Monkees "HEAD" in Los Angeles September 8th, new 35mm print!!

That's what I like to hear

I'll miss not being in LA to see this on the big screen - thanks for ensuring that my DVD is the real deal .

 

What,us East-Coasters aren't worthy?????
(No Monkees fans here.....)

 

I know the guy at the Nuart and he said, "Can we show Head?"

It's not a West Coast bias. I just happen to live here and they are the only ones to ask me in the last ten years.

 

Can anyone give us some screen grabs from the DVD? I dont own it, and would like to see what the DD part looks like on the disc.

 

Errrr. I'm confused. Why does my VHS version of "Head" (Columbia Pictures) look so much different than the DVD (Rhino, with the yellow cover)? Which version is the 'correct' version, when compared to the original theatrical 1968 release? Or is neither the VHS or DVD 'correct'?

 

Good to know it was filmed full screen. Thanks for the info.

I have the "That's Entertainment" DVD and the full screen side of the disc shows both the wide screen (black bars), for the films that were shot that way, and the Academy ratio films fill up my TV. IIRC on the widescreen side of the DVD the full screen clips have black on all 4 sides. It isn't pan and scan, so it is really shrunk to fit full screen TVs. (of course on a widescreen TV there won't be bars on the top and bottom, but they are on the sides. Is this called pillar box?)

 

My expert opinion is that the DVD is truer to the original negative, but I must admit I have no idea how the Columbia VHS was made. I haven't seen it in at least ten years. The Rhino VHS was pulled off of an old Columbia transfer.

 

The only thing that has annoyed me about the Head DVD is that the colours look much more vivid in the "NY Action" and "Portugese" trailers than on the film itself.... I would kill to see a PAL version looking as good as those trailers!

 

The New York Action trailer was all hand spliced from film originals (positives). That's probably where all the outtakes from the movie went (and that's why it looks so clear and unprocessed).

Just thought you guys would like some more info on the aspect ratio of the print I am showing. Here are some details from the projectionist at the Nuart:

"I've looked at the first reel, and it was terrific...I think for this screening a 1.66 aperture will be best. Watching the 1.33 DVD numerous times, there are moments where matting is revealed, indicating that there should be some in-projector cropping during theatrical play. I tested reel 1 in 1.85, centering on the opening Rhino logo, and the only thing that looked a little tight was the "Ditty Diego" sequence. So since our main feature (THE BRIDESMAID) is 1.66 anyway, I figure it will be a safe compromise between the two ratios. Many movies of the era like SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS and SOME LIKE IT HOT were meant for 1.66 projection anyway, so it seems rational that would be the proper way to run HEAD as well...Most negatives technically are 1.33. Ever since the late '50's, a majority of films that are intended for either 1.66 or 1.85 projection (that is, not 2.35 ratios like CinemaScope or Panavision) are shot 1.33 but composed for the wider ratio. It is meant to keep the movie "TV-safe," but often times things like boom mics and lighting grids get photographed because if properly shown, the aperture plate crops it out in the theatre, and in the video transfer, the dead space will be cropped out via letterboxing or they will zoom in and pan-scan the image. Sometimes people get lazy, which is why on some old TV prints you see boom mics up top or electric cables at the bottom of the picture."

 

If I recall correctly, the Nuart is the theater where Head originally premiered in the 60's, and also is the site of The Monkees' star on the Hollywood Walk Of Fame. Quite a fitting setting to screen the film.

 

. Even "The Godfather" and "The Sting" (and hundreds more films) were shot this way. I actually like the full screen (not Pan and Scan) versions of "The Sting" and "The Producers" that I own on DVD. There are some scenes where you would think it would look a bit better cropped (the bar scene in "The Producers", for example), but on the whole I like the extra information.

As far as revealing mistakes, the only one I've seen is a screen capture of "A Fish Called Wanda" which shows that John Cleese is wearing jeans in the nude apartment scene. I'll see if I can find that link again and edit into this post.

 

That was actually the Vogue on Hollywood Blvd.

 

Thanks for the info Andrew!

Watching 'Head' last night I realized that both of my favorite films ('Head' and 'Dr Strangelove') involve violence against a Coke machine.....

(I know many people are annoyed by animated gifs so I linked to the file )

 

Thanks, Andrew, for posting the comments from the projectionist at the Nuart. I was going to post some comments along the same lines, about the extra image on the film not intending to be seen, but I would say the Nuart projectionist trumps my expertise.

By the way, if Rhino has five prints for theatrical distribution, who do we contact for booking?

 

On the new Rhino Prints, did they keep the "Burning Frame" Columbia Pictures logo at the end?

 

My mistake, thanks!

 

bump

 

Bump for Andrew!

 

Well, ya guys, how was it?

 

Great turn out - a line around the block! Over a hundred paid admissions. The print looked just incredible. The color was superb. The 1:66 aspect ratio seemed to cut off a bit of the TV screens in Ditty Diego and the black mats were still visible in Porpoise Song. I still think the DVD may be right on at 1:33 even though it isn't stretched wide. Gave out loads of prizes and was thrilled to meet so many Monkees fans.

 

Wow! I wish I could have been there!

 

I wish i could've been there as well!!

 

Thank you for advising them not to twiddle with the film. I agree that it works just fine in full frame format. In any case, folks who want to see it matted can always play it on a 16x9 television and zoom it up to fill the screen, which will lop off the portions of the top and bottom of the frame that weren't intended to be projected in the theater.

But while were on the subject, the Rhino DVD is in fact missing a little bit of the image on the top and left of the frame, as suggested by that Ditty Diego sequence, where the screens aren't centered either horitontally or vertically. To demonstrate, here's a pair of images from the 1997 Japanese laserdisc (Warner Music Vision) and the Rhino DVD. The laserdisc has a little more information on the left and top, while the DVD has a little more on the bottom and a lot more on the right.

<--LD | DVD-->

If these don't demonstrate anything else, they definitely show that the color and resolution are much better on the DVD!

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but surely any transfer will miss a tiny ammount around the edges. There must be some matting otherwise we'd see the "hairy edge" of the frame.... I'm not that worried about losing say 0.5% of the image from this type of cropping since no sane director or cinematographer will place anything critical to the composition of a shot that close the edge of the frame.

The DVD certainly does smoke the LD from your screenshots - thanks for the comparison

 

Yes, but because most monitors overscan the edges get cropped off anyway. I fully realize that this trivializes my entire contribution to the thread.

Quite right. I brought it up only because Andrew says the video transfer guys told him that they got it all, but they didn't quite. Somehow I think we'll all sleep at night nonetheless.

For the fun of it here's another pair of captures:

<--LD | DVD -->