Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Who been lucky enough to see Around the World in Eighty Days in widescreen?

This is topic Who been lucky enough to see Around the World in Eighty Days in widescreen? in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002827

Posted by Patrick J. McCart (Member # 1043) on 11-23-2001, 11:11 PM:

Since the only VHS, Laserdisc, and TV versions of this grossly underrated film are in the grotesque pan & scan format, who has been blessed to see Around the World in Eighty Days on the big screen?

If so, was it the 70mm version or the CinemaScope version?

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 11-24-2001, 12:05 AM:

I saw a 140 minute version of it in 70mm Dolby Stereo (basically utilizing 4 full mag tracks instead of the original 6) at the Bing Theatre at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art in the early 90's.
This was the (assumably) the same print WB used as a test re-release in Seattle in the early 80's. That version was quickly replaced by an uncut 35mm version for circulation to art houses.

I think the film actually doesnt hold up at all today. Its mostly scenic travelogue with a "look - there's Buster Keaton" type of cameos intersperced with lots of panoramic shots.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 11-24-2001, 02:26 AM:

As a younsgster, I saw the original release in Montreal in the full Todd-A-O As I remember, it was one of my first times to Canada, and there was some question of my being able to get into the film because of my young age. Every time I've seen it since then, I've been disappointed by the cropping, color shift, dirt, or some other technical problem.

The film was unabashedly a travelogue meant to showcase the Todd-A-O process. Marty Hart's website does an excellent telling of the process.

Posted by John Anastasio (Member # 607) on 11-24-2001, 06:45 AM:

I've never seen the film projected, but I'd like to, just to see what everyone thought was so great about it. I think it's nice to look at and I'm sure that in true widescreen the images can be stunning, but I agree with Paul that the whole film was really just an attempt to show off the process. Other than that, it's just another "Oh look...a balloon being lowered by a crane" movie. In one show of the "Movie Magic" series on TDC, they showed how they did that "amazing" shot of the train trestle falling down. It's amazing, all right....amazing that anyone would look at it on a large screen and not think of Lionel! It even looks phony on TV. I guess we've all been spoiled by computerized SE. Still, I'd love to see a good print shown on an enormous screen and enjoy the beautiful soundtrack. For a few hours I might be able to go back to a special time and a simpler existence while being bathed in color, spectacle and sound. They say you can never go back, but you can for a while ... it's one bit of magic that movies can perform.

Posted by Dennis Atkinson (Member # 345) on 11-24-2001, 07:31 AM:

I have the trailer, IB scope. Even it doesn't hold up well.
I also hate travelouges.

Dennis

Posted by Stefan Scholz (Member # 147) on 11-24-2001, 07:53 AM:

I have a Todd Ao print, and I think it still looks stunning, beside the somewhat faded color, which is correctable and viewable. But only if screened on a giant screen, it does look old fashioned on AV's or "normal" theatre screens.
We have screened on our 60 ft screen, and it was even more a treat to see the railway sequence on the 90+ ft screen in another large Roadshow theatre.
It is still one of my most favorite films.

Posted by Jeff Stricker (Member # 224) on 11-24-2001, 10:48 AM:

I saw it in 35mm when it was making the circuits of the local theaters
after it's big downtown engagement. As I remember I was completely "underwhelmed" and I've had no desire to see it since on the TV screen or a big screen for that matter.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-26-2001, 12:33 PM:

The 70mm and 35mm prints are actually from different negatives, since the 70mm prints used the original Todd-AO 30fps, and the 35mm prints ran at 24fps:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingto6.htm says:

"Rather than film two significantly different versions, as was necessary in Oklahoma!, Todd's director of photography, Lionel Linden, A.S.C., shot both versions in 65mm. In some cases he used two identical Todd-AO cameras and lenses side by side, one running at 30fps for the 70mm version, and the other running at 24fps for the 35mm reduction print, in other cases the same camera was used by changing the camera speed, and in some cases, the material photographed by a single camera was used in both versions, though this could not be done with dialog sequences."
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/80daysformats.htm

BTW, I saw a 70mm print when I was only 10 years old during the original roadshow engagement. Don't judge the movie by what you now see on video --- it was made to showcase the 70mm Todd-AO process and should be appreciated and treasured for how it looks and sounds on a big screen.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Howard Johnson (Member # 62) on 11-26-2001, 01:56 PM:

I showed it in 1968 at the Regent cinema in Brighton, where I was on loan because the Odeon where I normally worked was having alterations. I remember the noise as it went through the DP70 at 30 fps!! There wasn't much time between the changeovers because of the speed. As the management still wanted the adverts and trailers shown the chief had to change one of the projectors from 24fps to 30 fps as well as changing from 70 to 35mm as soon as we were on reel 1 of "80 Days" The quality I can still remember was superb.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 11-26-2001, 08:49 PM:

The 70mm version of the film I saw was projected at 24fps (per the notes at the museum). This was the WB re-release (shortened) version) and I suspect it may have been blown up from the 35mm reduction of the 70mm 24p version( designed for the Cinestage release).

