What's new

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

What version of Oz are you (or not) purchasing?


  • Total voters
    129

Nick*Z

Screenwriter
Joined
Apr 30, 2003
Messages
1,801
Location
Canada
Real Name
NICK
Ejanss, speaking of rants and haters I think you pretty much beat my argument to a pulp.

You didn't defend your own, however. There is a difference. And you've completely missed my point. It isn't a question of personal taste or clever marketing. It's a question of film preservation pure and simple, something Warner has generally adhered to with a passion in the past.

My points were simple to follow. I'll review.

1) Oz was not meant to be seen in 3D

2) another box set of Oz 5 years after Warner's already deluxe and lavish 70th is a waste of studio monies that might have been spent on restoring and releasing other classics in the Warner library in hi-def

3) We don't change the past to suit the present in any other category of life and that includes art. You wouldn't repaint the Mona Lisa to expose her midriff and dye her hair blonde and give her a nipple ring, would you?!? So why is cinema art considered fair game for any and all manipulations any studio in the future may wish to apply to it?!?

4) buying multiple box sets of the same damn movie - regardless of its cultural status is a waste of time and our good hard-earned money. Do it once. Do it well and give it class.

5) bully for you and others like you who own 3D widescreen displays. They're meant to take full advantage of legitimate 3D widescreen movies - not merely created as an excuse to show revamped classics simply to appease your present mode of home viewing.

6) there's plenty of movie art currently MIA in 1080p. Don't you think you'd like to see some more instead of simply some more of the same?!?!

These were the points I was trying to make. Now that I have restated them for the forum I'll leave you to trample on them again. No doubt you will.
 

Bob_S.

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
1,205
Nick, question: If a movie was specifically made for 3d, would you be against a studio putting out a 2d version of it? Just curious. I understand your feelings on this but don't completely agree with you.
 

ahollis

Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
8,864
Location
New Orleans
Real Name
Allen
It is continued to be said that releasing THE WIZARD OF OZ in 3D is wasting monies when there are other movies needing to be released. Well I think that Warner knows what to expect in sales and is not going to release the title to lose money. The profits that are derived from this release could pay for those other titles such as Raintree County or Brothers Grimm which both need extensive work but might not see a profit. The box set is geared to families that have not purchased the previous box set. My reasoning on that is the 3D version is being released also on a single disk for people that have the previous box set and want the 3D version. Also Disney re-issued DVDs every five or so years. This is just marketing to ones that missed the last release. Warner's is just coping that program. We have had Titanic, Finding Nemo, The Lion King, Top Gun, Jurassic Park, I Robot and others all re-engineered in 3D and they were not planed for that format and have been received positively. This is just a new marketing tool, the same as director's cuts, to give extended life to films. Not sure why people are upset over this. If you don't like it, don't see it and Don't buy it. For me I am glad there is continued interest in 3D software from the film companies
 

Nick*Z

Screenwriter
Joined
Apr 30, 2003
Messages
1,801
Location
Canada
Real Name
NICK
Bob_S - in the days before watching movies at home in 3D was possible I was perfectly contented to have flat versions of 3D movies on home video for the simple fact that no other possibility existed. However, since the advent of 3D home video I see no point in not offering the public both 2D and 3D versions of legitimate 3D movies like Creature from the Black Lagoon and Hondo (the latter still not given its do in 3D) as many 3D movies from the 1950s were shown in 2D because a lot of theaters then were not equipped to show them any other way.

Ahollis's point about money from this latest Oz reissue possibly being used to restore other classics is, in my opinion, moot. How much do you want to bet the money used from Oz in 3D will be set aside to retool other classics in 3D instead?

Ahollis' point about Disney marketing is also rather weak since Disney has never reissued the same movie to home video every 5 years in competing versions.

When Disney first entered the DVD market they did release a bare bones movie only version of some of their animated classics before seeing the light and going back to do digital restorations and comprehensive 2 disc special editions. But that's about all the repeat they have done.

