WHV Press Release: The Wizard of Oz 75th Anniversary (Blu-ray 3D)(Blu-ray)(DVD) (1 Viewer)

[Ronald Epstein]

Ronald, you make a great point here. But I have to correct you on one thing: a 3D conversion of a 2D film should never be referred to as a 'restoration' or 'restoring 2D into 3D'. No matter how one looks at it, it is a revision: not a restoration.

I stand corrected. Thank You.

I do have a nasty habit of throwing the word "restoration" around too often.

 

[ahollis]

So with the re-imaging of this classic into 3D, does this restart the copyright period at year one?

 

[David Weicker]

Ronald, you make a great point here. But I have to correct you on one thing: a 3D conversion of a 2D film should never be referred to as a 'restoration' or 'restoring 2D into 3D'. No matter how one looks at it, it is a revision: not a restoration.

I stand corrected. Thank You.

I do have a nasty habit of throwing the word "restoration" around too often.

Actually, if they put back the portions that people say are missing, this could be a 'revision' AND a 'restoration'

 

[JoeDoakes]

Warner is not giving up that information. I have tried many times to get
an answer directly from them and it seems the question is being dodged.

I am presuming this is the exact same release as the 70th Anniversary.

However, I would advise everyone to wait for reviews which will
hopefully arrive in time enough for people to cancel their preorders
if my assumptions are correct.

That's just strange. Especially from Warner.

 

[Jack Theakston]

I was treated to a preview of OZ in 3D last week. I'm a purist far more than most, but after seeing it, it has my seal of approval. The stereoscopy is terrific, and enhances the picture tremendously, to the point that you would be fooled into thinking the film was shot in 3D. Unlike many conversions, much money and TIME was spent in making the 3D look natural, rather than an end-result of cardboard cutout-looking characters. Even the opening Leo the Lion logo has layering, with the film curling around the mascot exhibiting roundness. I won't go into too much detail as to the painstaking means WB took to get to this end result—most of it is covered in the "making of" documentary.

The sound mix is also impressive. Earliest generation tracks were used and it shows. Studio angles create an accidental stereo score, while isolated choral effects are effectively mixed as part of the front LCRs and in the surrounds. Aided by an alternate music & effects track that WB found, the surround channels have some interesting mixing—you can now hear the tremendous thunderclap when the Wicked Witch of the West leaves in a plume of red smoke.

Many have criticized this for being "revisionism." To this, I say, there is no way Victor Fleming and Co. would have seen this and have been unimpressed. And as long as the flat version is available, this already gimmicky film is available in another flavor that will make seasoned experts on it look at it from a different perspective.

In other words: it's got my endorsement...PICK THE BLU-RAY UP!

 

[Ruz-El]

Many have criticized this for being "revisionism." To this, I say, there is no way Victor Fleming and Co. would have seen this and have been unimpressed. And as long as the flat version is available, this already gimmicky film is available in another flavor that will make seasoned experts on it look at it from a different perspective.

Doesn't matter if we think they would like it or not, they're dead, this IS revisionism and unnecessary. I'd rather see Warner's put the money into producing new films that are as good as the classics they feel the need to change and "update" for an audience that hasn't asked for it.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Doesn't matter if we think they would like it or not, they're dead, this IS revisionism and unnecessary. I'd rather see Warner's put the money into producing new films that are as good as the classics they feel the need to change and "update" for an audience that hasn't asked for it.

Warners put their money into a project that will probably make them additional money over their investment. They looked at this project as a sure thing, while producing new films can be iffy investment-wise and return. Also, probably a lot more expensive to make new films.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I was treated to a preview of OZ in 3D last week. I'm a purist far more than most, but after seeing it, it has my seal of approval. The stereoscopy is terrific, and enhances the picture tremendously, to the point that you would be fooled into thinking the film was shot in 3D. Unlike many conversions, much money and TIME was spent in making the 3D look natural, rather than an end-result of cardboard cutout-looking characters. Even the opening Leo the Lion logo has layering, with the film curling around the mascot exhibiting roundness. I won't go into too much detail as to the painstaking means WB took to get to this end result—most of it is covered in the "making of" documentary.

The sound mix is also impressive. Earliest generation tracks were used and it shows. Studio angles create an accidental stereo score, while isolated choral effects are effectively mixed as part of the front LCRs and in the surrounds. Aided by an alternate music & effects track that WB found, the surround channels have some interesting mixing—you can now hear the tremendous thunderclap when the Wicked Witch of the West leaves in a plume of red smoke.

Many have criticized this for being "revisionism." To this, I say, there is no way Victor Fleming and Co. would have seen this and have been unimpressed. And as long as the flat version is available, this already gimmicky film is available in another flavor that will make seasoned experts on it look at it from a different perspective.

In other words: it's got my endorsement...PICK THE BLU-RAY UP!

I'll be there this weekend after reading yours and GregK comments. I'll also buy the new BD.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Warners put their money into a project that will probably make them additional money over their investment. They looked at this project as a sure thing, while producing new films can be iffy investment-wise and return.

Thank you for saying this.

Every once in a while someone states that this was a wasted
effort on Warner.

I suppose time will tell if that is true or not, but I think OZ in 3Dis going to sell very well for the studio.

The classic film market, on the other hand, has not been doing
well at all for the past several years -- so much so, a lot of its
distribution is being farmed out to other companies.

Warner rarely lets anyone down on their classic library and generally
puts a considerable amount of effort into titles they know will sell.

 

[Charles Smith]

... In other words: it's got my endorsement...PICK THE BLU-RAY UP!

On that recommendation ... done deal.

I have no need for another Big Box Set, but the standalone Blu-ray set will be MINE.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I think i am going to buy this and give it a spin at Xmas, worst possible scenario is i don't like the image quality and i sell it, best scenario is i enjoy it, whatever the case may be i think my interest is high enough to give it a spin even though i tend to dislike conversions.

 

[Jack Theakston]

Warners put their money into a project that will probably make them additional money over their investment. They looked at this project as a sure thing, while producing new films can be iffy investment-wise and return. Also, probably a lot more expensive to make new films.

Exactly—OZ has generated SO much money for the restoration department that has made other projects possible that this incarnation not only breathes new life into one of our favorite films, but will undoubtedly continue to make other projects possible.

Call it revisionism if you will (I honestly don't think so—the core film is still there intact), but the majority of even seasoned purists will find this new version most agreeable.

 

[Mark-P]

In the new Warner Archive podcast (dated 9/17/2013) even George Feltenstein gives a hearty endorsement to Oz in 3D. He said at first he was skeptical of the whole idea, but was immediately won over once he actually saw the finished product, saying that the conversion was very respectful to the original intent and not gimmicky.
I'll have to admit this has made me curious to see it. Originally I was on the side that screamed "sacrilege!"

 

[moviebuff75]

So, if they have fixed the 3D version but not the original 2D version, then that is disappointing that they care more about the revised version than the original.

 

[Jack Theakston]

Eric, what were the issues with the normal release?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I was treated to a preview of OZ in 3D last week. I'm a purist far more than most, but after seeing it, it has my seal of approval. The stereoscopy is terrific, and enhances the picture tremendously, to the point that you would be fooled into thinking the film was shot in 3D. Unlike many conversions, much money and TIME was spent in making the 3D look natural, rather than an end-result of cardboard cutout-looking characters. Even the opening Leo the Lion logo has layering, with the film curling around the mascot exhibiting roundness. I won't go into too much detail as to the painstaking means WB took to get to this end result—most of it is covered in the "making of" documentary.

The sound mix is also impressive. Earliest generation tracks were used and it shows. Studio angles create an accidental stereo score, while isolated choral effects are effectively mixed as part of the front LCRs and in the surrounds. Aided by an alternate music & effects track that WB found, the surround channels have some interesting mixing—you can now hear the tremendous thunderclap when the Wicked Witch of the West leaves in a plume of red smoke.

Many have criticized this for being "revisionism." To this, I say, there is no way Victor Fleming and Co. would have seen this and have been unimpressed. And as long as the flat version is available, this already gimmicky film is available in another flavor that will make seasoned experts on it look at it from a different perspective.

In other words: it's got my endorsement...PICK THE BLU-RAY UP!

