Smileboxed THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF THE BROTHERS GRIMM -- Will it ever make it to Bluray? (1 Viewer)

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by NY2LA /t/290862/smileboxed-the-wonderful-world-of-the-brothers-grimm-will-it-ever-make-it-to-bluray/60#post_3893450
For the record, besides knowing that they did indeed make 70mm TIC composite for a 70s pseudo-Cinerama revival at the Cinerama Dome and NY Ziegfeld, (having seen print ads and heard first-person accounts for both) I have no definitive knowledge either way about whether or not the 70mm prints cut off parts of the Cinerama side panels. I HAVE read things from people who are fairly close to the TIC DVD/digital mastering who say that the three panels are intact. Actually I think it was Marty Hart of AWSM. He is easily reachable by email. He can pretty much answer you on what the 70mm TIC composite included and where it was actually shown in LA.

I actually have a one sheet from the 70mm re-release of TIC somewhere in storage. It played at the Lakeside Theatre on the outskirts of New Orleans. Nice house that is long gone today.

 

[NY2LA]

Thanks for posting the cool images, A Hollis!
Fascinating they used the term Super Cinerama for Grimm. I've heard this was used to refer to a floor to ceiling screen in a purpose built Cinerama theatre. I had previously thought Super Cinerama was the name used to palm off the cheap 70mm version as something special. No wonder people are so confused about it all today

 

[rsmithjr]

Be careful, that Carr/Hayes widescreen book is riddled with errors.
The only thing worse is his 3-D Movies book. If he didn't have information, he made it up. The amount of wrong information is unbelievable. And it's still in print...

It is still one of the best references around.
I only quoted it as my source of information, not because it is known to be 100% accurate.

 

[rsmithjr]

Okay then, did you actually see a print or are you recalling a screen? How do you know they were cut off the print? If you viewed on a curved screen, the curve of the sides will make the side panels look smaller, and again I learned from people with hands-on experience that there were no consistent hard and fast specs for Cinerama presentation, meaning the masking could have been tighter on the ends, any number of reasons for what you say you saw.
As far as I know, Carr and Hayes never had any direct involvement in Cinerama. They wrote a book, right? I'm sure you know that a great deal of misinformation, especially movie tech info, has found its way into so-called reference books. Not to mention online articles and message boards. (there is one widescreen reference book I recall tech insiders mentioning that is notoriously inaccurate) With all due respect I have to stand by my earlier statement that no evidence is known of the existence of any 70mm elements of Grimm. I mean physical evidence. Even visual evidence.
If you can only quote someone about it, and their name isn't Kimble, Sittig, Strohmeier, Mayer or Price, I have no reason to believe it. If you can show me a 65-70mm print, neg, interpos, hell, even a frame, or a picture of a frame, great! Otherwise it means nothing. I'm not trying to be a smartass, I'd love for you to be right - because it's got to be less costly to master Grimm from a 70mm (really a 65mm) element than from a 3 strip. If it's the right 65mm element... Not cheap, but less costly than 3 strip. I am all for lobbying Warners to release this movie in some form, looking and sounding as nice as possible, and I'm happy with your enthusiasm about it. So if you actually find some real evidence please let's see it 'cause that might make it easier for us to ask Warners to make use of it.

I would think if your goal is to get an excellent Blu-ray (a noble desire) of the title, then the best way would not be a 70mm (or 65mm if a negative) element, but rather to go back to 3 panel preprints and handle it like HTWWW. The 70mm element may well be 2.2 aspect ratio, meaning the sides are cut off; it would have optically-created join lines, which are vastly inferior to digital joins; etc. It is even possible that 70mm prints, if struck, were made from the 35mm reduction!
My initial reason for posting was that the question of whether or not there were 70mm prints ever made was a point that Carr and Hayes did address. Yes, I know the book is out of date and known to have accuracy issues. But I thought you might like to know what they had to say.

