When will Gone with the WInd be re-released to theaters?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Joshua Clinard, Feb 21, 2002.

  1. Joshua Clinard

    Joshua Clinard Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2000
    Messages:
    1,823
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Location:
    Abilene, TX
    Real Name:
    Joshua Clinard
    The rumor is it will be re-released to theaters, but I would like to know when.

    Can anyone tell?
     
  2. Tim Raffey

    Tim Raffey Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 1999
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It just was (in '98, I think).

    I wouldn't expect it for a while, but who knows?
     
  3. Edwin Pereyra

    Edwin Pereyra Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 1998
    Messages:
    3,500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I saw its re-release in 1998. I doubt it if it will be re-released again anytime soon as it did not do very well during that run.

    If people want to see more classic films re-released they need to start supporting them. 2001: A Space Odyssey suffered the same fate after its 70mm showings.

    I support these as much as I can.

    ~Edwin
     
  4. Brian Lawrence

    Brian Lawrence Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 1998
    Messages:
    3,634
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Real Name:
    Brian
    People can't support films when the studios only play them on a small handful of screens and don't spend a dime on advertisement.
    Shame on Warner for the way they slid 2001 under the rug. They must of run a zillion ads for "See Spot Run" [​IMG]
     
  5. Mark Pfeiffer

    Mark Pfeiffer Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 1999
    Messages:
    1,339
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course, it's not like Warners did anything to assist 2001 during its very limited re-release. (I don't know that it made it much out of NY & LA.) From what I read, they were doing no advertising, so essentially no one was aware it was even playing. (I think Roger Ebert's Movie Answer Man column had something about this a few weeks back, and I seem to remember reading this in one or two other places, possibly in Premiere.)
     
  6. Craig S

    Craig S Producer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2000
    Messages:
    5,781
    Likes Received:
    231
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    League City, Texas
    Real Name:
    Craig Seanor
     
  7. Scott Leopold

    Scott Leopold Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2001
    Messages:
    711
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would have loved to have seen Gone With the Wind on the big screen, but I believe only 1 theater around here carried it, and I found out about it on the last day it was showing. I thought it brought in $20 million during its rerelease, which isn't too bad for a movie that wasn't advertised. I expected it to bring in much more, but I also expected them to let people know it was out there.
     
  8. Malcolm R

    Malcolm R Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    13,238
    Likes Received:
    897
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    I was dying to see The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind on the big screen during their re-releases. However, they never played at any theaters within reasonable travel distance.

    In order for these re-releases to be successful, the studios need to release them wider and make sure there are lots of prints in small town theaters rather than the big cities. In the cities, there are lots of entertainment options and lots of clubs, theater, concerts, etc., competing for entertainment dollars. In rural America, most people go to the movies because we don't have many other options. Small town theaters are where the re-releases would be successful. Unfortunately, we are generally left out of the distribution plan despite wanting very much to see these films.
     
  9. Chad R

    Chad R Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 1999
    Messages:
    2,178
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Real Name:
    Chad Rouch
    Gone With the Wind did very well during its 1998 run in theaters. It's first two weeks it ruled the limited run charts with an extremely high per screen average.

    I saw it opening night and the theater was sold out, but since it was during the summer it was relegated to a smaller theater.

    Teh strangest thing about it was how they printed it. It was windowboxed in the middle of a 2.35:1 anamorphic print. The curtains were opend up to that ratio and you could see print specs and scrathces all the way out to the extremem of the 2.35! I'm sure they did this to prevent this 1.33:1 movie being matted by incompetent theaters, but why didn't they windowbox it on a 1.85 print?

    I did my part, by the way, by seeing it twice and my GWTW obssessed wife saw it 4 times!
     
  10. Edwin Pereyra

    Edwin Pereyra Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 1998
    Messages:
    3,500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just so that there is no confusion how well Gone With The Wind did during its re-issue between 6/28/98 - 11/13/98, according to Variety it made $6,750,112 during that entire run.
    ~Edwin
     
  11. Chad R

    Chad R Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 1999
    Messages:
    2,178
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Real Name:
    Chad Rouch
    Edwin, but in how many theaters? I remember reading Variety and it talking about its high per screen average.
    (Not arguing with you mind you, just curious[​IMG] )
     
  12. Jack Briggs

    Jack Briggs Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    16,738
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Warner's handling of the 2001 reissue was an abortion of a move. Pathetic. Could the studio have made its apathy any more apparent?

    The only ad here in Los Angeles appeared as a 1"x3" afterthought in the alternative LA Weekly. That was it. Most people here had not an inkling the film was even running at The Egyptian.

    By contrast, when MGM still owned the distribution rights, the studio did some promoting of it during the film's 70mm major-market reissue back in 1996. (That print, by the way, was every bit as good as the one I saw at The Egyptian.) Likewise, when MGM issued its DVD of the film, there was a good deal of promotion.

    Warner? Not only is the studio seemingly apathetic, its apathy borders on contempt.

