Gone With the Wind deleted footage -- amazing news! (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

GWTW could use a bit of due diligence based upon actual research; a bit of tlc and a few dollars invested.

Examination of original prints should yield answers to most questions re: dialogue tracks, etc.

The dupes inserted in 1954 should obviously be replaced with corrected footage which MUST exist somewhere. I've personally examined several reels of 1939-40 vintage, but don't recall offhand whether the affected shots were contained therein.

There is really no reason why lifts, trims, etc from 1939 should not exist on nitrate, which has a potentially better (longer)lifespan than acetate -- as long as one does not attempt to view it via candlelight.

The unfortunate "restoration" of 1999-2000 which made the film look like an out of focus cartoon created by idiots should be surplanted by something more accurate and representative of the filmmakers' desires, but that would entail the admission that a problem exists.

RAH

 

[Lee Bombard]

A man named Jim Tumblin, who is the owner of the largest privately-owned collection of Gone With the Wind memorabelia in the world, has been contacted by Time-Warner, Ted Turner, and New Line Cinema, and is in ongoing negotiations with one or all of them to determine the proper venue for releasing his 90 MINUTES OF DELETED SCENES AND TRIMS FROM GONE WITH THE WIND!

Hello Mr. Harris - Do you have any insight regarding the above info?

Regards,

Lee

 

[Rob W]

I'd also like to see the DVD debut of THE MAKING OF A LEGEND , the 2 hour documentary from 1988 that does a superb job of detailing the history of the film. Fortunately I did get a copy of the laserdisc version.

 

[Robert Harris]

I have no information on the Tumblin Collection, other than what I've seen on their website. Anyone with an interest in either the South or film history is the beneficiary of the passion and dedication which has gone into gathering, housing and preserving this collection.

The extant Selznick footage inclusive of tests and some opticals survives at U. Texas - Austin.

RAH

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Mind you Mr. Harris, I find your work to be brilliant as well I just figured that since Warner seems to be exclusively dealing with that outfit, that they'd be the one to get GWTW. I would be just as happy, if not more to see it in your hands for a true film restoration instead of just a video master

 

[Peter Kline]

As long as this material is not put into the film proper I'd like to see it. Screen tests and other odds and ends have been presented on GWTW Specials and other programs through the years. It will be interesting to see whether the black and white negs are in good enough condition to make Technicolor prints.

 

[Robert Harris]

Getting any elusive GWTW elements into proper hands at WB is the proper edict here.

The original negatives should not be printed for any purpose other than the creation of polyester fine grain masters.

RAH

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Quote:

Couldn't agree more, except maybe to add Mr. Harris' name!

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

out of focus cartoon

The most frustrating thing about that release was there would be scattered shots suggesting how brilliant it could look interspersed with shots with such registration problems that half the audience would think that the projectionist had lost focus while the other half would be wondering if they missed the distribution of the 3-D glasses before the film.
Regards,

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Wow, Warner, PLEASE give GWTW to the same geniuses that did Citizen Kane and Zhivago. The prospect is mouth watering!

The GWTW DVD does not suffer from most of the problems that were evident in the film presentation. It does suffer from edge enhancement and compression artifacts. I have no doubt that they could create a near-pristine looking GWtW DVD if they took another shot at it, but I would rather they take care of it as film first.

Regards,

 

[Brian Kidd]

Ken, you make a good point. We all have to remember that films need to be restored and preserved first and foremost as film and later on video. Once the original elements are gone, then we have to resort to seeing a copy of a copy of a copy and then a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of... and so on. Just because a film looks remarkable on video, doesn't mean that the original film is in good shape. Look at NORTH BY NORTHWEST. The DVD is spectacular, however the original film elements, if I'm not mistaken, aren't in the best of condition.
I would hope that WB would realize GWTW's importance in film history and give it the restoration it so richly deserves.

 

[Henry Gale]

The extant Selznick footage inclusive of tests and some opticals survives at U. Texas - Austin.

And you can watch them for free, 7 days a week. All day!
Just go to the LBJ Library from 9 to 5. Parking is also free. I was there Sunday. This is a temporary exibit of The Treasures of the Ransom Center at UT. Don't miss this collection! I saw Gloria Swanson's sunglasses, purse, cigarette holder and script from Sunset Blvd. It was opened to the last page, ...all those wonderful people out there in the dark..."
There's a first edition of Alice's Adventures In Wonderland. The first book printed in English, the first photograph, a Guttenburg bible and on and on.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Ken, you make a good point. We all have to remember that films need to be restored and preserved first and foremost as film and later on video. Once the original elements are gone, then we have to resort to seeing a copy of a copy of a copy and then a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of... and so on.

it's good to restore and preserve original film elements. However even in the best of conditions, these physical elements will not last forever.

