I'm sorry, I just don't buy this story. The Blu-ray transfer is a radical revision from the way the movie has always looked. This is not a false memory. This is not a case of the theater prints being off. Scenes are completely different colors than they've always been. Not just that the hue is a little off. What was blue is now green. And the green makes no sense artistically!

The effect is just like watching a black & white movie that's been colorized, only in reverse. The contrast range has also been digitally crushed. Digitally.

While I'm sure that previous transfers had their limitations and may not have been 100% faithful to the color-timed OCN, they never diverged so wildly from the appearance of the theatrical release, as the Blu-ray does.

Yet now we're supposed to believe that all of the theatrical prints were wrong, and every single video transfer struck in the past was wrong -- not just a little wrong, mind you, but completely different than the director's alleged intention -- until this new Blu-ray.

Wait a minute, are we still talking about Bram Stoker's Dracula, or are we talking about The French Connection? Because it's the same damn story. And that story is totally implausible.

If it wasn't Coppola himself, it was someone else at Zoetrope who's made these revisions and is now trying to pawn them off as, "That's the way the movie always looked and you just don't remember it right!"

And your evidence that it's not is... what? The previous video releases? Your 20-year old memory of the theatrical release?

This is the first I've read about this issue. Reading through the thread I linked to, the idea that the contrast or color has been digitally altered is a contentious one, to say the least.

You see how badly studios are fucking up catalog releases on BD, yet you have trouble believing they could fuck up previous home video releases as well?

Answer me this: how many of the other transfers used an answer print for reference?

No, it's not. At least, not according to Harris:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...ion-in-blu-ray
For Dracula, Harris contends that the Blu-ray matches the original answer print, for The French Connection, he points out that it doesn't match the original prints (including the answer print).

If so, if someone else fucked up, why would Harris attempt to cover it up? Harris has railed against bad transfers before, including transfers of his own restorations. I have yet to read a plausible scenario that explains why Harris would "pawn off" the Dracula Blu-ray when he's obviously spoken his mind about so many other releases.

So wait, the director, the studio, the producers, and an accomplished film restorer and archivist are all wrong and your pristine memory of seeing the movie in a theatre 18 years ago is correct?

I think Josh Z's issue is that the LD and DVD releases have been pretty consistent in terms of colour timing/saturation and shadow detail whereas the BD is very different. It is odd. However, the inconsistency was adressed with claims that brightness and colour were boosted for previous releases.

Has Coppola himself ever spoken about the BD release? Has anyone attempted to ask him? I'd say word from him should lay the issue to rest.

Yes, and they are all at least generally consistent with the theatrical release. Maybe not 100% identical, but in broad strokes they are much closer than the Blu-ray, which is completely different.

And the theatrical prints, apparently. In fact, every single thing to do with this movie's photography, from the camera negative forward, was wrong until this new Blu-ray came around and fixed it all.

It's funny how Francis Coppola is such an incompetent filmmaker that he would shoot a movie one way, knowing that no audience would see it the way he intended it to look. He was working with Michael Ballhaus, one of the most talented and visionary cinematographers in the business. And yet, apparently, unlike every other professional cinematographer in the industry, for this project, Ballhaus never took into consideration how his photography would be represented on the theatrical prints. Oh no, he shot the movie in a way that no medium would ever represent accurately until a Blu-ray released 20 years later. (Oh, and a comparable DVD released at the same time.)

Unfortunately, Coppola no longer looks at or talks about his old movies.

Yes, I damn well do remember that the theatrical prints weren't completely desaturated of color and crushed into oblivion such that practically no detail at all can be seen in shadows (of which 90% of the movie takes place in shadows!). These notions that everyone who saw the movie theatrically are misremembering the way the theatrical release looked are patently absurd.

You do remember that Schindler's List was black & white, right? Well, guess what, I'm going to tell you now that you're completely f*ing wrong. It's always been in Technicolor. Because that was so long ago, it's impossible for you to remember the difference between color or black & white. How do you like that?

Someone should go find him and Lucas at the coffee shop they frequent and ask, lol!

Coppola seems to do a new commentary for his old movies when they get a new release, as Dracula did.

I'm not saying they were perfect. But I am saying that this Blu-ray doesn't look anything like the movie ever looked in the past. Not in theaters. Not on the transfer that Coppola personally approved for the Criterion laserdisc (which he did take an active hand in supervising, and looked different than the Sony LD released at the same time).

Answer me this: If this alleged answer print is the way Coppola always wanted the movie to look, why didn't he follow through and color time the theatrical prints to look anything at all like it? Why didn't he instruct Criterion to desaturate the colors and crush the contrasts on the laserdisc?

