Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › DVD › "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution - Page 3

post #61 of 194
12/31/08 at 11:34am

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

There is no complete print. There is no collector that is holding out. If MR COLLECTOR IS a film lover then he should send the footage to Warner Brothers so generations to come can enjoy the complete version! If he doesn't turn the footage over to Warner Brothers then the movie will die with him! I highly doubt a complete print is out there! It would of turned up by now. Also any 16mm print that was made for A STAR IS BORN will be the short version.
Reply
post #62 of 194
1/28/10 at 5:52pm
Is it expected to be released this year?
Reply
post #63 of 194
1/28/10 at 7:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by felipenor View Post

Is it expected to be released this year?
Last year's Warner Home Video Chat:
Quote:
[warnerbros] Yes. We will release the remaining five unreleased Judys....most likely when we issue our now-being-super-restored A STAR IS BORN special edition. Tentative date Spring 2010.
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/032409htfchat.html

HOWEVER that date is tentative. Warner also said there would be international postage for Warner Archive, and that Film Noir 5 would be released late last year, but neither of those things happened.
Reply
post #64 of 194
1/28/10 at 10:10pm
Wasn't there a PR report during the fall that stated, alongside with the success of the Warner Archive program, that said that A Star is Born will be released on Blu-ray, with both the original and the remake?
Reply
post #65 of 194
1/29/10 at 2:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoHud View Post

Wasn't there a PR report during the fall that stated, alongside with the success of the Warner Archive program, that said that A Star is Born will be released on Blu-ray, with both the original and the remake?
I think you mean Barry Maxwell's column. A bunch of release dates were released by Warner France. Who knows if that relates to the U.S. date:
Quote:
On the Blu-ray front from Warner Bros., there have been leaks over the past month of classic releases coming in 2010 in France. On the docket there, apparently, are: Kelly's Heroes (1970) and Where Eagles Dare (1968) on April 7th; A Star Is Born (1954) on May 12th;
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/barriemaxwell/maxwell112509b.html
Reply
post #66 of 194
2/3/10 at 12:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanton Heck View Post

There is no complete print. There is no collector that is holding out. If MR COLLECTOR IS a film lover then he should send the footage to Warner Brothers so generations to come can enjoy the complete version! If he doesn't turn the footage over to Warner Brothers then the movie will die with him! I highly doubt a complete print is out there! It would of turned up by now. Also any 16mm print that was made for A STAR IS BORN will be the short version.
The collector would also be an idiot.  The studio not knowing what the left hand is doing would probably destroy it as an illegal print.  And there's always the instructive object lesson of THE ALAMO turning up in a beautiful roadshow print only to be improperly stored by the studio and allowed to turn to vinegar.  Collectors don't trust the studios to take care of their assets, with good reason.
Reply
post #67 of 194
2/8/10 at 12:33pm
Haven't had a chance to watch it yet, but A Star Is Born has appeared on Netflix's streaming service in HD.  Could this be the new restoration?
Reply
post #68 of 194
2/9/10 at 8:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Mason View Post

Haven't had a chance to watch it yet, but A Star Is Born has appeared on Netflix's streaming service in HD.  Could this be the new restoration?
I doubt it since Warner Bros. is saving the new restoration to premiere at the Turner Classic Film Festival. A hi def version of the film has also recently been shown on HDNET. It looked good but I assumed it was from an existing source. It started with the dedication to film preservation that is on the current DVD.
Reply
post #69 of 194
2/9/10 at 8:47pm
Quote:
The studio not knowing what the left hand is doing would probably destroy it as an illegal print.  And there's always the instructive object lesson of THE ALAMO turning up in a beautiful roadshow print only to be improperly stored by the studio and allowed to turn to vinegar.

I don't think this would be the case.  WB would be happy to obtain and preserve the missing footage, and I'm sure they'd take good care of it.

THE ALAMO situation was the exception to the rule.  The print went vinegar because it was treated with a scratch removal process that ended up chemically destroying the base of the film, not because of inadequate storage.

By the way, for whatever it's worth, the story goes that this certain collector salvaged the film out of a garbage dumpster at WB, making the print quite legitimately the collector's.
Reply
post #70 of 194
2/10/10 at 6:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Howson View Post



I think you mean Barry Maxwell's column. A bunch of release dates were released by Warner France. Who knows if that relates to the U.S. date:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/barriemaxwell/maxwell112509b.html
 

They list Dial M For Murder on Blu-ray in June. I guess this will be released again when the Blu-ray 3D version comes out?
Reply
post #71 of 194
2/10/10 at 10:14am
I doubt we will hear in firm news on A STAR IS BORN release until after the premiere at TCM Film Festival this spring.  It will more than likely come out during the presentation and hit the reviews of the restored film in digital.
Reply
post #72 of 194
2/11/10 at 9:26pm
Quote:
They list Dial M For Murder on Blu-ray in June. I guess this will be released again when the Blu-ray 3D version comes out?

That is for a French release, I believe.  There's nothing on the boards right now for a domestic BD, I'm told.
Reply
post #73 of 194
2/14/10 at 7:32pm
I can't get excited over a new restoration of A STAR IS BORN unless the missing footage has been reinstated.
Reply
post #74 of 194
2/14/10 at 11:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Nelson View Post

I can't get excited over a new restoration of A STAR IS BORN unless the missing footage has been reinstated.
And the Born in a Trunk number is omitted, which was added to the film after Cukor finished it, and it wasn't even directed by Cukor.
Reply
post #75 of 194
2/15/10 at 9:58am
It may not have been directed by Cukor, but its an absolute masterpiece of Judy Garland's career. It must be there.
Reply
post #76 of 194
2/15/10 at 3:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon_D View Post

It may not have been directed by Cukor, but its an absolute masterpiece of Judy Garland's career. It must be there.
I guess it depends on if it is going to be a director's cut or not, because if it is, it shouldn't be in the film.
Reply
post #77 of 194
2/16/10 at 8:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Howson View Post



I guess it depends on if it is going to be a director's cut or not, because if it is, it shouldn't be in the film.

 

It's impossible to create a "director's cut" of this film as the director has been gone for nearly 27 years.  Cukor has gone on record as saying that he could have eliminated 25 minutes or more from the film with indetectable cuts that no one would have noticed.  And he was right.  The film as it is plays like a rough first cut, especially the opening sequence which contains a lot of redundant shots and overlong shots that belabor the points being made.  But Cukor never had the chance to make the editorial decisions that a "director's cut" would require, so it is what it is, missing segments notwithstanding.

And nobody's going to delete "Born in a Trunk" which is one of Garland's finest moments on film regardless of who directed it.
Reply
post #78 of 194
2/16/10 at 9:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob_Ray View Post




It's impossible to create a "director's cut" of this film as the director has been gone for nearly 27 years.  Cukor has gone on record as saying that he could have eliminated 25 minutes or more from the film with indetectable cuts that no one would have noticed.  And he was right.  The film as it is plays like a rough first cut, especially the opening sequence which contains a lot of redundant shots and overlong shots that belabor the points being made.  But Cukor never had the chance to make the editorial decisions that a "director's cut" would require, so it is what it is, missing segments notwithstanding.

And nobody's going to delete "Born in a Trunk" which is one of Garland's finest moments on film regardless of who directed it.
 

While George Cukor directed it, it was a Jack Warner film from the beginning and was the one that actually cut the film in the end.  I'm with you on the "Born In A Trunk" number.  It was a part of the film for the start and should stay.  I don't understand the controversy about the song being in the film 
Reply
post #79 of 194
2/16/10 at 10:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahollis View Post
 I'm with you on the "Born In A Trunk" number.  It was a part of the film for the start and should stay.  I don't understand the controversy about the song being in the film 
The "controversy" originated with George Cukor telling interviewers that he thought inserting the number was a mistake which unbalanced the movie. For example in Cukor by Carlos Clarens (Secker & Warburg, 1976, SBN 436 09942 X) Cukor says The picture was mangled after the premier. They thought it was over-long, which it probably was, except that everything was in the right place. So they cut important scenes to make room for the endless "Born In A Trunk" number, which I did not direct - it was put together by the art director and the choreographer - and they removed "Lose That Long Face" which was essential to the scene with Bickford in her dressing room.

The ideal situation would be for Warners to make peace with that collector and then to issue on a Special Edition Blu-ray two versions of the movie: George Cukor's version without "Born In A Trunk" and also Jack Warners' version with the number included.
Reply
post #80 of 194
2/16/10 at 10:49am
Thanks for the explanation.  I am not sure that I agree that it should be deleted since it was in the film for most of it's release history, I can understand why some people are dedicated to an original Cukor version, but unless he made notes as Orson Wells did, then I not sure we will get his vision.
Reply
post #81 of 194
2/16/10 at 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Theakston View Post



I don't think this would be the case.  WB would be happy to obtain and preserve the missing footage, and I'm sure they'd take good care of it.
 
