Dracula (1979) (Blu-ray) Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

Wasn't this thread about Dracula?

I think its the easiest example of taking a deliberately intended 'gray-character' and turning him into a 'white hat' that I can think of.

I disagree completely. I don't like the change at all but in either version of the movie, Han is clearly in life threatening danger and he kills Greedo before he can kill him. In the original version of the scene, Han's actions are intended to show that he's smart, cool under pressure and capable- not that he's a murderer- and that is still demonstrated whether Greedo shoots first or not at all. It's only because it was changed that people decided that Han Solo was supposed to be a badass who shoots first and asks questions later and that Lucas was taking off an edge (even though that edge was never there in the first place).

 

[FoxyMulder]

It's only because it was changed that people decided that Han Solo was supposed to be a badass who shoots first and asks questions later and that Lucas was taking off an edge (even though that edge was never there in the first place).

I disagree Travis, the change to that scene does remove the edge off the character and makes him good from the outset, but hey like you say this thread is about Dracula so we should probably take this to a Star Wars thread or have the posts moved there.

 

[Jari K]

Personally I can live with colour changes if they're approved by the director and/or DOP. But if there are different versions of the film (theatrical, dir cut, unrated, shorter, longer, final cut, new CGI, etc etc) then different versions should be available. Or like with Blade Runner, Alien, etc - included on the disc.Point is that you can't bury the original, or previous versions, even if you're a director or even if you've money, power and fame. The director can alter/re-cut/tweak movies, but it doesn't mean that the original/previous version is somehow erased. This ain't cut, copy and paste.

 

[CinemaCynic]

Point is that you can't bury the original, or previous versions, even if you're a director or even if you've money, power and fame. The director can alter/re-cut/tweak movies, but it doesn't mean that the original/previous version is somehow erased. This ain't cut, copy and paste.

Actually, you can. To jump back to 'Alamo' for a second, the original film was reedited by its producer, Michael Wayne. If it weren't for the much discussed roadshow 70mm print turning up its that re-edit that would likely be all that exists in distribution (and as of right now effectively is.) Even its original roadshow continuity would have been troublesome to reconstruct without a print to refer to.

Shall we really go through the list of films missing scenes as re-edited (usually by the studio) and subsequently lost for future generations? The idea that work somehow can't be erased in this day and age fundamentally misunderstands that ANY film can be lost, even in the digital age. All you need is a little neglect, a dash of apathy and the misconception that if it came out on DVD its preserved.

As this is a discussion of Badham's 'Dracula,' isn't that exactly what he's doing? You may argue that he has a 'right' to, but his intent is clearly that no other color timing ever be seen other than his approved work. That effectively erases the original release.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

And the older incorrect version should be erased if that's what the director desires.

 

[CinemaCynic]

And the older incorrect version should be erased if that's what the director desires.

I'm afraid I can't ever agree with that kind of blanket view. It holds the director up as the only qualified arbiter of 'vision' on a film, which simply isn't true of every single production as a practical matter.

The technology today, paired with tastes subtly altering over time, has led to a few rare instances of directors 'fixing' things that no one particularly ever found to be broken until they were retouched. Badham recoloring 'Dracula' is probably not the first or even the fiftieth example I'd cite of this odd phenomenon but its symptomatic of what could become a greater norm in the future. Most instances will lead to an improved 'director's cut,' but there will always be these odd exceptions.

And given that those exceptions are possible, and that many in general have historically been much too careless with film material and history, IT SHOULDN'T BE ERASED!!!!! Not for all the love or cult of a producer, director or format.

 

[Worth]

And the older incorrect version should be erased if that's what the director desires.

Couldn't disagree more. If you want to be a sole auteur, write a book or paint a picture - don't make movies. There are many directors who are clearly the driving creative force behind a film. But not all are, and not in all cases. Does anyone really think of Sidney Lumet as the "author" of Network over Paddy Cheyefsky? How about any number of Jerry Bruckheimer or Joel Silver productions where the directors are basically interchangeable?

The most galling changes are those made decades after the fact using technology that wasn't available at the time. It's just shitting on the contributions of their collaborators. In this case, I have a hard time believing Badham couldn't have achieved a similar kind of look at the time, if he had really wanted to. 1979 was a while ago, but it wasn't the dark ages. Was it really impossible to have desaturated colour then?

 

[JohnMor]

The biggest irony for me personally is that this was, aside from his Night Gallery episodes, the only work of Badham's that I really liked. I never liked his teen/pop films like Saturday Night Fever, WarGames and Short Circuit. So I guess, actually, it makes perfect sense that he would have wanted it to be something I would have disliked at the time. LOL.

 

[CinemaCynic]

In this case, I have a hard time believing Badham couldn't have achieved a similar kind of look at the time, if he had really wanted to. 1979 was a while ago, but it wasn't the dark ages. Was it really impossible to have desaturated colour then?

