House of/Night Of Dark Shadows in '70s Horror and Sci-Fi Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

House of/Night Of Dark Shadows

Author	Comment
bgart13.thelatarniaforums		#121	[-]
Feb 2 12 5:27 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I think what's odd is that instead of using an unmatted HD-based transfer, TCM received a 4:3 transfer cropped down from the new matted transfer. Seems a bit... backwards. Kundun Rat Terrier: 8/16/02 - 3/26/11. RIP, Ku.
	Remove this ad
moviemandg		#122	[-]
Feb 2 12 6:42 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	As strange as it seems, there's a logic to it. The older transfers should never have been done unmatted/full aperture since that portion of the frame was not protected during shooting. The telecine folks back in the 80s should have noticed the vast amount of boom mics and adjusted their framing, but there was nowhere near the level of QC as there is now... It is strange they didn't receive the letterboxed transfer, though.
Helrunar		#123	[-]
Feb 3 12 12:41 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Thanks for those captures. The old gal is looking good. H.
Rick		#124	[-]
May 25 12 11:57 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Found a still when going through some files tonight, and my Momma taught me to share.
dracsback		#125	[-]
May 30 12 2:44 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Thanks for posting. Now THAT, is DARK SHADOWS. As I fondly remember it. "I saw what I saw when I saw it!"
DrHoffman	DISAPPOINTED.	#126	[-]
Jul 9 12 2:31 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	News hit today, that both HODS and NODS will be released on DVD and Blu-ray on 10/30/12. Unfortunately, NODS will be the short version we are all familiar with. No special features for either title, other than the trailers. I'm beyond disappointed.
flashback		#127	[-]
Jul 9 12 2:35 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	i am happy enough for blu-ray quality on house of dark shadows.
DrHoffman		#128	[-]
Jul 9 12 2:45 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Believe me Flashback, I'm happy for blurays for both. I was just soooo looking forward to a restored Night.
DrHoffman		#129	[-]
Jul 14 12 11:26 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I could be wrong, but i thought that Darren Gross had uncovered (prior to discovering the soundless NODS footage) the "preview" print which contained an additional 2 or 3 minutes. Supposedly, this extra footage was included in Dan Curtis' rushed recut, but was then cut by MGM to ensure a GP rating. Anyone else remember this?
Helrunar		#130	[-]
Jul 14 12 8:32 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Yes, Dr Hoffman, we remember. The print was the original director's cut. I don't know the total length of the missing footage that was recovered, but I believe it was around fifteen minutes. I saw Darren present some clips from what was recovered at a Shadows convention many years ago. The most brilliant scene was a seance sequence... may have had the best camerawork in ANY Dan Curtis opus. And they cut this in favor of chasing James Storm around some broken-down bridge. That's Hollywood, folks. H.
	Remove this ad
DrHoffman		#131	[-]
Jul 14 12 10:38 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	No Helrunar, i'm not talking about the Director's Cut- what I'm referring to is the original hastily recut version that Dan Curtis was forced to deliver. Allegedly, MGM cut an additional 2-3 minutes from this already shortened version to ensure a GP rating. Some of these "preview" prints survived, and I could swear one was located just prior to Darren Gross uncovering the Director's Cut footage (without sound.) From what I recall, the hanging sequence was "more intense," and I think the sequence where Strack is trampled was a bit longer as well. I wonder if anyone else remembers this slightly longer version being located.
DrHoffman		#132	[-]
Jul 21 12 12:00 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Ah c'mon, somebody's gotta remember this slightly longer cut being found?? (It's always kinda bother me that after Angelique is hung (or should that be hanged?) the very next shot shows her hanging ABOVE her executioners.) I would have hoped that WB could have at least used this print if they wouldn't foot the bill for an all-out restoration! Darren, if you're out there, can you shed any light on this?
moviemandg		#133	[-]
Jul 23 12 6:16 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Hi DrHoffman, Yes, you are speaking of the 97min version- it's about 3mins more of material. I allude to it, sort of, in the DVD/Blu-ray thread. To make a long story short, after MGM had Dan eviscerate the movie, it ran 97mins, and they had an upcoming release in New England of over a hundred theaters and they apparently started making prints of this version. At the same time, they submitted the film to the MPAA who advised it would get an R-rating without cuts. They then went in and cut 3mins out of 7 scenes. Some theaters and exchanges made the cuts to the release prints as ordered by MGM, some did not. The negative was re-cut for the second time to the 93.5 min version and the cut neg disposed of. The additional footage was found on an existing release print, but the print was very faded, and damaged in one section. The quality would not have been anywhere near that of the rest of the transfer. All that material is in the full director's cut preservation element, in pristine condition. Warners didn't agree to budget any additional work. Nothing. Not of the long restoration, not of the 3mins. Nothing. Last Edited By: moviemandg Jul 23 12 6:21 PM. Edited 1 times.
DrHoffman		#134	[-]
Jul 28 12 2:43 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Thanks Darren....I remember the 97min print being discovered, but didn't realize it was in such poor shape. I'm happy to be getting bluerays for both films, and will continue to hope a restoration of NODS might still happen someday. Just want you to know how much I appreciate your hard work!
moviemandg		#135	[-]
Aug 5 12 5:24 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Thanks Doc!
Saturday8pm		#136	[-]
