Lromero1396
Supporting Actor
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2012
- Messages
- 640
- Real Name
- Leon Romero
So is it the same length as the BD version?DP 70 said:Paul, In 70mm.com say the print was for a subsequent Video Transfer but the print had a Bluish Cast.
So is it the same length as the BD version?DP 70 said:Paul, In 70mm.com say the print was for a subsequent Video Transfer but the print had a Bluish Cast.
That would be MGM so it's not likely I.e. THE ALAMO and IT'S A MAD MAD MAD MAD WORLD.Lromero1396 said:Fox really needs to perform restoration on this film before it's too late. The elements are in poor condition and there is missing footage due to cuts made over the years. A major search effort would probably be necessary.
This is an MGM property. Fox is not going to shell out big money for MGM titles based on a temporary distribution deal. ahollis has named The Alamo that is not even released as a DVD so one could argue that TGSET fared better than that as it got a Blu-Ray release that overall is a bit better than a good DVD.Lromero1396 said:Fox really needs to perform restoration on this film before it's too late. The elements are in poor condition and there is missing footage due to cuts made over the years. A major search effort would probably be necessary.
Would differently have to agree with you. They do not have any desire to protect those assets.RolandL said:The 219 minute version of TGSET that I mentioned in a previous email is not owned by MGM. I don't think MGM would spend the money to restore it even if they had it.
That frame was taken from a pinkish German print and it is not from the 219 minute version but the shorter general release version. It is also distorted to make it work on cinerama screens which was quite annoying to watch as it was decided to show it without the usual 1.25:1 attachement that was used for Ultra Panavision productions.RolandL said:It's not lost. Here is a screen shot of a frame from it and a color corrected title.
The image below is from a pinkish German print? My source tells me its from the 219 minute version which does not have the sound track on it. You see more information on the top, bottom and left side because of that. Probably a rectified print as the sides are more sqeezed than the center.OliverK said:That frame was taken from a pinkish German print and it is not from the 219 minute version but the shorter general release version. It is also distorted to make it work on cinerama screens which was quite annoying to watch as it was decided to show it without the usual 1.25:1 attachement that was used for Ultra Panavision productions.
I strongly doubt it exists in Germany. I only can comment on the frame capture that was posted and it definitely is from a regular length print (with some bits missing) that was shown at the Schauburg 70mm film festival in Karlsruhe 2 1/2 years ago. No idea what trims may remain with MGM but seeing how badly they treated the release of the regular version I strongly doubt we will ever get a deluxe extended release.Lromero1396 said:Uhm, so the 219 exists in Germany with no audio? or does it not exist at all? I'm confused
My source says the picture was taken of the frame in 1996 and the 219 print has never been shown theatrically. I have not seen this print so I'm only taking his word for it.OliverK said:Your source is wrong then and should not misrepresent the print like that. I saw it projected myself and it definitely was not the longer version. The person who is doing these color corrections has been doing this with many prints with often stunning results, from Ben Hur to Circus World. Ben Hur did also have more picture area than the Blu-Ray by the way. Indeed a rectified print and rather hard to watch on a "normal screen - objects get more narrow and then again wider in horizontal pans.
That was my assumption from the get-go.OliverK said:seeing how badly they treated the release of the regular version I strongly doubt we will ever get a deluxe extended release.
The Robe looks very nice. Get it at that price.TonyD said:I almost bought this and the Robe today as they are $10 at Costco, glad I dind't. How is the Robe, is that one safe to buy?
Well I have seen the print and I know who captured the frame and he did not do it in 1996, more like 2006. It is astonshing to which lengths people will go to make themselves look important, at least this is how it looks to me.RolandL said:My source says the picture was taken of the frame in 1996 and the 219 print has never been shown theatrically. I have not seen this print so I'm only taking his word for it.