Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Widescreen Weekend 2012
245 views
Skip to first unread message
roland....@sbcglobal.net
Dec 1, 2011, 4:32:36 PM12/1/11
to
They mention TWWOTBG in 3-strip. I thought this needed a lot of
restoration work before it could be shown in 3-strip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3RwU87bAgg
restoration work before it could be shown in 3-strip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3RwU87bAgg
Martin Hart
Dec 1, 2011, 8:36:39 PM12/1/11
to
In article <2c2005da-48a8-42c1-b245-
683fba...@v5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, roland....@sbcglobal.net
says...
Technicolor print of the film, which is what happened. To produce new
prints a lot of work would be required because the negatives are
severely water damaged.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
www.widescreenmuseum.com
683fba...@v5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, roland....@sbcglobal.net
says...
> They mention TWWOTBG in 3-strip. I thought this needed a lot of
> restoration work before it could be shown in 3-strip.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3RwU87bAgg
>
No restoration is required if you happen to find a good surviving IB
> restoration work before it could be shown in 3-strip.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3RwU87bAgg
>
Technicolor print of the film, which is what happened. To produce new
prints a lot of work would be required because the negatives are
severely water damaged.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
www.widescreenmuseum.com
grand...@hotmail.com
Dec 4, 2011, 1:56:09 AM12/4/11
to
On Dec 2, 12:36 pm, Martin Hart
<martinh...@spamfreewidescreenmuseum.com> wrote:
> In article <2c2005da-48a8-42c1-b245-
> 683fba499...@v5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, roland.latai...@sbcglobal.net
years ago
<martinh...@spamfreewidescreenmuseum.com> wrote:
> In article <2c2005da-48a8-42c1-b245-
> 683fba499...@v5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, roland.latai...@sbcglobal.net
> says...
>
> > They mention TWWOTBG in 3-strip. I thought this needed a lot of
> > restoration work before it could be shown in 3-strip.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3RwU87bAgg
>
> No restoration is required if you happen to find a good surviving IB
> Technicolor print of the film, which is what happened. To produce new
> prints a lot of work would be required because the negatives are
> severely water damaged.
>
> Marty
> --
> The American WideScreen Museumwww.widescreenmuseum.com
lets hope it is not the partly sub-titled 3 strip print I saw a few
>
> > They mention TWWOTBG in 3-strip. I thought this needed a lot of
> > restoration work before it could be shown in 3-strip.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3RwU87bAgg
>
> No restoration is required if you happen to find a good surviving IB
> Technicolor print of the film, which is what happened. To produce new
> prints a lot of work would be required because the negatives are
> severely water damaged.
>
> Marty
> --
> The American WideScreen Museumwww.widescreenmuseum.com
years ago
Martin Hart
Dec 4, 2011, 3:07:20 PM12/4/11
to
In article <9993678e-13bf-457e-ac21-
1cc39d...@d10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, grand...@HOTMAIL.COM
says...
I don't think there are subtitles. I'm really sketchy on this but I
think the print was in Australia.
I remember that John Harvey's Frankenstein print of "This Is Cinerama"
had one segment with subtitles. I think it was the beginning of the
Venice segment.
1cc39d...@d10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, grand...@HOTMAIL.COM
says...
think the print was in Australia.
I remember that John Harvey's Frankenstein print of "This Is Cinerama"
had one segment with subtitles. I think it was the beginning of the
Venice segment.
Garan Grey
Dec 21, 2011, 3:32:11 AM12/21/11
to
On Dec 4, 12:07 pm, Martin Hart
<martinh...@spamfreewidescreenmuseum.com> wrote:
> In article <9993678e-13bf-457e-ac21-
> 1cc39d53c...@d10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, grandeu...@HOTMAIL.COM
Is this the print they plan on showing at the Dome?
(why don't they scan it to master a new digital for DVD, etc?)
<martinh...@spamfreewidescreenmuseum.com> wrote:
> In article <9993678e-13bf-457e-ac21-
> 1cc39d53c...@d10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, grandeu...@HOTMAIL.COM
(why don't they scan it to master a new digital for DVD, etc?)
Martin Hart
Dec 21, 2011, 11:32:04 PM12/21/11
to
In article <177e4cc2-222a-4be5-94b7-2681d9650489
@q16g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, gara...@gmail.com says...
There are two versions that can be shown at the Dome. There is a very
good three-strip print created by Crest Labs about ten years ago and
there is the new digital version that's recently been completed. John
Harvey's print was made up from a variety of Technicolor IB prints made
around 1963. It's no longer in use.
@q16g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, gara...@gmail.com says...
good three-strip print created by Crest Labs about ten years ago and
there is the new digital version that's recently been completed. John
Harvey's print was made up from a variety of Technicolor IB prints made
around 1963. It's no longer in use.
scoville
Dec 22, 2011, 5:41:20 AM12/22/11
to
On Dec 22, 4:32 am, Martin Hart
<martinh...@spamfreewidescreenmuseum.com> wrote:
> In article <177e4cc2-222a-4be5-94b7-2681d9650489
> @q16g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, garang...@gmail.com says...
<confused>
If Crest Labs created a new print ten years ago, was this before the
negative was water damaged or was it from other elements ?
Has this print ever been screened anywhere ?
Scoville.
<martinh...@spamfreewidescreenmuseum.com> wrote:
> In article <177e4cc2-222a-4be5-94b7-2681d9650489
> @q16g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, garang...@gmail.com says...
If Crest Labs created a new print ten years ago, was this before the
negative was water damaged or was it from other elements ?
Has this print ever been screened anywhere ?
Scoville.
Garan Grey
Dec 23, 2011, 9:58:16 AM12/23/11
to
> > Is this the print they plan on showing at the Dome?
>
> > (why don't they scan it to master a new digital for DVD, etc?)
>
> There are two versions that can be shown at the Dome. There is a very
> good three-strip print created by Crest Labs about ten years ago and
> there is the new digital version that's recently been completed. John
> Harvey's print was made up from a variety of Technicolor IB prints made
> around 1963. It's no longer in use.
>
> Marty
> --
> The American WideScreen Museumwww.widescreenmuseum.com
Marty, we're talking about WONDERFUL WORLD OF THE BROTHERS GRIMM here,
>
> > (why don't they scan it to master a new digital for DVD, etc?)
>
> There are two versions that can be shown at the Dome. There is a very
> good three-strip print created by Crest Labs about ten years ago and
> there is the new digital version that's recently been completed. John
> Harvey's print was made up from a variety of Technicolor IB prints made
> around 1963. It's no longer in use.
>
> Marty
> --
> The American WideScreen Museumwww.widescreenmuseum.com
not TIC. If a new print of that were made 10 years ago most of us
would have seen it by now. Since it has been announced that WWOTBG
will be shown at the Dome next year, and you have been discussing a 3-
strip screening of it in Bradford, I was asking if that's what they'll
show at the Dome and hoping they could scan that along with the others.
Garan Grey
Dec 23, 2011, 10:10:09 AM12/23/11
to
about This is Cinerama.
Before that, Marty posted that a good IB Technicolor print of Brothers
Grimm has been found, but new prints would be prohibitive due to water
damage. That being the case I would think a digital scan of that
print should be done for archival purposes at least before it screens
anywhere. Best case scenario is if Warners has a good digital version
done for Homevid, as it seems to be the last Cinerama title that isn't
already being (reportedly) released to DVD.
Garan Grey
Dec 23, 2011, 10:19:36 AM12/23/11
to
> <confused>
>
> If Crest Labs created a new print ten years ago, was this before the
> negative was water damaged or was it from other elements ?
>
> Has this print ever been screened anywhere ?
>
> Scoville.
I think I began the confusion by not clipping out Marty's reference to
>
> If Crest Labs created a new print ten years ago, was this before the
> negative was water damaged or was it from other elements ?
>
> Has this print ever been screened anywhere ?
>
> Scoville.
TIC in my first reply. I'm rusty at this.
Martin Hart
Dec 23, 2011, 2:27:58 PM12/23/11
to
In article <aa463ec4-887c-48c4-8b3c-6cc54e1e01f4
@f15g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, gara...@gmail.com says...
No prints of GRIMM have been made since its original three strip run. It
would seem that most of the original prints were chopped up into banjo
picks, which is why John Harvey wasn't able to assemble a full print of
it.
@f15g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, gara...@gmail.com says...
would seem that most of the original prints were chopped up into banjo
picks, which is why John Harvey wasn't able to assemble a full print of
it.
Garan Grey
Dec 24, 2011, 9:46:24 AM12/24/11
to
On Dec 23, 11:27 am, Martin Hart
good print of WWOTBG was discovered, perhaps from Australia. What
we're asking is if this good print of WWOTBG isn't good enough to
master a DVD from, and, (since it has been announced they will show
WWOTB at the Dome for the 60th anni fest.) will they also show that
print in the US.
We would hope that at least SOME kind of effort is put into making a
good BluRay of WWOTBG, (even if they can't afford to go back and
restore the legendary waterdamaged negs) because at this point is is
the ONLY 3-strip title not slated for Homevid DVD release. The fact
of the water damaged negs is even more reason someone should at least
do a scan of this one "good" print if just for archival purposes.
<martinh...@spamfreewidescreenmuseum.com> wrote:
Since it has been announced that WWOTBG
> > will be shown at the Dome next year, and you have been discussing a 3-
> > strip screening of it in Bradford, I was asking if that's what they'll
> > show at the Dome and hoping they could scan that along with the others.
>
> No prints of GRIMM have been made since its original three strip run. It
> would seem that most of the original prints were chopped up into banjo
> picks, which is why John Harvey wasn't able to assemble a full print of
> it.
>
> Marty
> --
> The American WideScreen Museumwww.widescreenmuseum.com
Yes, we got that, but you just recently said, in this thread, that a
Since it has been announced that WWOTBG
> > will be shown at the Dome next year, and you have been discussing a 3-
> > strip screening of it in Bradford, I was asking if that's what they'll
> > show at the Dome and hoping they could scan that along with the others.
>
> No prints of GRIMM have been made since its original three strip run. It
> would seem that most of the original prints were chopped up into banjo
> picks, which is why John Harvey wasn't able to assemble a full print of
> it.