 

[NY2LA]

I would think if your goal is to get an excellent Blu-ray (a noble desire) of the title, then the best way would not be a 70mm (or 65mm if a negative) element, but rather to go back to 3 panel preprints and handle it like HTWWW. The 70mm element may well be 2.2 aspect ratio, meaning the sides are cut off; it would have optically-created join lines, which are vastly inferior to digital joins; etc. It is even possible that 70mm prints, if struck, were made from the 35mm reduction!
My initial reason for posting was that the question of whether or not there were 70mm prints ever made was a point that Carr and Hayes did address. Yes, I know the book is out of date and known to have accuracy issues. But I thought you might like to know what they had to say.

While we all appreciate your interest, again that book is notoriously inaccurate.
Sure, we would all LOVE to have Warners go back to the earliest generation (and or best source) for Grimm, which would be the Technicolor YCM separations. Then they could take those and use their UltraResolution process as they have with GWTW and Singin In The Rain, etc, and produce a stunning result. Thing is they would have to do it three times for this one movie. That alone makes it so costly they did not even do it for HTWWW. HTWWW was mastered from the undamaged 3 strip negs. But THEN they have to combine them digitally and color correct all three panels throughout the film to match them up. Again really expensive.
A WBHV spokesman has already said the cost of mastering Grimm from the 3 strip (taking into account the extra cost of replacing any damaged negative from the YCMs) was too expensive to consider for the near future (at the time it was 2009). While rationally we have to accept that, we don't have to give up the discussion, especially because there have been recent developments regarding Cinerama films and video transfers...
Meanwhile away from Warners, This Is Cinerama is being (has been) digitally transferred and mastered from a 70mm composite made for that revival in the 70s. I'm sure they would love to use the Cinerama 3 strip elements but again very costly and TIC is no more likely (even less IMHO) than WWOTBG to sell enough to justify the cost of mastering from 3 strip. I'm sure the people working on the TIC video are doing all they can afford to make it look good, and someone (I think Marty Hart from AWSM) has already stated having seen some of what they are working on, and IIRC he said it looked very nice and dismissed concerns of whether it was missing any vital detail from the outside panels. As I've said you can email him at his site and ask about these things. For the purpose of this thread and not going too far off topic, all I can say is that yeah it's nice TIC is being done at all for video and we'll see soon enough what it has on it.
This thread, and my intention when posting in it, is to focus and discuss interest in getting Grimm (WWOTBG) released on video in some form. We have already heard from Warners (albeit almost 3 yrs ago) that it certainly IS possible to get a result as nice looking as HTWWW on video with the elements they have. How much of the neg would have to be replaced from the YCMs is very likely much less than has been rumored for years, still that is an extra cost they didn't have when they did HTWWW. So to do a very good transfer of Grimm would probably cost at least as much as HTWWW did if not more - depending on how much the technology cost might have lowered (if it has), and how much inflation, the economy, and extra cost of replacing any unusable bits from the YCMS would add.
While I absolutely welcome arguments in favor of how much interest there is in Grimm, I can't argue that it's going to sell anywhere near as much as HTWWW. I would love to see this thread include comments about why people want it on video, things we like about it, memories of having seen it, and how we may like it in comparison to other Cinerama movies - especially since at this point Grimm seems to be given the least attention with all the others being prepared in some way or another for video and digital showings. (although it is really cool to hear there IS a 3 strip Technicolor print that is good enough to be shown and let's hear more about that if anyone knows)
IF there WERE a 70mm composite element available for Grimm (and I can see no reason why they would ever have made one, for reasons well stated here by Mr. Hollis) surely it would be less costly to master from, but still expensive. A lot of us here have been interested in these movies long enough that if there were any 70mm elements on Grimm we would have heard of them by now. There is just no evidence of it. If there were ANY evidence of it, it would have been mentioned, even illustrated in a reliable resource like AWSM. As you may have noticed, many of us have been around long enough not to believe much of anything in that book you've been quoting, as it has already been revealed by many people (including reliable industry sources who have experience the authors don't) to be wildly inaccurate.
Since a lot of us would still like to see Grimm on video, even if they can't yet do the kind of work they did on HTWWW, I would want to open up some discussion and investigation into what 35mm anamorphic elements they do have on it and how viable they are at this point. And again, some conformation about that 3 Strip print being shown at the three existing venues. It seems certain Bradford will show it in Spring, and fairly likely the Dome would show it in the Fall, however it seems to me the best place to see it would be in Seattle and we haven't heard a thing about that.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by rsmithjr /t/290862/smileboxed-the-wonderful-world-of-the-brothers-grimm-will-it-ever-make-it-to-bluray/60#post_3893483
I would think if your goal is to get an excellent Blu-ray (a noble desire) of the title, then the best way would not be a 70mm (or 65mm if a negative) element, but rather to go back to 3 panel preprints and handle it like HTWWW. The 70mm element may well be 2.2 aspect ratio, meaning the sides are cut off; it would have optically-created join lines, which are vastly inferior to digital joins; etc. It is even possible that 70mm prints, if struck, were made from the 35mm reduction!
My initial reason for posting was that the question of whether or not there were 70mm prints ever made was a point that Carr and Hayes did address. Yes, I know the book is out of date and known to have accuracy issues. But I thought you might like to know what they had to say.

