Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

Bronston epics and Land of the Pharaohs coming at last!


This topic has been archived.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

#21 of 280 OFFLINE   Greg_S_H

Greg_S_H

    Executive Producer



  • 14,894 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2001
  • Real Name:Greg
  • LocationNorth Texas

Posted December 14 2006 - 03:34 PM

Now that these are coming, I hope we don't have to wait too long for some Samuel L. Bronkowitz films on DVD. Posted Image

#22 of 280 OFFLINE   Simon Howson

Simon Howson

    Screenwriter



  • 1,779 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 18 2004

Posted December 14 2006 - 08:48 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by john a hunter
IF the producer wanted EMPIRE to be shown in full Ultra Pan he could easily have insisted. He did not. The film was shown world wide in 2.20:1. I think it is correct to presume that that was how it was intended to be seen.
I just hope the transfers are made from the large format / aperture negatives, and not just 35mm reductions.

#23 of 280 OFFLINE   Brian Sharp

Brian Sharp

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 228 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2005
  • LocationRobin Hood Country

Posted December 14 2006 - 08:57 PM

If you go to this link:

http://www.in70mm.co....ers/images.htm

and scroll down the page will see that Fall of the Roman Empire is annotated as Ultra Panavision for the Bradford widescreen weekend (2006). I didn't see this screening but certainly the UK prints I handled were all spherical.

#24 of 280 OFFLINE   Manus

Manus

    Second Unit



  • 411 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 06 2002

Posted December 14 2006 - 11:47 PM

Fall of the Roman Empire and others are already available from here :


http://www.cdjapan.c...l?KEY=TCDL-1059

along with some others .

great stuff !

~M~
I have just two words to say to you..... Shut the f*** up !

#25 of 280 OFFLINE   Mark Anthony

Mark Anthony

    Second Unit



  • 446 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 25 2001

Posted December 15 2006 - 12:32 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by john a hunter
IF the producer wanted EMPIRE to be shown in full Ultra Pan he could easily have insisted. He did not. The film was shown world wide in 2.20:1. I think it is correct to presume that that was how it was intended to be seen.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, nothing anyone has said has explained the variation between shooting ratio and the ratio of certain prints. Image quality of a UP neg Vs standard 70mm is not a factor I'm aware of.

I await with baited breath the final product and if any of our resident expert's has something to add on this issue I'd be intrigued as to their thoughts.

M

#26 of 280 OFFLINE   Jon Lidolt

Jon Lidolt

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 178 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 08 2004

Posted December 15 2006 - 02:23 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by john a hunter
This has made my Christmas especially as Weinstein are exclusive HD DVD users and there is a chance to see these films in HD.As anyone who has seen MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY in HD DVD will testify, it's the way to go.!

Now on to ROMAN EMPIRE. All 70mm presentations in UK and the rest of the world where Rank had the rights( and probably in the US where it was released by Paramount)where in 2.20:1. This certainly includes the world premiere at the Astoria in London. It was probably shot in that format as 65mm processing had only just began to be available in Europe and there was some idea of a release in single strip Cinerama. All releases up to that time had been shot in Ultra Pan for " Cinerama".If Bradford showed a print I would guess it was the same print as used for the premiere which I fondly remember to this day as the sharpest 70 mm print I have ever seen. It was the one shown at NFT in the late70's where I saw it several times. It was of course not anamorphic but 2.20:1. Did anyone see the Bradfield presentation and is qualified to confirm?
I will be happy with what ever we get but to be true to the original intent, it should be in 2.20:1.
Roman Empire was released by Paramount in the U.S. and Canada on 2.2:1 spherical 70mm prints. I saw it in Toronto's long-gone University theatre and I can confirm that the image quality was not only outstanding but because the picture was composed with cropping in mind, nothing of importance was missing at the sides of the picture.

#27 of 280 OFFLINE   Brian Sharp

Brian Sharp

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 228 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2005
  • LocationRobin Hood Country

Posted December 15 2006 - 02:40 AM

After all this speculation of 2.20:1 and 2.76:1 we will probably end up with a full frame pan & scan version!

#28 of 280 OFFLINE   OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter



  • 1,685 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted February 12 2007 - 10:05 PM

Regarding the Ultra Panavision format that FOTRE was shot in:

There is some discussion as to whether the not so favorable previews of Fall were the reason for this movie "only" to be released as a flat print, so this is one reason for asking whether the flat prints were intended from the beginning or if they indeed represented a change of plans later in the production/release chain.

