A Few Words About A few words about...™ Halloween 35th Anniversary -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[moviebuff75]

Yeah, the mono track is the issue for me.

 

[Jari K]

Thanks for the link, Mark. I would love to say "case closed" but at the same time I know that's not over for the certain group of fans. Next we'll have those "Cundey don't remember the original theatrical look/color" arguments and the ball keeps rolling.My hope is: No more new transfers or color corrections. By all means keep releasing the film with new extras, tv-versions and what not. And by all means correct those mistakes (if there are really mistakes) in the original mono track or create a new mix in 5.1 lossless. But please, no more new transfers.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I'm still at loss as to why anyone is talking about the video (however anyone feels about it, it's approved by the DOP) and no one is mentioning the mono track that is without a doubt messed up.

Probably because most people viewing this new BD are doing so listening to the 5.1 audio track and not the mono track.

 

[JoshZ]

Here's a very recent short interview with Dean Cundey, cinematographer for 'Halloween':



Cundey makes it quite clear that the 35th Anniversary Blu-ray is the FIRST TIME he's been involved in a home video transfer of 'Halloween'! That blue look to the movie is the INTENDED look and any previous transfers where the colorist removed or lessened the blue did so WITHOUT Cundey's approval. Nobody called him!

Mark

 

[Jari K]

Perhaps Cundey "approved" the transfer by Adams some years ago, but does that somehow make the 35thA transfer worse? He approved the earlier transfer, but with the 35thA he supervised the damn thing himself. At least I take the latter, thank you.

 

[haineshisway]

It was already revealed that despite what they wanted you to think, that Dean Cundey was nowhere in evidence when they were doing the previous transfer. It's not really that hard to understand. THIS transfer is the first time he's been involved and it now looks the way he shot it. That's really the end of the story. My mantra is always people not understanding what blue is and making everything too brown and yellow. The look Cundey had for this film, color-wise, is what color looks like - it's not suffused with blue, it just HAS blue as it's always had.

 

[ijthompson]

George Lucas still wants us to believe that he always intended Greedo to shoot at Han Solo first, but just didn't have the technology available in 1977 to have the actor remove the gun from his holster before Harrison Ford did, until CGI finally made that possible 20 years later.

I don't want to derail the thread, but did Lucas really say that? Odd, since Greedo's blaster was pointed at Solo's chest before they even sat down at the table, and was trained there throughout their entire conversation.

 

[TravisR]

I don't want to derail the thread, but did Lucas really say that?

No but he did say something to the effect of (and let me emphasize that I'm paraphrasing) that the intent of the scene was always that Greedo fired first but it was just difficult to tell that in the 1977 version so he made it more clear to the 1997 version. For the record, I love George Lucas but I don't buy that for a second.

 

[Jari K]

For the record, I love George Lucas but I don't buy that for a second.

Not sure why we're talking about Lucas again, but these "now it's like I originally intended" arguments rarely hold any water. The work of art (movie, painting, song, book, etc) is "done" when it's done and when it's released/shown to the general public. And if that work of art is "out there" long enough it'll be the original version. You can't just bury that "original version" 30 years later or something and say: It never was the version I liked, sorry if you guys loved that inferior version. If some film has been out there for 30 years, it's not director's decision anymore. Sorry, director.

If the artist/director/etc is making some changes afterwards or create another version, it'll be just that: Alternate version. And don't get me wrong: I love alternate versions, dir cuts, unrated versions, final cuts and ultimate editions. BUT: The original is always the original version and it should be out there for the fans.

Halloween is tricky of course, since all comes down to the color palette of the original film. And it seems that even Cundey is not 100% sure about the original look (he's perhaps 90% sure ). But if Cundey supervised and approved the new 35thA, it's good enough for me. "90% sure" is good enough for me.

 

[cafink]

It was already revealed that despite what they wanted you to think, that Dean Cundey was nowhere in evidence when they were doing the previous transfer. It's not really that hard to understand.

Actually, I do find it kind of difficult to understand, because it raises a lot of questions. The insert from the 1999 DVD says plain as day that Cundey approved the video transfer. Was this just a flat-out lie? If so, how did Anchor Bay get away with it? Was Cundey unaware of AB's claim? Or did Cundey merely "approve" to old transfer, as opposed to "supervising" the new one? If so, how did he feel about the altered colors? Were they his idea, and why were they reverted for the new transfer, if he approved of them for the old one?

 

[JoshZ]

No but he did say something to the effect of (and let me emphasize that I'm paraphrasing) that the intent of the scene was always that Greedo fired first but it was just difficult to tell that in the 1977 version so he made it more clear to the 1997 version. For the record, I love George Lucas but I don't buy that for a second.

Here's the actual quote that appeared in the Hollywood Reporter:

"The controversy over who shot first, Greedo or Han Solo, in Episode IV, what I did was try to clean up the confusion, but obviously it upset people because they wanted Solo to be a cold-blooded killer, but he actually isn’t. It had been done in all close-ups and it was confusing about who did what to whom. I put a little wider shot in there that made it clear that Greedo is the one who shot first, but everyone wanted to think that Han shot first, because they wanted to think that he actually just gunned him down."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/george-lucas-star-wars-interview-288523

Lucas wants us to believe that Greedo always shot at Han Solo first, but the scene was edited in too many close-ups that caused confusion because Greedo did his shooting from off camera.

This is, of course, a flat-out lie. If you rewatch the original version of the scene (Lucasfilm yanked the YouTube clip I had bookmarked, unfortunately), there is very clearly only the sound of one blaster firing on the soundtrack, not two. Greedo did not fire at all.

