Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Ronald Epstein, Jun 3, 2014.
Do we know for a fact that this transfer is the same that was released 5 years ago?
Just wait for the 80th, when they'll have something about the restored Tara that's currently being done in Jonesboro, Georgia.
Hmm, and here I thought you'd logically understand that such a thing relates largely to the popularity of GWTW.
Not nearly as elegant and luxurious looking as the first Blu-ray UCE...
I like the shot of Vivien and Clark - a refreshing change to the other artwork we've seen a gazillion times.
I like it!
I was being sarcastic, as your brain seemed to be a bit faster than your fingers were when you were typing is all.
Tara looks very ghostly, I see WB went direction they went with James Dean, very minalistic, they could of keept the iconic sweeping title though.
I like my velvet box from the 70th anniversary set. Very classy and appropriate for the film it houses.
"I'm sorely tempted to pass on this release, but I really need a new handkerchief," said no one ever.
Warner's idea of memorabilia gets sillier with each release. Granted, I bought Singin' in the Rain for its umbrella (and its Blu-Ray, of course), but I really, really wanted it. And I have a feeling I'll do the same with Gone with the Wind, even though I have the 2009 box o' stuff.
This handkerchief better be freakin' amazing.
It really needs the Tumblin Collection outtakes and extra scenes, but who knows how long those'll be legally tied up?
A hankie? WB really now, a hankie, I rather have a watch or a figurine of Tara. This just show's WB brillance and my love/hate relationship with them continues.
That would be a dream come true. I hope WB hasn't given up on negotiating the rights for that footage.
I remember when GWTW made it's network TV premiere back in 1976. It was shown over 2 nights. If you had one of the first Betamax machines (which only recorded in the B1 speed with linear mono sound) you would have needed about 7 or 8 30 minute blank tapes (which cost about $25 each) to record the entire movie. Maybe two or three less if you were editing out the commercials in real time. Total cost would have been between $100 - $200 (and that was in 1976 dollars). But you would have owned GWTW!
Oh for the "good old days".
My comment about Gone With The Wind's reputation being diminished is based primarily on the slew of articles, op-eds and film reviews which have emerged since the most recent Best Picture winner was released, 12 Years A Slave. I can assure you, if you google the names of both films together, you will find plenty of reading material comparing each film's "Story of the Old South." In fact, here are 2 quotes from Manohla Dargis, in her New York Times film review - the first quote is in fact the review's opening line!
“12 Years a Slave” isn’t the first movie about slavery in the United States — but it may be the one that finally makes it impossible for American cinema to continue to sell the ugly lies it’s been hawking for more than a century......" "It’s at once a familiar, utterly strange and deeply American story in which the period trappings long beloved by Hollywood — the paternalistic gentry with their pretty plantations, their genteel manners and all the fiddle-dee-dee rest — are the backdrop for an outrage."
Perhaps it is unfair to compare them, each is a product of their time, but having seen "12 Years" again just last night, it is fresh in my mind.
Anyway, I also know the film has dropped a few places in various critic polls, including AFI's, though I do agree as was mentioned above, this was never a film for the Sight And Sound crowd.
So that being said, I do LOVE the film, it remains hugely entertaining and Vivien Leigh's performance and beauty have only improved with time, which is why I also mentioned I wish Warners would include all the available rare footage as bonus extras, rather than a handkerchief.
I agree about that storm of criticism being strong, but am not inclined to think that diminishes its overall public popularity.You are absolutely right that the release of "12 Years" certainly left GWTW to serve as a whipping post (just the best words I could find) for the idea that there was anything glamorous about the Old South for slaves.
But what intelligent person ever thought that GWTW told the whole story? The criticism of the viewpoint and its representation has been raging since it opened. Oddly, there were even Southerners who felt that Mammy was too familiar with Scarlett and wrote protests to the producers.
It is interesting to me that Dargis had to go back to 1939 for what she considers this perpetuation: " ... American cinema to continue to sell the ugly lies it’s been hawking for more than a century......" Continue? Even now? "trappings long-beloved by Hollywood"? Like after "In This Our Life," or "Pinky" or, to stretch and say even in the 60s, "To Kill A Mockingbird?"
I have trouble thinking of any films within the last 75 years that have touched the idea of sympathetically and glamorously dealing with the fall of the Old South--much less the idea of ante-bellum South like in, say, "Jezebel."
I think Dargis still has an admiration for GWTW that I remember from her review of "Titanic" (which she did NOT like.)
I think the difference in sensibilities depends on the emphasis one gives to GWTW. I think many see GWTW as primarily a story of dramatic loss, comeuppance (for both the South and the manipulative Scarlett) and hope with redemption.
I think there is a temptation for many to pick at GWTW, but they often get the notion of a Harlequin romance that is not really there. The girl doesn't get the guy.
And even as a sugar-coated South it fails.Scarlett beats her slaves (her lovers and her sister) and when she comes back to the plantation the slaves are all gone, but two.
The story does not, nor is it intended to tell the slaves' story and would be reprehensibly inadequate if it tried.
But I heard someone say "If you want to see black slaves get downtrodden and die, see "12 Years A Slave." If you want to see their masters get downtrodden and die, see "Gone With the Wind."
No we don't.
However, the smartest thing Warner can do with these press releases
is indicate such.
When they don't, we assume it's not a new transfer.
You would think, if it was, the studio would be touting the fact.
When OZ was announced last year, there was no mention in the press
release of a new transfer. Turns out it was not a new transfer. Most of
us are assuming this is not either.
Yes, it's unfair to compare two films made about 75 years apart. Also, I couldn't watch 12 Years twice, I don't care how good of a film it is, it's just too brutal of a film for me to see twice in the short time of one year.
"Not nearly as elegant and luxurious looking as the first Blu-ray UCE..."New artwork looks great IMO. Nothing wrong w the old one, though.
Maybe if they included a balsa wood Atlanta with "how-to" instructions for burning it.