I'm not talking about the story Harris is telling. I'm talking about the story that the person who made the changes is telling.

For The French Connection, William Friedkin now claims that he always wanted the movie to have "pastel" colors. You can watch the video introduction and the restoration featurette on the Blu-ray. He says outright that the movie has always looked wrong, and this is what he always wanted. Which is total BS, according to his own cinematographer.

It's the same story with Dracula. The movie has been radically changed, and Zoetrope spokesman Kim Aubry is claiming that the movie was always supposed to look like this mysterious answer print that was never used in the past.

Why do we choose to believe one story but not the other?

I don't think that Harris is trying to "cover up" anything. Robert Harris had nothing to do with the production of Dracula, he didn't "restore" Dracula, and he had no involvement at all with the video transfer on the Dracula Blu-ray. He is not a spokesman for the studio, and has no vested interest in making people believe that this transfer is accurate or not.

I just think that Harris has been fed a story by Zoetrope that he chooses to believe. I choose not to believe that story, because it makes no plausible sense at all to me.

I stand corrected. In this case, yes, someone should ask him.

I'm not sure how anyone can claim to remember what a film looked like in a cinema all those years ago. The evidence would seem to be the other way that people can't remember and fill in the details to suit their particular opinion at any given time later. I'm not saying the "recollection" is a deliberate version of reality, simply the one which most closely fits with that person's needs at that time. Josh, your recollection of the way movies look at the cinema is certainly questionable and certainly doesn't lend weight to your views as expressed in this thread.

Okay so how can someone go about contacting him? I doubt anyone like me could but I'm assuming an insider like Harris himself would have the means of reaching Coppola and getting a definitive statement from the director?

And if Coppola disapproves of the current release, it shouldn't be too difficult to issue a new release with a corrected transfer. The 1080p footage (with more shadow detail than what's present in the main feature) present in the special features suggests that an HD master akin to the LD/DVD release already exists.

I wish he had left The Outsiders alone. I have a feeling we'll only get that complete novel version on BD. It's not so much the extra scenes I don't like as it is the music changes.

That's nonsense. There is plenty of color and subtle details in this transfer and it doesn't contradict my memory of the theatrical release. In fact, this transfer has a far richer palette of colors than the previous DVD which looked more like an episode of Miami Vice, totally bathed in primary color filters.

You sound a lot like one of those 9/11 truthers... just looking for the sinister plot somewhere, and whoever contradicts you must be in on the plot. The entire film industry is conspiring to sell you a subpar film transfer, and poor Coppola has been held hostage so he can't tell the "truth" about this evil transfer! hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Disagree if you want but be more civil than this.

I don't know about the theatrical prints or Criterion Laserdisc but back in 2005 Aubry stated that Coppola/Zoetrope had nothing to do with the first Sony release.

From DVD Verdict, 10/3/2005:

It is interesting that he says "first Sony release". Because in 1999 when talking with DVD Talk, Aubry says they are about to work on Dracula for what I can only assume would have been the 2001 Superbit.

It doesn't seem like they did anything at the time on that release, based on information from DVD Verdict's Blu-ray review.

To some extent this meshes with what he says in response to the DVD Talk Blu-ray review of Dracula on 10/3/2007.

But, that last part suggests that it is Aubry's memory at work here. Perhaps he had the final say on this one. Maybe he messed up in how he corrected this for HD. On a shot by shot basis, it may not work. But for what shots he remembers best, the results are as close as possible to what he remembers as the intended result. The guy seems like experienced professional based on what I've read about him.

Personally, I don't think there's any crap to be found in that part of the story. I suspect the crap was in the source.

Supposed it is based on a new interpositive found in Sony's Vaults. From DVD Verdict Blu-ray review:

I think this is another case of crappy source = crappy result for a Blu-ray Catalog title. IMO, they started with an inferior master from that IP and worked to make the result match what was imagined to have been the original look for the film. Whatever digital tools they used to do so created something less than pleasing, even if it is more like the original in some way. I personally don't like the Blu-ray (my library has 4 copies) and have been watching the Superbit.

Not everyone, just those with the wrong opinion.

Seriously though, 20 years is a long time to accurately remember how a film was presented in theaters, especially if that memory could've been influenced by subsequent home video viewings. I certainly don't trust anyone who's seen a home video release to have an accurate memory of the original theatrical release.

There's a huge difference between not remembering the precise color timing of scenes, and not remembering a film was in color. If you want to successfully argue your point, it's best not to use such patently absurd examples.


And again, what is your evidence for how it looked in theaters?

Criterion's been known to indulge directors in changes to a film for home video, with different aspect ratios and the like. And what was his "active hand" in the supervision exactly?

What, personally?

