NIGHT/CURSE OF THE DEMON…Coming Soon From Indicator

3 Stars

I wrote a letter to the good folks at Indicator inquiring why EARTH VS. FLYING SAUCERS alone was not included among their three Columbia Harryhausen boxes, and received another prompt reply from John, along with a bit of info about a much-requested title I’ve been bugging them about for a year:

Hi Rick

Many thanks for your order this has been posted for you today.

We did try to license Earth vs Flying saucers, but Sony Pictures did say it wasn’t available unfortunately, which was a great shame.

Night of the Demon announcement will be this Thursday at 10am 


Kind regards

John

Published by

Kevin Collins

administrator

119 Comments

  1. Yes, the French set included an extensive perfect-bound book (with French text, but loaded with photos) and the transfer looks great. I can't imagine Indicator will include a book (although perhaps a shorter one) but will almost certainly contain supplements not available in on the French edition. I am hoping for an historian commentary track, as everyone directly involved with the film is pretty much gone.

  2. John Hodson

    Full details at Powerhouse

    Holy crap! This thing is chock full of extras. Commentary, docs, 80-page book. 4 versions of the film. Wow! I wonder if one of these versions will include less of the Demon. Inj particular, I’m thinking of the end where the Demon has the villain in his claw. It looks so bad, would like to see that gone.

  3. I ordered it. I don’t like that they charge right away, but I ordered it. With shipping it added up to $42, which is much, much more than I am usually willing to pay. This is a favorite movie, the boatload of extras, and the reputation of Powerhouse pushed me over the edge.

  4. What are the other two versions? I don't see any point to having Curse of the Demon because it's just less than Night. Do the other two versions have more footage, or are they just different cut downs?

  5. bigshot

    What are the other two versions? I don't see any point to having Curse of the Demon because it's just less than Night. Do the other two versions have more footage, or are they just different cut downs?

    atfree

    • Four presentations of the film: Night of the Demon – the original full-length pre-release version (96 mins), and the original UK theatrical cut (82 minutes); Curse of the Demon – the original US theatrical cut (82 mins), and the US re-issue version (96 mins)

    http://idobata.net/community/threads/indicator-october-2018-releases.358389/

  6. John Hodson

    It's not simply a case of one being shorter than the other; alternative shots are used in some instances.

    I only care if there is totally new footage. I'll stick with the one I've got.

  7. I already have the French Blu-ray (which I was finally able to watch without the French subtitles a few years ago when I bought a new Blu-ray player that allowed removal of subtitles) and the Spanish version (which I haven't been able to get to play on any of my players, despite finagling). But I will probably get the UK version as well (which is listed as "region free"), due to all the extras.

    Someone mentioned the climax when a main character is getting clawed by the Demon. I actually think that moment is one of the nastier depictions of a killing I've seen in a film of that period, as it comes across as a very personal and visceral act.

  8. I already have the French Blu-ray (which I was finally able to watch without the French subtitles a few years ago when I bought a new Blu-ray player that allowed removal of subtitles) and the Spanish version (which I haven't been able to get to play on any of my players, despite finagling). But I will probably get the UK version as well (which is listed as "region free"), due to all the extras.

    Someone mentioned the climax when a main character is getting clawed by the Demon. I actually think that moment is one of the nastier depictions of a killing I've seen in a film of that period, as it comes across as a very personal and visceral act.

  9. SultanOfWhat

    I already have the French Blu-ray (which I was finally able to watch without the French subtitles a few years ago when I bought a new Blu-ray player that allowed removal of subtitles) and the Spanish version (which I haven't been able to get to play on any of my players, despite finagling). But I will probably get the UK version as well (which is listed as "region free"), due to all the extras.

    Someone mentioned the climax when a main character is getting clawed by the Demon. I actually think that moment is one of the nastier depictions of a killing I've seen in a film of that period, as it comes across as a very personal and visceral act.

