Oklahoma And State Fair Arrive (1 Viewer)

[john a hunter]

It seems that nobody at Fox or R&H thought it was worth doing a proper restoration of the Todd-AO OKLAHOMA.When these DVD's were announced in an interview with Fox reps (on digitalbits, I think) they said that they had not been remastered before because "they don't sell as well as they used to".Is it surprising given the "quality" of this transfer?
If R&H don't wake up before too long there will be nothing to restore and they can say goodbye to a future income stream. We can say goodbye to a motion picture classic.

It's still my worst transfer of 2005.

 

[Richard Michael Clark]

I've only JUST read all about this (as I was about to buy the R1 Oklahoma!). It's quite shocking that a major label can try to brush off complaints about an inferior product by using spin and lamentable excuses like 'bonus disc', especially to people who probably know more about the film and it's history than the decision makers at TCFHE.
I am just glad I didn't pre-order back in October!

There's a slate of R&H musicals coming out in R2 in a couple of months but based on what Fox have to say I doubt the UK release will be any better (it'll already have PAL speed-up issues to contend with).

This is all so sad actually. :frowning:
Don't Fox realise that they need to preserve and protect their properties NOW so that they can still be making money from them in another 50 years!
Nevermind any pesky significant cultural or historical reasons!

The 50th anniversary of not only the film but of the Todd-AO process should've been the perfect opportunity for a from-the-ground-up restoration and preservation project. I can only image how many more units they would've sold on impulse had the reviews been ecstatic! Instead they'll have lost many from the very people they should have been counting on to buy it automatically.

Just makes me so sad.

It also makes me angry as you just know (from reading their incredibly patronising 'statement') that the prevailing thought amongst the Fox suits is that "those annoying geeks are moaning again, why can't they just buy it and shut up!"

 

[Joe Caps]

I don't understand why there are PAL speed up issues.
The change from 24 to 25 frames is not a big difference.
Since verything is now digital, they could just do a digital speed up which will make the sound slightly faster, but will not make it higher pitched.

 

[Richard Michael Clark]

They do pitch correct some titles for PAL (which leads to some issues depending on how it's done) but with the 4% speed-up it depends on how sensitive your hearing is really.
I only really notice any speed-up on musicals. 'Chicago' being the worst exmaple for me. It's pitch corrected but just runs that tiny bit too fast and it's very annoying if you are very familiar with the soundtrack.
Anyhoo that whole thing isn't really for this thread I guess.

I'm just keeping my fingers crossed for the other R&H titles R2 is getting ahead of R1.

 

[Garysb]

A review of the DVD of Oklahoma! from playbill.com mentions that in the original 1955 NY Times review of the Todd-AO version of the film it was mentioned that the
colors were faded.

http://www.playbill.com/features/article/97046.html

Quote:

The new two-DVD set includes both the Todd-AO and Cinemascope versions. The colors in the Todd-AO, oddly enough, are somewhat faded (noticeably so in comparison to the first DVD release of the film). Curiously enough, Bosley Crowther's original 1955 New York Times review makes the same complaint. This coincidence makes you wonder if the initial release version needed correction (as it was a brand-new format at the time), and if they mistakenly went back to the original-but-uncorrected version for this new release

 

[Will Krupp]

If I'm not mistaken, the first print screened at the Rivoli was a Todd-AO "corrrected" print which had an image curvature built right into it. It was designed to compensate for the distortion caused by projecting the print from a high booth onto the deeply curved Todd-AO screen. In theory, the lab-induced distortion was supposed to make the film appear to be projected head on and distortion free.

The trouble is (and this is where I'm not 100% understanding everything) that the printing lab didn't have time to get the bugs worked out of the correction process and the resulting print looked heavily flawed with spotty color. I don't know if the correction process ever actually worked, but the Rivoli very quickly moved their projection booth to the ground level and began showing an "uncorrected print" with far better results.

Crowther's review is based on the first print the Rivoli screened.

Fox didn't go back to any "original version" as those few corrected prints that still exist (Martin Hart has a snippet of one)have turned completely pink with time.