I just watched a two-year-old video by RedLetterMedia that I never ended up seeing until now:
Best of the Worst: High Voltage, Death Spa, and Space Mutiny
When they talk about Death Spa, they take a look at the BD case from the release they got.
At 29:45-30:05, Josh said:
“It’s clearly not from the negative because any time there’s any sort of gore shot, the grain pops way up…”
If it was a composited shot, the grain is always going to be different. The finished negative will have a generation of quality loss on those shots because the film had to be processed for the finished effect. And even if it wasn’t a composited shot, the special effects shots may have been shot on different, more grainy film stock than the rest of the film (and this release being taken from the negative, the inconsistency in grain between shots isn’t covered up by extra generational grain). Clearly not from the negative?
Of course some few shots vary well could have been taken from a 35mm print or something, but to outright accuse the company that made this release of lying about the source used right on the back of the case is just stupid.
“There are scratches all over it, there aren’t going to be scratches on the f***in’ negative.”
Why can’t there be scratches on the negative? Why is it impossible that the negative of an obscure '80s bad horror flick has damage? The negatives of some films people actually care about are sometimes heavily damaged if my memory serves me correctly. That statement just doesn’t make any sense.
And everyone else was agreeing with him about it like it was an obvious fact. I mean, in the clips they showed in the video I didn’t see anything obvious about the subject.
This just kind of bothered me, and I felt like blowing it off here. I honestly don’t know why it bothered me as enough to go and type this up.
If any of my statements have been incorrect by any means, please inform me.
END RANT