Has anyone heard anything recently about the status of the restored print of The Day of the Triffids? We keep hearing it's coming, but as of this date (September 3, 2012), nothing. This has been going on for years.
Rumors? Guesses? Better yet, actual information? Thanks!
No. But did U ever see the British version of the story? Far better than stodgy 60's movie. Yeah, it was made for tv, but it had much more to it than old silly flicker, oh Potentate of the Puffy!
Obtained from the liver of the inflatable mongoose.
That 1981 TV miniseries? Yeah, I saw it. It was lousy, though closer to the book.
shareNot as lousy as 60's dull, fake mess.
Obtained from the liver of the inflatable mongoose.
Debatable. Which I don't care to do.
shareI love the 1962 version. Scared me as a kid. Still enjoy it as an adult. I wish Olive Films or Shout/Scream Factory would put out the new restored print.
shareSci Fi Classic THE DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS undergoes massive film restoration
Independent distributor Ignite Films brings the original feature to High Definition.
Amsterdam, the Netherlands, March 4th 2009.
Ignite Films is proud to announce the restoration of Sci Fi classic THE DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS, directed by Steve Sekely (UK, 1962). This is the original and only full length feature adaptation of John Wyndham’s highly acclaimed novel. The decision to bring this cult classic back to audiences could not have come at a better time. 2009 will also see an eagerly anticipated new 2 part TV mini series adaptation, complete with all-star cast .
The story of THE DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS is set in motion by a mysterious meteorite shower that blinds everyone who watches. The population is then left vulnerable to attacks from the triffids; mutated experimental plants that have grown into giant, walking man-eaters. One of the sighted survivors is Bill Masen, played by beloved Dallas actor Howard Keel, who teams up with a marine biologist and his wife (Kieron Moore and Janette Scott) to come up with a miraculous solution for saving the world.
John Wyndham’s novel has remained one of the most widely read science fiction books for generations of readers, permanently in print since publication in 1951. The story is established in the public imagination and shows it’s influence in new millenium features like 28 DAYS LATER (2002, Danny Boyle), THE HAPPENING (2008, M. Night Shyamalan) and BLINDNESS (2008, Fernando Meirelles). The book has also been adapted into various radio-shows, a 1981 television series and a comic book. Currently in production is the BBC/Power/Prodigy mini-series starring Dougray Scott, Brian Cox, Joely Richardson and Vanessa Redgrave.
Ignite Films proves to have shown good timing and foresight in restoring this film; now that the search for alternative energy sources heats up, the lessons of classic sci-fi will be a warning to mad scientists everywhere!
Prior to High Definition transfer and digital restoration, the original camera negative was photo chemically restored which included much painstaking hand work for scratch and dirt removal. Fans have been clamoring after a quality print version of this film for years and now it has finally arrived.
The restored version (color, 93’) in High Definition is available exclusively from Ignite Films.
About Ignite Films:
Dutch independent Ignite Films has more than 20 years experience in the restoration, marketing and distribution of Classic Film. Ignite Films owns, maintains and sells media rights to more than 200 Classic titles (primarily Hollywood). Restored versions of their films are broadcast by major stations throughout the world - most recently films by legendary director Otto Preminger. For more info on Ignite’s catalogue and restorations visit www.ignite-films.com or contact:
Jan Willem Bosman Jansen
&
Janet Schorer
Ignite Films
Prinsengracht 739-741
1017 JX Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 3449666
Fax: +3120 6207939
[email protected]
Thanks for the information, but this is not the restored print we've been waiting for. This is just another public domain revamp of dubious origin and quality, and by now three years old. The real, official restoration has been under way for years and is overdue, which is why I've wondered what's going on with it.
shareWell according to the description and some reviews I've read, it sounds like a pretty decent restoration to me.
sharePerhaps, but it's not the major work still currently in progress, which according to reports from people who have seen incomplete prints in LA and London, is supposed to be spectacular. It's been rumored for 2013, but the dearth of news on its progress is frustrating.
shareno one was asking you for your opinion of the mini-series! if you don'y have anything intelligent or informative to add to this thread, shut the hell up!!!
THE OLDSCHOOL HERO!
I didn't see it myself, but didn't Turner Classic Movies show this in L.A. a couple of years ago as a "restoration"?
http://www.filmradar.com/articles/item/tcm_film_fest_day_2_the_stunt_man_no_orchids_for_miss_blandish_the_day_of_t/
I'm virtually certain it wasn't TCM, but some other group that hosted that screening. (I didn't see it either.) There have been a couple such screenings in the US and UK as I understand it, though the film's restoration is still a work in progress. It does seem to be taking an exceptionally long time, even acknowledging the difficulties in undertaking such a painstaking and difficult process. Somewhere I heard the year 2014 as the expected date for its completion, but that's probably just speculation.
shareI'm curious, since you already know ALL of the answers and seem to dispell everything we have provided to try to answer YOUR original question, why was this thread even created?
Not trying to start an argument, I'm genuinely curious. This is just one of many threads where an op asks a question, you try to answer as best you can, op then tells you you don't know what you're talking about.
You have a strange way of not trying to start an argument, making such personally offensive, stupid and false statements. But I'll try to answer so you can understand things.
(A) I created the thread to get specific information on the restoration I asked about. If you'd read the OP correctly, you'd understand that there is no final answer to the question posed...except definitive information about the print in question, and any DVD of it -- nothing concerning which has as yet been posted. Until then, it's an open and unanswered issue on which anyone can comment.
(B) I certainly do not "know ALL the answers". Nor do I "dispell [sic] everything [others] have provided to try to answer [MY] original question". And nowhere did I say or infer, to you or anyone, that "you don't know what you're talking about."
First, if I knew all the answers, I wouldn't have started the post, so that's an idiotic statement in itself.
