NIGHT/CURSE OF THE DEMON…Coming Soon From Indicator (1 Viewer)

[Bob Furmanek]

If Mr. Crisp had done the restoration, it would be in the proper AR!

 

[aPhil]

I'll have to find the French and look at it again. I did write about it here at the time. It's a film with a lot of opticals and if memory serves I don't remember it having a lot of grain, rather like the French Gun Crazy - but I may be confusing the two.

Update me when you get a chance.

As to Gun Crazy, TCM showed it in HD several weeks ago, and it was a thrill seeing it for the first time. Peggy Cummins had quite a range as I would not recognize her as being the same person leading the charge with Dana Andrews in Night/Curse of the Demon.

 

[aPhil]

If Mr. Crisp had done the restoration, it would be in the proper AR!

View attachment 48369

I see that the French disc seems to be 1.66, but I do not see the aspect ratio for the upcoming Powerhouse Indicator Blu-ray.
As restorations are sometimes for the full frame regardless of the release, do we know what ratio Powerhouse will release ?

Any hints/rumors that Sony might do a new transfer for USA ?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I wish I knew!

 

[haineshisway]

I liked it back then - I'll check it out again, but read the entire thread. https://www.hometheaterforum.com/co...ek-at-curse-of-the-demon.328117/#post-4026998

 

[haineshisway]

1.66 is wrong for this film, but back when the French thing came out that wasn't as clear as it is today, although I knew it would have been shown nowhere in the US in anything other than 1.85.

 

[Brent Reid]

While the shorter cut might be the old master, what Indicator says is "High-definition remaster of the 82-minute cut" --
The word "remaster" would lead one to consider that it may not be the old master (as used for the 2002 DVD).

From their site:
"
• The BFI’s 2013 2K restoration of the 96-minute version
• High-definition remaster of the 82-minute cut
...
• Four presentations of the film: Night of the Demon – the original full-length pre-release version (96 mins), and the original UK theatrical cut (82 minutes); Curse of the Demon – the original US theatrical cut (82 mins), and the US re-issue version (96 mins)
"

Ignore the naysayers, Phil: Indicator confirmed last week that all four cuts were based on the same restoration and presented via seamless branching.

Damn shame about that AR though.

 

[haineshisway]

I know who I'll ignore.

 

[John Hodson]

As I understand it (and I own the French disc), the Wild Side disc isn't based on the BfI restoration?

 

[Randy Korstick]

That is what I did, too. I also ordered Indicator's William Castle BD set at the same time, which has the same street date. Shipping together to the US Global Priority was about $11.00 and I will probably have both by the 29th of October. I canceled l my domestic The Tingler BD order, and it seems like a good deal to me.

And I can cancel if I change my mind since I have not have pre-paid.

The trade off is a longer wait with Amazon U.K. They normally ship Indicator releases a week after release so its very doubtful that these two releases will be delivered from Amazon U.K. Before Halloween. Based on past experience they will most likely be delivered the week of November 5th. Indicator ships a week before release date so you will have it on release date. For example I just received the latest Hammer set Vol. 3 on Monday from Amazon U.K. but people who ordered from Indicator received it 2 and 1/2 weeks ago. So this time I ordered from Indicator. Its currently cheaper than Amazon U.K. and they did not charge me VAT. $16.00 shipping for both sets.

 

[CarlosMeat]

I'm really sorry if I missed where the AR is listed. This is a British widescreen film ,yes ? I thought that 1.66:1 was that AR ?

 

[John Hodson]

I'm really sorry if I missed where the AR is listed. This is a British widescreen film ,yes ? I thought that 1.66:1 was that AR ?

The AR has not been officially listed as yet by Indicator. It's a common misconception that 1.66:1 is somehow the default British widescreen AR; nonetheless, it *is* a misconception.

 

[CarlosMeat]

The AR has not been officially listed as yet by Indicator. It's a common misconception that 1.66:1 is somehow the default British widescreen AR; nonetheless, it *is* a misconception.

Where did this AR come from, default or not ?

 

[John Hodson]

Where did this AR come from, default or not ?

You'd do worse than to read Bob Furmanek's Widescreen Documentation page which include a section on widescreen in the UK.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Research from Doug Raynes in primary source documents.

DEMON listed for 1.85:1 in both Kine Weekly (UK) and Boxoffice (US).

The most prevalent AR in the UK for non-anamorphic widescreen was 1.75:1.

 

[Worth]

I can sort of understand why there was no international standard, because when is there ever? But why wasn't there a single British standard?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

From our website: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

On October 6, 1955, the Ideal Kinema reported: "Every projectionist will welcome the decision (reported in KINE last week) that the British Film Producers' Association has approved its technical committee's proposals for standardization on aspect ratios.

This is a matter in which the British industry, most commendably, has given a lead to the world, including the United States. The decision to standardise at a ratio of 1.75 to 1, tolerable for both 1.65 to 1 and 1.85 to 1, means that, very soon, the man in the box should be able to relax from the tiresome necessity of re-racking to prevent either topping or tailing his picture.

The new standard, of course, does not apply to processes such as CinemaScope and VistaVision."

Just as UK producers were standardizing to 1.75:1, U.S. producers were settling on 1.85:1 as the non-anamorphic widescreen standard. By September of 1956, the vast majority of U.S. features were composed for either 1.85:1 or 2.55:1.

 

[Douglas R]

I can sort of understand why there was no international standard, because when is there ever? But why wasn't there a single British standard?

I suppose the problem was that, although the British film industry clearly tried to standardise at 1.75:1 in the early years of widescreen, the cinemas themselves installed screens at ratios of 1.66:1, 1.75:1 and 1.85:1 depending on the practicalities of converting the building, which made standardisation difficult. A cinema with an AR of 1.66:1 was stuck with showing all films at that ratio regardless as to the intended ratio.

 

[John Hodson]

...which was down to post war austerity. Simply not the money for all cinemas to upgrade.

 

[Malcolm R]

I can sort of understand why there was no international standard, because when is there ever? But why wasn't there a single British standard?

Probably the same reason there's no standard today: film creators don't want to be strapped into any single aspect ratio. Some feel that different ratios are more relevant to their subjects.