Ziegfeld Theatre
141 W. 54th Street,
New York,
NY
10019
141 W. 54th Street,
New York,
NY
10019
131 people
favorited this theater
Showing 1,801 - 1,825 of 4,511 comments
hence why we’re seeing 4k transfers and digital projection screenings of not only these Bond films, but prior presentations like ‘Blade Runner’, ‘El Cid’, ‘Troy’ (DC) (Arclight Dome), ‘Dr. Strangelove’ (Landmark LA)
At the NY branch of the Academy’s screening of “Carrie” last year, the print never arrived at the theater due to a delivery foulup. The show was sold out and they were considering cancelling it, but at the last minute they projected the DVD version instead. And they apologized profusely for not being able to show the best possible version of the film. They seemed really embarrassed by the whole thing – this is the Academy we’re talking about here, and Amy Irving and Brian De Palma were in attendance – but the movie looked good on the big screen and I’m glad they didn’t cancel the show.
Correct Pete, if done PROPERLY. Still, nothing beats IB.
And, as we’ve also seen, there’s a lot of sloppy projectionists out there that ruin those new prints, which kind of takes away the studios desire to invest $20k in a print only to have it ruined in a few showings.
‘Recently Restored’ as stated in the link would mean it’s a new print, so it wouldn’t have been a dye-transfer Technicolor print. It probably looked great if they took the time to make the print the best they could. I’ve showed new prints (“Brides of Dracula” comes to mind first) that looked as good as a Technicolor print.
Jeff: This is the screening Gary was talking about:
View link
It doesn’t go into detail about the print except to say that it’s from the Academy Film Archive, so it was probably the best possible print in existence. It’s always been one of the most beautiful Technicolor films, which you might not expect considering it’s a borderline horror movie (that’s always the way I looked at it, anyway).
Speaking of digital, I’m sure all of you have read the problems the studios are wrestling with concerning the storage of that digital material. A 4K scan of a feature generates terabytes of data. Consider a dual layer DVD holds only 9 gigabytes, current tape technology holds about 60 gigabytes.
I’m sure you all know from your own experiences that storage mediums change every few years and you have to re-copy that stored data to a new medium. Also, tapes and optical mediums tend to be much less reliable for long term storage than once thought. I don’t trust an optical DVDR or CDR as far as I can throw it for irreplaceable pictures. So the studios are finding it more expensive to be “digital” than it was to just store a print (or separations) in a vault for years. Amazing how “film” is still the better choice!
Gary:
“Last month, I saw a gorgeous Technicolor print of "Leave Her to Heaven,” restored by AMPAS that looked absolutely stunning and was on film-clearly the best of both worlds."
Did you see an actual dye transfer Technicolor print, or a modern restoration printed on current filmstock? While some restorations are good (take the 1998 Wizard Of OZ for example, it’s still no where near the quality of an actual IB Technicolor print made 40+ years ago. Much of what you see now is 3 or 4 generations away from the camera negative. You pick up grain, get loss of sharpness, and other ills introduced in copying an analog medium. A Technicolor print made “back in the day” had it’s separation matrices used for the dye transfer process taken right off the camera negative so it was sharp as a tack. Even a 40 year old B&W print sparkles on the screen, not only from the fact it was printed off the camera neg, but the film had high silver content giving it that rich range of contrast and tones.
You may not know what you’re missing unless you see the “real thing” that audiences saw 40+ years ago. Fortunately being a film collector and having prints from this era, I can say there is a big difference to what I see on the screen with my prints compared to modern reprints.
Digital is going to help, but as movie534 says “it’s not film”. The home DVD market is taking their scans 2K and 4K right off the camera negatives, and it shows, I’ll admit that. A theater equipped with a 4K projector using a 4K scan from a restored camera neg is going to give a gorgeous picture, no denying it. It’s just part of our heritage is being lost in the process. And of course there are the storage problems mentioned above.
I know for a fact the restoration and transfers were 4K, but I’m not sure if the Ziegfeld’s system can project 4K – anyone care to confirm. In what I’ve read, 4K not 2K can better replicate the look of film.
Nobody saw “The Spy Who Loved Us”? to comment on print quality & sound?
I’m confused by a couple comments above as to the digital not being same quality as film. This is 4k projection, I think. These James Bond films would look better in 35mm? I’ve seen some of them recently in 35mm new prints, and they look great. The digital versions don’t look as good?
Movie 534:
Thanks for the kind word-much appreciated. When I meet you, I will be pleased to shake your hand. By the way, TCM is the ONLY thing I watch on television. I have met Robert Osborne, he is a gentleman, and introduces a film in person just as he does on TCM—he’s the one who introduced “Leave Her to Heaven” and interviewed Darryl Hickman. Marvelous experience.
See you at the movies.
Best
Well Ziegfeld Man, you got me. I can say I agree with all of your above points. (and yes, I still do have my extensive vinyl collection too.) I do wish, like you, that more revival houses would sprout up. We need to keep the great memories of yesterdays great films alive, in theatres where they should be. As you said, right now, our only choice is DVD or Turner Classic Movies, which at least respects the classics, and shows them as they should be, uncut, Cinemascope, etc., unlike AMC which butchers em to hell.
