Originally Posted by spectator WarrenD
, I was just trying to point out the absurdity of your claim that the clips looked "objectively better". "Better" is a subjective
valuation and, by definition, cannot be objectively assessed.
Better as in more like the original compared to the Blu Ray. Nothing absurd there. I am not the only one who made this claim. Better qualified people not just on this forum but other professional reviewers said the same. It is some of the nonsensical alterations that caused this discussion in the first place. Greenish fire when Dracula is crawling down the castle walls for instance or a green light on his face for a second when he is talking with his brides.
Yes subjectivity does come into play as in what is pleasing to the eye, but my objectivity is based on what I saw enough times. And the amount of times I have seen this film at the cinema gives me some leverage. It never looked as desaturated as it does now. If it did, then what would I be complaining about?
I consider myself an avid cinema goer and back in the 90's onwards I would see the same film a lot of times. Sometimes going to see the same film at the cinema 5 times in a week.
Hence I know what I saw. This is one of the very few films I have seen that now looks radically changed to what it was. It is not hard to remember that something was very colourful and vivid. With Dracula if it looked desaturated cinematically then believe me I would have noticed that on day one. But Sleepy Hollow it was not and that film I cannot count how often I went to the pictures. Sleepy Hollow is a faithful rendition on Blu Ray objectively to what was shown at the picture house. The main criticism it got on Blu Ray is that it looked too grainy which it always was.
I will give you another example. The James Bond film The World Is Not Enough I saw almost every day for a month at the cinema because I bought a yearly pass so it was economical. The film like may others I saw did not look altered on DVD or Blu Ray. It was in the same ball park visually.
The more you see something the better your memory of it. Simple logic and nothing else. With Dracula I even bought the comic, book and the photos were not different in the book to the screen at the time. If I came out of the cinema and went home to look at the pictures in the book, then wouldn't that be a useful memory aid? And then seeing it a good few times more?
And with the HD clips, all people were saying is that it was more closer to what the film originally looked like and nothing else. No crushing of detail either. Just like it doesn't require a film expert to tell anyone that the Star Wars films have changed to what they were on release.
And last but not least. Remember the colourful Dracula 1979? They altered the colourful look to a more subdued colour palette similarly saying it was never meant to be like it once was.
So in regards to the above paragraph, it has little to do with subjectivity but the original facts of how a film was first presented to the public. A change is a change and human beings are designed to be perceptive of these things. Technology is a blessing and a curse in the wrong hands. Opinions change as does taste. The that was then this is now approach of some filmmakers.