A Few Words About A few words about...™ Oklahoma! -- in Blu-ray (2 Viewers)

[Techman707]

Not wishing to get in too deep, I'm forced however to point out a couple of things that you seem to have missed.

Firstly you need to read your own original posting again as highlighted in my previous post.
Nowhere do you mention any Theatre.
You make no mention of 20th Century Fox.
Your posting only refers to CINEMASCOPE films in a generalised term. (To me meaning all Studios)

I mentioned United Artists because you said that there were no CINEMASCOPE Optical Sound prints
When you said that, then I was quite entitled to give my involvement and the United Artists side of the story. (There would be many members here who may find that interesting)


Doug.

Doug,

I don't know what post you are referring to and I too don't want to get in too deep either. Below is part of my response to Will Krupp, which I believe is post #404 and it's pretty clear I'm referring to the "UA Lefrak D-150 Theatre". When I answered you, I didn't realize that you were in Australia and not here in the U.S. I have no idea whatsoever what the print situation was where you were in Australia. The same holds true for prints in the U.K., which in many cases have turned out to be very different than the prints that were released here in the U.S. (In the U.K. they got dye prints and here in the U.S. we got Eastman prints) Even films like "Cleopatra" had a "European Version" that had scenes that were not in the U.S. version.

BELOW IS FROM POST # 404

"You're right, my error. The original scope prints of Oklahoma (magnetic only) were 2.55:1. I was thinking of the last time I saw a print of Oklahoma. It was run as an special showing, with the regular evening show, to demonstrate the "D-150 All Purpose Masking System" for the opening of the first (and last) D-150 theatre opening in Queens, NY. The theatre's name was the UA Lefrak and [sadly] is now closed. They had expected to get a 70mm print, but, unfortunately wound up running a 35mm "Dual Magnetic/Optical print that was only 2.35:1.........."

 

[Doug Bull]

The Robe was filmed twice....just in case Cinemascope didn't work as expected or there weren't enough theatres converted. Conversion was a BIG DEAL at the time. The original Cinemascope prints only had magnetic tracks, NO OPTICAL. So if you wanted to run a Cinemascope picture, you had to convert and install magnetic penthouses and amplifier racks. After the independents sued, they finally made dual soundtrack print having both magnetic stripes and an optical track. The only problem was that half of the optical track was covered by a magnetic stripe that cut the volume in half and presenting a real problem for some theatres.

Above is the quote I replied to.
I only reacted to two portions of that particular posting.

1. Cinemascope prints only had Magnetic Tracks, NO OPTICAL.
2. They finally made a dual soundtrack print having both Magnetic Stripes and an optical track.

My reply covered both of those points.

The other reactions were to answer your subsequent questions, which I did.

It's obvious that things were quite different in the Land Down-Under in 1953/54.

Doug.

 

[RolandL]

You're right, my error. The original scope prints of Oklahoma (magnetic only) were 2.55:1. I was thinking of the last time I saw a print of Oklahoma. It was run as an special showing, with the regular evening show, to demonstrate the "D-150 All Purpose Masking System" for the opening of the first (and last) D-150 theatre opening in Queens, NY. The theatre's name was the UA Lefrak and [sadly] is now closed. They had expected to get a 70mm print, but, unfortunately wound up running a 35mm "Dual Magnetic/Optical print that was only 2.35:1.

 

[Techman707]

Above is the quote I replied to.
I only reacted to two portions of that particular posting.

1. Cinemascope prints only had Magnetic Tracks, NO OPTICAL.
2. They finally made a dual soundtrack print having both Magnetic Stripes and an optical track.

My reply covered both of those points.

The other reactions were to answer your subsequent questions, which I did.

It's obvious that things were quite different in the Land Down-Under in 1953/54.

Doug.