>
> Marty
> --
> The American WideScreen Museumwww.widescreenmuseum.com
good print of WWOTBG was discovered, perhaps from Australia. What
we're asking is if this good print of WWOTBG isn't good enough to
master a DVD from, and, (since it has been announced they will show
WWOTB at the Dome for the 60th anni fest.) will they also show that
print in the US.
We would hope that at least SOME kind of effort is put into making a
good BluRay of WWOTBG, (even if they can't afford to go back and
restore the legendary waterdamaged negs) because at this point is is
the ONLY 3-strip title not slated for Homevid DVD release. The fact
of the water damaged negs is even more reason someone should at least
do a scan of this one "good" print if just for archival purposes.
Garan Grey
Dec 24, 2011, 9:51:33 AM12/24/11
to
> No prints of GRIMM have been made since its original three strip run. It
> would seem that most of the original prints were chopped up into banjo
> picks, which is why John Harvey wasn't able to assemble a full print of
> it.
>
> Marty
> --
> The American WideScreen Museumwww.widescreenmuseum.com
As we know GRIMM was distributed in 35mm after its 3-strip roadshow
> would seem that most of the original prints were chopped up into banjo
> picks, which is why John Harvey wasn't able to assemble a full print of
> it.
>
> Marty
> --
> The American WideScreen Museumwww.widescreenmuseum.com
engagements, I imagine you mean no new 3 strip prints were made since
then. This we knew. We weren't really asking that.
We've heard much ado about how TIC is being mastered for video from a
35mm composite print. Why can't GRIMM be remastered from one, too?
Garan Grey
Dec 24, 2011, 10:02:02 AM12/24/11
to
I get the sense, frankly, that the Cinerama insiders regard WWOTBG as
the bastard at the family reunion, as every time it comes up, it is
summarily dismissed with the same old excuse of the water damaged
negs. I'm aware not all of you like this film, but many of us who buy
videos DO like it.
For the record, I find TIC is dated and often dull, on a par with
watching paint dry in some sequences, and it's not the first Cinerama
title I'd have on my list. For the added entertainment value of an
actual story and steller cast, WWOTBG -IS- at the top if my list of
Cinerama titles I would buy.
I think it is a reasonable question - since TIC is being mastered from
a 35mm composite scope print, why isn't ANY kind of effort being made
to find a "good" element of Grimm to master from? If not a 35 scope,
(like the one used for the GRIMM laserdisc and recurring TCM
broadcast) how about this newly discovered "good" 3 strip print?
Even if the Cinerama insiders don't really like it, there are others
who do, and it looks very fishy that it is the ONLY 3 strip title not
already being remastered, or "restored" [sic] for DVD. If they are
mastering TIC from 35mm scope, then the damaged negs for GRIMM are no
excuse.
the bastard at the family reunion, as every time it comes up, it is
summarily dismissed with the same old excuse of the water damaged
negs. I'm aware not all of you like this film, but many of us who buy
videos DO like it.
For the record, I find TIC is dated and often dull, on a par with
watching paint dry in some sequences, and it's not the first Cinerama
title I'd have on my list. For the added entertainment value of an
actual story and steller cast, WWOTBG -IS- at the top if my list of
Cinerama titles I would buy.
I think it is a reasonable question - since TIC is being mastered from
a 35mm composite scope print, why isn't ANY kind of effort being made
to find a "good" element of Grimm to master from? If not a 35 scope,
(like the one used for the GRIMM laserdisc and recurring TCM
broadcast) how about this newly discovered "good" 3 strip print?
Even if the Cinerama insiders don't really like it, there are others
who do, and it looks very fishy that it is the ONLY 3 strip title not
already being remastered, or "restored" [sic] for DVD. If they are
mastering TIC from 35mm scope, then the damaged negs for GRIMM are no
excuse.
Martin Hart
Dec 24, 2011, 3:55:37 PM12/24/11
to
In article <5b843785-b3aa-47eb-b11c-5271746e65a6
@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, gara...@gmail.com says...
TIC's digital remastering is done from the 65mm composite negative used
for the 70mm release around 1972. In some segments the original three
strip negative was used and in others it was necessary to go to the
silver separations. Getting all this stuff color matched was quite a
task.
WINDJAMMER was digitally remastered from a 35mm composite negative.
Many segments of the original three-strip negative had been cut and were
not locatable.
Doing a video transfer from a three-strip IB Technicolor print, such as
GRIMM, is not the optimum choice. Projection prints, especially
Technicolor IB, have a much greater contrast than pre-print materials
and shadow detail would disappear. I have no idea where the 35mm
composite negative is.
Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukka to all,
@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, gara...@gmail.com says...
for the 70mm release around 1972. In some segments the original three
strip negative was used and in others it was necessary to go to the
silver separations. Getting all this stuff color matched was quite a
task.
WINDJAMMER was digitally remastered from a 35mm composite negative.
Many segments of the original three-strip negative had been cut and were
not locatable.
Doing a video transfer from a three-strip IB Technicolor print, such as
GRIMM, is not the optimum choice. Projection prints, especially
Technicolor IB, have a much greater contrast than pre-print materials
and shadow detail would disappear. I have no idea where the 35mm
composite negative is.
Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukka to all,
roland....@sbcglobal.net
Dec 25, 2011, 4:06:28 PM12/25/11
to
On Dec 24, 3:55 pm, Martin Hart
> @b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, garang...@gmail.com says...
> The American WideScreen Museumwww.widescreenmuseum.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The 3-strip films that are being restored for a possible (need to find
a distributor) video release in 2012 or 2013 are TIC, Windjammer,
Cinerama Holiday", "Seven Wonders of the World", "Search For
Paradise", "South Seas Adventure and possibly "Russian Adventure".
These titles are owned by Cinerama. Grimm is owned by Warner Brothers
so, they would have to restore and release it. I don't think it will
ever happen as it would cost a lot of money to restore and very few
people would buy it. I would but, I'm in that minority.
> @b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, garang...@gmail.com says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
The 3-strip films that are being restored for a possible (need to find
a distributor) video release in 2012 or 2013 are TIC, Windjammer,
Cinerama Holiday", "Seven Wonders of the World", "Search For
Paradise", "South Seas Adventure and possibly "Russian Adventure".
These titles are owned by Cinerama. Grimm is owned by Warner Brothers
so, they would have to restore and release it. I don't think it will
ever happen as it would cost a lot of money to restore and very few
people would buy it. I would but, I'm in that minority.
grand...@hotmail.com
Dec 25, 2011, 7:59:50 PM12/25/11
to
On Dec 26, 8:06 am, "roland.latai...@sbcglobal.net"
> > The American WideScreen Museumwww.widescreenmuseum.com-Hide quoted text -
Cinerama. It had some very wooden performances from Laurence Harvey
and Karl Boehm but the rest of the cast were superb. Martia Hunt was
one of the finest actor's of her generation and her performance is
well worth getting a copy.I don't believe the story that the original
negatives were water damaged like the other documentaries were due to
bad storage. The music is fantastic and unforgettable.If they could
release it on video then why not dvd?
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The 3-strip films that are being restored for a possible (need to find
> a distributor) video release in 2012 or 2013 are TIC, Windjammer,
> Cinerama Holiday", "Seven Wonders of the World", "Search For
> Paradise", "South Seas Adventure and possibly "Russian Adventure".
> These titles are owned by Cinerama. Grimm is owned by Warner Brothers
> so, they would have to restore and release it. I don't think it will
> ever happen as it would cost a lot of money to restore and very few
> people would buy it. I would but, I'm in that minority.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The 3-strip films that are being restored for a possible (need to find
> a distributor) video release in 2012 or 2013 are TIC, Windjammer,
> Cinerama Holiday", "Seven Wonders of the World", "Search For
> Paradise", "South Seas Adventure and possibly "Russian Adventure".
> These titles are owned by Cinerama. Grimm is owned by Warner Brothers
> so, they would have to restore and release it. I don't think it will
> ever happen as it would cost a lot of money to restore and very few
>
> - Show quoted text -
I saw Brothers Grimm several times when originally released in
> - Show quoted text -
Cinerama. It had some very wooden performances from Laurence Harvey
and Karl Boehm but the rest of the cast were superb. Martia Hunt was
one of the finest actor's of her generation and her performance is
well worth getting a copy.I don't believe the story that the original
negatives were water damaged like the other documentaries were due to
bad storage. The music is fantastic and unforgettable.If they could
release it on video then why not dvd?
Derek Gee
Dec 25, 2011, 11:28:31 PM12/25/11
to
"Garan Grey" <gara...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:56f6f277-247a-4695...@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
negatives, not a 35 scope negative.
Warner's could release a DVD or Blu-ray mastered from the 35mm scope
negatives, but it would almost certainly have to be through the Warner
archive program. There's not likely enough buyers of that title to press a
run of DVD's even.
Derek
news:56f6f277-247a-4695...@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> I think it is a reasonable question - since TIC is being mastered from
> a 35mm composite scope print, why isn't ANY kind of effort being made
> to find a "good" element of Grimm to master from? If not a 35 scope,
> (like the one used for the GRIMM laserdisc and recurring TCM
> broadcast) how about this newly discovered "good" 3 strip print?
Did you miss Marty's earlier post? TIC is being mastered from 65mm
> a 35mm composite scope print, why isn't ANY kind of effort being made
> to find a "good" element of Grimm to master from? If not a 35 scope,
> (like the one used for the GRIMM laserdisc and recurring TCM
> broadcast) how about this newly discovered "good" 3 strip print?
negatives, not a 35 scope negative.
Warner's could release a DVD or Blu-ray mastered from the 35mm scope
negatives, but it would almost certainly have to be through the Warner
archive program. There's not likely enough buyers of that title to press a
run of DVD's even.
Derek
Martin Hart
Dec 26, 2011, 6:11:44 PM12/26/11
to
In article <8cd7cd90-066e-45de-9b98-3b6f8a97e547
@j9g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, roland....@sbcglobal.net says...
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The 3-strip films that are being restored for a possible (need to find
> a distributor) video release in 2012 or 2013 are TIC, Windjammer,
> Cinerama Holiday", "Seven Wonders of the World", "Search For
> Paradise", "South Seas Adventure and possibly "Russian Adventure".