Therefore, it's equally important, while the elements are usable, to create ultra-high definition digital transfers (much higher than 1920 x 1080) that can ultimately outlive the source elements and not be subject to "copy of a copy of a copy" artifacts.

-dave

 

[Sean Laughter]

In other news Steven Spielberg and George Lucas have somehow become associated with this film and will use new technology to digitall alter voices so that "Frankly Scarlett I don't give a damn" is changed to "Frankly Scarlett I don't give a darn" and any wounded soldiers merely have a limp.

 

[Brian Kidd]

David,
No, they won't last forever. However, if properly cared for, they will last a very, very long time. Of course, protection elements must be made, but the originals should be preserved at all costs. Who doesn't prefer looking at the real Mona Lisa as opposed to a lithograph? These negatives are the original masterpieces.
Plus, you must remember that digital technology changes daily. Try finding a DVD player that still works fifty years from now. (Home Theatre Geeks' collections notwithstanding ) Film is a much simpler system. One that could easily be replicated centuries from now. In the end, film is better.

 

[Duncan Harvey]

True, but why not scan the negs in to a resolution of something like 3000 x 4000 (or whatever is the resolution required to properly capture film) and then output back to film after the restoration - then you have a "new" negative which should serve as the element for any future video format.

 

[Brian Kidd]

Because we have yet to perfect digital transfers. Sometime in the future, this may come to pass, but we still need to protect the original. Case in point: We've all seen copies of the US Constitution. (at least we Americans have) Have you seen the original lately? Most of the original signatures are illegible, including the famous John Hancock. Now, while we have enough copies to last several lifetimes, the original is almost gone for good. You can't tell me that we aren't a lesser country because of that. It all comes from improper care of the original. Almost 50% or more of films made since the inception of the format are lost... forever. If you can truly claim to be a film fan, then it's imperative to badger WB until they give GWTW the restoration and preservation that it so richly deserves.
Hmmm. Anyone willing to help draft a petition?

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Bluto: We've all seen copies of the US Constitution. (at least we Americans have) Have you seen the original lately? Most of the original signatures are illegible, including the famous John Hancock.

Otter: The Constitution?

Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.

Regards,

 

[DaViD Boulet]

that's why I said:

create ultra-high definition digital transfers (much higher than 1920 x 1080)

Granted that digital isn't perfect. But let me challenge what you're referring to as the "art" in this case.

I don't think of it as the negatives. Not exactly. What the "art" is for film is when the image is reflected off the screen. It was the image people looked up and gazed upon when the film was released in theaters. The images on the negative film stock are clearly a part of that process...but no one would stare at a film reel sitting on a table and be looking at the "art". It's the motion picture in the process of being projected that is art.

What medium or technology that is behind creating that image is secondary. As long as the image on the screen looks like what it's supposed to (not saying that just any current digital technology acheives this), then the art has been preserved.

Think about this comparison. What's the "art" in a recording? Is it the reel of magnetic tape for the master recording? No. It's the *sound* of that master recording.

If you had a way to perfectly capture that sound, regardless of the medium, then the "art" has been preserved even if the magnetic master deteriorated beyond repair.

Here's why I think it's so important to make digital (ultra-hi def) masters now. Film will not last as long as acid-neutralized paper (the consitition). It will not last as long as oil on Canvas or marble statuary. As a medium it degrades over time more rapidly that some other mediums.

Therefore, while we attempt in every way to preserve and restore those original film elements, we should make digital masters NOW while those elements have some degree of fidelity to their original condition. If we wait 100 or 200 years before making these alternate digital masters, by then the film elements may have deteriorated to the point where their color fidelity cannot be correct for or they may have deteriorated beyond use. When you add in the condition of the magnetic audio masters the situation becomes more serious.

-dave

 

[Brennan Hill]

We've all seen copies of the US Constitution. (at least we Americans have) Have you seen the original lately? Most of the original signatures are illegible, including the famous John Hancock.

Ken has far more restraint then I do...I think you mean the Declaration of Independence Brian. Both great documents...but big, big difference.