No 4K release for Gone With The Wind’s 80th Anniversary?

3 Stars

I am surprised there not even a whisper about a 4K of Gone With The Wind’s 80th Anniversary.
Is Warner’s not interested in what is biggest selling movie of all time?

Published by

Kevin Collins

administrator

180 Comments

  1. Worth

    It's available on iTunes with a decent HD presentation.

    I think that’s the same transfer that was the basis of the DVD. It’s totally watchable but doesn’t meet the standard WB insists on for a Blu-ray release.

  2. I'm thinking we might still see this before the end of the year, but I wonder if WB is a bit nervous about re-releasing Gone with the Wind as there's been some negative sentiment towards it lately.

  3. Ray H

    I'm thinking we might still see this before the end of the year, but I wonder if WB is a bit nervous about re-releasing Gone with the Wind as there's been some negative sentiment towards it lately.

    This film and Oz are WB's cash cows, they've so far not missed any chance to re-release these two films in order to get more money for themselves.

  4. Comments like "you would" and "you have no taste" amount to nothing more than personal attacks–the kind that you'd hear in an elementary school cafeteria.

    They are against the HTF Rules. They will stop now. Or there will be disciplinary action.

  5. Enough with "The Wizard of Oz" cover art posts which I've deleted to prevent the back and forth arguments from continuing in this thread. I will ban anybody from this thread that brings it up again here. We don't need to sidetrack this thread too like that other one.

  6. DP 70

    They could put the 70mm version on the 4KUHD for a laugh.:)

    Truth be told, I wouldn't mind seeing the "widescreen" version again. I saw it in 1967 during that 70mm presentation and never again. At the time, people were kind of astounded it did blockbuster business at the box-office, but the film has always had its champions. I understood the image was compromised in order to get that wider ratio, but my memories of the experience have completely faded over time.

  7. All these things are momentary anomalies to appeal to current tastes. I remember a theatrical release of “Fantasia” advertised as “The Ultimate Trip”, and another where the original soundtrack was removed and replaced by a new digital recording of Stokowski’s orchestrations. I still have the CDs of that last one.

  8. That would be these releases: [​IMG] [​IMG]
    IIRC, the narration for 1982 digital re-recording re-release was done by Hugh Douglas, then replaced by Tim Matheson for a 1985 limited re-release. FWIW, Fantasia was also subjected to a cropped "widescreen" version in SuperScope in 1956.

    And now, back to the original topic…..

  9. BobO’Link

    My wife has *never* seen Gone with the Wind and has zero interest in ever seeing it. I just don't understand that. I first saw it in the 60s when my parents took my sister and I to a revival showing. I thought it was quite long and a bit boring in places but overall really enjoyed it (and Clark Gable cussed!). I have a one of the DVD releases as well as the 70th Anniversary BR and have never been able to talk her into a viewing. 🙁

    TBH, even I, who's watched it several times in my lifetime, now watches it in 2-3 stages. If it ever plays on a large movie screen again, I might force myself to go to it just to watch it at one seating.:) At home, I get antsy and have too many distractions available to me to watch the film in its entirety at one seating. Perhaps, that will change if it comes out on 4K/UHD, but even then I think I will divide it up in almost 2 hour blocks.

  10. Ray H

    I wonder if WB is a bit nervous about re-releasing Gone with the Wind as there's been some negative sentiment towards it lately.

    The, shall we say, problematic aspects of GWTW have been controversies to one degree or another since 1939. Fathom events did an 80th anniversary screening event earlier this year, which would suggest WB is not nervous about re-releasing it.

    Maybe they are stuck in deliberations over what kind of swag to include in the over-sized 80th-anniversary box set? Perhaps a commemorative Gone With the Wind 80th-Anniversary electric fan?

  11. SD_Brian

    The, shall we say, problematic aspects of GWTW have been controversies to one degree or another since 1939. Fathom events did an 80th anniversary screening event earlier this year, which would suggest WB is not nervous about re-releasing it.

    Maybe they are stuck in deliberations over what kind of swag to include in the over-sized 80th-anniversary box set? Perhaps a commemorative Gone With the Wind 80th-Anniversary electric fan?

    Yeah, unfortunately, Fathom events are not shown here in my area without me taking a 40 minute road trip one way.

  12. BobO’Link

    She's never seen that one either (it's one of my favorite Kubrick movies). 😉

    I can more easily understand why she'd avoid "Clockwork Orange", as it's not exactly a "female friendly" movie.

    But "GWTW" is arguably the definition of "chick flick"!

  13. Mike Frezon

    Really, guys…let's try to stay on topic.

    It's a young thread and we've spent more time talking about Gunga Din, The Wizard of Oz, and Fantasia than we have about the film in question–Gone With the Wind.

    This post bears repeating as some of us keep ignoring it.

  14. Robert Crawford

    Yeah, unfortunately, Fathom events are not shown here in my area without me taking a 40 minute road trip one way.

    I went when they did the 75th anniversary screening (luckily, I only had to go a couple miles). It was a packed house and AMC even put it on one of their larger screens, instead of the glorified television they usually use for projecting Fathom Events.

    The only problem was they padded out the 4-hour running time by adding a TCM intro and then did not provide a proper intermission: The only break was the length of the entr' acte, which meant a large portion of the audience (myself included) got back to the theater several minutes after the 2nd part had begun.

  15. The film was a big success for Fathom:
    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-gone-wind-sets-record-fathom-1195914

    The screening was far too yellow for me ( I saw it in Beverly Hills, and they gave us a proper intermission).

    I find that the blu looks pretty yellow. too I see some great color values–but, for example, Rhett's proposal in Aunt Pitty's parlor is suffused in yellow and overpowers some of the color and pattern detail to me. I guess I'm too used to the releases not timed to the original release prints.

  16. Robert Crawford

    The same can be said about another 1939 title that is coming out in October or many other much lesser titles that are being released in 4K.

    Robert,

    Very different films. GW is littered with multiple mattes and opticals, Moreno than even Oz, which blend nicely in dye transfer, which is probably lower Rez than 2k. At 4, it would need a great deal of hand-holding.

  17. Robert Harris

    Cannot image the need, or propriety for GWTW inn 4k.

    For home video cinema colour gamut is only available with 4K discs so I definitely can even if there is not a single pixel of real 4K detail in sight. It's a package deal. 😉

  18. Robert Harris

    Robert,

    Very different films. GW is littered with multiple mattes and opticals, Moreno than even Oz, which blend nicely in dye transfer, which is probably lower Rez than 2k. At 4, it would need a great deal of hand-holding.

    Well, based on your comments and reading between the lines, I guess we're out of luck with GWTW on 4K disc in the foreseeable future.:(

  19. Well if that's how it's going to be and and a 4K release isn't announced by the end of October, then I'm going to plan to re-watch my Blu-ray this winter which I haven't watched in 10 years!

  20. Robert Harris

    Cannot imagine the need, or propriety for GWTW inn 4k.

