DVD Review HTF REVIEW: HALLOWEEN - 25th ANNIVERSARY (1 Viewer)

[Thomas Koeberl]

I'd like to show a few comparative screenshots (Halloween 1999 vs 2003) alas I am not yet allowed to post foreign URLs. What strange rule is that? Never saw this before. Well ...

members.chello.at/koeberl/halloween/index.htm

this is the URL, u know what to add. (no www)

 

[JonZ]

IMHO, the version with the blue tint is the way to watch the film.

Thats the way I remember it being for the past 23 years Ive been watching this film and I agree that without it, some of the atmosphere and mood disappears.

 

[Lyle_JP]

So Damin,

Have you actually bought the disc yet or are you still just using other people's reviews to form your declaration that this disc is "wrong"?

-Lyle J.P.

 

[Rich Malloy]

I've seen it, and we really don't need to personalize this, Lyle. I'm hoping Damin sees how pointless it would be to rise to your bait.

Simply put, if you like the new look, then bully for you. Just consider this whole color timing thing to be FYI, and go on with your life. No need to call anyone out.

 

[Lyle_JP]

I only mention it to see if anything has changed in the last few months. In the previous thread, Damin was the most vocal opponent to the new release, calling it a "pile of feces" in one post and claimed that "all the blues had been turned to white" (not true) in another, despite having never watched the disc. I just think people coming into this thread after not having read the last one might want to know that, as it will help them determine how much credibility they wish to give his posts (or mine, for that matter).

-Lyle J.P.

 

[Rich Malloy]

You mean people who post on internet forums are prone to hyperbole?!? Well, I'll be damned...

 

[Simon_Lepine]

I was one of the bashers of the new release in the old thread, but I gave in and bought this version anyway.

I don't regret my decision, since the extras were worth it, but I can't say I'm pleased with the colors. I couldn't believe how sharp it looked though, I was impressed by that.

 

[StevenF]

How does the new Halloween (25th Anniversary Edition) compare to the Anchor Bay Halloween (Limited Collector's Edition) with the lanticular cover that had both the Theatrical Cut and the TV cut of teh film? Is this new edition better.

I wasn't sure which version the 1999 edition you were talking about was.

 

[Chris Tedesco]

I'm very hesitant on buying this one. To me, the 1999 THX version is very good for a movie that came out in 1978. The colors are a part of the movie. Removing them is ridiculous.

 

[Dave H]

Vincent,

If you do a search on Lambs, there was discussion about the MGM transfer approval by Tak F. It's been verified and sources are discussed.

Steven,

All 1999 versions look the same essentially. The Extended Cut's scenes are a little more noticable as far as age.

 

[Damin J Toell]

and claimed that "all the blues had been turned to white" (not true) in another, despite having never watched the disc.

I never made that statement, either. I said: "First, it seems to me that the Criterion LD comes much closer to the Cundey-approved 1999 transfer than to the new one (things that are blue in the 1999 transfer are still blue in the LD transfer, and not pure white as in the new transfer). Of course, I'm probably not allowed to express this opinion because I own the LD but not the new DVD, but there you have it." It, is, indeed, what I saw myself on the 1999 DVD, the Criterion LD, and Dave Anderson's screenshots of the 2003 DVD. Apparently you believe Dave Anderson's screenshots are "not true" representations of the 2003 disc and, if so, you should take it up with him. Note, however, that if Dave Anderson's equipment leads to "not true" screenshots, the possibility exists that your equipment, too, could be giving you a "not true" representation of the color of the disc. Of course, however, you assume that your equipment and eyes are "true" and infallible.

In the last thread, in your final-but-not-really post, you claimed that you "[had] really nothing more to say after this." Of course, you still posted to the thread after saying that, anyway. Apparently you do have much else to say, and now it mainly includes harrassing me over 2-month old posts instead of constructively contributing to the topic. I, however, refuse to even dignify the validity of whether I have seen the disc by answering your question. That said, I will not sit idly by when you misrepresent my words. The truly sad part is that you've already made both of these claims against me, and I have responded to them. This is now the second time that I have responded to your false claims, so please spare me and this thread further personal distractions.

Whether I have seen the disc is entirely irrelevant, no matter how many times you keep harping on it. Unless you're actually claiming that the 1999 and 2003 discs have the exact same color timing, every single thing I have said stands, and you can't overcome it by rehashing irrelevancies.

DJ

 

[StevenF]

So is this new 25th Anniversary Edition better than the Halloween (Limited Collector's Edition) with the lanticular cover?

 

[Michael Osadciw]

Steven, as you can see, this is up for debate among the film's fans.

Resolution, colour fidelity, and uniformity has dramatically improved on the 2003 release, as well as the ability to see into the dark areas in the picture without a hint of film grain. It is a wonderful improvement.

Fans on the other hand feel it doesn't hold true to the colour palette of the 1999 release and earlier versions, and would rather give up the new clean transfer for the older one that is lacking in definition in many areas in direct comparison - but still holds well on its own.

I appreciate both versions, but the nature of me likes the added visual depth of the new release.

You be the judge.

Regards
Michael

BTW; to the gentleman who asked if the 1999 limited edition lenticular release is the same as the stand-alone 1999 release in regards to image quality - the answer is 'yes'.

 

[Aaryn Chan]

Can we just change the color tint on the TV to have the blue back on?

 

[Damin J Toell]

Can we just change the color tint on the TV to have the blue back on?

The rather primitive nature of the controls on a TV set (compared to the level of equipment that I presume Cundey was able to work with when color-correcting the 1999 transfer, for example) would very likely throw other critical aspects of the color palette out of whack.