Going back the original three panels is what Warner has always talked about. Their vision is something close to HTWWW on DVD and Blu-ray. They just can't see revenue equaling the cost. As for me I would love to have it, but agree with Warner, if you are going to do it, you have to do it right. They are going through the same discussions with Raintree County and working with the Camera 65 negative and trying to get the compete Roadshow version. Even as one of the few Elizabeth Taylor films not on DVD, they are haggling over cost. I under stand the same is going on with the three Showboat features. They want put them out in Blu-ray and DVD, but the work that needs to be done of the first two is not encouraging vs the number of sets they think they can sell.

 

[NY2LA]

When I saw TIC at the Stanley Warner in 1973, my recollection is that the join lines revealed a fairly large amount missing from the sides.

From a multi-part Listing on Cinema Treasures called Remembering Cinerama:
RE-ISSUES & SPECIAL ENGAGEMENTS
THIS IS CINERAMA
Theater: Cinerama Dome
Premiere: February 15, 1973 (World Re-Premiere)
Duration: 14 weeks
Format: 70mm
Hype: “THIS IS CINERAMA Is Back To Entertain A Whole New Generation”
THIS IS CINERAMA (Move-over from Cinerama Dome)
Theater: Fox Wilshire
Premiere: May 23, 1973
Duration: 3 weeks
Format: 70mm
Hype: “THIS IS CINERAMA is now at its new home”
THIS IS CINERAMA
Theater: Cinerama Dome
Premiere: November 6, 1988
Duration: 2 days***
Format: 70mm
Hype: “Cinerama Dome Celebrates 25 Years Of Motion Picture History”
THIS IS CINERAMA
Theater: Cinerama Dome
Premiere: October 4, 2002
Duration: 2 weeks
Format: 3-Strip Cinerama
Hype: “Thrill to the 3-projector presentation that made this the #1 movie of 1952!”
HOW THE WEST WAS WON
Theater: Cinerama Dome
Premiere: September 12, 2003
Duration: 2 weeks
Format: 3-Strip Cinerama
Hype: “Exclusive Los Angeles Engagement Presented In Its Original 3-Strip Cinerama Process”
IT’S A MAD MAD MAD MAD WORLD
Theater: Cinerama Dome
Premiere: October 16, 2003
Duration: 4 days
Format: 70mm
Hype: “In the fall of 1963, two icons were born: the Cinerama Dome and Stanley Kramer’s IT’S A MAD MAD MAD MAD WORLD. This October 17-19, our historic Cinerama Dome will showcase a 40th anniversary Special Edition print presented in 70mm and, for the first time, in digital sound with the legendary intermission and ‘police calls’ voiced by Spencer Tracy and William Demarest.”
THIS IS CINERAMA
Theater: Cinerama Dome
Premiere: October 21, 2004
Duration: 2 days
Format: 3-Strip Cinerama
Hype: “Back By Popular Demand. Original Three Projector Presentation. Seven Track Magnetic Stereophonic Sound”
HOW THE WEST WAS WON
Theater: Cinerama Dome
Premiere: October 28, 2005
Duration: 1 week
Format: 3-Strip Cinerama
Hype: “Exclusive Engagement In Its Original 3-Strip Cinerama Process”
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY
Theater: Cinerama Dome
Premiere: September 5, 2008
Duration: 1 day
Format: 70mm
Hype: “Cinerama’s Two Most Popular Epics Return For Very Special Limited Engagements. For those that have never seen them on the giant Cinerama screen, And for those that will never forget!”
HOW THE WEST WAS WON
Theater: Cinerama Dome
Premiere: September 7, 2008
Duration: 1 day
Format: 3-Strip Cinerama
Hype: “Cinerama’s Two Most Popular Epics Return For Very Special Limited Engagements. For those that have never seen them on the giant Cinerama screen, And for those that will never forget!”
NOTES, TRIVIA & ITEMS OF SIGNIFICANCE
*** Shown three times during the Dome’s 25th anniversary retrospective (Nov. 3-17, 1988)
The Warner Hollywood Theater booked non-Cinerama, non-reserved-seat 35mm attractions from September 1961 through August 1962.
