DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Around the World in 80 Days (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED) (with screenshots) (1 Viewer)

[Patrick McCart]

John Kilduff:



By the way, I forgot to post a still from the "lost" scene:

 

[Jo_C]

Speaking of logos, you guys who now have the "80 Days" DVD in your possession may have figured out by now there is no opening logo at the start of the feature.

My best guess is that in the original theatrical release the UA logo (they might have used the hexagon logo in the 1950s) appeared at the head of the picture. Of course, UA lost the rights to the film in the 1970s to Elizabeth Taylor, and then Warner Bros. (no relation to Sen. Warner who Taylor would later marry) would purchase the rights in 1980 for later and current reissues.

And, by the way, for those of you who don't know, WB now holds the copyright to the film, so in a sense it is now a "Warner Bros. presentation".

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Is there a reason that WB didn't use the original Todd-AO 30 fps version? With this being the 24 fps version, it really isn't Todd-AO in all fairness, and the whole point of Michael Todd's investment was to show off his noval invention of 70mm at 30 fps for extra sharp images and no motion judder.

The one big plus with Fox's Oklahoma! DVD (even though it still needs TLC and a new HD transfer) is that they used the real 30 fps Todd-AO version, which shows how much improved movies look with just an additional 6 fps.

Dan

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Of course, we can't compare the experience to watching "24 fps" movies played back at 60Hz in our home-theater systems which *introduce* motion judder from the 3-2 cadence.

Now...if we could just get future digital display to play 24 fps source material back at a "native" rate like 24, 48, or 72 Hz we'd be set! No reason why it couldn't be done with any bulb-based projector like LCD, DLP, or LCOS. Those PJs don't "scan"...they just "shine" so changing frequency is really just changing the refresh rate of the imaging chip/chips.

Naturally 30 fps film would still look better...as you say.

-dave

 

[ToddF]

I've read at the Steve Hoffman site that this new DVD uses at least 90% of the 30 fps source.

Todd

 

[Patrick McCart]

Well, it technically uses parts of the 30fps version. Look for scenes that seem slightly "slowed down" and that's what they are. However, the entire film, except for the 35mm prologue, was shot on 65mm and most shots with the "bugeye" lens.

 

[TedD]

Nope, there was no opening logo. If you notice the long silent period at the start of the prologue, it was placed there to allow the curtains to be opened to clear the sides of the small image before the dialogue started.

The curtains were to be opened to the full width of the Todd-AO screen in sync with the expanding image before the rocket launch.

Ted

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

According to the above quotes, Warner would of had to release the movie in theaters in 1983. If the movie was already “screwed up” around 1980, and as stated by Robert Harris, would of required restoration to return the film to its original quality...for theaters. Warner would have had to release the movie in 1983, in a “screwed up” condition “for theaters”?

Just would like to correctly understand the history of the deterioration of the film.

Thanks,

Paul

 

[Robert Harris]

I'm unaware precisely the source of these quotes, but with the exception of part of the first, I don't believe they came from me.

The elements for 80 Days were neither complete nor in viable condition when they were received by WB. They had already deteriorated to a huge degree and have not gotten worse under their care, which has been proper.

I've now had the opportunity to view the new DVD, and my hat is off to Warner for coming up with the image quality contained therein. Having examined original negative elements a decade or so ago, I never thought we'd be seeing anything looking remotely this good even on video.

The film is also a great deal more fun than I had recalled.

RAH

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

RAH wrote:Correct. My question wasn't directed to anybody in particular. Trying to establish a time frame, I used the quotes from different parts of the review on the first page and would like to add that IMHO, this was one of the best reviews I've had the pleasure of reading here at the HTF.

Maybe I should have asked the question, who re-released "Around The World In 80 Days" to theaters in 1983, and what condition was the movie at that time?

Paul

 

[James_Garner]

I have a question.

I'm viewing the "AtWi80D" Almanac in my computer & noticed that page 51 is missing. Does anyone else have that problem or is it only my copy?

Thanks

 

[Scott Leopold]

Patrick,

Great review. I hadn't considered this release previously, but after that review this is one I'll definitely be picking up.

 

[Drew Salzan]

Question: Was Around the World in 80 Days filmed twice (once for 35mm Cinemascope and once for 70mm Todd-AO) as it had been for Oklahoma!? I know that at that time, they had not devised a way to make reduction prints from 65mm. I always wondered about this.

 

[Roger Rollins]

Check out this page in the Widescreen museum. There's a photo of the two Todd-AO cameras shooting "80 DAYS" simultaneously, one with the 30 fps camera, the other with the 24 fps camera.

http://widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingto8.htm

 

[Peter Kline]

The "bugeye" lens was used infrequently in the film. On a flat screen it causes distortion which you will immediately notice on the DVD. Most of the film uses other lenses. The film was not shot twice. Scenes were done for both versions simultaneously unlike Oklahoma! where they were shot at different times. In England the film was released in Cinestage 35mm. Reports I've read stated that it looked as good as the 70mm release prints.

 

[Drew Salzan]

So does this mean that diferent versions, i.e. slightly different angles and composition, exist? Was the slower fps only used for the reduction prints and the faster fps for the Todd-Ao ones?

 

[Patrick McCart]

"80 Days" was completely shot on 65mm, except for the 1.37:1 part of the prologue.

The way it was shot in both 24fps and 30fps was not unlike silent films... for most of the non-dialogue scenes, they shot only in 30fps. For the dialogue scenes, they shot with 2 Todd-AO cameras side-by-side (24fps and 30fps). You can see how they did this in some of the production stills on the DVD and the Mike Todd doc.

On the other hand, Oklahoma!, I think, was shot in 35mm CinemaScope and 65mm Todd-AO. I remember seeing part of the 24fps version on AMC a long time ago and it seemed to be 2.55:1 (when they used to show movies older than 1980 and letterboxed).

By the time "80 Days" came out, there was a way to optically reduce 65mm to 35mm.

 

[Jordan_E]

Bought and watched this today and it was very enjoyable! Although, having recently read the Verne story, I was surprised that they left out the trial concerning the temple incident, as I found that quite humerous. But the music on this DVD was very robust! My eyebrows rose on numerous occasions. Well worth the purchase.

 

[Crosley Carpenter]

Great review Patrick. Having just watched the film I pretty well agree with everything you said about it.

Unlike Patrick and a lot of the others in this thread, Around the World In Eighty Days has never been a favourite of mine. I first saw it as a teenager at a drive-in in the 1970's, during one of its reissues, and absolutely hated it. I was obviously too young to appreciate it. I thought it would go on forever !

Despite my earlier experience, your review interested me enough to buy the disk. I can't tell you how happy I am to report that all my expectations were exceeded, and then some.

I can't remember the last time I actually ENJOYED something so much.

Technically it was a revelation: the spectacular colours, the "richness" of the picture, the fun of the directional sound, a beautiful score and the wonderful end titles.

I recommend this DVD to anyone looking for a thoroughly entertaining, charming, spectacular experience.

 

[ScottR]

SO, the Todd-AO logo only appeared on the 30fps version?