Another point is that I do think that especially the outdoor scenes in the Roman forums are a bit cramped at times and the other question is of course why at all go from Technirama 70 to Ultra Panavision when flat 70 mm prints were planned from the beginning ?
After three previous Super Technirama 70 productions this doesn't make sense to me....

In any case I look forward to the Bronston Epics and Land of the Pharaohs and I hope very much that we will see them released both as SD and HD versions - these movies would gain a lot from a high definition presentation.

#29 of 280 OFFLINE   Eric Peterson

Eric Peterson

    Screenwriter



  • 2,959 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 02 2001

Posted February 13 2007 - 03:12 AM

Anybody else receive an E-mail from Amazon concerning "Land of the Pharohs"?

I received one saying that it is now available for the low price of $114.00.

The link was valid and everything. Obviously some sort of error, but funny nonetheless.

#30 of 280 OFFLINE   OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter



  • 1,685 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted February 14 2007 - 04:08 AM

[quote=Eric Peterson]
I received one saying that it is now available for the low price of $114.00.
QUOTE]

Obviously you bought two given the very attractive price Posted Image

#31 of 280 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor



  • 7,477 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted February 14 2007 - 04:32 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by RolandL
Lets hope Fall of The Roman Empire is released with a aspect ratio of 2.76:1 to show the full frame of Ultra Panavsion. Ben-Hur, Mutiny on the Bounty, The Greatest Story Ever Told and Battle of The Bulge have been released properly with this aspect ratio. It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, Hallelujah Trail and Khartoum are around 2.35:1 on DVD. It was annouced in another thread that Raintree County will be released mid 2007.

Mad World is 2.55:1, which is correct for the general release 35mm scope prints (and the usually projected UP aspect ratio).

#32 of 280 OFFLINE   john a hunter

john a hunter

    Supporting Actor



  • 645 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2005

Posted February 14 2007 - 08:26 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by OliverK
Regarding the Ultra Panavision format that FOTRE was shot in:

There is some discussion as to whether the not so favorable previews of Fall were the reason for this movie "only" to be released as a flat print, so this is one reason for asking whether the flat prints were intended from the beginning or if they indeed represented a change of plans later in the production/release chain.

Another point is that I do think that especially the outdoor scenes in the Roman forums are a bit cramped at times and the other question is of course why at all go from Technirama 70 to Ultra Panavision when flat 70 mm prints were planned from the beginning ?
After three previous Super Technirama 70 productions this doesn't make sense to me....

In any case I look forward to the Bronston Epics and Land of the Pharaohs and I hope very much that we will see them released both as SD and HD versions - these movies would gain a lot from a high definition presentation.
EMPIRE opened in London to rave reviews. The prints were spherical not anamorphic 70mm.A week later it opened in New YORK to very poor reviews and box office.Its reception would have had no effect on the type of print that would have been ordered and checked well before any opening.

My hunch as to why Ultra was chosen was that at one stage a "Cinerama" release was contemplated and when Empire went into production that was the way to go.There was a lot of buzz in the industry about the new single lens Cinerama.Also processing facilities in Europe for 65mm had only just started up-the 70 mm Lawrence prints had to come from L.A. Technirama was basically a 35mm process .This was a great advantage in the late '50's -early 60's but also one of the reasons its popularity started to fade from '63 onwards as "pure"65/70 became available.

#33 of 280 OFFLINE   OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter



  • 1,685 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted February 14 2007 - 05:54 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by john a hunter
EMPIRE opened in London to rave reviews. The prints were spherical not anamorphic 70mm.A week later it opened in New YORK to very poor reviews and box office.Its reception would have had no effect on the type of print that would have been ordered and checked well before any opening.

I know that the movie was well received and more of a success in Europe but I was referring to PREviews and decisions that were made BEFORE the London premiere.

The funny thing is that apparently this was a rather successful movie outside of the US, but its box office failure in the US is the predomoniant impression that remains today with regard to its commercial success.

#34 of 280 OFFLINE   David_B_K

David_B_K

    Screenwriter



  • 1,549 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 13 2006
  • Real Name:David

Posted February 15 2007 - 01:31 AM

Quote:
The funny thing is that apparently this was a rather successful movie outside of the US, but its box office failure in the US is the predomoniant impression that remains today with regard to its commercial success.

