What's new

Re: Imminent DVD release of AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS... (1 Viewer)

Dick

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 22, 1999
Messages
9,913
Real Name
Rick
I am anxious to hear from the people who seem to know the most about this movie (i.e. Robert Harris and Patrick McCart) about whether they are happy with the supplementary material that has (so far) been announced. The "uncut" 182-minute edition is, I assume, from a Todd-AO source, with a ratio of 2.20:1? I know this had an alternate version in either CinemaScope or Panavision (2.35:1) with similar camera set-ups but by definition somewhat modified performances. Any chance we'll be getting both versions? In any case, I am crawling the walls in wait of this movie.
 

Patrick McCart

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 16, 2001
Messages
8,196
Location
Georgia (the state)
Real Name
Patrick McCart
Richard May, Warner's restoration/preservation dept. head (is this the correct title for him?) says that both 65mm negatives are extant and in Warner's hands (and are being worked on as of Oct. '03)

A few years ago, I tracked down Andy Pratt's negative cutting site and part of the restoration listing says they handled the 30fps 65mm negative. I later recieved confirmation that the 30fps 65mm negative was used to create a new 65mm interpositive via wetgate at CFI.

Variety says a couple different sources were used to create the new 65mm master for Warner. (Although, I am wondering if the 35mm they mention is for the prologue)

Robert Harris has said that the negatives are in dismal condition before. I think he gave an estimate of $10 million to restore the film.

Brian W. has said that the master is 24fps.

So... I'm puzzled. I guess we'll just have to find out. I'm sort of starting a DVD review page on my website, so I'll be sure to review it ASAP.



As for the DVD... Monday couldn't have been better (well, maybe if Universal announced the 5 1/2 hr. Napoleon :)) thanks to the annoucement. Warner isn't using the full extent of the materials the Library of Congress has to offer, but they are using some of the more interesting bits. The outtakes will likely be the alternate prologue and the two deleted musical numbers with Eddie Fisher. (although, there may be others.)

The "ideal" version would have been a 2-disc set with one DVD-18 and one DVD-9 with the DVD-18 having the two versions on either side... but there isn't really enough difference to justify having both. The 30fps version was the version with better takes, so that would be the best one to include.

Despite Brian W. saying there was no 3:2 pulldown, it's possible that it just wasn't visible on the master. No version of the film is 182 minutes long... in fact, the 24fps version (with music-only sections) ran 188 min. at the Academy showing. This would be the first-ever DVD of a 30fps Todd-AO film transferred on modern systems (and 16x9 encoded) unlike the Oklahoma! transfer.

Either way, it'll be a great disc. Can you believe it took 18 years to finally get a widescreen version on video in the U.S.? It took 15 just to get it shown on TV (despite being the short version)!

Oh... ADD:

This film was shot totally in 65mm, except for the pre-Trip to the Moon prologue, the silent film itself, and the film shot inside the rocket (obviously). They'd use two cameras (one for each frame speed) or use one and switch speeds for another take. Oklahoma! was shot in both 65mm Todd-AO 30fps and normal 35mm CinemaScope. So, the OAR would be 2.21:1 for both versions, even though the 24fps version was shown cropped to 2.35:1 more often.
 

obscurelabel

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 11, 2003
Messages
153
Real Name
Larry
Patrick McCart, thanks for the very informative post.

If this does get mastered at 30fps with no 3/2 pulldown, it will be very interesting to see the difference compared to a standard 24fps with 3/2 DVD.

I have read about the Oklahoma! transfer but on hearing that it was from the Todd-AO source I assumed it was mastered at 30fps. I will have to search out some links to find out why this isn't the case.

At $10 million for the restoration, how will Warner's recoup that cost? Just to gross that much on a $20 (to use a round number) retail price DVD would mean (obviously) 500,000 units sold; I don't know what the actual releasing studio's margin on a $20 disk might be, but if it's $5 that means 2 million units just to break even. That's a lot of units for a 45 year old film which, despite whatever charms it may have, has received decidedly mixed reviews over the years. I suppose there is the opportunity for TV showings and long-term revenue streams but $10 million seems very daunting to me.
 

oscar_merkx

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
7,626
I second that Larry.

Good to learn what is happening to those old films. This is a favorite film of mine

cheers

Oscar
 

Jeremy

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Mar 5, 1999
Messages
77
The $10 million dollar figure is to restore the film elements.

Doing a clean-up for home video is a different beast entirely. This is akin to North by Northwest, which looks great on DVD but needs restoration to look as good on the big screen.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,810
Messages
5,123,587
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
1
Top