WIZARD OF OZ: 75th Anniversary Collector's Edition for pre-order (1 Viewer)

[Charles Smith]

That's what I want to understand, too. I was under the impression that this was to be yet another restoration, but it seems right now that the conversion to 3-D is what's new as far as the film goes.

 

[Andrew Budgell]

I don't own the film on Blu-ray, so if the 2D version is identical to the previous release, I'll still pick it up. I don't have much interest in a 3D version.I wonder if the GWTW 75th Anniversary release will also be the same as the 2009 release?

 

[Sam Favate]

Forgive me if this was addressed earlier, but I'm curious whether the extras from the 65th Anniversary DVD have all been included and/or upgraded to HD? I would like to have the film on Blu-ray, but if the extras aren't necessary, I might just get the bare bones copy of the film to go with what I consider to be a great 65th anniversary package (lots of great content, cool repros of the theater program, photos, etc., all without being in a large cumbersome box).

 

[RobertSiegel]

I think this is wonderful information. I had a strong feeling that this film would be the first to get a 3D makeover, and I am sure Warner will do it with the utmost care. I am quite excited. This could pave the way for the movie I would love to see in 3D- "The Sound of Music." I think this would be the classic that Fox would choose were they to pick a pre-1970 classic to convert to 3D (and it's my all-time favorite). I can picture now that opening scene in 3D. Plus so many of the shots in the film would look spectacular. If you think about it, it's the perfect movie to master in 3D due to the wonderful cinematography.

To those who are ranting on the web sites about leaving the classics alone, this doesn't mean you can't watch it in 2D. I am very opinionated about preservation of our film heritage and I always feel that the film should be offered in its original theatrical format in the best possible quality, but I don't go as far as saying, "hey, this would look great in 3D."

I believe Warner is going to get excellent boxoffice from the theatrical release of this.

 

[WilliamMcK]

Ooh... a 3D OZ... can a 3D CITIZEN KANE be far behind? (Maybe the could colorize it first).

 

[Doctorossi]

To those who are ranting on the web sites about leaving the classics alone, this doesn't mean you can't watch it in 2D.

So, where do you draw the line with changing an artist's work?

 

[Robert Crawford]

So, where do you draw the line with changing an artist's work?

As long as the 2-D artwork is intact and available to the public, what's the problem?

 

[Robert Crawford]

By the way, I'm not a fan of these 3-D conversions either and have expressed those feelings to Warner. However, I don't have a major problem as long as the original intent of the film is kept intact and available to the general public. These type of conversions and revenues generated might help restoration costs for other classic titles.

 

[moviebuff75]

Why do some people think that the 2D version is the same disc as previously released? No press release has been issued yet. When they first announced a 3D version, they stated that there would be a 3D version, as well as a newly-remastered 2D version.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Why do some people think that the 2D version is the same disc as previously released?

That's a good question.

I have been trying to find that out myself, but as usual, we have
member(s) claiming that it is without any official word from the studio.

 

[Ejanss]

Why do some people think that the 2D version is the same disc as previously released? No press release has been issued yet. When they first announced a 3D version, they stated that there would be a 3D version, as well as a newly-remastered 2D version.

Umm...because they're Warner, and they're cheap?

After its Ultra remastering (complete with computer-aided Technicolor alignment) on the DVD and '09 Blu, I don't know how much more "remastering" the print could take apart from fixing some glitch issues.
If they have fixed them, more power to 'em, but the extras are pretty much identical to the '09 Blu, so it's a reshuffling at least.

 

[Wayne_j]

Umm...because they're Warner, and they're cheap?

After its Ultra remastering (complete with computer-aided Technicolor alignment) on the DVD and '09 Blu, I don't know how much more "remastering" the print could take apart from fixing some glitch issues.
If they have fixed them, more power to 'em, but the extras are pretty much identical to the '09 Blu, so it's a reshuffling at least.

Of course this is one movie that Warners hasn't been cheap on. While it wouldn't shock me if the 2D disc was the same as the old release, I wouldn't count on them doing so at least until someone gets confirmation from Warners.

