What's new
  • Announcing New Ownership at Home Theater Forum. Learn More

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
9,795
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
Stranger things have happened ----- and it is 30 plus years, But with the film now being racist maybe its locked away!

Start a kickstarter to crowdfund a petition/lobby and buy-in for it and see if that convinces anyone at Warner -- at least Warner will no longer be under AT&T's thumb anymore, so who knows, LOL.

_Man_
 

Rob W

Screenwriter
Joined
May 23, 1999
Messages
1,096
Real Name
Robert
Setting aside the cost factor ( which is unknown to me ) this sort of thing would be a perfect project for Criterion to do by offering a Technicolor classic in both original and modern color timings.
 

RobertMG

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
3,232
Real Name
Robert M. Grippo
If one considers cost vs benefit, benefit is far outweighed by cost.
I would buy it - Warner's must have a original 39 IB Nitrate for reference? How about scanning it and showing it in theaters as a test? A Fathom Event, "RARE" chance to see Selznick's original vision
1626028185311.png
 

B-ROLL

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
4,502
Real Name
Bryan
I would buy it - Warner's must have a original 39 IB Nitrate for reference? How about scanning it and showing it in theaters as a test? A Fathom Event, "RARE" chance to see Selznick's original vision
I suspect -as even a youngish Bryan noted - the "cheesy" SPFX wouldn't fly with a post Star Wars (TM LucasFilm) Episode IV: A New Hope crowd. Worse for me - I saw Carol Burnett's send up

1626028359740.png


before I saw GWTW in 16mm - pre-Turner - so I may laughed at the wrong place...
 
Last edited:

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
9,795
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
Setting aside the cost factor ( which is unknown to me ) this sort of thing would be a perfect project for Criterion to do by offering a Technicolor classic in both original and modern color timings.

I was about to say that before, except Warner doesn't seem to like licensing out their titles that way. They'd rather do it via WAC or not at all it seems... though GWTW isn't a title they'd normally consider for WAC either... Then again, it's a brave(?) new world for home video, and they even already (began to) merged that part of their bizz in partnership w/ Universal along w/ plenty of upheaval since the AT&T (ex)ownership debacle, so who knows?

_Man_
 

B-ROLL

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
4,502
Real Name
Bryan
I was about to say that before, except Warner doesn't seem to like licensing out their titles that way. They'd rather do it via WAC or not at all it seems... though GWTW isn't a title they'd normally consider for WAC either... Then again, it's a new brave(?) world for home video, and they even already (began to) merged that part of their bizz in partnership w/ Universal, so who knows?

_Man_
Nothing has merged - it arguably similar to when Fox distributed MGM/UA and Lionsgate discs - I doubt either will have the other's logos as Fox did. Warner did something similar with Paramount when the mountain decided to exit home video distribution stage (or screen) left ...
1626029256105.png
;)!
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
16,192
Real Name
Robert Harris
I would buy it - Warner's must have a original 39 IB Nitrate for reference? How about scanning it and showing it in theaters as a test? A Fathom Event, "RARE" chance to see Selznick's original vision View attachment 103362
Why not just ship around reels of nitrate, filled in with other various prints? Each projectionist could add their own new sets of cue-marks.

Or even better, platter the prints.

Your example is a 1961 print.
 

RobertMG

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
3,232
Real Name
Robert M. Grippo
Why not just ship around reels of nitrate, filled in with other various prints? Each projectionist could add their own new sets of cue-marks.

Or even better, platter the prints.

Your example is a 1961 print.
Can u share 39 frame? Fathom does digital right?


Gone With the Wind (USA 1939, R: Victor Fleming)


“The history of Gone with the Wind (1939) strikingly illustrates how precarious the color image can be and how changing aesthetics can influence a film’s look. A victim of its own success, Gone with the Wind underwent a long line of reissues and rereleases, all of which sought to ‘improve’ on earlier versions.20 For this book I studied two noticeably different versions of the film: MGM’s 1954 reissue, approved by producer David O. Selznick, and Warner Bros.’ Technicolor restoration, released in 1998. Neither version can claim to recreate the colors of the 1939 original; each is a creature of its aesthetic context.