I agree 100%. When Jack, Greg Kintz and I saw a few scenes at the Warner Bros. Motion Picture Imaging facility in Burbank last week, we were knocked out. It looked as if we were viewing stereo slides taken on the set.

Yes, it's that good!

 

[moviebuff75]

Jack, 1998 WB remastered the film for re-release in theaters for the 60th Anniversary. The audio engineers mistakenly thought that one of Judy's lines was a stutter edit. It wasn't. It's in the original cutting continuity and she clearly yelled out "Oh, Toto! Don't..." They excised the firs half of the line. The edit was only supposed to be for that theatrical release, but has carried on through today. Second, on the last Blu-ray, when Glinda's bubble is leaving and the Munchkins are running towards it, there is a digital glitch, resulting in lost frames.

 

[GregK]

I wasn't able to post much from LA, as the hotel wi-fi was spotty at best. Hence my very brief previous comments.

When we heard we would also see a preview of the OZ conversion, it is a safe bet to say we of the 3-D Film Archive were ..to a degree, a bit skeptical. Even with some of the recent higher quality 2D to 3D conversions, I was still a bit hesitant, with some of the same concerns that have been mentioned here already. Is this a quick double dip? What about the original presentation? The director's intent?

Even when viewed on a smaller projection screen, the opening credits alone told me we were about to see a quality 3-D presentation. And that was case. Every shot showed layered stereoscopic detail that clearly took countless hours and/or days - sometimes working on a single shot. For those with displays that cannot handle excessive parallax, OZ has enough parallax to always show a very apparent 3-D image, but should remain ghost free on virtually all consumer 3-D displays. It is my understanding the current OZ conversion was a two year project and it shows. Bob Furmanek summed up the presentation in a nutshell when he said after the viewing, "I feel like I was watching a View Master presentation" for those who remember the iconic stereoscopic reels which were often shot on the sets of major movies and TV series. http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/House-of-Wax From a stereoscopic 3-D perspective, it feels that real.

As Jack already mentioned, the audio was a welcomed surprise as well, using various available isolated effects elements and coincidental stereo recordings, the WB crew have made a tastefully crafted 5.1 mix that effectively uses the effect audio elements available. The discreteness of those effects also reminded me of the early four track mixes, which, given the age of this title, fits perfectly. I can't wait to hear it again at home.

After the preview (which WB showed us any scenes we wanted) I found I had a new perspective. This conversion was done with a great deal of care and executed VERY tastefully. You won't see flying monkeys or Toto jumping out of the screen. ..Why? It's not that way in the original, and it is not that way in the 3-D version. What we have here is a meticulously made 3-D window into Oz. The 3-D bluray has a dedicated 2-D version included, and let's be real - the 2-D version is never going away. If anything, someday it may be harder to find this version. The best way to think of this release is the 3-D version is an amazing supplement. If I have friends who want to see the original 2-D version, I'll have it on tap. If I want to knock someone's socks off in my screening room and they have no reservations, without hesitation I will play the 3-D version in a heartbeat. It will easily be the version my kids will enjoy the best as well.

For those who don't want or care about the 3-D conversion, or feel it is a double dip, the answer is simple: Don't buy it. No one is forcing you to purchase OZ for the umpteenth time. But for those who enjoy a quality 3-D presentation and love OZ, for me the best way again to describe it is an amazing and painstakingly made supplement which I'll be more than happy to purchase. I went in a bit of a skeptic, but left with a new perspective. I will admit to that, and hope others will give it a chance as well. I'll end with a previous quote from Jack Theakston: "I say, there is no way Victor Fleming and Co. would have seen this and not been impressed". I will easily second that.

 

[moviebuff75]

I don't have a problem with the new version. But when the original needs some fixes, and they lavish all of this on the new version, it bothers me. I don't want the current 2D version to be this way for all time. Please, WB, fix the film. Restore the missing and flawed elements back to the way they were before 1998! Then, I can enjoy whatever version you want.

 

[David Weicker]

I'm surprised there has been very little (if any) advertising for the theatrical showings this weekend.While I have no intention of picking up the Blu-Ray (traditionalist / no home 3D capabilities), I am curious about how it will look. So I'll be going this weekend.Other than a few websites (directed at HT/DVD/BD), I've seen no advertising for the Blu-Ray either