 

[moviebuff75]

Well, I sent WB five copies of my proposal. Jeff Baker sent me a lovely letter back. Of the five I sent out, one was kept....the restoration team kept their copy. So, I hope they used it as a guide to correct the errors. That's what I am hoping anyway. I also hope this version doesn't have windowboxed credits.

 

[TonyD]

...and what proposal might that be?

 

[classicmovieguy]

I severely doubt Warners has ever been "cheap" with this title. Every edition on DVD and Blu-ray has been better than the one before it.

This is one of the touchstone films in cinematic history - WB knows this and I believe treats it accordingly.

 

[Ray H]

If memory serves they already did an 8K scan for the last Blu-ray. What more can they do for the film in 2D? I imagine the 3D version and the new documentary are all that's new to this set.

Forgive me if this was addressed earlier, but I'm curious whether the extras from the 65th Anniversary DVD have all been included and/or upgraded to HD? I would like to have the film on Blu-ray, but if the extras aren't necessary, I might just get the bare bones copy of the film to go with what I consider to be a great 65th anniversary package (lots of great content, cool repros of the theater program, photos, etc., all without being in a large cumbersome box).

I believe the 2008 BDs include all the extras from the 65th Anniversary between discs 1 & 2 (watch out for the singe-disc release!), but I don't believe Warner upgraded any to HD. It's fairly rare that they do something like that.

 

[WilliamMcK]

By the way, I'm not a fan of these 3-D conversions either and have expressed those feelings to Warner. However, I don't have a major problem as long as the original intent of the film is kept intact and available to the general public. These type of conversions and revenues generated might help restoration costs for other classic titles.

And in the process distort the impression of the what the movie is for future generations. This is the same argument that was used during the colorization fiasco in the the '80's and '90's.

 

[Doctorossi]

And in the process distort the impression of the what the movie is for future generations. This is the same argument that was used during the colorization fiasco in the the '80's and '90's.

Yes. Not only is it misrepresenting the original art, but when a revision like this takes hold (and the studio's priority), I also question how long the original, unmolested version will remain available and easily accessible to the audience (see, again, the colorization era, during which a number of films saw home video release in defaced versions only).

The bottom line is that 3D has never had anything to do with what this production of The Wizard of Oz is supposed to be and so, should not be allowed to alter it. It's no more appropriate an addition than would be new insert shots of Arnold Schwarzenegger skipping down the yellow brick road.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I don't think, in the case of The Wizard of Oz, that the 3D version
is going to be the standard, historic representation of the film and
the only version available.

In fact, I don't foresee that being the case for any classic that is
upconverted to 3D.

I am certain the studios are very much aware that the untouched,
original versions of these films must always be available.

While I understand the studios don't always do the right thing, this
is one standard that goes without saying.

As for 3D conversions...

I embrace the 3D conversion of THE WIZARD OF OZ. Have no
problems with it being done. I think even those that are against it
are going to be curious enough to give it a peek --- especially if
rave reviews turn up across the internet about how good it looks.

If any classic deserves an upconversion it is OZ. I even thought
of it more than a year ago, wrote executives at the studio and suggested
it, only to be told (privately) it was already in the process of being done.

All that being said, I totally understand the views of those who feel
that these films should not be touched given the fact that all those
originally involved with the film are deceased and have no say in
the matter as to the artistic "molestation" that is being performed.

Would those involved with OZ and other like films approve of the
3D upconversions being done? I could easily assume yes, but I
can't speak for the dead. The only common ground that the living
seem to have on this matter is that as long as the untouched version
is forever available, then history is not being erased and consumers
have a choice in which version they want (or not want) to buy.

 

[Robert Crawford]

And in the process distort the impression of the what the movie is for future generations. This is the same argument that was used during the colorization fiasco in the the '80's and '90's.

Colorization failed so I don't know how that distorted the impression of the movie for future generations. Again, as long as the original intent of the filmmaker is readily available to the general public, I don't have a major problem with 3-D conversions.