RAINTREE COUNTY on Blu? (2 Viewers)

[OliverK]

That would be amazing, but at this point I'll take whatever they give me!

Whatever they give us I am sure they will do an at least 4k scan of either the negative or some IP of the short version and in that case I doubt that we would "only" get it cropped t 2.35:1. Imo 2.55:1 is the minimum that I would want as ALL of the MGM Camera 65 / UP70 movies would at least have been expected to run at this aspect ratio no matter how they ended up eventually.Regarding the cut scenes it is an idea to hand them to a company like the one who worked on the Cinerama movie where they scanned the 35mm print and then brought it out as a Blu-ray. Just tell them to take it easy with the noise reduction and then we would at least have a decent if not great version with the cut scenes preferably on a second disc. Much better than just some SD scenes only available as an extra and still to be had for a very low price compared to Warners usual budget for projects like this.

 

[RolandL]

Whatever they give us I am sure they will do an at least 4k scan of either the negative or some IP of the short version and in that case I doubt that we would "only" get it cropped t 2.35:1. Imo 2.55:1 is the minimum that I would want as ALL of the MGM Camera 65 / UP70 movies would at least have been expected to run at this aspect ratio no matter how they ended up eventually.Regarding the cut scenes it is an idea to hand them to a company like the one who worked on the Cinerama movie where they scanned the 35mm print and then brought it out as a Blu-ray. Just tell them to take it easy with the noise reduction and then we would at least have a decent if not great version with the cut scenes preferably on a second disc. Much better than just some SD scenes only available as an extra and still to be had for a very low price compared to Warners usual budget for projects like this.

WB has released their UP70/Cinerama titles on Blu-ray at 2.76 (HTWWW was 2.86) so I don't see why they would not on this title. Unless they would want it to match the 14+ minutes of extra scenes from the scope print which could be 2.35 or 2.55.

Image Trends, Dave Strohmaier and Cinerama Inc. ("company like the one who worked on the Cinerama movie") have offered to restore WB titles in the past but WB was not interested.

 

[Andrew Budgell]

Image Trends, Dave Strohmaier and Cinerama Inc. ("company like the one who worked on the Cinerama movie") have offered to restore WB titles in the past but WB was not interested.

Why do you think WB isn't open to this and how much do you estimate they could save them in the case of Raintree County?

 

[OliverK]

WB has released their UP70/Cinerama titles on Blu-ray at 2.76 (HTWWW was 2.86) so I don't see why they would not on this title. Unless they would want it to match the 14+ minutes of extra scenes from the scope print which could be 2.35 or 2.55. Image Trends, Dave Strohmaier and Cinerama Inc. ("company like the one who worked on the Cinerama movie") have offered to restore WB titles in the past but WB was not interested.

If I had to bet how at least the general release version will come out my bet would be on a 2.76:1 aspect ratio as this is what Warner used for their three other ultrawide releases. They even released as you say that extremely wide non-smilebox version of HTWWW even though the movie was never shown or even intended to be shown like that (edges of the outer panels) so I think 2.76:1 is what it is going to be.With a little luck we will see 4k releases soon and then the question of how wide a movie is on disc will be of much little importance as then there will be the option to zoom in without any loss in quality, even today with the correct equipment this is not a big issue.

 

[RolandL]

Why do you think WB isn't open to this and how much do you estimate they could save them in the case of Raintree County?

I don't know why. I guess they have their own staff to do this and they want it to stay that way. I would think they would save at least half the cost, probably more.

 

[Nick*Z]

Well George Feltenstein's Ask Me Anything discussion panel left much to be desired on the issue of Raintree County, and - in fact - just about every other title fans were inquiring about. According to Feltenstein he is aware of the "interest" in Raintree but the title is still "under consideration". That's Warner code for "don't look for this one any time soon."

Raintree requires extensive restoration work to get it to where it ought to be. But here's my issue. While Warner has been dragging their heels on releasing more new classics to Blu- instead looking to reissue repackaged stuff and a handful of pending classics for the upcoming Christmas rush, studios like Universal and, most notably 2oth Century-Fox have been aggressively pursuing a marketing policy that has seen some distinctly solid efforts made to resurrect their catalogue in hi-def.

