Smileboxed THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF THE BROTHERS GRIMM -- Will it ever make it to Bluray? (1 Viewer)

[NY2LA]

Regarding whether the 70mm composite of TIC contained the entire three panels (which combined are wider then 70mm's native 2.20:
Greg Kimbal's article certainly hints at the possibility that the 70mm composite TIC print could have had an anamorphic squeeze which could then contain the full width of all three panels. How much of that actually ended up on the screen when projected is another story. I don't have answers to either but when TIC comes out on video doubtless Someone will explain that, or it will be fairly obvious, since they reportedly won't be blending the join lines as much as WB did on HTWWW. My guess is someone will come forward with that detail sooner than later.

 

[rsmithjr]

When I saw TIC at the Stanley Warner in 1973, my recollection is that the join lines revealed a fairly large amount missing from the sides.
Even if it were anamorphic 70mm as in Ultra Panavision 70, it is likely to not be the full 3 panels.
I did see TIC in 3 panel in Seattle this fall. Paul Allen made a new print for use there, basically looked very good.
However I cannot be sure of my recollections of the 70mm version because I simply haven't seen TIC enough times to have formed any solid opinion. Generally, I have seen a title many times before I will post on a forum about what it looked or sounded like.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Crest Labs made a new 3 panel print of TIC about 10 years ago, and a frame grab can be seen at www.widescreenmuseum.com. Hopefully the materials used to make that print will be used in the SmileBox restoration. As for Brothers Grimm, it appears the 70mm reduction prints were flat rather than rectified, as was possible if printing in the Ultra Panavision anamorphic 70mm process. I also hear the ONeg isn't in as bad shape as previously claimed. There is some water damage, but seeing what has become possible with new scanning processes and digital restoration, I see no reason not to hope for a full restoration if there is sufficient interest.

 

[NY2LA]

When I saw TIC at the Stanley Warner in 1973,

Do you have a ticket stub or something that says Stanley Warner Cinerama? I have seen actual ads for TIC in 72 or 73 at Pacific's Cinerama Dome, as well as reports that Cinerama's relationship with Stanley Warner ended before Mad World opened at the Dome in 63. The theatre on Hollywood Boulevard where HTWWW and Grimm and 2001 were shown was known as the Pacific or Warner or Cinerama.

Because recollection is that the join lines revealed a fairly large amount missing from the sides.

You do know that the panels are not square, right? They're vertical rectangles.

Even if it were anamorphic 70mm as in Ultra Panavision 70, it is likely to not be the full 3 panels.

Why not? as Greg Kimble reports, an anamorphic squeeze could contain the full width of all 3 panes or more. Again I should mention that the specs for Cinerama were never hard and fast and a LOT of Fudging produced variations from theatre to theatre, especially on the sides. There would always be more picture on the sides that won't show onscreen because of the curve and masking and aperture plates.

However I cannot be sure of my recollections of the 70mm version because I simply haven't seen TIC enough times to have formed any solid opinion.

 

[NY2LA]

Crest Labs made a new 3 panel print of TIC about 10 years ago, and a frame grab can be seen at http://www.widescreenmuseum.com. Hopefully the materials used to make that print will be used in the SmileBox restoration. As for Brothers Grimm, it appears the 70mm reduction prints were flat rather than rectified, as was possible if printing in the Ultra Panavision anamorphic 70mm process. I also hear the ONeg isn't in as bad shape as previously claimed. There is some water damage, but seeing what has become possible with new scanning processes and digital restoration, I see no reason not to hope for a full restoration if there is sufficient interest.

Smilebox Restoration? You mean the DVD/Blu-Ray release of TIC? They used a 70mm composite because it was cheaper than running all 3 panels and combining them. I've heard it looks nice but not like HTWWW.
Haven't heard anyone mention the existence of 70mm WWOTBG composite prints. If there was one, a video release would be much more likely.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Go over to Widescreen Museum for a look at a composite print of TWWOTBG. I believe this is what has been used for TCM broadcasts, as well as the VHS pan-and-scan release in the 90s. Re: restoration of TIC, check out this link.

 

[haineshisway]

Hey Bruce. I just know you can give a long, detailed account of seeing Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm in its initial engagements here in Hollywood. You got a receptive audience here, would you mind?
And I bet you can answer whether or not FSM asked Universal for the master to the WWOTBG storybook album, which was reissued by MCA in 86. I have a cassette, not really sure if they ever did a CD. Since those FSM projects seem to like to include everything plus the kitchen sink, I'm surprised they didn't at least try to master the story album from vinyl and just clean it up a bit. God knows there have been soundtrack CDs mastered from worse...

