Looking forward to these Fox TODD-AO films on Blu-ray

[Hadrian]

I am really looking forward to these TODD-AO productions seeing the light of bluray.
CLEOPATRA

HELLO DOLLY

SOUND OF MUSIC

STAR

DOCTOR DOLITTLE

AGONY AND ECTASY

[banned user105]

yeah.

[franklinpross]

Originally Posted by Hadrian

I am really looking forward to these TOOD-AO productions seeing the light of bluray.
CLEOPATRA

HELLO DOLLY

SOUND OF MUSIC

STAR

DOCTOR DOLITTLE

AGONY AND ECTASY

And Around The World In Eighty Days?

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by franklinpross

And Around The World In Eighty Days?

Yeah, I liked Jackie Chan in that.

[nycomet]

What is "TODD-AO?" Is that like Technicolor?

[Russell_L]

And don't forget 'Oklahoma'!

[Rhylliam]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

Yeah, I liked Jackie Chan in that.

Hahahaha

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by franklinpross

And Around The World In Eighty Days?

That one was filmed in Todd-AO, but it wasn't a Fox film, nor does Fox own the video rights to it.

[42041]

Originally Posted by nycomet

What is "TODD-AO?" Is that like Technicolor?

It's a 70mm film format, which was most recently used for Baraka.

[Clark Kent]

It is too bad that virtually nothing is filmed anymore in 70mm. A modern film shot like that would look incredible on Blu-ray.

[garyrc]

Yeah, The Agony and the Ecstasy, and let's hope they put back the magnificent transition from the documentary prolog (ordinary 35 mm, and, as I remember, about 1.66:1) and the first shot in 70 mm Todd-A0, which has been missing from some prints, causing the CD liner notes to say "While the recording opens with a statement from a great cathedral organ, this is not heard in the film." Well, it certainly was there in the Todd-AO version, with the organ heard in glorious 6 channel stereo, and bone shivering volume! As I remember it, it was an abrupt transition from 35 mm to a Todd-AO image a little more than twice the size of the image we had just been watching, rather than the slow expansion of the image we saw in 80 Days, and other films. I won't tell you the subject matter of the shot is, but I will say that it illustrates how a large screen process can bring into awareness something that is hard to depict in 35 mm -- Monumental Art. My girl friend of the time and I both had tears forming, thanks to that one shot, and its music.

Speaking of music, The Agony and the Ecstasy is one of the few films to have two composers, with tender music by Jerry Goldsmith in the prolog, and a fine score by Alex North in the main part of the film.

Originally Posted by nycomet

What is "TODD-AO?" Is that like Technicolor?

O.K., I realize that there is a 99% chance that on this forum this is a joke ....
but since many of my daughter's well educated friends in their twenties, to say nothing of our neighbors or our realtor, haven't heard of Todd-AO, there may be some young people on the forum who don't know. I have to say that it is the most satisfying, and the most immersive large screen process I have ever seen, fostering more unwilling suspension of disbelief than any other. Its aspect ratio (2.2:1) does not interfere with getting lost in the image the way the too square IMAX, or the too elongated Ultra (not Super) Panavision 70, or its clone, MGM Camera 65, do, and there are no join lines, as in Cinerama. In the early years, Todd-AO was generally shown on a deeply curving screen that was reminiscent of the arc of vision. It was the first modern (1955) instance of the use of 70 mm film (65mm in the camera, 70 in the projector). The sound was generally magnificent 6 channel stereo, and the score to Around the World in 80 Days (1956 version, please!), as heard in a Todd-A0 theater, was the best large orchestra (114 players) recording I've heard, and the closest to the sound of the several orchestras in which I've played. It started out several of my friends and me in the audio hobby. Todd-AO had one very wide angle (128 degrees) camera lens that was rarely used, but they did use the next lens down quite often, and it provided a singular sense of depth, so much so, that when the rest of the audience was screaming (spurred on by screams coming from the 6 sound channels) in the roller coaster sequence of a short film modestly called The Miracle of Todd-AO, I found myself screaming "Look at the depth! Look at the depth!" Yes, this sequence was an unabashed re-do of the roller coaster in This Is Cinerama, but it was supremely effective, nevertheless. The Todd-AO image was very bright -- in The Liveliest Art, Arthur Knight called it "Sparkling," I think the book Widescreen Cinema called it "A Class Act."

Now that the 128 degree lens is not used any more (I don't think I saw it used in Baraka) there is no reason why the other 2.2:1 70 mm processes that sprung up in imitation of Todd-AO can't be as good, and they were, in many films. But ... for some reason, the soundtracks of Todd-AO films usually sound warmer to me ,,, coincidence? Todd-AO survives as a sound only company. I hope they -- or someone -- still have some cameras to rent. I think Ron Fricke rented one for Baraka.

The first few Todd-AO films were very poorly restored, including Miracle, Oklahoma!, and 80 Days, so someone needs to try again.

[Clark Kent]

It would be great to see the movies you mention on Blu-ray with proper restorations. Let us hope the studios present these films as they were meant to be seen.

[ZoetMB]

That's going to be tough because in most cases, the 65mm negative no longer exists or is in such bad condition that it can't be used.

So if these films do make it to Blu-ray, it will probably be from a 35mm source.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

That's going to be tough because in most cases, the 65mm negative no longer exists or is in such bad condition that it can't be used.

So if these films do make it to Blu-ray, it will probably be from a 35mm source.

Why, oh why, didn't they keep and store their negatives well? Uncle Walt apparently did. Did they think that future generations wouldn't care to see these films? Didn't they have the vision thing? Robert Harris implied that the original color negative for 80 Days exists, but would take many, many dollars to restore.