The resolution on “Goldfinger” was so good that I was able to tell, for the first time, that the guy playing Bond in the opening gun barrel logo sequence was NOT Sean Connery. I believe the opening of “Thunderball” was the first time he actually appeared there.
Hi movie 534:
We are definitely on the same page-over the years I have seen, at the Ziegfeld, the restored “Spartacus,” “Vertigo,” and “Lawrence of Arabia,” all on film. And all looked fabulous.
With your expertise, I’m sure that you will see differences between “Goldfinger” on film and “Goldfinger” presented digitally, I respect that. And I know plenty of people who prefer the “sound” of music on vinyl versus CD’s. I respect that,too.
Last month, I saw a gorgeous technicolor print of “Leave Her to Heaven,” restored by AMPAS that looked absolutely stunning and was on film-clearly the best of both worlds.
But one can’t have it all ways. So, any day, I will take seeing a classic, in a theatre, with an audience, on a big screen, whether it is film, digital, or (gasp) even DVD.
My real gripe is with the very existence of home video vs. the abundance of revival houses that used to exist (The Bleeker St., Thalia, New Yorker, etc.) There used to be so many of these where one could really appreciate “film as it was meant to be seen.”
So, if it’s a choice between only seeing “Goldfinger” at home on your plasma TV (however Big) and seeing it digitally at the Ziegfeld, I’ll go with the latter.
I attend the Film Forum, MOMA, Moving Image, the Lafayette and look forward to making a trip to the Basie. All film, I’m grateful. I really am.
Best
I’m glad that the picture looked great, but I still prefer FILM over digital, sorry. I can’t see how you call it a FILM, when thers no FILM involved. But by all means continue to enjoy your classics.
Bill:
I was so intrigued by the incredible detail and clarity that I, too, saw in “Goldfinger,” that tonight, I took out the “ultimate” edition DVD of “Dr. No” from my local library. It has a very interesting documentary on how the frame-by frame digital restoration of the Bond films is being done using the original camera negatives. It is very high-tech, but involves a lot of TLC on the part of the restoration team. As you saw, it’s all up there on the screen.
It really looks like a brand new film.
This not only corrects dirt and damage, but as you can see, brings out a sharpness and beauty that is incredible.
Glad you had a good evening!!
Best
The digital presentation of “Goldfinger” tonight was excellent, and was made even better by the use of the curtains before and after. I’m not an expert like some of the regulars here, but as a lifelong moviegoer I found it hard to differentiate between this version and a 35mm print. I even gave it the Front Row test, and noticed a small detail I’d never seen before: in the Fort Knox fight scene between Bond and Oddjob, all the gold bars in the background were engraved with their own individual numbers. I love it when moviemakers care enough to add some slight detail like that which most people will never see, on the off chance that some fan in the front row might notice it.
About 150-200 people there tonight. Based on the Classics shows I’ve been to, some of the weeknight shows have been more crowded than the weekend ones. I wonder what can account for that? Maybe a lot of people work in the city and go after work, like me. And, as Peter said, there’s always so much more to do on a weekend.
btw, on friday night, an exciting game 5 of the hockey playoffs between the Rangers and Devils was shown, and it was a good game (which I saw on MSG HD, since that was the same broadcast that was beamed to the Ziegfeld’s screen). As for James Bond, the next bond movie might play at this theater later this year if Indiana Jones continues to do well. There’s a cover story of that movie in EW, just to let you know. And it will be shown digitally from a 35mm source.
Only 50 or so people attended the 5pm show on Sat the 19th.It was a very nice day, passover and many people go on vacation this upcoming week. So this may have accounted for the low turnout.
Their were about 130-150 for the 8pm showing for Goldfinger. Not as much as I expected but the holiday weekend and nice weather most likely played a factor.
James Bond for 1st time in 6 years?
In November, 2006, I enjoyed “Casino Royale”– at the Ziegfeld.
Now who saw “The Spy Who Loved Us” in the last few days at the Ziegfeld? And, how many people ahve attended?
Well, although it is after midnight, I am so enthusiastic about what happened today that I am keeping my eyes open to write this.
If digital restoration AND projection is to be the future of our dear classics-there can be no better example of why this SHOULD be so than what I saw today—a nearly forty-four year old film that is so crisp, so sharp, and so beautiful that I really wanted to weep for joy.
This “Goldfinger” is astonishing right down to the pores on 007’s face. My friends, it is that good. No, it is better than good—it is incredible.
And I could tell right from the getgo as Bond looks at his Rolex when he sets the bomb in the pre-credit sequence.
What clarity, what stupendous color, what an experience-for a film I adore. Here’s another example—in the famous golf match Bond offers a gold bar to Goldfinger to sweeten the pot, a bar from a Nazi stash of gold. Well, on that bar of gold is the tiniest swastika I ever saw, and this is the first time I ever saw it as clear as day or ever actually saw it at all!!