Not sure why they didn't include the storybook and they've certainly mastered from LP before - perhaps there was some weird rights issues? When I did the Chitty reissue I found the cover album by Leroy Holmes and we included that without a problem.
Re Grimm - I saw it about seven times at the Warner Cinerama - whether one thinks it was good, bad, or ugly, it looked incredible and was very impressive there - the Cinerama showings there were real - even when they show three-panel at the Dome it's not real - they don't have the proper louvered screen. I happen to like Brothers Grimm, even with its failings. But for a teen seeing it in Cinerama was amazing. My only other Cinerama experience prior to that was the reissue of Seven Wonders Of The World, in 1959 or 1960. THAT was amazing!

 

[haineshisway]

When I saw TIC at the Stanley Warner in 1973, my recollection is that the join lines revealed a fairly large amount missing from the sides.
Even if it were anamorphic 70mm as in Ultra Panavision 70, it is likely to not be the full 3 panels.
I did see TIC in 3 panel in Seattle this fall. Paul Allen made a new print for use there, basically looked very good.
However I cannot be sure of my recollections of the 70mm version because I simply haven't seen TIC enough times to have formed any solid opinion. Generally, I have seen a title many times before I will post on a forum about what it looked or sounded like.

Sorry, your memory is faulty here and you should stop saying you saw it there It never played there save for its original three-panel engagement in the 1950s. It played the Dome. I've told you (and I was there twice to see it), and others have the ads from the release. You could have seen many, many things at the Pacific's in 1973 but This Is Cinerama wasn't one of them .

 

[NY2LA]

Go over to Widescreen Museum for a look at a composite print of TWWOTBG. I believe this is what has been used for TCM broadcasts, as well as the VHS pan-and-scan release in the 90s. Re: restoration of TIC, check out this link.

Set your DVR next time it airs on TCM and watch for the projector changeover cues in the upper right hand corner. You will see that the changeover cue is an oval shape, indicating an anamorphic print. as in 35mm anamorphic. Way back when this transfer was done for home video it was unheard of to master from anything bigger than 35mm. Even today transferring from larger format is still pretty rare.
TIC has NOT been restored. That word gets thrown around a lot but if you ask Robert Harris who actually HAS restored films, he will explain that a restoration refers to a situation where the original camera negatives are in such bad shape you can no longer get any decent prints or video from them. In such cases they work from every available element using various methods to digitally clean up dirt, fix color, sound, etc. until you can produce a new clean hight quality negative to strike new prints and master a video transfer from. That is a restoration. Examples, My Fair Lady, Lawrence of Arabia.
TIC was not restored. They just made a couple new prints a decade ago, (shown at the Cinerama Dome and Seattle Cinerama) from the original negatives, which were in fairly decent shape. That is not a restoration. TIC has been recently transferred to video from a 70mm composite that was created for a revival engagement in the early 70s. (and the only Cinerama film known to have had a 70mm composite print made) That is not a restoration either. I have read the article you refer to and you need to look at it a bit more closely. it refers to the Cinerama travelogues being "remastered" for video - which is kind of inaccurate as they have never really been mastered for video before. There is a lot of digital manipulation you can do to an element for video but you can't get a new print from it. This new equipment they refer to is being used on some of the travelogues but not TIC. They are just making digital versions of some of the 3 strip films for video release and digital projection. Not really a restoration, though they like to use that word.
There is no evidence of any existing 70mm element for WWOTBG today. You can email Marty at AWSM and ask him about both films

 

[NY2LA]

Not sure why they didn't include the storybook and they've certainly mastered from LP before - perhaps there was some weird rights issues? When I did the Chitty reissue I found the cover album by Leroy Holmes and we included that without a problem.

Their liner notes say they were unable to locate a master and that's why they say it wasn't included. Strange.
And now you're making me want to buy the Chitty album. I don't have a budget for that level of soundtrack collecting (or video for that matter) but may rethink it in this case. Did you have the Corgi Chitty when it came out?

Re Grimm - I saw it about seven times at the Warner Cinerama - whether one thinks it was good, bad, or ugly, it looked incredible and was very impressive there - the Cinerama showings there were real - even when they show three-panel at the Dome it's not real - they don't have the proper louvered screen. I happen to like Brothers Grimm, even with its failings. But for a teen seeing it in Cinerama was amazing. My only other Cinerama experience prior to that was the reissue of Seven Wonders Of The World, in 1959 or 1960. THAT was amazing!

