770 Dressed to Kill

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Message
Author
User avatar
FakeBonanza
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:35 pm

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#26 Post by FakeBonanza » Thu Jul 30, 2015 3:35 pm

NABOB OF NOWHERE wrote:What higher authority is being proposed here other than the filmmaker themselves to supervise any restoration/ grading etc.?
If the filmmaker fucks up (e.g Friedkin) So be it. If they feel they fucked up on set or in the edit and want to rectify it or wanted to do something that the tools of the day didn't allow for why should the original become sacrosanct?
Rembrandt did it all the time after all.
It's certainly troubling when the colour-timing is altered to reflect momentary trends, as was the case with Badlands and Thief (and seems to be the case here). I'd much rather a film be preserved to reflect its original presentation than to reflect the particular era during which it was restored.

User avatar
carmilla mircalla
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:47 pm

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#27 Post by carmilla mircalla » Thu Jul 30, 2015 4:23 pm

NABOB OF NOWHERE wrote:What higher authority is being proposed here other than the filmmaker themselves to supervise any restoration/ grading etc.?
If the filmmaker fucks up (e.g Friedkin) So be it. If they feel they fucked up on set or in the edit and want to rectify it or wanted to do something that the tools of the day didn't allow for why should the original become sacrosanct?
Rembrandt did it all the time after all.
It's such a hard point to argue. I think it's acceptable to a degree but when does "stop" come into play? Lucas edited every digital home video release of the OT right up until he sold everything to Disney. The tweaks he made for the blu-rays were so pointless you wonder why something as odd as digitally adding a boulder to partially obscure R2-D2 in a New Hope was so important to him, if he even really knew why or if that served a purpose aside from a surface excuse. I actually wonder why he didn't just remake the entire OT at that point, seriously.

But to get back on track, Criterion's official mission statement does explicitly point out that when working directly with a filmmaker the goal is to present the movie to their intentions and I guess we're all seeing that for better of worse now more than ever. And like other posts have said, the real gamble there is the filmmakers deciding they want it to look a whole different way now as opposed to how everyone else remembers it. It's a vast argument of personal aesthetics vs. nostalgia.

That being said, the colors do not bother me in the Criterion presentation but the smushed vertical spaghetti faces is hard to get past.

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#28 Post by Drucker » Thu Jul 30, 2015 4:54 pm

carmilla mircalla wrote:The tweaks he made for the blu-rays were so pointless you wonder why something as odd as digitally adding a boulder to partially obscure R2-D2 in a New Hope was so important to him, if he even really knew why or if that served a purpose aside from a surface excuse. I actually wonder why he didn't just remake the entire OT at that point, seriously.
To me this isn't even the point though. Films and music are public mediums. In general, I think it's fair to say that people want to enjoy these as close to their original exhibition as possible. Sure there are exceptions, with technicolor prints that were never perfectly in focus, or poorly-pressed vinyl that can be improved upon. But in general, how it would have been enjoyed upon original release is what people want to see. Feel free to throw in alternate versions, but the best way to allow people to appreciate art is to exhibit what became famous in the first place, as far as I'm concerned.

User avatar
jindianajonz
Jindiana Jonz Abrams
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:11 pm

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#29 Post by jindianajonz » Thu Jul 30, 2015 5:46 pm

Drucker wrote:To me this isn't even the point though. Films and music are public mediums. In general, I think it's fair to say that people want to enjoy these as close to their original exhibition as possible. Sure there are exceptions, with technicolor prints that were never perfectly in focus, or poorly-pressed vinyl that can be improved upon. But in general, how it would have been enjoyed upon original release is what people want to see. Feel free to throw in alternate versions, but the best way to allow people to appreciate art is to exhibit what became famous in the first place, as far as I'm concerned.
I think most people agree with this sentiment, but when it gets down to figuring out how to achieve it, things can get very dicey. Just look at all the arguments on this and other forums between people who "remember" how color and aspect ratio looked during original screenings. Or amateur film detectives like those in the Blood and Black Lace thread who throw all sorts of flimsy evidence around to support their case. Ultimately, somebody is going to have to make a judgement call- if the director isn't reliable, should we be asking Peter Becker to arbitrate how these films originally looked? Robert Harris? Jeffery Wells?

J M Powell
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:20 am
Location: Providence, RI

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#30 Post by J M Powell » Thu Jul 30, 2015 7:27 pm

jindianajonz wrote:I think most people agree with this sentiment, but when it gets down to figuring out how to achieve it, things can get very dicey.
Agreed. But, setting aside the color timing issue, this squashing problem just isn't a dicey quandary. In the history of cinema I can't think of a single filmmaker who's deliberately sought to create this effect (outside of dream sequences etc., where the effect is usually more pronounced than here). Every example I know of is a technical error or problem with deteriorated elements (e.g. the notorious "Cinemascope mumps"). And I can't imagine that De Palma would seek this here. I stand by my claim that they must either have failed to notice the problem until now, or they noticed it earlier but let it slide for reasons of cost, etc. I can't think of any scenario in which this effect would be thought of as an improvement over a non-squashed version. If someone else can, I'm open to hearing it.