I just did not believe that an old movie like this could look this pristine on a screen as large as the Ziegfeld’s.
I had read about this “print” which came directly from the UK where it was a major hit last fall—and it’s not a print at all, but a hard drive.
And I do not in any way want to offend anyone who loves celluloid, but if digital can do this, I am all for it.
The sound was absolutely fine and happily was not artificially “updated” to the Dolby that it never was. John Barry’s soundtrack filled the entire theatre starting with the brass that blasts Shirley Bassey’s booming voice.
Someone else will have to report on “The Spy Who Loved Me,” since I couldn’t stay for that.
But please allow me to finish with the following and I’ll also post my intro at the very end.
As I said on this site before this Classics series started, not everything is going to be perfect, and some things will be far from perfect. The “Jaws” I saw looked great, but “The Sound of Music” had plenty of scratches. I am still glad that I even had the opportunity just to see “The Sound of Music” at the Ziegfeld.
And just to set the record straight regarding the “Planet of the Apes,” new print—since I personally looked into this-that print was indeed new, but it was not made from very good source elements. Still, I was glad to have the opportunity to see it.
I will be away for a little bit, but hope to see you all at Indiana Jones on opening day.
Here’s the “Goldfinger” intro, and thanks for listening
Best
As we look forward to the return of Indiana Jones in about a month, let us, today, not forget that James Bond will be back in November for the 22nd time in forty six years.
So, let’s go back, for a moment to the early sixties, just to get ready. Right on the heels of “From Russia With Love†which opened in April, “Goldfinger†opened in New York on Broadway in December of 1964 as the most highly anticipated film of the year.
The day after it opened, the Times reported that the DeMille theatre on Broadway and 47th street would remain open 24 hours a day to meet the public demand for the filmâ€"completely unprecedented.
After all these years, “Goldfinger,†which may be the best of the Bonds, still has it all-the danger, spectacular action, exotic locations, smoldering sexuality, outrageous humor and double entendres, the evilest villains, the glamour and the girls, and the coolest of the cool, double Oh seven himself.-shaken, not stirred. And that’s a line that Bond himself first says in “Goldfinger.â€
Here are a few more fun facts:
(1) There was a rumor at the time that actress Shirley Eaton, the “golden girl,†was really suffocated and killed during the production of “Goldfinger.†In other words, that was her really dead on the cover of Life Magazine and “Goldfinger†was a SNUFF movie.
Great publicity, but you can’t suffocate somebody by painting them-I tried it, it doesn’t work. But don’t you try it, since paint still has some nasty things in it, plus it can clog all your pores and you can overheat to death.
(2) Ah, that wonderful car, the Aston-Martin DB5-“The Most Famous Car in the World.â€
Well, that wasn’t the only new car to make its first appearance in a motion picture. Anyone recall the Ford Mustang?
The Ford Motor company happily let the producers crush a brand new Lincoln Continental in return for showcasing the Mustang which debuted in 1964.
(3) Finally the most famous line that never got into the film.
When Pussy Galore introduces herself to Bond, double â€"oh-seven pauses, smiles and replies “I must be dreaming.â€
THAT WAS CHANGED FROM THIS:
“IN THE ORIGINAL SCRIPTâ€
(1) After nearly being castrated by Goldfinger’s laser beam, Bond awakens to find a beautiful girl pointing a gun at him.
(2) SHE SAYS: “I AM PUSSY GALOREâ€
(3) BOND, INSTANTLY GRATEFUL, REPLIES “ I KNOW YOU ARE, BUT WHAT’S YOUR NAME?â€
THEY SHOULD HAVE LEFT THAT ONE IN!!!!!!!!!!!!
SO, SIT BACK, RELAX, SHUT OFF YOUR CELL PHONES BECAUSE “I DON’T EXPECT YOU TO TALK—-I EXPECT YOU TO …WATCH.â€
I think Gary was introducing the show today. He must still be there. I’m sure we’ll hear all about it from him before the night’s out.
I can’t go till Monday night (“Goldfinger”) but I will post a full report.
Anybody attend this weekend’s screenings of James Bond classics, including “The Spy Who Loved Me”? How is the film print, the sound, the crowd, and is the curtain used?
Man, this place was closed down alot during the 70s and 80s. I like the Burt Lancaster/Kirk Douglas festival leading up to Tough Guys with both stars. Nice promotion.
OK, thanks JSA. That means my first 70mm experience at the Ziegfeld must have been “That’s Entertainment” in 1974, followed by “2001” later that year.
Well, I did some snooping in “fromscripttodvd.com” and could not find that double bill listed as a 70 MM presentation. But the very next year both films were shown together, and in 70 MM, at the Fox Wilshire in Beverly Hills. I also wondered how many reissued 70 MM prints of “Around the World” came from the 30 fps version. The Egyptian screened one of them couple of years ago, from the 1968 re-issue.