New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CLEOPATRA Region Free BRD - Page 8

post #211 of 275
2/6/12 at 12:55pm

Another thing about the selections on Broadway cast LPs, though, is that they might sometimes have been rearranged slightly for better flow in listening to one song after another.  Am I remembering correctly that one of Goddard Lieberson's personal mandates was to tailor a cast album to be a good and satisfying album, in and of itself?  Of course that was probably the case with any good producer.  And of course I digress.....

Reply
post #212 of 275
2/6/12 at 2:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas R View Post

The documentary “The Film Which Changed Hollywood” which is on the Blu-ray and was also on the DVD states that the UK premiere was held at the Dominion in London in autumn 1963 and that the cut version was shown.
I don’t think that’s correct. For one thing the film opened at the Dominion in the middle of summer in July 1963, not autumn, and I’m fairly certain that the version I saw at that cinema, very soon after the premiere, was the full 4 hour version. I saw the film again when it went on general release in 1964 and noticed that it had then been cut from the version I’d seen at the Dominion.
Did anyone else see the film at the Dominion soon after the premiere and can confirm that the full 4 hour versions was shown?

Yes Doug. I saved up my pocket money ( a mammoth 10 shillings-the cheapest seats)and saw it at the Dominion at the matinee performance following the premiere-the first public showing. The doco makes two errors.
The first and most important is that it states that the Dominion presentation was the 3hour 15 mins version. That is totally incorrect. That was used at the Paris opening a few months later and became the 35mm general release version.Later 70mm prints were edited down to this length.
We got a 3hour 40 min (or thereabouts) version cutting many small scenes from the 4 hour Rivoli version among them the scene before Alexander's tomb and the first fire divination scene where it is for foretold that she will bear Caeser a son.
The doco also states the Elizabeth was at the premiere. Again untrue. Despite large crowds waiting to see her and Burton, they did not turn up. She later saw it at a charity performance for the Royal Ballet.The premiere was also covered live by the BBC-very unusual for those days.

The other error is that it states Elizabeth"owned Todd AO". She had a large share holding left to her by Michael Todd but the controlling interest had been sold to Fox in 1958 who then would use it for their prestige pictures like Can Can and the planned Greatest Story Ever Told.

Shame -apart from these errors, it is otherwise outstanding.
Reply
post #213 of 275
2/6/12 at 2:23pm
Thanks for that John. I was in the ten shilling seats as well!
Reply
post #214 of 275
2/6/12 at 11:29pm
I too saw the film at the Dominion and remember thinking it badly needed a chariot race or something to liven it up. I'm pretty sure it was the four-hour version (it certainly felt like it) but the usually authoritative Monthly Film Bulletin (Sep 1963, p127) lists its running time as "226 minutes (original running time 243 mins)" Now, the difference might be the length of the Overture, Entr'Acte and Play-out music . . . but it's a weird discrepancy.

I ran the film in 70mm a few times at the NFT in the 1980s and we never managed to obtain the original version.
Reply
post #215 of 275
2/7/12 at 4:07am

The BBFC lists the version certified on 30/05/63 as 243 minutes 11 seconds (21886 feet) and the one

certfied on 08/12/2011 (presumably the blu-ray)  as 251 minutes 7 seconds (01:59:34 FEATURE PART 1, 02:11:33 FEATURE PART 2).

Reply
post #216 of 275
2/7/12 at 4:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickardL View Post

The BBFC lists the version certified on 30/05/63 as 243 minutes 11 seconds (21886 feet) and the one
certfied on 08/12/2011 (presumably the blu-ray)  as 251 minutes 7 seconds (01:59:34 FEATURE PART 1, 02:11:33 FEATURE PART 2).

Yes - checking the Blu-ray, the 251 minute length includes the Overture, Entr'acte and Exit Music. The film itself is 243 minutes. So that BBFC classification in May 1963 suggests that the complete 4 hour version was originally shown at the Dominion?
Reply
post #217 of 275
2/7/12 at 5:35am

Is the Overture, Entr'acte and Exit Music 7-8 minutes? 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas R View Post


Yes - checking the Blu-ray, the 251 minute length includes the Overture, Entr'acte and Exit Music. The film itself is 243 minutes. So that BBFC classification in May 1963 suggests that the complete 4 hour version was originally shown at the Dominion?



