Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

Kiss Me Kate replacement discs


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
50 replies to this topic

#1 of 51 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Lead Actor

  • 7,308 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted August 26 2003 - 07:14 AM

Since the release of the Kiss Me Kate DVD, the folks at Warner have been going through the elements and planning a new disc to replace the initial release which had some technical problems, as pointed out via HTF threads.

The transfer has now been completed with the new version to be released toward the end of the year in the proper 1.37:1 aspect ratio as it had been at the premiere.

The alternate 3-D footage will be found as an ancillary item.

The alternate footage had been physically cut into prints set for 3-D distribution and had been produced as a separate roll.

Those wishing to exchange their discs will be accommodated, most likely with a program similar to that set in motion for Back to the Future by Universal.

Expect an announcement as the discs go into production around November.

For those interested, here are the actual post-production cutting notes on the alternate shots: (note: the numbers indicate footage)

"Reel 3A - delete from 404-13 to 422-7, and replace with special footage beginning with curtain opening, players carrying sign saying "The Taming of the Shrew" and actors throwing confetti, flames, and water at the camera.

Reel 4A - delete from 414-5 to 446-5, and replace with special footage.
Kate takes a bow, turns and throws a mug of water at camera.
Intermission card follows, and fade out.

Reel 4A, from 0 to 446-5 is spliced to the end of 3B, making the intermission at the end of 5000 ft. reel 1, following the song "I Hate Men".

Reel 4A - New leader and opening shot fades in for beginning of Act 2.

5000 ft. reel 1 consists of conventional reels 1, 2, 3 and the first 446 feet of 4.
4949 ft. - 55 min.
5000 ft. reel 2 consists of conventional reel 4 from 446, and reels 5, 6, and 7.
4897 ft. - 54min. 20 sec."

RAH

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#2 of 51 DeeF

DeeF

    Screenwriter

  • 1,676 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 19 2002

Posted August 26 2003 - 07:24 AM

Mr. Harris,

Clearly, this work is being done because of your personal involvement. You remain my hero.

Yippee! for the new Kiss Me, Kate!

P.S. Let's talk West Side Story....

Posted Image

#3 of 51 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Lead Actor

  • 7,308 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted August 26 2003 - 07:56 AM

While I would like to take a bit of credit for this action, the majority of the work came from within WB, where there are a number of people in executive positions as passionate about film as those on HTF.

They recognized a problem, did something about it, and deserve your kudos.

RAH

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#4 of 51 Mark Zimmer

Mark Zimmer

    Producer

  • 4,263 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969

Posted August 26 2003 - 08:09 AM

Well, then, well done Warner! It's always nice to see a megacorporation actually respond and try to correct a mistake instead of sweep it under the carpet. Posted Image

#5 of 51 Jesse Skeen

Jesse Skeen

    Producer

  • 3,995 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 24 1999

Posted August 26 2003 - 08:28 AM

So where's the field-sequential 3-D version?
Home video oddities, old commercials and other junk: http://www.youtube.com/user/eyeh8nbc

#6 of 51 Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,453 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationBlairsville, GA, USA

Posted August 26 2003 - 08:35 AM

This is the first time I've seen Warner do this for a faulty transfer (other than the alternate Wonka disc).

WB should be applaused for this action...especially with a lower level classic title like this.

Quote:
So where's the field-sequential 3-D version?

"As to 3D, we have seen many tests of our films using various 3D technologies. All
of them were unacceptable to us, gave us headaches and made us nauseous. Until
the technology is up to WB standards, we'll be content with excellent 2D versions." - Warner at April HTF chat

#7 of 51 Joe_Pinney

Joe_Pinney

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 183 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 28 2002
  • Real Name:Joe Pinney
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted August 26 2003 - 10:59 AM

Mr. Harris, you DO know that you're the Frank Sinatra of the film restoration world, do you not? You are worth more than 20 lunches with Steven Spielberg to us. More than 100 THX certifications :wink:. You are the Supreme Guru of Film Restoration. Posted Image (That'd sound good on a business card; be my guest to the term!) You are the great and wonderful Mr. Robert A. Harris, and you can do no wrong. All others must kowtow in your presence. We're not worthy! :wink:

This is excellent news! Any expectation of when the replacement discs will supercede the existing discs on retailer shelves now? The BTTF replacement discs apparently have yet to show up on retailer shelves, although the disc replacement program has been going on for several months, as I understand it.