If as you claim, UA Pictures had a different policy relating to print availability for Cinemascope films, it would make sense. Since it was the Society of Independent Motion Picture Producers, a group led by Mary Pickford (of United Artists Pictures fame), Samuel Goldwyn, Walter Wanger, and others who filed a lawsuit against Paramount Detroit Theaters in 1942. It was the first major lawsuit by producers against exhibitors and that ultimately led to the U.S. Justice Department's reinstatement of the 1940 "consent decrees". While it started out as a case against Paramount Detroit Theatres, in the end it affected ALL the major U.S. theatre circuits. It ruined Loews, the BEST theatre circuit in the U.S, forced the sale or shuttering of dozens and dozens of Loew's theatres across the U.S. and was the beginning of the end for Loews (I still think about what it did to Loews to this day and is the main reason that "I" didn't want to "get in too deep" because it still aggravates me to think about it).

So IMHO, it makes sense that United Artists Pictures wouldn't have been involved in any of the actions that caused the original law suits in the first place.

 

[Techman707]

Yes, that's the theatre. It was installed by Joe Kelly (the "Kel" in Kelmar), who was one of the BEST! Unfortunately, he passed away in 2009. While the theatre is gone, the building, including its rooftop parking remains.

 

[Mark Booth]

I always find it interesting to use Google Maps to view old buildings that have been repurposed, just to see how much has been changed (or not changed). Here's the Google Street View for the old Lefrak UA building:

http://goo.gl/maps/Dw4PG

It doesn't look like a particularly good neighborhood these days.

Mark

 

[Reed Grele]

I always find it interesting to use Google Maps to view old buildings that have been repurposed, just to see how much has been changed (or not changed). Here's the Google Street View for the old Lefrak UA building:

http://goo.gl/maps/Dw4PG

It doesn't look like a particularly good neighborhood these days.

Mark

That is sad.

 

[Techman707]

I always find it interesting to use Google Maps to view old buildings that have been repurposed, just to see how much has been changed (or not changed). Here's the Google Street View for the old Lefrak UA building:

http://goo.gl/maps/Dw4PG

It doesn't look like a particularly good neighborhood these days.

Mark

It hasn't been a "particularly good neighborhood" for a long time now. You can't really see the rooftop parking in the picture, but it was a great feature when the theatre was new.

After UA gave up the theatre, because of the large Indian population in Lefrak City, an independent that ran a theatre in Manhattan that ran Indian pictures came in and changed the name to the "Bombay Cinema". They operated the theatre for a while until Loews (really Sony using the Loews name) came in and twinned it. They operated it for a few years and then gave up and the theatre closed for good. As another poster said, it's "really sad". The UA D-150 Theatre in Syosset fared MUCH better than this theatre, however, I'm told that even that theatre was recently closed. Last year someone was selling a single D-150 lens on Ebay. It went for about $500 and I was tempted to buy it and wondered where it came from since you don't see them for sale every day.

 

[ahollis]

It hasn't been a "particularly good neighborhood" for a long time now. You can't really see the rooftop parking in the picture, but it was a great feature when the theatre was new. After UA gave up the theatre, because of the large Indian population in Lefrak City, an independent that ran a theatre in Manhattan that ran Indian pictures came in and changed the name to the "Bombay Cinema". They operated the theatre for a while until Loews (really Sony using the Loews name) came in and twinned it. They operated it for a few years and then gave up and the theatre closed for good. As another poster said, it's "really sad". The UA D-150 Theatre in Syosset fared MUCH better than this theatre, however, I'm told that even that theatre was recently closed. Last year someone was selling a single D-150 lens on Ebay. It went for about $500 and I was tempted to buy it and wondered where it came from since you don't see them for sale every day.

I hear you. When I worked for UATC Corporate I almost picked up the D-150 lens from a the Dallas D-150 Theatre on Central Expressway. I didn't because I said well maybe it will be used later at some time. It never was and the theatre was torn down in the early 2000's. Do not know where that lens is now but wish I had it.

 

[Techman707]

I hear you. When I worked for UATC Corporate I almost picked up the D-150 lens from a the Dallas D-150 Theatre on Central Expressway. I didn't because I said well maybe it will be used later at some time. It never was and the theatre was torn down in the early 2000's. Do not know where that lens is now but wish I had it.

