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

[lark144]

Its 2-3 seconds on the U.K. disc. The German disc has another 1.5 seconds that was missing sound so they used sound from earlier in the sequence which makes the audio slightly out of synch for that sequence. I own the U.K. disc and have viewed the german one. To be honest after reading and hearing about this extra footage for 30 years I found it extremely disappointing and it doesn't really add up to much. In fact it just makes the disintegration scene feel dragged out. It needed cutting imho.

The problem I have with the additional 2-3 seconds on the UK disc is that it lingers on Drac's decomposing face just long enough for one to tell that you're seeing 2 electric light bulbs with cigar ash. The original version is in many way more disturbing, because the quick cutaways make you use your imagination. As many people like to say, less is more.

 

[PMF]

So, to sum this up: We are talking about under five SECONDS of footage that was never in any release print of this film in the United States of America? And the only place these under five SECONDS were seen was Japan? And THIS is what the brouhaha is about? THIS is what people are screaming about?

Now, if we were talkin' 22 seconds then we'd be heading straight into the Eli Cross territories.

 

[Will Krupp]

Are there two UK Blu-rays or one? I have one from Lionsgate - I assume that's what everyone is talking about. On the other board, one particularly dim person is still going on and on about how the BFI color timing is baked into the scan so Warners couldn't really fix it. Color timing isn't baked into a scan - a scan is raw and then work is done on it. These people are beyond help.

Every time I look at that "other board" I'm reminded of how sane and almost LOVELY we are over here!

 

[babybreese]

Every time I look at that "other board" I'm reminded of how sane and almost LOVELY we are over here!

Beyond help eh?
The Haines way?

BFI scanned in 2007 and did their color timing.
Color was not good and parts are too dark.

This is what was given to Warner's..complete with baked in mistakes courtesy the BFI restoration.

 

[Robert Harris]

Beyond help eh?
The Haines way?

BFI scanned in 2007 and did their color timing.
Color was not good and parts are too dark.

This is what was given to Warner's..complete with baked in mistakes courtesy the BFI restoration.

From my understanding, there are no baked in mistakes, it’s merely a purposeful re-imagining of color and densities.

 

[Robert Harris]

Something has been troubling me with HoD.

Toward the end of the film, the good Count is on the floor, hear back, mouth open wide...

And all that I see is dental work.

Now, as I recall Dracula “lived” in the 14th? century.

One might presume that vampires are not affected by tooth decay, so that if our fair Count had dental problems while still in human form, it would have been some 500 years ago, which I would believe was before the dawn of modern dentistry.

So...

 

[Malcolm R]

Sadly, you see that lack of attention to detail in a lot of period films, where the characters, especially the leads, still have all their teeth and they're all usually sparkling white and perfectly aligned or show evidence of modern fillings.

I recall watching 10,000 B.C. and wondering who was the resident orthodontist at the time that gave all those pre-historic people the perfect white teeth.

 

[B-ROLL]

Sadly, you see that lack of attention to detail in a lot of period films, where the characters, especially the leads, still have all their teeth and they're all usually sparkling white and perfectly aligned or show evidence of modern fillings.

I recall watching 10,000 B.C. and wondering who was the resident orthodontist at the time that gave all those pre-historic people the perfect white teeth.

The local newspaper review of Blue Lagoon commented the the,now, mature kids would have not had access to good dental care, but they both had pearly white smiles ...

If you check teh "goofs" section on IMDB for just about any historical film there will be anachronisms listed ...

And that Willie Shakespeare guy piratically invented anachronisms
Hamlet went to University of Halle-Wittenberg, in Germany. The school was not founded until 1502, so Hamlet could not have possibly been a student there.

There is also the Benevolences Tax in Richard II. This would have been more obvious to theater goers in Shakespeare's day. Benevolence taxes were termed gifts and were not mandatory. This came into existence almost 75 years after Richard II's death (1400).

In The Winter's Tale, Shakespeare keeps his Bohemia coastal while it is actually a landlocked territory...

Cleopatra wanting to play billiards. Billiards was invented almost 2000 years after her reign, but was a game of luxury and masculine entertainment during Shakespeare's times.

In King Henry IV, Richard the Third compares himself to Machiavelli, who would have been but an infant during the time the play is set.

In Midsummer Night's Dream, characters are bestowed dukedom (a concept that wasn't in existence during the play's times, and given guns.

In Troilus and Cressida, Hector talks about Aristotle, who in reality was born centuries after the supposed time of the Trojan War.

And the most well-known:.

Julius Caesar,Act II, lines 193-195.

BRUTUS
Peace! count the clock.

CASSIUS
The clock hath stricken three.

There were no mechanical clocks in 44 BCE ,,,

 

[haineshisway]

Beyond help eh?
The Haines way?

BFI scanned in 2007 and did their color timing.
Color was not good and parts are too dark.

This is what was given to Warner's..complete with baked in mistakes courtesy the BFI restoration.

Ooh, thanks for joining yesterday, coming directly from the other board to make a pithy comment about me and then to regurgitate the nonsense that is being posted there - learn from here and I will reiterate what Mr. Harris posted above: Warners got the RAW scan - all color correction for the BFI release was done AFTER the raw scan and that is what's on their Blu-ray. Warners took the RAW scan and did a different color correction actually based on the IB Technicolor prints. Is there really something you're having difficulty understanding about this or what a raw scan off a negative is and how there cannot be anything "baked" in? Do you?

 

[Alan Tully]

Well I dunno. I have a few questions I'd like to ask Warner. Why did Warner say they were using the BFI restoration, if they were just using a raw scan, what element did the BFI scan from? (& did they do the scan or did Warner send it to them, but if they'd done that, there'd be no need to mention the BFI on the announcement blurb). I'd have thought that Warner held all the main film elements, are the original negatives suffering from fading issues? Whatever, I've read two reviews & they both mention black crush, which really shouldn't happen, & RH here gives the picture a score of 3.75, which is a tad disappointing as I really don't like the BFI blue look & had high hopes for this.

 

[Malcolm Bmoor]

In The Winter's Tale, Shakespeare keeps his Bohemia coastal while it is actually a landlocked territory...

This is one of the 'errors' constantly quoted by people untroubled by any reading of research and evidence.

At that time the Kingdom of The King Of Bohemia stretched to the coast. Repeating disregard of this long discovered fact is part of the repertoire of those who choose to ignore all evidence that the writer of the Works of Shakespeare was not Mr Shakspere of Stratford Upon Avon. There are numerous obscure but accurate facts and observations in The Works and many that have been ignorantly regarded as mistakes have been proven true.

Altlhough there is no evidence that Mr Shakspere ever travelled there is plenty that the Plays were written by somebody intimately familiar with foreign territories. I refer you to:

The Shakespeare Guide To Italy by Richard Roe.

 

[Alan Tully]

Sadly, you see that lack of attention to detail in a lot of period films, where the characters, especially the leads, still have all their teeth and they're all usually sparkling white and perfectly aligned or show evidence of modern fillings.

I recall watching 10,000 B.C. and wondering who was the resident orthodontist at the time that gave all those pre-historic people the perfect white teeth.

Ha, & perfect teeth in The Walking Dead, despite no dentists & the leads forever punching each other in the mouth. That's it with films, no matter how authentic they try to be, the leads will always have perfect Hollywood teeth (although in 30s-80s British films a lot of the actors, even leads, have far from perfect teeth). I was walking around London's National Gallery & the National Portrait Gallery the other week, & all the hundreds of portraits have one thing in common, everyone has their mouth closed...everyone (& I'd think the Mona Lisa's thin smile is hiding a few gaps)

Anyway, back to Dracula or Shakespeare or whatever.

 

[JM1504]

Well I dunno. I have a few questions I'd like to ask Warner. Why did Warner say they were using the BFI restoration, if they were just using a raw scan, what element did the BFI scan from? (& did they do the scan or did Warner send it to them, but if they'd done that, there'd be no need to mention the BFI on the announcement blurb). I'd have thought that Warner held all the main film elements, are the original negatives suffering from fading issues? Whatever, I've read two reviews & they both mention black crush, which really shouldn't happen, & RH here gives the picture a score of 3.75, which is a tad disappointing as I really don't like the BFI blue look & had high hopes for this.

The original negative was the source of the BFI restoration although some footage had to be sourced from lower quality elements also provided by Warner.

The BFI performed clean-up and other restorative work after the initial scan but prior to grading. This was the starting point of Warner's remaster and it's only natural to give credit where credit is due when working from something that isn't your own work.

The goal of the Warner presentation was to replicate the look of the original dye-transfer Technicolor prints as closely as possible. What is described as black crush was intentional as this is how the prints looked and exposing more shadow detail resulted in certain illusions being exposed which worked perfectly for their time on the prints. Previous home video releases presented the film with incorrect brightness and gamma levels in addition to inaccurate colors.

