ISLAND OF LOST SOULS in Golden Age Horror Forum

Forum Jump

ISLAND OF LOST SOULS

Author	Comment
jplibby		#221	[-]
Dec 6 11 7:06 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Friend of Daniel wrote: jplibby wrote: Joe Karlosi wrote: Friend of Daniel wrote: 1) That's a dummy the captain throws off the ship. Geez. I still challenge this. Watch it again and again, look closely -- I always thought (as everyone else does) that it's a dummy which lands on its head. If you keep looking closely, the person lands with his shoes first, which makes the "bang" noise. I think Greg Mank may be correct when he says it's a stunt. It is for the two quick close shots. The long shot is of a dummy. Watching this is slo mo in the initial high shot it's clearly a dummy the captain throws from the ship. When the camera cuts quickly to POV from Moreau's ship its a stunt man landing on his head/shoulder and rolling, with his feet clumpng on the crate. Another quick cut has Arlen finishing the roll and coming to rest on his back. This is handled much more effectively than many 'just toss the damn dummy' sequences in other films of the era. The tight editing of this sequence is very effective.
	Remove this ad
Babetician		#222	[-]
Dec 6 11 9:01 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	jplibby wrote: To me, it actually looks like a broken nose. Maybe "No-Nose" was actually a boxer. Possible, but I've never seen anything like it. Maybe I haven't seen enough boxers. Very small and very deformed. Also there is an unusually long upper lip area occupying the space normally occupied by a nose.
Wich2		#223	[-]
Dec 6 11 10:04 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I think he may be either a man with birth defects, or the victim of wounds - maybe a WWI vet.
Andrew Kidd		#224	[-]
Dec 7 11 6:09 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	As far as the animal he is supposed to be:looks like a hyena-man to me.
Michael Dean		#225	[-]
Dec 29 11 1:04 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I just got the Criterion DVD for Xmas and have to say I've very disappointed in the transfer. The blacks are way too heavy. The detail in any shadows just gets killed. I've owned a bootleg DVD taken from the MCA laserdisc release and it's much better - on the soft side but has a full range of midtones. Looking forward to the commentary. Very cool that you spotted the Leopard Man (yes!) Babetician. Have been wondering about his appearance (or lack of) for years... Last Edited By: Michael Dean Dec 29 11 1:09 AM. Edited 3 times.
Koukol 5		#226	[-]
Dec 29 11 2:48 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Michael Dean wrote: I just got the Criterion DVD for Xmas and have to say I've very disappointed in the transfer. The blacks are way too heavy. The detail in any shadows just gets killed. I've owned a bootleg DVD taken from the MCA laserdisc release and it's much better - on the soft side but has a full range of midtones. Looking forward to the commentary. Very cool that you spotted the Leopard Man (yes!) Babetician. Have been wondering about his appearance (or lack of) for years... Adjust the brightmess on your TV.
Michael Dean		#227	[-]
Dec 30 11 1:29 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Koukol 5 wrote: Michael Dean wrote: I just got the Criterion DVD for Xmas and have to say I've very disappointed in the transfer. The blacks are way too heavy. The detail in any shadows just gets killed. I've owned a bootleg DVD taken from the MCA laserdisc release and it's much better - on the soft side but has a full range of midtones. Looking forward to the commentary. Very cool that you spotted the Leopard Man (yes!) Babetician. Have been wondering about his appearance (or lack of) for years... Adjust the brightmess on your TV. I shouldn't have to. Here are some unretouched screen grabs for comparison. The images on the left are from a bootleg dvd that was most likely sourced from the 1990s MCA laserdisc release. Last Edited By: Michael Dean Dec 30 11 2:21 AM. Edited 3 times.
Joe Karlosi		#228	[-]
Dec 30 11 7:32 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I'm with you. I haven't been joining in the "Wow, the Criterion disc looks awesome!" chorus either. I understand the movie can't really look great, and I do appreciate the Criterion release whatever way ... but no, it's not a good picture to me, either. "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel."
Koukol 5		#229	[-]
Dec 30 11 2:46 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The bootleg looks horrible! It's all washed out in brightness. If you guys think it looks better than the Criterion...I'd suggest getting your TVs adjusted.
Joe Karlosi		#230	[-]
Dec 30 11 2:49 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I love the ol' "get your TVs adjusted" argument that often crops up when it's only ONE movie that looks cruddy on our sets, while the other 100,000 we watch look jusssttt fine! "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel."
	Remove this ad
Wich2		#231	[-]
Dec 30 11 3:36 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	As Kouk says, the lasersourced image has the white balance blown out. If that's the look preferred, it can be pretty easily imitated by pumping the brightness on the Criterion dvd.
Michael Dean		#232	[-]
Dec 30 11 4:05 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Koukol 5 wrote: The bootleg looks horrible! It's all washed out in brightness. If you guys think it looks better than the Criterion...I'd suggest getting your TVs adjusted. The grabs aren't photographs of my TV screen. They are from an unbiased media player. You can see how much information is lost by comparing and it has nothing to do with TV settings. Wich2 - I have played around with the brightness and it doesn't really work that way. If you brighten up mud, you get light mud - you can't pull details out that aren't there. It is kind of possible to go the other way - the MCA version at least has the information which CAN be darkened if desired to give weight. While I don't think either is true to Karl's vision, at least with the MCA bootleg I don't feel like I'm missing anything. May be time to pull out my 16mm print again. Last Edited By: Michael Dean Dec 30 11 4:42 PM. Edited 1 times.
