PDA

View Full Version : An American Werewolf in London


indiephantom
08-01-2009, 11:14 PM
The cover art is up and it looks pretty good. Not quite as cool as original artwork, but closer to it (and better than the DVD SE versions IMO). Full Moon Edition is a stupid tagline at the top, though!

Take a look-y: http://tinyurl.com/lhvr4h

TheShape
08-02-2009, 01:37 AM
A definite improvement over the DVD cover. But still, the original artwork would have been much appreciated.

This release seems to carry over all of the extras from the previous DVD. There is also new 90 mins documentary that might make this worthwhile for those who don't own the film. But as a owner of the 2001 CE DVD, I'll wait for the reviews to make up my mind.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1604/americanwerewolfinlondon.html

vampyr789
08-02-2009, 04:55 AM
\ But still, the original artwork would have been much appreciated.


u mean like the original universal DVD?

TheShape
08-03-2009, 02:20 AM
u mean like the original universal DVD?

I meant the original theatrical poster artwork. Here it is:

5297

vampyr789
08-03-2009, 02:47 AM
yea the original universal DVD used that as the cover/.

Matt89
08-03-2009, 05:20 AM
yea the original universal DVD used that as the cover/.

Wasn't that released by Artisan? It went OOP and was replaced by the Universal Collector's Edition, which had horrible artwork. Well it wasn't "horrible", but it was way different than the original artwork.

~Matt

Marv Inc.
08-03-2009, 05:13 PM
US Coverart:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y170/moviesuk/AWIL_A.jpg

UK Coverart:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y170/moviesuk/AWIL_B.jpg

Not sure which I like better they both have + and - points about them.

maskull
08-03-2009, 05:23 PM
Man I gotta get on board with Blu Ray...just wish a new tv wasn't so expensive. :(

Marv Inc.
08-03-2009, 05:26 PM
Man I gotta get on board with Blu Ray...just wish a new tv wasn't so expensive. :(

That was my big step to going Blu getting a new t.v even though my Old 28" Panasonic Widescreen was still good as new.and seemed a shame to replace but...
Once i got the t.v i got myself a PS3 and then after a while i caved in and started getting Blu's.

Marv Inc.
09-06-2009, 10:12 PM
Not long now boys,

http://www.blu-raydefinition.com/reviews/an-american-werewolf-in-london-blu-ray-review.html

Dave
09-06-2009, 10:33 PM
I was really hoping for an improved transfer. Doesn't sound like we are getting it.

BlackAndBlu81
09-06-2009, 11:11 PM
Im not sure I trust the review. I recall reading an interview someplace,where John Landis said it looks better then when it was playing in the theaters. Ill judge it for myself.

springjack
09-06-2009, 11:14 PM
This saturday I went to a Horror Convention in my country (Portugal) and saw "American Werewolf in London". John Landis was there and he spoke before the screening. He said the this is the new remastered version that the new editions are based upon. Let me say that It was wonderful on the big screen. This is indeed remastered, the colors were very strong, there was a huge amount of detail. The sound was awsome too. For those worried that the extra detail would spoil the movie... don?t be...
________
BUY VAPORIZERS (http://vaporizers.net/)

blu
09-06-2009, 11:16 PM
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews46/an_american_werewolf_in_london_blu-ray.htm

Sounds pretty good to me. I can't wait to get this disc.

Buddusky
09-06-2009, 11:44 PM
Just waiting on this to be delivered any day now :D

dickieduvet
09-07-2009, 01:16 AM
Me too, shipped 3 days ago, hopefully have it Tues or Weds :)

Buddusky
09-08-2009, 09:56 PM
Got mine today. Disappointed with the picture quality, very grainy :mad:

The new documentary is good though and covers just about everything including interviews with the cast and crew.

dickieduvet
09-09-2009, 12:29 AM
I've got the HD-DVD and that was as grainy as hell, I thought it was supposed to be a new transfer.

Grim
09-09-2009, 01:08 AM
Got mine today. Disappointed with the picture quality, very grainy :mad:

Grain is going to be in a movie, regardless of how well it is mastered. Unless you want it all DNR'd to hell and everyone looks waxy.

Buddusky
09-09-2009, 03:13 AM
Grain is going to be in a movie, regardless of how well it is mastered. Unless you want it all DNR'd to hell and everyone looks waxy.


I got Creepshow blu ray a couple of weeks ago and it looks great even though it was made 27 years ago.

Weirdly enough American Werewolf was on Sci-Fi HD Channel here in the U.K. tonight and the picture was better!

Grim
09-09-2009, 03:19 AM
I got Creepshow blu ray a couple of weeks ago and it looks great even though it was made 27 years ago.