Filmmakers are not infallible. They're people just like the rest of us. Sometimes they make mistakes, and sometimes they just plain lie.

 

[JohnMor]

Crikey, I don't think even the Zapruder film has caused as much discussion as that few seconds of film from 1977.

 

[haineshisway]

Actually, I do find it kind of difficult to understand, because it raises a lot of questions. The insert from the 1999 DVD says plain as day that Cundey approved the video transfer. Was this just a flat-out lie? If so, how did Anchor Bay get away with it? Was Cundey unaware of AB's claim? Or did Cundey merely "approve" to old transfer, as opposed to "supervising" the new one? If so, how did he feel about the altered colors? Were they his idea, and why were they reverted for the new transfer, if he approved of them for the old one?

Being in attendance and lending your name to something is not the same. He was not there, and frankly it's doubtful he even saw much of it. They may have sent him something to look at or they may have just said, we've done a great new transfer can you say you approve it. Who knows? He may have seen one scene or the whole thing or none of it. But he was NOT involved in the transfer or the timing. He was on the new version.

 

[TravisR]

Being in attendance and lending your name to something is not the same. He was not there, and frankly it's doubtful he even saw much of it. They may have sent him something to look at or they may have just said, we've done a great new transfer can you say you approve it. Who knows? He may have seen one scene or the whole thing or none of it. But he was NOT involved in the transfer or the timing. He was on the new version.

I'm reasonably sure that you're correct and this is a rhetorical question (unless Dean Cundey happens to pop in here) but why would he associate his name with a transfer that he probably had little to do with? I doubt there was any financial incentive for him to give the OK to and why he would want people thinking that a transfer that wasn't representative of what he wanted was given the OK by him?

 

[Mark Booth]

Starz/Anchor Bay in 1999: "Hey Dean, okay with you if Adam Adams does his colorist thing for the new THX DVD of Halloween?"

Dean Cundey: "Sure."

Starz/Anchor Bay to marketing department: "Okay, Dean said Adam Adams could change the color timing so this new transfer is Dean Cundey approved!"



Mark

 

[Stephen Brooks]

Whoever color timed the Raiders of the Lost Ark BD should take a crack at Halloween, seeing as how they managed to make the whole movie yellow/brown, even the previously lush jungle scenes.

 

[DVDvision]

It's implicit and fact that basically after 99, changes were made without his approval, and that he know have step back to get it right (especially the blue). Only he probably didn't look at the day scenes and focused on the night scenes, where most of the damage was.

Notice that no fan is arguing about the night scenes. The problems only relate to the daylight scenes.

 

[Richard--W]

I've been trying not to complain.

It's implicit and fact that basically after 99, changes were made without his approval, and that he know have step back to get it right (especially the blue). Only he probably didn't look at the day scenes and focused on the night scenes, where most of the damage was.

Notice that no fan is arguing about the night scenes. The problems only relate to the daylight scenes.

I was thinking that maybe Dean Cundey was making it up as he went along, what's correct and incorrect, until I read your observation, which strikes me as probably what happened.

People should hold onto the 1999 DVD in any case because of supplements -- mainly a commentary -- that are carried over onto the blu-ray.

 

[JoshZ]

Being in attendance and lending your name to something is not the same. He was not there, and frankly it's doubtful he even saw much of it. They may have sent him something to look at or they may have just said, we've done a great new transfer can you say you approve it. Who knows? He may have seen one scene or the whole thing or none of it. But he was NOT involved in the transfer or the timing. He was on the new version.

You're drawing conclusions that are not supported by any of the evidence. "It's doubtful he even saw much of it"? Why would you say that? You doubt it only because you don't like the outcome and you don't want to believe that he actually approved it at the time, nothing more.

Cundey does not need to have been present during the color grading or mastering sessions to have watched the final product and given it his approval.

What we actually know is that the 1999 DVD includes text explicitly stating that the color transfer was approved by cinematographer Dean Cundey. To the best of anyone's available knowledge, Cundey did not sue Anchor Bay or publicly complain that they used his name without permission.

Starz/Anchor Bay in 1999: "Hey Dean, okay with you if Adam Adams does his colorist thing for the new THX DVD of Halloween?"

Dean Cundey: "Sure."

Starz/Anchor Bay to marketing department: "Okay, Dean said Adam Adams could change the color timing so this new transfer is Dean Cundey approved!"



Mark

I just can't understand why you think this supports your position. On the one hand, you want to rely on Dean Cundey as the definitive reference source for how Halloween is supposed to look. On the other hand, you're calling him a disreputable sell-out who slapped his name on a previous copy of the movie that (you believe) he didn't even watch. According to your theory, the man is not a credible source of information about the movie. So why should we trust his word that this new "Dean Cundey approved" transfer is any more accurate than the last "Dean Cundey approved" transfer? You're shooting yourself in the foot with your own argument.

In five years' time, when Starz/Anchor Bay re-releases the movie yet again with another Dean Cundey approved transfer that looks nothing at all like either the 1999 DVD or the 2013 Blu-ray, how will you justify it then?

I don't think that Dean Cundey is a disreputable sell-out. However, I do think that every time he approves a color transfer for the movie, he bases it on how he feels the movie should look at that moment in time, which may or may not have anything to do with how it actually looked back in 1978.

 

[Yorkshire]

Sorry to dig this up after a week, but I was prompted.

The BBC site has just put up a nice little article about the anniversary of Halloween, and I couldn't help but notice the screen cap they used about half way down the page.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24296254

Brought a smile to my face - maybe they've been reading this thread.

Steve W