[Clark Kent]

I assume negatives for most of these movies exist in some form. What would be prohibitive for the studios is getting any significant return on the investment that would need to be made on the restorations. Older movies sell to a very limited audience, no matter how good or classic they are deemed to be. It would still be nice to see a studio do a couple of these with full restorations.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

I assume negatives for most of these movies exist in some form. What would be prohibitive for the studios is getting any significant return on the investment that would need to be made on the restorations. Older movies sell to a very limited audience, no matter how good or classic they are deemed to be. It would still be nice to see a studio do a couple of these with full restorations.

I agree that that's the way they may be thinking, but it isn't so easy to measure "return on investment," since some of it is indirect, and some is delayed. In some cases, the most recent couple of generations of film buffs, college students, etc. have barely heard of some of these titles, but, if given pristine restored versions on Blu-ray, the word might spread, and they might eventually buy them in great numbers. I have been able to impress several of my young friends with 80 Days(particularly with the sound and rollicking music), but they and I know that there is no way to blow up the DVD to simulate the nearly hypnotic Todd-AO experience. With a restoration transferred to Blu-ray, it might be possible.

At least the Disney people make an effort to make sure their old and little known films --- short and long -- are periodically available in pretty good transfers to new generations. By the way, according to Diane Disney Miller, Pinocchio didn't make back its cost on its first release, but look how many people have a copy now.

Little attention was paid to Citizen Kane (after the controversy died down) in the 40s and 50s. It was when college students began to seek it out in art houses after Sight and Sound began to praise it in about 1961, that it became popular. The word spread, it made top ten lists all over the world, often as number 1, and now virtually every film buff has a copy on DVD, and when they finally make a Blu-ray that approaches the quality of the 35mm prints we saw back then, many buffs will buy it again. A side effect was that people began to seek out most of the other films of Wells, Greg Toland, etc., which had a tertiary effect of selling several Wyler films photographed by Toland. Speaking of Wells, I heard that the short sightedness of the Iranian investors who wanted full amortization, right away, that was an important factor in The Other Side of the Wind not being finished. Had it been, many of us would have bought a copy, right?

If people buy the bad transfers like EL Cid, and Patton, how many more would buy them if the transfers were "reference" or "demo" quality (which the original versions certainly were).

There is a lot of discussion of 2001 on this forum, and a lot of us own the Blu-ray. What percentage of forum members are old enough (as I am) to have seen it in 70mm in '68? But when it was presented in not-too-bad, lightly restored, quality on VHS, then DVD, and finally in excellent quality on Blue-ray, people who weren't around back then bought it, sometimes repeatedly, with each quality improvement. The same goes for the anticipation around the Blu-ray of Ben-Hur.

Lastly, preserving and transmitting our heritige is the right thing to do. Film companies need the vision thing.

[BillieCassin]

Cleopara looks stunning upconverted on DVD, I can't wait to see it on Blu. I keep hoping someone will find the original cut somewhere pristine in a warehouse, but I'll take any cut I can get in HD. The loss of the original cut if that film, as well as A Star Is Born, are two of the biggest tragidies of that era.

[Dubstar]

'Around the World in Eighty Days' is up on Netflix and in Hidef - and when it looks great it's astounding - the colors noticeably. However, there are several instances where minor debris, imperfections that could have been digitally erased aren't (the second part of the movie seems very inconsistent noticeably during the train/American Indian fight sequence - the image also at times seems overly bright, but I'm guessing that is from it was originally shot. I have no idea what Warner's plans are on releasing this on bluray are, mass release or via it's Archive Collections (or UHD ) but given what and how it looks on Netflix - it's going to impress!

conclusively, this seems like what I viewed on HDNet's airing of 'Winged Migration' that had a lot of print imperfections, yet when the bluray arrived, those anomalies disappeared. Likewise, 'Pink Floyd - The Wall' in hidef left much to be improved - I couldn't see that being released in that state without some folk complaining ... who knows maybe Warner's did some re-tweaking / cleaning up [fingers crossed]

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

'Around the World in Eighty Days' is up on Netflix and in Hidef - and when it looks great it's astounding - the colors noticeably. However, there are several instances where minor debris, imperfections that could have been digitally erased aren't (the second part of the movie seems very inconsistent noticeably during the train/American Indian fight sequence - the image also at times seems overly bright, but I'm guessing that is from it was originally shot. I have no idea what Warner's plans are on releasing this on bluray are, mass release or via it's Archive Collections (or UHD ) but given what and how it looks on Netflix - it's going to impress!

I wonder where Netflix got a HiDef source for 80 Days.

The DVD is O.K., but not nearly as high definition as Blu-rays of 70 mm films within a few years of 80 Days(1956). An example of a fairly high def Blu-ray of a movie of 6 years later is Lawrence of Arabia(1962). For Lawrence Robert A Harris found that he had to go to 8K to capture all of the resolution. I'm told that, thanks to the Nyquist principle, that would mean the original may have been about 4K.

I saw 80 days three times in 70 mm when I was a kid. The 70 mm print was plenty bright, but not too bright, and did not look overexposed. But it was unusual, compared to other movies I'd seen, in that it seemed to be as bright as real daylight (of course it wasn't). They were using carbon arc lamps in the Todd-AO projectors (Phillips, I think). I was just starting a photography hobby then, and took my Weston Master II light meter to the theater when I saw it for the second time. I don't remember the reading in foot candles, but I do remember that the daylight scene I measured (scooping snow off a mountain peak from the balloon) was about two stops brighter than daylight scenes in the later movies my Weston accompanied me to. Most of those were 35 mm. I was a nerd before the word.