Joe Karlosi		#233	[-]
Dec 30 11 4:19 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Bumping the Brightness up will not make details appear that are already darkened out to begin with. Especially the shot where Laughton escorts Lota to meet Parker. Just way too dark. "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel."
Bucky		#234	[-]
Dec 30 11 5:16 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Interesting comparison.... Thanks for posting those screen-shots, Michael. I wonder if this "too light/too dark" issue was the main reason why Eureka held back on what was originally slated to be a simultaneous release date with the Criterion? S'pose we'll have to wait till late May '12 to find out, but I reckon there's a good chance the Eureka might look better than the Criterion.
taraco		#235	[-]
Dec 31 11 5:37 PM Burgomaster Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I must say that none of the Criterion shots shown here look anywhere near as dark as shown above. On my set at least. I find the soft through-a-gauze scenes on the left pretty junky, and much prefer the Criterion. But again, they look nothing like what is shown on the right. If anything, the Criterion is a bit too intensely bloomed in the whites on my set, but not at the expense of detail or ovall clarity. So I'm not really sure what's being shown above - because if it did look that way I'd have been sorely displeased. But it doesn't.
Wich2		#236	[-]
Dec 31 11 6:38 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Pretty clear that washed out brightness is not what the makers of a film of this genre & subject intended.
jplibby		#237	[-]
Dec 31 11 7:07 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	taraco wrote: I must say that none of the Criterion shots shown here look anywhere near as dark as shown above. On my set at least. I find the soft through-a-gauze scenes on the left pretty junky, and much prefer the Criterion. But again, they look nothing like what is shown on the right. If anything, the Criterion is a bit too intensely bloomed in the whites on my set, but not at the expense of detail or ovall clarity. So I'm not really sure what's being shown above - because if it did look that way I'd have been sorely displeased. But it doesn't. Took the words right out of my mouth. All I can say is the DVD image isn't that dark and murky when I watch it on my computer.
Rakshasa		#238	[-]
Dec 31 11 7:47 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	jplibby wrote: taraco wrote: I must say that none of the Criterion shots shown here look anywhere near as dark as shown above. On my set at least. I find the soft through-a-gauze scenes on the left pretty junky, and much prefer the Criterion. But again, they look nothing like what is shown on the right. If anything, the Criterion is a bit too intensely bloomed in the whites on my set, but not at the expense of detail or ovall clarity. So I'm not really sure what's being shown above - because if it did look that way I'd have been sorely displeased. But it doesn't. Took the words right out of my mouth. All I can say is the DVD image isn't that dark and murky when I watch it on my computer. Absolutely. Those frame grabs are absurdly dark compared to what my Blu-ray looks like on my 32" Sony Bravia TV. Links To All The Classic Monster Stills I've Posted: http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/30758
pringly		#239	[-]
Jan 1 12 1:52 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I'll fourth it. I just rewatched the movie tonight and the scenes shown above look nothing like what I saw on my TV.
Crow T Robot		#240	[-]
Jan 1 12 10:09 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	OK, The MCA Laserdisc looks brighter, the Criterion DVD & Blu look darker. BUT...what did it look like when it was originally shown way back when on the silver screen? Is there anyone here who saw it on its original release? Do they even remember what it looked like all these years later. I doubt it. If my cinematic memory recalls (and I'm probably wrong) weren't screens back then actually silver? They certainly aren't anymore. So the image projected way back when would certainly look different than an image projected on a modern screen. Add in the brightness of the bulb - a new bulb would have been brighter than an old bulb ready to go out. So the image would have most likely have varied even during its original showings. How about the brightness of the movie house it was shown in. I've been at theaters where they keep the lights down so low you can't even see your popcorn and others where it looks like you're watching the film in broad daylight. It certainly changes how a film looks on the screen. Now we have TV's with brightness and contrast controls. Plasma. LED. And the old fashioned ones I still watch my DVD's and TV shows on. So essentially all we can say is that we either like or don't like the way a movie looks on DVD or Blu in our homes on our TV sets. Is the restoration correct? Lots of variables involved, so I guess the answer is - it is what it is. Maybe that will be the next new thing. We have MOD. Maybe next up - we pick the film we want to buy, then we play with the digital files until it looks good to us, and then we make our own DVD. Modern technology. What a breakthrough. I can remember being happy when I used to watch Island Of Lost Souls on Creature Features on my rinky-dinky portable TV set with rabbit ears in my bedroom. Complete with commercials every 8 minutes. Man, those were the days!
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

ISLAND OF LOST SOULS