    Don't understand this comment. If GWTW can be improved by 4K upgrade, why not? Propriety? What does that mean? It's one of the great films in the history of Hollywood film making.

  21. old mole

    Don't understand this comment. If GWTW can be improved by 4K upgrade, why not? Propriety? What does that mean? It's one of the great films in the history of Hollywood film making.

    Great, and important film?

    Absolutely!

    Highly resolved?

    Never.

    Far less than 2k.

    Can one work, and massage high Rez scans? Of course, but the problems, while not outnumbering the benefits, are problematic. Even if some original mattes and glass may survive, and the film goes back into post, those elements were never highly resolved, as there was no need. The final prints were properly soft, and velvety.

    By design.

  22. Ken Koc

    I am surprised there not even a whisper about a 4K of Gone With The Wind's 80th Anniversary.
    Is Warner's not interested in what is biggest selling movie of all time?

    Ken Koc

    I am surprised there not even a whisper about a 4K of Gone With The Wind's 80th Anniversary.
    Is Warner's not interested in what is biggest selling movie of all time?

  23. Mr. Harris, I respect you and your opinion so much. Do you feel “Wizard” can benefit from a 4K release, while GWTW cannot? While controversial, GWTW has proven itself to have a very significant audience theatrically this year. It still has a very significant fan base. Do you think the original elements would not yield beneficial results in a 4K reissue while so many other 1939 films are being reissued in 4K, including “Wizard of Oz”?

  24. GWTWTOO

    Mr. Harris, I respect you and your opinion so much. Do you feel “Wizard” can benefit from a 4K release, while GWTW cannot? While controversial, GWTW has proven itself to have a very significant audience theatrically this year. It still has a very significant fan base. Do you think the original elements would not yield beneficial results in a 4K reissue while so many other 1939 films are being reissued in 4K, including “Wizard of Oz”?

    I presume that Oz may have also needed a help to make it work in 4k

  25. IMHO I think we will see GWTW, Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia and the 10 Commandments in the UHD format at some point down the line. No one has told me any confidential information and just going by a hunch, although LOA has been heavily rumored to be upcoming

  26. Robert Harris

    Robert,

    Very different films. GW is littered with multiple mattes and opticals, Moreno than even Oz, which blend nicely in dye transfer, which is probably lower Rez than 2k. At 4, it would need a great deal of hand-holding.

    Also there's that "shifted up a perf" problem right?

  27. Robert Harris

    Robert,

    Very different films. GW is littered with multiple mattes and opticals, Moreno than even Oz, which blend nicely in dye transfer, which is probably lower Rez than 2k. At 4, it would need a great deal of hand-holding.

    Also there's that "shifted up a perf" problem right?

  28. I have the 70th Anniversary edition of Gone With The Wind on Blu-ray so the only way I will purchase this again is on 4K UHD Blu-ray. The 80th Anniversary would have been really nice to see this film released in 4K! When they do decide to put out the 4K UHD Blu-ray it would be nice if they used Dolby Vision. Until then my current disc can be upconverted to 4K so that will hold me over till an actual 4K disc is released! IMHO this film deserves a 4K release on it's 80th Anniversary. Have heard a rumor that Gone With The Wind received an 8K scan and would love to know if this is true as another classic did actually get a 8K scan during it's restoration.

    Went to bluray.com and entered Gone With The Wind and a 80th Anniversary version doesn't even show up!
    View attachment 62454

    View attachment 62453

  29. I have the 70th Anniversary edition of Gone With The Wind on Blu-ray so the only way I will purchase this again is on 4K UHD Blu-ray. The 80th Anniversary would have been really nice to see this film released in 4K! When they do decide to put out the 4K UHD Blu-ray it would be nice if they used Dolby Vision. Until then my current disc can be upconverted to 4K so that will hold me over till an actual 4K disc is released! IMHO this film deserves a 4K release on it's 80th Anniversary. Have heard a rumor that Gone With The Wind received an 8K scan and would love to know if this is true as another classic did actually get a 8K scan during it's restoration.

    Went to bluray.com and entered Gone With The Wind and a 80th Anniversary version doesn't even show up!
    View attachment 62454

    View attachment 62453

  30. The first few times I saw GWTW as a boy and a teen was the wide screen version. So I would like to see that version as well. I bet though no prints exist and they all might have been tossed. Saw it when it came to the suburbs and then at great 70mm houses such as the NY Rivoli and NJ Bellevue. Maybe now it would be unwatchable?

  31. Just zoom in and pretty much the same effect as in the theater (maybe even the same approx technique use) — lot's of heads chopped off, and 30-40% of the film will be missing. The zooming effect will likely approximate the poor print quality that most of those had — I'm assuming they were probably around 1.75. I don't know if they just sent std prints and told the theater to matte the films to whatever screen they had or if they did that at the printing stage and just masked it down to some sort of widescreen on the print itself.

  32. David Norman

    I don't know if they just sent std prints and told the theater to matte the films to whatever screen they had or if they did that at the printing stage and just masked it down to some sort of widescreen on the print itself.

    It was a pretty massive undertaking at the time. The film was essentially re-photographed in 1967 onto 65mm stock with all of the shots re-positioned and extracted as necessary to fit a 2.2:1 ratio in a sort of reverse pan & scan process. It was not like the 1954 re-release where only three (or so) re-positioned shots were cut into the printing master and then the whole picture was run through a 1.66:1 masking. The widescreen image as presented on the 70mm print was really the only option for theaters at the time.

    Here are two shots from Martin Hart's Widescreen Museum (http://www.widescreenmuseum.com) that illustrate this:

    The first shows the original film with the extraction area laid over it (The extraction area could be panned up and down to catch the "best" bits of every shot to reduce heads being cut off, etc)
    View attachment 62455

    The second shows a faded 70mm film print of the same shot.
    View attachment 62457

    It was a crazy from a quality perspective but financially an undeniable blockbuster. I can't imagine ever wanting to watch it this way myself (beyond a few minutes of it, anyway) but I suppose it has a morbid curiosity and might be fun for completists.

  33. I saw the film in 1976 in Paris in 70 mm. At that point the idea that this format was not ideal was widely-known. I tried to pay attention to what looked wrong about it. The matte shot with Melanie and Ashley walking at the barbecue while a jealous Scarlett looks on is what I remember most. It was blurry and pale.

    But after that, the quality problems were forgotten as the sold out audience and I became caught up in the film. I remember thinking , “Well, that didn’t look so bad.”

    I know that, after all these years, and all of the prints I have seen (I have logged all my viewings and they number 525 now…yep it’s nuts), I would never think this is the way to show GWTW to the public.

    But, as I noticed with the malarial-looking screening this spring by Fantom, audiences don’t seem to let that kind of thing in the way of their enjoyment.