And Disney has always put their old releases in moratorium for a good eight to ten years before revisiting them again.

Oz's history on home video is as follows.

1981 - first VHS release of Oz on home video in a rental only copy for stores.
1983 - first home video sell through release in a puffy 'family friendly' clamshell packaging
1989 - 50th anniversary restoration in a crappy cardboard slip sleeve
1991 - reissue of 50th anniversary without 50th anniversary marketing in a puffy clamshell
1995 - reissue with 'witches' focus repackaging in crappy cardboard slip case
1998 - first DVD release - bare bones - under the old MGM/UA home video marketing banner (I can still hear Leo's roar!)
1999 - reissue of same disc under the newly acquired Warner Home Video banner
2001 - reissue of a deluxe edition under the Warner 'Family Entertainment' banner
2005 - reissue as a deluxe 2 disc ultra hi resolution set with embossed cover art
2009 - first Blu-ray edition for Oz's 70th anniversary, first in a deluxe and lavish box
2010 - second Blu-ray edition - same transfer, single disc, different cover art
2011 - third Blu-ray edition - 70th in a sleek 2 disc packaging without the box

Unlike Disney's marketing campaign none of these reissues has EVER gone into moratorium. Have a look at this Amazon link below to see just how many competing editions are currently for sale. Still think Warner hasn't been wasteful retooling Oz for a 75th in 3D?!? Dumb! Really dumb!

But I think you'll agree those who have wanted and continue to want to own Oz in hi-def have had more than ample opportunity to do so!!!

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=the%20wizard%20of%20oz%2C%20bluray
 

FoxyMulder

映画ファン
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
5,385
Location
Scotland
Real Name
Malcolm
I just wish they would shoot in native 3D more instead of converting after the film is shot, it really shouldn't cost that much more to shoot a big budget film in 2D and 3D at the same time, it could be a bit like Oklahoma, 2 different shot versions but much cheaper to do these days with digital cameras, they could optimize for 3D and 2D, i'm not really happy with them converting films, i would prefer more movies to be shot in native 3D.
 

moviebuff75

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
1,308
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Real Name
Eric Scott Richard
I want them to keep releasing it until they get it completely correct. The last set was a disappointment to me, with the introduction of the nasty video glitch, the continued absence of Judy's line cut in 1998, the transition to Technicolor being too dark, the windowboxing of the credits, the same documentary from 1990 (we needed a new one.) So, I'm keeping my fingers crossed this time.
 

Ejanss

BANNED
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
2,789
Real Name
EricJ
Nick*Z said:
Ejanss, speaking of rants and haters I think you pretty much beat my argument to a pulp.

My points were simple to follow. I'll review.

1) Oz was not meant to be seen in 3D

2) another box set of Oz 5 years after Warner's already deluxe and lavish 70th is a waste of studio monies that might have been spent on restoring and releasing other classics in the Warner library in hi-def

3) We don't change the past to suit the present in any other category of life and that includes art. You wouldn't repaint the Mona Lisa to expose her midriff and dye her hair blonde and give her a nipple ring, would you?!? So why is cinema art considered fair game for any and all manipulations any studio in the future may wish to apply to it?!?
Your "angry" arguments depend on creating the idea that this is now the Official Lucas Replacement Version that all future generations will be subjected to, through Warner's greed.
IT. ISN'T. Which, yes, does pretty well beat the argument to a pulp.
I know you probably want to strangle the next person who says "Don't like it, don't buy it", but...literally, what is preventing you from seeing the original? It's in the box, for pity's sake. Is your sole objection the fact that a 3D conversion exists on our good green earth at all? Well, I don't like okra, but I don't cross the country on a mission with pesticides.