> These titles are owned by Cinerama. Grimm is owned by Warner Brothers
> so, they would have to restore and release it. I don't think it will
> ever happen as it would cost a lot of money to restore and very few
> people would buy it. I would but, I'm in that minority.
>
Slight correction: GRIMM is jointly owned by Warners and Cinerama, like
HTWWW. The film does not have the audience draw of HTWWW and it's hard
to justify putting too much money into a GRIMM project.
@j9g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, roland....@sbcglobal.net says...
> On Dec 24, 3:55 pm, Martin Hart
> <martinh...@spamfreewidescreenmuseum.com> wrote:
> > In article <5b843785-b3aa-47eb-b11c-5271746e65a6
> > @b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, garang...@gmail.com says...
<SNIP>
> <martinh...@spamfreewidescreenmuseum.com> wrote:
> > In article <5b843785-b3aa-47eb-b11c-5271746e65a6
> > @b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, garang...@gmail.com says...
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The 3-strip films that are being restored for a possible (need to find
> a distributor) video release in 2012 or 2013 are TIC, Windjammer,
> Cinerama Holiday", "Seven Wonders of the World", "Search For
> Paradise", "South Seas Adventure and possibly "Russian Adventure".
> These titles are owned by Cinerama. Grimm is owned by Warner Brothers
> so, they would have to restore and release it. I don't think it will
> ever happen as it would cost a lot of money to restore and very few
> people would buy it. I would but, I'm in that minority.
>
HTWWW. The film does not have the audience draw of HTWWW and it's hard
to justify putting too much money into a GRIMM project.
Garan Grey
Dec 27, 2011, 4:55:02 PM12/27/11
to
On Dec 26, 3:11 pm, Martin Hart
<martinh...@spamfreewidescreenmuseum.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> Slight correction: GRIMM is jointly owned by Warners and Cinerama, like
> HTWWW. The film does not have the audience draw of HTWWW and it's hard
> to justify putting too much money into a GRIMM project.
>
> Marty
First of all, I think the decision to master ALL the other 3 strip
movies except HTWW (already done) and WWOTBG (the only one left) would
not have been made without SOME kind of knowledge of who would most
likely distribute them.
Cinerama inc, a/k/a Pacific, are not exactly philanthropists, nor
(lest we forget the Dome battle) are they preservationists. I don't
believe they would spend a dime on mastering these titles unless it
was someone else's, or they have an assured payoff lined up.
As for the opinion that Grimm hasn't the audience draw of HTWWW,
that's an opinion, from people who are more partial to WEST and don't
really like Grimm.
Let's put this in perspective. As for limited audience appeal, How
many people do you think will buy those Cinerama travelogues? I don't
believe that Grimm has less appeal than ANY of the travelogues. It
has musical comedy, animation, stories, stars and family appeal. The
travelogues are quaint novelties. They deserve to be released, but no
more than Grimm does.
I can't imagine that the travelogues have much hope of being released
as anything but a boxed set, and even then, (beyond the limited amount
of buffs and collectors) they wouldn't have much wide appeal without
West and, to complete the set, Grimm.
Warners are famous for double and triple dipping on catalogue titles,
(most recently reissuing Wonka 3 times on Blu Ray without really
remastering it) so a WB "Complete Cinerama Collection" seems likely,
and the best hope the travelogues have, unless they get a deal for MOD
or with a fringe company that does only a small run of every title.
In that case, they get little fanfare, no great payoff, and frankly no
more attention or profit than Grimm would get if released on its own.
And no one has yet answered my question about whether the newly
discovered 3 strip print is what the Dome plans to show. I would
think it's either that or a videotape of the old TCM transfer.
<martinh...@spamfreewidescreenmuseum.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> Slight correction: GRIMM is jointly owned by Warners and Cinerama, like
> HTWWW. The film does not have the audience draw of HTWWW and it's hard
> to justify putting too much money into a GRIMM project.
>
> Marty
movies except HTWW (already done) and WWOTBG (the only one left) would
not have been made without SOME kind of knowledge of who would most
likely distribute them.
Cinerama inc, a/k/a Pacific, are not exactly philanthropists, nor
(lest we forget the Dome battle) are they preservationists. I don't
believe they would spend a dime on mastering these titles unless it
was someone else's, or they have an assured payoff lined up.
As for the opinion that Grimm hasn't the audience draw of HTWWW,
that's an opinion, from people who are more partial to WEST and don't
really like Grimm.
Let's put this in perspective. As for limited audience appeal, How
many people do you think will buy those Cinerama travelogues? I don't
believe that Grimm has less appeal than ANY of the travelogues. It
has musical comedy, animation, stories, stars and family appeal. The
travelogues are quaint novelties. They deserve to be released, but no
more than Grimm does.
I can't imagine that the travelogues have much hope of being released
as anything but a boxed set, and even then, (beyond the limited amount
of buffs and collectors) they wouldn't have much wide appeal without
West and, to complete the set, Grimm.
Warners are famous for double and triple dipping on catalogue titles,
(most recently reissuing Wonka 3 times on Blu Ray without really
remastering it) so a WB "Complete Cinerama Collection" seems likely,
and the best hope the travelogues have, unless they get a deal for MOD
or with a fringe company that does only a small run of every title.
In that case, they get little fanfare, no great payoff, and frankly no
more attention or profit than Grimm would get if released on its own.
And no one has yet answered my question about whether the newly
discovered 3 strip print is what the Dome plans to show. I would
think it's either that or a videotape of the old TCM transfer.
Garan Grey
Dec 27, 2011, 5:20:30 PM12/27/11
to
On Dec 25, 1:06 pm, "roland.latai...@sbcglobal.net"
> > The American WideScreen Museumwww.widescreenmuseum.com-Hide quoted text -
restored, nor was TIC. They made new prints, and did some digital
cosmetics for video. This does not constitute a restoration. All the
travelogues are being mastered for the best affordable video. That's
not a restoration either.
If the travelogues are being scanned for 3-strip, why not Grimm? Only
difference in putting Grimm on video is a second party (WB) to help
pay for it and working from a print rather than a neg, but that (3
strip) print still has more detail than the conventional 35mm neg they
master most movies from.
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The 3-strip films that are being restored for a possible (need to find
> a distributor) video release in 2012 or 2013 are TIC, Windjammer,
> Cinerama Holiday", "Seven Wonders of the World", "Search For
> Paradise", "South Seas Adventure and possibly "Russian Adventure".
> These titles are owned by Cinerama. Grimm is owned by Warner Brothers
> so, they would have to restore and release it. I don't think it will
> ever happen as it would cost a lot of money to restore and very few
> people would buy it. I would but, I'm in that minority.
Let's not throw that word "restore" around, because HTWWW was not
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The 3-strip films that are being restored for a possible (need to find
> a distributor) video release in 2012 or 2013 are TIC, Windjammer,
> Cinerama Holiday", "Seven Wonders of the World", "Search For
> Paradise", "South Seas Adventure and possibly "Russian Adventure".
> These titles are owned by Cinerama. Grimm is owned by Warner Brothers
> so, they would have to restore and release it. I don't think it will
> ever happen as it would cost a lot of money to restore and very few
> people would buy it. I would but, I'm in that minority.
restored, nor was TIC. They made new prints, and did some digital
cosmetics for video. This does not constitute a restoration. All the
travelogues are being mastered for the best affordable video. That's
not a restoration either.
If the travelogues are being scanned for 3-strip, why not Grimm? Only
difference in putting Grimm on video is a second party (WB) to help
pay for it and working from a print rather than a neg, but that (3
strip) print still has more detail than the conventional 35mm neg they
master most movies from.
Garan Grey
Dec 27, 2011, 5:31:01 PM12/27/11
to
On Dec 25, 8:28 pm, "Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMSU...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com>
wrote:
> Did you miss Marty's earlier post? TIC is being mastered from 65mm negatives, not a 35 scope negative.
Okay. So?
> Warner's could release a DVD or Blu-ray mastered from the 35mm scope negatives, but it would almost certainly have to be through the Warner archive program. There's not likely enough buyers of that title to press a run of DVD's even.
>
> Derek
And you think there is likely enough buyers for these old travelogues
to warrant a wide BluRay release?
wrote:
> Did you miss Marty's earlier post? TIC is being mastered from 65mm negatives, not a 35 scope negative.
> Warner's could release a DVD or Blu-ray mastered from the 35mm scope negatives, but it would almost certainly have to be through the Warner archive program. There's not likely enough buyers of that title to press a run of DVD's even.
>
> Derek
to warrant a wide BluRay release?
Derek Gee
Dec 29, 2011, 10:44:31 PM12/29/11
to
"Garan Grey" <gara...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6a0cb651-e21a-4f3c...@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 25, 8:28 pm, "Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMSU...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com>
wrote:
>> Did you miss Marty's earlier post? TIC is being mastered from 65mm
>> negatives, not a >>35 scope negative.
>Okay. So?
So quit posting otherwise. That's a much better element to master from.
wrote:
>> Did you miss Marty's earlier post? TIC is being mastered from 65mm
>> negatives, not a >>35 scope negative.
>Okay. So?
>> Warner's could release a DVD or Blu-ray mastered from the 35mm scope
>> negatives, but >>it would almost certainly have to be through the Warner
>> archive program. There's not >>likely enough buyers of that title to
>> press a run of DVD's even.
>And you think there is likely enough buyers for these old travelogues
>to warrant a wide BluRay release?
I think there's a market for TIC due to it's historical importance. The
>to warrant a wide BluRay release?
others not so much. You could probably justify a manufacture-on-demand
(MOD) or download release of those titles, but if you think you're going to
see them in your local Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, etc. I think that
extremely unlikely.
Derek
Garan Grey
Dec 30, 2011, 4:27:21 AM12/30/11
to
On Dec 29, 7:44 pm, "Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMSU...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com>
wrote:
> That's a much better element to master from.
>
because they are being mastered on a budget - for best AFFORDABLE
quality rather than for best AVAILABLE quality. Otherwise why not go
back to the seps and have Warners do an UltraRes job...