    The problems is that it’s so obviously fake. It don’t want to even call it a special effect. It takes me out of the movie at a very bad time.

    Does anyone know whether any of the different versions give more or less of the monster?

  10. I have the French, which I believe is the BFI English cut transferred in 2K. The Columbia version that Indicator is releasing is obviously a very old master used for the DVD – believe me, if Grover Crisp had done his thing Twilight Time would release it.

  11. haineshisway

    I have the French, which I believe is the BFI English cut transferred in 2K. The Columbia version that Indicator is releasing is obviously a very old master used for the DVD – believe me, if Grover Crisp had done his thing Twilight Time would release it.

    The old USA DVD was 2002.

    Indicator says their BFI restoration is 2013.

  12. SultanOfWhat

    I already have the French Blu-ray (which I was finally able to watch without the French subtitles a few years ago when I bought a new Blu-ray player that allowed removal of subtitles) and the Spanish version (which I haven't been able to get to play on any of my players, despite finagling). But I will probably get the UK version as well (which is listed as "region free"), due to all the extras.

    Someone mentioned the climax when a main character is getting clawed by the Demon. I actually think that moment is one of the nastier depictions of a killing I've seen in a film of that period, as it comes across as a very personal and visceral act.

    I have an edited Blu-ray that omits all of the demon close-ups at the beginning, so that the mystery of its appearance is saved for the end. The editing of those early shots is a tad choppy (mostly the sound) but is certainly watchable, and those who have never seen the movie before would likely not even notice it. I believe this is a step nearer to what Tourneur was going for. And I agree that the killing at the end is very effective…I don't personally think it resembles a doll. This personalized edit is what I would show any audience unfamiliar with the movie, For myself and everyone else, I leave it intact.

  13. aPhil

    The old USA DVD was 2002.

    Indicator says their BFI restoration is 2013.

    Um, isn't that what I said? I said the uncut is the BFI 2K restoration. I believe the US cut is an old master done in hi-def, which is basically what the Indicator information is indicating.

  14. Dick

    I have an edited Blu-ray that omits all of the demon close-ups at the beginning, so that the mystery of its appearance is saved for the end. The editing of those early shots is a tad choppy (mostly the sound) but is certainly watchable, and those who have never seen the movie before would likely not even notice it. I believe this is a step nearer to what Tourneur was going for. And I agree that the killing at the end is very effective…I don't personally think it resembles a doll. This personalized edit is what I would show any audience unfamiliar with the movie, For myself and everyone else, I leave it intact.

    The film was showing where I worked and I don't recall seeing the DEMON until the very end.That was part of the mystery. Are you definitely sure that the DEMON as edited out from earlier scenes?

  15. cinemiracle

    The film was showing where I worked and I don't recall seeing the DEMON until the very end.That was part of the mystery. Are you definitely sure that the DEMON as edited out from earlier scenes?

    No, it is very much in one's face in the commercial release right from the beginning. I had a talented friend cut it according to my edit points (as I do not have the needed software), and he did a great job.

  16. Johnny Angell

    I ordered it. I don’t like that they charge right away, but I ordered it. With shipping it added up to $42, which is much, much more than I am usually willing to pay. This is a favorite movie, the boatload of extras, and the reputation of Powerhouse pushed me over the edge.

    I am not entirely comfortable paying 2 1/2 months ahead of time. Think I'll wait.

  17. haineshisway

    Um, isn't that what I said? I said the uncut is the BFI 2K restoration. I believe the US cut is an old master done in hi-def, which is basically what the Indicator information is indicating.

    While the shorter cut might be the old master, what Indicator says is "High-definition remaster of the 82-minute cut" —
    The word "remaster" would lead one to consider that it may not be the old master (as used for the 2002 DVD).

