My Collector's Edition DVD of The Sand Pebbles includes the "roadshow version" on disc 2. I was going to watch this version, but the video quality is terrible, as opposed to the theatrical which looks excellent. Anybody know what the deal is here?
What's the Spanish for drunken bum?
The deal is that Fox hasn't (or doesn't think it needs to) done a complete restoration of the entire film. The roadshow print on the DVD is an archival 70mm print from the sixties that has badly faded. The movie was shot in 35mm Panavision, so somewhere in the vaults Fox should have the negatives to the entire thing, but they chose (for now) to only present the "theatrical version" restored. You might also notice that when the 35mm Panavision negatives were printed for the 70mm "Roadshow Version," they cut the sides of the frame. So, you actually see more image in the 35mm version.
shareThe transfer from the 70mm roadshow SAND PEBBLES print is not "badly" faded -- it's possible to see color prints from the 1960s and '50s that are far more horribly faded: completely pink or red, with no discernable blues or greens remaining. (Of course, we virtually never see video transfers of such prints.)
But despite the roadshow-version DVD having weaker color, it's the content -- including scenes that absolutely should not have been removed -- that makes the viewing worthwhile.
A long-missing dinner sequence, alone, makes Holman's eventual change of mind about desertion much more plausible than it is in the shorter, general-release version.
I love this movie so much. I caught it on TV last week and saw the restaurant scene the above poster refers to. It should NEVER have been omitted from the general theatrical release. You are so right. It really does help the viewer understand Jake's decision. I saw the road show in its original release, but it has been so long ago that I did not recall that scene. I was terrific to see the "whole" movie after so long. I do not understand why so many people have never seen or heard of this terrific movie. I also cannot understand those posters who find it boring. Good grief, what are you looking for in a movie, if you find this wonderful movie boring?
shareI believe the 70mm Roadshow print is "badly faded" in that most of the colors have gone either too red or too cyan. It's also not as sharp as the restored transfer and much darker. I also disagree about the "dinner sequence" you mention. This is one between McQueen and Bergen at a Chinese restaurant while it's snowing outside. I thought Bergen's dialogue not believable (suddenly the character is conniving when she hadn't been before) and McQueen's reaction not convincing. I don't get the feeling either actor believes what they're saying. It was right to cut it out for general release.
shareCome on, haristas: You appear to cling to your own opinions rather than opening your mind to the views of others. That's not a sign of someone who manages to learn very much.
In my earlier post I tried to explain that the SAND PEBBLES roadshow edition's DVD transfer is not "badly" faded by degree; it is possible to see Eastmancolor film prints (struck between the 1950s and 1982) that are more extremely faded than this one appears. If you were to call this source print badly faded, then you'd have to resort to over-the-top terminology to describe some other print that had faded to, say, pure pink.
I see more older movies on film (when I get a chance) than on discs, so I'm more tolerant of faded color than are the majority of modern, homevideo-trained viewers. There are fewer and fewer venues where people can see older pictures projected on film -- and have a chance to develop real appreciation of its superiority as a format. Many, many worthwhile movies were shot in cheaper color processes and/or printed on unstable print stocks that have faded (significantly or entirely). No matter how good a film is, a studio will not spend the money on having a new print of it made if that print won't bring them a profit. And if they find that a picture's surviving elements have faded or otherwise deteriorated, the owners won't fork over restoration costs -- even for a DVD release -- if they're not convinced they'll sell enough copies to bring them back the amount they target.
That's why I can tolerate fading in a color film: There are good as well as GREAT films which we'd never get to see again (or at all) except with faded colors -- because companies won't spend the money to restore them to color any better than they happen to look today.
THE SAND PEBBLES is a terrific example. The original roadshow version is so superior, in content and structure, to the wide-release version that it's easily worth the cost of more muted colors. You don't think so, haritas; but sadly that's your loss.
And one more thing -- if you find Shirley's/Bergen's dialogue in the deleted dinner sequence is "unconvincing" and "conniving," you must not have much experience with females as Significant Others! Women are very naturally persuasive in that way; especially on issues which are important to her, and when dealing with a man she loves who happens not to see her point.
