moviebuff75
Screenwriter
The Oz books are still available. I suggest the Books of Wonder versions.
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.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?!?
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.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.
I get it, Warner's is going to keep releasing THE WIZARD OF OZ until they make some money on it.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]
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.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.)
Trust me, I am still working on getting an answer. I have gotten asHas there been any word if the 2D version is a new encode or simply ported from the previous BD release?
Are they going to make $5m to $10m dollars on this 3D re-release, i doubt it.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.
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.FoxyMulder said:Are they going to make $5m to $10m dollars on this 3D re-release, i doubt it.
Warners wouldn't even bother with the 3D conversion if they didn't have the marketing data to prove your statement wrong when it comes out theatrically...FoxyMulder said:Are they going to make $5m to $10m dollars on this 3D re-release, i doubt it.