    Warner does not deserve to own this film.
     
  13. Chad R

    Chad R Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 1999
    Messages:
    2,178
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Real Name:
    Chad Rouch
    Ah, found it. BoxOfficeMojo has it opening on 214 screens with a per screen average of $5,573. It's per screen average was on par with the summer blockbusters that week and with a 4 hour length it ran just 2 (maybe 3 if the first show started early enough) times a day.

    Obviously no Star Wars re-release but pretty darn good for a 60 year old movie. Why they jumped the gun on the 60th anniversary by a year I'll never know.
     
  14. Rain

    Rain Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2001
    Messages:
    5,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  15. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,518
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
    Rain, I believe they made two different sets of prints, one full-frame for theaters could could project Academy ratio properly and one windowboxed for more modern theaters that aren't set up for the old ratio. I know they also did this for the Wizard of Oz reissue a couple of years ago, though those windowboxed prints are boxed within a 1.85 frame.
     
  16. Rain

    Rain Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2001
    Messages:
    5,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That makes sense, Peter. Thanks. I actually saw both of those in the usual Academy Standard format. I'm kind of glad, the other option sounds a bit annoying.
     
  17. Edwin Pereyra

    Edwin Pereyra Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 1998
    Messages:
    3,500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As with all newly released films, GWTW's per screen average was an amazing $9,171 per theater in 214 theaters in its first week of re-issue then dropped to $236 per theater in 5 theaters in its last week.
    Week Date Range/# of engagements/Avg per eng./% change in BO/Weekly Box Office/Gross Domestic
    1 6/26-7/2/1998 214 $ 9,171 0 $1,962,627 $1,962,627
    2 7/3-7/9/1998 214 $ 6,737 -27% $1,441,774 $3,404,401
    3 7/10-7/16/1998 214 $ 4,337 -36% $928,161 $4,332,562
    4 7/17-7/23/1998 200 $ 3,101 -33% $620,255 $4,952,817
    5 7/24-7/30/1998 200 $ 2,592 -16% $518,363 $5,471,180
    6 7/31-8/6/1998 200 $ 1,734 -33% $346,895 $5,818,075
    7 8/7-8/13/1998 200 $ 1,565 -10% $312,949 $6,131,024
    8 8/14-8/20/1998 149 $ 1,010 -52% $150,540 $6,281,564
    9 8/21-8/27/1998 46 $ 1,164 -64% $53,559 $6,335,123
    10 8/28-9/3/1998 83 $ 1,030 60% $85,475 $6,420,598
    11 9/4-9/10/1998 130 $ 1,097 67% $142,633 $6,563,231
    12 9/11-9/17/1998 95 $ 736 -51% $69,889 $6,633,120
    13 9/18-9/24/1998 69 $ 658 -35% $45,378 $6,678,498
    14 9/25-10/1/1998 50 $ 641 -29% $32,035 $6,710,533
    15 10/2-10/8/1998 25 $ 562 -56% $14,058 $6,724,591
    16 10/9-10/15/1998 21 $ 635 -5% $13,338 $6,737,929
    17 10/16-10/22/1998 9 $ 306 -79% $2,756 $6,740,685
    18 10/23-10/29/1998 7 $ 458 16% $3,204 $6,743,889
    19 10/30-11/5/1998 12 $ 181 -32% $2,172 $6,746,061
    20 11/6-11/12/1998 10 $ 287 32% $2,870 $6,748,931
    21 11/13-11/19/1998 5 $ 236 -59% $1,181 $6,750,112
    Source: Variety: EDI FilmSource
     
  18. John Berggren

    John Berggren Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 1999
    Messages:
    3,238
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's too bad there aren't more theaters (certainly none where I've lived) that specialize in showing classic films. Although theatrical re-releases on a "large" scale seem to work for some films, studios seem to be hesitant to release anything remotely _old_.

    A theater that ran a new classic film each week could be very successful in the right city.
     
  19. Ken_McAlinden

    Ken_McAlinden Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2001
    Messages:
    6,190
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Livonia, MI USA
    Real Name:
    Kenneth McAlinden
    I once sat down and figured out the area of the film frame that is used for the image in both the 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 windowboxed approaches to 1.37:1 material in "modern" theaters. IIRC Windowboxed (all four sides) 1.85:1 presentation used 55% of the frame area and windowboxed 2.35:1 (left and right sides) used 58% of the frame area. Pretty darn close. Based on what I have seen at my local theaters, the windowboxed 2.35:1 has a better shot at getting framed correctly, or at least less incorrectly. Of course unwindowboxed 1.37:1 uses 100% of the frame area and is greatly preferred. [​IMG]
    Regards,
     
  20. Joshua Clinard

    Joshua Clinard Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2000
    Messages:
    1,823
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Location:
    Abilene, TX
    Real Name:
    Joshua Clinard
    Thanks so much for the info guys!
     

Share This Page