Warner seems to have dropped out of this race if you ask me. They are content to focus on the MOD archive for oldies and stick with the HD transfers they already have on file for reissues like The Exorcist and The Wizard of Oz. Okay, we'll be seeing James Dean, House of Wax, Bishop's Wife and The Best Years of Our Lives hit stores in Nov. - all new to Blu. But let's be honest. We've seen virtually nothing - or next to nothing - in classics between February and September while Fox in particular has been giving us 2 to 4 vintage titles per month thus far either via its own distribution or Twilight Time.

Knock, knock, Warners. Time to heigh-ho it back to the drawing board. Oh, and a repackaged JFK with no upgrade to its HD transfer but a bunch of reproduced vintage postcards and booklet IS NOT the way to appeal to our collector's hearts!!!

 

[David_B_K]

Warner seems to have dropped out of this race if you ask me. They are content to focus on the MOD archive for oldies and stick with the HD transfers they already have on file for reissues like The Exorcist and The Wizard of Oz.

while Fox in particular has been giving us 2 to 4 vintage titles per month thus far either via its own distribution or Twilight Time.

I do not see much difference beween Warner releasing Blu-rays via their MOD program and Fox releasing through Twilight Time; so I would not give Fox that many kudos over Warner. From the sound of things, Raintree County will likely end up as a MOD title.The studios cannot be expected to restore/release old movies if they cannot turn a profit. Even Lawrence of Arabia, after all the stunning work that went into it, regularly sells for $8.99. I can't see a Blu-ray of Raintree County setting the world on fire. Film buffs like us will buy it; but not the J6P's of the world. If it costs a lot to get it ready for release, it cannot sell for $8.99.

 

[Nick*Z]

Well, I wasn't comparing Warner's MOD Blu-ray program to Twilight Time. There is no comparison. But Warner's closed door policy regarding third part licensing - as Fox has done with Twilight Time - seems to be a bad model to follow. Warner's catalogue is MASSIVE!

But I was referring to the output of classics from Warner in 2013 in direct proportion to the output by Fox through their own marketing as well as through Twilight Time.

Let's be honest - Warner's collective catalogue (spanning the holdings of its own library, RKO's, MGM's and Selznick's) has far more "must own" titles than Fox's does.

And yet Fox is the one bringing theirs to hi-def with increasing regularity and success. If Fox can market Panic in the Streets and Blood & Sand (arguably lesser known titles) and still make the numbers click then Warner ought to be able to do as much with superior sought after titles like Raintree County.

Your argument about Lawrence of Arabia retailing for $8.99 has absolutely no bearing to this discussion. Sony's number crunchers worked out exactly how many units they had to sell at full price to turn a profit before allowing retailers to drop the price.

Fox has employed a business model that not only makes classic titles work on a sell-thru basis, but has made doing restoration/remastering work on a goodly number feasible - something Warner continues to argue cannot be done! All evidence to the contrary. Right?

 

[Robin9]

. . . . And yet Fox is the one bringing theirs to hi-def with increasing regularity and success. If Fox can market Panic in the Streets and Blood & Sand (arguably lesser known titles) and still make the numbers click then Warner ought to be able to do as much with superior sought after titles like Raintree County.

Your argument about Lawrence of Arabia retailing for $8.99 has absolutely no bearing to this discussion. Sony's number crunchers worked out exactly how many units they had to sell at full price to turn a profit before allowing retailers to drop the price.

Fox has employed a business model that not only makes classic titles work on a sell-thru basis, but has made doing restoration/remastering work on a goodly number feasible - something Warner continues to argue cannot be done! All evidence to the contrary. Right?

First, it is very much a matter of opinion if Raintree County is a more "superior sought after title" than those two Fox titles.

Second, we don't know how much money Fox are making out of their Blu-ray business model or how long it will continue. Warners are not amateurs at home entertainment. They do know how to do their sums. For all we know, they may be right to reduce their output. It's not what I want but it may make sense to them.

