Cinemascope Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 Oh yes, really? Which version did you like best? Link to post Share on other sites
SueSueApplegate Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 I thought there was only one version of the movie Oklahoma - the one with Shirley Jones and Gordon McRae. I haven't seen any other version. Link to post Share on other sites
Cinemascope Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 Yes, but which version of that movie? Link to post Share on other sites
SueSueApplegate Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 Huh? Link to post Share on other sites
Cinemascope Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 There are two versions of Oklahoma!, didn't you know? Link to post Share on other sites
mrsl Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 She's got me confused too, SueSue, unless she's being cagey, then there would technically be three - the movie, the stage play, and the State. Anne Link to post Share on other sites
Cinemascope Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 No, I'm talking about the 1955 movie. There are two versions of it. Link to post Share on other sites
johnm001 Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 Sue2, they filmed OKLAHOMA! twice. Once in 70MM Todd-A0, and once in 35MM Cinemascope. Two different takes. Some of the scenes have different set-ups, and they have slightly different orchestrations, due to the enhanced stereophonic soundtrack of the Todd-AO print. Unfortunately, the Todd-AO print has apparently deteriorated over the years. The finest home video version of the Todd-AO print, is the laserdisc. The latest DVD release includes both versions; but the Cinemascope version looks better. Of course, it shouldn't. Todd-AO was a much better film process. Link to post Share on other sites
Cinemascope Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 I'm kind of partial towards the Todd-AO myself. Link to post Share on other sites
SueSueApplegate Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 Thank you for the explanation , johnm. I start gittin' reel flustrated about the third time I has to ask fer the same thing. Shucks, yawl. Link to post Share on other sites
Cinemascope Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 But you never asked! You were just like "huh?" That's hardly a question! Link to post Share on other sites
johnm001 Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 I thought Gloria Grahame was excellent in her secondary role, and it made me wish she had done more comedies. Yes, me too. I know that at the time, it was sort of a big deal that she was doing that role, because it was "so different" for her. But, frankly, I think she's just as good at comedy (perhaps better), than the roles she was famous for doing. Her role in OKLAHOMA! is probably more well-known today, than any other. People seeing her in something like THE BIG HEAT, might find that strange. Link to post Share on other sites
Cinemascope Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Doubt more people remember her from Oklahoma! than from It's a Wonderful Life!! Link to post Share on other sites
johnm001 Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Funny how I knew that your "huh?" meant you didn't know the explanation for the 2 versions, but the person you were responding to had no clue. Really odd, isn't it? Link to post Share on other sites
Cinemascope Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Of course I knew, but nobody asked! Link to post Share on other sites
johnm001 Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Oh, how fun! Meretrix Intentio. Link to post Share on other sites
Cinemascope Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Well at least I didn't come up with a long-winded explanation that makes one sound like a stuffed shirt Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.