunity.

 

[Will Krupp]

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/mon...f-dracula-1958-coming-via-wac-t71617-s60.html

Thank you!!

Now I AM confused. On that forum (though I realize it's only a single poster) he's saying that the Warner release doesn't contain ANY of the Japanese footage at all?? Not even that which was already in the Hammer 2012 restoration?

The press release says this is based on the BFI/Hammer restoration which SHOULD include the Japanese footage from the Hammer work (which was just the earlier BFI resto with the newly found footage added in), else why not just say it's based on the earlier BFI restoration alone and leave it at that?

I'm so confused now. (I wonder if he just means the additional 'new' Japanese footage that was released in Germany?)

 

[tanaleaf]

My sense of it so far (as the discussion over there has unfolded further) is that there’s no Japanese footage included at all.

 

[haineshisway]

Thank you!!

Now I AM confused. On that forum (though I realize it's only a single poster) he's saying that the Warner release doesn't contain ANY of the Japanese footage at all?? Not even that which was already in the Hammer 2012 restoration?

The press release says this is based on the BFI/Hammer restoration which SHOULD include the Japanese footage from the Hammer work (which was just the earlier BFI resto with the newly found footage added in), else why not just say it's based on the earlier BFI restoration alone and leave it at that?

I'm so confused now. (I wonder if he just means the additional 'new' Japanese footage that was released in Germany?)

This guy is someone who either still works at or worked at MGM/UA. I'm not sure how he saw any of this or, if he did, what kind of system he saw it on, but I would take anything else he said with a grain of salt.

 

[kinzoels]

Thank you Haineshisway and Robert Harris for your knowledgeable and educated responses.....

 

[Brian Kidd]

Could be worse. I went to see a re-release of Lang's METROPOLIS (the one just previous to the current, nearly complete, version) and the theater wasn't set up to screen films at 1.33:1 and simply cut off the top and bottom of the frame. It totally ruined the composition and, at times, cut off text from the intertitles. I was there with a buddy who works for the Library of Congress in their Motion Picture Conservation department. We were both so disappointed, since it would likely be the only time we'd see the film projected from actual film and the screening was jacked up. Nothing the theater could do, unfortunately, since they rarely showed older films and had to use the setup they owned.

 

[Robert Harris]

Could be worse. I went to see a re-release of Lang's METROPOLIS (the one just previous to the current, nearly complete, version) and the theater wasn't set up to screen films at 1.33:1 and simply cut off the top and bottom of the frame. It totally ruined the composition and, at times, cut off text from the intertitles. I was there with a buddy who works for the Library of Congress in their Motion Picture Conservation department. We were both so disappointed, since it would likely be the only time we'd see the film projected from actual film and the screening was jacked up. Nothing the theater could do, unfortunately, since they rarely showed older films and had to use the setup they owned.

Similarly, first time I saw Citizen Kane in 35mm, it was run 1.85.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Could be worse. I went to see a re-release of Lang's METROPOLIS (the one just previous to the current, nearly complete, version) and the theater wasn't set up to screen films at 1.33:1 and simply cut off the top and bottom of the frame. It totally ruined the composition and, at times, cut off text from the intertitles. I was there with a buddy who works for the Library of Congress in their Motion Picture Conservation department. We were both so disappointed, since it would likely be the only time we'd see the film projected from actual film and the screening was jacked up. Nothing the theater could do, unfortunately, since they rarely showed older films and had to use the setup they owned.

I was stuck with that once on a one-shot projection job at a venue without proper gear - the way to get around it is use the scope lens, take off the anamorphic adapter, use the scope aperture plate, and set the screen masking to scope height. You'll have an image that's windowboxed and small, but at least it won't be cropped.

Similarly, first time I saw Citizen Kane in 35mm, it was run 1.85.

A theater here in northern New Jersey ran Kane in scope sometime back in 2000 or so. They said that if they "ran it the other way, all the heads were cut off". They seemed perplexed when I mentioned there was a third way to show it...

 

[Robert Harris]

I was stuck with that once on a one-shot projection job at a venue without proper gear - the way to get around it is use the scope lens, take off the anamorphic adapter, use the scope aperture plate, and set the screen masking to scope height. You'll have an image that's windowboxed and small, but at least it won't be cropped.



A theater here in northern New Jersey ran Kane in scope sometime back in 2000 or so. They said that if they "ran it the other way, all the heads were cut off". They seemed perplexed when I mentioned there was a third way to show it...

That's what I suggested. Scope prime without adapter, and scope aperture plate. Projectionist understood, but explained that he didn't have right lens to fill screen in 1.37.

We left.

 

[Timothy Bodzioney]

Seven Samurai was projected in 1.85 the first time I saw it.