During the 1968-69 engagement of “2001: A Space Odyssey,” ownership of the Warner Hollywood Theater changed hands from Stanley-Warner to Pacific Theatres, at which time the name of the venue was changed to the Hollywood Pacific. In 1978, the theater was divided into three screens. It still exists today, but is closed.
Full listing here: http://cinematreasures.org/blog/2008/10/10/remembering-cinerama-part-vi
So if you saw This Is Cinerama in 1973 in Los Angeles, you saw it either at the Cinerama Dome, or at the Fox Wilshire.
By that time the Cinerama equipped theatre on Hollywood Boulevard would have been called the Warner Hollywood, or Hollywood Pacific, as Stanley Warner co was no longer associated with it.
As for your feeling that a substantial amount of the side panels were cut off, AFAIK, there is no available visual reference as to whether or not those 70mm prints left off much, or anything, at the sides. What I can say, is that 3 strip, being from 3 separate projectors at 3 different focal points, is more likely to show the all 3 panels appearing the same relative size, while ONE projector, aiming at the center of a curved screen, would reduce the apparent width of the side panels because the sides of the screen are closer to the projector, so whatever there was of the side panels of the 70mm print (that wasn't cut off by aperture or masking) would appear less wide than the center panel. That's all that can be said about that for now unless somebody finds a frame of an actual 70mm TIC print. I can tell you from experience if you see a 1.85 movie on the Dome's screen, it looks more like a 1.66 or less because of the curve.

 

[NY2LA]

Going back the original three panels is what Warner has always talked about. Their vision is something close to HTWWW on DVD and Blu-ray.  They just can't see revenue equaling the cost.  As for me I would love to have it, but agree with Warner, if you are going to do it, you have to do it right. 

Understanding that, but some of us are not getting any younger, and if the likelihood is that a "done right" version is, say 5 years off, I could make a good argument for using the best available 35mm anamorphic source, for as good a transfer as can be affordably produced to be released for now on MOD through their archive collection. Difference from West here is that West was already out in some form on DVD and Grimm never has been. In some ways releasing a moderately good quality MOD DVD of Grimm to tide us over until a Blu Ray like the recent HTWWW can be done could be a good way to build interest for an eventual Blu Ray.
Warners, like many other studios, certainly has established a record of reissuing movies, remastered or not, every few years. So Why NOT give us a decent DVD for now? It would be better than nothing and, considering the kind of demographic that would buy it, it is extremely unlikely that it would stop people from re-buying it when a better Blu Ray is produced. I doubt the existence of an earlier DVD of West stopped many people from buying the recent remaster. An MOD of Grimm would have even less chance of reducing sales of a better transfer in the future.

 

[Matt Hough]

I think with disc's ability to chapter skip, the three fairy tales alone would be appetizing enough for parents with children to want this film. They are delightful fairy tales by themselves, and if the children don't want to see the love story or the story of the two brothers and their problems, the fairy tales are always there.

There are creative ways this film could be sold to folks who aren't familiar with it. Those of us who know it and want it don't have to be sold.