I don't really care if TIC is being mastered from an old 65mm
composite or an old 35mm composite, it's NOT being mastered from 3
strip. (maybe they went back to the seps for brief missing shots)
Working from a scan of the 3 strip print of Grimm that Marty says is
good enough to run might potentially yield a much more detailed
picture even if it IS a print, because the image is bigger than you
would get from a composite, 65mm or otherwise. If any of the
travelogues is being scanned for video from 3 strip, Grimm ought to be
as well.
I think the amount of people who would buy TIC for its "historical
importance" is dwindling as we speak, and certainly not enough to
warrant anymore than an MOD or limited run release, unless maybe it is
bundled with something of broader appeal. I never expected ANY of
these titles to show up at WalMart, although if you gave WalMart's
buyers a choice of all the remaining 3 strip titles, they would easily
pick Grimm over any of the travelogues. Look at their demographic,
and look at the content of one vs. the others. It's a no brainer.
One might argue the same is true of WalMart's typical customer, but
hey, majority rules. And that majority is going to find more
entertainment value in Grimm than in all the travelogues put
together.
Since you brought it up, take any typical customer at Wal-Mart,
Target, Best Buy, etc., show them any of the travelogues, tell them
"this is an historically significant piece of filmmaking that drew
audiences to specially equipped theatres and changed they way movies
are... " blahblahblah is what it would sound like from the word
"historic" on. Then show them this musical comedy about the Grimm
brothers who wrote fairy tales, with puppets, a dragon, the girl from
"I Dream of Jeannie" and Buddy Hackett... the blahblahblah might begin
shortly after puppets and a dragon, but that will sell to Joe Public a
heck of a lot more than any epic travelogue. Which is why it's
strange and sad that the Cinerama insiders and enthusiasts are always
turning up their noses at it. Even Cinerama Adventure makes it barely
a footnote.
And for the record, I might likely be willing to buy all the Cinerama
travelogues if they were well produced and reasonably priced, but I'd
still buy Grimm first and watch it more than all the others. It's not
perfect, but I find it more entertaining. Of course it's no Sound of
Music, (okay Marty, it's no South Pacific either) but TIC isn't even
close. How many times can Average Joe Public sit through a long
procession of candle bearing singers or fly over landscapes or float
through a dirty canal or watch 50s era waterskiers do old stunts?
Rollercoasters, bobsleds, etc, yeah it;s cool in context but kids
today play hidef video games that make all that stuff look like a
picture postcard in front of an Imax screen.
Anyone who thinks these old travelogues would sell better than Grimm
is ignoring a lot of facts. I think there's a chance they would sell
better if BUNDLED with Grimm and best if they came with Grimm and West
as a set. Throw in the 3 strip trailers and that promised but not
delivered "Making of" on West (which could easily be expanded to
include Grimm) and then put it in a snazzy Warner box with some
programs and doodads and then you'd have big box greater than the sum
of its parts that might sell a few at the big box stores.
PS: Grimm Bros were was also the source of two primetime TV series:
Once Upon a Time on ABC and GRIMM on NBC, which was named by Nielsen
as the number one most engaging show of the season. (certainly
different in tone but name recognition nonetheless) - what current
program can you link those Cinerama travelogues to?
wrote:
> That's a much better element to master from.
>
> I think there's a market for TIC due to it's historical importance. The
> others not so much. You could probably justify a manufacture-on-demand
> (MOD) or download release of those titles, but if you think you're going to
> see them in your local Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, etc. I think that
> extremely unlikely.
>
> Derek
Clearly somebody knows these travelogues are not going to sell well
> others not so much. You could probably justify a manufacture-on-demand
> (MOD) or download release of those titles, but if you think you're going to
> see them in your local Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, etc. I think that
> extremely unlikely.
>
> Derek
because they are being mastered on a budget - for best AFFORDABLE
quality rather than for best AVAILABLE quality. Otherwise why not go
back to the seps and have Warners do an UltraRes job...
I don't really care if TIC is being mastered from an old 65mm
composite or an old 35mm composite, it's NOT being mastered from 3
strip. (maybe they went back to the seps for brief missing shots)
Working from a scan of the 3 strip print of Grimm that Marty says is
good enough to run might potentially yield a much more detailed
picture even if it IS a print, because the image is bigger than you
would get from a composite, 65mm or otherwise. If any of the
travelogues is being scanned for video from 3 strip, Grimm ought to be
as well.
I think the amount of people who would buy TIC for its "historical
importance" is dwindling as we speak, and certainly not enough to
warrant anymore than an MOD or limited run release, unless maybe it is
bundled with something of broader appeal. I never expected ANY of
these titles to show up at WalMart, although if you gave WalMart's
buyers a choice of all the remaining 3 strip titles, they would easily
pick Grimm over any of the travelogues. Look at their demographic,
and look at the content of one vs. the others. It's a no brainer.
One might argue the same is true of WalMart's typical customer, but
hey, majority rules. And that majority is going to find more
entertainment value in Grimm than in all the travelogues put
together.
Since you brought it up, take any typical customer at Wal-Mart,
Target, Best Buy, etc., show them any of the travelogues, tell them
"this is an historically significant piece of filmmaking that drew
audiences to specially equipped theatres and changed they way movies
are... " blahblahblah is what it would sound like from the word
"historic" on. Then show them this musical comedy about the Grimm
brothers who wrote fairy tales, with puppets, a dragon, the girl from
"I Dream of Jeannie" and Buddy Hackett... the blahblahblah might begin
shortly after puppets and a dragon, but that will sell to Joe Public a
heck of a lot more than any epic travelogue. Which is why it's
strange and sad that the Cinerama insiders and enthusiasts are always
turning up their noses at it. Even Cinerama Adventure makes it barely
a footnote.
And for the record, I might likely be willing to buy all the Cinerama
travelogues if they were well produced and reasonably priced, but I'd
still buy Grimm first and watch it more than all the others. It's not
perfect, but I find it more entertaining. Of course it's no Sound of
Music, (okay Marty, it's no South Pacific either) but TIC isn't even
close. How many times can Average Joe Public sit through a long
procession of candle bearing singers or fly over landscapes or float
through a dirty canal or watch 50s era waterskiers do old stunts?
Rollercoasters, bobsleds, etc, yeah it;s cool in context but kids
today play hidef video games that make all that stuff look like a
picture postcard in front of an Imax screen.
Anyone who thinks these old travelogues would sell better than Grimm
is ignoring a lot of facts. I think there's a chance they would sell
better if BUNDLED with Grimm and best if they came with Grimm and West
as a set. Throw in the 3 strip trailers and that promised but not
delivered "Making of" on West (which could easily be expanded to
include Grimm) and then put it in a snazzy Warner box with some
programs and doodads and then you'd have big box greater than the sum
of its parts that might sell a few at the big box stores.
PS: Grimm Bros were was also the source of two primetime TV series:
Once Upon a Time on ABC and GRIMM on NBC, which was named by Nielsen
as the number one most engaging show of the season. (certainly
different in tone but name recognition nonetheless) - what current
program can you link those Cinerama travelogues to?
Derek Gee
Jan 1, 2012, 1:24:31 AM1/1/12
to
"Garan Grey" <gara...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d31a13ca-e5b8-4606...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>Clearly somebody knows these travelogues are not going to sell well
>because they are being mastered on a budget - for best AFFORDABLE
>quality rather than for best AVAILABLE quality. Otherwise why not go
>back to the seps and have Warners do an UltraRes job...
Correct, none of the other Cinerama titles will sell well enough to recoup
>because they are being mastered on a budget - for best AFFORDABLE
>quality rather than for best AVAILABLE quality. Otherwise why not go
>back to the seps and have Warners do an UltraRes job...
the money it would cost to do an UltraRes type video transfer. I'm sure the
past sales data for the VHS and LD versions of Grimm are there for Warner
Home Video and Cinerama Inc. to compare to.
>I don't really care if TIC is being mastered from an old 65mm
>composite or an old 35mm composite, it's NOT being mastered from 3
>strip. (maybe they went back to the seps for brief missing shots)
>Working from a scan of the 3 strip print of Grimm that Marty says is
>good enough to run might potentially yield a much more detailed
>picture even if it IS a print, because the image is bigger than you
>would get from a composite, 65mm or otherwise. If any of the
>travelogues is being scanned for video from 3 strip, Grimm ought to be
>as well.
real good. As one telecine technician wrote "...those are much too dark
and dense for telecine (or modern-day scanning), plus they're an extra
couple of generations down. " Translation - nobody's going to do what you
propose, even if the private owner of the Grimm 3-strip print will allow it!
As far as all your other arguments about sales - if you're that concerned
about Grimm, write Michael Foreman a letter and see if he'll fund scanning
that one too. He's the one to convince, not any of us here. You'll also
have to convince Warner Home Video to permit the scanning and release of the
video. Good luck!
Derek
Garan Grey
Jan 1, 2012, 8:27:39 AM1/1/12
to
On Dec 31 2011, 10:24 pm, "Derek Gee"
""Windjammer" was recreated from a 35mm anamorphic copy that was in
Denmark. A number of sections of the OCN were missing or damaged. The
35mm anamorphic print was badly faded but in good shape physically
and
there was enough of all three color channels to allow them to be put
back into balance. I have a DVD copy of the final version and I
think
it looks substantially better than the digital presentation shown at
the
Dome last year."
So Windjammer was mastered from a PRINT, not a negative. And again,
Marty has also said how much more picture detail there is on a 3-
strip. In addition, the people doing the scans from the 3-strips
would tell you they can indeed get something good from that Grimm
print if they were asked.
So you can go back and forth with technical opinion forever, but with
all the various fudging and cobbling together from various formats,
and digital manipulation being done for all the other 3 strip films,
you can't convince me that there isn't SOMETHING they couldn't do with
Grimm if they were to make the effort. No one with any authority has
said that there is absolutely nothing available to master Grimm from.
And there aren't any sales figures you can quote to prove that today's
market will support TIC or any of the other Cinerama travelogue
antiquities beyond the diehard collectors, who would want Grimm just
as much.