#8 of 51 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Lead Actor

  • 7,308 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted August 26 2003 - 12:12 PM

"Supreme guru..."

No. Don't think so.

But the thought is appreciated.

For the record, where I may have a more public presence, there are archivists working hard at the the studios, at private archives and at OUR Library of Congress and National Archives, who are saving our film heritage on a daily basis.

One individual can help to enlighten, but it takes an exhultation of us to save the films.

I'm merely a messenger.

RAH

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#9 of 51 Bill Burns

Bill Burns

    Supporting Actor

  • 747 posts
  • Join Date: May 12 2003

Posted August 26 2003 - 12:27 PM

This is excellent news for owners of the first edition. I trust future shipments of the disc will include the corrected version. Posted Image

As to 3D, may I respectfully direct WB's attention to the following links, where HTF thoughts have run more or less positive to current field sequential (few if any like anaglyph) home viewing technology (which I find is how things run for 3D in theatres, as well; there are always those who say it gives them a headache, including my own mother when I "dragged" her to Ghosts of the Abyss; there are also those who continue to dislike watching films with big black bars "making it so darn small on my 27-inch Trinitron, giving me a headache." Posted Image Even director Roger Donaldson recently said something similar, but happily his more-or-less "anti-Criterion thoughts," if you will, are not studio policy on 'Scope in the home):

http://www.hometheat....threadid=70448

... and ...

http://www.hometheat....threadid=75815

There are other threads, but these are good starters. Tylenol not included. Posted Image

Once again, though, WB has done fans of the 2D presentation a service with this corrected version, and that's very good news. The above is very much intended respectfully, and not, in the colorful colloquialism I've read so often around here, as a "thread fart." A quality 2D presentation will make more than a few happy, and WB is to be congratulated for responding to this problem at all (it would have been very easy to write off, I should think).

“That line was screwy.”

- Outtake
Warner Bros.' Breakdowns of 1938

#10 of 51 TonyD

TonyD

    Executive Producer

  • 15,965 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 01 1999
  • Real Name:Tony D.
  • LocationDisney World and Universal Florida

Posted August 26 2003 - 12:48 PM

thats great news. and why i waited to buy. i was counting on warner to do the right thing.

facebook.com/whotony


#11 of 51 James_Garner

James_Garner

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 120 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 01 2002
  • Real Name:James Garner

Posted August 26 2003 - 12:51 PM

Quote:
As to 3D, we have seen many tests of our films using various 3D technologies. All
of them were unacceptable to us, gave us headaches and made us nauseous. Until
the technology is up to WB standards, we'll be content with excellent 2D versions."

Funny, that didn't stop Warner from releasing Dial M & House of Wax in 3-D in the Japanese VHD format in the 1980s. Sheesh.

#12 of 51 BruceKimmel

BruceKimmel

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 165 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 09 2003

Posted August 26 2003 - 05:48 PM

Since I have not seen the DVD nor have I seen the threads pertaining to its problems (and since said problems don't seem to have been discussed much anywhere else), might I inquire what the problems were with this disc? Thanks in advance.

#13 of 51 Greg_M

Greg_M

    Screenwriter

  • 1,193 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 2000

Posted August 27 2003 - 03:27 AM

This is great news. Warner said they were going to fix it, and apparently they are. Posted Image


Quote RH: "The alternate 3-D footage will be found as an ancillary item.

The alternate footage had been physically cut into prints set for 3-D distribution and had been produced as a separate roll."

Now for the obvious question:
Why doesn't Warner just edit the footage back into the film?

*Mr. Harris - you are a welcome addition to the Home Theater Forum, and it is alway a pleasure to hear from you Posted Image

#14 of 51 Greg_M

Greg_M

    Screenwriter

  • 1,193 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 2000

Posted August 27 2003 - 03:34 AM

Bruce : the answer to your question (and many more) can be found at the Home Theater Forum thread:

Warner's Kiss Me Kate Mis-Framed

http://www.hometheat....hreadid=136864

#15 of 51 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,092 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted August 27 2003 - 04:16 AM

"The alternate 3-D footage will be found as an ancillary item. The alternate footage had been physically cut into prints set for 3-D distribution and had been produced as a separate roll."

