Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

So was it supposed to be the new version?


gagman66

Recommended Posts

I am disheartened that the *SUNNY SIDE UP* thread in "General Discussions" was locked before I could even bring up these points. TCM Web Administrator failed to address the issue as to if we were supposed to be seeing the newly restored version of the movie last night or not? All indications were YES we were. I mean the film was screened in the restored print at the TCM Classic Film Festival. It was scheduled for a Prime-time premier. That alone leads one to believe that this was going to be the new restoration yesterday evening. Generally, 25-30 some year old transfers of sub-par prints don't debut in Prime-time.

 

Did we jump to conclusions? Lynn mentions nowhere is it advertised this would be the new print? All I have to say to that is two years ago, nowhere was it announced that the debut of Mary Pickford's *SECRETS (1933)* would be a new print either. But it was. TCM doesn't always tell us when a film is a new transfer in advance. In-fact, frequently they don't. In addition, on the Al Brendel fan site the claim is that this would indeed be the new version. Suggesting that they had first hand information. I would not be surprised if several other fan sites didn't announce the very same thing? Possibly a Charles Farrell or Janet Gaynor one. Probably Vita-Phone Varieties as well? I haven't checked those yet. Is it possible we could see the restored print in March? Otherwise, I have to assume that Fox does not have access to the recent Museum of Modern Art restoration, nothing in broadcast format? Much the same as it was with the 1926 *WHAT PRICE GLORY?* last May. Which was subsequently canceled. Even though they are technically still the owner of both films. Very confusing. Would sincerely appreciate some answers.

 

I have to assume that TCM fully intended to show the new restoration last night if possible. I mean that was certainly the implication all along was it not? Hopefully, they can get this matter resolved, and we can still see the new version in March when the film is re-scheduled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=gagman66 wrote:}{quote}

> I am disheartened that the *SUNNY SIDE UP* thread in "General Discussions" was locked before I could even bring up these points. TCM Web Administrator failed to address the issue as to if we were supposed to be seeing the newly restored version of the movie last night or not? All indications were YES we were. I mean the film was screened in the restored print at the TCM Classic Film Festival. It was scheduled for a Prime-time premier. That alone leads one to believe that this was going to be the new restoration yesterday evening. Generally, 25-30 some year old transfers of sub-par prints don't debut in Prime-time.

>

> Did we jump to conclusions? Lynn mentions nowhere is it advertised this would be the new print? All I have to say to that is two years ago, nowhere was it announced that the debut of Mary Pickford's *SECRETS (1933)* would be a new print either. But it was. TCM doesn't always tell us when a film is a new transfer in advance. In-fact, frequently they don't. In addition, on the Al Brendel fan site the claim is that this would indeed be the new version. Suggesting that they had first hand information. I would not be surprised if several other fan sites didn't announce the very same thing? Possibly a Charles Farrell or Janet Gaynor one. Probably Vita-Phone Varieties as well? I haven't checked those yet. Is it possible we could see the restored print in March? Otherwise, I have to assume that Fox does not have access to the recent Museum of Modern Art restoration, nothing in broadcast format? Much the same as it was with the 1926 *WHAT PRICE GLORY?* last May. Which was subsequently canceled. Even though they are technically still the owner of both films. Very confusing. Would sincerely appreciate some answers.

>

> I have to assume that TCM fully intended to show the new restoration last night if possible. I mean that was certainly the implication all along was it not? Hopefully, they can get this matter resolved, and we can still see the new version in March when the film is re-scheduled.

 

If that is the case, I hope TCM alerts its viewers to the fact. I too was disappointed with the print, particularly the aural quality, since it sounded as if Gaynor and Farrell had shrunk to Munchkin size.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}

> That was a wonderful musical number, and I?m surprised it is not more well known. I had never seen it before. It unfolded in an amazing way, very clever.

>

 

It is a neat musical number. I've been collecting records for 35 years, and I really haven't heard a bad version of Turn On The Heat . "Fats" Waller's 1929 Victor recording of it is phenomenal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Scottman wrote:}{quote}

>It is a neat musical number. I've been collecting records for 35 years, and I really haven't heard a bad version of Turn On The Heat . "Fats" Waller's 1929 Victor recording of it is phenomenal.

>

The song was also used in the 1933 Walter Lantz cartoon HOT AND COLD. That is sort of unusual, as that cartoon was released by Universal, and the original movie that the song came from, of course was a Fox Picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=musicalnovelty wrote:}{quote}

> > {quote:title=Scottman wrote:}{quote}

> >It is a neat musical number. I've been collecting records for 35 years, and I really haven't heard a bad version of Turn On The Heat . "Fats" Waller's 1929 Victor recording of it is phenomenal.

> >

> The song was also used in the 1933 Walter Lantz cartoon HOT AND COLD. That is sort of unusual, as that cartoon was released by Universal, and the original movie that the song came from, of course was a Fox Picture.

 

In 1933, Fox was struggling (heck, all studios other than MGM were, as the Depression had hit its nadir), so if a Universal property wanted to use the song, Fox was likely more than happy to sell its rights for use in that cartoon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}

> That was a wonderful musical number, and Im surprised it is not more well known. I had never seen it before. It unfolded in an amazing way, very clever.

>

>

Wow, great clip! Wish I had noticed the film was on...

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=ziggyelman wrote:}{quote}

> > {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}

> > That was a wonderful musical number, and Im surprised it is not more well known. I had never seen it before. It unfolded in an amazing way, very clever.

> >

> >

> Wow, great clip! Wish I had noticed the film was on...

>

It's scheduled again for March 16, 2011.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...