DJ

 

[Damin J Toell]

You are making a logical fallacy. Just because one transfer is approved and the other night, that does not necessarily mean the new transfer is incorrect. And, just because something is “different” doesn’t necessarily mean it’s incorrect.

The same can be true of a pan-and-scan transfer of a scope film. Just because one was the original theatrical presentation and the other not, it doesn't necessarily mean the pan-and-scan transfer is incorrect just because it's different, right? Surely reference alone to the original theatrical presentation isn't enough to solve the problem of correctness - Silence of the Lambs must have used only one color timing during its original theatrical release, yet you argue that it has at least two correct color timings. So, too, could a film have at least two correct ARs. Relying on the original theatrical presentation, thus, must be fallacious in the same way that I choose to rely on approved video transfers.

So, based on this, do you also assume that pan-and-scan transfers of scope films are valid unless you hear otherwise from the filmmakers? Your logic doesn't seem to allow you to do otherwise and remain consistent. But does that really feel like a sound assumption to you? Or does it actually seem more logical to assume that the one (or more) known approved version(s) of a film (its original release, a later approved video transfer, etc.) is/are the only approved version(s)?

Which seems to be a more widespread practice: a filmmaker approves of only one specific set of parameters for his/her film (AR, color, etc.) or a filmmaker is willing to approve all sorts of various parameters? The former seems to me to be the case much more often (although, of course, we discuss the latter more when it happens - it's a much more interesting and divisive topic). Given that, the safest assumption seems to be that, when a release of a film differs from a prior known approved version, the new differing version is incorrect. It seems much safer to me to presume that a given filmmaker is acting like most filmmakers seem to do rather than acting like the once-in-a-blue-moon filmmaker who would approve of multiple ARs, color timings, etc. Just as it seems safe to assume that, when a filmmaker shoots a film in scope, he/she prefers it to be shown in scope, it seems likewise safe to assume that when a filmmaker chooses a specific color timing for a film, he/she prefers it to be shown in that way. Assuming just the opposite (any random AR or color timing is valid unless and until the filmmaker says otherwise) sounds counterintuitive at the least.

In sum, I assume that any given filmmaker acts like most filmmakers seem to, unless I hear otherwise; you assume that any given filmmaker acts like the rare exceptional filmmaker, unless you hear otherwise. Which seems like a better-grounded assumption?

DJ

 

[Aaryn Chan]

Audio never is a problem.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

The color scheme on the 1999 transfer is not from a 'timed' 35mm answer print, the colours were altered on a telecine. That's what Adam Adams does, he's a telecine colorist.

Here's what I think Anchor Bay did in:

1999:

- Acquired the original 35mm camera negative

- Had it cleaned in a lab for scratches and blemishes

- Made a new 35mm interpositive

- Scanned it into a telecine

- Adam Adams with Dean Cundey's assistance, boosted the blue hues and added blue hues to plain white lighting

- Transfered images to digital tape

- Authored to DVD


2003:

- Acquired the previous 35mm interpositive

- Scanned it into a telecine

- Digitally removed all noticeable scratches and blemishes

- Transfered images to digital tape in high definition

- Authored to DVD


I think that the 2003 transfer is a straight transfer of the interpostive made directly from the original camera negative without any color alterations and then transfered in high-def to digital tape and then to DVD, with extensive scratch removal done in the digital domain. The grass is bright green because the film was shot in late spring, and that's what the o-neg captured, and thus a new interpositive printed on modern 35mm filmstock is rendered in richer colors than was possible in 1978. For the 1999 transfer, the greens were most probably muted. Kinda like what John Landis did for Universal's "too good" transfer of Animal House - also shot in 1978.

The 2003 transfer has the blue hues from the lighting Cundey used way back in '78, they are just not as pronounced as in the 1999 transfer, but that is because the 1999 color scheme was revised by Cundey (with Adams pushing the buttons, etc) and that's great - I think the color on the '99 transfer is awesome, but the 2003 transfer is by no means, 'wrong' in my opinion, it's just a purer, unenhanced presentation of the film.

Now, I cannot back any of this up, I'm just looking at things objectively. I think that both transfers have their merits. It would have been great if Cundey or Adams or Carpenter could have supervised the 2003 transfer, but it didn't happen, for whatever reasons. But then how many transfered are supervised by the director and/or cinematographer?


Gordy

 

[Simon_Lepine]

Because Cundley approved the 99 transfer doesn't mean it's the way the film was originally meant. It wouldn't be the first case of revisionism :cough:George Lucas:cough:

Plus I'd rather trust the director's word on this than the DP, maybe Cundley made it the way he wanted it to be, not the way Carpenter wanted back then.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

I cannot say that I completely agree with you, Simon, as I respect Cundey greatly, but I understand where you are coming from. Carpenter would most surely diplomatically state that Halloween was a team-effort and that Cundey did a great job, etc - and rightly so. I'm sure if he saw the new DVD, he would say it looked great. Who knows. Maybe in Carpenter's mind, there is no definate look for every shot in Halloween, as it would be hard to remember such details. You really would have to show Carpenter and Cundey both transfers and then let them discuss it. It's a difficult situation.

Look at the new transfer on the MGM Special Edition of The Howling - it's totally wrong. The SE Laserdisc had the true, Joe Dante (and cinematographer John Hora?) approved transfer. But MGM just used their old transfer with the wrong colors, when someone at MGM ought to have known about the previous Laserdisc vs. DVD debacle. I'm sure than Dante would be frustrated by the SE transfer. Maybe Dean Cundey would feel the same in regard to Halloween, but would John Carpenter?


Gordy