Home Theater Forum  ›  Forums  ›  Talk With The Insiders  ›  Robert Harris  ›  Around The World In 80 Days (1956)
Hey There!

Thanks for checking out our community! We've got lots of great stuff going on around here... why don't you create an account and join the fun? Why?

Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread

Around The World In 80 Days (1956)

#1
Rating: 0
2/9/09 at 6:58pm
  • Joined: February 2006
  • Post Count: 48
Robert, I know you and James Katz were going to do a restoration of this when it was determined that the matrials were in such poor shape, that the restoration would be very expensive and the studio did not want to spend the money (I remember a photo of the negative in an AMC magazine, when AMC was good). No one ever talked about it and on The Digital Bits I never heard your thoughts. What did Warner's do for the DVD to make it look good. To me from what I heard the situation was with the negative and from all my life watching the pan and scan video tape, the DVD was incredible and that's when I put my faith in Warners. Any thoughts on what Warner's did ...I know this goes back to 2004, when it came out.
Export to Wiki
#2
Rating: 0
2/11/09 at 5:25pm
  • Joined: April 2008
  • Location: Newport Beach, CA
  • Post Count: 432

Re: Around The World In 80 Days (1956)

Curiously, the PlayStation Store has recently added this title as an HD rental download.

BD-Live Tip: To save on storage space, always delete the BD-Live data for any Blu-ray rentals after you return them.
Export to Wiki
#3
Rating: 0
2/11/09 at 6:03pm
  • Joined: May 2001
  • Location: Georgia, USA
  • Post Count: 7,216

Re: Around The World In 80 Days (1956)

I'd love to see a proper restoration of both cuts. This is one of my favorite films (as evidenced by a review the mods let me do years ago).

Warner's DVD looks quite good. Color is terrific. But it's not quite as sharp as other 65mm productions and it seems that barely any digital cleanup was applied. The 5.1 (re)mix is excellent, without knowledge on whether or not it's faithful to the original 6-track mag mix.

One aspect about the DVD that's unfortunate is that they seemed to overlook all of the extensive Library of Congress holdings. They have the deleted scenes like the alternate prologue, as well as hours of 16mm behind-the-scenes footage.

Count me in for a full-scale restoration and BluRay release with both 1080p/24fps and 1080p/30fps versions.

Tell The Weinstein Company to release Richard Williams' animated masterpiece The Thief and the Cobbler on DVD in Panavision widescreen and uncut! See and hear what you're missing from their Bitsy Award winner of Worst Standard Edition DVD of 2006 on YouTube!
Export to Wiki
#4
Rating: 0
2/12/09 at 4:35am
  • Joined: February 1999
  • Post Count: 2,866

Re: Around The World In 80 Days (1956)

This is a film that is in need of a ground-up restoration. There are element problems exacerbated by various other missing elements. As I recall, I believe the current video version is derived from the generic 24fps version. This can be checked by looking at instances of background footage (without actors). If things move slowly, it isn't the Todd-AO version.

RAH

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did."  T.E. Lawrence

Export to Wiki
#5
Rating: 0
2/12/09 at 3:23pm
  • Joined: February 2006
  • Post Count: 48

Re: Around The World In 80 Days (1956)

I would be in favor of a full restoration also. There are so many still out there. I still can't believe the studios have not wised up. I don't know if this is Warner's fault or United Artists as I believe it was a U/A film first. So the matrials must have been in poor shape when Warners got the rights.
Export to Wiki
#6
Rating: 0
2/12/09 at 7:40pm
  • Joined: May 2001
  • Location: Georgia, USA
  • Post Count: 7,216

Re: Around The World In 80 Days (1956)

It was owned by Michael Todd's estate until it was sold to WB and was messed up already.

By the way, what's the history on the multiple cuts?

The VHS and laserdisc editions were pan & scan, but were "uncut". The old TV version is missing the intermission and exit music. Both are pan & scan. The DVD adds back the original intermission card and a lengthy scene with Cantinflas on horseback.

Back when TCM aired the letterboxed version for the first time, they had to use the 1983 version that's about 20 minutes shorter. They ended up showing the longer P&S version a few more times before switching to the DVD version.

Did that shorter cut exist for the 1957 general release or did Warner put together that version for the re-release?