  34. The problem with 35mm prints of GWTW in the early 70s was terrible registration problems and generally worn prints cropped for modern screens in the projector. And they still had lost the sweeping title in the prints I saw. At least the 70mm prints I saw were cleaner, with no registration problems and not cropped in the projector, but panned in the printing. It was far from ideal, but given a choice, I waited for a 70mm screening. Would love to see at least a sampling of a 70mm print again, now that I have seen it properly restored. But I would never choose to watch it as an official viewing.

  35. Rob_Ray

    The problem with 35mm prints of GWTW in the early 70s was terrible registration problems and generally worn prints cropped for modern screens in the projector. And they still had lost the sweeping title in the prints I saw. At least the 70mm prints I saw were cleaner, with no registration problems and not cropped in the projector, but panned in the printing.

    Unless I'm completely off base, I believe the 70mm version did play engagements after the road show runs in 35mm anamorphic prints. Were those prints you saw 1.37:1 or 2.2:1? I only ask because I believe the main titles were only recomposed for the "wider" 70mm version and the fact that it was a further print down to 35mm and then un-squeezed again would account for that look. They would both have been cropped before they hit the projector though?

  36. Will Krupp

    Unless I'm completely off base, I believe the 70mm version did play engagements after the road show runs in 35mm anamorphic prints. Were those prints you saw 1.37:1 or 2.2:1? I only ask because I believe the main titles were only recomposed for the "wider" 70mm version and the fact that it was a further print down to 35mm and then un-squeezed again would account for that look. They would both have been cropped before they hit the projector though?[/QUOTE

    The 35mm prints were not anamorphic, had an aspect ratio of 1.87:1, had no panning in the titles and always had registration problems in the Christmas sequence and in Frank's store. I never saw the sweep titles until just before it was sold to TV when I caught a film classics print in a museum screening.

  37. Rob_Ray

    The 35mm prints were not anamorphic, had an aspect ratio of 1.87:1, had no panning in the titles and always had registration problems in the Christmas sequence and in Frank's store. I never saw the sweep titles until just before it was sold to TV when I caught a film classics print in a museum screening.

    Well THAT'S interesting! Thanks, Rob!

  38. Robert Harris

    Robert,

    Very different films. GW is littered with multiple mattes and opticals, Moreno than even Oz, which blend nicely in dye transfer, which is probably lower Rez than 2k. At 4, it would need a great deal of hand-holding.

    And iirc Oz used a slightly earlier version of Technicolor stock requiring more light. This made the actors for Oz in their elaborate make-up and costumes suffer terribly, but my guess is that this may have yielded a highly resolved image. GWTW is I think the slightly later stock that allowed for somewhat lower light—plus the film in some places uses dramatic shadows and lower light. And as already mentioned by our resident expert, the opticals and mattes in GWTW don't always look that great. In contrast, most of the special effects in Oz for a variety of reasons seem to stand up better to close examination in high resolution. Just my 2 cents, but I certainly yield to the many here who are greater experts than I in such things.

  39. benbess

    And iirc Oz used a slightly earlier version of Technicolor stock requiring more light. This made the actors for Oz in their elaborate make-up and costumes suffer terribly, but my guess is that this may have yielded a highly resolved image. GWTW is I think the slightly later stock that allowed for somewhat lower light—plus the film in some places uses dramatic shadows and lower light. And as already mentioned by our resident expert, the opticals and mattes in GWTW don't always look that great. In contrast, most of the special effects in Oz for a variety of reasons seem to stand up better to close examination in high resolution. Just my 2 cents, but I certainly yield to the many here who are greater experts than I in such things.

    Many actors from Oz felt the effects of the hot lights, Bert Lahr, The Cowardly Lion fainted a few times caused by the heat from the lights. Poor Ray Bolger, The Scarecrow had it the worse as his burlap mask made it impossible for him to sweat.

    Everything in Oz is just about believable, where as in GWTW the live action film and matte paintings didn't blend together as well as Oz did. Tara looks like it's a matte painting in a lot of shots and it was an actual real set.

    Will Krupp

    Let's just hope Dorothy didn't actually try to keep on dancing down that yellow brick road outta Munchkinland! 😮

    The yellow brick road out of Munchinkland was 40 ft, so Judy would've only gone a just bit further before it ended completely.

  40. I saw GWTW in the Jersey suburbs at Christmas of ’68. It had played a year roadshow before which was amazing for a film almost 30. The print was a 35mm analogue print. It was like seeing it in Panavision. It was the first time seeing it so that was the way the film was supposed to look. And after subsequent views when I finally saw it in its original configuration I was like where’s the rest of the film? As I said the 70mm prints made the rounds through the early to mid ’70. After the original 70mm run at the Rivoli it played it twice in the 70s. I assume when the film went into wide release in ’68 all the prints were in 35mm analogue and all in the splendor of wide screen.

  41. Ken Koc

    It's the actual biggest money maker of all time, yet Warner will not restore to todays standards?

    ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

  42. Ken Koc

    It's the actual biggest money maker of all time, yet Warner will not restore to todays standards?

    I would this like title on 4K disc, but even I don't understand your comment about it not being restore to today's standards.

  43. Robert Crawford

    I would this like title on 4K disc, but even I don't understand your comment about it not being restore to today's standards.

    One would have to essentially change the film. At that point, it would no longer be the Best Picture of 1939.

  44. Robert Harris

    One would have to essentially change the film. At that point, it would no longer be the Best Picture of 1939.

    I don't understand if TWOO can get a 4K/Dolby Vision release then why not this 1939 film. You telling me that the film stock makes that much difference from the same production year?

  45. They may be from the same year, but they are very different productions. As I understand it, any gains from upgrading GWTW to 4K would be mainly offset by deficiencies that would become apparent due to the nature of the production (such as film stock, lower light cinematography, and number of matte shots).

    I'm happy enough with the BR as my display is only a 46" LCD, and I still well remember the old days of VHS and laserdisc. I'm also 50 years old and I'm not sure my eyes are 4K-capable.

    Robert Crawford

    I don't understand if TWOO can get a 4K/Dolby Vision release then why not this 1939 film. You telling me that the film stock makes that much difference from the same production year?

  46. Robert Harris

    ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    I think Robert's cat has been walking on his laptop again…

  47. Ken Koc

    It's the actual biggest money maker of all time, yet Warner will not restore to todays standards?

    Robert Harris

    ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    That means replacing Gable with a CG character…

  48. Neil S. Bulk

    Gone With The Wind is $5 on iTunes right now. If it get's a 4k release, this will be upgraded.

    Hi all. Been quite a while since I posted.
    GWTW is also $5 on Amazon (digital version). While PQ could be better, I figured for five bucks I couldn't go wrong.

