Please help me identify where this frame is found in the film!

[noodles_leone]

Wow, this is an amazing shot!! This shot is described in the original Italian script! Below is the relevant part of the script:

"The heat has worn Blondie down. Nevertheless, he seems to have noticed that Tuco has fallen into a light sleep under his sunshade . . . Blondie looks around as if he is searching for something. About 10 meters in front of him is a white, gnawed animal skeleton. Blondie’s eyes appear to be hypnotized by this sight. He encroaches towards the skeleton. Close-up: Blondie’s hand appears in the frame and he grasps a club-like bone. The camera zooms on to Tuco, who suddenly turns, grabs his revolver and fires a shot. The bone flies out of Blondie’s hand and Tuco threatens him saying, “Don’t try that again. Now, get going!” Blondie sets off again."

The GBU book is complete! End of next week, I have an appointment to make the last changes, then I will have the first complete digital draft.

Best,
Peter

Great news! Will you also be selling digital copies?

[dave jenkins]

The GBU book is complete! End of next week, I have an appointment to make the last changes, then I will have the first complete digital draft.

Best,
Peter

I'm very excited to hear this. Let us know when we can download/purchase the book. I'd very much like to have a copy.

[Clinton]

The book will be printed - offset printing and with a glossy hardcover.

I will post sample pages (including cover, table of contents . . .)  as soon as possible.

Best,
Peter

[Lil Brutto]

Great news! Will you also be selling digital copies?

Great news indeed!  

Peter, thanks so much for responding with an excerpt from the original script. I was not aware of the skeleton shot. Any insight into this Italian print we're acquiring? Given that it includes the skeleton shot, could it be a theatrical release print or something else?

[Jordan Krug]

The book will be printed - offset printing and with a glossy hardcover.

I will post sample pages (including cover, table of contents . . .)  as soon as possible.

Best,
Peter

I'm so excited to hear this book is still happening! Thanks for the update and the info on the skeleton shot!

[Le Bon]

That's great news about the book. Do you have a date roughly when it will be published?
Thanks for the script excerpts. Curiouser and curiouser!

[Clinton]

Great news indeed!  

Peter, thanks so much for responding with an excerpt from the original script. I was not aware of the skeleton shot. Any insight into this Italian print we're acquiring? Given that it includes the skeleton shot, could it be a theatrical release print or something else?

The material is some sort of projection print. Is it possible to get more information from the seller? Is the overall quality good? As far as I am aware, the projection prints were 4-perforations and needed to be projected via an anamorphic lens in theaters to restore the 2-perforation (widescreen) format. Maybe the skeleton shot frames are "waste frames", as described in the article (from the internet) shown below.

Below is a quote from "TECHNISCOPE -What It Is And How It Works" by F R E D E R I C K   F O S T E R:
Film editor Frank Keller, who edited the Sinatra-United Artists' release, "For Those Who Think Young," writing in a recent edition of The Cinemeditor, official organ of the American Cinema Editors, Inc., said: "From the film editor's viewpoint there are a few complications which must be kept in mind as the eventual cut picture negative is set up in a particular manner. Because of extremely narrow frame lines, which would cause negative splices to be visible in the projected picture, each scene of negative is cut alternately on A-and-B rolls and the splices made on overlapping frames. This means that the editor must allow for a few "waste frames" at the beginning and end of every cut in the picture. An allowance of four waste frames is requested by Technicolor, although in a tight editing problem two or three extra frames will suffice."

[Jordan Krug]

The material is some sort of projection print. Is it possible to get more information from the seller? Is the overall quality good? As far as I am aware, the projection prints were 4-perforations and needed to be projected via an anamorphic lens in theaters to restore the 2-perforation (widescreen) format. Maybe the skeleton shot frames are "waste frames", as described in the article (from the internet) shown below.

Below is a quote from "TECHNISCOPE -What It Is And How It Works" by F R E D E R I C K   F O S T E R:
Film editor Frank Keller, who edited the Sinatra-United Artists' release, "For Those Who Think Young," writing in a recent edition of The Cinemeditor, official organ of the American Cinema Editors, Inc., said: "From the film editor's viewpoint there are a few complications which must be kept in mind as the eventual cut picture negative is set up in a particular manner. Because of extremely narrow frame lines, which would cause negative splices to be visible in the projected picture, each scene of negative is cut alternately on A-and-B rolls and the splices made on overlapping frames. This means that the editor must allow for a few "waste frames" at the beginning and end of every cut in the picture. An allowance of four waste frames is requested by Technicolor, although in a tight editing problem two or three extra frames will suffice."