Weirdly enough American Werewolf was on Sci-Fi HD Channel here in the U.K. tonight and the picture was better!

It all depends on film stock used. Aliens was made 5 years after An American Werewolf in London and is far more grainy and gritty. If you base the quality of HD releases on grain, you're going to be sorely disappointed with many old films. The higher the resolution and the clearer the picture, the more grain inherent in the film itself will be revealed. I guess if it bothers you, stick with the SD version of that film. I'll take the better colors and clarity.

Buddusky
09-09-2009, 03:42 AM
It all depends on film stock used. Aliens was made 5 years after An American Werewolf in London and is far more grainy and gritty. If you base the quality of HD releases on grain, you're going to be sorely disappointed with many old films. The higher the resolution and the clearer the picture, the more grain inherent in the film itself will be revealed. I guess if it bothers you, stick with the SD version of that film. I'll take the better colors and clarity.

As I said the Sci-Fi HD Channel showed it tonight with better picture quality somehow. And just to let you know I have a lot of blu ray discs of films made between the 70s/80s which I'm very happy with and Aliens hasn' t been released on blu ray yet.

I' ll stick with the blu ray but it should have been better quality than this.
Have you actually seen the blu ray disc yet?

AndresG
09-09-2009, 03:58 AM
I'd stick with my HD DVD version of the film, looks like there's no big improvements on the BD version and as that wasn't enough, I deeply dislike that Blu-ray cover artwork...

Grim
09-09-2009, 03:59 AM
As I said the Sci-Fi HD Channel showed it tonight with better picture quality somehow. And just to let you know I have a lot of blu ray discs of films made between the 70s/80s which I'm very happy with and Aliens hasn' t been released on blu ray yet.

I' ll stick with the blu ray but it should have been better quality than this.
Have you actually seen the blu ray disc yet?

I have not seen the blu-ray disc, but I had the old HD-DVD and it too was grainy. I still felt it was a vast improvement over the SD release. Considering that the print that was on Sci-fi was probably the same as the one used for the DVD, HD-DVD, and blu-ray, I don't see how it could be better, but I haven't seen it so I don't know. Who knows, maybe they DNR'd the shit out of it. Some people like less grain even if it means the loss of detail. And I know Aliens isn't out yet on blu, but it has been shown in HD before and I have seen a theatrical print of it in theaters. It's a grainy film. Very gritty. I think it was definitely an artistic choice of Cameron's and not low quality film stock. My point is just that grain will be in some, actually many, films, regardless of when they were released or how good the remastering job is.

Buddusky
09-09-2009, 04:20 AM
Just telling you on what I' ve seen Grim. This is one of my favourites and I was hoping it would look as good as some of my other favs - The Thing, The Shining, Clockwork Orange, Creepshow ect. It did look much better on the HD channel though, so much my g/f even noticed the difference!

Grim
09-09-2009, 04:34 AM
Just telling you on what I' ve seen Grim. This is one of my favourites and I was hoping it would look as good as some of my other favs - The Thing, The Shining, Clockwork Orange, Creepshow ect. It did look much better on the HD channel though, so much my g/f even noticed the difference!

The Kubrick films are great films to reference when showing off your HD set up. 2001 is jaw-dropping.

Mutilated Prey
09-09-2009, 02:52 PM
So are we saying there is no real need to upgrade from the DVD on this one? I have the Collector's Edition already

Stige
09-09-2009, 03:29 PM
well there's the feature length new documentary worth a rebuy

Buddusky
09-09-2009, 04:00 PM
So are we saying there is no real need to upgrade from the DVD on this one? I have the Collector's Edition already

Well as Stige says above there's the 100 minute Documentary that is really worth the watch. I had just hoped for better picture quality after all the talk about how good this "new transfer" was going to be.

As I said above how much better the film looked on Sci-Fi HD, I only wish I had the equipment to put up some screenshots.

MorallySound
09-09-2009, 06:07 PM
I only wish I had the equipment to put up some screenshots.

There's always DVDBeaver: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews46/an_american_werewolf_in_london_blu-ray.htm

Personally, I think the screenshots look great. And depending on the film stock used, grain will me more prevalent depending on that factor at higher resolution as noted in previous posts. It's engrained in the film, so there's no way around really reducing it without losing resolution. Looks like I'll be upgrading to the Blu.

On the Sci-Fi HD feed, the grain may have been slightly less noticeable because I'm assuming because it's a TV feed, even in HD, the feed will be slightly compressed compared to the content on a BD.