  49. Let's address the elephants in the room here: available film elements and resolution, not to mention colour. GTTW was just about destroyed by the 70mm "conversion" process. Elements intercut here, there and everywhere with the OCN. The process shots have already been addressed, with the attendant loss of resolution with any optical process, since such shots are generations away from the OCN. As RAH has already pointed out, GTTW's current form might not even make it to 2K resolution, much less 4K resolution, which leaves the remaining elements of UHD: HDR, WCG and HLG. As far as HDR goes, you cannot squeeze anymore contrast range out of a 1939 film with as many opticals as GTTW, and may not even be able to get anything out of TWOO. The contrast range drops with every generation. As for WCG, we are limited by the technology used, being early 3-strip Technicolor; even if an Ultra-Resolution master was possible here, the colour range is necessarily limited by all facets of technology [resolution of B&W film at the time, amount of light available on set, camera optics]. As for HLG, we're back to contrast, which has already been explained.

    Tl;dr: an 80th anniversary edition might be nice, but don't fool yourself into thinking a 4K UHD disc is necessary.

  50. Stephen_J_H

    Let's address the elephants in the room here: available film elements and resolution, not to mention colour. GTTW was just about destroyed by the 70mm "conversion" process. Elements intercut here, there and everywhere with the OCN. The process shots have already been addressed, with the attendant loss of resolution with any optical process, since such shots are generations away from the OCN. As RAH has already pointed out, GTTW's current form might not even make it to 2K resolution, much less 4K resolution, which leaves the remaining elements of UHD: HDR, WCG and HLG. As far as HDR goes, you cannot squeeze anymore contrast range out of a 1939 film with as many opticals as GTTW, and may not even be able to get anything out of TWOO. The contrast range drops with every generation. As for WCG, we are limited by the technology used, being early 3-strip Technicolor; even if an Ultra-Resolution master was possible here, the colour range is necessarily limited by all facets of technology [resolution of B&W film at the time, amount of light available on set, camera optics]. As for HLG, we're back to contrast, which has already been explained.

    Tl;dr: an 80th anniversary edition might be nice, but don't fool yourself into thinking a 4K UHD disc is necessary.

    I’m unaware of any OCN cutting affected by the 70mm release.

    And to make the point again, biggest problem are dupes combing mattes with production footage. Dye transfer prints, especially 1939-47, were notoriously soft, hiding a multitude of sins. Take that away, and one opens a veritable Pandora’s Box.

  51. Robert Harris

    I’m unaware of any OCN cutting affected by the 70mm release.

    And to make the point again, biggest problem are dupes combing mattes with production footage. Dye transfer prints, especially 1939-47, were notoriously soft, hiding a multitude of sins. Take that away, and one opens a veritable Pandora’s Box.

    It does seem silly to demand ultra high resolution softness…..

  52. Went to a theater in Pacific Palisades to see GWTW last night because they were supposedly showing it in 35mm. When the audience was seated, we were told that during a “quality check” the theater deemed the print faulty and we were therefore treated to the same digital print that has been showing for years.

    I have a couple questions regarding the digital print being shown. I had seen DCPs of the film when they first came out, but, since the Fathom Entertainment release, I could swear the print looks different. The color timing seems more brownish – almost sepia like, at times. Does anyone know if any changes have been made? The skin tones seemed more reddish before in the first DCPs.

  53. Mr. Harris, is there any way you could find information about WB’s plans for GWTW? It still would be nice for *something* to happen for the 80th…watching it last night, the process shots, of which there are many, are numerous. I just can’t figure out why they wouldn’t fix the shot of Tara during the “Land is the only thing that matters” scene. The shot of the house actually seems to be moving vertically.

  54. SD_Brian

    The, shall we say, problematic aspects of GWTW have been controversies to one degree or another since 1939. Fathom events did an 80th anniversary screening event earlier this year, which would suggest WB is not nervous about re-releasing it.

    Maybe they are stuck in deliberations over what kind of swag to include in the over-sized 80th-anniversary box set? Perhaps a commemorative Gone With the Wind 80th-Anniversary electric fan?

    We all know what non-disc extras they really need to include:

    [​IMG]

  55. MatthewA

    We all know what non-disc extras they really need to include:

    [​IMG]

    No, that would be included in a Carol Burnett Ultimate Collector's Blu-ray Edition along with a Mr. Tuddball intercom mug, As The Stomach Turns door bell keychain that when pressed it rings off cue and a Eunice's dress designed apron.

  56. MatthewA

    We all know what non-disc extras they really need to include:

    [​IMG]

    What about…this "Here's Lucy" Flip Wilson episode?

    [​IMG]

    Scarlett & Prissy. Gale Gordon was Rhett and Lucie Arnaz
    a very pregnant Melanie.

  57. MartinP.

    What about…this "Here's Lucy" Flip Wilson episode?

    [​IMG]

    Scarlett & Prissy. Gale Gordon was Rhett and Lucie Arnaz
    a very pregnant Melanie.

    Probably be considered racist by today's standards as well as being offensive to the LGBT community.

  58. rsmithjr

    Flip Wilson is an icon to the gay community. Never said or did anything offensive.

    I was a little kid when Wilson hit his popular peak, and I was 7 when his show left the air. I was definitely aware of him and pretty sure my family watched the show, but I don't have great memories of his work.

    I do recall that he was enormously popular – so much so that the way his career immediately plummeted when the show left the air when it stopped shocks me.

    It's unclear to me if this was his choice or not. Did he intentionally recede from the spotlight or did he just lose popularity?

  59. He also flopped in a CBS sitcom called Charlie and Company in 1985. Gladys Knight played his wife, and she seemed less uncomfortable with it than he did at being tied down to a single non-drag character in a show obviously meant to capitalize on the ratings success of The Cosby Show, which was in Flip's old NBC time slot.* Jaleel White, who later went on to play Steve Urkel** and do the voice of Sonic the Hedgehog (as well as a small part in the movie of Dreamgirls), played their son.

    *The Devil and Max Devlin made them do it.
    **Family Matters premiered in 1989, the same year GWTW turned 50.

  60. Ken Koc

    I am surprised there not even a whisper about a 4K of Gone With The Wind's 80th Anniversary.
    Is Warner's not interested in what is biggest selling movie of all time?

    Does anyone know who I can contact at Warner Bros. to ask about this.

  61. RICK BOND

    GWTW & Ben-Hur ! Both Anniversaries this year and NO 4K UHD releases ? Just Oz ??

    If there were newer revelations to be found in a 4K/UHD of GWTW, then I'd be all over that one, as well.
    But, it is now known that not all films would benefit from this format; and would actually reveal its seams and secrets.
    Please refer to Posts #66-68 and also Post #76, where Robert Harris explains its likely pitfalls.

    Yes, it's hard to imagine that if one film from 1939 could benefit from the 4K/UHD treatment, then all films from the same year might follow. Here at HTF, I have learned that restoration, transfers and format changes are never a case of one size – or year – fits all. This also holds true for the restoration for large format films. Just because a restoration of "Lawrence of Arabia" or "My Fair Lady" was able to garner the miracles we celebrated and cherished, does not mean that the same approaches and formula would work on the remaining 70mm films. Or, if I may paraphrase RAH upon this topic, "Each films presents a different set of problems".

