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

101 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.

Leave a Reply