Not to mention that those subtitles were supposed to mirror Mina's typewriter...

so... what? they're saying that the Criterion laserdisc looked like crap?

I wasn't even impressed with HDNet Movies airing of the film prior to the Bluray release.

They're also saying in fact that they didn't use that precious answer print when they did the Superbit edition in 2001.

By now the whole idea of this transfer is so repulsive to me I think the FDA should look into the packaging to see whether it contains made-in-China lead paint and can therefore justify a recall.:D

what assholes... imo I thought the superbit was great.

:lol:

[side comment: I thought we'd see you in the Jungle Book thread, dissing that restoration]

Luckily, I never bonded with that film and couldn't care less if they did a purple and mauve version.

word! :D

Is anyone basing their critique of the new transfer off a comparison with an original 35mm release print, or are people just comparing it to the old video transfers? I'm just curious to see whether the new transfer is actually more faithful to the actual film, as Zoetrope claims. Maybe that's b.s. or maybe people have just gotten used to the old video transfer because they can't remembe what it looked like in the theater.

All i know is coppolas kid needs to take care of his unibrow problem. lol anyone else see it in the special features? It was a little disturbing to say the least.

I remember what it looked like in the theatre and it didn't look like that. Its lush colours and depiction of Lucy's posh decadent surroundings and the brilliant, varied and sometimes surprising colours in general, especially in the dramatic final "race against the sunset" sequence, are what "made" the film.

If I had to give a name to that new transfer, it would have to be the "BatVision" version, as in "blind as a bat".

So, let me get this straight: If I want the best picture quality and colors as originally intended I should just stick with my Superbit edition?

... and DTS sound! :thumbsup:

Zoetrope reports that this is what Coppola envisioned, and DVD Talk gives it the highest rating, so that's enough for me to pick it up. This seems more offensive to people who own the Superbit version, which clearly depicts some different colors. I can't remember what I saw in the theater, and have only caught it on cable since then, so I'll be happy to now own it in whatever form it's in.

The other thing I've noticed is that sometimes screenshots don't acurately represent a film, which is meant to be moving, not viewed frame by frame. People point out little things in screenshots that I rarely if ever notice when watching a film, even when I'm looking for them. For instance, that logo on Leo in Titanic.

Hi,

I'm hoping someone here can help me out with this -- it may be semi-related to the debate going on (though maybe not). I just watched the new 2-Disc SE last night and noticed that on just about every chapter break from Chpt. 9 on, the image on the screen gets all pixilated/digitize-y looking for like quarter of a second or maybe a few frames.

The chapters I notice it on for sure are: 9, 12-16, 18, 19, 21-28. (I assume it's probably on all the chapters, but those are the ones I notice it on.) If you want to do a quick check, Chpt. 19 is one of the worst (just look at the c/u of the book it starts off on, and you'll see it all digitized-looking for x-number of frames).

Does anybody else see this on theirs? Or is it possible I have a defective copy?

(Note: I only have a Toshiba DVD player Model 7990 hooked up via component to a regular old Toshiba 25" flat tube television. Nothing fancy.)

Any help is appreciated -- thanks!

Just protecting their asses...

The reviewer admits that he's never seen the film on DVD before:

I think "muddled" is the operative word here.

While I am impressed that you have a crystal clear memory of what a movie looked like when it was in theaters 15 years ago, based on Dave Mack's comparison pics taken with a camera (which is actually a kind of crappy way to compare something, but I digress), the new edition looks better, as some of the scenes on the Superbit look WAY too bright and saturated. Whether that was Coppola's intention or not when he was shooting it, I don't know, as I was all of 11 years old when the film came out (and obviously there was no way in hell I was going to see it in the theaters). I don't really care about the Blu-Ray edition (as I don't even own an HDTV), but I am interested to see if DVD Beaver or someone on the forum will compare the new 2-disc against older versions and see what they find out.

And until someone can dig up an article or commentary excerpt from Coppola on the color scheme, I'll believe what Zoetrope, Coppola and Robert Harris say in the meantime. Hopefully the (SD) disc will arrive in the mail today, and I can then judge the transfer with my own eyes.

(On the BR disc: Over at AVS, there's another comparison between it and the SB, and wouldn't you know it, his comparison shows the BR having more detail than what was shown in Dave's pics.)

And finally:
How can DVD Empire, which is a retailer, be a rival site to DVD Talk, which is not a retailer?

I refuse to believe that the new print is what was always intended.

As the other forums have pointed out, with the movie book, publicity photos and all previous incarnations of the film being more-or-less consistant with each other, I'm not going to just accept that those have all been wrong.