<dgeeSPAMSU...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote:
> Running a IB Tech print of Grimm through a telecine is not going to look
> real good. As one telecine technician wrote "...those are much too dark
> and dense for telecine (or modern-day scanning), plus they're an extra
> couple of generations down. "
Did you miss Marty's earlier posts? he said:
> Running a IB Tech print of Grimm through a telecine is not going to look
> real good. As one telecine technician wrote "...those are much too dark
> and dense for telecine (or modern-day scanning), plus they're an extra
> couple of generations down. "
""Windjammer" was recreated from a 35mm anamorphic copy that was in
Denmark. A number of sections of the OCN were missing or damaged. The
35mm anamorphic print was badly faded but in good shape physically
and
there was enough of all three color channels to allow them to be put
back into balance. I have a DVD copy of the final version and I
think
it looks substantially better than the digital presentation shown at
the
Dome last year."
So Windjammer was mastered from a PRINT, not a negative. And again,
Marty has also said how much more picture detail there is on a 3-
strip. In addition, the people doing the scans from the 3-strips
would tell you they can indeed get something good from that Grimm
print if they were asked.
So you can go back and forth with technical opinion forever, but with
all the various fudging and cobbling together from various formats,
and digital manipulation being done for all the other 3 strip films,
you can't convince me that there isn't SOMETHING they couldn't do with
Grimm if they were to make the effort. No one with any authority has
said that there is absolutely nothing available to master Grimm from.
And there aren't any sales figures you can quote to prove that today's
market will support TIC or any of the other Cinerama travelogue
antiquities beyond the diehard collectors, who would want Grimm just
as much.
Garan Grey
Jan 1, 2012, 7:44:16 AM1/1/12
to
On Dec 31 2011, 10:24 pm, "Derek Gee"
<dgeeSPAMSU...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote:
> "Garan Grey" <garang...@gmail.com> wrote in message
If Warner wanted, they could take possession of that print anytime
they wanted. They've certainly done it before. Where the luck is
really needed is selling ANY of the travelogues without something to
attach them to, And if you think Foreman is really funding this out
of his own pocket...
<dgeeSPAMSU...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote:
> "Garan Grey" <garang...@gmail.com> wrote in message
they wanted. They've certainly done it before. Where the luck is
really needed is selling ANY of the travelogues without something to
attach them to, And if you think Foreman is really funding this out
of his own pocket...
Garan Grey
Jan 1, 2012, 9:03:21 AM1/1/12
to
To clarify a bit here, Marty has made two statements about mastering
Windjammer, one says they used a copy; a print, and later he says they
used a negative. Both 35mm composites. He also says the IB 3 strip
of Grimm would not be Optimum, but how many of the other Cinerama
movies are being mastered from an Optimum source??
An anamorphic composite was obviously used to master the current (post-
laserdisc) transfer of Grimm being shown on TCM. No one has come
forward to say that that element, or every existing source for Grimm
is lost, damaged, or unavailable. So with the kind of effort being
put into the other Cinerama films there is really no proof that they
could not put similar effort into remastering Grimm. If someone
wanted to...
Were Grimm remastered, it could play on any HiDef movie channel, you
see similar old family musical comedy movies there all the time.
Where would TIC run beyond TCM and maybe The History or Travel
Channel? So no one is going to convince me that is is not possible
to do something with Grimm, or that it has less income potential than
TIC or any of the travelogues.
What I AM convinced of, is that the handful of people who are
interested and involved in Cinerama enough to prod things along, just
don't like the movie.
I would also be very surprised if it were true that Pacific is totally
funding the travelogue transfers out of their own pocket, or without
any kind of deal in place to make at least as much back.
Windjammer, one says they used a copy; a print, and later he says they
used a negative. Both 35mm composites. He also says the IB 3 strip
of Grimm would not be Optimum, but how many of the other Cinerama
movies are being mastered from an Optimum source??
An anamorphic composite was obviously used to master the current (post-
laserdisc) transfer of Grimm being shown on TCM. No one has come
forward to say that that element, or every existing source for Grimm
is lost, damaged, or unavailable. So with the kind of effort being
put into the other Cinerama films there is really no proof that they
could not put similar effort into remastering Grimm. If someone
wanted to...
Were Grimm remastered, it could play on any HiDef movie channel, you
see similar old family musical comedy movies there all the time.
Where would TIC run beyond TCM and maybe The History or Travel
Channel? So no one is going to convince me that is is not possible
to do something with Grimm, or that it has less income potential than
TIC or any of the travelogues.
What I AM convinced of, is that the handful of people who are
interested and involved in Cinerama enough to prod things along, just
don't like the movie.
I would also be very surprised if it were true that Pacific is totally
funding the travelogue transfers out of their own pocket, or without
any kind of deal in place to make at least as much back.
Scott Dorsey
Jan 1, 2012, 9:05:45 AM1/1/12
to
Derek Gee <dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Running a IB Tech print of Grimm through a telecine is not going to look
>real good. As one telecine technician wrote "...those are much too dark
>and dense for telecine (or modern-day scanning), plus they're an extra
>couple of generations down. " Translation - nobody's going to do what you
>propose, even if the private owner of the Grimm 3-strip print will allow it!
There are actually some newer digital scanners that are able to do some
>
>Running a IB Tech print of Grimm through a telecine is not going to look
>real good. As one telecine technician wrote "...those are much too dark
>and dense for telecine (or modern-day scanning), plus they're an extra
>couple of generations down. " Translation - nobody's going to do what you
>propose, even if the private owner of the Grimm 3-strip print will allow it!
decent work from prints. You'll never get the shadow detail that you get
from scanning the negative, but it's not like running it through a film
chain any more.
Jeff Kreines' _Kinetta_ scanner is the first one that comes to mind. I have
had some really fine transfers from 16mm Kodachrome originals done on one
and the shadow density was very well-controlled.
>As far as all your other arguments about sales - if you're that concerned
>about Grimm, write Michael Foreman a letter and see if he'll fund scanning
>that one too. He's the one to convince, not any of us here. You'll also
>have to convince Warner Home Video to permit the scanning and release of the
>video. Good luck!
were free, but that's just me. Perhaps it comes from having been dragged to
see Windjammer as a child.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Derek Gee
Jan 2, 2012, 12:29:17 AM1/2/12
to
"Garan Grey" <gara...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5834e27-fa27-4374...@x20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 31 2011, 10:24 pm, "Derek Gee"
<dgeeSPAMSU...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote:
>> Running a IB Tech print of Grimm through a telecine is not going to look
>> real good. As one telecine technician wrote "...those are much too dark
>> and dense for telecine (or modern-day scanning), plus they're an extra
>> couple of generations down. "
>
>Did you miss Marty's earlier posts? he said:
No, I remembered that. You missed the key part of my post! Windjammer was
<dgeeSPAMSU...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote:
>> Running a IB Tech print of Grimm through a telecine is not going to look
>> real good. As one telecine technician wrote "...those are much too dark
>> and dense for telecine (or modern-day scanning), plus they're an extra
>> couple of generations down. "
>
>Did you miss Marty's earlier posts? he said:
not transferred from an IB Tech print. Not sure if the Grimm prints were
made by Technicolor or not...
And yes, Michael Forman is the money man here, being the principal of
Pacific Theaters, the owner of Cinerama Inc. To quote this webpage:
http://www.in70mm.com/news/2011/cinerama/index.htm
"John (Settig) has been working closely with Michael Forman from Pacific
Theatres, the owners of Cinerama. Michael, a long time board member of the
American Film Institute, is very concerned about film preservation, and has
funded this digital scanning of all the Cinerama three strip travelogue
negatives."
Derek
Derek Gee
Jan 2, 2012, 12:42:15 AM1/2/12
to
"Garan Grey" <gara...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aee2c4c6-f786-4743...@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Were Grimm remastered, it could play on any HiDef movie channel, you
> see similar old family musical comedy movies there all the time.
Really? Where else besides TCM does Grimm run today? Nowhere! You seem to
> see similar old family musical comedy movies there all the time.
be confusing Grimm with family musicals that people actually like, such as
"Oklahoma!" or "The Sound of Music".
> Where would TIC run beyond TCM and maybe The History or Travel
> Channel?
good mood. They rarely screen old movies anymore. History Channel can
hardly be bothered to run history shows anymore. They're too busy running
stuff like Big Shrimpin', Swamp People, Ax Men, or Ice Road Truckers...
Travel Channel? I don't recall ever seeing movies there, but maybe you
could interest them.
>So no one is going to convince me that is is not possible
> to do something with Grimm, or that it has less income potential than
> TIC or any of the travelogues.
you. Write the decision makers involved here (e.g. Forman, Settig), and
quit bothering us with your whiney arguments about why Grimm should get the
same treatment.
Derek
Martin Hart
Jan 3, 2012, 12:35:26 AM1/3/12
to
In article <4f0143b6$0$3821$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com says...
>
> >So no one is going to convince me that is is not possible
> > to do something with Grimm, or that it has less income potential than
> > TIC or any of the travelogues.
>
> Then we should end this discussion now, if it's not possible to convince
> you. Write the decision makers involved here (e.g. Forman, Settig), and
> quit bothering us with your whiney arguments about why Grimm should get the
> same treatment.
>
> Derek
>
Derek, I agree. I was beginning to smell a troll under the bridge on
this topic anyway :-)
dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com says...
>
> >So no one is going to convince me that is is not possible
> > to do something with Grimm, or that it has less income potential than
> > TIC or any of the travelogues.
>
> Then we should end this discussion now, if it's not possible to convince
> you. Write the decision makers involved here (e.g. Forman, Settig), and
> quit bothering us with your whiney arguments about why Grimm should get the
> same treatment.
>
> Derek
>
this topic anyway :-)
roland....@sbcglobal.net
Jan 7, 2012, 2:57:40 PM1/7/12
to
So, who is going? I'll be there. I'll be staying at a timeshare in
Anaheim - use the RCI points or lose them! I know its probably going
to be an hour's drive to the Dome but my wife is coming too. She would
like to do other stuff like going to Disneyland.
Anaheim - use the RCI points or lose them! I know its probably going
to be an hour's drive to the Dome but my wife is coming too. She would
like to do other stuff like going to Disneyland.
roland....@sbcglobal.net
Jan 11, 2012, 1:53:30 PM1/11/12
to
As far as the 3-strip titles being released on Blu-ray, I received the
following from Twilight Time:
"Good Morning Roland - Read your notes with interest. As a matter of
fact we are talking with certain entities about releasing two very
rare and fully restored Cinerama titles. Nothing finalized yet, but
talks ongoing! Have a great day - Best TT"
following from Twilight Time:
"Good Morning Roland - Read your notes with interest. As a matter of
fact we are talking with certain entities about releasing two very
rare and fully restored Cinerama titles. Nothing finalized yet, but
talks ongoing! Have a great day - Best TT"
Garan Grey
Jan 12, 2012, 5:56:01 PM1/12/12
to
Well the others have proven their prejudice against Grimm, refusing to
believe there is any possibility of getting a good video even though
they have no definitive knowledge to back it up. Todays equipment,
more than one credible source can tell you, (and has) could get good
results.
Naming Twilight time, who further the myth that ANY Cinerama titles
have been "restored" proves my point that the best chance the
travelogue titles have is from a company that produces a limited run
unless Warner does a big box.
People who buy the PR re Cinerama's owner being a "preservationist"
forget that they tried to look like a good guy while determined to
trash the Cinerama Dome, (flat screen where the seats are, boring a
hole into the dome for an escalator and putting a fastfood franchise
in the lobby) The ONLY thing that stopped them was legal action that
would have stopped public funds from contributing to it. And again,
if you ask someone like Robert Harris, what's being done to the
travelogues is NOT a restoration.
Meanwhile, elsewhere on the web was an article posted announcing
Warner Archives intention to release Grimm, and pointing out that
there has been a subsequent transfer of Grimm (running on TCM complete
with elements that were not available for the laserdisc). The date on
it doesn't make it any less interesting.
http://criterioncast.com/2011/02/03/the-warner-archive-is-bringing-the-herculoids-and-the-wonderful-world-of-the-brothers-grimm-to-dvd-in-2011/
When people smugly pontificate about something, they can call someone
who disagrees and doubts them a troll, but again that also proves my
point.
Points proven, I'm done.
believe there is any possibility of getting a good video even though
they have no definitive knowledge to back it up. Todays equipment,
more than one credible source can tell you, (and has) could get good
results.
Naming Twilight time, who further the myth that ANY Cinerama titles
have been "restored" proves my point that the best chance the
travelogue titles have is from a company that produces a limited run
unless Warner does a big box.
People who buy the PR re Cinerama's owner being a "preservationist"
forget that they tried to look like a good guy while determined to
trash the Cinerama Dome, (flat screen where the seats are, boring a
hole into the dome for an escalator and putting a fastfood franchise
in the lobby) The ONLY thing that stopped them was legal action that
would have stopped public funds from contributing to it. And again,
if you ask someone like Robert Harris, what's being done to the
travelogues is NOT a restoration.
Meanwhile, elsewhere on the web was an article posted announcing
Warner Archives intention to release Grimm, and pointing out that
there has been a subsequent transfer of Grimm (running on TCM complete
with elements that were not available for the laserdisc). The date on
it doesn't make it any less interesting.
http://criterioncast.com/2011/02/03/the-warner-archive-is-bringing-the-herculoids-and-the-wonderful-world-of-the-brothers-grimm-to-dvd-in-2011/
When people smugly pontificate about something, they can call someone
who disagrees and doubts them a troll, but again that also proves my
point.
Points proven, I'm done.
Derek Gee
Jan 13, 2012, 6:44:09 PM1/13/12
to
"Garan Grey" <gara...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:92277f08-e3d0-462a...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> Points proven, I'm done.
Yes, you are. Welcome to my killfile. *PLONK*
D
Garan Grey
Jan 14, 2012, 2:16:22 AM1/14/12
to
On Jan 13, 3:44 pm, "Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMSU...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com>
wrote:
FWIW: from an interview with George Feltenstein:
The Wonderful World of Brothers Grimm negative suffered a very bad
water damage problem on a few reels from leaky tunnels underneath the
MGM lot where it used to be stored. Now that being said we have
safety separation masters that we could use to fix that so it is
technically possible, but the film does not have the commercial
viability that How the West Was Won does, so the enormity of time and
expense that this kind of thing takes makes it an unlikely candidate
to have a similar restoration at this time. I think now that we’ve
written the software programs and developed the technology if costs
come down maybe it is something we could look at many years down the
line.
Further, in a post originating from Mr. Lataille:
From Dave Strohmaier, Director of Cinerama Adventure:
I actually never said the most of negs on Grimm were trashed, but some
of the negs are water damaged from a vault flood. I saw a sample of
the damage as a print was made at Crest Labs 6 years ago to check this
out, damage was only on the very edge of one of the panels (pretty
sure it was Baker). They also have YCM seps. of the Cinerama negs for
Grimm but that would cost quite a bit to restore.
All in all with the right kind of money and time Grimm could be
restored but it would cost much more tha[n] they spent on West.
---
So we go from badly damaged to just SOME damage, ONLY on the edge of
ONE panel... Assuming these two men are speaking earnestly in those
statements and are likely among the more reliable sources regarding
the Grimm elements...
Seems what we can conclude is that the water damage to the negs is
minimal and they were not destroyed or badly damaged as snowballing
rumors have claimed. We can also dispose of any rumor that the Grimm
or West negs were stored at or by Cinerama Inc, (besides the fact that
West and Grimm are not entirely their property to hold anyway) as it
seems now the damage was done before Turner or Warner took
possession. This explains a lot. Seems the worst that would be
needed is to replaced the damaged bits of one panel from the YCMS.
I brought up earlier here that a lot of the Cinerama insiders and
enthusiasts had a sadly dismissive attitude toward Grimm, and
subsequent postings in this thread displayed exactly that, with not a
little bit of condescension. Basically with only a couple
exceptions, all anyone did was piss on it.
Reviewing this thread today, It was hard to get a direct response on
anything as there was so much convolution and or confusion resulting
in people dodging a point and zeroing in on something else to piss
on.
Arguments against bringing the film to video relied heavily on the
myth that the negs were lost or destroyed, or subjective opinion that
nobody likes the movie, or that a good transfer from what Marty has
described as a good 3 strip IB tech print is not possible. All of
these things have been sufficiently debunked, by credible people. No
one has credibly proven that there is any more market interest in
seeing the Cinerama travelogues on video (or in person) than there is
in seeing Grimm.
People with the Grimm laserdisc have posted that what airs now on TCM
is more intact, stating that all 3 panels and the missing prologue are
there, along with the roadshow presentation music. No one has been
able to confirm OR deny that some decent kind of element now exists
that wasn't available for the Laser. If it weren't, where did these
added pieces come from?
As what is now being done to transfer the 3 strip travelogues is
reportedly a new process, likely unknown to Mr. Feltenstein when he
did that interview almost 4 years ago, we don't really know that
applying that new process to Grimm, print or negs, isn't now a viable
option.
And, being far more engrossed in condescending and pissing, no one has
bothered to answer my original and twice repeated question to confirm
or deny if the 3 Strip print of Grimm, said to be planned for a
showing in Bradford, would end up being shown at a similar event here
in the states.
wrote:
Welcome to my killfile. *PLONK*
>
> D
Finally SOME good news in this thread!
>
> D
FWIW: from an interview with George Feltenstein:
The Wonderful World of Brothers Grimm negative suffered a very bad
water damage problem on a few reels from leaky tunnels underneath the
MGM lot where it used to be stored. Now that being said we have
safety separation masters that we could use to fix that so it is
technically possible, but the film does not have the commercial
viability that How the West Was Won does, so the enormity of time and
expense that this kind of thing takes makes it an unlikely candidate
to have a similar restoration at this time. I think now that we’ve
written the software programs and developed the technology if costs
come down maybe it is something we could look at many years down the
line.
Further, in a post originating from Mr. Lataille:
From Dave Strohmaier, Director of Cinerama Adventure:
I actually never said the most of negs on Grimm were trashed, but some
of the negs are water damaged from a vault flood. I saw a sample of
the damage as a print was made at Crest Labs 6 years ago to check this
out, damage was only on the very edge of one of the panels (pretty
sure it was Baker). They also have YCM seps. of the Cinerama negs for
Grimm but that would cost quite a bit to restore.
All in all with the right kind of money and time Grimm could be
restored but it would cost much more tha[n] they spent on West.
---
So we go from badly damaged to just SOME damage, ONLY on the edge of
ONE panel... Assuming these two men are speaking earnestly in those
statements and are likely among the more reliable sources regarding
the Grimm elements...
Seems what we can conclude is that the water damage to the negs is
minimal and they were not destroyed or badly damaged as snowballing
rumors have claimed. We can also dispose of any rumor that the Grimm
or West negs were stored at or by Cinerama Inc, (besides the fact that
West and Grimm are not entirely their property to hold anyway) as it
seems now the damage was done before Turner or Warner took
possession. This explains a lot. Seems the worst that would be
needed is to replaced the damaged bits of one panel from the YCMS.
I brought up earlier here that a lot of the Cinerama insiders and
enthusiasts had a sadly dismissive attitude toward Grimm, and
subsequent postings in this thread displayed exactly that, with not a
little bit of condescension. Basically with only a couple
exceptions, all anyone did was piss on it.
Reviewing this thread today, It was hard to get a direct response on
anything as there was so much convolution and or confusion resulting
in people dodging a point and zeroing in on something else to piss
on.
Arguments against bringing the film to video relied heavily on the
myth that the negs were lost or destroyed, or subjective opinion that
nobody likes the movie, or that a good transfer from what Marty has
described as a good 3 strip IB tech print is not possible. All of
these things have been sufficiently debunked, by credible people. No
one has credibly proven that there is any more market interest in
seeing the Cinerama travelogues on video (or in person) than there is
in seeing Grimm.
People with the Grimm laserdisc have posted that what airs now on TCM
is more intact, stating that all 3 panels and the missing prologue are
there, along with the roadshow presentation music. No one has been
able to confirm OR deny that some decent kind of element now exists
that wasn't available for the Laser. If it weren't, where did these
added pieces come from?
As what is now being done to transfer the 3 strip travelogues is
reportedly a new process, likely unknown to Mr. Feltenstein when he
did that interview almost 4 years ago, we don't really know that
applying that new process to Grimm, print or negs, isn't now a viable
option.
And, being far more engrossed in condescending and pissing, no one has
bothered to answer my original and twice repeated question to confirm
or deny if the 3 Strip print of Grimm, said to be planned for a
showing in Bradford, would end up being shown at a similar event here
in the states.
