WHV Press Release: Singin' In The Rain 60th Anniversary Ultimate Collector's Edition (1 Viewer)

LOL.

 

[alistairKerr]

Well, there, then now. Whatever happened to the lousy HD and BluRay transfers of THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT 1.2.3. Both current sets are terrible.

I agree, the quality of the Blu-ray set of these films is dire - the DVD set had a better picture! Please, Warners, give us a remaster of these classic films.
Alistair

 

[NY2LA]

I actually prefer Scrooge, from another Dickens novel and apparently reusing the Oliver! sets a few years later.
On the other hand, I like the songs in Goodbye Mr. Chips. They are sincere reflections of their characters, and really provide a foundation for the sentiment. I find the O'Toole version far superior to the original Donat version. I would love to see Chips on Blu-ray.

Agreeing Oliver! leaves me cold (too bleak I think) and I like Scrooge and the musical Chips. As for the thing about Scrooge using the same sets that would have been struck two years before, does anyone really think they were all just sitting there on that huge Pinewood stage for two years? And i don't know why they would have been saved. How many other film sets got saved? I recall hearing of sets being destroyed specifically to avoid another movie using them. Not that I totally deny the possibility of their being re-used, I'd just like to know how and why...

 

[Rob_Ray]

Agreeing Oliver! leaves me cold (too bleak I think) and I like Scrooge and the musical Chips. As for the thing about Scrooge using the same sets that would have been struck two years before, does anyone really think they were all just sitting there on that huge Pinewood stage for two years? And i don't know why they would have been saved. How many other film sets got saved? I recall hearing of sets being destroyed specifically to avoid another movie using them. Not that I totally deny the possibility of their being re-used, I'd just like to know how and why...

I can't speak about Pinewood per se, but back in the 1969-1970 era, the Hollywood studios' output was at or near an all-time low as the old studio system finally died after being in a long coma. In those days, it would not have been unusual for sets to sit vacant for months if maybe not years. I know that over at Twentieth Century-Fox, the grand hall from The Sound of Music turned up redressed as a hotel lobby in Do Not Disturb and the Titanic's grand staircase in TV's The Time Tunnel and a portion of SOM's ballroom served as the Harmonia Gardens' hat-check room in Hello Dolly four years later.
In the case of Scrooge, if pre-production began early enough, it's certainly possible that Oliver's sets were placed in storage for re-use. Why not? It's the exact same era and locale. And certainly Oliver's elaborate outdoor street sets were saved. MGM's 1944 Meet in in St. Louis street survived into the early seventies and was redressed as a Nob Hill neighborhood in How the West Was Won in 1962.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by NY2LA /t/320716/whv-press-release-singin-in-the-rain-60th-anniversary-ultimate-collectors-edition/60#post_3932155
Agreeing Oliver! leaves me cold (too bleak I think) and I like Scrooge and the musical Chips. As for the thing about Scrooge using the same sets that would have been struck two years before, does anyone really think they were all just sitting there on that huge Pinewood stage for two years? And i don't know why they would have been saved. How many other film sets got saved? I recall hearing of sets being destroyed specifically to avoid another movie using them. Not that I totally deny the possibility of their being re-used, I'd just like to know how and why...

There was a lot of discussion on the Scrooge Blu-ray thread about the use of not use of the Oliver sets.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/315330/scrooge-1970-blu-ray-review

Does not appear that it was ever settled. There was a post on another thread about Scrooge, which I have not located that showed some stills from both movies and the sets sure looked the same. But again 1800's London is going to look the same no matter who builds it.

 

[Garysb]

I agree, the quality of the Blu-ray set of these films is dire - the DVD set had a better picture! Please, Warners, give us a remaster of these classic films.
Alistair

I recently watched the first That's Entertainment DVD up converted on a blu ray player and flat screen TV and was surprised that the picture on .many of the 1930's films were as fuzzy as the blu ray disc. It never looked that way on an old TV and DVD. I just have to assume it is very expensive to restore all the films that were used and that it just was not done. Warner Bros wasn't just going to restore the clips used in the film. They would restore all the films. Many of the films are only in the Warner archive unrestored.

 

[rsmithjr]

Ironically, when That's Entertainment! came out (1974), many people commented that the film clips looked better than they had in years. I remember the clips from Gigi looking so much better than the faded Metrocolor that we had been accustomed to during the 60's.
It is simply a mark of how far we have come that these same clips don't look that good today. We now have much better versions of the films to look at, the whole film this time. That's Entertainment! would have to be reedited in order to insert the newer versions of the clips, it is probably not worth the effort.