I think they mean extra frames on the head and tail of each shot, I don't think they mean pulling trims from the floor and attaching those frames?

[Lil Brutto]

The material is some sort of projection print. Is it possible to get more information from the seller? Is the overall quality good? As far as I am aware, the projection prints were 4-perforations and needed to be projected via an anamorphic lens in theaters to restore the 2-perforation (widescreen) format.

Correct, this is a 4-perf print that needs to be projected through an anamorphic lens to restore the widescreen format. The overall quality is good. There are scratches etc here and there but most importantly the colours are unfaded.

[mike siegel]

I finally found some time to scan some frames from my 35mm elements (the 'cannon' shots are from my trailer). Just as another reference regarding this endless color-debatte probably of some interest for some of you. My prints are slightly more reddish, I reduced the red during scanning. Otherwise the colors are just the way I saw them on the big screen (just 3 years ago I screened a German 35mm at our local cinema.)

[drinkanddestroy]

mike, to my unsophisticated eyes, your pictures look very faded, or extremey bright or overexposed, not sure exactly what the right term is ... or is my opinion of the movie corrupted by years of seeing inaccurately colored MGM versions?

[mike siegel]

Corrupted, yes .
And I don't exclude myself. Years of DVD & now Blu-ray (I just came aboard last year) not
only changed the look of vintage films, but also our point of view.
Sometimes I look at my 35mm prints and it is like a time machine back in the 70s/early 80s.
Cinema had a certain look before celluloid was transferred to tape & micro chips (or whatever).
I have a great BULLITT print from 68 and it doesn't look like the Warner restaurations (although I like those a lot,
when they are not too dark. Certain details you see in my print are GONE on Blu-ray.)

These quotes by certain industry people ''the film now looks even much better than it did at the premiere...''
is a bit tricky. On the one hand one is fascinated when 50 year old movies look that great & new
and everything. The magic of computer post-production. On the other hand many old films lose parts of their identity.
Hence I was so shocked when I saw the new 'yellow' GBU and the messed-up GIU LA TESTA restauration.
Anyway, younger generations may prefer this new dead digital look, I'd prefer GBU
the way I always saw until after the millenium. Which is pretty much the way you see it here.
(Of course an amateur SCAN on a PC SCREEN is not a projection! Regarding brightness, contrast etc..
but the colors and this comparison speak enough I'd say:)

[drinkanddestroy]

but these images as they appear here in your post aren't even an accurate representation of how your print looks ... and do we even know if your print now hasn't faded in 45 years?
I don't think memories of how a movie looked decades ago can be relied on when judging if a movie's color as it appears on DVD/BRD is accurate. I don't believe anyone can remember what shade of green the grass looked or what shade the skin tone looked, when they saw the movie in theaters decades ago. Even if you saw it in a theater five times, I don't believe anyone's memory is good enough to still remember precisely what the color looked like decades ago. IMO the only way to really accurately know what they looked like is if there really were fade-proof prints.

BTW, those two frames you posted for comparison, of Eastwood with the cigar in his mouth, are not the same shot ... not that it would make a big difference in the comparison; it's clear that the colors are very different.

[Lil Brutto]

Mike Siegel,

Thanks for posting posting scans of your 35mm elements. Glad to know some enthusiasts have them in their possession and can give us a glimpse of how the FILM actually looked.

There doesn't seem to be any telltale signs of fading of your elements. Are they IB Technicolor? Your trailer looks like it is.

Can you post scans of these cells without any colour adjustment (i.e. no red reduction). High resolution scans are preferred so we can compare them with our IB Tech print once it arrives.

[drinkanddestroy]

yeah, that red reduction is another thing: if you had to reduce the red cuz the print looked redder than you think the movie looked upon initial release, then what about the other colors? Are we to believe that the red levels changed but that the rest of the colors didn't change, so that once you merely adjust the red levels, the colors are accurate?