I don't know who bought it, since eBay doesn't let you see the info that they used to let you see. I only recall it went for what I thought was a "cheap" amount. However, about the same time, when Regal pulled out their film projectors, dozens of like new Schneider lenses (the expensive short focal length lenses) were on eBay for as little as $200 a pair. They even had anamorphic lenses cheap.

I wanted to experiment with it on curved screens with VIDEO PROJECTION. While it was easy to deal with a level horizons on a curved screen with CRT projectors, the new digital projectors present the same type of problems as film projectors (although its possible to design and build an electronic unit similar to the "blending" units to electronically bend the horizon).

 

[davidmatychuk]

Seattle's UA-150 theatre was a great theatre, too. I saw great first-run presentations of "Star Wars" and "Alien" there in the Seventies, well-worth the drive down from Vancouver.

 

[Techman707]

Seattle's UA-150 theatre was a great theatre, too. I saw great first-run presentations of "Star Wars" and "Alien" there in the Seventies, well-worth the drive down from Vancouver.

I take it that the Seattle UA-150 theatre is CLOSED. Some day, when ALL the theatres are finally gone (including today's ugly four wall boxes), they will finally understand what they have missed. Although I have now been able to purchase a Blu-ray of nearly every picture I ever wanted, when you watch them alone or with only a few people, it's just NOT THE SAME as watching a picture with 1500 to 3500 people reacting to something in the film simultaneously, this is especially true of a comedy (like "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World ).

 

[DP 70]

When I saw its IAMMMMW in Ultra Panavision 70 on the Cinerama Curved Screen in Bradford with a cinema full of people thisyear you cant beat it.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The UA D-150 Theatre in Syosset fared MUCH better than this theatre, however, I'm told that even that theatre was recently closed.

If you're talking about the one I think you're talking about (Syosset in Long Island, NY), it closed sometime between Star Wars Episode I and Episode II (so around 2000-2002). That was *the* place to see a movie when I was growing up, and on weekends my parents would take me and my brothers to see movies there, even though we had closer theaters. Probably the single best theater I've ever been to, I miss it.

 

[davidmatychuk]

In 1979, I saw "Alien" in several theatres, including Vancouver's Vogue, Seattle's UA-150, and L.A.'s venerable Egyptian Theatre, and they were all good, but the UA-150 was best. A squawky comm link bit when they're heading down to the planet made me jerk my head down and to the left to see what moron was cranking some kind of ghettoblaster P.A. all of a sudden. No video format yet has replicated that spectacular audio moment in my home.

 

[Techman707]

If you're talking about the one I think you're talking about (Syosset in Long Island, NY), it closed sometime between Star Wars Episode I and Episode II (so around 2000-2002). That was *the* place to see a movie when I was growing up, and on weekends my parents would take me and my brothers to see movies there, even though we had closer theaters. Probably the single best theater I've ever been to, I miss it.

I think you're referring to the UA Syosset Theatre. I was aware, sadly, that the Syosset was closed. The Syosset was used as a 3 projector Cinerama theatre and then converted to UP70 for the Roadshow of Mad World. The UA D150 theatre was down the road and closer to the parkway. However, in the 1960's, the Syosset Theatre (owned by Skouras before UA took over around 1965) was the theatre to go to for the top roadshows.

 

[KPmusmag]

Yesterday I attended Fox's "Best Movie Fest Ever" event, for a screening of Oklahoma!, Moulin Rouge (2001) and Hello, Dolly! at a Cinemark theater in the South Pointe Casino in Las Vegas.

http://bestmoviefestever.com/index.html

Typically, I tend to be disappointed by these things one way or another, but I had to attend to see if the the day-for-night scene in Oklahoma! would be the same as on the blu-ray; I really wanted to see what Fox would provide for a theatrical screening. It was daylight, just like the blu-ray. And, yes, I am so grateful to have this restoration, and I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water, but I can't help but feel that is a significant error. It also is not just a case of "that's not how it was in 1955", but it is also a continuity error as it is clearly already dusk after Laurey's dream when Jud arrives to take her to the party. In the buggy scene, many of the buggies have lit lanterns and the train's headlight is on, indicating darkness, when in the Kansas City scene the headlight is not on. Anyway, it is what it is, apparently.

