KISS ME KATE (flat only! UGH!) (1 Viewer)

[Julian Lalor]

I am surprised to hear so many HTF members stating these altered/modified versions are OK. Lots of people think panned and scanned widescreen videos are OK, too.

How are they altered or modified? Wasn't Kiss Me Kate meant to be seen flat in theatres as well? Clearly, not every cinema in the 1950's had 3-D capabilities and many would have shown this film without 3-D enhancement. I also find your comparison to panning and scanning specious at best.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Steve,
As others have stated, your analogy is not really a good one in this particular discussion.





Crawdaddy

 

[GregK]

Peter your recollection of "The Bubble" (aka: "Fantastic Invasion of Planet Earth", aka "The Zoo") is almost dead on. Other 3-D films shot in the SpaceVision process include "Andy Warhol's Frankenstein", "APE", and "Sea Dream" which ran at Sea World for a number of years. "Sea Dream" was probably the best 3-D film shot in the Spacevision format and had incredible out of screen effects.

Perhaps Steve and I are sort of "pushing the envelope" by calling the 2-D flat versions "modified", but the point we are trying make is these films were shot, composed, and were original shown in the 3-D format. Yes, smaller theaters often played 1st run 3-D films flat, and near the end of the 1950's 3-D boom, many 3-D films played flat in the US, but this STILL does not take away from the intended display format. For example, how many theaters show a Scope film in a true 2.40:1 aspect ratio? ..Like showing matted widescreen as full frame, or ditching stereo/multi-channel or Sensurround sound, in that regard 3-D can be shown flat with little detriment. So like letterboxing a Scope film using 480 line NTSC is a compromise for the sake of artistic integrity, using field-sequential 3-D with it's own drawbacks also provides the artistic option of allowing one to present a film in it's original stereoscopic form. This IS something many here at the HTF strive for.

 

[Peter Kline]

GregK,

I forgot about the Andy Warhol film. It was not very well done, there were times that the 3D was way off. In fact, some people came out of the screening cross-eyed (just kidding). Whatever process used, it was still up to the director and director of photography to make sure things were within specs. Now that I remember, Arch Obler did another film with a Japanese title I can't remember in the process.

Another story to bore you. in thelate 60s or early 70s a film called "The Stewardesses" opened in Los Angeles. It was produced in a process, I think, called StereoVision - similar to SpaceVision. The film was a soft-core "nudie" (would now be called porno). It's claim to fame, sort of, is that over the period of about a year at the same theatre, the film would from time to time be updated with additional sequences. No, I didn't keep going back to see the film (well I wouldn't admit it would I ?) :b

Peter

 

[Steve Phillips]

No matter what you guys say, a 3-D film shown flat is not the original version. I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense to you.

So you guys basically think that an open matte presentation of something like EUROPEAN VACATION is an abomination but a flat version of a 3-D movie is AOK? That just doesn't make sense, especially considering the HTF criteria. It seems obvious that the "more modified" flick would be the flat 3-D flick, not a DVD of a comedy with extra headroom.

This thread is basically turned into a "is 3-D worthwhile" discussion, which wasn't the intention. I was just stating my own disappointment that a 3-D version won't be included on the DVD. Going back and debating whether or not the flick should have been shot in 3-D is about 50 years too late....

 

[Steve Christou]

I've only ever seen Kiss Me Kate 'flat' and the idea of watching it with 3D glasses makes me shudder. I saw 'It Came From Outer Space' in 3D on a reissue with 'War of the Worlds' at a fleapit in the early 80's, and it gave me a massive headache. Surely 3D was just a gimmick invented in the 50's to lure people away from their television sets, the idea that these 50 year old movies should only ideally be watched with 3D glasses is silly. It's just a gimmick, a headache-inducing gimmick.
ps. Hitch made a 3D film too, 'Dial M for Murder', not sure if it was ever shown in 3D though.

 

[Thomas T]

I've also seen Hitchcock's Dial M For Murder theatrically. Clearly, Hitch had little interest in the 3D format (I suspect it was forced on him) as the only effective 3D sequence is the attempted murder on Grace Kelly by Anthony Dawson.
The film makers knew that all these 3D films from the 50's would be shown in theatres WITHOUT the 3D effects and in fact, Kiss Me Kate had very few 3D bookings and was released flat in most cities.