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 11-27-2001, 04:20 AM:

I think the film is spectacular and very entertaining in Todd-AO. The 1956 reviews were very enthusiastic to say the least. It even won a hand full of OSCARS (9 noms and 5 wins), including one for best music, which IS delightful.

The film was shown in Todd-AO at the Wide Screen Weekend in Bradford (England) not so many years ago, and two years ago in the Savoy cinema in Hamburg (That's in Germany folks).

Liz Taylor sold the rights to WB not too many years ago. There have been conflicting information about the condition of the negatives. Some sources says it's beyond restoration and others claims the opposite. It would be a shame if this film is lost. Does anyone know some fact about the state of the 65mm negatives and sound?

Here's a link to a 5-part article about when "Hollywood came to American Optical". From that page I have several links to the facinating story about Todd-AO.

I took this picture in Oslo in 1995, when Jan Olsen and Torkell Sætervadet were so kind to show it at the Colosseum.

You might also want to read about the Cinestage version of "80 Days".

I've got some frames from a 70mm trailer for "80 Days" which is printed in something like 1,66:1. I wonder why this was done.

And finally, the premiere dates for "80 Days"

------------------
Cheers, Thomas
..in70mm - The 70mm Newsletter
www.in70mm.com www.dp70.com www.70mm.dk www.hauerslev.com http://hjem.get2net.dk/in70mm

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 11-27-2001, 03:43 PM:

I remember seeing the film at a very young age at the Paramount Theatre in Asbury Park, NJ. There was a special projection booth built in the back of the louge for the presentation. I seem to recall at the time that when I asked why they didn't use the upstairs booth above the balcony, I was told that the Todd AO presentation needed to be projected on a level with the screen.

Question for John Pytlak- was that true for 70MM and 35MM? I don't know which format they were showing it in. Could it have been 70MM?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-27-2001, 03:52 PM:

Obviously, the ideal is to have the projectors orthogonal to the screen, to avoid any keystone distortion. This applies to BOTH 35mm and 70mm projection.

A few "rectified" 70mm prints may have been made for theatres that could not reposition their projectors from high above the balcony:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingto4.htm

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 11-27-2001, 08:55 PM:

80 Days was a wonderful film--yes, I do love Verne--and those old travelouge films that some of you have put down.

In any case, being a car buff, I rented Chitty Chitty Bang Bang the other day. According to the credits, it too was an 70mm Ultrapanavision Todd AO film.

Unfortunately, despite the advent of letterboxing, distributors/studios still release videos/dvd's without using this technology--which really ruins the presentation! Such as the case with Chitty Chitty Bang Bang! The opening and closing titles of Chitty are letterboxed, but not the feature itself--so only about 1/3 of the image is seen! !

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-27-2001, 11:51 PM:

I believe chitty chitty was super panavision

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 11-28-2001, 12:01 AM:

I concur with Gord. 'CCBB' was SP70.

-Aaron

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 11-28-2001, 02:20 AM:

The unique, but abandoned, distortion correcting printing process is described here by Grant Lobban. Once I find the time, I shall upload some very rare pictures of the Todd-AO Mark III printer installed in New Jersey. Also, I shall upload examples of 70mm frames which have been corrected. Only three films were corrected: "Oklahoma!", "The Miracle of Todd-AO" and "80 Days". When AO closed their film department in 1958 they scrapped the printers.´

I tried the process a few years ago at home with my DP70 and a piece of corrected "Oklahoma!" in 70mm. The DP70 was pointing downwards as much as possible, and the film was projected on a small curved screen standing on the floor. And guess what, the images "unfolded" like a miracle, as if the projector was in level directly in front of the screen. I shall upload those pictures too if anyone care to see them.

------------------
Cheers, Thomas
..in70mm - The 70mm Newsletter
www.in70mm.com www.dp70.com www.70mm.dk www.hauerslev.com http://hjem.get2net.dk/in70mm

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 11-28-2001, 12:43 PM:

My mistake--sorry! CCBB was Super Panavision 70mm Todd AO.

What is disturbing is that the new video releases have digitally remastered THX soundtracks. So if they went through the trouble of improving the soundtrack, then why could they not letterbox the entire film!

Posted by Frank Aston (Member # 478) on 11-29-2001, 10:35 AM:

I first saw "Around the World in 80 Days" in 70mm, at the Scala Superama (later Odeon Queensway) Birmingham UK in the late 60's. Found it thrilling at the time and loved Victor Young's glorious score. Also, the inovative end credits (Saul Bass?).

Also attended the screening at the superb PictureVille Cinema in Bradford a few years ago but then did feel as if the picture had dated a bit. Still pretty wonderful but it paled in comparison to an earlier presentation, in Cinerama, of How the West Was Won.

"It's always better on the Big Screen".

Frank.

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 11-29-2001, 10:00 PM:

I just saw it last year at my old theatre. There was a vinegared, slightly warped 35mm I.B. print behind the screen and I ran it for what was probably it's last time. I really enjoyed it as it had many of my favorite actors and goofy dated humor!