    From their site:
    "
    • The BFI’s 2013 2K restoration of the 96-minute version
    • High-definition remaster of the 82-minute cut

    • Four presentations of the film: Night of the Demon – the original full-length pre-release version (96 mins), and the original UK theatrical cut (82 minutes); Curse of the Demon – the original US theatrical cut (82 mins), and the US re-issue version (96 mins)
    "

  18. Anything you release on Blu-ray is a high definition transfer. My point is simple – if this had had a new transfer Twilight Time would be releasing it – they are not. Their deal is simple – Sony will not allow them to release anything they consider not to be up to their standards.

  19. Derrick King

    Pre-order it from Amazon.co.uk. Outside of the UK, they remove the VAT, so it ends up a little cheaper.

    That is what I did, too. I also ordered it with Indicator's William Castle BD set, also released on the same day, and shipping together to the US Global Priority was about $11.00 and I will probably have both by the 29th of October and was able to cancel my order for $29.99 The Tingler being released on BD domestically.

    And I can cancel if I change my mind and not have pre-paid.

  20. haineshisway

    Anything you release on Blu-ray is a high definition transfer. My point is simple – if this had had a new transfer Twilight Time would be releasing it – they are not. Their deal is simple – Sony will not allow them to release anything they consider not to be up to their standards.

    Considering that the OCN was cut to make the shorter Curse of the Demon (leaving the longer version at least a generation behind), how do you feel about the French full 96 minute version of Night of the Demon Blu-ray image quality?

    As the longer Night of the Demon is the only version that I am interested in from the upcoming Powerhouse Indicator set (plus the abundance of extras outside of the alternate cuts of the film), do you think there is room for improvement should Sony USA do a 4K restoration (of the 96 minute full version)?

    My only knowledge of the French Blu-ray is from dvdbeaver site. Since that disc was released in Nov 2013, then it does appear that it may be the 2013 BFI 2K restoration (although I have not seen confirmation, but likely your copy of the French disc confirms such). I seldom buy from outside USA as shipping and GBP & Euro conversion can be devastating to one not wanting to go into bankruptcy .

  21. haineshisway

    Anything you release on Blu-ray is a high definition transfer. My point is simple – if this had had a new transfer Twilight Time would be releasing it – they are not. Their deal is simple – Sony will not allow them to release anything they consider not to be up to their standards.

    Why Twilight Time hasn't released 'Housekeeping' is a mystery to me. It is a great looking transfer. I'm thrilled Indicator released it, but it always seemed like a film suited perfectly for the TT label.

  22. aPhil

    Considering that the OCN was cut to make the shorter Curse of the Demon (leaving the longer version at least a generation behind), how do you feel about the French full 96 minute version of Night of the Demon Blu-ray image quality?

    As the longer Night of the Demon is the only version that I am interested in from the upcoming Powerhouse Indicator set (plus the abundance of extras outside of the alternate cuts of the film), do you think there is room for improvement should Sony USA do a 4K restoration (of the 96 minute full version)?

    My only knowledge of the French Blu-ray is from dvdbeaver site. Since that disc was released in Nov 2013, then it does appear that it may be the 2013 BFI 2K restoration (although I have not seen confirmation, but likely your copy of the French disc confirms such). I seldom buy from outside USA as shipping and GBP & Euro conversion can be devastating to one not wanting to go into bankruptcy .

    I'll have to find the French and look at it again. I did write about it here at the time. It's a film with a lot of opticals and if memory serves I don't remember it having a lot of grain, rather like the French Gun Crazy – but I may be confusing the two.

  23. haineshisway

    I'll have to find the French and look at it again. I did write about it here at the time. It's a film with a lot of opticals and if memory serves I don't remember it having a lot of grain, rather like the French Gun Crazy – but I may be confusing the two.

    Update me when you get a chance.

    As to Gun Crazy, TCM showed it in HD several weeks ago, and it was a thrill seeing it for the first time. Peggy Cummins had quite a range as I would not recognize her as being the same person leading the charge with Dana Andrews in Night/Curse of the Demon.

  24. Bob Furmanek

    If Mr. Crisp had done the restoration, it would be in the proper AR!