So, first, the good at this screening:

The screen was masked correctly for each film.
The screen was slightly curved, reminiscent of the Cinemascope era, rather than flat as most digital theaters I have been to, which always makes it seem to me even more like video.
The images looked very nice, and appear to my eye to be identical to the blu-ray master for each.

The bad (or maybe just disappointing):

The auditorium they used was tiny! They probably could have shown the blu-ray without any loss. There is just no comparison to seeing these films on a big screen. Somehow, at home, where I have a projection system, the picture seems very large, perhaps in relation to my house. But in a theater, especially after seen these projected in 70mm in a huge space, it is simply a let down. That being said, the attendance was: Dolly - 9, Moulin Rouge - 22, Oklahoma - 16. From a financial point of view as opposed to an aesthetic one, how could you convince a theater manager to use his largest auditorium, even if it benefits the film?

There was a bad problem with the sound. Dolly was screened first. There was a terrible mid-range push and no low end. It was stereo, but almost AM radio sounding; the dialogue was directional, but on that tiny screen it really didn't do much. Nothing like the roadshow days where it sounded like the voice was coming out the character's mouth. The theater was so small I could actually stand right up against one of the surrounds toward the rear raised section and there was nothing. Originally, I was going to skip Moulin Rouge and eat lunch and play a bit in the casino. But I changed my mind because Moulin Rouge has a modern, Oscar-nominated, digital-age soundtrack with tons of surround and I wanted to hear how it sounded. I was foolishly thinking that perhaps it was Dolly's older soundtrack that was the problem, I was trying to reconcile it in my head. But Moulin Rouge sounded just as bad, also with no surround. Oklahoma suffered similarly, although for some reason, the directional dialogue in that one was a bit more successful. Obviously, there is a problem with how the sound is being delivered or processed. I have no idea where in the chain this is happening. I came right home and put on the blu-ray of Hello, Dolly! in my home theater. What a relief to hear great sound from that movie. I will add that even though this was a special screening, they still played the First Look prologue we see all the time nowadays. That sounded great, with rich full range sound. The theater's sound system was fine. It is the delivery or processing that is the problem.

Both Dolly and Oklahoma included the Intermission card and Entracte but it played through, just like the blu-ray if you don't press pause. I found that somewhat amusing, because they made a big deal out of an available discount at the concessions for "Fest" attendees; if they had taken advantage of the built in intermission in those films they could have sold more. Also, the theater went totally dark during the Oklahoma overture; kudos to the 16 people in attendance - no one complained to the manager that there was no video!

Speaking of the manager, there was no one I could find who could discuss the technical side with me. There was a young fellow there, perhaps 22 or so, to take a survey after each film, but he knew nothing about the films or the technology. I felt for him, because he kinda got yelled at by a fellow in attendance of Moulin Rouge who was royally pissed about the sound: "It sounds better in my $*&^@# home theater!"

I do think it is nice at these things when there is someone to "curate" the event; who knows something about the films, how they were made, the era they were made, etc. There was really nothing to make this special. It hardly felt like an event.

I have decided I will not attend again. They just aren't giving me anything better than I have at home, especially the sound. It was an hour round trip for me. I will say the price was right, $15 for all three films. But the tiny screen with poor sound - I have a more satisfying experience at home. I definitely support the idea of doing repertory showings, I grew up in the revival house era and I loved seeing those films. But those theaters were giving me something I couldn't begin to replicate at home. I think repertory screenings today have to be done with taste and with technical excellence; if people are going to embrace traveling and paying money to see these films, they have to be presented in some manner that exceeds what is available at home. I do know that two of the nine people at Dolly had never seen the film before. Is it better for them to see it first in some kind of theater, even if it does not remotely resemble the type of experience it was in the road show era (or even a decent sized modern theater), rather than them seeing it at home on who-knows-what-size monitor where they are prone to interruption and such? I am not sure.