Nov 19 12 6:34 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I saw "Night ..." a few years back and was disappointed greatly ... then I checked out the iMDb yesterday and happened to find the info in regards to the BluRay release ... bummer that the found footage wasn't restored, the hype was that the restoration would've helped the story. Sorry that's not in the final release. "Lord I love Spring! The birds, the fair weather, the new flowers. It doesn't get any better than this. HOLY CRAP! what's THAT?!?"
auwins57.auburnfootballf...		#137	[-]
Nov 20 12 10:17 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Dr Acula wrote: Even though I've only seen a few episodes of the actual series, I really enjoy the two feature films that came out of the Dark Shadows mythos. House of Dark Shadows was a condensed version of the Barnabus storyline, and it does feel like an epic story shrunken into an hour and a half. Night of Dark Shadows is more the tale of a possession and witchcraft, which has super Laura Parker from the series as the ghost witch, and Kate Jackson shows up in one of her earlier roles. These are exactly the kind of moody, gothic horror film that make a slightly drizzly fall afternoon something special. Since so many classic horror fans are connected here, does anybody know about the status of the restoration attempts that both of these movies are going through? Totally agree! These are the kinds of moody, atmospheric films you can sit down with on a stormy night (or a drizzly, cold day) and really enjoy.
dracsback		#138	[-]
Dec 26 12 12:07 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Just watched HOUSE on Bluray. Great looking picture and much appreciated. However, watching this now, the movie seems choppy to me - maybe due to the poor sound editing. Robert Cobert's music will JUST END when a scene is cut. No transition. I've never noticed that before. It's almost like the editor was only working with completely scored pieces - or - he put them in there himselff. There is NO way that Cobert scored this movie watching a final edit. Maybe it was just lifted from the TV show and pasted in. Anyway, still really like this movie but it's something I had not noticed before. Also, that whole bit with St. Eustice Island at the end still bugs me. It's edited so poorly you can't really tell what is going on - to me. I know that Jeff goes to the island to look for Roger and Stokes. Must be close, he uses a row boat. Then, the shots between when he finds Stokes to washing off the blood in the water changes from dusk to night then back to daylight for his walk up to the Chapel/Monastery. Yes Monastery - but if you don't pay attention you think he's back at the old house at first. There is just no establsihing shot shown as to where he really is. At thirteen years old in 1970 this did not bother me nor did it even occur to me. But, now, I look at it and I think - WTH? There are other scenes that jump around too - as if they didn't film enough coverage to make transitions a little more seamless. These are all quibbles. I still think this is one of the best vampire movies of the 1970s regardless. "I saw what I saw when I saw it!"
HalLane		#139	[-]
Dec 26 12 12:15 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Drac, you know that a mess o' transitions and establishment stuff got scissored out at the last minute, right?
moviemandg		#140	[-]
Dec 28 12 1:21 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	dracsback wrote: Just watched HOUSE on Bluray. Great looking picture and much appreciated. However, watching this now, the movie seems choppy to me - maybe due to the poor sound editing. Robert Cobert's music will JUST END when a scene is cut. No transition. I've never noticed that before. It's almost like the editor was only working with completely scored pieces - or - he put them in there himselff. There is NO way that Cobert scored this movie watching a final edit. Maybe it was just lifted from the TV show and pasted in. Anyway, still really like this movie but it's something I had not noticed before. Also, that whole bit with St. Eustice Island at the end still bugs me. It's edited so poorly you can't really tell what is going on - to me. I know that Jeff goes to the island to look for Roger and Stokes. Must be close, he uses a row boat. Then, the shots between when he finds Stokes to washing off the blood in the water changes from dusk to night then back to daylight for his walk up to the Chapel/Monastery. Yes Monastery - but if you don't pay attention you think he's back at the old house at first. There is just no establsihing shot shown as to where he really is. At thirteen years old in 1970 this did not bother me nor did it even occur to me. But, now, I look at it and I think - WTH? There are other scenes that jump around too - as if they didn't film enough coverage to make transitions a little more seamless. These are all quibbles. I still think this is one of the best vampire movies of the 1970s regardless. Hi Drac, Good eyes & ears. The Cobert score wasn't written for the film-- it was his score for the Dan Curtis produced Jekyll & Hyde TV movie used as a cue library and slotted into the film. The music editing is very sloppy, and I'm not sure why this is. Cobert says he edited the music, but I think he may be mis-remembering, as the cue stops and starts are very rough, and there's a scene where the cue wasn't long enough, so a part of it was repeated in the stable/Carolyn scene that could have been done much better. I believe that Cobert spotted the cues and decided which should go where with Curtis, but another music/post-production editor worked on editing the cues. On the Stokes/Jeff/St Eustace Island scenes, there's a reason for this as well. Almost all the night photography is day for night, such as the establishing shot of the monastery, and it's a little too bright. The Jeff/Stokes fight was shot at the end of the day when they were losing the light, and the exposure is all over the place, and some shots are day for night and others are without filters and pushed in the lab due to underexposure... I've always loved the creepy shot of Stokes floating in the water, arm twitching.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

House of/Night Of Dark Shadows