A note from Robert Townson about SPARTACUS (2024)

Oh heck! Look "haineshisway" or whoever you are. Let's continue.

By the way, I like Fantasyland. Maybe I have a crush on Tinkerbell.

"haineshisway" is Bruce Krimmel - one of the people that make sure you can get a score release - he is head of Kritzerland Records (spelling?)

Mark

Did I mention I know where the missing footage is for THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS? Back in 1942, when I worked at RKO, Robert Wise personally asked me to store it in a secret compartment in their vault. It's just sitting there, perfectly preserved, right next to the spider sequence from KING KONG.

If only those film historians has bothered to ask ME they'd be able to restore both films...

And it would be nice to have even a new regular DVD of The Court Jester as long as it's finally anamorphic!

Yavar

You are joking, aren't you? The DVD of The Court Jester has always been anamorphic. Do you have it, for example? If you did, you would know. I have it, therefore I know. It's not a great transfer, but it is anamorphic.

I don't quite understand the above response and I'm genuinely not being provocative.

I thought THE COURT JESTER was originally in VistaVision which wouldn't have involved any 'squeezing' of the image.

My understanding of the term 'anamorphic' in the cinema relates to the squeezing of an image on to 35mm or possible 70mm film in order to obtain a wider spead on projection.

I appreciate that DVD's of TCJ and, indeed hundreds of other DVD's of movies NOT shot in Scope may be described as anamorphic but I don't understand the rational behind this.

I would, incidently, like to hear from anyone who actually saw movies projected in VistaVision but this may not be the thread for it.

Ah! This is the confusion.

DVDs that are anamorphic have their video in the 16:9 aspect ratio as opposed to 4:3. The same amount of picture information is there, but it is in a different shape, and the results when played on a 4:3 screen was a squeezed, tall image, not too dissimilar from an old video transfer of the title sequence of a 'scope film. At the dawn of the format, many older laserdisc transfers were ported over to DVD which were mastered in 4:3 either for cost reasons or because (in Criterion's case) the technology for converting 16:9 into a 4:3 signal was unproven at the time. Most widescreen films are transfered in 16:9 anamorphic now.

So a DVD of a widescreen film may be anamorphic even if the film wasn't shot in 'scope.

This prompted me to check which films I'd seen in VistaVision on first release (when I was a child) and they are;

White Christmas
We're No Angels
Doctor at Sea
The Court Jester
Richard III
The Searchers
The Ten Commandments
Doctor at Large
The Pride and the Passion
Battle of the River Plate (Pursuit of the Graf Spee)
The Bucanneer

and, years later, on reissue:
High Society
Vertigo
North by Northwest

This prompted me to check which films I'd seen in VistaVision on first release (when I was a child) and they are;

White Christmas
We're No Angels
Doctor at Sea
The Court Jester
Richard III
The Searchers
The Ten Commandments
Doctor at Large
The Pride and the Passion
Battle of the River Plate (Pursuit of the Graf Spee)
The Bucanneer

and, years later, on reissue:
High Society
Vertigo
North by Northwest

Other than White Christmas, I don't think that any of those films were *projected* in VistaVision. They were shot in VistaVision (which was originally designed for creating super high quality 35mm reduction prints), but VistaVision projection was a very rare occurrence.

This prompted me to check which films I'd seen in VistaVision on first release (when I was a child) and they are;

White Christmas
We're No Angels
Doctor at Sea
The Court Jester
Richard III
The Searchers
The Ten Commandments
Doctor at Large
The Pride and the Passion
Battle of the River Plate (Pursuit of the Graf Spee)
The Bucanneer

and, years later, on reissue:
High Society
Vertigo
North by Northwest

Other than White Christmas, I don't think that any of those films were *projected* in VistaVision. They were shot in VistaVision (which was originally designed for creating super high quality 35mm reduction prints), but VistaVision projection was a very rare occurrence.

Yes. of course. I saw none of those films actually projected in horizontal format VistaVision - I misread mulan98's post. 35mm prints were, in any case, supposed to be of very high quality from the VistaVision negatives.

Oh heck! Look "haineshisway" or whoever you are. Let's continue.

By the way, I like Fantasyland. Maybe I have a crush on Tinkerbell.

"haineshisway" is Bruce Krimmel - one of the people that make sure you can get a score release - he is head of Kritzerland Records (spelling?)

Mark

It's

It's the track called "Thunderdome" from the recent dual CD release of MAD MAX BEYOND THUNDERDOME.

As in:

"Two men enter, one man leaves!"

I ain't leavin'.

Oh goodie.

I thought that would tickle you, Bruce.