    In the end, if a 4K/UHD of GWTW isn't going to lead to something better but, rather, something uglier then we must accept this. At the same time, though, I see little wrong in knowing that I have lived to witness GWTW at its actual peak on a Blu Ray disc. As it is, I'm amazed that we're even getting "The Wizard of Oz" on a 4K/UHD disc and, perhaps, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". But, since you've also mentioned "Ben-Hur" I, too, would be eager to see what that might look like; but only if its a proper candidate for this format.

  62. PMF

    On a final note, since you've also mentioned "Ben-Hur" I, too, would be eager to see what this Wyler-Surtees canvas might look like; but only if its a proper candidate for this format.

    I'm going out on a limb to say that it is a far more proper candidate for this format than GTTW or any of the others suggested, as it is large format and in good shape if the HD masters are anything to go by. Rock-steady with great colour.

  63. Stephen_J_H

    I'm going out on a limb to say that it is a far more proper candidate for this format than GTTW or any of the others suggested, as it is large format and in good shape if the HD masters are anything to go by. Rock-steady with great colour.

    Seeing the work that WB performed, one might be led to believe that Ben-Hur might be in great shape. One would be wrong.

    Should it be considered for a 4k release?

    Yes.

  64. I wish people would actually read the preceding posts

    Nowhere does it say that GWTW has problems.

    There were some posts that stated that increased resolution of older films MIGHT reveal some issues. But we do not know that GWTW has these issues or that a properly prepared 4K would display any issues.

  65. David Weicker

    I wish people would actually read the preceding posts

    Nowhere does it say that GWTW has problems.

    There were some posts that stated that increased resolution of older films MIGHT reveal some issues. But we do not know that GWTW has these issues or that a properly prepared 4K would display any issues.

    I think Robert Harris has already answered that earlier in the thread.

    And to make the point again, biggest problem are dupes combing mattes with production footage. Dye transfer prints, especially 1939-47, were notoriously soft, hiding a multitude of sins. Take that away, and one opens a veritable Pandora’s Box.

    https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/posts/4777692/

    One would have to essentially change the film. At that point, it would no longer be the Best Picture of 1939.

    https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/posts/4777495/

  66. David Weicker

    There were some posts that stated that increased resolution of older films MIGHT reveal some issues. But we do not know that GWTW has these issues or that a properly prepared 4K would display any issues.

    Worth

    I think Robert Harris has already answered that earlier in the thread.

    Robert Harris

    And to make the point again, biggest problem are dupes combing mattes with production footage. Dye transfer prints, especially 1939-47, were notoriously soft, hiding a multitude of sins. Take that away, and one opens a veritable Pandora’s Box.

    With all due respect and to David's point, what do dye transfer prints have to with a 4K remaster? The blu-ray (and even the DVD) were not made from dye transfer prints, but were already made from the original negatives recombined in the ultra-resolution process. Haven't we already "taken away" the marriage between the movie and the original prints? Wasn't any similarity to dye transfer prints just digital mimicry anyway?

    MatthewA

    They just want the 4K market to be larger than it is now.

    This seems to make more sense, to be honest.

  67. Will Krupp

    With all due respect and to David's point, what do dye transfer prints have to with a 4K remaster? The blu-ray (and even the DVD) were not made from dye transfer prints, but were already made from the original negatives recombined in the ultra-resolution process. Haven't we already "taken away" the marriage between the movie and the original prints? Wasn't any similarity to dye transfer prints just digital mimicry anyway?

    This seems to make more sense, to be honest.

    Let me try this one last time.

    None of this discussion has anything to do with dye transfer printing, original negatives, or 4k resolution, except for a single factor.

    The film was produced, designed and photographed, to be reproduced in a certain way, with the knowledge that prints would accurately reproduce the film as conceived.

    Under those specific constraints, the effects worked.

    That concept, and the means by which the effects were created and photographed, presumed a final projected resolution of less than 2k.

    In later original prints, c. 1961, some of the seams began to show.

    In HD, they become obvious to the knowledgeable eye.

    At 4k, they look amateurish.

    Which is not what the filmmakers had in mind.

    And these flaws are not correctible, without changing the film.

  68. Robert Harris

    Let me try this one last time.

    None of this discussion has anything to do with dye transfer printing, original negatives, or 4k resolution, except for a single factor.

    The film was produced, designed and photographed, to be reproduced in a certain way, with the knowledge that prints would accurately reproduce the film as conceived.

    Under those specific constraints, the effects worked.

    That concept, and the means by which the effects were created and photographed, presumed a final projected resolution of less than 2k.

    In later original prints, c. 1961, some of the seams began to show.

    In HD, they become obvious to the knowledgeable eye.

    At 4k, they look amateurish.

    Which is not what the filmmakers had in mind.

    And these flaws are not correctible, without changing the film.

    All good points. It will be interesting to see what the 4K Wizard Of Oz looks like, as I'm assuming all the issues of seams and joints apply to this production too.

  69. titch

    All good points. It will be interesting to see what the 4K Wizard Of Oz looks like, as I'm assuming all the issues of seams and joints apply to this production too.

    Best not to make assumptions.

    Two very different films.

  70. Robert Harris

    Let me try this one last time.

    None of this discussion has anything to do with dye transfer printing, original negatives, or 4k resolution, except for a single factor.

    The film was produced, designed and photographed, to be reproduced in a certain way, with the knowledge that prints would accurately reproduce the film as conceived.

    Under those specific constraints, the effects worked.

    That concept, and the means by which the effects were created and photographed, presumed a final projected resolution of less than 2k.

    In later original prints, c. 1961, some of the seams began to show.

    In HD, they become obvious to the knowledgeable eye.

    At 4k, they look amateurish.

    Which is not what the filmmakers had in mind.

    And these flaws are not correctible, without changing the film.

    That raises the question whether anything shot on 35mm prior to the digital era should be viewed in 4K, as filmmakers were surely aware that prints and projection would limit detail to well below 4K.

  71. The scene under the oak, with Scarlett and Gerald was reformatted, but when it dissolves into the next scene, the miniature carriage jumps twice. Did they remove frames when reformatting the film, or was this a mistake in the original optical composite?

  72. Colin Jacobson

    Not sure why WB would deem the market big enough for "Oz" and not "Wind"…

    OZ is eternal and people will always buy it for their kids. I think we, unfortunately, need to face the fact that the audience for GWTW is aging and more specific. You may disagree with me but I think that, in today's hypersensitive times, it's also becoming regarded as something of a problematic relic by younger audiences.

  73. Will Krupp

    OZ is eternal and people will always buy it for their kids. I think we, unfortunately, need to face the fact that the audience for GWTW is aging and more specific. You may disagree with me but I think that, in today's hypersensitive times, it's also becoming regarded as something of a problematic relic by younger audiences.