"But they could've spent money on something else?" Oh, could they have? I'm not privy to which titles are tied up by music rights, or no longer have film-source prints (most of the Archive titles are there simply because un-upgradable broadcast-video prints were the only ones they could get their hands on), and the truth is, we'll never understand WHY Warner will never bring some titles to Blu. I'm still wondering about Kurosawa's Dreams, m'self, and put most of the George Pal movies down to just good ol' fashioned Warner catalog paranoia...And if money could have cured that disease, it would've helped a long time ago.
If anything, it's a loss-leader, some "sure fire" instant-brandname staple for the holiday season that sells out at Target and Best Buy--like the Nth reissue of Harry Potter or Dark Knight that I've long since stopped paying attention to--that provides capital for '14's big projects that haven't been marketed yet. You might say that the fold-out Harry Potter boxset (now with all the movies in it, this time!) helped send a few pennies toward House of Wax--No one's accusing Warner of being stupid.
("But it's OZ!" It's a trademark. At least it wasn't Robin Hood, Casablanca or The Searchers, but we've been through that already.)

And let's see, the other complaint seems to be,
Nick*Z said:
4) buying multiple box sets of the same damn movie - regardless of its cultural status is a waste of time and our good hard-earned money. Do it once. Do it well and give it class.
Well, here's where I'll let you in on a little secret: It's THEIR disk. They can do whatever they danged well please with it. A catalog title by nature has to be resold every so often to keep up with technology and waning interest, and preferably if it comes bearing gifts, like a better remastering or new documentary features. If they don't, there's always the people who weren't there to buy it five years ago, and now have the chance--It's only a waste of your hard-earned money if you buy it. And by your tone that you feel like you are "forced" to buy it, I take it you're planning to.
Like Moviebuff says, maybe they'll have gotten it right this time, but I know the 3D version wasn't in the last one. Good or not, at least it's New Stuff that I don't have in my old one.

(So please excuse if I'm "trampling" on your poor persecuted personal-righteousness. When a fly buzzes your ear for a minute, you wave it away; when it keeps buzzing your ear after ten waves, you dig out the nuclear sledgehammer.
You're creating a "villain" out of catalog 3D conversion that just isn't there, and reducing all your arguments that either A) you're too cheap to buy a new one, or B) you just think it's icky. Thank you for sharing. Now please stop being so generous.)
 

ahollis

Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
8,864
Location
New Orleans
Real Name
Allen
Nick*Z said:
Oz's history on home video is as follows.1981 - first VHS release of Oz on home video in a rental only copy for stores.1983 - first home video sell through release in a puffy 'family friendly' clamshell packaging1989 - 50th anniversary restoration in a crappy cardboard slip sleeve1991 - reissue of 50th anniversary without 50th anniversary marketing in a puffy clamshell1995 - reissue with 'witches' focus repackaging in crappy cardboard slip case1998 - first DVD release - bare bones - under the old MGM/UA home video marketing banner (I can still hear Leo's roar!)1999 - reissue of same disc under the newly acquired Warner Home Video banner2001 - reissue of a deluxe edition under the Warner 'Family Entertainment' banner2005 - reissue as a deluxe 2 disc ultra hi resolution set with embossed cover art2009 - first Blu-ray edition for Oz's 70th anniversary, first in a deluxe and lavish box2010 - second Blu-ray edition - same transfer, single disc, different cover art2011 - third Blu-ray edition - 70th in a sleek 2 disc packaging without the box]
I get it, Warner's is going to keep releasing THE WIZARD OF OZ until they make some money on it.
 

Ronald Epstein

Founder
Owner
Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
66,552
Real Name
Ronald Epstein
ADVISORY

I think it's time that the main participants of the past few posts take a
break from trying to convince each other that their opinion matters the
most.

Members should not be telling others to stop sharing their opinions.
Remarks like that don't belong on this forum.

Allow me to set the course of this discussion moving forward....

It is absolutely apparent that there is much controversy over Warner
re-releasing OZ not only for the umpteenth time, but in a format that
it was never originally intended for.

Absolutely, we want all of you to weigh in with your opinions on this
matter. That is why this forum exists.

However, you'll notice there are many of us who have already offered
our opinions on this topic in this or other threads and have walked away
from it. We stated our opinion, made our personal case, and then moved on.

Not attempting to make accusations toward anyone in particular...

