Wizard of Oz in blu ray - Wire Removal ?? (1 Viewer)

[TonyD]

hmm.

 

[Douglas Monce]

The wires would likely not have been visible in a Technicolor print from 1939 as that level of detail just wasn't there in the Technicolor process of that time. As Mr. Harris has noted many times, Technicolor had the appearance of sharpness because of the contrast built into the process, not the actual detail.

However even if the wires were slightly visible, you have to remember that the audience of the time was VERY unsophisticated with regard to how films were made. These were the days when the studios didn't reveal the "movie magic" that made things work. Even if someone saw a hint of a wire, they would likely not have known what they were seeing or why it was there.

Doug

 

[KMR]

Whether or not wires were visible in 1939 prints of THE WIZARD OF OZ, or in 1953 prints of WAR OF THE WORLDS, I truly cannot say, since I wasn't around then. But I do know that when I saw a print (presumably 16mm) of THE WIZARD OF OZ on a university campus in 1983 or 1984, the wires were visible. And when I saw a 35mm print of WAR OF THE WORLDS in a second-run theater in Tulsa around 1980, the wires were visible. My assumption is that original release prints also revealed the wires, but I certainly wouldn't stake my life on that.

At any rate, it is very reasonable to assume that the filmmakers did not intend for the audience to notice the wires, and I am sure they did everything possible at the time to minimize the visibility. While removing the wires with current digital technology is a bit of cinematic revisionism, I feel it's being done to help support the intent of the original productions, and I do not object. (On the other hand, I do feel that acknowledgment of any such "cleanup" should be given in supplementary material on the discs.)

 

[slipofthetongue]

I think KMR's assessment seems like a reasonable approach.

 

[24fpssean]

I know that the original three strip Technicolor process was a bit fuzzy, so that make up lines and wires and backdrops didn't show up as much, but I clearly remember seeing the Lion's tail wire on our tiny television back in the early '70's before digital could pull such detail up. On the Oz blu ray, some of the wires can still be seen, mostly in the long shots. The Scarecrow's wire (when we first meet him when he's still got a pole up his back) seems to have got most of the removal attention. As for the monkeys, wires on the miniature monkeys can still be seen, faintly, and also on the Witch when she takes off from her castle window.

This topic has certainly opened up a can of worms. I expect far worse in March, when Fantasia hits blu ray...

 

[Robert Harris]

The process itself was not "fuzzy." The resultant prints, based upon the technology of the era, were on the soft side, and hid a multitude of sins. What you were viewing in the '70s would probably have been derived from one of the printing CRIs then in use, which were far sharper.

Originally Posted by 24fpssean /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I know that the original three strip Technicolor process was a bit fuzzy, so that make up lines and wires and backdrops didn't show up as much, but I clearly remember seeing the Lion's tail wire on our tiny television back in the early '70's before digital could pull such detail up. On the Oz blu ray, some of the wires can still be seen, mostly in the long shots. The Scarecrow's wire (when we first meet him when he's still got a pole up his back) seems to have got most of the removal attention. As for the monkeys, wires on the miniature monkeys can still be seen, faintly, and also on the Witch when she takes off from her castle window.
This topic has certainly opened up a can of worms. I expect far worse in March, when Fantasia hits blu ray...

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Ya know, I like to think of myself as a purist as well and I would get just as bent out of shape as anyone if something as huge as the flying monkey's being replaced with CGI one's but I have to say regarding the wires being removed...big deal! /img/vbsmilies/htf/laugh.gif

 

[24fpssean]

That's what I meant by "fuzzy."

 

As picky as I can be about such matters, I kind of like not having the wires. In the last release, the wire holding up Ray Bolger was so apparent that it took me out of the scene.

 

[jackygage]

Hello group
I'm a little slow to the party as this thread started in 2009, but I wanted to say that I found your forum because I just heard about the lion's wire/string being removed from the blu-ray. First off let me say I was appalled to hear it was removed. Second, I have to say that I am confused to hear the string was not viewed by movie audiences in 1939. I would very much like to know where I can read more about that.
I found it interesting that in other transfers of this film to disc that the people doing the work were proud they "resisted" removing the string. Now I can see the point of people not wanting technical aspects of production to come between them and the film, that unwanted artifacts take them away from the director's intent; but the fact is if you look for it you can see the string. It was 1939. They were pretty clever back then, but if they wanted that tail to wag they had to use string. It's quaint. We now have CGI which creates sterilized, hollow effects, but that wasn't the case in 1939. The flaw of the string humanizes the creation of the movie.
With that said there is something in the movie that I wish these people would have removed. Every copy I have ever seen has a large piece of fluttering lint stuck in the bottom center of the frame in the last moments of the film. The lint first appears on Aunt Em's arm 1 hour and 39 minutes in when Aunt Em says "Wake up, honey" and it remains in every shot taken by this particular camera set up. The lint disappears during close-ups.
So I'd be for removing the lint, but I'm kind of shocked they removed the string.

 

[TonyD]

Hi Ricky welcome to The Home Theater Forum.
I'm with you on the lint. I never noticed it so maybe the fixers never sw it either?