Marv Inc.
09-09-2009, 06:10 PM
Landis blu ray interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6lWNSDsTZg

The Chaostar
09-09-2009, 06:57 PM
This is a wonderful interview! Always great to see the man. Such a cool guy!

Matt89
09-09-2009, 08:25 PM
The screenshots on DVDbeaver look fantastic. I would never consider grain to be a negative aspect of a transfer, considering grain is natural to film. Can't wait to pick this up. It seems that people who are not pleased with the transfer are people who don't like grainy flms. Even blu-ray.com seems to have missed the mark:

"The film’s age is definitely apparent in the 1080p/VC-1 encoded transfer, with a look that’s softer and more grainy than modern viewers have come to expect."

I don't know why people seem to think age is why movies look soft. Age has nothing to do with it. It only depends on how the movie was filmed and the film stock used. Seems like An American Werewolf in London was shot in soft focus, like many films from that period (Carrie, Dressed to Kill, Taxi Driver, Network, etc). These movies will never look perfect because they're not meant to look that way. They ARE perfect, however, in the way that they're SUPPOSED to look.

~Matt

Buddusky
09-09-2009, 10:31 PM
The screenshots on DVDbeaver look fantastic. I would never consider grain to be a negative aspect of a transfer, considering grain is natural to film. Can't wait to pick this up. It seems that people who are not pleased with the transfer are people who don't like grainy flms. Even blu-ray.com seems to have missed the mark:

"The film’s age is definitely apparent in the 1080p/VC-1 encoded transfer, with a look that’s softer and more grainy than modern viewers have come to expect."

I don't know why people seem to think age is why movies look soft. Age has nothing to do with it. It only depends on how the movie was filmed and the film stock used. Seems like An American Werewolf in London was shot in soft focus, like many films from that period (Carrie, Dressed to Kill, Taxi Driver, Network, etc). These movies will never look perfect because they're not meant to look that way. They ARE perfect, however, in the way that they're SUPPOSED to look.

~Matt


Never new you were an expert filmmaker Matt. On the bottom of the cover it states "The Perfect HI-DEF Movie Experience". Try watching it on a 60 inch screen and see if thats what you get. 28 Days Later looks terrible on blu ray but when you watch the documentary on it the clips from the film look much better than the film itself!

As for your last statement, you know this for a fact do you?

Grim
09-10-2009, 01:52 AM
Never new you were an expert filmmaker Matt. On the bottom of the cover it states "The Perfect HI-DEF Movie Experience". Try watching it on a 60 inch screen and see if thats what you get. 28 Days Later looks terrible on blu ray but when you watch the documentary on it the clips from the film look much better than the film itself!

As for your last statement, you know this for a fact do you?

I'm pretty certain the doc on the blu-ray is in 480p. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. This would blur and hide much of the grit and grime that was a result of the, to be frank, shitty cameras they used. Less detail, but the image wouldn't be as hard and grainy as it truly is. I'm assuming that your main peeve is the grain and grittiness of transfers. Some films are going to have it, some films won't. No matter what they do, unless they use DNR, but then you're losing detail. They could have done that with the American Werewolf in London transfer you saw on sci-fi.

Matt89
09-10-2009, 03:49 AM
Never new you were an expert filmmaker Matt.

No I'm not an expert filmmaker, but you don't have to be one to know this. I know this through seeing films from this era and studying films from this era. Most films from the late '60s through to the early 1980s seem to have this faded washed out look. Diffusion lenses, etc. I mean, look at some of the films that have this look: The French Connection looks grainy and washed out. Yes I know Friedkin tweaked the transfer, but he didn't do anything to the amount of resolution the transfer had. The Friends of Eddie Coyle looks that way too, grainy with overblown whites, etc. The Criterion transfer was approved by Peter Yates. Look at DePalma's early films, Spielberg's, Scorsese's...they all look the same way. An American Werewolf in London was approved by Landis as well...same idea here. I'm no expert, no, but you don't have to be. It becomes quite obvious.

On the bottom of the cover it states "The Perfect HI-DEF Movie Experience". Try watching it on a 60 inch screen and see if thats what you get. 28 Days Later looks terrible on blu ray but when you watch the documentary on it the clips from the film look much better than the film itself!

As for your last statement, you know this for a fact do you?

This is exactly what I mean. BECAUSE OF THE WAY THIS MOVIE WAS FILMED it has certain limitations. And, it's not age. It won't look razor sharp the way movies filmed today look because that is not the way An American Werewolf in Lonon was shot. Yes I did say the film looks perfect...yes. But I also added "in the way that it was meant to look." It is as perfect as you're gonna get it to look given the way it was made. I stand by what I said 100%.