No, there were plenty of films that did to one degree or another tho I suspect that what Badham's trying to do is mimic that Gorey stage trick of desaturating everything but a select color, in this case red. That would have been more challenging then.

 

[Jari K]

"And the older incorrect version should be erased if that's what the director desires."Sorry, but I can't agree with these types of views. The director can do different versions (I don't actually even care how many), but even the director can't burn the original/older versions.

 

[Harry-N]

Has anyone seen an early copy of this for review? It's due out within days.

Harry

 

[Dick]

Couldn't disagree more. If you want to be a sole auteur, write a book or paint a picture - don't make movies. There are many directors who are clearly the driving creative force behind a film. But not all are, and not in all cases. Does anyone really think of Sidney Lumet as the "author" of Network over Paddy Cheyefsky? How about any number of Jerry Bruckheimer or Joel Silver productions where the directors are basically interchangeable?

The most galling changes are those made decades after the fact using technology that wasn't available at the time. It's just shitting on the contributions of their collaborators. In this case, I have a hard time believing Badham couldn't have achieved a similar kind of look at the time, if he had really wanted to. 1979 was a while ago, but it wasn't the dark ages. Was it really impossible to have desaturated colour then?

Totally agree. I feel the same way about Vittorio Storaro's egotistical changes to films he shot at 2:35:1. It's revisionism, I would guess due to one man's desire to control the look of the movie, even though thousands of others worked on it. The 2:1 ratio cuts important information from the sides of the screen. Thank heaven that Lionsgate ignored his idiotic dictates and released a properly-framed Blu-ray. Why Coppola agreed to re-frame APOCALYPSE NOW based on Storaro's need to promote his 2:1 ratio for video (even after widescreen t.v. became commonplace) is beyond me. The closest analogy to this I can think of is Nicholas II taking ill-fated advice from Rasputin. Shouldn't have happened. Storaro is a brilliant cinematographer, but that certainly doesn't qualify him as an auteur. Coppola was duped.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Totally agree. I feel the same way about Vittorio Storaro's egotistical changes to films he shot at 2:35:1. It's revisionism, I would guess due to one man's desire to control the look of the movie, even though thousands of others worked on it. The 2:1 ratio cuts important information from the sides of the screen. Thank heaven that Lionsgate ignored his idiotic dictates and released a properly-framed Blu-ray.

Luckily for us it wasn't Lionsgate or they would have likely chosen Storaro's 2:1, it was Coppola himself who decided on the OAR.

 

[Dick]

Luckily for us it wasn't Lionsgate or they would have likely chosen Storaro's 2:1, it was Coppola himself who decided on the OAR.

I was completely unaware of this and, if true, why did he permit the 2:1 ratio until just recently? I hope that, if TUCKER: THE MAN AND HIS DREAMS ever emerges on Blu-ray, it will be 2.35:1 right out of the gate.

 

[Bob Cashill]

Got my copy today. It's the desaturated transfer and on my modest setup it looks very handsome.

 

[Will Krupp]

pass

 

[Thomas T]

I have a hard time believing Badham couldn't have achieved a similar kind of look at the time, if he had really wanted to. 1979 was a while ago, but it wasn't the dark ages. Was it really impossible to have desaturated colour then?

I stand to be corrected but I believe that Badham wanted the desaturated color for the theatrical release in 1979 and it certainly was possible but he was overruled by the Universal suits who deemed it uncommerical. He got his way with the subsequent home video release.

 

[JohnMor]

pass

Ditto.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I will be picking this up tomorrow. I really like the film and while I wish both versions were available I will judge this release on what it is and I'll be happy to have a version on blu-ray.

 

[Felix Martinez]

Just finished watching the new blu-ray.I saw this theatrically back in the summer of '79 and exactly one year later, it was one of the first films I saw at home, "uncut, commercial-free" on a pay-tv service called ONTV.I would be lying if I told you I recall the color, the densities and the overall look of the film. I do recall being mesmerized, spooked, and enthralled with the performances, music, photography, and atmosphere.I would, however, be truthful in recalling the greater horror when in the 1990s the desaturated version first appeared - I believe - on letterboxed laserdisc, and then on DVD. It looked so wrong to my eyes that I called it unwatchable at the time and I have not seen the film in over 15 years.And yet something compelled me to pick up the just-released blu-ray.Imagine, to my surprise, that for the first time, I enjoyed and drank in the film, pun intended.While I am not a fan of Badham's desaturated revisionism, on HD it plays so much better. As was said by Bob Cashill above, it looks quite handsome. That's the perfect word. Fleshtones sometimes appear spotty, but there are sequences with definite color in them, and were startling in contrast.The audio was also glorious; John William's score never sounded better.Glad I picked it up.