International The Day the Earth Caught Fire (1 Viewer)

[haineshisway]

I'm very sorry, but posting "Why because it's accurate?" is not an insulting post. I didn't call anyone a name. Just because the tint was different on a previous home video release does not mean that previous release was correct. The people who did this took the time to get the original gel for the tint. I kind of think that's the end of the story. The person who made the obnoxious response made a presumption that I hadn't seen the disc and that I don't know anything about the film or, apparently, anything else. It is my guess that I've known this film far longer than he has, but that's just a guess. This is a wonderful film, one I have seen many times, beginning at a sneak preview several weeks before it came out. This transfer is wonderful, too, just to put that one clear. Of course the original camera negative would not have a tint on it, just to put that one clear, as well.

 

[EddieLarkin]

I notice this film is part of the COHEN FILM COLLECTION over here so it is possible we will get a Blu-ray. Their transfers have been excellent - apparently they do some themselves, sometimes using one already available like the recent QUEEN MARGOT.

I've since heard that their is a credit for Cohen on the BFI transfer so presumably they were involved in someway, meaning a Region A release of the same transfer is possibly imminent.

 

[DaveF]

I'm very sorry, but posting "Why because it's accurate?" is not an insulting post. I didn't call anyone a name.

Please don't take my comments as in any way suggesting you insulted someone. That is not intended.

Sorry for the interruptions. I hope the thread can get back to the topic.

 

[LouA]

I saw this film when it first came out about fifty years ago (gulp!) and I've never seen it since. Does it stand the test of time?

Yes , it's still an excellent film, and I think you'll enjoy it on an entirely different level as an adult .

 

[haineshisway]

Please don't take my comments as in any way suggesting you insulted someone. That is not intended.

Sorry for the interruptions. I hope the thread can get back to the topic.

Oh, I wasn't saying you said that - it was the poster who came after me who said I was insulting to him and others, which I wasn't. What I have found is I tend to get accused of being offensive and I when I ask for someone to specifically point out the offensive post in a particular thread, they cannot, and then they do exactly what I'm being accused of - they get offensive and start in with the name calling and belittling. I'm grateful Dave that you stepped in, because it's very hard sometimes to let these guys do this.

 

[dpippel]

I'm very sorry, but posting "Why because it's accurate?" is not an insulting post. I didn't call anyone a name. Just because the tint was different on a previous home video release does not mean that previous release was correct. The people who did this took the time to get the original gel for the tint. I kind of think that's the end of the story. The person who made the obnoxious response made a presumption that I hadn't seen the disc and that I don't know anything about the film or, apparently, anything else. It is my guess that I've known this film far longer than he has, but that's just a guess. This is a wonderful film, one I have seen many times, beginning at a sneak preview several weeks before it came out. This transfer is wonderful, too, just to put that one clear. Of course the original camera negative would not have a tint on it, just to put that one clear, as well.

In your original reply you didn't provide any technical information to back up your assertion that the color was accurate, which would have been a better way to respond. Instead you said only "Why, because it's accurate?" as a comment on the poster's statement that he had a problem with the new color timing in this release. I for one found that somewhat snarky. It was a backhanded way of challenging his opinion. Whether or not that was your intent, it came across that way to some. Wouldn't it be better to just state the facts if you have them and leave the other stuff out of it? I sure think so.

 

[haineshisway]

In your original reply you didn't provide any technical information to back up your assertion that the color was accurate, which would have been a better way to respond. Instead you said only "Why, because it's accurate?" as a comment on the poster's statement that he had a problem with the new color timing in this release. I for one found that somewhat snarky. It was a backhanded way of challenging his opinion. Whether or not that was your intent, it came across that way to some. Wouldn't it be better to just state the facts if you have them and leave the other stuff out of it? I sure think so.

Sorry, I just don't agree with you about the snark. I've been snarky on these boards before - it's pretty obvious when I'm being snarky The fact that the company issuing this Blu-ray has stated blatantly that they had the gel to work from and since the original poster knew that because - he has the Blu-ray - I felt no reason to restate it. In any case, back to the film, which I adore. Now if I can only get my other favorite from that time period - The Mind Benders.

 

[Alan Tully]

I'm very sorry, but posting "Why because it's accurate?" is not an insulting post.

Well I thought it was a snarky comment, esp. as the poster didn't say it was wrong, just that he wasn't sure that he liked it, but who cares what I think, people can read it & make their own mind up.

