What's new

Will Around the World in 80 Days ever get a special deluxe edition like The Wonderful World of The Brothers Grimm? (1 Viewer)

Bill Huelbig

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 9, 2000
Messages
501
Location
Weehawken, NJ
Real Name
Bill Huelbig
Another incredible announcement from Dave Strohmaier! Even if it's years away, it was great to read about another amazing find. I may be asking for too much, but is it possible for 80 Days to be presented in Smilebox? Weren't the original Todd-AO engagements shown on curved screens?

I would so love to see a Smilebox edition of 2001: A Space Odyssey. That's how I first saw it in 1968.
 

Vern Dias

Second Unit
Joined
Apr 27, 1999
Messages
353
Real Name
Theodore V Dias
Another incredible announcement from Dave Strohmaier! Even if it's years away, it was great to read about another amazing find. I may be asking for too much, but is it possible for 80 Days to be presented in Smilebox? Weren't the original Todd-AO engagements shown on curved screens?

I would so love to see a Smilebox edition of 2001: A Space Odyssey. That's how I first saw it in 1968.
It was shown on a "curved" screen but the depth of curve was nowhere near what was used for Cinerama. It was much closer to what was used for CinemaScope.

IMHO Smilebox on Todd-AO would be a travesty.

If you had seen what had to be done with aperture plates to present the single strip "Cinerama" films on a subset of the original Cinerama screens (which by the way generally had an additional 10 to 20% of the screen width masked off, never to see another photon of light) when the theatres were converted to single strip, you might not be so eager.


70mm_aperture_plate.jpg


This aperture plate was use for Todd-AO in a theatre with a fairly steep projection angle and the standard Todd-AO curve depth. Imagine what it would have to look like to handle a Cinerama screen with its significantly greater depth of curve.
 
Last edited:

Vern Dias

Second Unit
Joined
Apr 27, 1999
Messages
353
Real Name
Theodore V Dias
As I recall, Bradford projected Todd-AO on the curved screen!
They likely did, but you you were only seeing maybe 70 % of the actual height of the frame on the film at the horizontal center point of the image due to the way the aperture plates had to be cut to avoid having the image spill off the top and bottom of the screen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMF

Strohmaier

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
185
Real Name
David Strohmaier
“Grimm” did make money according to the records I have seen years back and also John Sittig from Cinerama Inc, told me this as well as Cinerama had all the BO stats. I guess it’s still making money as we speak, I have noticed it at least 3 times so far on TCM plus the Blu-ray sales. Naturally “West” was the really big one.

We have done extensive Todd-AO tests at Bradford via a DCP on their curved screen. Yes with 70mm film screenings (if filling the full Cinerama screen width) there would be some cropping mostly at the bottom and a touch at the top as the keystone favors the top at Bradford. Our DCP Todd-AO test charts do not fill the screen left and right but does top to bottom- some masking is used at the sides. We correct for the keystone electronically so there is no real cropping taking place.

We have also tested a Todd-AO SmileBox and it looks great, even helps a bit with the bug eye on those wide-angle shots. My recommendation would be to do the same as “Grimm” a 2-disc set but that’s up to WB and yes it has been discussed. After all Todd-AO ads touted a new screen also in Mike own words “Cinerama out of one hole.” He did not mean flat Cinerama. I saw the film in the 35mm scope mono optical version as a child, but I knew that the big cities often had the Todd-AO curved screen as one of the kids in my grade school got to see it on a curve. Mike Todd himself said “80 Days is not a movie it’s a SHOW!
 

RolandL

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Messages
6,626
Location
Florida
Real Name
Roland Lataille
It was shown on a "curved" screen but the depth of curve was nowhere near what was used for Cinerama. It was much closer to what was used for CinemaScope.

CinemaScope screen at the NY Roxy theatre - hardly any curve at all
1roxy091563.png


Todd-AO screen at Hollywood Egyptian Theatre - much closer to Cinerama screen than CinemaScope
todd-aoscreen-egyptian.jpg



Cinerama screen at Hollywood Cinerama Dome
cdiammmmw.jpg
 
Last edited:

SwatDB

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
215
Real Name
David Brynskov
Is there any possibility that when this project is completed that it can also be released as a 4K/UHD?
A: We'll know it when Warners/George Feltenstein reveal the announcement.
B: Not sure about the a 4K UHD, though, due to an increase of the project cost (personally I feel fine with WAC release with 30fps [from 65mm YCM/Seperation masters (*if* the elements were to be used for the ideal new transfer), correct?] and 24fps versions in 1080p [in order to save remastering budget], if the UHD is not happening.)