Edit: corrected the number of minutes....

 


Edited by RickardL - 2/7/12 at 5:50am
Reply
post #218 of 275
2/7/12 at 5:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickardL View Post

Is the Overture, Entr'acte and Exit Music 17 minutes?

I'm not sure were you get 17 minutes. The Overture, Entr'acte and Exit Music are a bit under 8 minutes which is the difference between 251 and 243 minutes.
Reply
post #219 of 275
2/7/12 at 5:48am

 Oops! yes, it should have been 7-8 minutes of course... sorry about that! rolleyes.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas R View Post


I'm not sure were you get 17 minutes. The Overture, Entr'acte and Exit Music are a bit under 8 minutes which is the difference between 251 and 243 minutes.


 

Reply
post #220 of 275
2/7/12 at 7:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianTurner View Post

I too saw the film at the Dominion and remember thinking it badly needed a chariot race or something to liven it up.

A chariot race?! Cleopatra's Entrance Into Rome beats Ben-Hur's chariot race for me any day of the week. And apparently Madonna thinks so, too, as she just stole it for her Super Bowl halftime performance. biggrin.gif
Reply
post #221 of 275
2/7/12 at 12:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kagemusha98 View Post

I was at the HMV store on Oxford St in London on saturday. One of the staff put on the BLU of CLEOPATRA....,,,,,within minutes a large crowd ultimately gathered watching Cleopatra's entrance into Rome..everyone was transfixed .....comments such as "Is this 3D without glasses?" ..." and look no CGI..wow"...." Now I have to buy a blu ray player". Within 15 minutes.....35 copies were sold.
It was very cool to observe!

I was in there today & they were showing it, but....they'd racked the colour right up to the max! Reds & blues were electric (it didn't do much for poor old yellow),& the contrast was wound up (but it always is there), it didn't look very filmlike, but it did look almost 3D.
Edited by Billy Batson - 2/8/12 at 5:31am
Reply
post #222 of 275
2/7/12 at 3:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianTurner View Post

I too saw the film at the Dominion and remember thinking it badly needed a chariot race or something to liven it up. I'm pretty sure it was the four-hour version (it certainly felt like it) but the usually authoritative Monthly Film Bulletin (Sep 1963, p127) lists its running time as "226 minutes (original running time 243 mins)" Now, the difference might be the length of the Overture, Entr'Acte and Play-out music . . . but it's a weird discrepancy.
I ran the film in 70mm a few times at the NFT in the 1980s and we never managed to obtain the original version.

226 minutes sounds about right. Zanuck himself was said to have edited the 243 minutes down for the Dominion print: its first showing outside North America. I think this "Dominion" version is mentioned in the Tom Rothman doco.
Thanks for booking it for the NFT, Adrian,.That's where I last saw it in 70mm. Numerous splices from memory where the cuts were made.
Reply
post #223 of 275
2/8/12 at 6:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Batson View Post

I was in there today & they were showing it, but....they'd racked the colour right up to the max! Reds & blues were electric (it didn't do much for poor old yellow),& the contrast was wound up (but it always is there), it didn't look very filmlike, but it did look almost 3D.

I received my copy a couple of days ago. I did feel the color was somewhat drab; although the image was quite sharp. It looked pretty good after I bumped up the color a little.
Reply
post #224 of 275
2/10/12 at 11:00pm
I spot checked the movie tonight on my DLP projector and 110" screen. I felt the color was excellent and vibrant at my normal settings. Contrast, sharpness, and fine grain are great as well.
Reply
post #225 of 275
2/11/12 at 2:10pm
I'm disappointed. I ordered this from Amazon UK earlier this week and last night received an email saying it would be another week to 10 days before they'll be able to ship. I was considering cancelling and trying to order from someplace else, but have decided that I'll probably end up with less aggravation if I just wait for Amazon. This is the first time I've ordered from a foreign Amazon site. I'm sorry to find it just as frustrating as the US site. Can anyone tell me how long, with the standard shipping, it will probably take to reach me in the states once it is shipped?
Reply
post #226 of 275
2/11/12 at 3:14pm
Could mean Amazon UK had sold out? I actually got mine a week earlier than anticipated.It's worth the wait.
Reply
post #227 of 275
2/11/12 at 3:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by adklz View Post