Anyone that continually attempts to argue their point ad nauseam is only
going to aggravate others. In other words, just because you post the same
opinion several times over doesn't mean you are going to change anyone's
mind.

...and if you disagree with someone else's opinion, state so politely with all
your points thoroughly laid out, and then move on yourself.

We want this discussion to continue. We want all of you to debate the points.
What we don't want is a small group of individuals constantly arguing back
and forth to the point where insults are introduced into the discussion.

Make your point as strongly as you can, but then move on. You aren't going
to change the minds of anyone that doesn't share your opinion.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,598
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Ejanss said:
Your "angry" arguments depend on creating the idea that this is now the Official Lucas Replacement Version that all future generations will be subjected to, through Warner's greed.
IT. ISN'T. Which, yes, does pretty well beat the argument to a pulp.
I know you probably want to strangle the next person who says "Don't like it, don't buy it", but...literally, what is preventing you from seeing the original? It's in the box, for pity's sake. Is your sole objection the fact that a 3D conversion exists on our good green earth at all? Well, I don't like okra, but I don't cross the country on a mission with pesticides.

"But they could've spent money on something else?" Oh, could they have? I'm not privy to which titles are tied up by music rights, or no longer have film-source prints (most of the Archive titles are there simply because un-upgradable broadcast-video prints were the only ones they could get their hands on), and the truth is, we'll never understand WHY Warner will never bring some titles to Blu. I'm still wondering about Kurosawa's Dreams, m'self, and put most of the George Pal movies down to just good ol' fashioned Warner catalog paranoia...And if money could have cured that disease, it would've helped a long time ago.
If anything, it's a loss-leader, some "sure fire" instant-brandname staple for the holiday season that sells out at Target and Best Buy--like the Nth reissue of Harry Potter or Dark Knight that I've long since stopped paying attention to--that provides capital for '14's big projects that haven't been marketed yet. You might say that the fold-out Harry Potter boxset (now with all the movies in it, this time!) helped send a few pennies toward House of Wax--No one's accusing Warner of being stupid.
("But it's OZ!" It's a trademark. At least it wasn't Robin Hood, Casablanca or The Searchers, but we've been through that already.)

And let's see, the other complaint seems to be,


Well, here's where I'll let you in on a little secret: It's THEIR disk. They can do whatever they danged well please with it. A catalog title by nature has to be resold every so often to keep up with technology and waning interest, and preferably if it comes bearing gifts, like a better remastering or new documentary features. If they don't, there's always the people who weren't there to buy it five years ago, and now have the chance--It's only a waste of your hard-earned money if you buy it. And by your tone that you feel like you are "forced" to buy it, I take it you're planning to.
Like Moviebuff says, maybe they'll have gotten it right this time, but I know the 3D version wasn't in the last one. Good or not, at least it's New Stuff that I don't have in my old one.

(So please excuse if I'm "trampling" on your poor persecuted personal-righteousness. When a fly buzzes your ear for a minute, you wave it away; when it keeps buzzing your ear after ten waves, you dig out the nuclear sledgehammer.
You're creating a "villain" out of catalog 3D conversion that just isn't there, and reducing all your arguments that either A) you're too cheap to buy a new one, or B) you just think it's icky. Thank you for sharing. Now please stop being so generous.)
It's not your place to tell another HTF member what they can post here. Please, stop doing so. Some of you need to take the venom out of your contrary comments. There is no need to get personal nor angry for that matter. If you don't like what another member is posting then simply use the "Ignore" function available to you on that particular member that way you don't have to read that person's comments. To activate the "Ignore" function go to my settings and you will see an option to do so on the left in the profile settings page.

This warning is for all participants. Thank you.
 

Ejanss

BANNED
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
2,789
Real Name
EricJ
Sorry, didn't mean any malice--Was just registering a weary "THANK you, your '3D Conversions are Evil, because i don't want to spend more money' posts have been registered, noted and logged, and one will be sufficient."
I'd done my best to explain that one more Oz was simply a bit of corporate trademark marketing, that some didn't mind having a 3D Oz so long as the 2D was not only available but possibly "fixed" over the previous release, and that some of us who aware of both these points saw it as a minor inconvenience at worst, a pleasant frill-purchase at best.