 

[GMpasqua]

Originally Posted by ahollis /t/290862/smileboxed-the-wonderful-world-of-the-brothers-grimm-will-it-ever-make-it-to-bluray/60#post_3893553

Going back the original three panels is what Warner has always talked about. Their vision is something close to HTWWW on DVD and Blu-ray. They just can't see revenue equaling the cost. As for me I would love to have it, but agree with Warner, if you are going to do it, you have to do it right. They are going through the same discussions with Raintree County and working with the Camera 65 negative and trying to get the compete Roadshow version. Even as one of the few Elizabeth Taylor films not on DVD, they are haggling over cost. I under stand the same is going on with the three Showboat features. They want put them out in Blu-ray and DVD, but the work that needs to be done of the first two is not encouraging vs the number of sets they think they can sell.

That's too bad. Don't really care about the 1st version of "Show Boat" but the 1936 Version is the Best version on film to date and should be released (It was never on DVD) The 51 version is truly bad (the acting is right up there with "Song of Norway")

WB forget the other two and give us The Paul Robeson/Irene Dunne Version

 

[GMpasqua]

from the souvenir program:

 

[NY2LA]

I think with disc's ability to chapter skip, the three fairy tales alone would be appetizing enough for parents with children to want this film. They are delightful fairy tales by themselves, and if the children don't want to see the love story or the story of the two brothers and their problems, the fairy tales are always there.
There are creative ways this film could be sold to folks who aren't familiar with it. Those of us who know it and want it don't have to be sold.

Thank you , Matt, I like what you have to say there. Please feel free to elaborate. There could even be a "play fairy tales" option in the menu like we've seen some musicals do with the songs.

 

[NY2LA]

from the souvenir program:

Thanks for the scan, Greg. I wonder how many of your famous ad art display compositions you could do based on the doodles and portrait art in that book... I do believe that is where I first learned all about Cinerama.

 

[GMpasqua]

just for you NY2LA

 

[Paul Rossen]

just for you NY2LA

This ad brings back memories...wow!

 

[GMpasqua]

 

[rsmithjr]

Sorry, your memory is faulty here and you should stop saying you saw it there It never played there save for its original three-panel engagement in the 1950s. It played the Dome. I've told you (and I was there twice to see it), and others have the ads from the release. You could have seen many, many things at the Pacific's in 1973 but This Is Cinerama wasn't one of them .[/quote

It is possible that I have confused the venue but it was certainly one of the two, it was in LA and in early 1973. Thank you for correcting me.

The real point I was trying to make was that the 70mm print of TIC did not look very good and seemed to be missing the sides, which is what one would expect for spherical 70mm (if indeed it was spherical 70mm).

Perhaps you can provide information on the quality of that TIC print.

It becomes relevant if the new digital version is going to be made from it rather than going back to the negatives, which are in reasonable shape judging from the print on display in Seattle. I think the really important issues are what we are likely to see in the future from this film. But the exhibition history is interesting.

 

[NY2LA]

just for you NY2LA

What an impressive ad that was. Those dark blocks next to the reviews were the portraits, I'm guessing?
Bravo, Encore!

 

[NY2LA]

The real point I was trying to make was that the 70mm print of TIC did not look very good and seemed to be missing the sides, which is what one would expect for spherical 70mm (if indeed it was spherical 70mm). Perhaps you can provide information on the quality of that TIC print.
It becomes relevant if the new digital version is going to be made from it rather than going back to the negatives, which are in reasonable shape judging from the print on display in Seattle. I think the really important issues are what we are likely to see in the future from this film. But the exhibition history is interesting.