Richard May, Warner Bros.’ vice president of film preservation, explained that each reissue attempted to increase the saturation and vividness of the production’s color in order to keep up with audience expectations. If a contemporary audience were presented with a print that duplicated the 1939 version, he speculated, ‘I think they would see that absence of color and ask what we did to the picture.’21 For the 1954 version, in keeping with the then-current standards of spectacle, MGM released the film in ‘widescreen.’ Several key compositions were cropped, and projectionists masked the film so that it appeared to have a CinemaScope aspect ratio. The handling of color, though, in this version is not without merit. Robert Harris, the film restoration expert renowned for his work in color and large-format films (most famously Lawrence of Arabia and Vertigo) calls the 1954 version ‘the Rosetta stone for Gone with the Wind.‘ 22 This version was processed to emphasize the design’s rich, warm reds and browns. Scarlett’s prayer dress in the opening scene, for instance, is reproduced in a sumptuous pearl white, very warm, with a soft near-yellowish cast. One effect of this printing choice is to accentuate the warm glow of simulated candlelight that Selznick had worked so hard to achieve in 1939. The fact that Selznick also supervised and approved this version of the film lends authority to its look.

The 1998 Technicolor reissue renders colors quite differently. This version was derived from a 1989 Eastmancolor restoration. May explained that the 1989 restoration team timed the new print to achieve good flesh tones and neutrals, and that the colors probably approximated those of the original, scenes as staged before the Technicolor camera. Scarlett’s dress, in that version, is a crisp, clean white. The aim, May suggests, was to create a print that would meet contemporary standards of color rendition and quality. The look clearly departed from the 1954 version and almost certainly was different from the 1939 original. In all, the colors are cooler and clearer, and perhaps they are truer to the original staged scenes. This technical polish raises questions, however, if we assume that GWTW was designed with the capacities of the 1939 Technicolor process in mind and that Selznick may have viewed that process as a creative tool to help stylize the film.

The 1989 restoration was fairly well received, but the 1998 Technicolor release met with harsh criticism. The film was meant to be a showcase for Technicolor’s reintroduction of dye-transfer printing, a system that hadn’t been used in the United States since the 1970s. Unfortunately, Technicolor distributed a set of reels with registration defects (errors in keeping the yellow, cyan, and magenta components properly lined up), and had to recall them.23 Technicolor’s president, Ron Jarvis, pointed the finger at Warner Bros. for relying on the 1989 restoration as a source, which ‘contaminates the color because you’re now introducing another process: Eastmancolor.’24 Even the areas in which this version is said to excel can cast doubt on its accuracy. Jarvis touted Technicolor’s new work by claiming that ‘the colors, the contrast, the blacks, the shadow detail, the lack of grain are big improvements over the ’39 original.’25 Improvements, of course, amount to imposing current standards on the historical artifact, and they chip away at aesthetic credibility.

NOTES

20 For a detailed criticism of various attempts to restore GWTW, see Craig S. Cummings, ‘Tampering with Tara: The Desecration of Gone with the Wind,’ Big Reel (January 1999), 122.

21 Richard May, interview with the author, Los Angeles, Calif., July 18,1996; also quoted in Bill Desowitz, ‘GWTW: Is Brighter Better? ‘ Los Angeles Times, June 7, 1998.

22 Robert A. Harris, interview with the author, Bedford Hills, N.Y., March 24, 2004.

23 Desowitz, ‘Frankly, My Dear, You’re a Bit Blurry,’ Los Angeles Times, July 7, 1998.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid.”

(Higgins, Scott (2007): Harnessing the Technicolor Rainbow. Color Design in the 1930s. Austin: University of Texas Press, on pp. 9-10.)
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
16,192
Real Name
Robert Harris
Can u share 39 frame? Fathom does digital right?


Gone With the Wind (USA 1939, R: Victor Fleming)


“The history of Gone with the Wind (1939) strikingly illustrates how precarious the color image can be and how changing aesthetics can influence a film’s look. A victim of its own success, Gone with the Wind underwent a long line of reissues and rereleases, all of which sought to ‘improve’ on earlier versions.20 For this book I studied two noticeably different versions of the film: MGM’s 1954 reissue, approved by producer David O. Selznick, and Warner Bros.’ Technicolor restoration, released in 1998. Neither version can claim to recreate the colors of the 1939 original; each is a creature of its aesthetic context.