AfterTheFlood
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 1:39 pm

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#31 Post by AfterTheFlood » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:01 am

J M Powell wrote:
jindianajonz wrote:I think most people agree with this sentiment, but when it gets down to figuring out how to achieve it, things can get very dicey.
Agreed. But, setting aside the color timing issue, this squashing problem just isn't a dicey quandary. In the history of cinema I can't think of a single filmmaker who's deliberately sought to create this effect (outside of dream sequences etc., where the effect is usually more pronounced than here). Every example I know of is a technical error or problem with deteriorated elements (e.g. the notorious "Cinemascope mumps"). And I can't imagine that De Palma would seek this here. I stand by my claim that they must either have failed to notice the problem until now, or they noticed it earlier but let it slide for reasons of cost, etc. I can't think of any scenario in which this effect would be thought of as an improvement over a non-squashed version. If someone else can, I'm open to hearing it.
I'll just play the devil's advocate and just say MAYBE De Palma noticed it and didn't care or was completely fine with it. The problem is that directors screw up their own movies, whether you like it or not, like George Lucas making so many changes to the Star Wars series in the blu ray box set. I'm not saying you're incorrect, by the way.

Peter McM
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:11 am

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#32 Post by Peter McM » Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:37 am

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Dressed-t ... 19/#Review" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Beaver likes the transfer, bluray.com doesn't. Not being a video authority, myself, I tend to listen to the beaver guys more.

George Drooly
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 8:09 pm

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#33 Post by George Drooly » Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:51 am

J M Powell wrote:But, setting aside the color timing issue, this squashing problem just isn't a dicey quandary. In the history of cinema I can't think of a single filmmaker who's deliberately sought to create this effect (outside of dream sequences etc., where the effect is usually more pronounced than here). Every example I know of is a technical error or problem with deteriorated elements (e.g. the notorious "Cinemascope mumps").
Sokurov

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#34 Post by cdnchris » Fri Jul 31, 2015 9:31 am

I watched this lastnight. I was fine with the colour scheme and thought this aspect looked fine. But the stretching is noticeable and odd. My dad had this film on VHS and I remember it had a similar effect but I assume it was an attempt to adjust the widescreen compositions for a 4x3 presentation, like Die Hard did on VHS. Why it would have been done here I have no idea and I feel it has to be an accident. What's even odder is that it's not consistently done, though I feel a majority of the time it is stretched. And it's a shame because otherwise it's a really, really nice looking transfer (and again I thought the colour scheme was fine).

On a brighter note, Day for Night looks friggin' great!

User avatar
Banasa
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:35 am

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#35 Post by Banasa » Fri Jul 31, 2015 9:37 am

Unless things are night and day with colour schemes where objects which characters recognize are being recognized by colours or point to or refer to objects you see in the distance, I really only notice colour difference when i see images side by side online, or even classier, at a site like caps-a-holic.

The stretching is really strange though. If colour images get to the point where I could be sitting with a less cinema savvy person and I would hear them ask 'so...why is it doing that?' then there is something that is either really wrong or needs explaining beyond "well the boss liked it!".

nolanoe
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:25 am

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#36 Post by nolanoe » Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:56 am

If a director chooses to adequately change the look of a film via color-grading... well, that's fine and dandy, if advertised this way. Cronenberg's of Scanner's does look more similar to his newer films, which - I guess - has less to do with denial than with his overall bad experience making Scanners.

With Dressed to Kill, the colors seem OK (though I prefer the old ones, too). But that stretching... that stretching... I figure there are a LOT of technical errors that could have been made. Especially if new information is included but the old aspect ratio is used.

Having said all that - what happened to the good old Director's Cut/"Definitive Version" adds we got so used to? Criterion could easily use this little bit to announce the image will be very different...?

What happened on Eraserhead, BTW?

All said and done... CRITERION SHOULD DO BLACK DAHLIA!! Seriously!! That's the De Palma that would most demand a Director's Cut (seeing as it was originally 3 hours long).

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#37 Post by Roger Ryan » Fri Jul 31, 2015 12:08 pm

nolanoe wrote: ...What happened on Eraserhead, BTW?...
On Criterion's first printing, when Henry first encounters the "Lady in the Radiator", the image transitioned to a black screen instead of a white screen as seen in the original theatrical release (and on home video prior to this release). This was corrected with a quick second printing so it had nothing to do with Lynch changing his mind about the visual effect forty years later; it was simply a technical error.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#38 Post by cdnchris » Fri Jul 31, 2015 12:12 pm

The colour scheme isn't an issue. I know people will stir up shit about it and whatever but it's a non-issue. Of course people will have a preference but Criterion didn't fuck up the colour and anybody raising shit about it is just raising shit because internet. It's fine and I have no doubt that is how De Palma likes it and I wouldn't be surprised if it looked that way theatrically, or at least similar. On its own the difference is noticeable but it doesn't really stand out and only stands out comparing captures side by side.

