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

[Will Krupp]

• NEW REMASTER SOURCED FROM THE HAMMER/BFI RESTORATION OF THE FILM

Thanks I hadn't seen that (or, if I had I didn't remember it) It SOUNDS like we'll get either both or, at the very least, the final Hammer restoration which should please most people!

 

[Robert Harris]

From what I’m led to believe the film is intact, less possibly six frames.

The color is far superior to the earlier disc

 

[RICK BOND]

So this is the UK version that I have from Lionsgate titled Dracula ? With a New Remaster. Why are they calling it Horror of Dracula then ??? I was hoping for the Horror title, just to have both versions on Bluray, the UK and US. The UK bluray has No trailer. WB should have released both versions. Can't wait to see the far superior color Mr. Harris mentioned.

 

[kinzoels]

According to a Anthony Hinds quote. from Scarlett Street Forums....."We made a special version of Dracula for Japan because we know they love that sort of thing..." (what is that supposed to mean?). Also, from Bob Furmanek 10/24/2002 on Scarlett Street Forums ...."Also, on further inspection, I had my information backwards. Concerning the aspect ratios (for Dracula I presume) The second unit material is printed 1:37, and the principal photography is hard-matted at 1:66. Sorry for the mistake!". I am assuming that means1:66 is the image composition Asher and Fisher shot the film in. What theaters screened it at could be a different matter. Whatever, I really like 1:66. I wonder if the new WB Blu Ray Dracula also made corrections to the brightness of the film, probably just as important as the color grade argument, but no mention is made regarding it in their pre- release article. And why wouldn't WB answer doubts or questions about the Japanese footage being used.....It's a simple matter. I hate this kind of unnecessary "mystery"..could you please clear this up WB before I spend my hard earned cash!!!!!

 

[haineshisway]

Hard-matted at 1:66 doesn't mean it wasn't framed for a different ratio.

 

[3D Projectionist]

If it says HORROR OF DRACULA on the box surely the main title should say the same?


And to add even more confusion. My Super 8mm sound feature film print has vivid colour but the previous BR issue was very muted I find. At the moment I prefer the 8mm film prints colour but I await to see how the new BR on release looks.

 

[Dick]

If it says HORROR OF DRACULA on the box surely the main title should say the same?


And to add even more confusion. My Super 8mm sound feature film print has vivid colour but the previous BR issue was very muted I find. At the moment I prefer the 8mm film prints colour but I await to see how the new BR on release looks.

If this Archive edition is, in fact, based on the BFI restoration, the title card on the film should be DRACULA, regardless of what the cover art or advertising say. We'll have to wait a week or two before it gets reviewed.

 

[Dick]

My Super 8mm sound feature film print has vivid colour

That (HORROR OF DRACULA) was a feature-length Super 8 film that I missed. I did own BRIDES OF DRACULA, which was sometimes great but at other times way too dark. And talk about film collecting being an expensive hobby...8mm and 16mm (and, if you had the disposable resources, 35mm) prints were almost prohibitively expensive, and if you got a print with crumby color or exaggerated contrast, tough -- you could not send it back or adjust it. For what I paid for a Mountain Films 10-reel Super 8 pan-and-scan print of ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST ($300.00), I could now add, with inflation since 1984 figured, about 25 or more fairly pricey Blu-rays. But, oddly, no regrets.

 

[Alan Tully]

I thought with the long wait for The Horror Of Dracula, that when it finally did come, Warner would have done their own work on it from scratch & not piggy-backed on the BFI effort. Oh well, I suppose VERY few films get the full Spartacus treatment & I'm not going to judge this 'till I see it, & I'm very pleased to hear that the colour is improved.

Interested to read Dick's post about collecting films on 8mm. My first job on leaving school (1966) was for a little company called Walton Films that sold all sorts of films on 8mm, I remember cutdown versions of Stagecoach & Distant Drums & a ton of Laurel and Hardy films. A lovely little first job, I mostly transferred sound onto the films mag stripe, but also did some work in their editing department & even went out filming, we never got permission to film anywhere, so it was shoot something (16mm Bolex) & run when someone came up & asked about permits. Happy days, a great first job for a 15 year old.

