Criterion Press Release: Dressed To Kill (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[Thomas T]

My reading of Criterion's original correction statement was that De Palma had approved a new vision/version, but that in implementing that new version, an error had been made somewhere downstream in the workflow, post De Palma approval.

I think that pretty much sums it up though others will no doubt insist that Criterion overrode De Palma's wishes rather than seeing it as a technical glitch.

 

[haineshisway]

I think that pretty much sums it up though others will no doubt insist that Criterion overrode De Palma's wishes rather than seeing it as a technical glitch.

No others may see it as De Palma asking for something, being given it, and then having the merde hit the fan.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

 

[EddieLarkin]

I'm really not sure how there is any confusion as to what happened here. Criterion were pretty clear in their statement:

Brian De Palma did ask for a change to the geometry of the scan, but it was to address the distortion he saw in the image, not to apply it. Unfortunately, that change was never carried over in the final product, and the resulting discs are wrong.

In other words, De Palma noticed the exact same problem with the transfer that most everyone else did, and asked for it to be fixed. Criterion never did. Hence, replacement programme.

 

[Footstank40]

I'm really not sure how there is any confusion as to what happened here. Criterion were pretty clear in their statement:



In other words, De Palma noticed the exact same problem with the transfer that most everyone else did, and asked for it to be fixed. Criterion never did. Hence, replacement programme.

I came here to post that very statement. It shouldn't be too much to ask for people to actually read Criterions statement, but I guess when you have already dug in your heals...

 

[haineshisway]

I understand what the follow-up statement was - I can read English. But here is the ORIGINAL statement - which directly negates the second statement. I believe they gave De Palma what he wanted, then the Internet exploded, he probably didn't like being called out, they probably convinced him it had to be fixed and he probably asked them to revise their statement - all conjecture, just like everything in this thread. I don't really know what is hard to understand about "asked if there was anything that could be done to correct what he felt was a distortion in the image THAT CAUSED EVERYONE TO APPEAR SLIGHTLY WIDE OR SQUAT." He didn't feel the image had been squished, he WANTED it squished. They gave him SQUISHED. "De Palma was SATISFIED."


"In the course of preparing the master for Criterion’s new release of

Dressed to Kill, director Brian De Palma asked if there was anything
that could be done to correct what he felt was a distortion in the
image that caused everyone to appear slightly wide or squat. A modest
anamorphic compression was applied, and De Palma was satisfied. On
reviewing the final product, we feel the adjustment doesn’t accurately
reflect the look of the film, and we are reauthoring discs without the
squeeze and will make them available to all purchasers of our release
of Dressed to Kill free of charge."

 

[davidmatychuk]

I'm hoping that the confusion surrounding how this happened in the first place isn't an indication of a decline in interest by film makers in the best possible home video versions of their work. That Criterion "Director-Approved" sticker should count for something, and it surely suggests that the director signed off on Criterion's work personally and thoroughly by actually seeing it. I have enough faith in Criterion to believe that they won't let this sloppy procedure happen again any time soon.

 

[schan1269]

I'm hoping that the confusion surrounding how this happened in the first place isn't an indication of a decline in interest by film makers in the best possible home video versions of their work. That Criterion "Director-Approved" sticker should count for something, and it surely suggests that the director signed off on Criterion's work personally and thoroughly by actually seeing it. I have enough faith in Criterion to believe that they won't let this sloppy procedure happen again any time soon.

Maybe Hulu will take a page from the Netflix playbook...and the "maybe it was originally intended" will live on there...

 

[Tom Logan]

Brian De Palma asked if there was anything
that could be done to correct what he felt was a distortion in the
image that caused everyone to appear slightly wide or squat. A modest anamorphic compression was applied, and De Palma was satisfied.



Pardon my ignorance, but why wouldn't the solution to De Palma's problem be stretching the image vertically (pull the top higher and the bottom lower) rather than adding more information horizontally (i.e., on each side)?

 

[Ruz-El]

I'm blaming all this kerfuffle on Michael Caine's bloody big head.

 

[Worth]

Brian De Palma asked if there was anything
that could be done to correct what he felt was a distortion in the
image that caused everyone to appear slightly wide or squat. A modest anamorphic compression was applied, and De Palma was satisfied.



Pardon my ignorance, but why wouldn't the solution to De Palma's problem be stretching the image vertically (pull the top higher and the bottom lower) rather than adding more information horizontally (i.e., on each side)?

They did both. The image was squeezed vertically, and there was more information exposed in the frame.

 

[Tom Logan]

They did both. The image was squeezed vertically, and there was more information exposed in the frame.

I don't understand. I thought De Palma's problem was that the faces appeared too wide. Why would vertically squeezing (rather than stretching) solve that problem?

 

[Worth]

Sorry, I meant to say squeezed horizontally, not vertically, so that everyone appears taller and thinner.

 

[Tom Logan]

^Thanks.


My question still remains, and I assume it's a technical one: Why not just stretch the image vertically to un-squat the image? Why ADD information on the sides?

 

[NegativeCreep]

I advise everybody to keep hold of their current non-Criterion discs. This whole situation has been a clusterfuck and the way Criterion is wording some of the things in their statements confuses matters even more.


Will they keep the extra information but just change the ratio to even out the proportions or matte out the soundtrack area?


In the original statement it says that De Palma thought that everything was too wide, so maybe there could still be some less egregious problems with the squeezing on the replacement.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Got my review copy - it's definitely fixed!


I directly compared the old disc and the corrected one - I was almost shocked to see how much (unintentional) information showed up on the left side of the screen. For instance, at 57:40, the correct one crops at the left edge of Michael Caine's telephone, whereas the wrong one shows paperwork and a plant on the left of the phone.


Comparing the circular lamp in the background also demonstrates improved geometry. The old one looked more oblong,


If people are worried about getting the wrong version, the new one reads "Second Printing": on the back - the old one says "First Printing". As far as I can tell, the packaging is otherwise identical...

 

[Will Krupp]

If people are worried about getting the wrong version, the new one reads "Second Printing": on the back - the old one says "First Printing". As far as I can tell, the packaging is otherwise identical...

I think that the only people who even got the first printing were reviewers so, barring any accidents, I think we should all be safe. Great to hear you got it and glad all is well with it.


Thanks Colin!

 

[Derrick King]

Criterion Cast's Ryan Gallagher tweeted out a picture of the backs of the first and second (corrected) printing of DRESSED TO KILL

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Criterion Cast's Ryan Gallagher tweeted out a picture of the backs of the first and second (corrected) printing of DRESSED TO KILL

That pic shows the shrinkwrap on the 2nd pressing but not the 1st, I don't think.


I don't still have the shrinkwrap for the 1st pressing, but I can say that without the shrinkwrap, the two releases look 100% identical except for the "First Pressing"/"Second Pressing" blurbs.


Here are my copies side by side:

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I think that the only people who even got the first printing were reviewers so, barring any accidents, I think we should all be safe. Great to hear you got it and glad all is well with it.


Thanks Colin!

You're welcome! I'm sure you're right that the first pressings shouldn't make it to stores, but I figured I should post just so people can make sure before they break the shrinkwrap!