As I've said you could contact Marty Hart at AWSM and ask him. Meanwhile found this with a Google search:
Source of upcoming This Is Cinerama DVD/Blu-ray?
from Martin Hart
Due to budgetary restrictions, SERIOUS budgetary restrictions, it was not possible to work from the original negatives. Instead, Strohmaier and his minions have worked from the negative created for the 70mm release. At first I was severely disappointed in that choice but I've seen enough of the work that I no longer have any reservations. Here's why:
The condition of the original camera negatives is pretty sad. They have been run through contact printers hundreds of times and show lots of damage and dirt. There are blank slugs that replace missing frames and patched tears, etc. Only the 1963 re-issue of "This Is Cinerama" was printed using dye transfer, which don't subject the negative to umptillion runs through the optical printer. TIC was the only one of the travelogues that had an IB Technicolor release. All others were contact printed on Eastman color print stock by Technicolor.
I was concerned that a lot of the image would be lost but that doesn't appear to be true. Since the negative has no mag stripes it contains more of the original three panels than on a striped print. The image height is just a hair less than the full three-strip frame but the difference in height is very, very small. The 70mm negative contains problems as well and where possible Dave transferred the same footage from either the original or duplicate negatives. His matching of the 70mm and 35mm panels is extremely good and nobody is going to be able to tell where it was done. Trust me.
The final product does not have the unbelievable panel matching that is seen in WHVs digital work on "How The West Was Won". I'm not saying that to be critical. The TIC materials are in much worse condition than the HTWWW negatives which were printed in IB Technicolor. I have an evaluation copy of TIC on DVD and I think it looks great, but the more recent material that Dave's put on the web looks even better.
If you happen to like "This is Cinerama" then the upcoming release shouldn't be a disappointment. I believe that it will only be available in Smilebox which will allow copyright protection of the resulting product. Sorry for getting a bit wordy here but I get kind of excited about the subject as I've seen how it's progressed thus far. The guys working on this project are really squeezing everything they can from the source material and they are doing a labor of love, and just a little bit of money.
I have a DVD of Dave's "Windjammer" which I think looks better than the version run at the Cinerama Dome, but TIC looks about a thousand percent better. It'll fill the biggest home screens with a real ass kicker of a virtual reality time machine.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/

 

[rsmithjr]

As I've said you could contact Marty Hart at AWSM and ask him. Meanwhile found this with a Google search:
Source of upcoming This Is Cinerama DVD/Blu-ray?
from Martin Hart
Due to budgetary restrictions, SERIOUS budgetary restrictions, it was not possible to work from the original negatives. Instead, Strohmaier and his minions have worked from the negative created for the 70mm release. At first I was severely disappointed in that choice but I've seen enough of the work that I no longer have any reservations. Here's why:
The condition of the original camera negatives is pretty sad. They have been run through contact printers hundreds of times and show lots of damage and dirt. There are blank slugs that replace missing frames and patched tears, etc. Only the 1963 re-issue of "This Is Cinerama" was printed using dye transfer, which don't subject the negative to umptillion runs through the optical printer. TIC was the only one of the travelogues that had an IB Technicolor release. All others were contact printed on Eastman color print stock by Technicolor.
I was concerned that a lot of the image would be lost but that doesn't appear to be true. Since the negative has no mag stripes it contains more of the original three panels than on a striped print. The image height is just a hair less than the full three-strip frame but the difference in height is very, very small. The 70mm negative contains problems as well and where possible Dave transferred the same footage from either the original or duplicate negatives. His matching of the 70mm and 35mm panels is extremely good and nobody is going to be able to tell where it was done. Trust me.
The final product does not have the unbelievable panel matching that is seen in WHVs digital work on "How The West Was Won". I'm not saying that to be critical. The TIC materials are in much worse condition than the HTWWW negatives which were printed in IB Technicolor. I have an evaluation copy of TIC on DVD and I think it looks great, but the more recent material that Dave's put on the web looks even better.
If you happen to like "This is Cinerama" then the upcoming release shouldn't be a disappointment. I believe that it will only be available in Smilebox which will allow copyright protection of the resulting product. Sorry for getting a bit wordy here but I get kind of excited about the subject as I've seen how it's progressed thus far. The guys working on this project are really squeezing everything they can from the source material and they are doing a labor of love, and just a little bit of money.
I have a DVD of Dave's "Windjammer" which I think looks better than the version run at the Cinerama Dome, but TIC looks about a thousand percent better. It'll fill the biggest home screens with a real ass kicker of a virtual reality time machine.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/

This is very helpful, thanks.
One question: you refer to DVD a few times. I trust that there will be Blu-rays as well. In fact, I see no reason for a DVD at all of these films, given the likely customer base.
Thanks again!