    View attachment 48369

    I see that the French disc seems to be 1.66, but I do not see the aspect ratio for the upcoming Powerhouse Indicator Blu-ray.
    As restorations are sometimes for the full frame regardless of the release, do we know what ratio Powerhouse will release ?

    Any hints/rumors that Sony might do a new transfer for USA ?

  25. aPhil

    While the shorter cut might be the old master, what Indicator says is "High-definition remaster of the 82-minute cut" —
    The word "remaster" would lead one to consider that it may not be the old master (as used for the 2002 DVD).

    From their site:
    "
    • The BFI’s 2013 2K restoration of the 96-minute version
    • High-definition remaster of the 82-minute cut

    • Four presentations of the film: Night of the Demon – the original full-length pre-release version (96 mins), and the original UK theatrical cut (82 minutes); Curse of the Demon – the original US theatrical cut (82 mins), and the US re-issue version (96 mins)
    "

    Ignore the naysayers, Phil: Indicator confirmed last week that all four cuts were based on the same restoration and presented via seamless branching.

    Damn shame about that AR though.

  26. Mark-W

    That is what I did, too. I also ordered Indicator's William Castle BD set at the same time, which has the same street date. Shipping together to the US Global Priority was about $11.00 and I will probably have both by the 29th of October. I canceled l my domestic The Tingler BD order, and it seems like a good deal to me.

    And I can cancel if I change my mind since I have not have pre-paid.

    The trade off is a longer wait with Amazon U.K. They normally ship Indicator releases a week after release so its very doubtful that these two releases will be delivered from Amazon U.K. Before Halloween. Based on past experience they will most likely be delivered the week of November 5th. Indicator ships a week before release date so you will have it on release date. For example I just received the latest Hammer set Vol. 3 on Monday from Amazon U.K. but people who ordered from Indicator received it 2 and 1/2 weeks ago. So this time I ordered from Indicator. Its currently cheaper than Amazon U.K. and they did not charge me VAT. $16.00 shipping for both sets.

  27. CarlosMeat

    I'm really sorry if I missed where the AR is listed. This is a British widescreen film ,yes ? I thought that 1.66:1 was that AR ?

    The AR has not been officially listed as yet by Indicator. It's a common misconception that 1.66:1 is somehow the default British widescreen AR; nonetheless, it *is* a misconception.

  28. John Hodson

    The AR has not been officially listed as yet by Indicator. It's a common misconception that 1.66:1 is somehow the default British widescreen AR; nonetheless, it *is* a misconception.

    Where did this AR come from, default or not ?

  29. From our website: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

    On October 6, 1955, the Ideal Kinema reported: "Every projectionist will welcome the decision (reported in KINE last week) that the British Film Producers' Association has approved its technical committee's proposals for standardization on aspect ratios.

    This is a matter in which the British industry, most commendably, has given a lead to the world, including the United States. The decision to standardise at a ratio of 1.75 to 1, tolerable for both 1.65 to 1 and 1.85 to 1, means that, very soon, the man in the box should be able to relax from the tiresome necessity of re-racking to prevent either topping or tailing his picture.

    The new standard, of course, does not apply to processes such as CinemaScope and VistaVision."

    Just as UK producers were standardizing to 1.75:1, U.S. producers were settling on 1.85:1 as the non-anamorphic widescreen standard. By September of 1956, the vast majority of U.S. features were composed for either 1.85:1 or 2.55:1.

  30. Worth

    I can sort of understand why there was no international standard, because when is there ever? But why wasn't there a single British standard?

    I suppose the problem was that, although the British film industry clearly tried to standardise at 1.75:1 in the early years of widescreen, the cinemas themselves installed screens at ratios of 1.66:1, 1.75:1 and 1.85:1 depending on the practicalities of converting the building, which made standardisation difficult. A cinema with an AR of 1.66:1 was stuck with showing all films at that ratio regardless as to the intended ratio.

