You want to see the kind of silliness we're dealing with, teal push-wise? Someone, one of the prying eyes I sometimes mention, posted today's notes to Blu-ray.com's message board. Here is one of the responses:
"Bruce will shoot you down dead if you dare to say it looks blue (which it does) because, you know, his word is the word of God (which it's not).
The film may have been shot to look blue back in 65 and prints way back in the 70's and 80's have had a look that has been some what blue/teal. Though Fox has also pushed the teal/orange on some blu-rays last year - maybe they did on ""The Blue Max" - maybe not - but yes, the film does have a blue/teal look to it and you can't deny that aspect of the transfer either way
It's the orange faces that is sometimes questionable"
So, even though he acknowledges (but does not KNOW) that the film may have been shot to look exactly like this transfer (maybe they did - maybe not), the film does have a blue/teal look to it and you can't deny that aspect of the transfer either way.
Here's the point - if it was shot that way to look that way how can it have a "teal push"? It has its natural look is what it has and there is no reason to mention anything about it other than it's correct. The fact that this is the only kind of response this guy can make - well, it speaks volume in it's ridiculousness. Oh, and you'd have to be completely colorblind or your TV settings would have to be completely screwy to see "orange" faces. What you see is perfect Eastmancolor skin tones (for the first time on home video in the case of The Blue Max - the DVD had flat brown skin tones that blended perfectly with all the other flat brown colors). It is maddening, this stupidity.