 

[GregK]

ps. Hitch made a 3D film too, 'Dial M for Murder', not sure if it was ever shown in 3D though

Dial M had a very limited 3-D release in '54. It saw a much wider 3-D re-release in the early 1980's. Unlike Universal, WB kept their re-releases in the polarized 3-D format.

 

[Patrick McCart]

So you guys basically think that an open matte presentation of something like EUROPEAN VACATION is an abomination but a flat version of a 3-D movie is AOK? That just doesn't make sense, especially considering the HTF criteria. It seems obvious that the "more modified" flick would be the flat 3-D flick, not a DVD of a comedy with extra headroom.

Anyone can watch an OAR presentation on their TV. Only a few in comparison can view 3-D.

Since the only 3-D DVDs seem to be specialty items, it's likely that major studios aren't equipped to do DVDs in this way. And if they waited to put these titles out when they are, you'd still complain that they're not out yet. If the 3-D version WAS included, then people would complain about double-sided DVDs being used.

The best thing you can simply do is wait for a theatrical revival and see the films in REAL 3-D.

 

[GregK]

In a previous post, I said perhaps calling a 3-D film "modified" sort of pushes the envelope, as it's somewhat subjective, and wish to clarify better, given some recent posts:
To some of the others that complained about calling a flat 3-D film "modified" or comparing it to "pan-n-scan", consider this:
If your only version of "Star-Wars" had mono audio, would it be modified or altered from it's original form? It did also have an alternate mono mix you know. It did have a lot of monophonic showings you know.
WB's 1st DVD version of Willy Wonka shows a little more information at the top and bottom vs the masked widescreen version. Is this always a detriment? Is it really "modified"? Many outside of this forum would say it isn't. Of course I and most here on the HTF would disagree. We know how it was shot and composed for, but remember that doesn't make us 100% right. I can explain till I am blue in the face how 1.85:1 films are compositionally better and avoid occasional microphone or prop shots, but many will still tell me they like the "unmodified" full frame version. They tell me calling unmatted widescreen version "modified to fit your screen" is a little extreme. They say Willy Wonka doesn't 'need' widescreen. Hmmm.... sound familiar?
If the film "Earthquake" is missing it's original Sensurround track and it can feasibly be provided (which it can).. Has it too been modified?
If "Creature From the Black Lagoon" is presented on DVD but is only presented flat, has it been modified? I say YES. Have you seen the great underwater footage in 3-D? Or the Creature himself in depth? ...The whole film in 3-D period? I would even say it's a different movie when it's watched flat, as the original stereoscopic version offers a dimension (pardon the deliberate pun) that the 2-D version cannot. And that film is not shot for 3-D in a gimmicky form. It's ironic the 1980's 3-D films reek of being shot in 3-D, with "gimmick" shots all over the place, but many of 1950's 3-D films understood stereoscopic films weren't about how much crap you throw at the screen.
And is 3-D a "gimmick"?... No more than color, stereo audio, or widescreen. (Hitchcock said Scope was only good for shooting coffins) I remember when most video magazines called the new home surround sound decoders a gimmick. So what kind of track record does the 3-D "gimmick" have? Well much of Civil War was photographed in 3-D, every President from Lincoln on has been photographed in 3-D. Many families had themselves photographed in depth up to the 1950's. ..Does anyone remember the Stereo Realist? Or how about View-Master reels? 3-D went to the Moon, Mars, and with Jim Cameron to the Titanic. Besides surgery and architectural fields, 3-D has been making inroads in the gaming field as well. With games having the ability to offer different perspectives, gaming is a natural to be able to offer stereoscopic abilities, and therefore heightens the realism. In short, just because many 3-D films have treated stereoscopic 3-D as a gimmick doesn't automatically put all 3-D films in this category.
So back to the thread's core point: Shouldn't the "Kiss Me Kate" DVD include a 3-D version?

 

[Thomas T]

Greg,

Films released in 3D were intended to be shown in 3D AND flat! As I mentioned before, most of the 3D films had flat showings as the studios knew they would.

If, hypothetically, a stereo film was intended to be released ONLY in stereo then yes, a mono track would be a modified version. However, if a film's soundtrack were mixed for stereo OR mono then it is not modified, we're just getting the mono version.

Not too many forum members seem to object to 5.1 surround stereo mixes to older films originally seen and intended to be heard in mono, however. A much more serious "modification" than presenting a flat version of a film that was intended to be seen either flat OR in 3D!