 

[JM1504]

Beyond help eh?
The Haines way?

BFI scanned in 2007 and did their color timing.
Color was not good and parts are too dark.

This is what was given to Warner's..complete with baked in mistakes courtesy the BFI restoration.

This is libel and may dissuade others from purchasing a release which doesn't suffer from what you falsely claim it does.

It's a travesty that these damaging lies are allowed to be spread. I have no doubt that armchair experts such as yourself and others from that site wouldn't be saying a fraction of what you are if you were all to be held accountable for your comments. It's safe to say this stuff on the internet when one can hide behind VPNs and false names, but if confronted in person by the people who handled the elements and files, you would be as quiet as a mouse.

 

[Alan Tully]

Thanks for your reply JM1504, but I remain a bit unconvinced. The way you describe it, it sounds like perfection, but the RH score of 3.75 is unusually low for an Archive release, & the absence of detail in the dark areas is a worry, it may not be technically crushed (below the line), it could be something to do with the scanning, or what they were scanning. I'll probably end up buying this, but no rush, I'll see what people say (& I know there's a lot of cobblers talked online, esp. at the other place), & look at a cap or two, & I know that's a hanging offence in some states

 

[Will Krupp]

JM1504 posted pretty much what I was going to post. The Warner transfer is of the BFI Restoration that was performed back in 2007 but was re-timed for this release. The Lionsgate 2014 (?) blu-ray used the BFI Restoration as well and ALSO used the "Hammer" restoration from 2012 (which was the 2007 BFI with the addition of previously unseen footage from the Japanese reels) in a presentation that made both cuts available with a new, cooler timing. The CONFUSION, (and ultimately mild disappointment) as I see it stemmed from Warner mistakenly announcing that THEIR new transfer was based on the BFI/Hammer restoration when they really probably should have just said it was based on the BFI. I'm sure it was an honest mistake but I think it caused some confusion and elevated some hopes.

Thanks for your reply JM1504, but I remain a bit unconvinced. The way you describe it, it sounds like perfection, but the RH score of 3.75 is unusually low for an Archive release, & the absence of detail in the dark areas is a worry, it may not be technically crushed (below the line), it could be something to do with the scanning, or what they were scanning. I'll probably end up buying this, but no rush, I'll see what people say (& I know there's a lot of cobblers talked online, esp. at the other place), & look at a cap or two, & I know that's a hanging offence in some states

This is my worry, too, (as I don't ever remember Warner, or any studio, "intentionally" adding black crush to mimic dye transfer "prints" in the past, which I still think is kind of wonky) but I've determined to just wait for the disc's release to see what we ultimately see. I was going to hold off on getting it until it was already out but, of course, my resolve has ALREADY crumbled to dust. Lol

 

[Robert Harris]

Sadly, you see that lack of attention to detail in a lot of period films, where the characters, especially the leads, still have all their teeth and they're all usually sparkling white and perfectly aligned or show evidence of modern fillings.

I recall watching 10,000 B.C. and wondering who was the resident orthodontist at the time that gave all those pre-historic people the perfect white teeth.

Dr. Bronstein.

 

[Robert Harris]

The original negative was the source of the BFI restoration although some footage had to be sourced from lower quality elements also provided by Warner.

The BFI performed clean-up and other restorative work after the initial scan but prior to grading. This was the starting point of Warner's remaster and it's only natural to give credit where credit is due when working from something that isn't your own work.

The goal of the Warner presentation was to replicate the look of the original dye-transfer Technicolor prints as closely as possible. What is described as black crush was intentional as this is how the prints looked and exposing more shadow detail resulted in certain illusions being exposed which worked perfectly for their time on the prints. Previous home video releases presented the film with incorrect brightness and gamma levels in addition to inaccurate colors.

No

 

[kinzoels]

My research appears to show that the true original cut of the film, did not include the extra seconds, that were requested by the Japanese, and were classified as inserts, extraneous to the final cut of the film.

Regardless of what personal desires may come to the fore, this entire endeavor seems to be the veritable “storm in a teacup.”

You are correct Mr. Harris as Producer Anthony Hinds, in an interview, stated Hammer made a special cut of the film because "the Japanese like that kind of thing". This also might explain why, in the entire world, only the Japanese have this different version with the extra footage.

 

[kinzoels]

The BFI did remark in a pre-release that the OCN was in great shape..They did not use terms like existing elements, or other sources. Wouldn't it be a strange comment to make about the OCN and then not use it?