  31. Worth

    I can sort of understand why there was no international standard, because when is there ever? But why wasn't there a single British standard?

    Probably the same reason there's no standard today: film creators don't want to be strapped into any single aspect ratio. Some feel that different ratios are more relevant to their subjects.

  32. Worth

    I can sort of understand why there was no international standard, because when is there ever? But why wasn't there a single British standard?

    Well it was the same in the States, all those 1:75 Disney films & 1:66 UA films, & then there was the free for all in the fifties.

  33. CarlosMeat

    The first three Bond films are 1.66:1 are these not British films ? Are they incorrect AR ? The graph shows only one film of that AR during that period.

    DR NO, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and GOLDFINGER were all shot at Pinewood for 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

  34. Billy Batson

    Well it was the same in the States, all those 1:75 Disney films & 1:66 UA films, & then there was the free for all in the fifties.

    It may have been a free-for-all in 1953 and early 1954, but by 1955 things had stabilized in the US with 1.85:1 the prominent non-anamorphic ratio.

    What post-1954 UA films are 1:66?

  35. Bob Furmanek

    It may have been a free-for-all in 1953 and early 1954, but by 1955 things had stabilized in the US with 1.85:1 the prominent non-anamorphic ratio.

    What post-1954 UA films are 1:66?

    Well I was thinking of UA because of all the 1:66 non-anamorphic UA DVD's that MGM released (obviously using very old masters), a few titles: Tom Jones/The Train/Help!/What's New Pussycat/How To Murder Your Wife. Now I know you can drive a coach & horses through that little list, but I can only go by the discs I bought & the very unreliable IMDB, I don't have all the paperwork (none of it in fact). Personally I don't have a problem with a film that was probably shown in 1:85 & is now available in 1:66, I don't mind those little black strips down the sides & a tiny bit more headroom, & I know that's very wrong of me. 🙂

  36. From cinematography.com
    —When I woked neg prep I had to set up a number of Bond trailers for telecine. The first three titles are definately hard matted at 1.66/1.

    Incidentaly, the MGM customer rep mentioned that the Bond movies and 'Some Like It Hot' were MGM's biggest cash cows.
    'Some Like It Hot' is also 1.66/1 hard matte.

    —LV

  37. Hard-matting is one thing: intended aspect ratio is another.

    In the post-1953 period – and until the late 1950's – most non-anamorphic widescreen films were hard-matted at 1.37:1 for protection.

    The same applies in the 1960's to hard-matted 1.66 titles.

    It's all good, Alan. At some point about 15 or 20 years ago. someone in charge of mastering at MGM decided to pull a Criterion and make every widescreen film 1.66 when most (all?) were actually intended for 1.85:1.

    In fact, the only post-1954 non-1.85 UA titles that immediately come to mind are the Bel-Air Productions which are composed for 1.75:1.

    For the complete documented story of the transition in 1953, please see this acclaimed article on our website: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen

  38. CarlosMeat

    I see ,why are these films presented on Blu Ray as 1.66:1 I wonder ?

    Bob Furmanek

    Sloppy research.

    The documentation is there in Kine Weekly and Boxoffice, nobody bothered to check!

    These films are presented on Blu Ray in 1.66:1 however. Are you saying that those involved in the film to Blu Ray were sloppy in their research thus this is a mistake ?

  39. CarlosMeat

    These films are presented on Blu Ray in 1.66:1 however. Are you saying that those involved in the film to Blu Ray were sloppy in their research thus this is a mistake ?

    I have an old copy of Widescreen Review from 1994 which reviewed the Laser discs of the first three Bond films and refers to them as being "in the original European 1.66:1 theatrical aspect ratio". It's no wonder that so many people have assumed 1.66:1 to be standard for British films when mistakes like that were being made in respected journals. Curiously, although the current Blu-rays of those films are 1.66:1, the earliest DVD releases were 1.78:1.