 

[Julian Lalor]

So you guys basically think that an open matte presentation of something like EUROPEAN VACATION is an abomination but a flat version of a 3-D movie is AOK?

Yes, because 3-D movies were also intended to be shown flat in theatrical screenings, whereas European Vacation was only meant to be seen in the Academy 1.85:1. The former is a perfectly valid presentation of the movie on DVD; the later, arguably, is not. I can understand you wanting to see Kiss Me Kate in 3-D and I have no objection to that. I just don't think it is either appropriate or justified in the circumstances to compare a flat presentation with a panned and scanned one and the clear insinuation which follows from your allegation.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

The 3D release is the "original" format release of the 3D film.
The 'flat' release of the same title is the "original" release of the flat film.
It's that easy.
If you want the "original" 3D release, it 'must' be in 3D.
If you want flat...

O, and be the way, make mine 3D!

What is your fave 'major' 3D film release on DVD?

 

[GregK]

If, hypothetically, a stereo film was intended to be released ONLY in stereo then yes, a mono track would be a modified version. However, if a film's soundtrack were mixed for stereo OR mono then it is not modified, we're just getting the mono version.

The point I was trying to make with "Star-Wars" is obviously there is a BETTER version than the monophonic version. This also applies to 2-D and 3-D. A lot of money was spent on "Kiss Me Kate" to film it in stereoscopic 3-D (as in two cameras, two negatives, etc etc). Wouldn't you like to have the option of seeing that version as well? I fully understand studios knew there would be flat releases, but I would like to see the ideal intended display format "Kiss Me Kate" was filmed in. ..3-D was no simple "add-on", and it deserves to be presented just like stereo sound or widescreen.

 

[DeeF]

I agree that we ought to have the option available to us to watch Kiss Me Kate, and other movies which have dual formats, movies like Dial M for Murder, The Creature from the Black Lagoon (3-D movies), Oklahoma!, Brigadoon, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (separately filmed twice, Academy and Widescreen). It would be nice to have both versions of these films.

I am slightly amused that all this brouhaha is over the film Kiss Me Kate, though -- because it is hardly a good movie. I'm a lover of musicals, but this one is a big, big yawn. Except for Ann Miller and specific scenes with Bob Fosse, it isn't worth the trouble. Perhaps MGM knows this already, and that's why they aren't giving it the big treatment like Singin' in the Rain got.

Kathryn Grayson must be the luckiest woman ever to have graced the big screen. She had a nice... upper body, but little actual talent. After Kiss Me Kate, her career was over.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Let me start by saying that an artist's choice to compose and shoot for 3-D is just as valid a component of the final "artwork of film" as aspect ratio, color, film stock etc.

Having said that, I'm not at all upset that a DVD incarnation of a film fails to present this 3-D aspect.

Why?

Because the fidelity of the 3-D process over DVD is severely compromised in comparison to the original 3-D film experience. Also, the sequential-field option introduces artfacts of flicker, and basically renders any attempt to display the signal in Progressive Scan impossible.

I hardly think that a 480 interlaced display, whether 3-d or not, comes anywhere close to a director's vision for his film.

I'd rather have a hi-fidelity flat image that can be projected with a reasonable viewing angle in progressive-scan. Neither option is perfect, but at least this option looks *something* like "film" rather than glorified "video" that happens to be 3-D.

In the future I hope that with the HD-DVD format that proper 3-D display is taken into account so this problem could be solved. Realistically, providing it would require double the bandwidth/storage if the same level of image fideity is to be acheived in 3-D that is acheived in a flat digital presentation.

-dave

 

[Steve Phillips]