 

[Nick*Z]

Dear Robin9:

Warner are indeed seasoned pros. But please note that the studio's current 'reduction' model toward classic movie output does not extend to titles they have already issued to Blu, but continue to be repackaged in alternative and/or competing versions merely to scrape in a few dollars more. If there's enough money for doing this then there is certain enough money to remaster at least five NEW catalogue titles to Blu per year.

And let's be clear - another version of Oz, the Exorcist or JFK we really didn't need primarily since Warner is doing NOTHING to upgrade these transfers, but merely putting out the same ones as before but with a few extra 'extras' that were not included the first time around.

We've seen this business model before. Bare bones release, followed by release with a few extras, another with a few more, then - wait for it - an ultra-deluxe super/duper with all the bells and whistles.

Even though they're not doing anything in the way of actual transfer upgrades, it still costs money to pump out new cover art, new junkets, new documentaries, new featurettes and so on and so forth. Warner could take all of that money spent wastefully in my opinion and simply pour it into releasing NEW titles on Blu instead. But then they'd have to step out on a limb and really rethink what titles could reap in the big bucks. It's something to think about at least.

RE: Raintree having more importance than Panic in the Streets. Perhaps yes. Perhaps no. Movies are a matter of taste. But Raintree has, over many years and discussion boards like this one acquired more steam as a "where are they now?" title than Panic in the Streets which continues to be a niche Elia Kazan title at best with extremely limited mass market appeal.

RE: Fox - no, there's no guarantee that their current aggressive marketing will continue indefinitely. In point of fact it probably won't. But for now their model seems to be working a heck of a lot better than Warners. It's just that obvious.

 

[Virgoan]

Elizabeth Taylor is most likely to appear on Blu-ray with A Place In The Sun, Butterfield 8 or Suddenly, Last Summer. Raintree County is of more interest to people who haven't seen it than to those who have. Nigel Patrick is the best thing in it.

I've seen it many, Many, MANY times and I DEFINITELY want it on Blu ray. I know many others who feel the same way.

Your opinion is "your" opinion and "mine" is mine, of course. Nigel Patrick is just fine, but it's Liz and Monty and Eva Marie who make the picture the beautiful thing it is...along with Johnny Green's sublime original score.

 

[OliverK]

Dear Robin9: Warner are indeed seasoned pros. But please note that the studio's current 'reduction' model toward classic movie output does not extend to titles they have already issued to Blu, but continue to be repackaged in alternative and/or competing versions merely to scrape in a few dollars more. If there's enough money for doing this then there is certain enough money to remaster at least five NEW catalogue titles to Blu per year. And let's be clear - another version of Oz, the Exorcist or JFK we really didn't need primarily since Warner is doing NOTHING to upgrade these transfers, but merely putting out the same ones as before but with a few extra 'extras' that were not included the first time around. We've seen this business model before. Bare bones release, followed by release with a few extras, another with a few more, then - wait for it - an ultra-deluxe super/duper with all the bells and whistles. Even though they're not doing anything in the way of actual transfer upgrades, it still costs money to pump out new cover art, new junkets, new documentaries, new featurettes and so on and so forth. Warner could take all of that money spent wastefully in my opinion and simply pour it into releasing NEW titles on Blu instead. But then they'd have to step out on a limb and really rethink what titles could reap in the big bucks. It's something to think about at least. RE: Raintree having more importance than Panic in the Streets. Perhaps yes. Perhaps no. Movies are a matter of taste. But Raintree has, over many years and discussion boards like this one acquired more steam as a "where are they now?" title than Panic in the Streets which continues to be a niche Elia Kazan title at best with extremely limited mass market appeal. RE: Fox - no, there's no guarantee that their current aggressive marketing will continue indefinitely. In point of fact it probably won't. But for now their model seems to be working a heck of a lot better than Warners. It's just that obvious.