It also wouldn't be the first time tins have been mislabeled, should somebody have used the wrong print. God forbid that somebody there was mad at somebody else, or even preferred a different version and purposely labelled this print wrong.

Or, we're being flat-out lied to. It wouldn't be the first time a studio has lied because they don't care about us at all, only the money.

I wonder if Criterion would be able or willing to offer any kind of confirmation that FFC actually approved the LD transfer, or if they just received a form letter stamped from his studio or something. Maybe they have some proof of his personal involvement in it.

The statement from Zoetrope also stated that somebody on the crew approved the master print or whatever. Well, maybe what we're seeing here is the Criterion LD approved by FCC as his preferred version, but the new print coming from a master approved by the DOP instead? Conflict of interests maybe?

The only definite here is that I'm not giving them my money for a crap product, though I'm sure they could care less...

Well there you go. You think it looks like crap, I think it looks fine. It all boils down to what our eyes tell us. And until Coppola (and only Coppola) flat out issues a statement saying the the new transfer is incorrect, I'll believe it's what he wanted the movie to look like. Thankfully, people who disagree can still pick up the Superbit, so everyone can be happy...I think.

What do you want Coppola to say? "I've been negligent. I let incompetent fools run my affairs and decide what print to use for the DVD. I'm an idiot. I'd like to promise it won't happen again but as I'm getting older I find I am surrounded by a lot of people who only want my money and don't care about my films at all. Please help me by not buying this product"?

I find this whole thing to be rather silly. Clearly you think it looks like crap and I guess that is supposed to make it definitive. And if Coppola has given the thing his stamp of approval, he's either incompetent, a liar or has been duped...in your judgement. I guess there is NO WAY that this can be his preferred visual presentation.

Not very broadminded of you.

Although...publicity photos (including those in a movie book) are hopelessly unreliable as any kind of a representation of the actual film. They're usually lit, staged, and processed completely separately from the film itself. Plus video transfers are often much too bright, in order to accommodate the limitations of TV, which traditionally have not been able to handle subtle gradations of darkness. Check out the DVD of CITIZEN KANE for a good example of an overly bright transfer.

Again, this certainly could be a botched transfer...but until someone compares it with frame enlargements from a 35mm release print, we won't know for sure. Robert Harris, for one, claims the new transfer is the only one that matches the answer print.

EDIT: I'm talking about brightness here, not colors. I think the change in color tones would be pretty hard for Zoetrope to rationalize.

It's likely that Coppola approving a transfer for 1993 would be a lot different from his approval in 2007. He clearly has full knowledge of film-to-video medium (since he actually has his own DVD production lab). So, the first transfer was probably as best as could be done for the format at the time. Analog, interlaced, and non-anamorphic. Today, there's a huge amount of control over the image, even compared to 1993. RAH's post on the HTF is vital reading (not just for this film, but films in general).

But it basically proves that a lot of people on internet forums like this have the delusion that they're "experts" on a film because they've compared laserdiscs with BluRay, taken amateur quality pictures of a projection screen, or have 17 year old memories to use as reference to back up their opinion.

It's not really about getting an accurate image, but rather whatever passes for the whim of the viewer's preferences (and costly setup).

No Problem.

Thank you, Patrick. I was originally trying to explain something along those lines, but decided not to as my knowledge of evolving home technology and video transfers is pretty piss-poor. You said it a lot better than I could have.

It's something that's been bothering me for awhile on various forums how some people are apparently video/audio wizards who somehow know better than the director and believe they know how a movie should look. I'm not saying the transfer is correct (maybe all the conspiracy theorists are right and it is off), but all that should matter is what you think of it. If you don't like it, fine--but don't brand those of us who do as idiots who will happily accept what the studio throws at us.

I'm sorry if this new transfer is stressing people out (and judging by baracine's melodramatic posts, it looks like it's clearly affecting him), and even more sorry when (as I said above) the "correct" Superbit transfer is still widely available, but from what I've seen, this transfer looks damn good to me, and I look forward to enjoying it.

I'd be very happy to read Mr. Harris's post on HTF (from which I am banned since the Peter Pan fracas) if somebody reproduced it here.

I'm a translator. I memorize dictionaries for a living. I have some trouble remembering names some of the time but I never forget a film I've paid to see. I remember three things vividly about Dracula: the absolute originality of the film - that still makes it stand out today as a horror film - and the lush quality of its luminous photography and colours; the other thing I remember is the number of kids under 5 years old running around uncontrolled in the theatre - my first encounter with irresponsible parents. I doubt those kids remember anything much about the film...