I'm interested in this "gel" (& I'm not saying the new dirty yellow look is wrong), I'd like to know more about it. When I joined a film lab in 1968, the use of filters (gels) in printing machines was coming to an end (apart from a control printer pack, mostly ND filters), as the new printers used a prism to split the light into red, green & blue, & colour could be controlled in that way. But in the early sixties, they would have used filters, but the colour of the filter is not necessarily the colour they wanted to end up with. I'm trying to think how they would have done it. I'm thinking the film would have been neg cut as usual, & after it was graded (timed), they would have printed a fine grain pos. of the front section, they could have then printed that onto colour negative stock using that gel, but it wouldn't necessarily look that colour, it would be colour corrected using another gel for the print (& the front section dupe roll would have its own neg track). The lab could then print the film & leave it all as b/w or print the front section & cut it on to the print (I'd imagine after the first run that a lot of prints went out all b/w saving the lab the trouble of printing the small roll & replacing the front section). I take it that the "gel" they've found was on a printing fibre band that was loaded into a printing machine for colour correction, maybe in a can with the fine grain pos, but I dunno, it would be nice to get the full explanation from the BFI team. All these extras (great), but it would be great to have an extra of a short video of the restoration. People would be interested in seeing the actual film, & what's involved in scanning & grading (timing)...& a full explanation of the colour tint.

 

[dpippel]

Sorry, I just don't agree with you about the snark. I've been snarky on these boards before - it's pretty obvious when I'm being snarky The fact that the company issuing this Blu-ray has stated blatantly that they had the gel to work from and since the original poster knew that because - he has the Blu-ray - I felt no reason to restate it. In any case, back to the film, which I adore. Now if I can only get my other favorite from that time period - The Mind Benders.

People typically can't detect their own bad breath either.

 

[David Weicker]

Can we please move away from this 'snark' discussion. And get back to the topic at hand.Seeing Miss Munro in HD. My copy should arrive this weekend, and given that Chicago has been in single-digits this week, I could use some Fire.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Can we please move away from this 'snark' discussion. And get back to the topic at hand.Seeing Miss Munro in HD.My copy should arrive this weekend, and given that Chicago has been in single-digits this week, I could use some Fire.

I quite agree, enough with the sidetracking of this thread. Let's focus out attention on this BD release of this film.

 

[Douglas R]

Yup, the first time I saw it with any tint was the excellent (for its time) Network DVD, & the red colour made sense, but I am warming to the yellow (I've only seen caps so far), as it looks a bit of a sick colour (it reminds me of a bad smog in London in the very early sixties, a sort of dirty yellow - it killed a lot of people). It sounds like it's a great disc.

I saw the film when it was first released (at age 16 - just old enough to legally get into X films!) I don't pretend to remember exactly what the tint looked like but the BFI yellowish tint looks far more natural than the reddish one on the Network DVD. The picture quality is certainly excellent. Good to have the original BBFC certificate as well.

 

[Alan Tully]

Both stars, Janet Munro & Edward Judd seemed destined for great things, but it never happened. Janet Munro died young & Edward Judd just faded away. I think they both had a problem with drink, as so many actors do, especially Brits.

 

[Douglas R]

I read a review of the Blu-ray, somewhere else, saying the film was given an X certificate in 1961 due to Janet Munro being seen topless in a scene where she is washing her hair. The writer had clearly made an assumption, which may be understandable, but is not correct. For a start, the scene in question where Ms Munro has just washed her hair in the bathroom and her breasts can be seen reflected in a mirror, was not in the original UK prints (nor US prints of course). There is no way that such a shot would have been passed by the censors in 1961 and believe me, as a teenager at that time, I would have remembered it!

The BBFC website does, in fact, say that the film was cut to 98:24 and the Blu-ray runs 98:40 (less the BBFC certificate); the difference in length roughly equating to the bathroom scene. No doubt the uncut version was shown in some European countries - it was not uncommon to shoot more risque scenes for the continental market in those days. Additionally, in his autobiography "What the Censor Saw" John Trevelyan, who was the BBFC Chief Censor, says the film was a borderline A category but he decided to make it an X due to the alarming subject of the film. An A certificate would have meant a child of any age could have seen the film if accompanied by anyone over 16.

 

[Steve_Pannell]

Can we please move away from this 'snark' discussion. And get back to the topic at hand.Seeing Miss Munro in HD. My copy should arrive this weekend, and given that Chicago has been in single-digits this week, I could use some Fire.

She's beautiful in any "D".

 

[John Hodson]

Got my copy today. The Day The Earth Caught Fire is an absolutely gorgeous presentation of one of *the* best science fiction films, crafted by a director who helmed three sci-fi movies that ought to be essential viewing for any enthusiast of the genre.

For the first time, the tinting looks absolutely in keeping and just right. Fantastic.

 

[mark brown]

Any chance for a Region A?

 

[Dick]

Any chance for a Region A?

My guess: close to none.

 

[haineshisway]

Got it today and watched it immediately. Lovely job all around and tint seems just right.

 

[Charles Smith]

Okay, can't wait any longer. Just ordered it.