On the other hand the squishing/stretching IS glaring and noticeable, and you don't need to compare screen captures on that. And the fact it actually jumps between "normal" and stretched makes it worse. I'm pretty sure that is a screw up, but then I can't believe no one noticed this. Then because of the fact no one noticed something so obvious I have to ask: was it actually intentional? And if so why!? It's such a disappointment because this otherwise could have blown the Arrow (which was great) out of the water.

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#39 Post by denti alligator » Fri Jul 31, 2015 12:39 pm

cdnchris wrote:On the other hand the squishing/stretching IS glaring and noticeable, and you don't need to compare screen captures on that. And the fact it actually jumps between "normal" and stretched makes it worse. I'm pretty sure that is a screw up, but then I can't believe no one noticed this. Then because of the fact no one noticed something so obvious I have to ask: was it actually intentional? And if so why!? It's such a disappointment because this otherwise could have blown the Arrow (which was great) out of the water.
My thoughts exactly. I say it's a screw up. It simply looks too bad not to be. Word from Criterion on this would be nice.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#40 Post by domino harvey » Fri Jul 31, 2015 12:45 pm

It's not like they spoke up on other blunders like Earrings or L'enfance nue

EDIT: Actually, I guess they did on the latter, but they didn't reissue or fix the problems people had, or even acknowledge them as problems

User avatar
carmilla mircalla
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:47 pm

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#41 Post by carmilla mircalla » Fri Jul 31, 2015 3:30 pm

domino harvey wrote:It's not like they spoke up on other blunders like Earrings or L'enfance nue

EDIT: Actually, I guess they did on the latter, but they didn't reissue or fix the problems people had, or even acknowledge them as problems

What happened with L'Enfance Nue?

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#42 Post by swo17 » Fri Jul 31, 2015 3:40 pm


User avatar
FakeBonanza
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:35 pm

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#43 Post by FakeBonanza » Fri Jul 31, 2015 4:01 pm

Bordwell provides some intriguing potential context in the comment section of Criterion's response:
David Bordwell wrote:This is really interesting. Since L'ENFANT NUE is from 1968, when most theatres were still using arc-lamp projectors, is it possible that the yellowish-amber look was an effort to compensate for the color bias of arcs? Many Technicolor originals have a similar amber cast, but when projected with an arc lamp they lose it. I believe that arcs were gradually discontinued in the 1970s, replaced by Xenon lamps; these emit a purer white light. The best test might be to run the answer print through an arc-lamp projector...if any can still be found! But of course it's just as possible that it was a deliberate choice by Pialat.

User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#44 Post by Finch » Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:12 pm

They never acknowledged the snafu with Madame de.. either.

User avatar
dwk
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:10 pm

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#45 Post by dwk » Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:25 pm

Svet Atanasov posted the following at the Blu-ray.com forum:
NOTE:

Hey guys,

Criterion are aware of the issue. As usual, when there is enough helpful information, there will be a response.

The information will be made available here.

In the meantime, could we please drop the overreactions and move on? Thanks.

Pro-B

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#46 Post by domino harvey » Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:38 pm

Why should people move on? Now is exactly when to talk about this, before people spend money on a less than desirable product about to hit the market, especially if Criterion plans to redo or correct or just ignore this

User avatar
dwk
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:10 pm

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#47 Post by dwk » Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:40 pm

Domino, sounds like you've really never read a thread at the Blu-ray.com forums.

d-less
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:37 am

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#48 Post by d-less » Sat Aug 01, 2015 3:31 am

Sounds like a release that either should be recalled or replacements offered. I was about to buy this release, but now will wait for a correction. The stretching does seem to be an error unless explicitly refuted by the author.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#49 Post by tenia » Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:05 am

dwk wrote:Domino, sounds like you've really never read a thread at the Blu-ray.com forums.
I guess that at some point, indeed, once people have expressed their concerns once, there's no need for 20 more pages of "it's not the right framing !" and "the color timing is awful !" followed by "De Palma doesn't know what he's doing !".

nolanoe
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:25 am

Re: 770 Dressed to Kill

#50 Post by nolanoe » Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:45 pm

Hogwash!! Clearly, De Palma is either blind or replaced by Aliens. Me, I welcome our new insect overlords with a warm "CCCCGGGGHHRRRRRRMMMMM", and assure them my full assistance in re-grading the colors of the next Suspiria BD.

Post Reply