20th Century Fox's CinemaScope films (1 Viewer)

[Harold Chasen]

Remember, Fox is the studio that deliberately destroyed almost all of their original nitrate Technicolor camera negatives. At the time, their attitude toward preserving and presenting films seems to have been, "if it's good enough for the televisions of 1973, that's all we need to worry about." Now, all studios did this kind of thing to a greater or lesser extent (lots of erased or otherwise unpreserved stereo tracks, for example, since TV and theaters in the 70's couldn't take advantage). But Fox seems to have taken it further than the others. So, if a Fox CinemaScope title hasn't been revisited in the past few decades, you have a pan-and-scan, monophonic version created for TV - and that's it, as Matt says.

 

[jayembee]

Disney did license it’s 30s Selznick films to Kino. Hopefully that will happen with Fox titles but Disney is the worst so who knows

That was before Disney announced that they weren't going to be releasing (either by themselves or licensing out) back catalog titles on physical media. There will be exceptions for big franchise titles, especially if there are tie-ins to be had -- *cough*Avatar*cough* -- and I would hope that they'd keep things like the Rodgers & Hammerstein musicals in print, but I wouldn't expect much more than that.

 

[battlebeast]

That was before Disney announced that they weren't going to be releasing (either by themselves or licensing out) back catalog titles on physical media. There will be exceptions for big franchise titles, especially if there are tie-ins to be had -- *cough*Avatar*cough* -- and I would hope that they'd keep things like the Rodgers & Hammerstein musicals in print, but I wouldn't expect much more than that.

They won’t even license out? That’s terrible. I mean, it’s no skin off their nose to license out for blu Ray. Seems to me another studio who doesn’t give a hoot about their catalogues and wants to let them waste away...

 

[Thomas T]

They won’t even license out? That’s terrible. I mean, it’s no skin off their nose to license out for blu Ray. Seems to me another studio who doesn’t give a hoot about their catalogues and wants to let them waste away...

Disney is notorious for not releasing their own catalogue titles on blu ray (other than animated titles). No The Moonspinners, Third Man On The Mountain, Light In The Forest, That Darn Cat, Summer Magic, Moon Pilot, The Castaway Cowboy, Never A Dull Moment, Horse In The Gray Flannel Suit, Ugly Dachshund, One Little Indian etc., so why would they release Fox catalogue titles? There's a reason Disney gobbled up Fox and it wasn't for their catalogue outside of stuff like The Sound Of Music. Thankfully, Twilight Time, Kino Lorber and Criterion managed to release quite a few before the curtain came down.

 

[Matt Hough]

Yes, we really owe those companies a debt of gratitude for releasing so much of the Fox back catalog that we eventually got. I guess that's going to be it, though, and that makes me quite sad.

 

[Alan Tully]

The German Blu-ray releases of, Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines & Journey To The Centre Of The Earth are very cheap & are multi-region.

See on Amazon

See on Amazon

​

 

[john a hunter]

It's streaming on iTunes, Amazon Prime, etc.

Apparently not down under.
Looks like my type of "old classic "unfortunately.

 

[willyTass]

The current 4K data that exists of SoM is derived from an 8K scan of a 65mm IP. Fox went the IP route for all its 65mm titles that were released on Blu-ray.

including cleopatra ? hopefully if disneys woes continue they can sell the Fox stake to RAH for ¥10

 

[OliverK]

including cleopatra ? hopefully if disneys woes continue they can sell the Fox stake to RAH for ¥10

Pretty sure that Cleopatra was one of the first 4K scans at Fotokem and also that it was from an IP.
To my knowledge that IP has also been used to strike a number of prints over the years and I have seen one of them in 2006. It was quite the experience!

 

[PaulRossen]

Pretty sure that Cleopatra was one of the first 4K scans at Fotokem and also that it was from an IP.
To my knowledge that IP has also been used to strike a number of prints over the years and I have seen one of them in 2006. It was quite the experience!

I also saw Cleopatra within the last 10 -15 years. It was quite an impressive showing.

 

[roxy1927]

I saw the Cleopatra theatrical showings in 2013. I went twice. I thought it was terrific and I loved the ending it with the lines from Shakespeare. I hadn't heard them before but I thought that couldn't have been Mankiewicz. Nobody writes that beautifully but one person. I have no idea why the film has a terrible reputation. Those 4 hours flew by and I would happily have sat through the 6 hour version. Who knows now what its fate will be. I've already read people complaining about the colors of the bluray. Not unlike those complaining about the colors of The Sound of Music bluray.

 

[trajan007]

I saw the Cleopatra theatrical showings in 2013. I went twice. I thought it was terrific and I loved the ending it with the lines from Shakespeare. I hadn't heard them before but I thought that couldn't have been Mankiewicz. Nobody writes that beautifully but one person. I have no idea why the film has a terrible reputation. Those 4 hours flew by and I would happily have sat through the 6 hour version. Who knows now what its fate will be. I've already read people complaining about the colors of the bluray. Not unlike those complaining about the colors of The Sound of Music bluray.

I thought CLEOPATRA was a great film which we will never see the likes again.