Harris? please take over.
 
Last edited:

PMF

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
6,011
Real Name
Philip
A: We'll know it when Warners/George Feltenstein reveal the announcement.
B: Not sure about the a 4K UHD, though, due to an increase of the project cost (personally I feel fine with WAC release with 30fps [from 65mm YCM/Seperation masters (*if* the elements were to be used for the ideal new transfer), correct?] and 24fps versions in 1080p [in order to save remastering budget], if the UHD is not happening.)

Harris? please take over.
No greeds shall be coming from me.

Just this great news alone will last me through the entire year of 2024; as we speak know the players who are involved, and we know of their resplendant achievements.

If fundings and donations are needed, please post here as to where a check may be sent.

Congratulations to all involved.
 
Last edited:

garyrc

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
70
Real Name
gary
Before anyone asks, does The Alamo stand the test of time better than 80?

Yup.

Robert, this is the first time I've ever, ever, disagreed with you!

The Alamo is O.K., a touch of jingoism aside, but 80 days had several kinds of humor including satire (on the poor British, the wintery Mr. Fogg and others), slapstick, pseudo-mime, etc., and some real suspense near the end. It seemed like it was hypnotic (as was 2001, 12 years later). I think 70mm (or 65mm, with the double system version) on a, yes, curved screen. At first I was suspicious of the screen filling spinning globe after the change to 65/70mm Todd-AO from the 35mm prologue, but later, after reading Hilgard, not so much. The clarity, the seemingly wrap around screen (sitting in the 5th row for one showing), the use of wideangle lenses (with the 128 degree sparingly used) and the heavy use of Berlyne's variables of size, brightness, and (clean) loudness to pump up cortical arousal may have been partly responsible.

Now the screens. Here is the Todd-AO screen on which I saw 80 Days:

1703129295335.png

The screen and the image very nearly filled the curtains:
1703129566252.png

(S.F. Chronicle, 1956)
The third time I saw 80 Days, we sat dead center at the point where the seats change color, row 5, I think. That was even more involving that in row 9, an earlier perch, and the picture was sharp and detailed in both places. That time, we decided to take our parents. The fathers declined, but the mothers came along. When we previously played the vinyl at home, both moms had told us repeatedly that there was no way the sound was that loud in the theater. Just before the film started, we told them we would nudge them whenever it was as loud at home. When the screen widened out and the prologue rocket took off, they both got nudged, and both cracked up. Mike Todd was around when the two northern California theaters were equipped for Todd-AO, and was said to have set the SPL.

Later, I saw Holiday in Spain, produced by Mike Todd Jr. at the San Francisco Orpheum, on the deeply curved screen that had been previously used for all Cinerama and Cinemiracle films. It was much more amateurish than 80 Days, but that didn't keep John von Kotze from doing a superb and depthy job with the cinematography. It had an AR of 2.20:1, and looked it, but was fine with some small black masks on either side. It is billed as being in Todd-70, but IMDB explains that it was really Todd-AO (did AO want their name taken off of it?).

Next on the same deeply curved Cinerama screen at the Orpheum was Circus World, filmed in Super Technirama 70 on horizontal traveling double width frames on Eastman color 5385 with Cinerama Rectified 70mm Prints. The rectification worked beautifully.

Then, on the same screen, The Greatest Story Ever Told, by George Stevens. It was in the 2.75:1 Ultra (not Super) Panavision 70, didn't need the right and left masks, and looked fine.

Then 2001: A Space Odyssey in Super (not Ultra) Panavision 70 (2.2:1) on yet another deeply curved Cinerama screen ... and then another curved screen, 85 feet wide across the chord of the arc (according to the theater manager). Both were fine.

I don't know if any of this would translate to Smilebox.

 
Last edited:

OliverK

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
5,742
It’s not ”languishing,” it’s relaxing. The reality is that 80 is a technological marvel that received its Best Picture status based upon many factors, which among them was NOT that it was a good film, although it may have been perceived to be one at the time.

Seen today, the technological and cameo aspects ring true, but it fails the test of time.

As far as my personal interest is concerned, I’ve done my due diligence, am aware of the problems involved, and have digested the LoC inventory.

The reality of the situation is that aside from research toward reconstruction, all of the technical niceties can quite easily be handled internally via WB archival staff and MPI.