  40. Still many internet reviews indicating that 1.66:1 was the intended AR for each of the first three Bond films. I guess this is just one of those things when repeated frequently enough becomes the truth unfortunately.

  41. Bob Furmanek

    There are still people who claim that all golden age 3-D movies were originally shown in red/cyan anaglyphic.

    You should only trust primary source documentation.

    —LV
    No, I get it just sad really. So many of these sources I'd have trusted previously for the most part like WSR. At one point Kaleidescape was saying that at least they measured titles as presented on Blu Ray so their quoted AR for the title was correct. I actually went to the extent of using the meta data from them to control my masking system ,projector AR instruction and anamorphic lens sled. Took about a day to find out that they had AR wrong all over the place.

  42. Johnny Angell

    I’ve asked before, but got no reply. Will any of the versions on this new release reduce the screen time of the Demon?

    I'm pretty certain all the cuts include equal amounts of the dreaded demon. You might find this post interesting from one of the chaps working on the release.

  43. John Hodson

    I'm pretty certain all the cuts include equal amounts of the dreaded demon. You might find this post interesting from one of the chaps working on the release.

    William K. Everson, in his Classics of the Horror Film writes:
    The Night of the Demon, likewise intelligently scripted, goes to the other extreme of showing its Monster. Luckily, its Demon is such a lulu that it lives up to the fearsome descriptions of it (something that most movie Monsters do not). Tourneur, in later interviews, claims that it was never his intention to show the Demon, that he had wanted to follow the pattern of his Lewton films and merely suggest it, and that its graphic physical depiction was included at the insistence of the producer, who wanted real meat in his film. Tourneur made no such protests at the time of release, however, and one wonders whether these latter-day protestations are entirely genuine. Certainly the construction of the film, and the scenes in which the Demon's presence is undeniably felt, even when not visible, leave no doubt at all as to the creature's existence. The whole point of the film, in fact, is not that horrors can be created within the mind, but that some horrors are so unthinkable, that the mind must deny them in order to retain its sanity. The final line of the film–the time-honored "There are some things it is better not to know!"–comes after a materialization of the Demon, which is ambiguous only to those who want it to be ambiguous.

  44. John Hodson

    I'm pretty certain all the cuts include equal amounts of the dreaded demon. You might find this post interesting from one of the chaps working on the release.

    Don’t get me wrong, I do like the depiction of the Demon…until at the very end when he’s seen in full figure and looks like he’s holding a doll. That doesn’t work for me. I wish that reactions shots only had been used.

  45. Douglas R

    I have an old copy of Widescreen Review from 1994 which reviewed the Laser discs of the first three Bond films and refers to them as being "in the original European 1.66:1 theatrical aspect ratio".

    Several years back I began to be wary of information in Widescreen Review reviews when they complained that the print used for the transfer of Hitchcock's Rope appeared to have damage: there were a number of hard cuts, instead of it being one long uninterrupted shot… Someone didn't do their (very simple) research.

  46. KMR

    Several years back I began to be wary of information in Widescreen Review reviews when they complained that the print used for the transfer of Hitchcock's Rope appeared to have damage: there were a number of hard cuts, instead of it being one long uninterrupted shot… Someone didn't do their (very simple) research.

    Not sure what you are getting at? I understand the Hitchcock did have several cuts in the film but when edited,the film was made to look like one continuous shot from start to finish. It would have been impossible to film ROPE with one continuous shot.

  47. cinemiracle

    Not sure what you are getting at? I understand the Hitchcock did have several cuts in the film but when edited,the film was made to look like one continuous shot from start to finish. It would have been impossible to film ROPE with one continuous shot.

    No, there are hard cuts at projector reel changes. Within each projector reel there is a disguised cut between camera rolls, as the camera passes behind a character's back, etc. My guess is that they didn't want to rely on absolute precision on the projectionist's part at reel changes, which would be required to avoid a jump of several frames forward or backward.