Richard May, Warner Bros.’ vice president of film preservation, explained that each reissue attempted to increase the saturation and vividness of the production’s color in order to keep up with audience expectations. If a contemporary audience were presented with a print that duplicated the 1939 version, he speculated, ‘I think they would see that absence of color and ask what we did to the picture.’21 For the 1954 version, in keeping with the then-current standards of spectacle, MGM released the film in ‘widescreen.’ Several key compositions were cropped, and projectionists masked the film so that it appeared to have a CinemaScope aspect ratio. The handling of color, though, in this version is not without merit. Robert Harris, the film restoration expert renowned for his work in color and large-format films (most famously Lawrence of Arabia and Vertigo) calls the 1954 version ‘the Rosetta stone for Gone with the Wind.‘ 22 This version was processed to emphasize the design’s rich, warm reds and browns. Scarlett’s prayer dress in the opening scene, for instance, is reproduced in a sumptuous pearl white, very warm, with a soft near-yellowish cast. One effect of this printing choice is to accentuate the warm glow of simulated candlelight that Selznick had worked so hard to achieve in 1939. The fact that Selznick also supervised and approved this version of the film lends authority to its look.

The 1998 Technicolor reissue renders colors quite differently. This version was derived from a 1989 Eastmancolor restoration. May explained that the 1989 restoration team timed the new print to achieve good flesh tones and neutrals, and that the colors probably approximated those of the original, scenes as staged before the Technicolor camera. Scarlett’s dress, in that version, is a crisp, clean white. The aim, May suggests, was to create a print that would meet contemporary standards of color rendition and quality. The look clearly departed from the 1954 version and almost certainly was different from the 1939 original. In all, the colors are cooler and clearer, and perhaps they are truer to the original staged scenes. This technical polish raises questions, however, if we assume that GWTW was designed with the capacities of the 1939 Technicolor process in mind and that Selznick may have viewed that process as a creative tool to help stylize the film.

The 1989 restoration was fairly well received, but the 1998 Technicolor release met with harsh criticism. The film was meant to be a showcase for Technicolor’s reintroduction of dye-transfer printing, a system that hadn’t been used in the United States since the 1970s. Unfortunately, Technicolor distributed a set of reels with registration defects (errors in keeping the yellow, cyan, and magenta components properly lined up), and had to recall them.23 Technicolor’s president, Ron Jarvis, pointed the finger at Warner Bros. for relying on the 1989 restoration as a source, which ‘contaminates the color because you’re now introducing another process: Eastmancolor.’24 Even the areas in which this version is said to excel can cast doubt on its accuracy. Jarvis touted Technicolor’s new work by claiming that ‘the colors, the contrast, the blacks, the shadow detail, the lack of grain are big improvements over the ’39 original.’25 Improvements, of course, amount to imposing current standards on the historical artifact, and they chip away at aesthetic credibility.

NOTES

20 For a detailed criticism of various attempts to restore GWTW, see Craig S. Cummings, ‘Tampering with Tara: The Desecration of Gone with the Wind,’ Big Reel (January 1999), 122.

21 Richard May, interview with the author, Los Angeles, Calif., July 18,1996; also quoted in Bill Desowitz, ‘GWTW: Is Brighter Better? ‘ Los Angeles Times, June 7, 1998.

22 Robert A. Harris, interview with the author, Bedford Hills, N.Y., March 24, 2004.

23 Desowitz, ‘Frankly, My Dear, You’re a Bit Blurry,’ Los Angeles Times, July 7, 1998.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid.”

(Higgins, Scott (2007): Harnessing the Technicolor Rainbow. Color Design in the 1930s. Austin: University of Texas Press, on pp. 9-10.)
Don't know the source of this article, but it's innacurate. Avoid data you find on the inter-web at all costs.
 

RobertMG

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
3,232
Real Name
Robert M. Grippo
Don't know the source of this article, but it's innacurate. Avoid data you find on the inter-web at all costs.
Here is the source . . . .https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2382749.Harnessing_the_Technicolor_Rainbow
 

RobertMG

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
3,232
Real Name
Robert M. Grippo
Wonderful.
Thank you for teaching us so much about color and original prints. Do you have any frames from 39 GWTW? Will try to get back to Elizabeth and Essex too! Wonder if any of the costumes from this film exist? Flynn's Davis'
 

OLDTIMER

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 11, 2019
Messages
252
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
Ken S-B
There’s something beyond the color temp of the lamp that comes into play here.

The nitrate base was crystal clear. Acetate was not.
I agree entirely. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I've projected many nitrate prints (IB and black and white) and they do look brighter (if that's the right word) than acetate or polyester bases.
You mention "something else". Could it be acclimatisation of the eye? Project a film onto a yellow wall, for instance. The eye acclimatises in the dark and the wall appears to be white in the picture.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
352,553
Messages
4,989,123
Members
143,284
Latest member
Earlbear
Recent bookmarks
0
Top