Obviously you worded your answer with awareness that Grimm is treated as the ugly stepsister to West. I don't agree with that, I agree with you. I happen to prefer Grimm to HTWWW, which i find kind of heavy handed in presentation. That operatic vocal Overture, Entracte, Exit Music is like having a very loud Greek Chorus screaming at you: "THIS IS GRAND! THIS IS AN EPIC MOVIE HERE! IF YOU'RE NOT THRILLED, WE'LL SCREAM UNTIL YOU ARE!" Like it's trying too hard, you know? I appreciate both films on their merits, I just find Grimm more enjoyable. Did you buy the souvenir book at one of your seven visits? I totally would have seen it that often if I had that kind of access. Have you watched it enough on TCM to speculate if it was completely remastered or just has the missing elements added to the laserdisc master?
Oh and I completely agree about the Dome being inferior for not having a louvered screen. Maybe if we get that bullet train I can get to Seattle once in a while.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by NY2LA /t/290862/smileboxed-the-wonderful-world-of-the-brothers-grimm-will-it-ever-make-it-to-bluray/60#post_3893377
There is no evidence of any existing 70mm element for WWOTBG today. You can email Marty at AWSM and ask him about both films

I think you are right. MGM/Cinerama would have only made a 35mm element for theatres and towns that did not have a Cinerama house. Since Cinerama was trying to be the big man in town (and they really were) they would not issue a 70mm print to compete with a Cinerama Roadshow. It was either convert to Cinerama or have a 35mm print during the General Release.

 

[rsmithjr]

Do you have a ticket stub or something that says Stanley Warner Cinerama? I have seen actual ads for TIC in 72 or 73 at Pacific's Cinerama Dome, as well as reports that Cinerama's relationship with Stanley Warner ended before Mad World opened at the Dome in 63. The theatre on Hollywood Boulevard where HTWWW and Grimm and 2001 were shown was known as the Pacific or Warner or Cinerama.
You do know that the panels are not square, right? They're vertical rectangles.
Why not? as Greg Kimble reports, an anamorphic squeeze could contain the full width of all 3 panes or more. Again I should mention that the specs for Cinerama were never hard and fast and a LOT of Fudging produced variations from theatre to theatre, especially on the sides. There would always be more picture on the sides that won't show onscreen because of the curve and masking and aperture plates.

1. Stanley Warner vs dome: No I do not have a ticket stub. I will try to check.
2. Panels not square: yes, I know. Cinerama is 6 perfs, making each panel somewhat vertical.
3. 70mm: Yes, 70mm can accommodate all of the image, but it doesn't necessarily. Carr and Hayes (p. 437)state that TIC was converted optically to 70mm. My recollection is that the join lines and general image size suggested that the sides were cut. Carr and Hayes also state that WWOTBG was converted to "spherical 70mm" (p 460) and that HTWWW was converted to 70mm Technicolor (p. 353). It is not clear that any of these contain the entire images of all three panels. I have even heard that HTWWW was upconverted to 70mm from the 35mm materials made for the 35mm release (but I cannot find a reference for this claim right now.)

 

[rsmithjr]

I think you are right.  MGM/Cinerama would have only made a 35mm element for theatres and towns that did not have a Cinerama house.  Since Cinerama was trying to be the big man in town (and they really were) they would not issue a 70mm print to compete with a Cinerama Roadshow.  It was either convert to Cinerama or have a 35mm print during the General Release. 
 

Carr and Hayes state that WWOTBG was converted to "spherical 70mm" (p 460). If so, I never heard of it being shown this way.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Be careful, that Carr/Hayes widescreen book is riddled with errors.
The only thing worse is his 3-D Movies book. If he didn't have information, he made it up. The amount of wrong information is unbelievable. And it's still in print...

 

[NY2LA]

Carr and Hayes (p. 437)state that TIC was converted optically to 70mm. My recollection is that the join lines and general image size suggested that the sides were cut.

Okay then, did you actually see a print or are you recalling a screen? How do you know they were cut off the print? If you viewed on a curved screen, the curve of the sides will make the side panels look smaller, and again I learned from people with hands-on experience that there were no consistent hard and fast specs for Cinerama presentation, meaning the masking could have been tighter on the ends, any number of reasons for what you say you saw.

