Coming Soon From Olive Films (1 Viewer)

[bgart13]

Wow, Bob! Who knew that doing research and working with major film distributors would garner you the title of blogger? Cool! Be sure to add that to your resume!

 

[TheSteig]

Think we can move on now to something else now besides aspect ratio wars ?...
I really dont want to see Misterlime not post upcoming releases...

 

[bujaki]

As a graduate student in the field of comparative literature, I had to conduct a lot of research. I believe in well-conducted research and research-based findings. Therefore, because of his impeccable credentials, I place a lot of stock in Mr. Furmanek's findings. I take these into consideration when making purchases. I have passed on a number of releases because they were, according to his research, released in a compromised aspect ratio. I shall continue to read his comments and will base my future purchases on his scholarship.

 

[Keith Cobby]

I think Olive are doing a great job in releasing many films for the first time on DVD/blu-ray.

Are there any more VistaVision films in the blu-ray pipeline?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Think we can move on now to something else now besides aspect ratio wars ?...
I really dont want to see Misterlime not post upcoming releases...

Dave,

I agree, the OAR points have been made here with some noted disagreement between MisterLime and some posters. Bob has posted his credentials in regard to his film expertise. Now, it's up to Olive to either contact Bob or they don't contact him. Without question Bob is one of this forum's most valued resources. Not only that, but he's a nice guy. With that said, MisterLime has provided valuable upcoming release information. I don't see a need to brow beat the matter any further as most companies do what they please anyway as we've seen so many times beforehand with these studios and the companies they contract out to release their video products. I'm not saying people can't post their OAR comments any longer, but I wouldn't expect a continue dialogue that might result in people leaving the forum. I don't think any of us want that.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I think Olive are doing a great job in releasing many films for the first time on DVD/blu-ray.

Are there any more VistaVision films in the blu-ray pipeline?

That is true for the most part.

 

[Yorkshire]

..I'm not going to lose sleep over the difference between a 1.66 and a 1.78 ratio...

I think this is important. Bob's research suggests films shot for 1.75:1 were instructed to be shot safe for between 1.66:1 & 1.85:1. We've regularly put up with 1.85:1 films at 1.78:1 and I don't think there have ever been serious complaints about that. The difference between 1.78:1 & 1.85:1 and 1.66:1 and 1.75:1 are very similar.

Given that masking in the cinema was a bit of a moveable feast at the time, I don't think this is such a big deal.

I was reminded recently of what happened with 3D in the '50s. Films had been shot in 3D (the 'golden age') for 2 or 3 years before the system fell into decline. I'm sure the producers were glad the films could still be shown in 2D.

I think any director shooting in the mid-50s would look at their studios policy and other studios and wonder where things would be by 1960. 1.66:1 ? 1.85:1 ? 1.75:1 ? 2.00:1 ? All 'scope? Back to 1.37:1 ? We've pretty much ended up with a mix of 1.85:1 & 'scope.

Irrespective of studio policy, which Bob has accurately reported here, surely directors were being very careful not shoot films in a ratio which might soon be defunct which would look completely wrong in an other ratio.

I think a very good example is Criterion's 3 ratio of On the Waterfront. We can argue all we want about what the correct ratio is, but I think it's clear the film was shot with all options open.

Finally, we've had several studios now who are quite aware of Bob's extensive research but who have released films in a different ratio to that which the research suggests. Is there something they know which we don't?

Steve W

 

[Thomas T]

I think a very good example is Criterion's 3 ratio of On the Waterfront. We can argue all we want about what the correct ratio is, but I think it's clear the film was shot with all options open

Steve W

Yes! 1953 and 1954 was a transition period for American cinema. While major metropolitan areas made the transition to "wide screen" very quickly, smaller cities outside the urban areas took much longer. Clearly, film makers during this transition period knew their films (non scope films) would/could be exhibited in various ratios and filmed with that in mind. That is why I'm surprised at how vehement some are about how non-scope films were intended to be shown. Even VistaVision was often exhibited between 1.85 and 2.1 depending on the theater. As you said, options during this transitional period were kept open.

While Criterion's On The Waterfront is the ideal (and even Olive gave a similar option on The Trap) solution, it simply isn't practical to deliver all films with 2 or 3 different aspect ratios to appease the "wide screen only" crowd. And Fire Maidens From Outer Space is no On The Waterfront.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Olive Films - July Release - More to come...

I have heard quite a lot about this film...

Much of it about Tina Louise.

I am very pleased to read this announcement.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I have heard quite a lot about this film...

Much of it about Tina Louise.

I am very pleased to read this announcement.

Yes, indeed! When I was a kid back in 1964, I sided with the Mary Ann crowd. However, I've changed my mind since I became an adult after viewing the films that had Louise in them. She was a beautiful woman in her youth with a body to match her facial looks.