Did I mention I know where the missing footage is for THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS? Back in 1942, when I worked at RKO, Robert Wise personally asked me to store it in a secret compartment in their vault. It's just sitting there, perfectly preserved, right next to the spider sequence from KING KONG.

If only those film historians has bothered to ask ME they'd be able to restore both films...

And don't forget, you showed it to both joecaps and rich.

And it would be nice to have even a new regular DVD of The Court Jester as long as it's finally anamorphic!

Yavar

You are joking, aren't you? The DVD of The Court Jester has always been anamorphic. Do you have it, for example? If you did, you would know. I have it, therefore I know. It's not a great transfer, but it is anamorphic.

I don't quite understand the above response and I'm genuinely not being provocative.

I thought THE COURT JESTER was originally in VistaVision which wouldn't have involved any 'squeezing' of the image.

My understanding of the term 'anamorphic' in the cinema relates to the squeezing of an image on to 35mm or possible 70mm film in order to obtain a wider spead on projection.

I appreciate that DVD's of TCJ and, indeed hundreds of other DVD's of movies NOT shot in Scope may be described as anamorphic but I don't understand the rational behind this.

I would, incidently, like to hear from anyone who actually saw movies projected in VistaVision but this may not be the thread for it.

Someone already responded, but yes, someone was referring to the DVD of The Court Jester - the usual line on a DVD transfer is - anamorphically enhanced for widescreen TVs - so it is confusing if you're not used to DVDs being called anamorphic when the film in question is 1.85 (or 1.66 or 1.78). There was probably a better line they could have come up with that would have been less confusing - and I think maybe they ultimately went to the simpler Enhanced for widescreen TVs.

That's impossible as I have it from good source that the spider sequence exists in pristine condition in a location that no one knows about.

But I know a person who knows someone who knows someone who posted it on a message board.

This prompted me to check which films I'd seen in VistaVision on first release (when I was a child) and they are;

White Christmas
We're No Angels
Doctor at Sea
The Court Jester
Richard III
The Searchers
The Ten Commandments
Doctor at Large
The Pride and the Passion
Battle of the River Plate (Pursuit of the Graf Spee)
The Bucanneer

and, years later, on reissue:
High Society
Vertigo
North by Northwest

Other than White Christmas, I don't think that any of those films were *projected* in VistaVision. They were shot in VistaVision (which was originally designed for creating super high quality 35mm reduction prints), but VistaVision projection was a very rare occurrence.

Yes. of course. I saw none of those films actually projected in horizontal format VistaVision - I misread mulan98's post. 35mm prints were, in any case, supposed to be of very high quality from the VistaVision negatives.

At least three Paramount Vistavision films were shown horizontally. Besides "White Christmas," "Strategic Air Command" was shown horizontally as was "Williamsburg The Story of A Patriot."

By the way, MGM wanted Hitch to film "North by Northwest" using their Camera 65 process (aka Ultra Panavision). Hitch balked believing that format was far too wide so he pushed for Vistavision. Had MGM won, Herrmann's music would have been presented in 6-track magnetic stereo.

But I know a person who knows someone who knows someone who posted it on a message board.

FYI The spider pit scene does exist and complete. It was filmed when Peter Jackson did the remake of "King Kong."

Here it is cut into the original version:

Amazing how they all survived the fall with hardly a scratch!

This is fascinating:

Also projected originally in horizontal vistaVision (in very selected engagements) were TO CATCH A THIEF and THE COURT JESTER and THE SEVEN LITTLE FOYS.

I saw THE COURT JESTER in horizontal vistaVision at the legendary New York Paramount Theatre (now sadly gone), and it was absolutely breathtaking.

Also projected originally in horizontal vistaVision (in very selected engagements) were TO CATCH A THIEF and THE COURT JESTER and THE SEVEN LITTLE FOYS.

I saw THE COURT JESTER in horizontal vistaVision at the legendary New York Paramount Theatre (now sadly gone), and it was absolutely breathtaking.

That's correct. The New York Paramount was one of several theaters in the US that had 35mm horizontal projectors installed.

A little history on the projectors:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/vvproj.htm

Speaking of "To Catch a Thief," there's a score that deserves a new stereo recording.

question please....
who is 'Rich'.
what does all this have to do w/SPARTACUS (LIKE WE NEVER GO OT.?

"Rich" just popped out of nowhere, all of a sudden He is an authority on everything, and has worked for every major film studio. What his real name?

question please....
who is 'Rich'.
what does all this have to do w/SPARTACUS (LIKE WE NEVER GO OT.?

"Rich" just popped out of nowhere, all of a sudden He is an authority on everything, and has worked for every major film studio. What his real name?

If you've ever been a member of other boards or listserves it's not hard to figure out - why doesn't "Rich" just tell everyone who he is - half the people here know already anyway.