 

[Robert Harris]

Hard-matted at 1:66 doesn't mean it wasn't framed for a different ratio.

Correct. And if a camera has a 1.66 aperture, the resultant film would be projected slightly cropped on all four sides to retain 1.66 in projection - possibly 2.5 - 5%.

A video master would not necessitate cropping to that extent.

But once again, none of this matters, as films were heavily cropped in projection.

 

[John Hodson]

Forgive me, and I'm genuinely not being combative, but if 'none of this matters' what is the point in having a shooting ratio, a recommended aspect ratio for projection? What is the point in home cinema constantly attempting to improve viewing quality, in trying to present films as they were originally photographed?

When I was a kid, my local fleapit used to project film on the side curtains; there was a huge stain down one side as if a carton of ice-scream had been hurled from the front row and slid down the screen. Is that what I want to reproduce at home? Episodes of Zorro shot through the prism of a six-year-old eye?

To quote the late, great Tony Hancock; stone me, what's the point eh?

 

[kinzoels]

Suffer me please, but if a film was filmed on Eastman stock with prints produced by Technicolor, which would be the true look of the film? And wouldn't a "recommended" aspect ratio leave open the possibility of a projectionist having a choice? If this is true, there is no OAR but an RAR.

 

[Alan Tully]

When I was a kid, my local fleapit used to project film on the side curtains; there was a huge stain down one side as if a carton of ice-scream had been hurled from the front row and slid down the screen. Is that what I want to reproduce at home? Episodes of Zorro shot through the prism of a six-year-old eye?

Ha, times don't change that much. The last film I saw at the cinema was, Three Billboards at a cinema in Tottenham Court Road (London) & there was a dirty great stain on the screen, & it really showed-up on panning shots. I was with an old work colleague & the first thing she said on leaving the cinema was, did you see the state of that screen!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

It's known in British trade journals from that period as "Standard Wide Screen" which means composed in camera by the DP during principal photography (Jack Asher) for 1.75:1 but protected/masked (hard-matted) for 1.65:1.

1.75:1 was the intended primary non-anamorphic theatrical widescreen aspect ratio in the UK for many years.

There's more information on the 1953 transition to widescreen cinematography in the UK on this fact-filled page of our website: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

 

[tanaleaf]

Just saw in another forum a review indicating no additional Japanese footage has been incorporated into this release.

 

[Will Krupp]

Just saw in another forum a review indicating no additional Japanese footage has been incorporated into this release.

Which forum is that? Blu-Ray.com?

 

[haineshisway]

Suffer me please, but if a film was filmed on Eastman stock with prints produced by Technicolor, which would be the true look of the film? And wouldn't a "recommended" aspect ratio leave open the possibility of a projectionist having a choice? If this is true, there is no OAR but an RAR.

The properly color-timed release prints would be the look - or the use of the color timing notes of the cameraman at the time. The original negative is not color timed.

 

[Robert Harris]

Suffer me please, but if a film was filmed on Eastman stock with prints produced by Technicolor, which would be the true look of the film? And wouldn't a "recommended" aspect ratio leave open the possibility of a projectionist having a choice? If this is true, there is no OAR but an RAR.

It's always recommended. The actual ratio is totally dependent upon the physical attributes of the venue, and that venues technical abilities.

1.66, 1.75, 1.85 are just shapes, with no real value as to what is in them.

 

[Alan Tully]

Just saw in another forum a review indicating no additional Japanese footage has been incorporated into this release.

Well I rather hope not, I'd prefer to see it as I saw it in the cinema, & there's the quality drop off of using a scratchy old print.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Well I rather hope not, I'd prefer to see it as I saw it in the cinema, & there's the quality drop off of using a scratchy old print.

Yeah I saw the footage on the UK release and it was nothing special after all the hype. Too be honest it made the disintegration scene just seem to drag on.