As for 28 Days Later...that was shot on video, so it'll look crap no matter what. I don't really know what else to say.

~Matt

Buddusky
09-11-2009, 01:55 PM
I am just really disappointed with it after all the hype about the new transfer from Landis on how good it was. After watching Creepshow, which looks great, I thought this would have been a similar story.

American Werewolf is showing again on SCI-FI HD tonight, which I' ll be recording as the quality looks better to me altogether and I didn't see any loss of detail when I watched it the last time it showed on SCI-FI compared to the blu ray.

MorallySound
09-11-2009, 05:39 PM
I am just really disappointed with it after all the hype about the new transfer from Landis on how good it was. After watching Creepshow, which looks great, I thought this would have been a similar story.

American Werewolf is showing again on SCI-FI HD tonight, which I' ll be recording as the quality looks better to me altogether and I didn't see any loss of detail when I watched it the last time it showed on SCI-FI compared to the blu ray.

As noted in previous posts, and in the Landis interview above, the Blu-ray transfer is 100% approved by Landis himself in the way he wants the film to look. Grain and all. Grain is natural with film stock, no matter which type of stock, new or old. It's what was intended by the filmmaker. I can see how you could be disappointed as you seem to not be a fan of grain, and as noted, the technicians tweaking a transfer can reduce grain, darken, lighten, pretty much paint a new picture during the process (but it does sacrifice some clarity, even if minuscule [I know this for a fact because I work as an editor - with every generation of effects processing or rendering you'll lose some quality]), but it's down to the director's decision on how the final transfer and digitization should look. Creepshow may look better to you, because that's how they corrected that transfer. The HD TV version may look better for AAWIL to you because it's very slightly compressed, which will reduce the apparent presence of grain because it's very minutely soft focused because of the compression to stream the video off the server.

From the screen grabs I've seen for 28 Days Later, I think it looks like it should in HD considering the format it was shot in. It was shot with 2 Canon XL1s cameras, which is a DV camera, it's not even an HD format, it's standard definition! Standard def, especially a digital format like DV, will not look great unconverted. In this case, the DVD will look more like it was intended because of the limitations of the source format. Another example of a Blu-ray 'quality' where I believe the transfer to be phenomenal, but every review I've read gives it 1/5 for picture quality is Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter. They all state it's grainy as hell, colours aren't overly sharp, and it's sometimes slightly blurry or washed out. But since it was shot on regular 16mm (some of which is likely to be 'short ends') with a wind-up Bolex, it looks exactly like it should look; it's organic, it's raw, it's NATURAL for what 16mm actually looks like. And to me, that's what Blu-ray is supposed to be capturing, it's showing us the films at the resolution and detail to what the filmmaker's themselves think their films should look (if they've approved the transfers). Warts and all.

I'm not bashing your opinions, just hoping this will give some clarity to a film's look and the wonderful world of high definition and it's intended presentation of a director's vision.

Anaestheus
09-11-2009, 05:56 PM
I had a similar disappointment with Casablanca. Sure, the image was crisp. But the colors were so washed out as to be virtually non-existent.

Actually, I haven't seen any of the mentioned Blu-Ray discs, so I don't really know what I am talking about here. I just wanted to make a snarky comment.

Buddusky
09-11-2009, 06:20 PM
As noted in previous posts, and in the Landis interview above, the Blu-ray transfer is 100% approved by Landis himself in the way he wants the film to look. Grain and all. Grain is natural with film stock, no matter which type of stock, new or old. It's what was intended by the filmmaker. I can see how you could be disappointed as you seem to not be a fan of grain, and as noted, the technicians tweaking a transfer can reduce grain, darken, lighten, pretty much paint a new picture during the process (but it does sacrifice some clarity, even if minuscule [I know this for a fact because I work as an editor - with every generation of effects processing or rendering you'll lose some quality]), but it's down to the director's decision on how the final transfer and digitization should look. Creepshow may look better to you, because that's how they corrected that transfer. The HD TV version may look better for AAWIL to you because it's very slightly compressed, which will reduce the apparent presence of grain because it's very minutely soft focused because of the compression to stream the video off the server.

From the screen grabs I've seen for 28 Days Later, I think it looks great considering the format it was shot in. It was shot with 2 Canon XL1s cameras, which is a DV camera, it's not even an HD format, it's standard defintion! Another example of a Blu-ray I own where I believe the transfer to be phenomenal, but every review I've read gives it 1/5 for picture quality is Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter. They all state it's grainy as hell, colours aren't overly sharp, and it's sometimes slightly blurry or washed out. But since it was shot on regular 16mm (some of which is likely to be 'short ends') with a wind-up Bolex, it looks exactly like it should look; it's organic, it's raw, it's NATURAL for what 16mm actually looks like. And to me, that's what Blu-ray is supposed to be capturing, it's showing us the films at the resolution and detail to what the filmmaker's themselves think their films should look (if they've approved the transfers). Warts and all.

