Yuku free message boards

Actually "GORGO" was photographed on Eastman Color stock and the 35mm release prints were Dye Transfer Technicolor. All prints for US and UK were made at Technicolor London. The only connection MGM had was distribution in the US and some other countries. Also, "GORGO"was made at MGM's British Studios branch. "GORGO" was reissued later in the UK by Regal.
I hope now that they have a decent film element to work with they won't remove all the grain and make it look like a modern film and rob all of Freddie Young's fine photography. I also hope they have a decent magnetic track to work with and even might have access to the original music stems (wishful thinking).

Steve R wrote:

---

Stephen, "Eastman Color stock and the 35mm release prints were Dye Transfer Technicolor."

I never knew that. So does that mean that if they find the original negative, which seems really doubtful,
that if they do not make a print with the same process, using that same stock that it will not look the same?
And if they have a decent print that was made that way will making an internegative lessen the effect?

That Technicolor look sometimes varied depending on the prints that were used. Different runs from different times also
had their own character. Naturally the hope is that enough attention will be paid so that Gorgo will have that wonderful
look we all loved back then.

Hello Steve. It seems that they have uncovered the original negative as Jameson281 said.
To answer your first question. The Technicolor process is supposed to replicate, as close as possible, the style of the original photography - that is captured in the original 35mm Eastman camera negative - and not the other way around. A Technicolor print is only as good as the photographic source. You can't go wrong with somebody with the talent and experience of Freddie Young. There were many great cinematographers and they all had their individual styles, like painters, and what's better than the dye transfer process to show it off?
Eastmancolor also made release prints and they represented the original photography just as well as a decently graded Technicolor print, but due to uneven film stocks they faded over varying amounts of time. With the Technicolor process and the way it was created the longevity of an individual print lasted a lot longer.
There are people on this forum like Jack Theakston that know considerably a lot more than I do and I hope he might chime in on the subject.
To answer your second question I think making an internegative from a print rarely ever happens and I do think it would lessen the effect.
In the Technicolor process an Internegative (and Interpositive) is not initially in the chain of events. In the case of "GORGO", at the Technicolor, London laboratory, a master set of 'matrices', cyan, magenta and yellow were created from the single Eastman negative and these were used to create a 35mm release print in individual passes. Also, hopefully, for protection as a back-up, a set of color separation masters were made, which is a breakdown of the color in three steps and, so if the original negative faded, a dupe negative could be re-constructed from them.
Despite there being a US Technicolor branch, prints made in London were shipped to the US for distribution by MGM (British Lion/BLC released it in the UK). Upon their return, they were in such bad shape and rather than pay the customs 'they' instead had them destroyed. However, at least one print survived the chopping block and is in very safe hands!
For video mastering and the forthcoming blu ray, if finances permit, a new color interpositive should really be made off of the 35mm original negative, if the color is still good, to minimize wear of the negative unless VCI can finance a 4K scan.
Provided the right people are present, who know the style of the film's photography well enough, there is no reason why we all should not see it the way it looked in Technicolor in 1961.
I hope this answers your question.