Come on, ScopeWatcher, you're ego seems to know no bounds. Don't lecture me on these things, I'm fifty one and saw The Sand Pebbles theatrically in 1969. The "Roadshow Version" Fox has put on DVD, with only deleted scene excerpts on Blu-ray, is a 1960's 70mm blow-up from the 35mm Panavision original. As such it crops the sides of the original frames -- and it's now "badly" color faded and too dark (poor shadow detail). (If readers want to check out what we're talking about, go to this link: http://www.thesandpebbles.com/2007_dvd_review/2007_tsp_review.htm) As a presentation of the film, even if it were projected in a theatre, it's a depressing sight. THE SAND PEBBLES is a 35mm Panavision film and should only be presented that way. It would be very nice if Fox would fully restore the entire Roadshow length version to the level presented on the Blu-ray of the Theatrical cut -- I'd be very happy if they did, and even happier if they struck new 35mm prints and toured it around the country, but I don't think that very likely. So, I choose to be happy with what I can get and not waste time bemoaning what is not.
As for your contention that the Roadshow Version is "so superior, in content and structure, to the wide-release version that it's easily worth the cost of more muted colors" well, I think a lot of viewers of the Fox Movie Channel would disagree with you as much as I have. I know both versions very well, and I couldn't seriously argue that the Roadshow Version is "so" superior. Would I prefer to watch it if it looked as good as the Theatrical Version does on Blu-ray? Yes, of course, but I don't think you're really missing much in the Theatrical Version, and the fact that the film's director, Robert Wise, never made a stink about it says much more than I can come up with.
I have just looked in on this thread after more than five years. The poster above has probably gone on to troll other spots by now -- but I'll post this reply for the sake of future readers of this thread who might wonder whether they should bother with the longer version of THE SAND PEBBLES.
For full disclosure, I viewed this picture's Roadshow-edition DVD only once, and that seven or eight years ago. However, I offer these few specifics (which I happen to remember) to back up my earlier claim about the longer version's superiority to the shorter, general-release edition.
1) When Jake Holman ventures out onto the deck and visibly reacts to a bullet (fired from an onshore bandit's rifle) striking the smokestack right beside him, McQueen displays a vulnerability that shows Holman is not accustomed to being shot at. Therefore, when late in the film Holman takes up an automatic rifle and a combat position, without this earlier moment we can't appreciate as well how much Holman is forcing himself to suppress his fear.
2) Following Holman taking bets against crew members on the arranged fight between Po-han and Stawski, the roadshow version gives us a brief conversation in which Frenchy is sore at Holman over Stawski's declared intention to buy Maily's virginity with the money Stawski hopes to win from his bet. When Frenchy refers to Po-han as a "slopehead," Holman -- who we remember used to show the same attitude toward the Chinese before he became close to Po-han -- asks something like, "If he's a slopehead, what does that make her?" Losing this scene costs us our awareness of how Holman has already evolved by that point through his friendship with Po-han.
3) Similarly, cutting the longer roadshow footage of Holman training Po-han in the engine room also removes Holman's teaching technique of "Hammah hammah hammah!" -- which in the short version makes little sense when Holman coaches Po-han during the fight with Stawski by calling that out ... and which Stawski knows about from having overheard their training sessions. (But which in the short version, the viewers find obscure.)
4) And the eventually-cut dinner scene is necessary for Shirley's second attempt to persuade Jake to desert his ship and the Navy: Jake is openly irritated (with his you-don't-quit-do-you? response). But despite poster haristas' opinion of the acting here (which I find perfectly effective), I say this scene's existence makes Holman's eventual change of mind over desertion much more plausible -- because Shirley had planted the seed of thought twice, not just a single occasion.
Yes, the color quality in the roadshow DVD is inferior to that of the shorter, general-release version on either DVD or Blu-ray. But while the transfer from the 70mm print crops the extreme left and right sides of the picture compared to the 35mm full-Panavision width (hardly as much as if the image were panned-and-scanned), I hope I've helped people consider the tradeoff between a film being presented full-width versus full-LENGTH. (About 15 minutes of unwisely dropped material.)
And last -- although that other poster claimed that director Robert Wise "never made a stink about" the studio's recutting of THE SAND PEBBLES, he (or she) must never have read the same books and interviews which I'VE read. After this much time I don't specifically recall whether Wise gives his opinion during the disc's audio commentary, but I would challenge poster haristas to check it for him/herself before assuming the director had no objection to the re-editing ... about which Wise knew nothing until it was already completed without his involvement.
Most great films deserve a more appreciative audience than they get.