Trying to attach it to making it the poster child for some other home-theater cause has been...done before, thank you (we'd just managed to get through the "Disney is evil for putting out a solo Oz 3D disk!" occupying, which is why it seemed so familiar), and bashers thinking The Price of Freedom was Eternal Vigilance. Well, the sentiment's not exactly new, and the poster didn't necessarily have to make the Vigilance so darned Eternal.
 

Dee Zee

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
508
Location
Falls Church VA, USA
Real Name
Tom
After seeing that portion of Lawrence of Arabia in 3D in Prometheus, I'm curious to see what's possible with The Wizard of Oz. And a 3D Oz might help sell 3D TV sets.
 

Dave H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2000
Messages
6,152
Has there been any word if the 2D version is a new encode or simply ported from the previous BD release?
 

Ronald Epstein

Founder
Owner
Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
66,552
Real Name
Ronald Epstein
Has there been any word if the 2D version is a new encode or simply ported from the previous BD release?
Trust me, I am still working on getting an answer. I have gotten as
far as waiting to hear back from the tech team. These things often
take time. Will get back to everyone.
 

JoHud

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
3,215
Real Name
Joe Hudak
I'll pass. I might pick it up years later at a severe discount or if they plan to have another exclusive slimmed down retail edition, but the only thing that interests me is the documentary and not enough to buy this whole package.
 

Garysb

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
5,861
Not sure I understand the logic of people saying converting the Wizard of Oz to 3D is taking away money that could be used to restore other films not on blu ray. Warner Bros. probably knows releasing OZ in 3D will make more money for them then releasing such great films as say The Strawberry Blonde, Key Largo, the Roaring Twenties. To Have and Have Not, Adams Rib, and any other film you can think of that has not yet been released on blu. For a pure monetary point spending money to releasing QZ again will generate more cash for Warner Bros.than releasing those films much as I and many others would like to see them on blu. I just don't see how releasing OZ again has anything to do with these other films not being released in blu. I wish Warner Bros would increase the Warner Archive blu ray schedule of releases but perhaps those films already released on blu by the Archive didn't generate enough sales.
 

FoxyMulder

映画ファン
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
5,385
Location
Scotland
Real Name
Malcolm
Garysb said:
Not sure I understand the logic of people saying converting the Wizard of Oz to 3D is taking away money that could be used to restore other films not on blu ray. Warner Bros. probably knows releasing OZ in 3D will make more money for them then releasing such great films as say The Strawberry Blonde, Key Largo, the Roaring Twenties. To Have and Have Not, Adams Rib, and any other film you can think of that has not yet been released on blu. For a pure monetary point spending money to releasing QZ again will generate more cash for Warner Bros.than releasing those films much as I and many others would like to see them on blu. I just don't see how releasing OZ again has anything to do with these other films not being released in blu. I wish Warner Bros would increase the Warner Archive blu ray schedule of releases but perhaps those films already released on blu by the Archive didn't generate enough sales.
Are they going to make $5m to $10m dollars on this 3D re-release, i doubt it.
 

Jason_V

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
8,954
Location
Orlando, FL
Real Name
Jason
FoxyMulder said:
Are they going to make $5m to $10m dollars on this 3D re-release, i doubt it.
I wouldn't see why they wouldn't over time. Between the initial theatrical release of the 3D and the 3D BD plus any subsequent repacks of the disc going forward, WB will probably make more than that. This is an evergreen title for the studio, one that always sells to young people, old people and everyone inbetween. Factor in the inevitable sequel to Oz coming down the pike...yeah, I think $5 million is very doable. $10 million, too.

Heck, animated DC Comics movies tend to make a few million...and that's just between DVD and BD for limited appeal characters and no 3D premium.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,810
Messages
5,123,548
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top