I'm sure that's most likely true if the home video people at WB got their hands on it first.  Unfortunately WB is an enormous operation and all it takes is one overzealous employee in the wrong place and poof it's gone.
Reply
post #82 of 194
2/16/10 at 10:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob_Ray View Post

The film as it is plays like a rough first cut, especially the opening sequence which contains a lot of redundant shots and overlong shots that belabor the points being made. 
Can you give some examples of the "redundant" and "overlong" shots? Cos I can't find them.
Reply
post #83 of 194
2/16/10 at 10:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Zimmer View Post



I'm sure that's most likely true if the home video people at WB got their hands on it first.  Unfortunately WB is an enormous operation and all it takes is one overzealous employee in the wrong place and poof it's gone.
 
Surely Warner would be aware of the immense value of that long considered lost footage?
Reply
post #84 of 194
2/16/10 at 11:30pm
I for one would love to see these Missing Scenes from this movie!  I don't like the 'Still Pictures' regarding this movie: "A Star Is Born" with only the Original Audio playing in the background. It makes me sad that these scenes were carelessly lost! MGM wouldn't have done this since they saved everything they could get their hands on when making their Films!
Reply
post #85 of 194
2/17/10 at 1:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg2356 View Post

I for one would love to see these Missing Scenes from this movie!  I don't like the 'Still Pictures' regarding this movie:
I agree. If they can't include the missing footage, I hope they at least use seamless branching so it is possible to watch the film without the stills.
Reply
post #86 of 194
2/17/10 at 2:42am
Great Idea Beth!
Reply
post #87 of 194
2/17/10 at 7:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BethHarrison View Post



Can you give some examples of the "redundant" and "overlong" shots? Cos I can't find them.

 

Here's an example of  redundancy:  There are three separate shots from inside her limosine of Lola Lavery waving to the mob of people outside her car.  One shot would do.

And as far as shots being overlong:  The shots of Norman Maine staggering around backstage at the Shrine go on and on and on long after the point is made.

A good editor could have eliminated a full five minutes from that opening sequence alone without cutting a word of dialogue.  When a movie is coming in at nearly three hours, this is exactly the kind of thing you tighten up so that the story moves more briskly.  And this is exactly the kind of thing that Cukor was talking about when he said he could eliminate nearly half an hour out of the running time without anyone noticing.  No one particular scene would have been eliminated, but the entire film could have been substantially tightened.

But all the major players are gone now and this version of "A Star is Born" should stand as a testament to what they did accomplish and not what could have been.  By all means, put back the missing footage if it ever comes to light, but it's far too late to be eliminating "Born in a Trunk."  Should we eliminate "As Time Goes By" from Casablanca?  Max Steiner never liked it because it was an old forgotten tune that was foisted upon him when he wanted to write something new.
Reply
post #88 of 194
2/18/10 at 2:26am
Yeah, they could take out that whole Coconut Grove sequence too. I've never understood why that 2 minute long take featuring some of the most complex staging in an early CinemaScope film was left in.
Reply
post #89 of 194
2/18/10 at 7:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin9 View Post

The "controversy" originated with George Cukor telling interviewers that he thought inserting the number was a mistake which unbalanced the movie. For example in Cukor by Carlos Clarens (Secker & Warburg, 1976, SBN 436 09942 X) Cukor says The picture was mangled after the premier. They thought it was over-long, which it probably was, except that everything was in the right place. So they cut important scenes to make room for the endless "Born In A Trunk" number, which I did not direct - it was put together by the art director and the choreographer
 
Wasn't "Born In A Trunk" added because it was felt without a big number there was nothing in the film that showed why Esther was a star ? I guess that is also true of the 1937 version. The problem with making a musical out of  a drama is that you need to condense the story to get the musical numbers in. . When you do cut the story it makes for a musical which is not as good as the original . Examples I can think of are the Philadelphia Story which was remade as the musical High Society and Ninochka which was remade as Silk Stockings. Its tough when the songs don't move the plot along as is the case with "Born In A Trunk," where the characters are spending 10 to 15 minutes watching Esther's movie.

If possible, I think there should be many ways to watch the film on the next blu-ray /standard release.
1. The short version which is how the film existed from 1954 to 1983.
2. The film with the found musical numbers without the stills for those who hate the stills.
3. The film with the found musical numbers and the stills.

As an extra I think they should include the found musical numbers or perhaps a way to just run all the musical numbers.

Another extra should be all soundtrack that was cut to make the short version and not just the cut soundtrack that was still cut after the restoration in 1983 as was done in the current DVD release.

 


Edited by Garysb - 2/18/10 at 1:21pm
Reply
post #90 of 194
2/18/10 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BethHarrison View Post



Surely Warner would be aware of the immense value of that long considered lost footage?

 

Only if the person who ended up with the footage knew a) what it was and b) that they had been looking for it.  Otherwise "eh, it's a bunch of trims.  Burn it."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DVD
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › DVD › "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution