Twilight Time September/October 2012 Releases (1 Viewer)

[Richard--W]

As an aside, the U.K. edition of STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE accurately reproduces the theatrical density. It's clear sharp and dark, naturally so, and there is no indication of electronic / digital revisionism like on the American editions. And it's region-free, sold as an import by amazon. Buy it now:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002XISFGS/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

 

[haineshisway]

Yes, I was specifically asking a) if anyone here saw it theatrically, b) if anyone that saw it theatrical recalls what it looked like.
Nothing rhetorical about my question whatsoever.
I only saw the film myself a couple months back from renting the Sony DVD through Netflix, and I didn't like it quite enough to own it. But as someone like Robert Harris would tell us, prior home video releases should not be the endgame basis for comparison, because many of them were flawed for various reasons.
"What did the film look like theatrically?" seems to me to be a legitimate question. It may very well have been closer to or exactly what the prior VHS/DVDs looked like. The point is - I don't know. Does anyone else here know?

It is a legitimate question. Has Richard W. seen this film theatrically? Who knows? Has he watched the DVD repeatedly? If so, that would certainly color any memories of twenty-two years ago. All previous releases were made off lo-con elements - it's more than "slight' brightening for heaven't sake. There have been many many DVD releases that look nothing like they are supposed to. I would, at this point, dearly love to see a theatrical print of this film.

 

[John Weller]

Out of curiosity, how do the theatrical trailers look that may have turned up on previous dvds?

 

[Richard--W]

Yes, I was specifically asking a) if anyone here saw it theatrically, b) if anyone that saw it theatrical recalls what it looked like.
Nothing rhetorical about my question whatsoever.
I only saw the film myself a couple months back from renting the Sony DVD through Netflix, and I didn't like it quite enough to own it. But as someone like Robert Harris would tell us, prior home video releases should not be the endgame basis for comparison, because many of them were flawed for various reasons.
"What did the film look like theatrically?" seems to me to be a legitimate question. It may very well have been closer to or exactly what the prior VHS/DVDs looked like. The point is - I don't know. Does anyone else here know?

I know. I saw the 1990 version projected many times because I have a particular interest in the work of George A. Romero, in Night of the Living Dead (1968), in the phenomena it created, and in this legitimate remake. I've seen the original so many times I could draw you a shot list and diagram the set-ups from memory.
That's why I said the 1999 DVD of the 1990 remake accurately represents the theatrical film. The electronic brightening is the slightest tweak. You are aware of the difference in how a luminous monitor reads a film as opposed to how a matte screen receives it. It can't be exactly the same, but taking into account the change in medium, the DVD is close enough. I do not complain about the quality of the transfer. It's everything a transfer should be. I do resent the aesthetic decision to impose a tint and darken and desaturate the image so that it looks false, artificial -- and trendy.
I do not study most films as closely, however. You'll notice from my posts I never take such a position on a film I don't know that well.

 

[Brandon Conway]

For the record, I've blocked Richard's posts from prior... disagreements, and promised to never respond to one of his posts, so therefore I don't read them. If he has already answered my question in one of his previous posts and is someone that could answer my previous query I have no reason to disbelieve him. I was merely asking the question in general, as I figured it could be an angle as no one had brought it up, as far as I could tell.

 

[Richard--W]

For the record, I have no respect for someone who constantly calls into question the legitimacy of how films looked theatrically when revisionism occurs in the home video transfer. Nor do I respect the practice of calling the veracity of the knowledgeable witness into question every time it suits him, however politely it is phrased. A number of posters on HTF have been shouted down or made to feel that they didn't see what they saw by Brandon Conway's carefully worded attack. I have strong words to tell Brandon Conway what I think of him, but this is not my house, so I refrain from doing so.
As a rule, it would be considerate of distributors to print a notice on the cover art informing the consumer that a revisionist transfer is in the box. That means asking the studio or film makers or whomever is responsible for it at the outset. Revisionism happens so often now, printing the notice on the cover art would avoid confusion and help the consumer in his decision on whether or not to spend the money. Does anyone disagree with that?

 

[Moe Dickstein]

As an aside, the U.K. edition of STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE accurately reproduces the theatrical density. It's clear sharp and dark, naturally so, and there is no indication of electronic / digital revisionism like on the American editions.

Not buying that film again until they make the Director's Edition available in HD. That's the only version of the film that flows well - In My Opinion.
And as to NOTLD90 - if Mr. Savini approves this disc, then that's the end of it for me. The creator has the right to do what they want, as I would hope to retain that right for my own work, I support that right for all others. Even Mr. Lucas.

 

[Paul Penna]

This isn't a soap opera or gossip column. I, for one, am not interested in what one member thinks about another or how they plan on dealing or not dealing with one another.

 

[John Weller]

Not buying that film again until they make the Director's Edition available in HD. That's the only version of the film that flows well - In My Opinion.
And as to NOTLD90 - if Mr. Savini approves this disc, then that's the end of it for me. The creator has the right to do what they want, as I would hope to retain that right for my own work, I support that right for all others. Even Mr. Lucas.

I think the FX on the DE of ST:TMP was SD only?

 

[Brandon Conway]

OK - I WILL respond to THAT ONE since I could read the beginning of it in the general forum.

- I am not attacking you.

- I have shouted down no one.

- The lack of respect is mutual.

- I asked a legitimate general question and was seeking a legitimate response from someone. I even plainly stated that IF you or anyone else had experienced the film in theaters and knew that this was indeed revisionism than I had NO REASON to question it. I specifically stated I had no reason to question YOU even if you happened to be such a person.

- I have no idea if you have seen it theatrically or not.

- I've utterly refused to read anything you post for months now. I'm making this exception because I saw a completely uncalled for attack on my character from the post preview on the previous page.

- Please stop hiding behind passive-aggressive "spare the forum" BS and stop believing in conspiracy theories that I'm out to get you or something (or that I'm out to get anyone else for that matter that for some reason you feel a need to stand up for). It's petty and annoying, and no one cares about our little spat. I don't care about you except when you BLATANTLY attack me. I request that you not care about me unless I BLATANTLY attack you, which will never occur, because I BLOCK YOUR POSTS AND DON'T READ THEM.

- Please block my posts so you never have to read them again.

- I also would love for every release to have Criterion-like explanations of their source and transfer process.

Good night. As long as you never mention me in your posts by name again (or by the belittling "someone") where it can be seen in the post previews you will continue to have me never respond to you again.

Thanks,
Brandon

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I think the FX on the DE of ST:TMP was SD only?

Hence "making it available" would require them to re-do them in HD. Perhaps I should have worded it better...

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by John Weller /t/321400/twilight-time-september-october-2012-releases/240#post_3983196
I think the FX on the DE of ST:TMP was SD only?

Correct. They were rendered SD only.

 

[John Weller]

Hence "making it available" would require them to re-do them in HD. Perhaps I should have worded it better...

It was worded fine, I was at fault there.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

It was worded fine, I was at fault there.

Eh, I could have said "until Paramount redoes the FX in HD" *shrug*

 

[Richard--W]

I agree with Moe Dickstein regarding the Director's Cut of ST: TMP. However, I'm old enough to have memories. I saw the film a hundred times in a theater. Literally. It is nice to have the theatrical memory to watch once in awhile. I hope Paramount finds a way to bring the Director's Cut to Blu-ray soon. Meanwhile the Director's cut DVD sits on the shelf next to the theatrical cut Blu-ray, and they both look spectacular on my Sony Bravia.
As for NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD 1990, I'll be content with the DVD.
I've been meaning to get PICNIC. The money I saved by cancelling NOTLD90 I will spend on another Twilight Time blu-ray.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I agree with Moe Dickstein regarding the Director's Cut of ST: TMP. However, I'm old enough to have memories. I saw the film a hundred times in a theater. Literally. It is nice to have the theatrical memory to watch once in awhile. I hope Paramount finds a way to bring the Director's Cut to Blu-ray soon. Meanwhile the Director's cut DVD sits on the shelf next to the theatrical cut Blu-ray, and they both look spectacular on my Sony Bravia.
As for NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD 1990, I'll be content with the DVD.
I've been meaning to get PICNIC. The money I saved by cancelling NOTLD90 I will spend on another Twilight Time blu-ray.

True, and actually ST:TMP was just going into general release as I was born. I saw it a few times on LD, but didn't really fall for it until the Director's Version, and I like it better than all but IV and VI (Yes, even II).
Just out of curiosity, you can certainly argue that Wise's DVD version represents a revisionism. Do you feel that's OK since they were trying to recreate their intent in 1979? Just interested in where you draw your line on the acceptability of directorial alterations.

 

[Todd J Moore]

Okay, I'm probably opening a can of worms here, but what the hell? I'll do it.
Here's the thing I don't get:
When there is talk of classic film piracy, which I usually take to mean film pirates making available titles the studios won't make available (such as serials), there is much talk of Studio Rights and how we the film fan have no right to expect anything other than what the studio deems to give us, etc. However, if a studio does a color correction on a film--real or perceived--then the discussion becomes one of Film Fan's Rights and how dare the studio do this to us, etc. Am I missing a disconnect here? Either the Studios hold ultimate rights to do what they want with a film--be it withhold it from circulation or change the color timing on it--and we have no right to anything other than what they choose to give us, or the film fan holds certain rights, too. Note that this is not an endorsement of piracy, but a question of why the outrage changes whenever it seems suitable. If the Studios hold the ultimate right to tell us what we can have (and they do), don't they also to a very large extent have the right to tell us how we can have it, even if that plays havoc with our alleged memories of it?
I won't even get into the idea of people swearing they remember things precisely from decades ago that they simply couldn't possibly remember. Memories play tricks on people. Proven fact.

 

[John Weller]

Okay, I'm probably opening a can of worms here, but what the hell? I'll do it.
Here's the thing I don't get:
When there is talk of classic film piracy, which I usually take to mean film pirates making available titles the studios won't make available (such as serials), there is much talk of Studio Rights and how we the film fan have no right to expect anything other than what the studio deems to give us, etc. However, if a studio does a color correction on a film--real or perceived--then the discussion becomes one of Film Fan's Rights and how dare the studio do this to us, etc. Am I missing a disconnect here? Either the Studios hold ultimate rights to do what they want with a film--be it withhold it from circulation or change the color timing on it--and we have no right to anything other than what they choose to give us, or the film fan holds certain rights, too. Note that this is not an endorsement of piracy, but a question of why the outrage changes whenever it seems suitable. If the Studios hold the ultimate right to tell us what we can have (and they do), don't they also to a very large extent have the right to tell us how we can have it, even if that plays havoc with our alleged memories of it?
I won't even get into the idea of people swearing they remember things precisely from decades ago that they simply couldn't possibly remember. Memories play tricks on people. Proven fact.

Studios can be wrong, customers can be wrong.
In this case, I'm not sure whether it's a mistake, a different grading (not the same as revisionism) or a return to an intended look that the original prints and video transfers omitted. But since TT is WAY out of my price range, I was going to stick with the dvd anyway!

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Legally, yes studios have the right to release titles or not, and to release them as they wish.
If another entity (a director, producer, etc) has contractual rights over content (final cut, etc) they have a say about how the material is released. This is different in each country, as in Denmark where Sydney Pollack sued over Pan and Scan presentations of Three Days of the Condor
http://laserdisc.wikkii.com/wiki/Pan_%26_Scan#Reactions
Just because consumers want a title does not give them any legal or moral right to bootleg a title or support piracy. If you want something, your recourse is to contact the rights holder and make your wishes known. If you disagree with the way a title is released either in content or form of presentation, your recourse is to not purchase the title - and make your reasons known to the rights holder.
It's pretty simple.

 

[Richard--W]

True, and actually ST:TMP was just going into general release as I was born. I saw it a few times on LD, but didn't really fall for it until the Director's Version, and I like it better than all but IV and VI (Yes, even II).
Just out of curiosity, you can certainly argue that Wise's DVD version represents a revisionism. Do you feel that's OK since they were trying to recreate their intent in 1979? Just interested in where you draw your line on the acceptability of directorial alterations.

A fair question. I had a brief acquaintance with Robert Wise. If you want to know about that, ask in a PM. Robert Wise took the position that he would have finished the film differently if he'd had the time. There were editorial possibilities he didn't have time to try out and fine-tuning that couldn't be done. The film was delivered dripping wet to exhibitors the night before and opening day in 1979. When the chance came to address these and other issues for home video, he welcomed the chance to finish what he had started. The alternate footage was his footage, not someone else's, and not shot after the fact. On that basis, I can't argue with his Director's Cut. It does flow more smoothly. I accept both versions.
Wise did not tinker with the cinematography. He doesn't degenerate the film. He doesn't desaturate the color, change the pallet, impose an artificial tint, or try to make the image look like something it isn't (which is the case with NOTLD90). I prefer the film look on the Blu-ray and my monitor reads it beautifully.
Personally, I think the script is a shipwreck, but the film is admirably made and no one but Robert Wise could have pulled it together. Visually and aesthetically it is 100% Wise. He was an awesome director - editor and a very gracious person.