    Dear Will: If that's true then the times decidedly need to be brought back in line with the fact GWTW is not a production of today, but of a yester-world in which racial biases were, if not acceptable, then decidedly tolerated. And Selznick, incredibly sensitive to the plight of the Jews in Europe then, was shaken to reconsider what some of the incidents, as depicted in Mitchell's novel likely meant to Blacks in America. There are memos devoted to Selznick's consternation on this subject alone. As such, he removed all references in the novel to the Ku Klux Klan and excising the 'n' word too, plus depictions of a whipping and references to a lynching.

    Indeed, the word 'darkie' only appears twice in the movie, once as part of Gable's faux-drunken revelry, returning to Melanie's with a wounded Ashley on his arm; the other, when Gable's Rhett is about to usher Scarlett, Melanie and Prissie by carriage through the already afire streets of Atlanta. And to suggest GWTW stirs the specter of racism with an indiscriminate stick, making light of racial politics in America circa 1939 is just a very idiotic and misguided assumption. Aside: not that you did this, Will. Just my two cents worth.

    While no one can deny Prissie is a little less than forthcoming in the brains department, played by Butterfly McQueen as pure comic relief, her performance is more than counterbalanced by Hattie McDaniel's superb and Oscar-worthy turn as the forthright Mammy who is, among other things, the voice of reason, Scarlett's conscience, Melanie's confidant, and Rhett's greatest champion; the one who is really in charge of maintaining Scarlett and Rhett's perfect world after the Civil War and their move into that ostentatious mansion in Atlanta. Mammy does soooooo much more than serve and is never servile in the process. Anyone who suggests Mammy is a racially loaded stereotype had best give their PC-brainwashed heads a thorough shake, because McDaniel represents something fine, even progressive, within the context of the picture's 'old south/new south milieu.

    So, no – if that's the reason WB did not release GWTW in 4K for its 80th it's a very myopic reason indeed, pandering to a generation and a time that truly is out of whack with America's once galvanized logic, dedicated to truth and justice. If there ever comes an epoch when GWTW is not considered the grand art of its generation – timeless and beloved – then I think it will sincerely be time to reconsider if the puffed out moralizing all out of proportion inculcated in America today is, in fact, progressive-thinking or mere brainwashing run amok, and not worth keeping.

    So, I'll chose to believe WB did not release a 4K of GWTW right now because doing 4K restorations is costly enough, and one per fiscal quarter of a time-honored classic was enough. As Oz is so obviously beloved by millions, regardless of age, creed, sex or race, it won the coin toss. And although I'll concur with Robert Harris here, that the original elements likely need a lot more massaging to ready them for UHD, I am just a tad more optimistic about what the future might hold for a remastered GWTW in 4K – given the appropriate time and money correctly spent. We'll see GWTW in 4K eventually. And I am certain it will look miraculous as never before. Here's to hoping, anyway.

  74. Nick*Z

    So, no – if that's the reason WB did not release GWTW in 4K for its 80th it's a very myopic reason indeed, pandering to a generation and a time that truly is out of whack with America's once galvanized logic, dedicated to truth and justice. If there ever comes an epoch when GWTW is not considered the grand art of its generation – timeless and beloved – then I think it will sincerely be time to reconsider if the puffed out moralizing all out of proportion inculcated in America today is, in fact, progressive-thinking or mere brainwashing run amok, and not worth keeping.

    Woah! I knew as soon as I hit enter that this would happen and someone would take ME to task for bringing this up. Please don't shoot the messenger here. GWTW is probably my favorite movie and I can actually quote it line for line along with the onscreen cast (and have done it as a party piece on more than once occasion.)

    Your argument is not with me. Make the argument all you want but you can't deny that, in our current climate, GWTW is something of a harder sell than it once was. We can pretend it's not happening, but it is.

    ALL that I was doing was answering a possible reason as to why OZ was a safer 4K bet than GWTW for sales in 2019 and why one might get a release based on potential buyers while the other doesn't necessarily have the same guarantee. It's a possible reason why ONE got the investment over the other. Trust me, I hope I'm wrong.

  75. While controversial, let’s not ignore the fact that GWTW in January and February became Fathom Events’ highest grossing classic movie presentation of all time. Take a look at the other remarkable films that have been shown, including “The Wizard of Oz” and you’ll see what an achievement that was. In fact GWTW has enjoyed many successful engagements this year and the audiences included people of all ages. So, though it is controversial, I very much doubt this is why it is not being released on 4k.

  76. David Weicker

    I wish people would actually read the preceding posts

    Nowhere does it say that GWTW has problems.

    There were some posts that stated that increased resolution of older films MIGHT reveal some issues. But we do not know that GWTW has these issues or that a properly prepared 4K would display any issues.

    If I was incorrect in my own readings and interpretations of the preceding posts then I, for one, would actually be thrilled.
    Make no mistakes, if more can be elicited from a 4K/UHD of GWTW;
    while also maintaining the originally intended visuals of Victor Fleming and Ernest Haller;
    then each and all at HTF can count me in.

  77. PMF

    If I was incorrect in my own readings and interpretations of the preceding posts then I, for one, would actually be thrilled.
    Make no mistakes, if more can be elicited from a 4K/UHD of GWTW;
    while also maintaining the integrity of Victor Fleming and Ernest Haller's original designs;
    then each and all at HTF can count me in.

    As well as George Cukor's designs as he was the first director of GWTW.

  78. Can somebody explain that to me? I saw the film 10 times this year and most of the time there were quite a few younger audience members. While I realize the film is definitely problematic, if there weren’t a significant audience still out there for the film, it certainly would not have been so successful – so successful, in fact, that Fathom added several days to the original schedule. Why is that reality being ignored?

    At any rate, I watched the Bette Davis blu-ray of “Jezebel” the other night and that more, in my opinion, has at least as many, if not more racially offensive scenes in it that does GWTW, yet it was released by WB.

  79. GWTWTOO

    At any rate, I watched the Bette Davis blu-ray of "Jezebel" the other night and that more, in my opinion, has at least as many, if not more racially offensive scenes in it that does GWTW, yet it was released by WB.

    Gone with the Wind has been released many times, just not on 4K. Jezebel wasn't released on 4K either.

  80. GWTWTOO

    At any rate, I watched the Bette Davis blu-ray of "Jezebel" the other night and that more, in my opinion, has at least as many, if not more racially offensive scenes in it that does GWTW, yet it was released by WB.

    I think the issue with GWTW is that it presents a romanticized, whitewashed view of slavery in which the slaves know their place and seem content with the social order. The slaves are more of an extended family rather than property and the time period is written the way Margaret Mitchell wishes it had been. AS much as I love the film, I can't really find fault with that criticism. All I know is that when a group of people who share a common cultural heritage (that I don't) are offended by something, it's not my place to tell them whether they're allowed to be or not. All I can do is listen and respect how its making them feel, whether I feel the same or not.

    GWTW's phenomenal success makes it as conspicuous target because it is so well known. Most people (who aren't us) have never heard of JEZEBEL, yet most everybody at least knows OF GWTW.