Carr and Hayes also state that WWOTBG was converted to "spherical 70mm" (p 460) and that HTWWW was converted to 70mm Technicolor (p. 353). It is not clear that any of these contain the entire images of all three panels. I have even heard that HTWWW was upconverted to 70mm from the 35mm materials made for the 35mm release (but I cannot find a reference for this claim right now.)

As far as I know, Carr and Hayes never had any direct involvement in Cinerama. They wrote a book, right? I'm sure you know that a great deal of misinformation, especially movie tech info, has found its way into so-called reference books. Not to mention online articles and message boards. (there is one widescreen reference book I recall tech insiders mentioning that is notoriously inaccurate) With all due respect I have to stand by my earlier statement that no evidence is known of the existence of any 70mm elements of Grimm. I mean physical evidence. Even visual evidence.
If you can only quote someone about it, and their name isn't Kimble, Sittig, Strohmeier, Mayer or Price, I have no reason to believe it. If you can show me a 65-70mm print, neg, interpos, hell, even a frame, or a picture of a frame, great! Otherwise it means nothing. I'm not trying to be a smartass, I'd love for you to be right - because it's got to be less costly to master Grimm from a 70mm (really a 65mm) element than from a 3 strip. If it's the right 65mm element... Not cheap, but less costly than 3 strip. I am all for lobbying Warners to release this movie in some form, looking and sounding as nice as possible, and I'm happy with your enthusiasm about it. So if you actually find some real evidence please let's see it 'cause that might make it easier for us to ask Warners to make use of it.

 

[NY2LA]

Be careful, that Carr/Hayes widescreen book is riddled with errors.
The only thing worse is his 3-D Movies book. If he didn't have information, he made it up. The amount of wrong information is unbelievable. And it's still in print...

I am pathetically slow in composing and posting my replies, and it's not unusual for someone like you to post something in the meantime that states the same thing. Glad you did, though, because it just backs up concisely what i was falling all over myself trying to say without being offensive. Thanks!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

That's okay!
Somebody posted an article with the hundreds of corrections to the Widescreen book. I never attempted to do that with the 3-D book, there seemed to be something incorrect on every page!
Of course, now that information has been coped and posted on-line, so the myths have become fact. Aye aye aye...
Bob

 

[NY2LA]

Yes, 70mm can accommodate all of the image, but it doesn't necessarily. Carr and Hayes (p. 437)state that TIC was converted optically to 70mm. My recollection is that the join lines and general image size suggested that the sides were cut.

For the record, besides knowing that they did indeed make 70mm TIC composite for a 70s pseudo-Cinerama revival at the Cinerama Dome and NY Ziegfeld, (having seen print ads and heard first-person accounts for both) I have no definitive knowledge either way about whether or not the 70mm prints cut off parts of the Cinerama side panels. I HAVE read things from people who are fairly close to the TIC DVD/digital mastering who say that the three panels are intact. Actually I think it was Marty Hart of AWSM. He is easily reachable by email. He can pretty much answer you on what the 70mm TIC composite included and where it was actually shown in LA.
You might also have a look over at Cinema Treasures. They have a page on the Hollywood Pacific and one on the Cinerama Dome. Often these pages include other names the theatre was known by, and each page has a long line of posts from members. There is also a guy there who apparently spends an awful lot of time in reference libraries looking up old movie ads which he uses to make lists of theatres a certain movie played or movies that played in a certain theatre. I suggest you look up Pacific theatre, Cinerama dome under theatres and Cinerama under articles.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Here's the article:
http://www.film-tech.com/warehouse/tips/WSMC20.pdf

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by rsmithjr /t/290862/smileboxed-the-wonderful-world-of-the-brothers-grimm-will-it-ever-make-it-to-bluray/60#post_3893429
Carr and Hayes state that WWOTBG was converted to "spherical 70mm" (p 460). If so, I never heard of it being shown this way.

While it is an interesting novel on the history of widescreen, I have found to many mistakes in the book. While HTWWW had several re-releases, I never heard of it in 70mm and the same for WWOTBG.

Here is a picture of Hollywood Blvd with Warner Hollywood Cinerama and it showing Grimm. Also I found a ticket to the movie on the Internet with the Warner Hollywood Theatre name on it.

The up right was changed from Warners to Cinerama. Sometime during the run of 2001 A S[ace Odessy that Pacific Theatres purchased the theatre from Stanley Warner Theatres.

And the New York reserved seat order.