 

[TheSteig]

Dave,

I agree, the OAR points have been made here with some noted disagreement between MisterLime and some posters. Bob has posted his credentials in regard to his film expertise. Now, it's up to Olive to either contact Bob or they don't contact him. Without question Bob is one of this forum's most valued resources. Not only that, but he's a nice guy. With that said, MisterLime has provided valuable upcoming release information. I don't see a need to brow beat the matter any further as most companies do what they please anyway as we've seen so many times beforehand with these studios and the companies they contract out to release their video products. I'm not saying people can't post their OAR comments any longer, but I wouldn't expect a continue dialogue that might result in people leaving the forum. I don't think any of us want that.

And I agree with what youve said as well. The arguments go on for pages, gets nasty after awhile and what gets lost are the actual announcements. Im not going to lose sleep either over an aspect ratio unless a movie shot in widescreen is released in Pan & Scan bleck !!

 

[Mike Frezon]

Yes, indeed! When I was a kid back in 1964, I sided with the Mary Ann crowd. However, I've changed my mind since I became an adult after viewing the films that had Louise in them. She was a beautiful woman in her youth with a body to match her facial looks.

I'm sure the Ginger crowd has welcomed you with open arms.

=======

And I hear the film's not bad either...

 

[Bob Furmanek]

As a graduate student in the field of comparative literature, I had to conduct a lot of research. I believe in well-conducted research and research-based findings. Therefore, because of his impeccable credentials, I place a lot of stock in Mr. Furmanek's findings. I take these into consideration when making purchases. I have passed on a number of releases because they were, according to his research, released in a compromised aspect ratio. I shall continue to read his comments and will base my future purchases on his scholarship.

Thank you, that's very kind of you. I have tried my best to dispel nearly sixty years of myth and get to the truth on these matters.

It's extremely gratifying to know that people are recognizing the value of original research with primary, documented source materials.

 

[JoeDoakes]

Personally, I would prefer that discussions/fights about aspects of Olive's particular releases be put in a separate thread. This thread has been a very good source of information about finding out about what is and what's not coming from Olive, and I don't want to spoil it.

 

[MisterLime]

Olive Films - July Release

NEWLY REMASTERED IN HD FROM 4K SCANS OF THE ORIGINAL NEGATIVES & FINEGRAINS
BETTY BOOP: THE ESSENTIAL COLLECTION VOLUME 1 (1932-1937)

Volume One:
CHESS NUTS (1932)
BETTY BOOP, M.D. (1932)
BETTY BOOP’S BAMBOO ISLE (1932)
BETTY BOOP FOR PRESIDENT (1932)
BETTY BOOP’S PENTHOUSE (1933)
BETTY BOOP’S BIRTHDAY PARTY (1933)
BETTY BOOP’S MAY PARTY (1933)
BETTY BOOP’S HALLOWE’EN PARTY (1933)
BETTY BOOP’S RISE TO FAME (1934)
BETTY BOOP’S TRIAL (1934)
BETTY BOOP’S LIFE GUARD (1934)
THE FOXY HUNTER (1937)

1932-1937 | B&W | 84 Minutes | Not Rated | 1.37:1 Aspect Ratio

 

[cadavra]

Yes! 1953 and 1954 was a transition period for American cinema. While major metropolitan areas made the transition to "wide screen" very quickly, smaller cities outside the urban areas took much longer. Clearly, film makers during this transition period knew their films (non scope films) would/could be exhibited in various ratios and filmed with that in mind. That is why I'm surprised at how vehement some are about how non-scope films were intended to be shown. Even VistaVision was often exhibited between 1.85 and 2.1 depending on the theater. As you said, options during this transitional period were kept open.

And of course Republic's films, especially their westerns, would play a lot of small towns that hadn't converted to widescreen yet, so it would make sense for them to continue to protect for standard projection for the time being.

BTW, I saw JOHNNY GUITAR at the Aero a few years ago and they ran it at 1.37. While I was initially concerned, it actually looked quite pleasing, especially the exteriors, so I really don't mind this version at all. You can always zoom in to create a widescreen effect.

Mike S.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Mike: Republic's bread and butter were the small-town theatres. That's why they were the last studio to publicly announce their widescreen policy in August 1953. They wanted to insure exhibitors that all of their films could be played in every theatre, both large or small.

With that said, JG was designed and composed for widescreen from day one. The Aero made the same mistake that most rep houses have made over the past forty years: if there's an image on the film, it must be seen. Not true.

It's really a shame that such ignorance and lack of research persists in 2013.

 

[Robin9]

I have heard quite a lot about this film...

Much of it about Tina Louise.

I am very pleased to read this announcement.

Tina Louise is by far the best thing in this movie and the only reason I watch it. I will order this BRD at the first opportunity.

 

[Brandon Conway]

That Betty Boop set is fantastic news!

 

[Thomas T]

BTW, I saw JOHNNY GUITAR at the Aero a few years ago and they ran it at 1.37. While I was initially concerned, it actually looked quite pleasing, especially the exteriors, so I really don't mind this version at all. You can always zoom in to create a widescreen effect.

Mike S.

I've seen Johnny Guitar in "wide screen" theatrically. If intentionally composed for "wide screen", it was a crappy job (though to be fair, the projectionist might have over matted it). The 1.37 framing lets the film breathe.