  81. Will Krupp

    I think the issue with GWTW is that it presents a romanticized, whitewashed view of slavery in which the slaves know their place and seem content with the social order. All I know is that when a group of people who share a common cultural heritage (that I don't) are offended by something, it's not my place to tell them whether they're allowed to be or not. All I can do is listen and respect how its making them feel, whether I feel the same or not.

    GWTW's phenomenal success makes it as conspicuous target because it is so well known. Most people (who aren't us) have never heard of JEZEBEL, yet most everybody at least knows OF GWTW.

    Thank you for saying that!

  82. Will Krupp

    OZ is eternal and people will always buy it for their kids. I think we, unfortunately, need to face the fact that the audience for GWTW is aging and more specific. You may disagree with me but I think that, in today's hypersensitive times, it's also becoming regarded as something of a problematic relic by younger audiences.

    "GWTW" has been a relic for younger audiences for eons. You don't have to be "hypersensitive" to feel offended by its racism.

    None of this kept it from being a home video evergreen, and I don't believe it's being kept off 4K UHD due to a desire to wait for the format to gain a greater market share…

  83. Will Krupp

    I think the issue with GWTW is that it presents a romanticized, whitewashed view of slavery in which the slaves know their place and seem content with the social order. The slaves are more of an extended family rather than property and the time period is written the way Margaret Mitchell wishes it had been. All I know is that when a group of people who share a common cultural heritage (that I don't) are offended by something, it's not my place to tell them whether they're allowed to be or not. All I can do is listen and respect how its making them feel, whether I feel the same or not.

    I haven't seen this film all the way through in quite some time, but from what I do remember the slaves on Tara at least weren't seen that much. Hattie McDaniel has the most screen time of any black actor in the film. Mammy, aside from having a stereotyped name didn't act like a black maid from the era would have.

    I personally don't see Mammy being a racial stereotype were as Butterfly McQueen as Prissy, I can't argue with that. What little time she has on screen ,she steals the show every time.

  84. Colin Jacobson

    I don't believe it's being kept off 4K UHD due to a desire to wait for the format to gain a greater market share…

    ok

    Colin Jacobson

    You don't have to be "hypersensitive" to feel offended by its racism.

    Hypersensitive was the wrong word choice and I'll own that, but people are less willing to let things slide in today's highly enlightened culture.

  85. Will Krupp

    I think the issue with GWTW is that it presents a romanticized, whitewashed view of slavery in which the slaves know their place and seem content with the social order. The slaves are more of an extended family rather than property and the time period is written the way Margaret Mitchell wishes it had been. AS much as I love the film, I can't really find fault with that criticism. All I know is that when a group of people who share a common cultural heritage (that I don't) are offended by something, it's not my place to tell them whether they're allowed to be or not. All I can do is listen and respect how its making them feel, whether I feel the same or not.

    GWTW's phenomenal success makes it as conspicuous target because it is so well known. Most people (who aren't us) have never heard of JEZEBEL, yet most everybody at least knows OF GWTW.

    I agree with you completely

  86. MatthewA

    There's also the more pressing issue of the fact that very few small children will sit still for a four-hour movie with no elements of fantasy or sorcery.

    I don't think too many children saw this in theaters unless their parents dragged them along. Most kids probably saw this when it had it's network TV debut on NBC in 1976.

  87. darkrock17

    I don't think too many children saw this in theaters unless their parents dragged them along. Most kids probably saw this when it had it's network TV debut on NBC in 1976.

    A lot of kids saw this movie in the movie theater. I know my parents did in their childhood. This movie was such a big deal back in the day that whole families went to see it before TV took off later on.

  88. Robert Crawford

    A lot of kids saw this movie in the movie theater. I know my parents did in their childhood. This movie was such a big deal back in the day that whole families went to see it.

    They must of been over a certain age as anything under 8 years old, I can't see kids sitting through this entire film.

  89. darkrock17

    They must of been over a certain age as anything under 8 years old, I can't see kids sitting through this entire film.

    You'll be surprise as movies and the radio were the primary source of family entertainment besides books in 1939/1940.

  90. Robert Crawford

    You'll be surprise as movies and the radio were the primary source of family entertainment besides books in 1939/1940.

    I am aware of that, but I still don't see a 3 year old of any decade being entertained by Scarlet and Rhet over Dorothy and friends.

  91. darkrock17

    I am aware of that, but I still don't see a 3 year old of any decade being entertained by Scarlet and Rhet over Dorothy and friends.

    Now, you're changing the goal posts as we started off with children then eight year olds and now 3 year olds. If a three year went then most likely they fell asleep which children did a lot back then. I know, I fell asleep when my family went to the movies when I was a toddler and that was circa 1960.

  92. darkrock17

    I don't think too many children saw this in theaters unless their parents dragged them along. Most kids probably saw this when it had it's network TV debut on NBC in 1976.

    One more thing, when GWTW first broadcast on NBC back in 1976, it was across two nights. I remember it like it was yesterday.

  93. Robert Crawford

    Now, you're changing the goal posts as we started off with children then eight year olds and now 3 year olds. If a three year went then most likely they fell asleep which children did a lot back then. I know, I fell asleep when my family went to the movies when I was a toddler and that was circa 1960.

    It doesn't matter the age of the children, point is that most who saw this weren't entertained by it, as you said you yourself fell asleep.

  94. Robert Crawford

    Now, you're changing the goal posts as we started off with children then eight year olds and now 3 year olds. If a three year went then most likely they fell asleep which children did a lot back then. I know, I fell asleep when my family went to the movies when I was a toddler and that was circa 1960.

    It doesn't matter the age of the children, point is that most who saw this weren't entertained by it, as you said you yourself fell asleep.

  95. Robert Crawford

    Now, you're changing the goal posts as we started off with children then eight year olds and now 3 year olds. If a three year went then most likely they fell asleep which children did a lot back then. I know, I fell asleep when my family went to the movies when I was a toddler and that was circa 1960.

    It doesn't matter the age of the children, point is that most who saw this weren't entertained by it, as you said you yourself fell asleep.

  96. darkrock17

    It doesn't matter the age of the children, point is that most who saw this weren't entertained by it, as you said you yourself fell asleep.

    I never question the point that most children weren't entertained by GWTW. I was disputing the following statement by you that started us down this discussion path.

    I don't think too many children saw this in theaters unless their parents dragged them along. Most kids probably saw this when it had it's network TV debut on NBC in 1976.

    Also, I never saw GWTW at a movie theater when I was a kid as I was alluding to some other movies my family went to see when I was kid. I saw GWTW as an adult in a movie theater.

    I'm done as I said my piece as you keep moving the goal posts in this discussion.

  97. MatthewA

    My grandmother was about 8 or 9 when she actually cut school to see it in its original run. It was that big of a deal.

    It was a Very big deal. Roadshow performances, advanced ticket sale. Don’t believe it hit outlying theaters for a couple of years. Re-issued 1947, 1954, 1961, 1967 and thereafter

  98. That picture of Lucille Ball with Flip Wilson is not that irrelevant to this thread … Lucy tested for the role of Scarlett. But it is not likely that audiences would have accepted a native of Jamestown, NY in that role.