I'm not bashing your opinions, just hoping this will give some clarity to a film's look and the wonderful world of high definition and it's intended presentation of a director's vision.

No problem MorallySound, I take everything you've said on board. I don't expect older films to be totally grain free but was just disapointed when I popped the disc in to watch it as it's one of my favourites.

geeare
09-11-2009, 06:32 PM
i'm not sure if the "this is the way they wanted the films to look" statement is true or if it's more like "this film grade and camera was the only shit we could afford".

Grim
09-11-2009, 07:04 PM
i'm not sure if the "this is the way they wanted the films to look" statement is true or if it's more like "this film grade and camera was the only shit we could afford".

I'm sure in plenty of cases that's true, but I doubt Landis, who already three hits under his belt (Kentucky Fried Movie, Animal House, and Blues Brothers), had any problem getting the film and cameras he wanted from Universal.

AndresG
09-11-2009, 07:17 PM
in short: the upgrade is totally unworthy, you can die happy with your dvd and/or hd dvd versions...

Grim
09-11-2009, 07:23 PM
If it is at least comparable to the HD-DVD, which was a huge improvement over the DVD, I will be satisfied. I think a lot of people just have unrealistic expectations.

indiephantom
09-11-2009, 09:15 PM
I'm with fellow Canucks MorallySound and Matt89 on all points here. The DVDBeaver screenshots look great. I didn't see this in stores when I was out yesterday, but it will be hard to pass up when I do. Although I should wait for a price drop!

Grim
09-11-2009, 09:21 PM
I'm with fellow Canucks MorallySound and Matt89 on all points here. The DVDBeaver screenshots look great. I didn't see this in stores when I was out yesterday, but it will be hard to pass up when I do. Although I should wait for a price drop!

Amazon's got it for $17.99 in the states. Not sure how much that is in Canuck dollars, but that's the lowest I've seen. I can't wait for mine to arrive!

dickieduvet
09-11-2009, 09:36 PM
It's identical to the HD-DVD release, All the dirt, scratches, Hair and other shit that plagued that transfer are on the Blu too, But it could be worse. The Blu has had a little contrast boosting though. I compared them side by side myself. The first 10 mins or so look dodgy but after that it gets a lot better.

X-human
09-11-2009, 11:45 PM
As for your last statement, you know this for a fact do you?

It was the common style at the time. They talk about that in the commentary on Monster Squad, as the producer kept rolling in fog machines and setting lighting for soft focus. The director didn't want that. But it snuck into a lot of set ups because of the producer.

And that You Tube clip interviews Landis, who directly states he asked them to darken and reduce DNR (reduce reduction :D ) on both American Werewolf and Animal House. "Image Degraded" as the tech duly noted.

I had a similar disappointment with Casablanca. Sure, the image was crisp. But the colors were so washed out as to be virtually non-existent.

“Keep Ted Turner and his goddamned Crayolas away from my movies” - Orson Welles.

Buddusky
09-13-2009, 04:41 AM
I'm with fellow Canucks MorallySound and Matt89 on all points here. The DVDBeaver screenshots look great. I didn't see this in stores when I was out yesterday, but it will be hard to pass up when I do. Although I should wait for a price drop!

The reason u didn't see it in stores is because it isn't out until the 15th. Wait until you see the actual disc. "Great quality just like the screens". :D

Katatonia
09-18-2009, 11:03 AM
I thought it looked really good in HD. Sure, it's really grainy at times, but it looks like film. I'm certainly glad they didn't DNR the hell out of it simply because of those grain issues.

I popped in the old Universal DVD release from 2001, and wow the transfer really sucked on that. The level of detail/sharpness and contrast in the darker scenes is vastly improved on the Blu-ray transfer.

The Blu-ray includes all of the old DVD's special features, except for the scant "Production Notes" and "DVD-ROM Features". No great loss there.

Grim
09-20-2009, 12:32 AM
Just watched it today. I thought it looked great. Colors were vibrant and the picture was detailed. Grain was there, but it looked very natural.

Matt89
09-20-2009, 02:32 AM
Yeah, I bought it this week and I honestly don't see why people are bitching about this. The movie looks fuckin' great. Sure it's not PERFECTION, but for what it is, it looks fantastic.

Compare it directly with the DVD...it's a VAST improvement.

~Matt