I'm disappointed. I ordered this from Amazon UK earlier this week and last night received an email saying it would be another week to 10 days before they'll be able to ship. I was considering cancelling and trying to order from someplace else, but have decided that I'll probably end up with less aggravation if I just wait for Amazon. This is the first time I've ordered from a foreign Amazon site. I'm sorry to find it just as frustrating as the US site. Can anyone tell me how long, with the standard shipping, it will probably take to reach me in the states once it is shipped?

Usually my orders take about 3 weeks to arrive once shipped. I have no idea why it takes so long as most others seem to get theirs within a week to a week and a half. That said, I still love ordering from Amazon UK as the prices are great.
Reply
post #228 of 275
2/11/12 at 5:02pm
3 weeks from the shipping date? Yikes. I occasionally send packages back and forth with a friend in Germany and they generally take less than a week to cross the pond. Has anyone had any experience ordering from Grooves-Inc? They have the german edition for $18.00 with free shipping world wide. It's also available from CD Wow. I've had good luck ordering import cd's from them, but they also list a 7 to 10 day period before shipping. I'm the impatient sort. Once I decide I want something - I want it now. I drive myself crazy.
Reply
post #229 of 275
2/11/12 at 8:11pm
I live in California and Amazon UK shipments usually just take a week or so to get here.
Reply
post #230 of 275
2/11/12 at 10:06pm
They are normally one week to Australia using either Royal Mail or Deutsch Post standard airmail. And their postage is cheap and sometimes free (used to be orders over 50 quid.) I am generally pleased with this but I agree with the poster back a while who thought the skin tones were ever so slightly gray. Apart from this, color resolution, sharpness, contrast look superb and the two halves of the film are supported by two BD50 discs.
I have a recent HDnet 720p broadcast copy which was also very fine and whetted my appetite - I have to say this 720p transfer has the benefit of far more "natural" and warmer skin tones.

It's a tiny issue, really but.....
Reply
post #231 of 275
2/11/12 at 10:17pm
Everyone would like a perfect transfer of every film, but I'll take "slightly gray" skintones over those annoying overly red ones seen so often.
Reply
post #232 of 275
2/12/12 at 4:43am
I'll keep on fighting the good fight, even though I'm outnumbered. I don't like this transfer, it's cool when it should be rich, the colours are dull when they should be vibrant. And it didn't look like this at the time becouse no film did. Whoever did it has obviously used all the latest grading tools to get into the picture & tweak the colours & give it a today look. I'm so glad they didn't muck up How The West Was Won like this (& I know it's a different studio).
Reply
post #233 of 275
2/12/12 at 10:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Batson View Post

I'll keep on fighting the good fight, even though I'm outnumbered. I don't like this transfer, it's cool when it should be rich, the colours are dull when they should be vibrant. And it didn't look like this at the time becouse no film did. Whoever did it has obviously used all the latest grading tools to get into the picture & tweak the colours & give it a today look. I'm so glad they didn't muck up How The West Was Won like this (& I know it's a different studio).

I'll agree with you on HTWWW. That is about as close to the look of a dye transfer Technicolor print as you can get on video. I had 16mm and 35mm projectors and prints back in my film collecting days. As nice and convenient as digital projection at home is these days, I do miss firing up my 35mm projector with xenon lamphouse and showing a Tech print on a 20-foot screen! The last thing we showed back in 2001 was an IB Tech/Scope print of John Wayne's The War Wagon. Where's that on Blu-ray, Universal?? Anyway, color perception and taste is a very subjective thing. I think Cleopatra looks pretty darn good, but you don't have to agree.
Reply
post #234 of 275
2/12/12 at 2:58pm
Yes agree on HTWWW. Of course original print runs were IB Techni.
Despite Cleopatra carrying the color by Deluxe crdit I'm certain some first release prints of it (and many other Todd AO movies) were printed by Technicolor. I have to say in regard to my perception of the skin tones, they suggest the whole color timing and grading has been cooled down. It really stands out like the proverbial when you compare to the 720p download. I would far prefer to watch the latter despite the drop in resolution and audio quality.
Reply
post #235 of 275
2/12/12 at 3:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by flixyflox View Post

Yes agree on HTWWW. Of course original print runs were IB Techni.
Despite Cleopatra carrying the color by Deluxe crdit I'm certain some first release prints of it (and many other Todd AO movies) were printed by Technicolor. I have to say in regard to my perception of the skin tones, they suggest the whole color timing and grading has been cooled down. It really stands out like the proverbial when you compare to the 720p download. I would far prefer to watch the latter despite the drop in resolution and audio quality.

