No 4K release for Gone With The Wind’s 80th Anniversary? (2 Viewers)

[Robert Harris]

Don't understand this comment. If GWTW can be improved by 4K upgrade, why not? Propriety? What does that mean? It's one of the great films in the history of Hollywood film making.

Great, and important film?

Absolutely!

Highly resolved?

Never.

Far less than 2k.

Can one work, and massage high Rez scans? Of course, but the problems, while not outnumbering the benefits, are problematic. Even if some original mattes and glass may survive, and the film goes back into post, those elements were never highly resolved, as there was no need. The final prints were properly soft, and velvety.

By design.

 

[GWTWTOO]

Mr. Harris, I respect you and your opinion so much. Do you feel “Wizard” can benefit from a 4K release, while GWTW cannot? While controversial, GWTW has proven itself to have a very significant audience theatrically this year. It still has a very significant fan base. Do you think the original elements would not yield beneficial results in a 4K reissue while so many other 1939 films are being reissued in 4K, including “Wizard of Oz”?

 

[Robert Harris]

Mr. Harris, I respect you and your opinion so much. Do you feel “Wizard” can benefit from a 4K release, while GWTW cannot? While controversial, GWTW has proven itself to have a very significant audience theatrically this year. It still has a very significant fan base. Do you think the original elements would not yield beneficial results in a 4K reissue while so many other 1939 films are being reissued in 4K, including “Wizard of Oz”?

I presume that Oz may have also needed a help to make it work in 4k

 

[TheSteig]

IMHO I think we will see GWTW, Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia and the 10 Commandments in the UHD format at some point down the line. No one has told me any confidential information and just going by a hunch, although LOA has been heavily rumored to be upcoming

 

[Lord Dalek]

Robert,

Very different films. GW is littered with multiple mattes and opticals, Moreno than even Oz, which blend nicely in dye transfer, which is probably lower Rez than 2k. At 4, it would need a great deal of hand-holding.

Also there's that "shifted up a perf" problem right?

 

[Dave Moritz]

I have the 70th Anniversary edition of Gone With The Wind on Blu-ray so the only way I will purchase this again is on 4K UHD Blu-ray. The 80th Anniversary would have been really nice to see this film released in 4K! When they do decide to put out the 4K UHD Blu-ray it would be nice if they used Dolby Vision. Until then my current disc can be upconverted to 4K so that will hold me over till an actual 4K disc is released! IMHO this film deserves a 4K release on it's 80th Anniversary. Have heard a rumor that Gone With The Wind received an 8K scan and would love to know if this is true as another classic did actually get a 8K scan during it's restoration.

Went to bluray.com and entered Gone With The Wind and a 80th Anniversary version doesn't even show up!

 

[roxy1927]

The first few times I saw GWTW as a boy and a teen was the wide screen version. So I would like to see that version as well. I bet though no prints exist and they all might have been tossed. Saw it when it came to the suburbs and then at great 70mm houses such as the NY Rivoli and NJ Bellevue. Maybe now it would be unwatchable?

 

[David Norman]

Just zoom in and pretty much the same effect as in the theater (maybe even the same approx technique use) -- lot's of heads chopped off, and 30-40% of the film will be missing. The zooming effect will likely approximate the poor print quality that most of those had -- I'm assuming they were probably around 1.75. I don't know if they just sent std prints and told the theater to matte the films to whatever screen they had or if they did that at the printing stage and just masked it down to some sort of widescreen on the print itself.

 

[Will Krupp]

I don't know if they just sent std prints and told the theater to matte the films to whatever screen they had or if they did that at the printing stage and just masked it down to some sort of widescreen on the print itself.

It was a pretty massive undertaking at the time. The film was essentially re-photographed in 1967 onto 65mm stock with all of the shots re-positioned and extracted as necessary to fit a 2.2:1 ratio in a sort of reverse pan & scan process. It was not like the 1954 re-release where only three (or so) re-positioned shots were cut into the printing master and then the whole picture was run through a 1.66:1 masking. The widescreen image as presented on the 70mm print was really the only option for theaters at the time.

Here are two shots from Martin Hart's Widescreen Museum (www.widescreenmuseum.com) that illustrate this:

The first shows the original film with the extraction area laid over it (The extraction area could be panned up and down to catch the "best" bits of every shot to reduce heads being cut off, etc)

The second shows a faded 70mm film print of the same shot.

It was crazy from a quality perspective but financially it was an undeniable blockbuster. I can't imagine ever wanting to watch it this way myself (beyond a few minutes of it, anyway) but I suppose it has a morbid curiosity and might be fun for completists.

 

[Mark Mayes]

I saw the film in 1976 in Paris in 70 mm. At that point the idea that this format was not ideal was widely-known. I tried to pay attention to what looked wrong about it. The matte shot with Melanie and Ashley walking at the barbecue while a jealous Scarlett looks on is what I remember most. It was blurry and pale.

But after that, the quality problems were forgotten as the sold out audience and I became caught up in the film. I remember thinking , "Well, that didn't look so bad."

I know that, after all these years, and all of the prints I have seen (I have logged all my viewings and they number 525 now...yep it's nuts), I would never think this is the way to show GWTW to the public.