  48. I think the point isn't the Rope or Hitchcock but the reliability of some sources. Regarding Dr No

    Josh Zyber ,High Def Digest:
    "The 1080p/AVC MPEG-4 transfer is presented in the film's proper 1.66:1 aspect ratio with small pillarbox bars on the sides of the frame."

    Ralph Potts, AVS Forum.
    "Correctly framed at 1.66:1 with thin black bars either side, and encoded at 1080P using the MPEG4 system, this film could have been made yesterday.

    Cameron Yee, HTF:
    " The film is correctly framed at 1.66:1, encoded in AVC and devoid of blemishes."

  49. Pardon my ignorance but unless a film is hard matted, isn't it possible for a film to be shown in different ratios in different countries? While 1.66 and 1.75 were popular in European films, 1.85 seemed the aspect ratio for non scope films in the U.S. BoxOffice was an exhibitor magazine for U.S. cinemas, no? Since Dr. No was a 1962 British film (not released in the U.S. till the next year) is it possible the intended ratio for British cinema was 1.66 while 1.85 for U.S. cinemas? Not attempting to throw shade on Mr. Furmanek's summation, just throwing it out there.

  50. Bob Furmanek

    Contemporary reviews are useless.

    Only trust the primary source documents…

    haineshisway

    You're not gonna win this, Bob – you're being played 🙂

    I'm not playing him,I'm supporting his point. I'd say that it would be tough to show how right he is any more than my previous post.

  51. Thomas, the hard-matting is simply for protection.

    Since the mid-fifties, the most common AR in the UK was 1.75.

    As Doug R mentioned, Kinematograph Weekly specifically lists 1.85 as the intended ratio during principal photography of the first three Bond films.

    Doug, can you please share a scan of that page?

  52. Used to own a 1.33 open matte 16mm print of CURSE OF THE DEMON. Some shots here and there looked OK but the bulk of the print had way way too much headroom.

    Looking forward to the 1.85 Blu-ray. At least here's hoping it is.

  53. I hope they go back to the original elements for the Bond flicks and redo them in the correct aspect ratio, those titles should all be released on blu ray and UHD, there are numerous issues for many of them.

    Anyways that is for a different thread.

    I am interested in this release but for those in the know can you tell me if the original negative was scanned at 2k, i am not impressed by the French release and wish to own a better edition.

  54. FoxyMulder

    I hope they go back to the original elements for the Bond flicks and redo them in the correct aspect ratio, those titles should all be released on blu ray and UHD, there are numerous issues for many of them.

    Anyways that is for a different thread.

    I am interested in this release but for those in the know can you tell me if the original negative was scanned at 2k, i am not impressed by the French release and wish to own a better edition.

    The 96-minute version of NOTD – as said in the specs – will hail from the Bfi 2k restoration of 2013. I believe the French edition comes from a rather older HD master supplied by Sony.

  55. Eastmancolor

    Used to own a 1.33 open matte 16mm print of CURSE OF THE DEMON. Some shots here and there looked OK but the bulk of the print had way way too much headroom.

    Looking forward to the 1.85 Blu-ray. At least here's hoping it is.

    Ages and ages ago I saw in a theater (could have been TV) NOTD that wasn't matted properly. I could clearly see a guy riding a stationary bike below the Demon. The bike was powering the Demon's motion. I wonder if that was in your open matte?

  56. God, wouldn't that be cool to see. The charm of how they did things is part of the fun. I knew all along that that wasn't a real demon.

    I was watching another film on BluRay a Robert Ryan film the title escapes me. a female actress was coming through the fog in a motor boat alone you could see two guys swinging lanterns to look like the lights from the boat through the fog so cool !

  57. Matt Hough

    I didn't as a kid. This movie gave me nightmares for weeks afterward.

    Saw it for the first time a few years ago and loved it. I was in my late 30's. I had a friend come over who HATES old movies. Black and white, thinks they're dumb. We were wrapping up some video games for the night and I chucked this on at about 1am to show him the intro with the demon. We ended up watching the whole thing and he couldn't get over how it was "better than an X-Files!"