Amen, Greg.
Most people who complain that 3-D doesn't work have never seen it properly. They also don't have a clue as to the real history and background of the process. They've seen a slapdash skin flick, or a red/blue TV or campus presentation and make their judgements from there.
As for the claim that 3-D movies were "meant" to be seen flat as well, this really isn't the case. A few ended up being released flat, but they were shot in 3-D to be shown that way. In the fifties, the films were better, and could hold up more flat for the most part than the stuff that came later on I agree. Stuff like COMIN AT YA!, JAWS 3-D and the like though, are pretty much pointless flat since once you take the 3-D away you aren't left with much else.
IMAX 3-D is an exception. Now that most IMAX films are being shot in 3-D (strange since we all know 3-D sucks,right? ) they still make sure the film can play flat for older theaters. But that doesn't mean those poor souls who watch SPACE STATION flat aren't greatly missing out!
Besides, aren't widescreen movies (either matted or true scope) intended to be seen fullscreen also? Of course they are! That doesn't mean they aren't modified when they
show up on TV.
The logic of not putting out 3-D versions because not everyone has the glasses isn't good. Back in the laser days, very few Americans had players. By that logic, then letterboxed movies shouldn't have been released because relatively few people could play them.
The Shutter glasses and systems have sold like crazy in the past few years. Best Buy, Tower, Fry's, DVD Planet, etc are selling them and 3-D DVDs. Dozens of 3-D movies ARE ALREADY BRINGING IN BIG BUCKS as bootlegs.
I'd agree field sequential isn't perfect. But don't judge it from the SlingShot DVDs, as they are not good examples. It is the best we've got though, and often, it works quite well.
So again, this thread isn't about whether or not KISS ME KATE is better in 3-D or modified 2-D. I couldn't care less if DVDs have a flat version on them for you all to watch. If you hate 3-D then keep on watching the flat versions, that is your right.
But I'd like to have a 3-D version as well so I can see the film as intended.
Why does this seem so unreasonable to so many?
I bet you'd feel differently if the studios put out full screen only discs and tried to tell you widescreen was only for theatres and at home you just needed to settle for the "preferred format" of pan and scan..
What about colorization? I see a huge thread about how awful it is that Disney released the colorized verson of THE ABSENT MINDED PROFESSOR. I understand. The film has been modified. A Black and White version should have been included. People should have a choice to watch the original or modified vesions, whether we are talking BW/color, 3-D/flat or widescreen/fullscreen, I am for making both versions available on DVD.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

How would one with a digital front projector like an Infocus 7200 display a field-sequential 3-D movie?

The InFocus, as would any digital display (along with many CRT HD TVs), would attempt to deinterlace the signal. I'm not sure exactly how the deinterlacer would deal with this...but it would probably see a 3-2 pattern and attempt to reverse it and "fold fields" back into frames which would blend (blur) the image as it folded left/right eye information into a single image.

If one had a projector or display that they could force into "video" mode for deinterlacing it just might work (though this would compromise absolute image quality).

Saying that those enjoying the film on their interlaced 32" TVs isn't good enough IMO...as *that* is decidedly an experience that does not reflect anything close to the theatrical projection...3-D or not. Hi-quality rear-projection and front-projection systems *can* get remarkably close to a theatrical-experience with a good DVD transfer and thus should be the benchmark which we attempt to maintain (in other words, if 3-D is going to look good, it should look good projected 100 inches wide).

I'm not suggesting that field-sequential encoding for 3-D films not be available as an option...but it's not a solution that maintains image quality in any videophile capacity. In that sense we're agreeing perfectly...let's have both versions included and let the viewer make the choice which brand of compromise they want to enjoy.

It would be more important for us to make sure that the next video carrier...ala HD-DVD...work this out ahead of time so we don't always have to engage a compromise to view such films.

-dave

p.s. I'm one of the very avid supporters for 3-D films and agree that labeling it as a "gimik" is as arbitrary and misguided as labeling the directional dialog in historic films as a "gimik" or labeling ultra-wide aspect ratio of ben-hur a "gimik". these aren't gimiks...they're part of the design, artistry, and history of these films and when delivered properly, can produce the hi-quality and engaging experience as intended by the director.

 

[Steve Phillips]

I couldn't agree more, David. I'm looking forward to tremendous improvements in years to come.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

It's been my experience that seeing any of the 1950s 3D films in their proper polarized, two-strip form makes them *better* films. I've been lucky enough to see private 35mm presentations of Miss Sadie Thompson, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Bwana Devil, The French Line, Robot Monster, Cat-Women of the Moon and many others, as well as theatrical presentations of Dial M, Kiss Me Kate, Charge at Feather River, Money from Home, House of Wax. In EVERY case, the 3D presentation made the film better than the flat version. It's like seeing "2001" in 35mm and mono sound and then seeing it in a proper 70mm stereo presentation. There is no comparison which is the proper, *intended*, presentation.

I agree, even compromised as noted by David above, they should offer the field-sequential version as an option of these releases.