A Few Words About A few words about...™ Gone with the Wind -- in Blu-ray (2 Viewers)

[Robert Harris]

Was an aesthetic mess but made oodles of money which helped MGM keep going for a few more years.
Must admit I saw it and liked it!

As I recall, the 1961 prints were 1.37. Will check

They were struck without the 1.37 mask, therefore open matte. These were new dye transfer prints, both optical as well as mag/opt, but may have had the raised shots.

 

[darkrock17]

This magazine from 1967 looks like it was in widescreen.

 

[Robert Harris]

This magazine from 1967 looks like it was in widescreen.

For 1967, with a new 6-track mix.

 

[Robert Harris]

Here's a frame from a 1961 mag/opt print with open matte.

 

[JoshZ]

Here's a frame from a 1961 mag/opt print with open matte.

In 1961, would theaters have masked this down to 1.85:1 at the projector? Or were there still enough theaters that could project Academy Ratio around?

 

[Robert Harris]

In 1961, would theaters have masked this down to 1.85:1 at the projector? Or were there still enough theaters that could project Academy Ratio around?

All, with the exception of revival houses, would have matted

 

[darkrock17]

In 1961, would theaters have masked this down to 1.85:1 at the projector? Or were there still enough theaters that could project Academy Ratio around?

101 Dalmatians came out the same year of GWTW's Civil War Anniversary re-release and it was and is still own shown in 1:33:1. I think up until the mid 60's that films were made for both full screen and widescreen.

 

[Robert Harris]

101 Dalmatians came out the same year of GWTW's Civil War Anniversary re-release and it was and is still own shown in 1:33:1. I think up until the mid 60's that films were made for both full screen and widescreen.

101 D was released open matte, 1.33

 

[Lord Dalek]

1954 was in superscope or something right?

 

[darkrock17]

1954 was in superscope or something right?

Fantasia was re-released in SuperScope in 1954.

GWTW's wikipedia page has this to say about the 54 re-release.

The 1954 reissue was the first time the film was shown in widescreen, compromising the original Academy ratio and cropping the top and bottom to an aspect ratio of 1.75:1. In doing so, a number of shots were optically re-framed and cut into the three-strip camera negatives, forever altering five shots in the film.[36]

 

[moviebuff75]

The shot of Gerald and Scarlett under the tree....
You can see where they recomposited the background, as a pan rolls up the clouds, eventually revealing Tara, which should already have been seen.

 

[darkrock17]

The shot of Gerald and Scarlett under the tree....
You can see where they recomposited the background, as a pan rolls up the clouds, eventually revealing Tara, which should already have been seen.

I see no panning, just a simple pull back.

 

[Garysb]

So many instances of poor preservation by the studios back in the day. Whether is was cutting films for re release because of the production code, (King Kong 1933, Horse Feathers 1932) or to make the film shorter so it could be used as part of a double feature and not keeping what was cut. The Gone With The Wind situation with the shrunken shots to look good in wide screen. Something politically incorrect during WW II ( Lost Horizons 1937). Something deemed too long ( A Star Is Born 1954) The biggest problem was Fox's poor preservation of all it's nitrate films . Just no recognition of the value of the films. It even extended to TV series where shorter versions of shows, used in syndication, were preserved and the original broadcast versions were lost or exist in poor quality prints.

 

[moviebuff75]

You have to look at the top of the screen at the start of the pullback. You can't see Tara until top of the background rolls up.