While it’s always nice to have an extra set of archival eyes on a project, I don’t believe (aside from our personal passion) that either Mr. Strohmaier nor I are truly necessary on this project.

To me, the real 65mm challenge remains The Alamo, which is in far worse condition. Now owned by Amazon, all I need is an approval to save it. $$ aren’t the obstacle.

Before anyone asks, does The Alamo stand the test of time better than 80?

Yup.

It would be fantastic if you could give an update on a thread dedicated to The Alamo so that the discussion can continue there. Hopefully Amazon will be more receptive than MGM.

With that being said I am not a movie critic but on a personal level 80 Days is just a lot of fun for me and the cameos are fun, too unlike in The Greatest Story Ever Told where I found most of them to be a distraction. I also happen to love the score by Victor Young and it is nice to see some scenes that were actually shot with the famous bug eye lens. so there is a lot to like on many levels. Even the exotic locations - by the standards of the day - still work quite well for me in the context of the movie.

And last but not least I also happen to like the three main protagonists, they play off each other very well. When I have a great time watching 80 Days it is also in no small measure due to David Niven, Cantinflas and Shirley MacLaine.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,372
Real Name
Robert Harris
It would be fantastic if you could give an update on a thread dedicated to The Alamo so that the discussion can continue there. Hopefully Amazon will be more receptive than MGM.

With that being said I am not a movie critic but on a personal level 80 Days is just a lot of fun for me and the cameos are fun, too unlike in The Greatest Story Ever Told where I found most of them to be a distraction. I also happen to love the score by Victor Young and it is nice to see some scenes that were actually shot with the famous bug eye lens. so there is a lot to like on many levels. Even the exotic locations - by the standards of the day - still work quite well for me in the context of the movie.

And last but not least I also happen to like the three main protagonists, they play off each other very well. When I have a great time watching 80 Days it is also in no small measure due to David Niven, Cantinflas and Shirley MacLaine.
There were actually two bug-eye lenses. I owned one for several years until I turned it over to a better home.
 

Dick

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 22, 1999
Messages
9,923
Real Name
Rick
It’s out on Warner disc.

DVD only. I have, however, seen a 1080p Blu-ray transfer, and found it to be a very pleasing experience (I saw it theatrically in '57 in a second-run theater with a standard screen, and even that blew me away). A full 4K restoration of this would be incredible eye candy.
 
Last edited:

OliverK

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
5,742
It was shown on a "curved" screen but the depth of curve was nowhere near what was used for Cinerama. It was much closer to what was used for CinemaScope.

IMHO Smilebox on Todd-AO would be a travesty.

If you had seen what had to be done with aperture plates to present the single strip "Cinerama" films on a subset of the original Cinerama screens (which by the way generally had an additional 10 to 20% of the screen width masked off, never to see another photon of light) when the theatres were converted to single strip, you might not be so eager.


View attachment 207054

This aperture plate was use for Todd-AO in a theatre with a fairly steep projection angle and the standard Todd-AO curve depth. Imagine what it would have to look like to handle a Cinerama screen with its significantly greater depth of curve.

I love curved screens but indeed in the analog days the picture height in the center of the screen suffered.
Losing 10% of the center screen height may still be acceptable to get a certain look but beyond that it is not a good trade-off imo.
 

Ethan Riley

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,282
Real Name
Ethan Riley
Some more weighing in responses on “80 Days” etc.
Let’s hope Robert Harris is correct and that “80 Days” will generate a nice profit once again.
The main goal here is to deal with the 30 fps version which is more true to the original intent of the Todd-AO format. I understand that the negs have been scanned or nearly finished. I was told there is some expected color fading but don’t know how much. When the elements were delivered to WB in 1983, one thing that was not somehow included was the YCMs of the 30 fps version. In my discussions with the Taylor Foundation, I asked if there could be any more film elements in their archives. They thought there was some but probably only 16mm. I was informed several days later that their Foundation archivist and Fritz Herzog from the Academy Film Archive checked out the inventory and miraculously found the complete set of 65mm 30 fps YCMs!
I've actually been wondering about that for years. Thank you for clearing that up. In the past when this came up, the forum members were convinced that the negative had turned to pink, we didn't know much more. I applaud your efforts and hope this progresses.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more







You will only receive emails from us. We will never sell or distribute your email address to third party companies at any time.

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,955
Messages
5,127,155
Members
144,216
Latest member
sonjabe33
Recent bookmarks
0
Top