 

[Alan Tully]

I enjoyed Cleopatra at the cinema all those years ago, but now it's: first half good, second half dull (& the same with Gone With The Wind). I'm one of those that are unhappy with the look of the Blu-ray - far too cool, I'm sure that it looked very lush at the cinema, & believe me, I don't buy a Blu-ray to be unhappy with it (I'm glad I kept hold of the DVD).

 

[Douglas R]

I saw Cleopatra on my own when it first opened in 70mm and thought it a colossal bore. I later saw it on general release with a girlfriend in a heavily cut version when it seemed much better!

 

[OliverK]

I enjoyed Cleopatra at the cinema all those years ago, but now it's: first half good, second half dull (& the same with Gone With The Wind). I'm one of those that are unhappy with the look of the Blu-ray - far too cool, I'm sure that it looked very lush at the cinema, & believe me, I don't buy a Blu-ray to be unhappy with it (I'm glad I kept hold of the DVD).

Cleopatra DID look very lush in that new print I saw (although it seemed to look a tad yellowish) and not at all like the rather drab Blu-ray.

If Cleopatra would have been released as two movies the first one would have gotten much more frequent viewings from me. Might be just me but I find it hard to endure Richard Burton while he seems to be wallowing in self-pity for the better part of the second half.

 

[trajan007]

I thought the scenes with Burton were very powerful the highlight being when he charges the whole army alone. on horseback.

 

[mark brown]

Five or so years ago, we saw Todd-AO print of Cleopatra in Seattle. It was so gorgeous you could reach our and touch the velvet image!

 

[Alan Tully]

Cleopatra DID look very lush in that new print I saw (although it seemed to look a tad yellowish) and not at all like the rather drab Blu-ray.

If Cleopatra would have been released as two movies the first one would have gotten much more frequent viewings from me. Might be just me but I find it hard to endure Richard Burton while he seems to be wallowing in self-pity for the better part of the second half.

Yup, drab is about the right word to describe the Blu-ray. I do feel sorry for Richard Burton; he's hardly in the first half, & relegated to Cleopatra's puppy dog in the second half. I think that he must have suffered most from the cuts, I bet all his good scenes were cut out.

 

[David_B_K]

Cleopatra DID look very lush in that new print I saw (although it seemed to look a tad yellowish) and not at all like the rather drab Blu-ray.

If Cleopatra would have been released as two movies the first one would have gotten much more frequent viewings from me. Might be just me but I find it hard to endure Richard Burton while he seems to be wallowing in self-pity for the better part of the second half.

I remember discussing Cleopatra on another thread years ago. I do not blame Burton in any way for the problems with the second half. He plays the role as written, and we get to hear that great voice as he declaims his speeches. The problem is with history. The second half of the film cannot really survive without Caesar's presence.

Rex Harrison is so dominant in the first half the movie seems to be more about Caesar than Cleopatra. The movie begins with Caesar in the midst of a civil war, shifts to Egypt and still does not introduce Cleopatra for some time. Since Caesar seems to be the main character of part one, his death brings the story to a complete stop.

When the second half begins without Caesar, Antony is not a suitable replacement. In spite of Burton's Shakespearean presence, the character of Antony is such a loser it is difficult to see him as a protagonist. And Cleopatra is just a power-mad (but beautiful) manipulator. If I were reading this story in a non-fiction book (which I have done many times), I would see the "hero" of part 2 as Octavian/Augustus. If you look at the story from the Roman point of view, Octavian stands for the real Rome while Antony stands for nothing. The movie does a good job of showing how Antony let himself become "Egyptianized" to the point he was betraying Rome's interests. I guess we are supposed to see it as romantic that Antony sacrificed an empire "all for love".

In spite of the movie portraying Octavian as physically weak and not Caesar's "real son", as Augustus he was really one of the greatest Romans. The Romans (including Caesar) would not have seen Octavian as anything less than Caesar's adopted son and heir. The Romans did not view adoption the way modern people do. They liked to limit their families to one or two children and would adopt out extras to childless Romans. Everyone regarded the adoptees as the children of their new parents. Caesar's son with Cleopatra would have been regarded by the Romans as just a foreign nobody. The Romans were so high on themselves that they regarded a Roman Senator as higher ranking than any foreign ruler. I think Roddy McDowell "got" the character, and even though he was supposed to be the antagonist. McDowell plays him as the real hero of part two (which he was from the Roman point of view).

I am annoyed with some of the inaccuracies in the movie, most notably Caesar's obsession with becoming a king. There is no evidence that Caesar wanted to do any such thing. He certainly never asked the Senate to name him as king with Caesarion as his heir. The movie downplays the power Caesar had as dictator. He was actually the Master of Rome. His power was such that the only way to defeat him was to murder him. I guess they put that fake plot in to show how Cleopatra was a manipulator.

 

[OliverK]

Indeed the role of Marc Anthony is a thankless one and no match for the very nice role that Rex Harrison got to play in the first half and in my opinion he made the most of it.

It does not help that for me Burton did not seem entirely at home in movies set in the ancient world. At least this is what I took away from watching The Robe, Alexander and Cleopatra.