I can't speak to the 35mm general release prints, but in 70mm there would have been no Technicolor prints. Tech didn't print 70mm.
Reply
post #236 of 275
2/13/12 at 9:52pm
A number of Todd-AO films had 35mm IB Tech prints. This is also true of other 70mm productions.

Richard W. Haines' "Technicolor Movies" (p. 106) says that British prints of the short version of Cleopatra were produced in IB Tech. Apparently no US prints.

The 35mm prints I saw were most decidedly Eastman and certainly had the unique look of "Color by Deluxe", which was a quite pretty pastel typical of the 50's. Alas, it faded.


As stated, there were never 70mm IB Tech prints. 16mm prints were very common and were produced by having two images on a 35mm strip with 16mm-style perfs. 16mm IB Tech prints were often spectacular if properly exhibited.
Reply
post #237 of 275
2/13/12 at 9:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Batson View Post

I'll keep on fighting the good fight, even though I'm outnumbered. I don't like this transfer, it's cool when it should be rich, the colours are dull when they should be vibrant. And it didn't look like this at the time becouse no film did. Whoever did it has obviously used all the latest grading tools to get into the picture & tweak the colours & give it a today look. I'm so glad they didn't muck up How The West Was Won like this (& I know it's a different studio).

Like I said, I adjusted it to match my memory.
Reply
post #238 of 275
2/14/12 at 11:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsmithjr View Post

16mm prints were very common and were produced by having two images on a 35mm strip with 16mm-style perfs.

Please elaborate on this odd statement (you don't think that Kodak, Fuji, et al didn't have have dedicated equipment for producing 16mm stock, negative, print and reversal?).

And, in the 1970's, when Kodak introduced 110 format pocket still cameras, you know what 110 film was?

Yup -- 16mm film with different perforations. The whole idea was to maximize the use of their 16mm film production capacity, so they designed a still camera around it.
Reply
post #239 of 275
2/14/12 at 12:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollowbrook Drive-In View Post

Please elaborate on this odd statement (you don't think that Kodak, Fuji, et al didn't have have dedicated equipment for producing 16mm stock, negative, print and reversal?).
And, in the 1970's, when Kodak introduced 110 format pocket still cameras, you know what 110 film was?
Yup -- 16mm film with different perforations. The whole idea was to maximize the use of their 16mm film production capacity, so they designed a still camera around it.

He's probably talking about dual rank printing, often used by Technicolor for their 16mm prints. Technicolor printed 16mm this way and also as a single strip. Some companies printed Super 8 as quad rank, with four prints on one piece of 35mm film. The film was then slit into single strips, as Technicolor did with their dual rank 16mm prints.
Reply
post #240 of 275
2/14/12 at 6:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollowbrook Drive-In View Post

Please elaborate on this odd statement (you don't think that Kodak, Fuji, et al didn't have have dedicated equipment for producing 16mm stock, negative, print and reversal?).
And, in the 1970's, when Kodak introduced 110 format pocket still cameras, you know what 110 film was?
Yup -- 16mm film with different perforations. The whole idea was to maximize the use of their 16mm film production capacity, so they designed a still camera around it.


Odd perhaps but also quite accurate.

Please see Richard W. Haines' "Techicolor Movies", pp. 30-31.

Double-rank printing used 35mm matrices and stock with two 16mm images. After printing, the two images were cut apart. The stock was perforated for 16mm use.
Single-rank used 16mm matrices.

Double-rank was considered better because their were fewer registration problems.

You are right that other companies had their negative, print, and reversal stock. That is not particularly relevant to IB Tech.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray