New BD of HALLOWEEN still has color timing issues during the night scenes....

[damonous]

Originally Posted by SpartanJohnson

I might have to pick this up, help convince me everyone.

Time to get some schooling in Carpenter. If you haven't seen this yet, does that mean you've also missed his "The Fog" (original, not the remake), "The Thing" (remake, not the original), "They Live", and "Prince of Darkness"?

Halloween is like a cross between an old-fashioned monster-movie and a slasher flick (of course, it is also the first 'slasher flick'). There's more to the villain than what you first presume. Also, Carpenter is an absolute master at building tension out of virtually nothing. He could film someone going into a convenience store to get a Coke and have you biting your lip and clenching your fists. He also recorded the score for the movie (as he does for many of his films), and as such is perfectly "droned" into the atmosphere he creates. I have to say "droned", because that's what it is. After a while, it becomes subliminal, eating away at you even when you're not aware.

--Especially considering how good the Halloween BD screenshots look, it looks like Oct 2nd is going to hit my wallet hard (between this and FF2).

[John32]

Not trying to go off-topic here but, this thread got me thinking earlier at work that once I got home I'd pop in my THX cert. first Anchor Bay Halloween DVD release and compare/contrast that with my DiviMax ed. (I don't own the blu-ray, but as stated previously it's the same transfer).

Anyway, hands down the ORIGINAL DVD release is much spookier and better! The muted tones, etc. look great and how they're supposed to look. That new Halloween disc, while a great disc all-around has an awful and too-bright transfer that I hadn't really noticed that much (other than realizing something seemed off) until c/c it on my HD-A2 upconverted here...

I much prefer this version ....for 'Sho.

[John32]

Originally Posted by sahoward

I understand that the shot to shot comparisons to the DVDs of Dracula and Halloween look different, but why is the Blu-ray WRONG because it's different? Especially in the case of the Dracula disc, it seems the print was supervised extensively by Coppolla himself. Maybe these versions are closer to their intent than ever before.

Because it doesn't support the filmmaker's vision of his movie, that's why.

[John32]

Originally Posted by ryoohki360

I'am not J6P and i prefer the lighter look. I don't understand that MOON thing, last night i was outside Full Moon and it wasn't Blue anywhere. I guess it can add to the mood for certain people, but either way it don't bother me Cundey Approuved or not..

J6P isn't buying 'Halloween' either. J6p knows it's coming on AMC plenty of times during 'Monsterfest' this year and damn sure doesn't want to purchase it on standard DVD let alone, Blu-ray disc.

And FILM fans definitely care what Cundey's/ Carpenter's vision is.

[Nick Lavigne]

I am buying it. I will also get all the double dips that come later.

Anyone find any actual full rez screenshots of Halloween (like the fifth element ones at AVS)?

[Kenshiro]

Originally Posted by Dave Mack

Dean Cundey THX dvd




Blu Ray

Wow in this shot you can't even make out the pumpkin in the DVD version, how good can that little black blob look upscaled? I'll take detail over dark blue tint any day.

[irrob]

Originally Posted by Kenshiro

Wow in this shot you can't even make out the pumpkin in the DVD version, how good can that little black blob look upscaled? I'll take detail over dark blue tint any day.

Thank you. That's the selling point for me. Clarity and Detail.

[DanzBorin]

I hope they do a better job with Halloween 3... the obvious choice for best flick in the series...




























I hope you know I'm kidding...

[hainrs]

Regardless of what people think, the blue tint is what was originally intended by the filmmakers and was apparent in the theatrical version. Carpenter has DISOWNED the Divamax transfer; thus the BD version is a POS no matter how detailed it is. I will still purchase it so I can have a version of the film in HD, but I will have to track down the old 2DVD version to get my blue on plus the benefit of having the uncut TV version (in all its two-toned letterbox bars glory).

[Maul]

Originally Posted by hainrs

Regardless of what people think, the blue tint is what was originally intended by the filmmakers and was apparent in the theatrical version. Carpenter has DISOWNED the Divamax transfer;

I'm sorry, but unless someone can point me to an interview or something about this... I have a hard time believing this...

[Spideybat]

Originally Posted by hainrs

Regardless of what people think, the blue tint is what was originally intended by the filmmakers and was apparent in the theatrical version.

Blue tint? Yes. Blue saturation? No. And only in certain scenes.

[Aurora]

Originally Posted by John32

Because it doesn't support the filmmaker's vision of his movie, that's why.

Well, a filmmaker's vision and what he actually ends up making can often be two quite different things! I'm sure when Sam Raimi made Evil Dead, his vision probably wasn't that guts at the end of the film should look creamed corn. But he didn't have a lot of money, and that's what he ended up doing. I didn't ever see the second one (the first one once was enough for me), but can anyone comment on what the end looked like? Since it was like a remake and the first one brought in some solid cash to improve the second time around, it must be a little better, right?

Of course, some filmmakers like to preserve what they did, if, for instance, what they did was an ingenious way around some constraint that prevented the full realization of their vision, or they wan to show how their work has evolved over time by highlighting the bare boneness of their first work. Others might say, "Forget it, let's make it how I wanted it the first time."

[Spideybat]

Originally Posted by Aurora

Well, a filmmaker's vision and what he actually ends up making can often be two quite different things! I'm sure when Sam Raimi made Evil Dead, his vision probably wasn't that guts at the end of the film should look creamed corn. But he didn't have a lot of money, and that's what he ended up doing. I didn't ever see the second one (the first one once was enough for me), but can anyone comment on what the end looked like? Since it was like a remake and the first one brought in some solid cash to improve the second time around, it must be a little better, right?

Of course, some filmmakers like to preserve what they did, if, for instance, what they did was an ingenious way around some constraint that prevented the full realization of their vision, or they wan to show how their work has evolved over time by highlighting the bare boneness of their first work. Others might say, "Forget it, let's make it how I wanted it the first time."

The second one, Evil Dead II is very similar in low budget visual style.

[Maul]

I just got an email from deepdiscount.com saying mine just shipped, so I guess I'll find out for myself soon. Can't wait...!

[cary]

Thanks dvdvision and hainrs for a bit of back up. For those of you who are confused - motion pictures are actually fiction. Most of them are not about reality, but an altered depiction of reality - hopefully an artistic one. If it was just a regular middle America block without a lurking psychopath, it would be boring - not scary.

Halloween originally appeared with a deeply saturated blue night-time nightmare world. For me, that's an intrinsic part of the movie as I've experienced over the last 30 years, and I expect it to look that way at home. The more realistic it looks, the less it's impact.

Since I'm part of the Dracula discussion too, all I can say is that it's a Zoetrope-sanctioned transfer - the idea that Coppola personally looked at it is an assumption. Beyond that, Zoetrope has a history of changing aspect ratios on Apocalypse Now, and (as Pete pointed out in his review) soft transfers for the Godfather films. Sad to say, but there are much better disinterested curators for many modern films.

This is not about a check mark just because a transfer involved one of the film's originators - it's whether the final product honestly portrays the original version. I don't mind have a slipstreamed alternate, but I still want the screened vision.