Warner is certainly making more money repackaging a title than they spend on it - that is the whole idea of doing that. With a new title where bigger sums have to be spent by going back to film elements the outcome is less certain, certainly in the short run.The way Fox is bringing out their titles now is different in many cases from spending lots of money where no previous work has been done. Fox has been sitting on several and possibly most of these masters for some time and there is not that much of an effort associated with bringing these titles to Blu-ray. Such a title would be Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines that had been prepared quite some time before it was released by Twilight Time and it would be the same for The Agony and the Ecstasy when it comes out from Fox, unless of coure they don't use what they have but go back for an 8k scan of the OCN. Cleopatra is also a title where most of the work had already been done and the same was true for Warners more aggressive output in the past which also showed in the fact that not all releases looked that good.I guess the question is what Fox will do when they have to start from scratch to keep the output that high? My estimate is that we will see less releases both due to costs and due to the lesser depth of their back catalog.

 

[OliverK]

I've seen it many, Many, MANY times and I DEFINITELY want it on Blu ray. I know many others who feel the same way. Your opinion is "your" opinion and "mine" is mine, of course. Nigel Patrick is just fine, but it's Liz and Monty and Eva Marie who make the picture the beautiful thing it is...along with Johnny Green's sublime original score.

I also liked it a lot and was surprised that I did enjoy it that much.It does work much better on a bigger screen and with proper picture and sound so in that regard it needs a Blu-ray more than for example Butterfield 8.

 

[Nick*Z]

Dear OliverK:

Just a point I'd like to clear up because it wasn't clear to me in your previous comment. You mentioned that Fox was 'sitting on some previous work done' which seems to fly in the face of the business model expounded upon by others in this post - namely that studios are creatures of habit who'll make money any way they can - hence, 'sitting on' viable product when it could be making them money doesn't seem to make much sense. Just an inquiry, not a slight.

But you also mentioned something about Warner's "more aggressive output showing that not all releases looked that good" and I need clarification on a couple of points: first - are we talking about WB's DVD output from 1997-2005 or are we talking about current output? In both cases WB has had their misfires. I suspect that many were willing to forgive the flaws in DVD mastering because WB was at leasting pumping out the goods with regularity and with a solid commitment to OAR and at least some minor clean up being performed.

The Warner Archive however has become a repository or dumping ground for movie classics - whatever their merit artistic or otherwise, and in whatever condition they currently exist in. Some have obviously fared better than others. Some too have received minimal clean up. None have been elevated to a level befitting even basic authored DVD and none are capable to complete with hi-def Bluray.

Your comment about Fox and WB has me genuinely perplexed. Either you're saying that Fox took the time to do the work but chose to delay its output on hi-def, whereas WB didn't make the commitment, or you're saying that WB's prior commitment was solid but the studio is choosing by far and large to abstain from reissuing to Blu-ray due to necessary improvements they seem unwilling or incapable of making at this time. Which is it? We can't have it both ways? I'd just like to know where you stand.

 

[ahollis]

Fox had and has several titles that were transferred to Hi-def four or five years ago that just sat in their self until about two years ago with the Twilight agreement. On title they have transferred and is still on the shelf is THE AGNONY AND THE ECSTASY. I don't agree with your Warner Archive is a dumping ground. Most of the titles they have released in the past four years have had work done to them. They look better than what TCM uses to broadcast. I'm also not sure if I would pay the extra $5 bucks for a Blu-ray of any of the Andy Hardy or Bowery Boys titles. But this is my opinion. The company that is a dumping ground is Fox Movie Classics. Not an ounce of work is done on most of those titles.

 

[JPCinema]

Lately it seems that Warner Archives has become the dumping ground of reissues from Warner and Paramount. I remember the beginning weeks of Warner Archives...the excitement of all those never on DVD titles........as with everything Warners these days...their output has gone from a flood to a mere trickle....sad.

 

[OliverK]

Dear OliverK: Just a point I'd like to clear up because it wasn't clear to me in your previous comment. You mentioned that Fox was 'sitting on some previous work done' which seems to fly in the face of the business model expounded upon by others in this post - namely that studios are creatures of habit who'll make money any way they can - hence, 'sitting on' viable product when it could be making them money doesn't seem to make much sense. Just an inquiry, not a slight. But you also mentioned something about Warner's "more aggressive output showing that not all releases looked that good" and I need clarification on a couple of points: first - are we talking about WB's DVD output from 1997-2005 or are we talking about current output? In both cases WB has had their misfires. I suspect that many were willing to forgive the flaws in DVD mastering because WB was at leasting pumping out the goods with regularity and with a solid commitment to OAR and at least some minor clean up being performed. The Warner Archive however has become a repository or dumping ground for movie classics - whatever their merit artistic or otherwise, and in whatever condition they currently exist in. Some have obviously fared better than others. Some too have received minimal clean up. None have been elevated to a level befitting even basic authored DVD and none are capable to complete with hi-def Bluray. Your comment about Fox and WB has me genuinely perplexed. Either you're saying that Fox took the time to do the work but chose to delay its output on hi-def, whereas WB didn't make the commitment, or you're saying that WB's prior commitment was solid but the studio is choosing by far and large to abstain from reissuing to Blu-ray due to necessary improvements they seem unwilling or incapable of making at this time. Which is it? We can't have it both ways? I'd just like to know where you stand.

Nick,regarding Fox: What ahollis said. There are releases that come from masters that have been done years ago. While that may not fit in with your theory it is clear that the studio also sees the release of a title on Blu-ray itself as something that cannot be done for every title just because it exists in high definition and possibly better.Warner probably has released a higher percentage of usable masters to this point than Fox so without shelling out the really big bucks Fox can still sustain a relatively large output while Warner is starting to fade which does not mean that this necessarily is all that Fox does but certainly a substantial percentage of their releases.When I am talking about subpar product from Warner I am only talking about Blu-ray releases. Examples of not so hot releases that I own myself are The Mutiny on the Bounty and The Cowboys, Amadeus is not that great either nor am I a fan of The Battle of the Bulge or The Wild Bunch. I doubt that the files that these Blu-rays came from where only done with the purpose of bringing these movies to Blu-ray, they were already available and deemed "good enough" with little additional effort.

 

[Paul Rossen]

Nick,regarding Fox: What ahollis said. There are releases that come from masters that have been done years ago. While that may not fit in with your theory it is clear that the studio also sees the release of a title on Blu-ray itself as something that cannot be done for every title just because it exists in high definition and possibly better.Warner probably has released a higher percentage of usable masters to this point than Fox so without shelling out the really big bucks Fox can still sustain a relatively large output while Warner is starting to fade which does not mean that this necessarily is all that Fox does but certainly a substantial percentage of their releases.When I am talking about subpar product from Warner I am only talking about Blu-ray releases. Examples of not so hot releases that I own myself are The Mutiny on the Bounty and The Cowboys, Amadeus is not that great either nor am I a fan of The Battle of the Bulge or The Wild Bunch. I doubt that the files that these Blu-rays came from where only done with the purpose of bringing these movies to Blu-ray, they were already available and deemed "good enough" with little additional effort.

Believe that The Wild Bunch is being worked on...

 

[ahollis]

Lately it seems that Warner Archives has become the dumping ground of reissues from Warner and Paramount. I remember the beginning weeks of Warner Archives...the excitement of all those never on DVD titles........as with everything Warners these days...their output has gone from a flood to a mere trickle....sad.

But just about every one of the Warner and Paramount reissue titles from WAC have been titles that were OOP and the asking price on Amazon Marketplace and ebay were high.

 

[Nick*Z]

I'm a "do it once and do it right" kind'a guy. If there weren't so many mistakes and/or oversights to fix just think how much further ahead WB would be now in getting more stellar work on new and as yet unreleased titles.

All it takes is one exec with a keen eye, a love of film, a well researched continuity script and dye transfer samples at his finger tips, and some time management to sit down once the master has been created, but before all the copies have been stamped and shrunk-wrapped and ready to ship to say "Hey, wait a minute, guys. Frames 137 to 230 seem out of whack. Send this back to the telecine dude and then the colorist and then let me have another look at it. Better still. Let me sit in on the tweaking. Twenty minutes or two hours. Once I leave the room they know what it should look like and can do the work on their own."

Really, it is that simple. Time and money - it all boils down to just these two things. So please, take the time and the money and do it once but get it right. The list of misfires is growing. Two that make my blood boil are West Side Story and My Fair Lady. I won't even begin to share with you the growing roster of titles that have merely left me shaking my head.