It also got a lot of negative reviews in the U.S. A few critics saw it for the intelligent epic it is, but most panned it.

#35 of 280 OFFLINE   SteveJKo

SteveJKo

    Second Unit



  • 374 posts
  • Join Date: May 05 2005

Posted February 15 2007 - 01:47 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Anthony
Having watched both Ben Hur & B of the Bulge at 2.76:1 on my 82" screen I'm afraid I disagree that "The ultra-wide 2.76 aspect ratio, even when viewed on a large wide-screen monitor, results in a tiny image and diminishes a film's impact."

On the contrary, IMO the ultra-wide image makes it stand out from the crowd of normal 'scope production and makes it feel far more cinematic and gives it a sense of grandeur.
There's plenty of others with screen's far bigger than mine too, that i'm sure would agree.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Anthony
Cropping a 2.76:1 picture to 2.2 is, IMO, the same as panning & scaning any other format (how many people have complained about scope films P&S to 16:9 on widescreen TV broadcasts - the amount of picture lost is almsot the same as 2.7 to 2.2) or to use another favourite with purists akin to remixiing a mono track and not including the original...

Mark, let me second what you say here! My 38 inch widescreen HDTV is obviously much smaller than the 82" screen you mention in your post. Yet both "Ben-Hur" and "Mutiny On The Bounty" look spectacular on it.

As to the notion of cropping Ultra-Panavision down to Super Panavision size for home theatre release, to fill more of the widescreen TV, isn't that the same argument pan and scan lovers used as to why they wanted 2.40:1 films cropped down for standard shaped TV's? Personally, back before I owned a widescreen set, I was so happy to finally have ultra wide "Ben-Hur" in it's OAR that I didn't mind watching it even on my 27" standard TV.
You're In The Show With Todd-AO!

#36 of 280 OFFLINE   OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter



  • 1,685 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted February 15 2007 - 02:31 AM

Here's another vote for an Ultra Panavision release for Fall (and hopefully Raintree County).

I watched Ultra Panavision movies on 20, 100, and 122" wide screens and always prefer that to the option to crop it down to fill more screen real estate.

2.55 would still be acceptable though and was probably the AR of many theatrical releases.

#37 of 280 OFFLINE   john a hunter

john a hunter

    Supporting Actor



  • 645 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2005

Posted February 15 2007 - 02:35 PM

[quote=OliverK]I know that the movie was well received and more of a success in Europe but I was referring to PREviews and decisions that were made BEFORE the London premiere.

Paramount were talking 50 odd 70mm prints BEFORE the London Premiere for its US release which would have been underway if not ready by the time of its New York premiere.The theatres would have been booked and a release plan worked out. If it had been" Cinerama-ed", I expect the prints would have been anamorphic, but that was not the release strategy and as the theatres booked used standard 70mm, they would have and did, use spherical 70 prints. The poor reviews resulted in cutting back the release and prints, not suddenly scraping anamorphic prints and replacing them.
I just hope we get a HD DVD release in the next few months. If it's the full Ultra Pan ratio, at least we'll be seeing more than was ever seen before which is much better than seeing zero which is what we have had to put up with since the old laser disc for some 10 years .

#38 of 280 OFFLINE   Douglas R

Douglas R

    Screenwriter



  • 1,867 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 30 2000
  • Real Name:Doug
  • LocationLondon, United Kingdom

Posted March 14 2007 - 10:04 AM

Land of the Pharoahs is due June 26. Digital Bits say Warner Bros has announced a set titled "Cult Camp Classics: Historical Epics" comprisiong, Colossus of Rhodes, The Prodigal and Land of the Pharoahs.

#39 of 280 OFFLINE   Mark Cappelletty

Mark Cappelletty

    Screenwriter



  • 2,134 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 1999

Posted May 13 2007 - 08:53 PM

Any more news about El Cid and the others? I'm watching it on LD and, man, Hi-Def has sure ruined up LD upconversion for me.

#40 of 280 OFFLINE   Douglas R

Douglas R

    Screenwriter



  • 1,867 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 30 2000
  • Real Name:Doug
  • LocationLondon, United Kingdom

Posted May 26 2007 - 08:53 PM

Confirmation is here:

http://www.prnewswir....4595290&EDATE=


Back to DVD



Forum Nav Content I Follow