But, as I noticed with the malarial-looking screening this spring by Fathom, audiences don't seem to let that kind of thing in the way of their enjoyment.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Went to bluray.com and entered Gone With The Wind and a 80th Anniversary version doesn't even show up!

Why would that site list an 80th "GWTW" when none has been announced?

 

[darkrock17]

Why would that site list an 80th "GWTW" when none has been announced?

Because Blu-ray.com has a tendency for jumping the gun early and saying something's coming and then it ends up not.

 

[Rob_Ray]

The problem with 35mm prints of GWTW in the early 70s was terrible registration problems and generally worn prints cropped for modern screens in the projector. And they still had lost the sweeping title in the prints I saw. At least the 70mm prints I saw were cleaner, with no registration problems and not cropped in the projector, but panned in the printing. It was far from ideal, but given a choice, I waited for a 70mm screening. Would love to see at least a sampling of a 70mm print again, now that I have seen it properly restored. But I would never choose to watch it as an official viewing.

 

[Dave Moritz]

I was hoping to find some kind of release information if it was available and did not do a good job choosing my words on my post, my apologies.

 

[Will Krupp]

The problem with 35mm prints of GWTW in the early 70s was terrible registration problems and generally worn prints cropped for modern screens in the projector. And they still had lost the sweeping title in the prints I saw. At least the 70mm prints I saw were cleaner, with no registration problems and not cropped in the projector, but panned in the printing.

Unless I'm completely off base, I believe the 70mm version did play engagements after the road show runs in 35mm anamorphic prints. Were those prints you saw 1.37:1 or 2.2:1? I only ask because I believe the main titles were only recomposed for the "wider" 70mm version and the fact that it was a further print down to 35mm and then un-squeezed again would account for that look. They would both have been cropped before they hit the projector though?

 

[Rob_Ray]

Unless I'm completely off base, I believe the 70mm version did play engagements after the road show runs in 35mm anamorphic prints. Were those prints you saw 1.37:1 or 2.2:1? I only ask because I believe the main titles were only recomposed for the "wider" 70mm version and the fact that it was a further print down to 35mm and then un-squeezed again would account for that look. They would both have been cropped before they hit the projector though?[/QUOTE

The 35mm prints were not anamorphic, had an aspect ratio of 1.87:1, had no panning in the titles and always had registration problems in the Christmas sequence and in Frank's store. I never saw the sweep titles until just before it was sold to TV when I caught a film classics print in a museum screening.

 

[Will Krupp]

The 35mm prints were not anamorphic, had an aspect ratio of 1.87:1, had no panning in the titles and always had registration problems in the Christmas sequence and in Frank's store. I never saw the sweep titles until just before it was sold to TV when I caught a film classics print in a museum screening.

Well THAT'S interesting! Thanks, Rob!

 

[benbess]

Robert,

Very different films. GW is littered with multiple mattes and opticals, Moreno than even Oz, which blend nicely in dye transfer, which is probably lower Rez than 2k. At 4, it would need a great deal of hand-holding.

And iirc Oz used a slightly earlier version of Technicolor stock requiring more light. This made the actors for Oz in their elaborate make-up and costumes suffer terribly, but my guess is that this may have yielded a highly resolved image. GWTW is I think the slightly later stock that allowed for somewhat lower light—plus the film in some places uses dramatic shadows and lower light. And as already mentioned by our resident expert, the opticals and mattes in GWTW don't always look that great. In contrast, most of the special effects in Oz for a variety of reasons seem to stand up better to close examination in high resolution. Just my 2 cents, but I certainly yield to the many here who are greater experts than I in such things.

 

[Will Krupp]

In contrast, most of the special effects in Oz for a variety of reasons seem to stand up better to close examination in high resolution.

Let's just be thankful Dorothy didn't actually try to keep on dancing down that yellow brick road outta Munchkinland!

 

[darkrock17]

And iirc Oz used a slightly earlier version of Technicolor stock requiring more light. This made the actors for Oz in their elaborate make-up and costumes suffer terribly, but my guess is that this may have yielded a highly resolved image. GWTW is I think the slightly later stock that allowed for somewhat lower light—plus the film in some places uses dramatic shadows and lower light. And as already mentioned by our resident expert, the opticals and mattes in GWTW don't always look that great. In contrast, most of the special effects in Oz for a variety of reasons seem to stand up better to close examination in high resolution. Just my 2 cents, but I certainly yield to the many here who are greater experts than I in such things.

Many actors from Oz felt the effects of the hot lights, Bert Lahr, The Cowardly Lion fainted a few times caused by the heat from the lights. Poor Ray Bolger, The Scarecrow had it the worse as his burlap mask made it impossible for him to sweat.

Everything in Oz is just about believable, where as in GWTW the live action film and matte paintings didn't blend together as well as Oz did. Tara looks like it's a matte painting in a lot of shots and it was an actual real set.

Let's just hope Dorothy didn't actually try to keep on dancing down that yellow brick road outta Munchkinland!

The yellow brick road out of Munchinkland was 40 ft, so Judy would've only gone a just bit further before it ended completely.