Just picked up a dbl disc special edition copy today. Saw it at a good
price, at least for me $14 is good. Anyway after I got home noticed it was
in FS. Was the movie done in FS or LBox? I scanned a few sites and can find
no one offering a widescreen version so wondered if it was ever avail that
way or if my memory is foggy as I thought I had seen it shown in WS before
but been a long time ago and my memory is not what it used to be hehe

"Bratboy" <DontBother@Takeallthisaway.tde.com> wrote in message
news:425ecbee$0$27491$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster. com...
The movie was not a widescreen production. 4:3 is the correct ratio.

"Bratboy" <DontBother@Takeallthisaway.tde.com> wrote

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0045152/technical

Not always accurate, but correct this time.

John Howells

"Joshua Zyber" <jzyber@SPAMMERS-BITE-ME.mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:m3A7e.5632$go4.4775@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
Thx, since couldnt find one thing mentioning it ever being in WS figured was
my memory, LOL. Will say this much for it tho, the PQ and audio is amazingly
good. So used to classics getting the Short end of the stick and this one
they didnt skimp on.

In article <425ecbee$0$27491$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com> ,
Bratboy <DontBother@Takeallthisaway.tde.com> wrote:

Plain old 1.33:1 ratio. I saw it when I was about 12 in it's first
release in a small town where the movies stayed only 3 days before
a new one came along.

I liked that so much I saw it twice. The year was 1952.

The first Cinemascope film released by 20Th Century Fox was
The Egyptian in 1954. I saw that and in those days we were
impressed with the wide screen. Seeing the movie years later I
think the width of the screen was it's only reason to see it :-)

I always thought it was interesting that Fox was one of the leaders
in wide-screen with their 70MM non-anamorphic process in the late
1920s. The depression that started in 1929 killed all chances for
anything new to come about, and 25 years later Fox resurected
wide-screen with a process that only required new lenses and
screens not entirely new projection chains.

You may have seen SITR in WS as some theatres just masked everyting
in a WS format that cut off the top and bottom of the pictures.
Most noticeable when they ran cartoon with Donald Duck's head cut
off on the top.

Bill

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

Bill Vermillion wrote:

dick

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 03:55:01 GMT, bv@wjv.com (Bill Vermillion) wrote:


There are some titles that are naturals for transfer to DVD and yet
have not. I hope that doesn't mean that the masters are lost or
deteriated beyond use. I would love to see The Egyptian again, but my
favourite from that period is Land of the Pharaohs. Of course they
would need to be original 2.55 presentations. The cleaned-up for DVD
offering of The Ten Commandments shows what can be done if there is
the will, but I'm not sure that they would spend the cost to restore
Land of the Pharaohs, much less The Egyptian. I'm a sucker for big,
widescreen classics. When will the 1962 Mutiny on the Bounty be
cleaned up and put on DVD? Yes, I know that both the 1935 and 1984
versions are more critically acclaimed, but I still want to see Brando
strut and Howard fume in Tahiti widescreen.

Charles
nzvideos.org

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:10:54 -0700, Charles Eggen <cne@efn.org> wrote:

Currently being cleaned up and mastered. Warners is expecting to
release it around December of 2005.

... Steve ..

HOORAY!!!!!
At least it will be the COMPLETE theatrical version (and maybe a
two-disc set)

M-G-M/SONY has butchered "The Alamo", "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad
Word", "Hawaii" and God knows what else.

Hopefully Warners will release "Grand Prix", "Raintree County", "The
Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm", and "The Shoes of the
Fisherman"

If M-G-M/SONY releases any of these, you know they will be
butchered!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:18:41 -0400, "Steve(JazzHunter)"
<jazzhunterNotHere@internet.com> wrote:

In article <rctv51ltuef7pshoq5tmd8suneteiceqmp@4ax.com>,
Charles Eggen <cne@efn.org> wrote:
Fox Cable shows the Egyptian now and then. That's when I noticed
it didn't wear as well as others.

I was disappointed that Fox didn't release The Big Trail in
widescreen in it's original 2.10 ratio as was shot on Grandeur.

I got an S-VHS copy off of cable. It's one of John Wayne's first
films, and that might attract some, but that's not what makes
it good IMO. The photography is wonderful with some truly great
scenes.

And when you watch it and knowing this was done on location and
before the FX we have today you really appreciate what effort went
into filming. The scenes fording the river and those winching down
oxen down the clffs from the plains area are amazing. The covered
wagons are much larger than you typically see in the Western films,
and I suspect many of them were originals but have no idea on that.

I think that The Big Trail should have have had a widescreen
release when it came out on DVD. Another great western not on DVD
is Cimarron - the first western every to win an Academy Award for
best picture. [I don't know my Oscar history but it may be the
only one].

I'm surprised that Brando's work didn't see more re-issues on his
death.

Bill

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

In article <3ca7q4F6ksa26U2@individual.net>,
Dick Sidbury <DrJamesSidbury@hotmail.com> wrote:
You are right. Since I was more in the 'hinterlands' the Egyptian
was the first wide-screen film we got to see in our area - and that
was about a year after the Robe. So I mentally categorized The
Egyptian as the first - though it was just the first I'd seen after
the local theatre [atually one in a neighboring city] installed
equipment and screens.

Bill

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

Film Buff wrote:

Already asked about "Grimm" a year ago, at the Warner HTF Chat--
Apparently, the ex-Cinerama print would need as much expensive print
restoration as "Around/80 Days" did, and would need a *lot* more studio
support to justify the cost of a good year's work...

It's one of my all-time favorites, too (and one of my last remaining
still-on-tape holdouts), but if you're "showing off" that you've heard
of it, that's not a good sign.

Derek Janssen (and yes, the '84 Bounty IS "more critically acclaimed",
and with Hopkins in it, it's pretty darn good)
djanss@charter.net

"Bill Vermillion" <bv@wjv.com> wrote in message
news:IF0wFH.Dz5@wjv.com...
Dances With Wolves and Unforgiven also both won Best Picture.

In article <G_a8e.6423$go4.2050@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
Joshua Zyber <jzyber@SPAMMERS-BITE-ME.mindspring.com> wrote:
Thanks. I've always loved DWW but I never thought of it as a
Western. Growing up with 'cowboy movies' almost always as part of
a Saturday double-feature I guess warped my view of what a western
was. [And my granfather - who died when my mother was a young girl
- was a cowboy and trick rider/roper - before he settled down].


--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com