Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Olive announced first titles from the Republic catalog: "High Noon" and the original "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#41 of 77 Matt Hough

Matt Hough

    Advanced Member

  • 9,916 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 24 2006
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted April 27 2012 - 02:01 AM

Who owns the rights to the 1993 version?



#42 of 77 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Join Date: --

Posted April 27 2012 - 02:55 AM

I think Warner owns the 1993 version.

#43 of 77 JoHud

JoHud

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 2,309 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 11 2007
  • Real Name:Joe Hudak

Posted April 27 2012 - 04:19 AM

The fact that they are offering a blu-ray release adds quite a bit of confidence that this is better than the 1998 Artisan disc. That was outstandingly poor and there's no way they would get away with releasing that one on blu-ray. Also, notice that Olive doesn't release all of its licensed films on blu-ray. The Buccaneer (1938) and Pony Express were both DVD only, yet the video quality was quite strong enough on the DVD that they could have passed off an upconversion if they wanted to.

BOTH FILMS WERE RESTORED OF A FINEGRAIN 35MM PRINT – NOT THE ORIGINAL NEGATIVE The original negative for INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS does not exist and is considered lost. The HIGH NOON negative does exist – But this restoration was done off a FINEGRAIN.

This should actually be a cause of relief. It specifies "Restored of a Finegrain 35mm print" -- far more reassuring than releases like The Quiet Man or Rio Grande. Those releases never promised anything more than being "digitally remastered." What it is remastered from is never specified on the Artisan discs, though most of the time it was from the same VHS transfer used years ago. "Restored" is one word I never saw being associated with an Artisan release, unless it was "Restored audio." I do agree with some of the concerns that some Olive Film titles have less-than stellar HD transfers compared to benchmark studio or Criterion releases, though I certainly wouldn't lump them with the majority of the Republic/Artisan DVDs. They can only be an improvement.

#44 of 77 John Hodson

John Hodson

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 4,340 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 14 2003
  • LocationBolton, Lancashire

Posted April 27 2012 - 04:27 AM

I saw a HD broadcast version of 'Body Snatchers' a while back; it was decent but no socks were blown off. And that's what I think we'll get on BD.
So many films, so little time...
Film Journal Blog
Lt. Col. Thursday: Beaufort; no preliminary nonsense with him, no ceremonial phrasing. Straight from the shoulder as I tell you, do you hear me? They're recalcitrant swine and they must feel it...


#45 of 77 Charles Smith

Charles Smith

    Extremely Talented Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 3,868 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 27 2007
  • LocationNor'east

Posted April 27 2012 - 04:28 AM

I never saw any DVD copy of IOTBS, but did watch the Criterion LD some months ago, and it was just shockingly awful, with contrast blown right out of the water.  I had to take the TV settings down to practically nothing to make it watchable, and even then it was just barely so.



#46 of 77 Doug Otte

Doug Otte

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 679 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2003

Posted April 27 2012 - 05:17 AM

I saw a HD broadcast version of 'Body Snatchers' a while back; it was decent but no socks were blown off. And that's what I think we'll get on BD.

Hi John. Are you familiar w/ the DVD? If so, how did the HD broadcast compare? Thanks, Doug

#47 of 77 John Hodson

John Hodson

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 4,340 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 14 2003
  • LocationBolton, Lancashire

Posted April 27 2012 - 05:47 AM

Hi John. Are you familiar w/ the DVD? If so, how did the HD broadcast compare? Thanks, Doug

No Doug; I've been waiting a long time for someone to produce a worthy edition, and that includes decent supplements.
So many films, so little time...
Film Journal Blog
Lt. Col. Thursday: Beaufort; no preliminary nonsense with him, no ceremonial phrasing. Straight from the shoulder as I tell you, do you hear me? They're recalcitrant swine and they must feel it...


#48 of 77 Jacksmyname

Jacksmyname

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 28 2011

Posted April 27 2012 - 06:42 AM

I like the original the best, with the '78 version a close second. The Invasion was pretty poor, in my opinion, although it was nice having Daniel Craig in there. Kevin McCarthy's slow degeneration into complete paranoia is unmatched.