  99. MatthewA

    That picture of Lucille Ball with Flip Wilson is not that irrelevant to this thread … Lucy tested for the role of Scarlett. But it is not likely that audiences would have accepted a native of Jamestown, NY in that role.

    Yet, they accepted a Brit born in India in that role.;)

  100. MatthewA

    That picture of Lucille Ball with Flip Wilson is not that irrelevant to this thread … Lucy tested for the role of Scarlett. But it is not likely that audiences would have accepted a native of Jamestown, NY in that role.

    Oh I can just see Lucy as Scarlett. And when faced with the problem of the $300 tax bill on Tara and eyeing the portieres, I can hear her saying, "I've got an idea!"

  101. Robert Crawford

    Yet, they accepted a Brit born in India in that role.;)

    Because she wasn't a Yankee!

    Rob_Ray

    Oh I can just see Lucy as Scarlett. And when faced with the problem of the $300 tax bill on Tara and eyeing the portieres, I can hear her saying, "I've got an idea!"

    Then they'd have to cast Vivian Vance as Melanie!

  102. Robert Crawford

    Yet, they accepted a Brit born in India in that role.;)

    Because she wasn't a Yankee!

    Rob_Ray

    Oh I can just see Lucy as Scarlett. And when faced with the problem of the $300 tax bill on Tara and eyeing the portieres, I can hear her saying, "I've got an idea!"

    Then they'd have to cast Vivian Vance as Melanie!

  103. Robert Crawford

    Yet, they accepted a Brit born in India in that role.;)

    Because she wasn't a Yankee!

    Rob_Ray

    Oh I can just see Lucy as Scarlett. And when faced with the problem of the $300 tax bill on Tara and eyeing the portieres, I can hear her saying, "I've got an idea!"

    Then they'd have to cast Vivian Vance as Melanie!

  104. Robert Crawford

    One more thing, when GWTW first broadcast on NBC back in 1976, it was across two nights. I remember it like it was yesterday.

    Me too! I can still remember sitting there mesmerized by it (I was 9) as clear as day. I was overwhelmed by the color from the moment the credits for Sidney Howard and Max Steiner flashed on the screen. Now I know that this was 1976 and I was watching it on a 26" console TV (the LIVING END at the time) so I KNOW I can't actually remember what the color looked like and I doubt it was really all that wonderful in retrospect, but I sure remember thinking it was. It made me fall in love with Technicolor in a way WIZARD OF OZ didn't (strangely enough.) EVERYBODY watched it, even ALL the other kids at school. You'd have thought it was the latest episode of WELCOME BACK, KOTTER, it was THAT relevant!

  105. Mike Frezon

    And I can see it when Rhett stood up to Scarlett:

    [​IMG]

    A rather different interpretation on "fiddle-dee-dee!"

    I would have loved to see Lucy do her take on Scarlett, that would of been a good episode for The Lucy-Desi Comedy Hour.

    ,

  106. I was 20 when GWTW made it's American network television debut in 1976, so my memory of it is quite clear. The color seemed quite a bit cooler and bluer (on my set anyway) than what I have seen before and since. But the main thing that sticks in my memory was that Ben Hecht's domestic opening title crawl was shown not against the slaves returning from the fields, but against the cloud background seen on the international prints' alternate opening titles. I have no idea why that would have been. Does anybody know the source for that print?

  107. I didn’t see GWTW during a national TV broadcast, but I did see it because it was one of like three VHS tapes my public school library owned…but it was never shown in any classes as far as I could tell. I got special permission to borrow it when I was around 10 (big movie fan even then). I didn’t get everything but it was big on a scale that was new to me…even on a TV.

    Saw the 1998 or whatever theatrical revival when I was in middle or high school and that’s when it really clicked for me both why the film was so popular and why it had detractors too.

  108. Rob_Ray

    The color seemed quite a bit cooler and bluer (on my set anyway) than what I have seen before and since.

    That's so funny you say that Rob because "Blue" is exactly the way I remember it! I chalked it up to a trick of childhood memory but I'm so happy to hear you say it, too!

  109. I saw this movie all the way through on TCM back in the early to mid 2000's, before that I had only seen parts of it with my mother in the 90's when it was either on TNT or another network. She would tell me what was going on in the film and what was going during the actual time period the film was set as it was on, an audio commentary in a sense.

  110. Rob_Ray

    I was 20 when GWTW made it's American network television debut in 1976, so my memory of it is quite clear. The color seemed quite a bit cooler and bluer (on my set anyway) than what I have seen before and since. But the main thing that sticks in my memory was that Ben Hecht's domestic opening title crawl was shown not against the slaves returning from the fields, but against the cloud background seen on the international prints' alternate opening titles. I have no idea why that would have been. Does anybody know the source for that print?

    No, but hopefully this will jog your memory of the broadcast. One of the commenters claims they used an old dye-transfer print for that broadcast alone but then they later switched to an Eastmancolor one for subsequent ones:

    I actually knew a teaching assistant in middle school born around the time of that broadcast whose name was Tara.

  111. Rob_Ray

    Oh I can just see Lucy as Scarlett. And when faced with the problem of the $300 tax bill on Tara and eyeing the portieres, I can hear her saying, "I've got an idea!"

    Toss in Desi as Rhett. "Scarlett, you got some 'splainin' to do!"

  112. I actually was able to show the film in class once. I was teaching Media summer school and when we reached the history of movies section, I decided this would be my only chance to use it. In the summer, new credit courses were 5 hours a day for a month instead of I hour a day for a semester, so we had the time to show it without breaking it up into 4 pieces. I don’t actually remember much about the discussion 10 or 15 years ago, but it seemed to go over well.

  113. One of the things I hated about watching movies in class (at any level) was breaking them up into chunks. Especially when multiple classes would get the same lesson, so five minutes of each day’s screening would be devoted to figuring out where we left off.

    When I got to high school and college, I was often able to persuade the teacher to excuse me from the screening portion by proving I had seen the film – can’t tell you how many times they put a movie on the syllabus, planned on renting it from Blockbuster, and then I’d tell them they could borrow my copy as long as I didn’t have to sit through it in pieces. That usually did the trick.

  114. I once showed “Vertigo” in class and had to stop on a Friday just as James Stewart and Kim Novak were in the car going back to the old monastery to reveal the mystery. It was at the end of the day and a few students stayed behind to see the end. When I resumed the next Monday, I discover that a large group couldn’t stand it and rented it over the weekend!

  115. When I moved into my college dorm, the school’s in-house channel was playing it, and a bunch of students who had never seen it gathered in the common room to watch it on the big screen TV in there. But something went wrong and the film stopped playing at about the same part you had to stop it that Friday. I had the VHS tape and a VCR in my room attached to a 20” TV, and I remember everyone cramming into my room to see how it ended.

Leave a Reply