New restoration of GIANT (1956) to premiere at the 2022 TCM Film Festival (1 Viewer)

[richardburton84]

It’s also on Laserdisc.

Andrew would probably know better than me, but I believe the uncut version of Raintree was only ever released on VHS while the laserdisc only contained the shortened general release version.

 

[OliverK]

Andrew would probably know better than me, but I believe the uncut version of Raintree was only ever released on VHS while the laserdisc only contained the shortened general release version.

Correct. The long version is available only on VHS and I might add it does not even look good by VHS standards.

 

[Noel Aguirre]

Giant is an essential part of both feminist film history and Latin racial inequality film history in America and any improvement whatsoever is deserving.

 

[Kevin Antonio (Kev)]

Giant is an essential part of both feminist film history and Latin racial inequality film history in America and any improvement whatsoever is deserving.

And it was super successful and when you look back at films from the past its actually aged better than many of the bloated 50s films especially epics.

 

[RolandL]

And it was super successful and when you look back at films from the past its actually aged better than many of the bloated 50s films especially epics.

I agree that it is a very good film and did well at the box office.

Robert Harris said "new restoration, with a great deal of funds, effort and technology being applied. I’m hopeful for a small uptick in quality.". The next time they want to do the same, for Raintree County there would be:

1. First time on Blu-ray
2. Big improvement in quality
3. First time the full MGM Camera 65 2.76 AR would be seen by anyone - released only in 35mm 2.35 AR

 

[Kevin Antonio (Kev)]

I agree that it is a very good film and did well at the box office.

View attachment 118069



View attachment 118070

List of many great films. I would love to see Raintree get restored. I think the thing that hurt it is not enough people know of it or remember it like giant who when you factor in deans death gives it even more notoriety. Maybe one day some one would release it in tact. The production values in that film are some of my favorite for a period piece

 

[John Skoda]

Andrew would probably know better than me, but I believe the uncut version of Raintree was only ever released on VHS while the laserdisc only contained the shortened general release version.

Speaking of RAINTREE COUNTY, it's probably the only movie in Hollywood history that was shot on 65mm negative which NEVER had a 70mm print ever made from it. Isn't that true?

 

[RolandL]

Speaking of RAINTREE COUNTY, it's probably the only movie in Hollywood history that was shot on 65mm negative which NEVER had a 70mm print ever made from it. Isn't that true?

Yes.

Fall of the Roman Empire was also filmed in Ultra Panavision 65mm 2.76 AR but only released 70mm 2.2 AR

 

[OliverK]

Yes.

Fall of the Roman Empire was also filmed in Ultra Panavision 70mm 2.76 AR but only released 2.2 AR 70mm.

Last post about this as I guess it is a bit unfair to Giant to carry this on over here.

Movies shot in MGM Camera 65 / UP70 did not fare too well overall in their presentations with only Ben-Hur and Mutiny on the Bounty having been released in contact prints that could be shown with correct geometry and showing all or most of the negative as it was the norm for flat (2.2:1) productions.

All the later UP70 "single strip" Cinerama productions were compromised as for them only rectified or cropped to 2.2:1 prints were produced to my knowledge. It was only in from the 90s onwards that at least three were printed to full width and without distortion but I was only lucky to see Khartoum in one of these prints.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Let’s get back to discussing “Giant”.

 

[Kevin Antonio (Kev)]

Let’s get back to discussing “Giant”.

Agreed its a important film and one that still reverberates today. If they do re release it I wonder will they port over the mass amount of features they gave on the bluray/digi book

 

[warnerbro]

This film is one of the dupiest I've ever seen. I'm not sure how much they can do with it because many shots are very long separated by fades. What I would like to see is an alternate 1.33:1 version included because so much information is deleted when it is blown up to 1.66:1 even though I know that is the framing they say was intended.

 

[Kevin Antonio (Kev)]

This film is one of the dupiest I've ever seen. I'm not sure how much they can do with it because many shots are very long separated by fades. What I would like to see is an alternate 1.33:1 version included because so much information is deleted when it is blown up to 1.66:1 even though I know that is the framing they say was intended.

I wouldn't mind that honestly as a bonus disc

 

[octobercountry]

I'm curious as to what they did to "A Star is Born." My understanding was that the previous blu was as good as it gets. There wasn't much more that could be done with it---best surviving element was a release print stored at Eastman House?

 

[richardburton84]

I'm curious as to what they did to "A Star is Born." My understanding was that the previous blu was as good as it gets. There wasn't much more that could be done with it---best surviving element was a release print stored at Eastman House?

Perhaps this time they’re using the original negatives for this restoration, supposing they actually survive, of course.

 

[haineshisway]

This film is one of the dupiest I've ever seen. I'm not sure how much they can do with it because many shots are very long separated by fades. What I would like to see is an alternate 1.33:1 version included because so much information is deleted when it is blown up to 1.66:1 even though I know that is the framing they say was intended.

Nothing was "blown up" to its ratio. It was shot in 1.66 (and probably projected in 1.85 in many venues). No one should see an open matte version because that is NOT what the filmmakers intended and therefore would not want it released.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

 

[Matt Hough]

How quickly he got over that notion when he filmed his next movie The Diary of Anne Frank in Cinemascope, which I would have thought might have made an even stronger argument for 1.66:1 with its claustrophobic Secret Annex.

 

[richardburton84]

How quickly he got over that notion when he filmed his next movie The Diary of Anne Frank in Cinemascope, which I would have thought might have made an even stronger argument for 1.66:1 with its claustrophobic Secret Annex.

I’m pretty sure I’ve read that Stevens was more or less forced to use CinemaScope on Anne Frank and that he actually wanted to film in academy ratio 1.33:1 precisely because of the claustrophobic setting.

 

[Lord Dalek]

How quickly he got over that notion when he filmed his next movie The Diary of Anne Frank in Cinemascope, which I would have thought might have made an even stronger argument for 1.66:1 with its claustrophobic Secret Annex.

If it wasn't a Fox production, Stevens would have shot Anne Frank for 1.85:1.