Second, I have not "dispelled" the information others have posted. People have either joined in asking the same thing or posted information that had nothing to do with the print I'd asked about. All I ever did in reply was to essentially thank someone for their post but to point out -- correctly -- that what they wrote didn't apply to the original question.
You yourself, prbronx5, wrote three posts. In the first one you merely said you like this movie, which hardly constitutes useful information and isn't an answer to anything. The second went into length about a Dutch version that may be interesting but has nothing to do with the restoration I'm speaking of. In your third post you simply said that the Dutch version sounded good, which may or may not be the case, but which -- once again -- has nothing to do with the question posed in my OP.
Third, I never questioned the truth about anything you or anyone else wrote. All I've pointed out is that everything that's been written doesn't answer the thread question. You're not only insulting in your language, you make a demonstrably false and dishonest accusation. (Incidentally, if I had wanted to "dispel" [one "l", not two] what you wrote, I would have tried to make what you said sound false. I don't question the accuracy of your posts. They just have nothing to do with anything I asked.)
(C) In sum, all the answers received, especially yours, have not answered the original question, or even really addressed it. There's been general comment, or references to other versions, but essentially nothing on the actual point of the thread. Therefore, I haven't received any real answers, and all I've done in reply is make a polite comment and say that a post doesn't address the question originally posed.
Now, maybe no one knows any information, and that's fine. Unlike you, I haven't been disrespectful toward any poster, nor dismissed what they said, or said that they didn't know what they were talking about, and I defy you to point out one instance where I did any of those things. I've only pointed out the fact that none of these posts answered the original question, and in some cases (like yours), they didn't even address it. Given this, it's odd that you should claim to have answered "as best you can". Perhaps you did, but nothing you wrote was on-topic.
So the thread and its question remain, for people to say whatever they want...hopefully, useful or at least interesting comment or information, but even for making false and rather ridiculous statements such as yours.
RE: personally offensive, stupid and false statements......
Guess you're also VERY sensitive since I don't believe any of what I said could be interpreted that way.
I don't have the patience to read through all of that ranting. You just seem to take issue with other people trying to answer your question. Anyway, not worth the effort to continue.
Hope you find your answers!!
Please read this post, at least.
Claiming that I dismiss everything people say, that I know "all" the answers, that I tell people they don't know what they're talking about -- that's pretty offensive, the more so because it's untrue. (And if I did do or believe such things, that would be offensive to the people I've replied to...which is precisely what you're accusing me of doing.)
Basically you're stating that people have answered my original question, but that I disregard or have no respect for them or what they wrote. I can't imagine how you could think that's not offensive. I also asked you to point out a single instance where I said or inferred any such thing.
Sensitive? No more than you, since by your own admission you "don't have the patience to read through all that ranting." (If you didn't read it, how can you characterize it?) But yes, I am "sensitive" to, let us say, counter-factual accusations.
If you'd read the entire response you wouldn't be making such preposterous statements as, "You just seem to take issue with other people trying to answer your question." You would also see that what you claim about the thread, and my attitude toward what people have posted, is untrue. The only post on this thread I've ever "taken issue with" is your two today, because what you've written is unjustified and not accurate.
Lastly -- nobody asked you to write your post. You did so on your own, in response to no one, on an issue you, not somebody else, brought up. What you wrote was gratutitous, unfounded in any fact or understanding, and indeed insulting -- to me, but especially to the people you falsely accuse me of disregarding. It's not my fault you don't have the "patience" to read my reply in full. If you didn't want to read the answer, perhaps you shouldn't have asked the question.
However, having started this nonsense, you should have the sense, or at least good manners, to read the reply you solicited. You might have had your questions answered and avoided writing a second silly and argumentative post -- about a reply most of which you admit to not having read in the first place.
If you want to have a discussion, or even an argument, about something I actually wrote, that's fine with me. But no, I don't like people who make mischaracterizations and false statements, then run away from the issue they themselves raised.
Not reading a rant. No patience. It's not that serious. Take care.
shareA new version has been released in France on DVD it states restored picture and sound and anamorphic widescreen. Has anyone seen it? I just ordered it from Amazin.
shareThe French release is not restored, not anamorphic, and still missing the boat scene so don't bother with it
shareThanks Tom Ricc! I was actually about to order it! I hear that the guy that restored it, wants way too much for the rights, so no one seems to be in a rush to release it. SO for now, no hi-def restored print on DVD/Blu-Ray.
Shame.
According to this September 2016 story, the restoration is still a work in progress. An apparent labor of love:
http://www.scpr.org/programs/filmweek/2016/09/02/51818/members-of-this-cinematic-group-risked-legal-jeopa/
Are you sure that's the right link, gortx? All I saw was a story about fans determined to collect actual prints of movies. Nothing about TDOTT.
I'm sure the guy restoring Triffids regards what he's doing as a labor of love, but by this point belaboring the work seems a better description.
Are you sure that's the right link, gortx? All I saw was a story about fans determined to collect actual prints of movies. Nothing about TDOTT.
I see. I didn't listen to the clip because I saw no mention of Triffids in the first place. But I'll check it out. Thanks.
I've still never heard of such a long restoration project.
Still no definite word of a U.S. DVD/Blu-ray release, but film historian/preservationist Bob Furmanek offered some recent (Jan. 2017) comments about the status of the restoration over at the Classic Horror Film Board:
"The entire feature has been scanned in 4K from the 35mm camera original negative and Mike is doing his frame-by-frame clean-up."
More details at the link below (see post #40):
http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/60365/DAY-OF-THE-TRIFFIDS-1963-being-mastered-in-4K?page=2
It sounds like the restoration is a one-man, self-funded project, which would explain why the progress has been so slow.