The Devil Rides Out (1968) - Page 16

Daemonia · #**151** 26th October 2012, 10:16 AM

I think people are missing my point here entirely. I'm not saying that films can't be altered to meet the demands of what the creators originally intended, I think it's a neat idea to give an indication of what was intended. My point is that the original, unaltered version should also have been included. To tell us this is the only version we can see in HD is just plain wrong. And I know I'm not alone in this thinking. That, to me, is why they're rewriting history. They're replacing the old version with this new one. That's my major issue here.

I also imagine that those that think this is okay and no big deal didn't grow up with the film and therefore don't have such fond memories of it as some of us do. Just wait till someone tinkers with a film you really do love, then let's see how you feel about it.

Rik · #**152** 26th October 2012, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daemonia

I think people are missing my point here entirely. I'm not saying that films can't be altered to meet the demands of what the creators originally intended, I think it's a neat idea to give an indication of what was intended. My point is that the original, unaltered version should also have been included. To tell us this is the only version we can see in HD is just plain wrong. And I know I'm not alone in this thinking. That, to me, is why they're rewriting history. They're replacing the old version with this new one. That's my major issue here.

Completely agree with you here, I wish they'd offered us the chance to own both versions, for me it's the only fault with an otherwise excellent set. I'm not saying you should rush out and buy it but I would suggest renting it and judging for yourself how good it looks and how very little has actually been altered, it certainly isn't half as bad as I originally feared.

Daemonia · #**153** 26th October 2012, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rik

Completely agree with you here, I wish they'd offered us the chance to own both versions, for me it's the only fault with an otherwise excellent set. I'm not saying you should rush out and buy it but I would suggest renting it and judging for yourself how good it looks and how very little has actually been altered, it certainly isn't half as bad as I originally feared.

I'll no doubt pick this up at some point as I am curious, even though my better judgement is to boycott it. I just wish they'd given us the original version. You see, to me, any tinkering alters it from the original, which is the film I love. I want it preserved exactly as it has been for the last 40-odd years or so.

PaulD · #**154** 26th October 2012, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keirarts

Or he would have used effects technology available at the time to achieve the results as best as he was able to do... the fact remains the film was released unfinished, and hammer, rather than forking out a load of cash to try and finish the effects sequences properly, used digital to achieve the results more efficiently.

Though if cgi had been availaible i'm sure fisher would have used them, it would have made a lot more possible on the low budgets he often had to work with.

The thing is that's the exact argument George Lucas makes for his constant revisions.

Daemonia · #**155** 26th October 2012, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulD

The thing is that's the exact argument George Lucas makes for his constant revisions.

Exactly. But according to those defending the alterations to Devil Rides Out this is perfectly acceptable. Well, it is, isn't it? You can't defend one and not the other. Both are using digital technology on films made when that technology wasn't available. What's the diiference? If you're not passionate about film preservation, then fine, but don't expect the rest of us to agree.

Rik · #**156** 26th October 2012, 01:43 PM

I wouldn't say I'm defending they're decision, maybe it seems like I am I dunno, I'm merely pointing out the fact that tinkering or not, the film looks stunning in HD. Same goes for all the OAR debate with COF, it looks fine to me

Daemonia · #**157** 26th October 2012, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rik

I wouldn't say I'm defending they're decision, maybe it seems like I am I dunno, I'm merely pointing out the fact that tinkering or not, the film looks stunning in HD. Same goes for all the OAR debate with COF, it looks fine to me

It wasn't aimed at you, Rik. Not really aimed at anyone in particular, just those that defend the right for Hammer to alter their films. I can't defend it and I'm not happy about it. Call me a purist or whatever, but I think it's historically important to preserve these films as they are. Like I say, wait till they start on a film these people do love and let's see them defend it.

sjconstable · #**158** 26th October 2012, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daemonia

I'll no doubt pick this up at some point as I am curious, even though my better judgement is to boycott it.

You can still do that by simply buying a pre-owned copy, that's what I'll be doing at some point.

keirarts · #**159** 26th October 2012, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark meakin

I wouldn't go that far.I don't recall one really successful example of colourization.It looks awful & robs films like the 1951 version of THE THING of their atmosphere.Same goes for the 1933 King Kong.The additions to the The Devils Rides Out are tweaks to a few effects shots not a complete overhaul of the film.

The blu-ray colourised release of It's a wonderful life looks really good, as does little shop of horrors.

keirarts · #**160** 26th October 2012, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulD

The thing is that's the exact argument George Lucas makes for his constant revisions.

I was never against lucas tweaking the effects in star wars, it needed doing, I was more against all the stuff added to change the context and meaning of scenes and lucasfilms unwillingness to offer the origionals in any semi-decent way.