Tell The Weinstein Company to release Richard Williams' animated masterpiece The Thief and the Cobbler on DVD in Panavision widescreen and uncut! See and hear what you're missing from their Bitsy Award winner of Worst Standard Edition DVD of 2006 on YouTube!
Export to Wiki
#7
Rating: 0
2/23/09 at 9:51pm
  • Joined: January 2007
  • Post Count: 25

Re: Around The World In 80 Days (1956)

Here's what Wikipedia says - it seems to contradict itself regarding what was used for the DVD:

Around 1976, after its last network television broadcast on CBS, UA lost control of the film to Elizabeth Taylor. In 1983 Warner Bros. acquired the rights to the film and reissued it theatrically in a re-edited 143-minute version. In the years that followed, a pan-and-scan transfer of the 35mm version (presented at its full 183-minute length) was shown on cable television.

In 2004, WB issued a digitally restored version of the 35mm incarnation on DVD, also at its full 183-minute length, including the original intermission, Entr'acte, and exit music that were a part of the original theatrical release, and for the first time on home video at its original 2.2:1 aspect ratio.

This restored version was reconstructed from the best available elements of the 35mm version WB could find, and was subsequently shown on TCM. The original elements from the 70mm Todd-AO version (as well as the original prints derived from these elements) still exist, albeit in faded condition but remain to be formally restored by WB.

Warner's retained Andy Pratt Film Labs who in conjunction with Eastman Kodak developed a method to remove the cracked and fading to brown, clear lacquer from the original 65mm Technicolor negative. WB did nothing further to restore the negative.

The 65mm roadshow print negative was used for the DVD. Had any 35mm anamorphic elements been used, the aspect ratio would have been 2.35:1. Mike Todd had limited 35mm anamorphic prints made with a non-standard compression ratio to provide a 2.21:1 viewing experience. These special 35mm prints are called Cinestage, the same name of Mike Todd's showcase theatre in Chicago.

The best available prints of the 70mm version have recently been exhibited in revival movie houses worldwide. As of 2007, WB remains the film's rights holder.
Export to Wiki
#8
Rating: 0
7/6/09 at 11:33pm
  • Joined: October 2001
  • Post Count: 338

Quote:
Originally Posted by marknyc View Post

Here's what Wikipedia says - it seems to contradict itself regarding what was used for the DVD:

Around 1976, after its last network television broadcast on CBS, UA lost control of the film to Elizabeth Taylor. In 1983 Warner Bros. acquired the rights to the film and reissued it theatrically in a re-edited 143-minute version. In the years that followed, a pan-and-scan transfer of the 35mm version (presented at its full 183-minute length) was shown on cable television.

In 2004, WB issued a digitally restored version of the 35mm incarnation on DVD, also at its full 183-minute length, including the original intermission, Entr'acte, and exit music that were a part of the original theatrical release, and for the first time on home video at its original 2.2:1 aspect ratio.

This restored version was reconstructed from the best available elements of the 35mm version WB could find, and was subsequently shown on TCM. The original elements from the 70mm Todd-AO version (as well as the original prints derived from these elements) still exist, albeit in faded condition but remain to be formally restored by WB.

Warner's retained Andy Pratt Film Labs who in conjunction with Eastman Kodak developed a method to remove the cracked and fading to brown, clear lacquer from the original 65mm Technicolor negative. WB did nothing further to restore the negative.

The 65mm roadshow print negative was used for the DVD. Had any 35mm anamorphic elements been used, the aspect ratio would have been 2.35:1. Mike Todd had limited 35mm anamorphic prints made with a non-standard compression ratio to provide a 2.21:1 viewing experience. These special 35mm prints are called Cinestage, the same name of Mike Todd's showcase theatre in Chicago.

The best available prints of the 70mm version have recently been exhibited in revival movie houses worldwide. As of 2007, WB remains the film's rights holder.
I personally wrote the Wikipedia section in question, which no doubt will be corrected by me at some point this week to make it make a little more sense.  But after reading all of the posts on this film, it is safe to say that WB is to be commended for at least restoring SOME version of the film, the 24fps incarnation.  So at least we know we will have some version of the film that will continue to be shown for many decades to come, assuming WB takes proper care of this film.  Yes, we have to put some trust in TimeWarner on this classic epic film.

The 70MM Todd AO version is a different beast.  Yes, work does have to be done on this version, but with today's digital technology there is no reason why it should not be restored.  It is just a question of money, and since TimeWarner is a corporate empire, I am confident they will get the job done.  They did with "Blade Runner" and "Superman", so...

Export to Wiki
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread