Oklahoma And State Fair Arrive (1 Viewer)

[Will Krupp]

Yeah right. The elements for AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS were in better condition than OKLAHOMA?? mm-kay.

Since when is Fox so touchy about using edge enhancement and artificial sharpeners??

The whole thing makes me sick. I think I would have preferred if they just ignored the situation altogether instead of insulting my intelligence by condescending to me.

But ya know, it WAS only a "small number" of people who noticed (I guess they don't read reviews) so we should just suck it up and stop whining...after all, they DID THEIR BEST!

 

[JPCinema]

Terrible news! If there were so many inherent problems with the Todd-ao version, its surprising that there was NO mention anywhere on the new DVD. Many of Fox's restorations have a special feature explaining the resoration process. Its very odd that on a well known film such as "Oklahoma!" there was nothing about the restoration. Why? Were they embarassed or maybe no one knew or they thought the public would not notice or care?
Well we do care and I still do believe Fox needs to right a wrong!

 

[TonyDale]

As I said when I read the email:
BULLSHIT.

 

[Paul_Scott]

interesting read, but ultimately it seems disingenuous.
has there ever been a recorded case of a film image becoming blurrier as it aged?
sure, dust and debris i can imagine, but resolution that was obviously once there fading off?

and while the cinemascope version is more watchable than the Todd -AO, who besides a studio pr rep would call it stunning?

the cinemascope version , in 2005, is a disappointment. and the Todd-AO version is a waste of plastic.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I think their point was that they only had access to the IP, which was probably not made right. While prints can have focus problems (perhaps due to warping and age?), but when making a new film element from the negative... I'd imagine they'd have SOME way to flatten the 65mm negative in order to get even focus.

Also, they DID use a lot of artifical processing. DVNR was cranked up really high, to the point where skies had "frozen" grain.

Most likely, no one wants to pay for a proper restoration. For example, they could go to the 65mm B&W fine-grain separations and make a new 35mm anamorphic reduction (this process was used for "80 Days" apparently). Even better, they could take a pointer from WB's 4K Ultra Resolution restoration of The Searchers (from VVLA A/B fine-grain positive separations) and digitally re-combine the separations at 6K and create a new 65mm duplicate negative from the output.

 

[Roger Rollins]

Blatant "spin" and "lies"...

Our only hope is that neither Fox nor the vestiges of Goldwyn "own" OKLAHOMA or SOUTH PACIFIC. R&H still owns them, Fox and Goldwyn have licenses.

R&H should fund a very expensive, but desperately needed full film restoration, and hire the only man who could pull it off right....RAH!

The worst insult is Fox referring to the clearly inferior Scope version as the "main" feature, and the TODD-AO version as a "bonus feature".

Mike Todd, Richard Rodgers & Oscar Hammerstein II are probably rolling in their graves right now over this.

Shame on Fox. I have been disappointed by many of their releases as substandard, but a goof like this is something I'd expect from MGM or Universal...but not Fox. Very sad.

 

[JPCinema]

R&H should be outraged at the result....instead they seem to have
deferred to Fox's response. Why?

 

[Joe Caps]

Oh my God. Foxs note is the biggest crock of shit I have read in years.
Robert Harris - any comments?

 

[TedD]

I can only second the comments above. Fox's response is a typical example of executive double-speak and spin control and is complete BS.

There is nothing that could possibly happen to a film element that would destroy the detail and screw up the dynamic range of white to black. The film could fade, the blacks could go red, but film stocks do not lose detail over time.

R&H need to have the existing elements sent to a third party transfer house that knows what they are doing and have this re-done properly.

Ted

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I like Patrick's idea:


Did it ever occur to Fox that they *can* make new prints from original negatives???

Warner brothers does it all the time...

Apparently, even Fox's biggest classics (think SOM) don't get that kind of ground-up restoration. Anyone know about the condition of the negatives for Oklahoma?

 

[TedD]

Paramount just did it for "The Five Pennies" with amazing results. And, to be fair, Fox supposedly has done this with "Carousel" and "The King And I". Although I'll reserve judgement till I actually see the DVD's.

Ted

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Good to hear about King and I and Carousel. I'll see King and I projected (I think 70mm) in January and hopefully it's derived from this new restoration work.

In any case, while I actually believe FOX in their detailed response to the "problems" they found with the Oklahomo print...IMO those problems would have been the REASON to restore the film with a new print from the original negatives...not to produce a substandard digital transfer and then overprocess it to death with DNR! At the very least, they should have put a disclaimer in the set to let folks know why the image looked so poor. A brief intro before the movie would have helped lessen the pain to understand what they were up against with the print damage.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

The excuse that Fox doesn't like to use edge enhancement is quite laughable. The Cinemascope version is lathered with it, which is one reason why it looks sharper than the Todd-AO. If they hadn't put all that EE on, they'd be getting complaints about the scope version too.

 

[TheLongshot]

Is this happening locally, Dave? If so, where?

I also agree that Fox's statement is a bunch of bull. It just sounds like they were just trying to pass off a substandard transfer and hope that noone would notice.

Jason

 

[DaViD Boulet]

The AVI "Silver screen" theater in Silver Spring MD is doing a bunch of musicals late Dec/January. Sound of Music, Hello Dolly, and the King and I are just 3 of them!

http://www.afi.com/silver/new/nowplaying/series.aspx

 

[Paul Linfesty]

I believe the new KING AND I print is only in 35mm. They did a 4K scan and printed off a digital intermediate, the same of which was done for Carousel.

You'll be quite pleased by the HELLO DOLLY 70mm print, though (provided it hasn't accumulated too much damage since being struck several years ago). It's proof that the problems with Fox are coming from the home video department, and not the film side. Fox has done an explemary job with their 70mm re-prints so far.

 

[DeeF]

Robert Harris did tell me here, about 3 years ago, that the negative of Oklahoma! was in dire straits, and might be lost forever if somebody didn't quickly do something (talking about the Todd-AO version).

The most interesting thing (in the Fox statement) was something I've suspected all along: the Cinemascope version is on Disk 1, and it is being positioned as the movie itself, with the Todd-AO version an "extra."

It's a little bit sad, but there it is.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

It also seemed that *motivation* for "spinning" the Todd-AO version as an "extra" was to downplay the importance of needing to present that film in an optimal manner.

The build of "then when we move to the bonus disc number two" as a lead in to that effort was a pretty transparent attempt to lead the reader to assume that "oh, it's an extra...so I guess the quality doesn't really matter"...

Had the quality of that version been fantastic, the same response from FOX would have been trumpeting how "Disc 2 contains a second version of the feature film!" without any attempt to strip it down to "bonus feature" status...

 

[TheLongshot]

Well, the link you gave didn't say anything about that, but I'll take your word for it. Good news for me, since I still have those passes I got from when I saw Laurence Of Arabia there. Course, my wife will be somewhat close to her due date at that point, so I don't know if she will want to do much of anything at that point...

Jason

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Jason,

on that link above there's another link to "calendar"...the other day it allowed you to view into January but right now it's just showing December and before (?) so hopefully the'll get it fixed.

In any case, if you view the movie listing by title (another link on that page) you'll see them all there and you can click each title to view the showtimes/dates...

http://www.afi.com/silver/new/nowplaying/title.aspx

dave