    This one has power, I pre-ordered it from Diabolik to make sure I get one since amazon.ca is the poops.

  58. Johnny Angell

    How about girlfriends? 😀

    Ha, few & far between these days. Back in the early sixties I used to collect the magazine Famous Monsters Of Filmland, I was fascinated by those horror films that we never got on TV in the UK back then (& I loved those beautiful painted covers of the early issues). I had quite a collection, even issue #1, but being the sixties & me in my teens, other interests took over, & I forgot about them & left them at home when I moved out, & when my parents moved house they…threw them away! About twenty years ago I started to notice some of the early issues turning up in various cinema collector shops & even s/h book shops, so I started to buy them back & frame some of them (& that includes the magazine Spacemen). Anyway, back to the filum, I've only seen this on TV late at night (the same with those old Universal b/w horrors), & so these days it never seems right to watch any of these films before 10pm, I've watched all the Universal classics late night & shall do the same with this. As long as it's a clean sharp picture with a good grey scale I'll be happy, 1:66, fine with me. Not Grover Crisp's latest wonder restoration, well okay, he may get around to it, he might not. I'm not going to live forever so I'll enjoy this, I have a few Indicator releases, & they always put 100% into them.

  59. Billy Batson

    when my parents moved house they…threw them away!

    Oh boy, have I had a very similar experience. Lost a lot of stuff when I went into the Army. Mothers often don't understand what's important to their adult kid.

  60. John Hodson

    The 96-minute version of NOTD – as said in the specs – will hail from the Bfi 2k restoration of 2013. I believe the French edition comes from a rather older HD master supplied by Sony.

    This Amazon seller is claiming the French release is the 2013 HD master, are they incorrect?

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/NIGHT-DEMO…1534396844&sr=8-3&keywords=night+of+the+demon

    I do not agree with the description of that release.

  61. I recorded Curse of the Demon off TCM and watched it this afternoon. My guide said it was an HD showing, but there were lots of dust specks present in the darker scenes and in the fades-to-black. Surely any Blu-ray release will clean this up. The image quality itself was quite sharp and appealing.

  62. Final specs from Indicator. Note the AR of the UK version – from the Bfi's 2k master – is 1.75:1. I understand the constraints of the existing Sony master precluded presentation of the US version at 1.85:1 – such is the demand, the run of this limited edition has now been extended to 10,000:

    [​IMG]

  63. John Hodson

    Final specs from Indicator. Note the AR of the UK version – from the Bfi's 2k master – is 1.75:1. I understand the constraints of the existing Sony master precluded presentation of the US version at 1.85:1 – such is the demand, the run of this limited edition has now been extended to 10,000:

    [​IMG]

    Disc 1
    I am confused about these movie versions. It shows:
    Night of – full length pre-release versions — 96 minutes
    Curse of -US reissue version — 96 minutes

    Disc 2
    Night of – Original UK Theatrical version — 82 minutes
    Curse of -Original US Theatrical version — 82 minutes

    I thought the UK version was always the longer version. This shows there was a US version that was 96 minutes, same as the UK. Then it shows there was a truncated UK version at 82', same as the edited down US version.

    Are the two 96 minutes versions the same? Are the two 82 minute versions the same?

  64. Johnny Angell

    Disc 1
    I am confused about these movie versions. It shows:
    Night of – full length pre-release versions — 96 minutes
    Curse of -US reissue version — 96 minutes

    Disc 2
    Night of – Original UK Theatrical version — 82 minutes
    Curse of -Original US Theatrical version — 82 minutes

    I thought the UK version was always the longer version.

    The version of Curse on disc one is the American re-release version from a decade or so ago. It’s the long version only with the American opening titles.

    The original 1950s American theatrical version is a few minutes shorter than the UK theatrical version, so the disc two runtimes are erroneous.

Leave a Reply