Re: Now for the obvious question: Why doesn't Warner just edit the footage back into the film?

If you want to see the flat version of this film in the way that audiences would have seen it in 1953, then the 3-D gimmick footage should not be put into a flat transfer. (However, it should definitely be put into a field-sequential version.) As is shown by the revised cutting continuity, quite a bit of tweaking was done with the 3-D release prints of this film. None of these changes should be made to a flat transfer, if the intent is to replicate the original theatrical experience.

Regarding the "correct" aspect ratio, I submit the following information:

From Box Office magazine of May, 1953: (parapharasing) It was filmed with MGM's own 3D camera rig at a negative aspect ratio of 1.37; however, it would be available for playdates in 3D at full Academy ratio and could be matted for 2D "flat" playdates at any of *three* aspect ratios - 1.66, 1.75, or 1.85. So, the negative would be fully exposed and the theatres would soft-matte it to whichever ratio they preferred.

I can only add that the New York and Los Angeles playdates were heavily promoted as "Wide Screen."

Here's a direct quote from George Sidney, the director: "My cameraman, Charlie Rosher, and I had to compose every shot three different ways at the same time. What would be good for one width would not be good for another. It was tricky, but we got around it by building more tops on sets, more floor and more sets in forced perspective to enhance the depth. The wider the screen, you see, the narrower; we had to compensate for those cut-off tops and bottoms. Same with the lighting: we used many more side lights than usual to relieve and bring out persons and objects at different distances from the camera. Even if you see 'Kate' flat, you'll notice that it seems to have more depth than the ordinary movie." - Interview from the L.A. Times, November 8, 1953

So, if the new flat DVD transfer is 1.37, you will be getting all of the information that was exposed on the negative. But it will not be the way in which most people saw the film theatrically. By the time it was released in December 1953, most theatres would have played it in one of the recommended wide screen ratios.

Warners is to be commended for recognizing the problems with the initial DVD release, and taking the necessary steps to fix them.

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com

 

As there has been some colorful debate about the meaning of "Director-approved" transfers and how it relates to how widespread 1.66 was in the UK, I will make the following point. The dominant aspect ratio at British Studios between 1955-1970 WAS 1.75. This is based on research going through trade listings of hundreds of British films, as well as studio archives and other primary sources. 1.85 was the second most listed aspect ratio, with 1.65/1.66 a distant third.

 

Tom Crossplot - July 2013

 

 


#16 of 51 Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,453 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationBlairsville, GA, USA

Posted August 27 2003 - 06:02 AM

Quote:
Funny, that didn't stop Warner from releasing Dial M & House of Wax in 3-D in the Japanese VHD format in the 1980s. Sheesh.

But how watchable?

#17 of 51 James_Garner

James_Garner

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 120 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 01 2002
  • Real Name:James Garner

Posted August 27 2003 - 06:53 AM

Quote:
But how watchable?


VERY watchable. MUCH MORE SO than the lame "red-blue glasses" version. here's a website that tells about it:

http://disclord.trip...cworld/id1.html

the process can be ultilitized for DVD. That's all i can say, in accordance with the rules of the forum Posted Image

#18 of 51 GregK

GregK

    Supporting Actor

  • 951 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 22 2000

Posted August 27 2003 - 06:58 AM

Quote:
But how watchable?


VERY watchable. I've seen the "House of Wax" VHD when a friend had the now obsolete VHD Japanese videodisc system. It's field-sequential 3-D, just like the present Slingshot DVDs are.

#19 of 51 Steve Phillips

Steve Phillips

    Screenwriter

  • 1,526 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 18 2002

Posted August 27 2003 - 09:13 AM

I've been watching field sequential 3-D VHD discs for some time, and not once have I gotten dizzy or thrown up. Neither has anyone I've watched them with! Posted Image

#20 of 51 TedD

TedD

    Supporting Actor

  • 698 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 09 2001

Posted August 27 2003 - 02:33 PM

Thank you Warners!!!

I can live with the 1.37:1 release, since I can soft matte it to 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 (or 1.75:1 or.....) the same way that the theaters do.

Ted


Back to DVD



Forum Nav Content I Follow