Ditto.

#49 of 77 Gary16

Gary16

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 302 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 19 2006

Posted April 27 2012 - 06:46 AM

For the record, both INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and JOHNNY GUITAR were composed and intended for 1.85:1. The decision to release IOTBS in Superscope 2.1:1 was made after the film had completed shooting. From my Aspect Ratio Research thread:

Allied Artists officially announced 1.85 as their house ratio on July 6, 1953, although some AA features had already been composed for that ratio in June. With a few exceptions of 1.75 or 2.55 for individual titles, all of their productions from that point forward were composed for that ratio. IOTBS began filming on March 23, 1955, Siegel would have been composing for the studio ratio. It would appear the decision was not made to adapt the film to 2.1 SuperScope until May, one month after the film had wrapped production.

Would the original camera negative have been full frame? Years ago I saw a 16mm print that I'm,sure was full frame (1.33:1) and not panned/scanned like the later full frame releases of the movie on Laser and DVD (including Criterion).

#50 of 77 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Advanced Member

  • 2,720 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted April 27 2012 - 06:57 AM

The original camera negative would have an image area of 1.37:1. In the early years of non-anamorphic widescreen, the films were protected for open matte while composed for widescreen in the various studio ratios. This illustration from the May 1953 issue of American Cinematographer illustrates how the compositions were achieved with the modified view-finders. http://static.hometh...um.com/imgrepo/ http://static.hometh...um.com/imgrepo/ This is precisely how Don Siegel and Ellsworth Fredericks would have photographed IOTBS. I had posted the JG info from memory which is always a dangerous thing! Republic announced their widescreen house ratio on August 18, 1953. Their ratios ranged from 1.66:1 to 1.85:1. JOHNNY GUITAR began filming in mid-October. http://static.hometh...um.com/imgrepo/http://static.hometh...um.com/imgrepo/ When released in August 1954, Exhibitor listed the AR as 1.85:1 and Variety listed 1.66:1. Based on that information, I would suggest 1.66:1 as the correct ratio for JOHNNY GUITAR. Bob

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


#51 of 77 John Morgan

John Morgan

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 647 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 2001
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted April 27 2012 - 08:21 AM

Perspecta would only be heard in the front 3 channels. I ran the first reel in Perspecta about ten years and for that reel, it was limited to only the opening titles. The music came from all three speakers and the rest of the reel was center channel only. Paramount utilized the same minimal approach to the system on their VistaVision titles. I had approached Paramount with Bob Eberenz (the man who helped develop the system with Fine Recording) to transfer all of their 3 channel Perspecta tracks in the mid-90's. They weren't interested...

The Perspecta track was transferred to a modern configuration that allows it to be heard successfully in today’s sound formats. The entire track was done for Paramount around 2005, I so I hope it can be included in this release. I erred about a surround track. Sorry. I also heard a rumor that the full frame version was actually taken from a wide screen print as the camera original wasn't found and it is somewhat grainy because of this...in effect, a pan and scan version? Maybe this was discussed and I missed it.

#52 of 77 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Advanced Member

  • 2,720 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted April 27 2012 - 08:29 AM

At the time we met with Paramount, Mr. Eberenz and I had proposed to take the original 35mm Perspecta optical tracks and decode them utilizing a restored Fairchild integrator to an exact three channel digital copy. Mr. Eberenz had worked on mixing many of the tracks for MGM in 1954/55 and knew precisely what to do. Yes, the current 1.37:1 version is a pan and scan from the 2.00:1 element. About 30 years ago, a well known film collector in New Jersey had an original 16mm print of the full frame 1.37:1 version without the opening and closing wraparounds. I believe he sold the print in the Big Reel. Who knows where it wound up? Bob

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


#53 of 77 John Morgan

John Morgan

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 647 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 2001
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted April 27 2012 - 08:32 AM

I tried finding INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS on Amazon, as someone mentioned they ordered it. No problem with HIGH NOON, but after looking a bit, the 1956 Olive release is there, but Amazon mistakenly have added [1978] after the title, so you may have to scroll down to find it.