Garan Grey
Jan 14, 2012, 1:59:13 AM1/14/12
to
On Jan 13, 3:44 pm, "Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMSU...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com>
wrote:
little bit of condescension. Basically all anyone did was piss on
wrote:
Welcome to my killfile. *PLONK*
> D
> D
it.
Reviewing this thread today, It was hard to get a direct response on
anything as there was so much convolution and or confusion resulting
in people dodging a point and zeroing in on something else to piss on.
Arguments against bringing the film to video relied heavily on the
myth that the negs were lost or destroyed, or subjective opinion that
nobody likes the movie, or that a good transfer from what Marty has
described as a good 3 strip IB tech print is not possible. All of
these things have been sufficiently debunked, by credible people. No
one has credibly proven that there is any more market interest in
seeing the Cinerama travelogues on video (or in person) than there is
in seeing Grimm.
People with the Grimm laserdisc have posted that what airs now on TCM
is more intact, stating that all 3 panels and the missing prologue are
there, along with the roadshow presentation music. No one has been
able to confirm OR deny that some decent kind of element now exists
that wasn't available for the Laser. If it weren't, where did these
added pieces come from?
As what is now being done to transfer the 3 strip travelogues is
reportedly a new process, likely unknown to Mr. Feltenstein when he
did that interview almost 4 years ago, we don't really know that
applying that new process to Grimm, print or negs, isn't now a viable
option.
And, being far more engrossed in condescending naysaying and pissing,
Reviewing this thread today, It was hard to get a direct response on
anything as there was so much convolution and or confusion resulting
in people dodging a point and zeroing in on something else to piss on.
Arguments against bringing the film to video relied heavily on the
myth that the negs were lost or destroyed, or subjective opinion that
nobody likes the movie, or that a good transfer from what Marty has
described as a good 3 strip IB tech print is not possible. All of
these things have been sufficiently debunked, by credible people. No
one has credibly proven that there is any more market interest in
seeing the Cinerama travelogues on video (or in person) than there is
in seeing Grimm.
People with the Grimm laserdisc have posted that what airs now on TCM
is more intact, stating that all 3 panels and the missing prologue are
there, along with the roadshow presentation music. No one has been
able to confirm OR deny that some decent kind of element now exists
that wasn't available for the Laser. If it weren't, where did these
added pieces come from?
As what is now being done to transfer the 3 strip travelogues is
reportedly a new process, likely unknown to Mr. Feltenstein when he
did that interview almost 4 years ago, we don't really know that
applying that new process to Grimm, print or negs, isn't now a viable
option.
grand...@hotmail.com
Feb 19, 2012, 7:23:55 AM2/19/12
to
for decades and even shown in cinerama on rare occassions.
CineSIght
Feb 20, 2012, 3:33:09 PM2/20/12
to
On Feb 19, 4:23 am, "grandeu...@HOTMAIL.COM" <grandeu...@HOTMAIL.COM>
wrote:
Okay then, since none of the recognized Cinerama experts were aware of
this print's existence until very recently, (as they have never
mentioned it ) we could say it has been newly discovered by most
people, and it hasn't been shown in public in 40 years - according to
those updates on IN70mm.com.
wrote:
this print's existence until very recently, (as they have never
mentioned it ) we could say it has been newly discovered by most
people, and it hasn't been shown in public in 40 years - according to
those updates on IN70mm.com.
grand...@hotmail.com
Mar 4, 2012, 7:44:08 PM3/4/12
to
How can
On Friday, 2 December 2011 08:32:36 UTC+11, roland....@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> They mention TWWOTBG in 3-strip. I thought this needed a lot of
> restoration work before it could be shown in 3-strip.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3RwU87bAgg
Warner's take possesion of the print og Grimm if they wanted to??
On Friday, 2 December 2011 08:32:36 UTC+11, roland....@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> They mention TWWOTBG in 3-strip. I thought this needed a lot of
> restoration work before it could be shown in 3-strip.
Warner's cannot legally take possession of the 3 strip print on TWWOTBG. There is a legal time limit in which they could do this .In the case of TWWOTBG that limit expired many decades ago.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3RwU87bAgg
On Friday, 2 December 2011 08:32:36 UTC+11, roland....@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> They mention TWWOTBG in 3-strip. I thought this needed a lot of
> restoration work before it could be shown in 3-strip.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3RwU87bAgg
On Friday, 2 December 2011 08:32:36 UTC+11, roland....@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> They mention TWWOTBG in 3-strip. I thought this needed a lot of
> restoration work before it could be shown in 3-strip.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3RwU87bAgg
Warner's take possesion of the print og Grimm if they wanted to??
On Friday, 2 December 2011 08:32:36 UTC+11, roland....@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> They mention TWWOTBG in 3-strip. I thought this needed a lot of
> restoration work before it could be shown in 3-strip.
Warner's cannot legally take possession of the 3 strip print on TWWOTBG. There is a legal time limit in which they could do this .In the case of TWWOTBG that limit expired many decades ago.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3RwU87bAgg
On Friday, 2 December 2011 08:32:36 UTC+11, roland....@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> They mention TWWOTBG in 3-strip. I thought this needed a lot of
> restoration work before it could be shown in 3-strip.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3RwU87bAgg
grand...@hotmail.com
Mar 7, 2012, 12:53:24 AM3/7/12
to
On Friday, 2 December 2011 08:32:36 UTC+11, roland....@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> They mention TWWOTBG in 3-strip. I thought this needed a lot of
> restoration work before it could be shown in 3-strip.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3RwU87bAgg
It does as mentioned by many readers of this web site. The print that is being shown is the last surviving print.
> They mention TWWOTBG in 3-strip. I thought this needed a lot of
> restoration work before it could be shown in 3-strip.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3RwU87bAgg
scoville
Jun 19, 2012, 7:42:06 AM6/19/12
to
It's been cobbled together from several prints. Portions of the Terry Thomas/Buddy Hackett sequence have German subtitles, for example. It would definitely require too much work to be used as the sole source for a video transfer. The first reel of the Charlie panel has some damage pretty much throughout.
It's almost certainly been assembled from IB prints as the colour is largely intact throughout.
As for a screening at the Dome, mention was made that the print would "possibly" be going across the pond in September. However, there's mention on the film's wiki page that one of the reels has suffered shrinkage and that the Dome's platter system would not be able to handle it. As it's an unsourced statement on wiki, I guess that might be untrue.
Whilst I agree with you that the potential market for Grimm can't be much smaller than the potential market for most of the travelogues, the film itself is pretty poor. Wooden acting from most of the cast, spouting awful dialogue. Buddy Hackett's attempt at a cockney accent made Dick Van Dyke sound like Ray Winstone.
The special effects look much worse in Cinerama than they did on the telly, particularly the fight with the dragon. Considering Ray Harryhausen was working on Jason and the Argonauts around the same time, presumably on a lower budget, there's little excuse for stop-motion animation as awful as this.
According to an article on in70mm.com, the last surviving print of South Seas Adventure was also recently sent to the museum, although the Widescreen Weekend showed the digital copy. Whether this was due to the print being in poor shape or it was down to the fact that they wanted to have the "world premiere" of the Smilebox version, I dunno.
Scoville.
grand...@hotmail.com
Jun 19, 2012, 11:21:50 PM6/19/12
to
Having seen the last surviving print of South Seas Adventure several times it was probably not shown at Bradford due to the poor quality of the 50 year old print.A pity as few people (if any)like seeing digital prints of Cinerama travelogues.Maybe the surviving 3 strip print of HOLIDAY IN SPAIN (ala SCENT OF MYSTERY) can be shown at Bradford in the future? A dreadful film that makes TWWOFBG look like a masterpiece in comparison. The USA tv print of Scent Of Mystery was reduced to 75 mins-less than half its original length.I saw it in 3 strip and also many years ago on TV but without the smellovision as it was seen on USA tv. Now that a new 70mm print MEDITTERANEAN HOLIDAY has been made for cinemas, when will it emerge on dvd for those of us who have never seen it.
Scoville
Jun 20, 2012, 5:27:18 AM6/20/12
to
On Wednesday, 20 June 2012 04:21:50 UTC+1, grand...@HOTMAIL.COM wrote:
> Having seen the last surviving print of South Seas Adventure several times it was probably not shown at Bradford due to the poor quality of the 50 year old print.A pity as few people (if any)like seeing digital prints of Cinerama travelogues.Maybe the surviving 3 strip print of HOLIDAY IN SPAIN (ala SCENT OF MYSTERY) can be shown at Bradford in the future? A dreadful film that makes TWWOFBG look like a masterpiece in comparison. The USA tv print of Scent Of Mystery was reduced to 75 mins-less than half its original length.I saw it in 3 strip and also many years ago on TV but without the smellovision as it was seen on USA tv. Now that a new 70mm print MEDITTERANEAN HOLIDAY has been made for cinemas, when will it emerge on dvd for those of us who have never seen it.
I checked with the museum and they confirmed that the South Seas Adventure print is in poor condition. The second act is beyond showing, but the first act might just make it through the projectors.
> Having seen the last surviving print of South Seas Adventure several times it was probably not shown at Bradford due to the poor quality of the 50 year old print.A pity as few people (if any)like seeing digital prints of Cinerama travelogues.Maybe the surviving 3 strip print of HOLIDAY IN SPAIN (ala SCENT OF MYSTERY) can be shown at Bradford in the future? A dreadful film that makes TWWOFBG look like a masterpiece in comparison. The USA tv print of Scent Of Mystery was reduced to 75 mins-less than half its original length.I saw it in 3 strip and also many years ago on TV but without the smellovision as it was seen on USA tv. Now that a new 70mm print MEDITTERANEAN HOLIDAY has been made for cinemas, when will it emerge on dvd for those of us who have never seen it.
I saw a 70mm print of Holiday in Spain in Bradford a few years back and you're right - it's pretty dreadful. Apparently it was such a bomb there were no 35mm reduction prints produced. As it was before there were 65mm telecine machines available, the TV version was made by pointing a video camera at the screen while a 70mm print was projected.
gara...@gmail.com
Jun 23, 2012, 6:56:11 AM6/23/12
to
A
On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 9:53:24 PM UTC-8, grand...@HOTMAIL.COM wrote:
> On Friday, 2 December 2011 08:32:36 UTC+11, roland....@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > They mention TWWOTBG in 3-strip. I thought this needed a lot of
> > restoration work before it could be shown in 3-strip.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3RwU87bAgg
>
> It does as mentioned by many readers of this web site.