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by jackygage /t/296086/wizard-of-oz-in-blu-ray-wire-removal/30#post_3973289
Hello group
I'm a little slow to the party as this thread started in 2009, but I wanted to say that I found your forum because I just heard about the lion's wire/string being removed from the blu-ray. First off let me say I was appalled to hear it was removed. Second, I have to say that I am confused to hear the string was not viewed by movie audiences in 1939. I would very much like to know where I can read more about that.
I found it interesting that in other transfers of this film to disc that the people doing the work were proud they "resisted" removing the string. Now I can see the point of people not wanting technical aspects of production to come between them and the film, that unwanted artifacts take them away from the director's intent; but the fact is if you look for it you can see the string. It was 1939. They were pretty clever back then, but if they wanted that tail to wag they had to use string. It's quaint. We now have CGI which creates sterilized, hollow effects, but that wasn't the case in 1939. The flaw of the string humanizes the creation of the movie.
With that said there is something in the movie that I wish these people would have removed. Every copy I have ever seen has a large piece of fluttering lint stuck in the bottom center of the frame in the last moments of the film. The lint first appears on Aunt Em's arm 1 hour and 39 minutes in when Aunt Em says "Wake up, honey" and it remains in every shot taken by this particular camera set up. The lint disappears during close-ups.
So I'd be for removing the lint, but I'm kind of shocked they removed the string.

This was the resolution quality of a 1939 dye transfer print:





The wires would not have been seen by 1939 audiences.

RAH

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

This was the resolution quality of a 1939 dye transfer print:

The wires would not have been seen by 1939 audiences.

RAH

Question: In 1998 Warner released a "restored" 35mm to theatres. Certain theatres that agreed to play the film in OAR were sent a technicolor dye transfer print. I think that there were only about 30 or so of these prints.produced. One or our theatres played one of the prints and it was a beautiful gorgeous print. I saw things in it that I had never seen before in any previous theatrical showing. One the things I did notice was the the wire holding the lion's tail as he sand "King Of The Forest". Why would the resolution in this print be better than the original 1939 prints. I am not disputing you, just wondering.

 

[Doctorossi]

Why would the resolution in this print be better than the original 1939 prints.

Improvement in printing stocks.

 

[jackygage]

Thank you for welcoming me. I hope to be able to participate again soon. I'm going to have to do some research first Thanks again!

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi /t/296086/wizard-of-oz-in-blu-ray-wire-removal/30#post_3973315
Improvement in printing stocks.

Not only printing stocks. But also the dyes --3 very stable dyes as opposed to 3 plus a silver record -- the mortar, optics used to create the matrices... The list can go on.

Totally different imagery, based upon the same negatives.

RAH

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris /t/296086/wizard-of-oz-in-blu-ray-wire-removal/30#post_3973355
Not only printing stocks. But also the dyes --3 very stable dyes as opposed to 3 plus a silver record -- the mortar, optics used to create the matrices... The list can go on.

Totally different imagery, based upon the same negatives.

RAH

Thank you.

 

[WilliamMcK]

I remain unconvinced that the wires would not have shown in 1939... I could ask my mother (the only person I know who is still alive and saw the movie on its original release... but I can hear her sarcastic reply... "Oh don't be ridiculous... who would care?").
But whether they showed or not, altering others' work is always a no-no in my book. I actually appreciate seeing things like wires (maybe its the Brechtian in me) -- just as I love hearing the squeak of a musician's chair in old analogue recordings (those were probably not audible to those listening to Lps, but are now audible on CD).
I will say, that I'm NOT such a purist that this becomes a "deal breaker" (and I purchased the blu-ray when it first came out and have been entirely happy with it) -- but given my 'druthers, I'll take the original content warts and all (regardless of whether those warts were previously visible).

 

[JoeDoakes]

I remain unconvinced that the wires would not have shown in 1939... I could ask my mother (the only person I know who is still alive and saw the movie on its original release... but I can hear her sarcastic reply... "Oh don't be ridiculous... who would care?").
But whether they showed or not, altering others' work is always a no-no in my book. I actually appreciate seeing things like wires (maybe its the Brechtian in me) -- just as I love hearing the squeak of a musician's chair in old analogue recordings (those were probably not audible to those listening to Lps, but are now audible on CD).
I will say, that I'm NOT such a purist that this becomes a "deal breaker" (and I purchased the blu-ray when it first came out and have been entirely happy with it) -- but given my 'druthers, I'll take the original content warts and all (regardless of whether those warts were previously visible).

Realism certainly wasn't the fetish in the 1930s the way it is today. My guess is that either the wires would not have shown in 1939 or they would have been so faint that few would notice. What if modern high def scans make the wires obvious to all? Would it make more sense to remove the wires digitally or make them more faint? Removal of wires does not bother me really. BTW: I wonder what happened in cases where they wanted the wires to show? I remember an episode of I Love Lucy where they did an operetta for Little Richie's school and the wires on Lucy's witch were clearly visible. Perhaps they used heavier wires to mmake sure they could be seen?

 

[Doctorossi]

But whether they showed or not, altering others' work is always a no-no in my book.

In the sense that it displays the image at a much higher resolution, the very act of transferring the film to video and releasing it on Blu-ray is altering the work. Your options are only to alter it in one way or another or to not release it at all.