 

[Charles Smith]

In a word ..... Oy.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I have decided I will not attend again. They just aren't giving me anything better than I have at home, especially the sound. It was an hour round trip for me. I will say the price was right, $15 for all three films. But the tiny screen with poor sound - I have a more satisfying experience at home. I definitely support the idea of doing repertory showings, I grew up in the revival house era and I loved seeing those films. But those theaters were giving me something I couldn't begin to replicate at home. I think repertory screenings today have to be done with taste and with technical excellence; if people are going to embrace traveling and paying money to see these films, they have to be presented in some manner that exceeds what is available at home.

Kevin, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

I've had similar experiences with repertory screenings of recent in the NYC-area. Whereas ten years ago, I'd automatically go to any of these things, I've scaled back lately. If I see that a 35mm or 70mm print of something is showing, I'm still excited to go, but less so for digital. And it's not even a "film is always good and digital is always bad" sort of thing, but for me, if I'm paying to see it in a theater, I want to get something more than what I get at home. When I've seen DCPs of classic films, it's often been obvious to me that it's made from the same source as the Blu-ray, often with the same mistakes or compromises that were baked into the master for the Blu-ray. (My favorite example of this is the classic Bond films. When they did the "Ultimate Edition" DVDs in 2006, they squeezed the title sequences of nearly all the films -- to the point that circles no longer were circles but ovals -- for fear that the very edges of the frame would be lost to overscan and a title might not be visible on a TV. When the Blu-rays came out a few years later, they used the same masters for almost all of the films, so even though overscan isn't an issue on modern HDTVs and home projectors, they were still squeezed. And when I've seen those movies theatrically since then, they've used the same masters, so the titles sequences are still squeezed. Unfortunately, an ill-advised choice to accommodate an outdated home technical standard with the well-intentioned hope of preserving the theatrical experience has resulted in those masters now being used in theaters!)

The thing is, I'd still prefer to see these movies in theaters. There's nothing like seeing a great movie in a crowded theater filled with people that actually want to be there and who love movies. When I saw "Moulin Rouge" in theaters opening weekend, I remember it being a sold out crowd and people literally standing and applauding after the musical numbers - you can't get that at home.

...and not stopping for the intermission? That's bad showmanship on behalf of the theater. Unfortunately I've seen that happen a bunch with screenings of my favorite movie, "2001: A Space Odyssey". Whenever I've seen it projected on film, it's either had the intermission, or the intermission title card has been removed so that the film continues on without a break. (I didn't even realize it had an intermission the very first time I saw it because the film seamlessly moved from the first half to the second.) But ever since Warner stopped sending out prints and replaced it with a DCP, most places have gotten lazy (or don't know what to do with it), so it plays all the way through... an intermission title card comes up but the lights never do, and the entr'acte music starts immediately after, with everyone weirdly sitting in the dark for five minutes. If they're not actually going to take an intermission, in my opinion it's better to just let the film run without the title card and the entr'acte playing in a pitch black auditorium. Inevitably, half the people in the audience get up because they think they're getting a break, and then end up missing the first ten minutes of the second half. Does it ruin the deeper meanings of the film? No, but it's a lousy way to present it.

 

[Jim*Tod]

Interesting stories though here in Richmond we don't get much in the way of vintage films in theaters. I do go up to Silver Spring, MD for the AFI theater there. They sometimes come through with interesting films and are having their third annual 70mm festival starting in August. Their 70mm projection varies.... sometimes it has been outstanding with vivid sound, other times a bit dim. Their screen is less than 50 feet wide so it is not the vast screens we used to see in the 60's for 70mm. But I am making the trip up next month to see RYAN'S DAUGHTER and AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS. I am not expecting too much in terms of the quality of these prints, but then again... this may be the last time to see these films in their original format. And I also agree that for those of us with home theatres who love vintage films, the experience may now be much better at home.