 

[Charles Smith]

When I played in that orchestra for "The Freshman" last month they rolled the picture up a couple of feet from the bottom of the screen so as to avoid musicians' heads. However, no image size adjustment was made, so the top part of the picture was cut off, resulting in what probably looked like 1.85.

During the rehearsal I tried glancing up a couple of times to see how much of a disaster that was going to be. I *think* they just managed to avoid losing heads most of the time, but I'll have to guess at that next time I watch it at home. I believe none of the titles on this film extend close enough to the top or bottom to have gotten lost. Finally, no masking was employed, even though I'd like to think those curtains might have been usable since this room was designed for multi-use in the first place.

 

[haineshisway]

I remember taking my young daughter (she must have been four or five) to the Fine Arts here in LA - they were showing Singin' in the Rain and I wanted her to see it. Of course like all movie theaters then they could only show 1.85 and scope. So, I sat there trying to figure out how to explain that none of the dancers had feet. Thankfully, a month later a friend showed his 16mm Tech print and she saw the feet.

 

[Charles Smith]

I remember taking my young daughter (she must have been four or five) to the Fine Arts here in LA - they were showing Singin' in the Rain and I wanted her to see it. Of course like all movie theaters then they could only show 1.85 and scope. So, I sat there trying to figure out how to explain that none of the dancers had feet. Thankfully, a month later a friend showed his 16mm Tech print and she saw the feet.

Do you remember a Warner Bros. retrospective at the Fine Arts sometime in '76-'78? I went on a few evenings, and though I was marginally aware of this stuff then, I now have absolutely no idea what the ARs were. From what you're saying, those '40s noirs and such would have been shown in 1.85, and it's so hard to believe now that I watched a bunch of those movies that way.

 

[B-ROLL]

I remember taking my young daughter (she must have been four or five) to the Fine Arts here in LA - they were showing Singin' in the Rain and I wanted her to see it. Of course like all movie theaters then they could only show 1.85 and scope. So, I sat there trying to figure out how to explain that none of the dancers had feet. Thankfully, a month later a friend showed his 16mm Tech print and she saw the feet.

So she experienced the Agony of De Feet ?

 

[haineshisway]

Do you remember a Warner Bros. retrospective at the Fine Arts sometime in '76-'78? I went on a few evenings, and though I was marginally aware of this stuff then, I now have absolutely no idea what the ARs were. From what you're saying, those '40s noirs and such would have been shown in 1.85, and it's so hard to believe now that I watched a bunch of those movies that way.

Correct - they could not show Academy ratio there at that point.

 

[Bob Cashill]

https://trailersfromhell.com/horror-of-dracula/

 

[Conrad_SSS]

I remember taking my young daughter (she must have been four or five) to the Fine Arts here in LA - they were showing Singin' in the Rain and I wanted her to see it. Of course like all movie theaters then they could only show 1.85 and scope. So, I sat there trying to figure out how to explain that none of the dancers had feet. Thankfully, a month later a friend showed his 16mm Tech print and she saw the feet.

I had the same experience. I believe there was a limited re-release of the film that played ‘regular’ theaters in the mid-70s, and I was quite upset at the way the film was shown. I complained to the manager, and they had no understanding of what I was talking about. They thought it looked fine!

 

[Will Krupp]

https://trailersfromhell.com/horror-of-dracula/

Welp, that answers that then. I find no reason not to trust what Glenn Erickson says and he's pretty definitive here.

The movie matches the standard cut of the film, but with the original U.K. title card from the BFI restoration, that reads simply ‘Dracula.’ The new WAC disc also retains the original Universal-International logos, that Hammer dropped for their ‘tweaked’ version. Five years ago the reconstituted Hammer company obtained some alternate shots for both Dracula’s assault on Mina and his disintegration at the finale, and fans hoped these would be interpolated into WB’s version. The answer is no — you’ll still have to invest in all-region capability to have those extra three or four seconds of alternate footage on disc.

It feels like a wasted opportunity to me but it is what it is, I guess.

What concerns me more is what he says about the transfer itself

In terms of image quality, what transfer is better, the 2013 Lionsgate UK disc or the WAC’s new release? Choosing is not a simple matter of taste. The Warner Archive’s disc has much truer colors, but it’s also softer, more grainy, and far more contrasty. Blacks are indeed crushed, so there’s less detail in dark areas of the frame, or Dracula’s cape, for instance. It’s not a bad look, but faces in middle distance have less detail, and some reds seem to form into a solid block.

I suppose I'll pick it up but I have to admit I'm less enthused about than I was earlier.

 

[Bob Cashill]

This sounds exactly like what’s streaming in HD now on iTunes. I’ll stick with the BFI disc.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Amazon is now selling this title for $17.99!