 

[NY2LA]

I can't speak about Pinewood per se, but back in the 1969-1970 era, the Hollywood studios' output was at or near an all-time low as the old studio system finally died after being in a long coma. In those days, it would not have been unusual for sets to sit vacant for months if maybe not years. I know that over at Twentieth Century-Fox, the grand hall from The Sound of Music turned up redressed as a hotel lobby in Do Not Disturb and the Titanic's grand staircase in TV's The Time Tunnel and a portion of SOM's ballroom served as the Harmonia Gardens' hat-check room in Hello Dolly four years later.
In the case of Scrooge, if pre-production began early enough, it's certainly possible that Oliver's sets were placed in storage for re-use. Why not? It's the exact same era and locale. And certainly Oliver's elaborate outdoor street sets were saved. MGM's 1944 Meet in in St. Louis street survived into the early seventies and was redressed as a Nob Hill neighborhood in How the West Was Won in 1962.

Certainly outdoor backlot sets sat vacant (until they were sadly sold off and bulldozed) although we did hear of some expensive outdoor sets being destroyed instantly to stop other productions from using them. But I don't believe any sets just sat on a stage for years. Seems Columbia or whatever production company involved would have paid for the Oliver! sets, and maybe they might have sold them off after the fact. It's conceivable they were sitting in storage, but not at all believable that they were abandoned on one of the world's biggest stages for two years, and if you look at the major productions done from 67-69 there were enough that would have been using Pinewood.

 

[NY2LA]

Ironically, when That's Entertainment! came out (1974), many people commented that the film clips looked better than they had in years. I remember the clips from Gigi looking so much better than the faded Metrocolor that we had been accustomed to during the 60's.
It is simply a mark of how far we have come that these same clips don't look that good today. We now have much better versions of the films to look at, the whole film this time. That's Entertainment! would have to be reedited in order to insert the newer versions of the clips, it is probably not worth the effort.

Well again they did it before for a prior Homevid release. I don't buy at all that there was nothing WB could do to make them look better on BR. I'm not even convinced they bothered to do a new transfer. They didn't do a new transfer for Willy Wonka. We could start en entire new thread for Blu Ray releases that don't look any better, sometimes worse, than the old DVD. I don't think that's just technology, that's cheap-laziness. I think in numerous cases, studios want the extra money from re-selling us our favorite movies, but they do NOT want to make the effort or spend the money to make it worth the new purchase. So when the industry complains that Blu Ray is not taking off and becoming the bonanza that DVD was, and that reissues aren't selling so well on Blu Ray, I think they're often refusing to factor in the cheap-ass job they did on them.

 

[rsmithjr]

Well again they did it before for a prior Homevid release. I don't buy at all that there was nothing WB could do to make them look better on BR. I'm not even convinced they bothered to do a new transfer. They didn't do a new transfer for Willy Wonka. We could start en entire new thread for Blu Ray releases that don't look any better, sometimes worse, than the old DVD. I don't think that's just technology, that's cheap-laziness. I think in numerous cases, studios want the extra money from re-selling us our favorite movies, but they do NOT want to make the effort or spend the money to make it worth the new purchase. So when the industry complains that Blu Ray is not taking off and becoming the bonanza that DVD was, and that reissues aren't selling so well on Blu Ray, I think they're often refusing to factor in the cheap-ass job they did on them.

You make some good points. But in the case of That's Entertainment, I think the Blu-rays capture that film pretty well (if not the films that have clips in them).

 

[NY2LA]

You make some good points. But in the case of That's Entertainment, I think the Blu-rays capture that film pretty well (if not the films that have clips in them).

I wonder then why people have said repeatedly how bad the BR is. I won't buy the BR because of so many bad reports on it. Again this one looks like WB did nothing but put the same old transfers onto BR. No new supps, no enhancements, like they just took for granted we'd buy it.
And if I recall at least one of the TE! movies had a scene from SINGIN IN THE RAIN, which is what we were talking about... (how's that for a segueway?) before we completely derail this thread any further off topic, have we discussed what shorts and cartoons we'd like to see with it if WB did a Warner Night at the Movies feature?

 

[Matt Hough]

I reviewed the That's Entertainment collection back in 2007 (the review can be found here). Rereading that review, I found the transfers a mixed bag filled with some clips that were eye-popping and others that frankly were not. But to dismiss the set out right is unfair. It's also something to consider that it was released within the first year or so of Blu-ray's existence, and lots of less than ideal transfers came out during that period.

 

[David Weicker]

I purchased the Blu-Ray of That's Entertainment, and found it good. Not great, but worthy of an upgrade.
Could they have improved the earlier clips - probably. But they would have probably had to use some kind of tools, and then they would have been criticized for that by other factions here on HTF. TE is such a mixed bag that no-one would likely be completely happy, no matter what was done. I do believe (and I think it was mentioned in the review), that clips from films that had been Ultra-Resolutioned were replaced in TE
My only complaint is that they didn't include the two versions that were on the DVD set. The original film played around with OAR. Some earlier clips were pillarboxed, while other early clips were zoomed in and cropped to widescreen. I think some of the later clips were also cropped if they were 'wider' than TE's OAR. On the DVD, they gave us the Theatrical version, and then a version with all the clips in their correct OAR (pillarboxed for early, letterboxed if necessary for later)
And on topic, any news on when the non-box Singin' In The Rain will be available for pre-order?
David

 

[NY2LA]

I purchased the Blu-Ray of That's Entertainment, and found it good. Not great, but worthy of an upgrade.
Could they have improved the earlier clips - probably. But they would have probably had to use some kind of tools, and then they would have been criticized for that by other factions here on HTF. TE is such a mixed bag that no-one would likely be completely happy, no matter what was done. I do believe (and I think it was mentioned in the review), that clips from films that had been Ultra-Resolutioned were replaced in TE
My only complaint is that they didn't include the two versions that were on the DVD set. The original film played around with OAR. Some earlier clips were pillarboxed, while other early clips were zoomed in and cropped to widescreen. I think some of the later clips were also cropped if they were 'wider' than TE's OAR. On the DVD, they gave us the Theatrical version, and then a version with all the clips in their correct OAR (pillarboxed for early, letterboxed if necessary for later)

What I have shows the newly shot interstitials as 1.33 which makes no sense to me. seems with Blu RAY you could play it down the middle and run every shot at its native OAR. but they didn't did they? I just don't see enough value in the BR to buy it and replace the box set i have.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by alistairKerr /t/320716/whv-press-release-singin-in-the-rain-60th-anniversary-ultimate-collectors-edition/60#post_3931005
I agree, the quality of the Blu-ray set of these films is dire - the DVD set had a better picture! Please, Warners, give us a remaster of these classic films.
Alistair

With how poor the sales were for the HD-DVD and Blu-ray releases, I'd be shocked to see Warner ever put these films out on home video ever again (aside from repackaging the current discs).

 

[Ejanss]

What? Poor sales for HD-DVD??
(Oh, wait, this's Warner--That's what they thought about Casablanca for years.)

 

[NY2LA]

With how poor the sales were for the HD-DVD and Blu-ray releases, I'd be shocked to see Warner ever put these films out on home video ever again (aside from repackaging the current discs).

Another case of studios failing to realize their shoddy treatment is what killed sales and blaming the film instead.

 

[Jacksmyname]

I'll be picking this one up. And for the record I like the box with stuff. I love the reproductions of lobby cards and what not. For me the packaging is all about showmanship.
Doug

Late to this thread, I know, but ditto.
I'm also a fan of the big box sets because of the printed materials. It's always a treat to see the reproductions.
It puzzles me when I read posts about how bad the cover art is of some classic films, and then criticise the big sets that
include the reproductions of the original, classic art.
The hard cover books included in the big sets are always very nicely done, as are the smaller printed items.
It's just plain, nice stuff; hardly swag or junk.
Sure, some of the what I call hard collectables might be a bit silly (think shot glass with Bugs), and yet I still get a bit of
a kick out of them. Some, like the music box in the Sound Of Music set, are surprisingly nice.
As for the umbrella included in this set, I know at least one lady who will get a kick out of actually using it (hint: we have the same address
And her neighbor girl friends will all want to know where they can get one.
Assuming a worthy transfer, I'll add this big set to my collection.

 

[David Weicker]

Single disc version is finally up for pre-order on Amazon - $13.99
http://www.amazon.com/Singin-Rain-60th-Anniversary-Blu-ray/dp/B0087YYHZU/ref=sr_1_3?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1338692497&sr=1-3
I included the link, but I'm sure that the moderator will want to put an official link so that HTF can get credit. Once that is done, I'll remove it from this post (if necessary - don't know the official rules about this).
David

 

[Ronald Epstein]

David,

That link will work perfectly, thanks.

Been looking for that single release for weeks to include here.

The one day I don't look, you find it. That's great. Now most
of us can go ahead and order the single disc release.

Thank you again.

...and thank God this wasn't a Walmart or Target exclusive.