Fall of the Roman Empire to be released on April 29 (1 Viewer)

[john a hunter]

sorry.

 

[john a hunter]

I dIdn't project TFOTRE in 16MM but did with Raintree County and seem to recall that it was like most Scope 16 mm prints-just cropped to fit the frame from a 35mm Scope neg. I do not think that a 16mm print of TFOTRM would show you anymore than a 35MM Scope print-could even be less.

 

[OliverK]

Have you seen the auction on Ebay for Battle of the Bulge ? It is true 2.66.1 !
So it is very possible that this was also done with Fall. And I intend to find out

 

[Robert Harris]

16mm printing elements, be they for direct positive or dye transfer use, were generally created from 35mm interdupes, which means that the 16 print would be cropped top and bottom from the 35.

If dye transfer printing matrices were created from original 65mm elements, the occurrences would have been few and far between.

RAH

 

[Douglas R]

You may think Heston was a huge "stiff" but he was an enormous box-office draw and he had a commanding presence which was ideally suited to the epic genre. He would have been far better in the film then Boyd. Your reference to "right-wing, white Christians" disliking the ending is ridiculous, irrelevant and offensive.

 

[OliverK]

So it seems that 16mm print of Battle of the Bulge would be a very rare item not being cropped in height. Too bad it is cut down to 130 minutes from the road show 169 minute version:
16MM FEATURE "BATTLE OF THE BULGE" 1965 I.B.TECH SCOPE

 

[PatrickDA]

Oh, come on! Typical right-wing, tigger figure reaction to a comment about
demographics, not religion. Get over it!

P.S. - Heston was a stiff and rarely had a "commanding" presence. He
wouldn't have worked in that part. Sorry!

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Yeah, that guy sure made a wimpy Moses & Ben-Hur...
forgetta 'bout it!!!
;-)

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Back on topic...
this is exciting & frustrating!!!

It's got to look better than "El Cid" for crying out loud.
The production company is named after their mother for goodness sake!

 

[Simon Howson]

I'll summarise:

Some people like some actors, and some performances, in some films.

Other people like other actors, and other performances, in other films.

So, we may as well chat about DVD releases instead.

 

[Simon Howson]

I don't think it will. I think it will look about the same.

The El Cid transfer was from a 35mm restoration element. Has Fall of the Roman Umpire undergone a similar restoration? I don't think so, but would like to know otherwise.

My guess is they will use exactly the same transfer facilities / techniques as they used on El Cid.

So given so much of the work will be the same, I don't think it will look much better.

What we really need is photo-chemical preservation, plus scan from the large format elements. If just one company did that then these films could be preserved indefinitely, and would make beautiful DVD and blu-ray discs for the home.

 

[OliverK]

Typically that would have to be the part of the owners as they would profit from superior elements and masters the most. As it looks now Weinstein is the company ordering the new HD transfers, but only of 35mm elements.

 

[Simon Howson]

So it probably won't happen until a university or the AFI, or the Film Foundation offers to do it.

I hope it gets done before it is too late...

If these films were owned by Fox or Warner then it would probably happen.

 

[Robert Harris]

There is no justifiable reason for a non-profit to spend dollars creating video transfers, which would allow the original element to remain unpreserved...

and rot.

And as far as "restoration," there is nothing to restore here. All of these films should be able to be dealt with in terms of lab orders, and someone with a brain verifying the elements.

There is neither anything difficult nor terribly expensive about any of this.

Any of these films can be dealt with in a few phone calls, with honorable home video elements emerging as a result.

It will really be a pity if it turns out otherwise.

RAH

 

[Mark Anthony]

Mr Harris if the rights holders are currently unprepared to do anything about these titles being preserved for posterity (and given the interview on the dvd by the guy in charge of looking after the elements for all the Bronston film's, you'd be forgiven for thinking their not in great shape - although hopefully that's not the case) couldn't the AFI, BFI or other body step in and create preservation elements from the 8 perf's and or sep's as necessary?

Given their significance, popularity and status surely these film's rate about as high a priority for cinematic preservation for future generations as can be?

Is there any organisations/trade press that can be contacted about this?

If nothing else perhaps the right's holder's can be embarassed into doing something.

M

 

[Simon Howson]

The problem is there is no backing from a big studio. If Fox or Warner owned these films then we could all rest easy that they would preserve these films so they can make profits from them into the future.

The fact the home video rights keep bouncing around means there is no motivation by a company to do what should be done. Hence I thought of a preservation body to step in to try to make happen what should've already happened, and to be fair El Cid was restored in 1993, but only on regular 35mm.

I think often the market works nicely to motivate studios to protect and preserve their films. But the Bronston films seems to be one case where the potential for future profits won't motivate the investment of dollars in the short term.

The problem is no one is sure who will reap those profits! :frowning:

 

[OliverK]

A preservation body would be nice but I cannot see how this is going to happen without implications for ownership and rights to these titles. It would be easier if Warner, Fox or another big studio would just buy the other 4 Bronston titles and treat them like any other prestige large format title deserves - RAH has already outlined what has to be done, no big secrets there.

 

[Mark Anthony]

That's the point of asking the afi or bfi etc to preserve it, there raison d'etre is looking after "orphan" films. They do not concern themselves with profits...if they did they would have not looked after many of the titles they have over the years.

The trouble is El Cid wasn't "restored" back in '93, even in 35mm. I thought the same thing until recently. They just took a pre-existing 35mm ip and got Rank to clean it up and repair it, this could then be used for new print creation.

Looking at the dvd, apart from the complete lack of sharpness (which may be print or transfer related - or even too much dvnr) the colour is also faded and off. So in all way's it fails and to call it restored is a joke!

The sound isn't bad, but could do with added LFE in certain scenes, regardless it certainly has improved on the 5.1 track on the laserdisc.

M

 

[Robert Harris]

It would not only be unfair, but improper, to ask a public institution with tens of thousands of needy films on their hands to fund a privately held film unless those holding the rights give something back.

A good portion of the budget; a steady stream of income from use of any new elements...

There must be some rationale for the use of public or donated funds toward a project beyond profits for the owners.

The owners must take some position.

What they may not understand is that glowingly brilliant reviews will sell a great many more home video units that poor ones, and could lead to limited theatrical bookings.

Now they know.

RAH

 

[JohnRa]

Excellent, Simon!