Obviously many readers of this site have either bought into, or contributed to the vast exaggeration of the damage to the WWOTBG negs. Yet someone you all admire and respect has reported that the damage is actually minimal, confined to the very edge of one of the panels, and not throughout the whole film. It has also been stated by that guy and one at Warner that they still have the YCMs which are undamaged. Therefore the only "restoration" needed would at most be to strike new negs from the YCMs for the damaged sections, if that. It seems likely it would probably cost more to "restore" some of the travelogues, which were stored under worse conditions.
On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 9:53:24 PM UTC-8, grand...@HOTMAIL.COM wrote:
> On Friday, 2 December 2011 08:32:36 UTC+11, roland....@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > They mention TWWOTBG in 3-strip. I thought this needed a lot of
> > restoration work before it could be shown in 3-strip.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3RwU87bAgg
>
> It does as mentioned by many readers of this web site.
scoville
Jun 25, 2012, 5:13:53 AM6/25/12
to
Scoville.
grand...@hotmail.com
Jun 26, 2012, 3:49:37 AM6/26/12
to
Not many (if any) studios look after their negatives with as much care as Disney so we have many 70mm films that cannot be restored for the making of new prints.Can-Can and the original roadshow version of South Pacific for example.Most people know that pacific theatres never cared about Cinerama when it died in the early sixties and it was largely forgotten and the remaining prints and negatives were stored in a basement that suffered water leakage. If they cared then why did they let the copyright lapse and not give a damm about the scores of countries that were using the Cinerama copyrighted trademark name in other web sites.In The U.K. for example they have a cd musical company that is called Cinerama. Two of their musical cds were called This is Cinerama and the other Cinerama Holiday even though they had nothing to do with Cinerama. Cinerama is a copyrighted name in the U.K. but no one cares.Even in The USA there is a cinerama computer,cinerama horse, cinerama film society, and numerous other items called cinerama.As Pacific theatres failed to use their Cinerama copyrighted name for almost 50 yesrs , other people could use it without any problems as if you don't use a copyrighted name for so many years it can be (by a court) deemed to be in the public domain.Correct me if I am wrong.In Mexico they even have a cinerama film magazine.Other countries that have used the cinerama name include South Korea,India ,Spain,Brazil,Argentina,Italy,Israel and japan etc.In one country where Cinerama was orginally copyrighted ,a person even managed to register both the Cinerama name AND the cinerama logo which we all know.
If studios don't care about their negatives then what hope is there for the preservation of films for future generations. None of the Cinerama films were classics , some even tedious,but they were a part of the heritage of USA cinema that sadly will never be seen again in the same way as many of us remember back in the fifties and early sixties.
If studios don't care about their negatives then what hope is there for the preservation of films for future generations. None of the Cinerama films were classics , some even tedious,but they were a part of the heritage of USA cinema that sadly will never be seen again in the same way as many of us remember back in the fifties and early sixties.
gara...@gmail.com
Jul 7, 2012, 5:35:12 PM7/7/12
to
They didn't go back to YCMs for the travelogue videos because THEY DID NOT WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY, not because they were in such terrific shape. They cleaned up what they could digitally for video. PS: WB did not do a restoration on West as there was nothing that needed restoring.
Again the damage to the original Grimm negs has been increasingly exaggerated, and it is not true that they have nothing to work from, especially since a 65mm Grimm neg has now been confirmed. A 65mm neg was used to master TIC for DVD - which certainly did not cost a fortune, as Pacific wouldn't pay that much, so if you like the way that looks on video, you have no more argument for not putting out Grimm, which is likely to look better, again because WB handles their assets better than Pacific did. I see there are now over a hundred signatures online from around the world asking for Grimm on video. All those people have something positive to say about the film which we don't see so much around here. It's time to stop repeating old, exaggerated or inaccurate excuses, and admit there ARE some possibilities and some interest. No one is claiming it's going to sweep the nation and sell a million copies, but it's no less worthwhile, and certainly would sell no less than any of the travelogues.
grand...@hotmail.com
Jul 8, 2012, 2:29:14 AM7/8/12
to
It is unlikely that the Forum had airconditioning in the basement. Worst of all it suffered from water leakage.By the time the negatives were moved to a new location, it was already too late as the damage had been done.
A lot of people already have TWWOTBG on dvd (transferred from the video and/or laser discs).Unless there were several extras,I doubt if they would buy another disc of the film.I still regard it as my favourite of all the 3 strip cinerama films.
Pacific Theatres owe it to future generations for them to be able to see restored (as much s possible) prints in Cinerama of all the documentary films. Film historians can only cry over the way the negatives were stored.There must be several wealthy film buffs who could afford to buy the negatives and restore them before it is too late.Maybe it is already too late?
gara...@gmail.com
Jul 17, 2012, 10:50:29 PM7/17/12
to
You do understand that Grimm and West were never stored at the Forum, as they are not exclusively Pacific properties. The legendary water damage to Grimm reportedly happened in old MGM vaults before the Turner acquisition.
The term "a lot" is of course very relative. I doubt that there are even a hundred people who have the resources to put that ancient TCM transfer on DVD. That old transfer would pale against ANYTHING that would be done with the film today, no matter how it was mastered. Meanwhile at least a hundred people from around the world have said they would buy a new DVD or Blu Ray. Grimm has the same potential for extras as West had.
And again we are down to the fact that this is the ONLY remaining 3 strip film not being planned for disc and it has more commercial potential (however limited) than all the travelogues "Put Together!"
PS: Arclight says they will put tickets up for sale any day now on their site. They already have teaser blurbs for all the Cinerama movies posted.
grand...@hotmail.com
Jul 18, 2012, 3:41:31 AM7/18/12
to
Except for Windjammer and This Is Cinerama, there is no guarantee that the other cinerama docmentaries will ever emerge on dvd.If sales of these 2 are not profitable then they may the only ones we will get to see on dvd.If TWWOTBG has the same potential for extras that HTWWW had then we will be disappointed. WEST extras were almost non existant.The long promised documentary on the making was omitted from the bluray. The only way we could see it was on the in70mm.com site but it that was taken removed after less than a day.
grey...@gmail.com
Oct 2, 2012, 8:38:45 AM10/2/12
to
According to Flicker Alley they were "Swamped" with orders for TIC and WJ. It's also been said that the Cinerama insiders have yet another company lined up to release the travelogues if FA don't.
Meanwhile the folks from Image Trends, of D-ICE process, having been present for 2 screenings of Grimm, say they have no doubt they can get a good transfer from the Cinerama negs, damaged or not, or the 65mm negs. They have already handled both situations with the travelogues, and the fact is that Warners took better care of their elements than Pacific/Cinerama did. Like they did with the travelogues, any sections of the neg they can't repair (they actually say "Restore") they borrow from Library of Congress and work to match it up. That's their statement, not mine.
TCM wanted Grimm for their next Hollywood festival, and were discussing possibly kicking in for a DCP of Grimm not long ago, so obviously they have enough interest in it.
What it means that Grim has the same potential for extras is the source is the same. The same guy, the same studio, at least one of the same actors... so if they want to do a "making of" or commentary or whatever, they have plenty of opportunity. I believe there are actually more surviving cast members of Grimm than West, at least among the principals.
Be that as it may, with the trend toward fairy tales in popular culture, movies, TV, even Hans Christian Anderson getting a Blu Ray, Grimm is as likely a candidate for video as many others that are getting done, and the list of excuses for not doing it is pretty much debunked. Dave S's statments on the subject ("It'll cost more than West did") predate what was done with the travelogues. In fact, Image Trends negated that claim to me last night.
Given the reaction from the folks signing the petition (which may not be a huge number but it's not bad for not being promoted) and those at the Dome screenings, the idea that the movie's not good enough is hogwash. And frankly it's no excuse considering the other stuff WB is putting out. It's a matter of taste. I couldn't sit through West again if you paid me. At least a third of the people who saw Grimm at the second Dome show had also been there for the first one. SOME people apparently like it. And that includes young 20-30 something (age, not quantity) people who had never seen it before.
So, as much as the Cinerama buffs like to dump on it, it's NOT impossible for Grimm to end up on video or onscreen again...
Meanwhile the folks from Image Trends, of D-ICE process, having been present for 2 screenings of Grimm, say they have no doubt they can get a good transfer from the Cinerama negs, damaged or not, or the 65mm negs. They have already handled both situations with the travelogues, and the fact is that Warners took better care of their elements than Pacific/Cinerama did. Like they did with the travelogues, any sections of the neg they can't repair (they actually say "Restore") they borrow from Library of Congress and work to match it up. That's their statement, not mine.
TCM wanted Grimm for their next Hollywood festival, and were discussing possibly kicking in for a DCP of Grimm not long ago, so obviously they have enough interest in it.
What it means that Grim has the same potential for extras is the source is the same. The same guy, the same studio, at least one of the same actors... so if they want to do a "making of" or commentary or whatever, they have plenty of opportunity. I believe there are actually more surviving cast members of Grimm than West, at least among the principals.
Be that as it may, with the trend toward fairy tales in popular culture, movies, TV, even Hans Christian Anderson getting a Blu Ray, Grimm is as likely a candidate for video as many others that are getting done, and the list of excuses for not doing it is pretty much debunked. Dave S's statments on the subject ("It'll cost more than West did") predate what was done with the travelogues. In fact, Image Trends negated that claim to me last night.
Given the reaction from the folks signing the petition (which may not be a huge number but it's not bad for not being promoted) and those at the Dome screenings, the idea that the movie's not good enough is hogwash. And frankly it's no excuse considering the other stuff WB is putting out. It's a matter of taste. I couldn't sit through West again if you paid me. At least a third of the people who saw Grimm at the second Dome show had also been there for the first one. SOME people apparently like it. And that includes young 20-30 something (age, not quantity) people who had never seen it before.
So, as much as the Cinerama buffs like to dump on it, it's NOT impossible for Grimm to end up on video or onscreen again...
0 new messages