#54 of 77 Paul Penna

Paul Penna

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 495 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 22 2002

Posted April 27 2012 - 03:36 PM

I tried finding INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS on Amazon, as someone mentioned they ordered it. No problem with HIGH NOON, but after looking a bit, the 1956 Olive release is there, but Amazon mistakenly have added [1978] after the title, so you may have to scroll down to find it.

It can be found by entering this ASIN in the Amazon search box: B007Y1NPSM Note that what comes up first is the Amazon Search Results layout, which defaults to having the item release date after the title, in this case (2012). To get the correct incorrect "1978" you have to click through to the single item page.

#55 of 77 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Advanced Member

  • 2,720 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted April 28 2012 - 04:33 AM

Sean: This is slightly off topic but I would like to make a suggestion to the good people at Olive. I just watched a terrific Allied Artists film (now owned by Paramount) called RIOT IN CELL BLOCK 11. It's directed by Don Siegel and composed for 1.85:1. So far as I know, it's never been on DVD and would be an excellent release. http://static.hometh...um.com/imgrepo/ http://static.hometh...um.com/imgrepo/

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


#56 of 77 John Hodson

John Hodson

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 4,340 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 14 2003
  • LocationBolton, Lancashire

Posted April 28 2012 - 05:37 AM

I second that emotion.
So many films, so little time...
Film Journal Blog
Lt. Col. Thursday: Beaufort; no preliminary nonsense with him, no ceremonial phrasing. Straight from the shoulder as I tell you, do you hear me? They're recalcitrant swine and they must feel it...


#57 of 77 dana martin

dana martin

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,784 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 28 2003
  • Real Name:Dana Martin
  • LocationNorfolk, VA

Posted April 28 2012 - 09:29 AM

The little Sci-Fi paranoia film that could, ok if any of you could tell me, how is Olive Films releases in HD? I don’t have a single one as of yet, but if they now are going to be going thru the Republic Catalog that could change real quick. Back to the opening statement,  IOTBS could be presented so many ways and I don’t know if it would make everyone happy, the only way for that to happen would for it to be a two disc set SuperScope and Director version on separate disc, also add the option of original ending and no narration (The Pure Cut) that has been mentioned, love this film, and if this can get WB to look at Hawks “Thing” for a high def release, it make it all the better.



High Noon, just waiting to fawn over Grace Kelly and watch as Cooper kicks ass  



Playing at the Drive In

Quote:Welles, Kubrick, Hitchcock, Spielberg, Jackson, Wood ?? a true Auteur should be one who follows his artistic vision
 

 


#58 of 77 RolandL

RolandL

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,992 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted April 28 2012 - 10:22 AM

The little Sci-Fi paranoia film that could, ok if any of you could tell me, how is Olive Films releases in HD? I don’t have a single one as of yet, but if they now are going to be going thru the Republic Catalog that could change real quick. Back to the opening statement,  IOTBS could be presented so many ways and I don’t know if it would make everyone happy, the only way for that to happen would for it to be a two disc set SuperScope and Director version on separate disc, also add the option of original ending and no narration (The Pure Cut) that has been mentioned, love this film, and if this can get WB to look at Hawks “Thing” for a high def release, it make it all the better. High Noon, just waiting to fawn over Grace Kelly and watch as Cooper kicks ass  

IOTBS will be sourced from a fine grain print. The only aspect ratio should be 2:1.

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 


#59 of 77 dana martin

dana martin

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,784 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 28 2003
  • Real Name:Dana Martin
  • LocationNorfolk, VA

Posted April 28 2012 - 11:26 AM

yep i know, and i am ok with that, because it was OAR, but also the other Aspect Ratio would have been a nice extra Posted Image


Playing at the Drive In

Quote:Welles, Kubrick, Hitchcock, Spielberg, Jackson, Wood ?? a true Auteur should be one who follows his artistic vision
 

 


#60 of 77 RolandL

RolandL

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,992 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted April 28 2012 - 04:06 PM

yep i know, and i am ok with that, because it was OAR, but also the other Aspect Ratio would have been a nice extra :)

You can only get the full 1.37:1 aspect ratio from the negative which doesn't exist.

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users