When will Gone with the WInd be re-released to theaters? (1 Viewer)

[Joshua Clinard]

The rumor is it will be re-released to theaters, but I would like to know when.

Can anyone tell?

 

[Tim Raffey]

It just was (in '98, I think).

I wouldn't expect it for a while, but who knows?

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

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

 

[Brian Lawrence]

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"

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

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.)

 

[Craig S]

If people want to see more classic films re-released they need to start supporting them.

I'd love to, but I think asking me to fly from Houston to LA, DC, or NYC to see 2001 is a little unreasonable. Lay this one squarely at the feet of Warner, who didn't even give it a chance (and this a year after The Exorcist snapped up an additional $40 million in re-release).
Thankfully Paramount saw fit to give Apocalypse Now Redux a relatively wide release. Seeing this one on the big screen for the first time was a revelation.

 

[Scott Leopold]

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.

 

[Malcolm R]

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.

 

[Chad R]

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!

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

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

 

[Chad R]

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 )

 

[Jack Briggs]

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.

 

[Chad R]

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.

 

[Rain]

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?

This was the re-release version? Funny, that's not how it was shown when I saw it.

 

[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.

 

[Rain]

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.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

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

 

[John Berggren]

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.

 

[Ken_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.
Regards,

 

[Joshua Clinard]

Thanks so much for the info guys!