The answer print was used as a reference for the theatrical prints:
Harris doesn't accept theatrical prints as a reference point because he feels that the standards for the prints are too loose, and of course there's no way to control how even an accurate print is projected.

From a previous thread, I made this comment:
There's just too many variables for a random theatrical print to be taken as evidence for how the film was "supposed" to look over an answer print from the vaults.

Maybe because that transfer was for SD NTSC, so compromises were made.

Well that's the wrong thread then. This thread is about Harris and his opinions, and whether he can be trusted. In regards to The French Connection, he clearly states that he considers the new transfer to be a new color scheme, in contrast to his opinion on Dracula, which he thinks is an accurate reproduction of the original color scheme.

Agreed.

Except that this behavior would be contrary to how he's reacted to other film transfers in the past. Again, I bring up his reaction to The French Connection. He didn't buy the director's line there, so why would he buy it for Dracula?

That is the closest to my thinking on the matter. Harris is a great resource given his expertise on film, but the man is not connected in any way to Bram Stoker's Dracula, and has no firsthand experience with the original camera negative or film elements involved. The story about the answer print was passed along directly from Zoetrope, who has a vested interest in the BD release's success. Why would they come out and admit they used an inferior master for the BD that does not possess the original color-timing seen in every other version of the film?

The colors on the BD are simply wrong in certain scenes, and badly so in a few scenes.
It was a very early BD, before anyone had gotten a good idea of what a quality master looked like to produce the best results. The studios were flying blind (as witnessed by the awful first BD of The Fifth Element) and some bad mistakes were made that would not happen today.

I have no "dog in this fight", because I've never seen Coppola's Dracula on either format, but a) I think Josh Z is stating a key part of his argument a bit poorly and b) I think everyone else is missing the point of what Josh Z is saying as a result.

From my perspective, the keys here are:
1. 20 years is a long time. It is probably not possible to remember exactly what a movie looked like in theaters 20 years later unless you a) saw that movie several times in theaters, and b) it meant something important to you personally, thus, the memory becomes valued and you retain it more vividly for longer. Some people are talking as if they could review the image of a movie they saw in theaters based on a two-decade old memory and I don't think that's possible.
2. That said, the point being made in this thread is that the movie looks drastically, monumentally different than it did in theaters. The memory in question doesn't require a particularly specific awareness of what the movie looked like. If all the blood in Dawn of the Dead was purple on the Blu-Ray, people would notice.

I'm also personally willing to put credence into the story about cranking the brightness. One of the things I think Blu-Ray is the best at is shadow delineation. I saw Sunshine a couple of times on a DVD before I got the Blu-Ray, and during the scenes when Rose Byrne is being chased in the hallways in the third act, it's like night and day. You can barely tell what's meant to be happening in SD, but you can see it all vividly in HD. If this is at all similar to the darkness that was being attempted with Dracula, VHS and early DVD versions would have been a flat-out hard-to-see mess.

Someone who loved the movie enough to see it multiple times in the cinema would surely have also decided to watch it many times in it's various hometheatre incarnations down the years? I know I have. Memory is a funny thing and I find it hard to believe that the original recollections of the movie at the cinema have remained untouched by the subsequent viewings on lesser mediums. A point which Jay makes far more eloquently above..

Why would Zeotrope spend months to years on a new transfer at all, when the HD master for the Superbit was still lying around? If Sony simply wanted to slap out a BD for the film, they could've used that transfer.

Instead, Zeotrope obviously felt there was room for improvement over the Superbit transfer, creating a transfer that was (for once) accurate to how the film was originally intended to be seen.

A huge point to make here is that those, like Josh, who claim that the theatrical prints were different from the new transfer don't have any real evidence for that. Memories don't count, for reasons stated above, and none of the objectors have access to an actual print.


A lot of people who complained about the new Dracula transfer were viewing the DVD release of the transfer, so they likely were seeing less shadow detail and color than what the Blu-ray provides.

That would be possible, if they were only working from his memory. However, they had an answer print on hand for reference as well. None of the objectors have a print to compare to.


Do you know what an interpositive is? It's the best source possible for a video transfer, aside from the original negative (which is hardly ever used for video transfers). Also, it's not a "new interpositive," but a new transfer made from the interpositive. It could very well be the same interpositive used for the previous home video transfers.

The Dracula differences are pretty jarring. It would be like imagine if T2 came out and all the blue filter was taken away from the night scenes. I'm sorry but I would remember that big of a difference.

Robert Harris lost all credibility with me. Along with that asshat who thinks he's an "insider" that runs that DVD site, the name escapes me now cause I haven't been to his site in ages. Anyway, I didn't mean to stir up controversy.

Bill Hunt/Digital Bits?