Wizard of Oz? (1 Viewer)

[Camper]

Which company holds the right to Wizard.. in hi-def.
And what format does that company belong to HD-DVD, blu-ray or both?
Thanks.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Warner. Both.

 

[Camper]

Timely and to the point--thanks very much
want to watch that with the wife & kids in high def!

 

[Paul_Scott]

I was really hoping/expecting we were going to see this by the end of the year, but I guess Warner is done now for '06.
Wonder what the first classic release will be for '07?

 

[AaronSCH]

The "Wizard of OZ" was listed in an earlier announced list of HD DVD titles. I think it is fair to say we will see it in '07.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind and Ben-Hur have been rumored for HD-DVD release so I'm hoping we will see them in Q1 07.

 

[dpippel]

I'm drooling over the prospect of seeing all three of these titles on HD-DVD. Bring 'em ON! My wallet is greased and waiting.

 

[Tim Glover]

Amen!

 

[Camper]

How does one know if a title belongs to Warner or MGM?

Haven't various titles jumped back and forth--what about Logan's Run? Etc.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Warner now owns/controls all MGM produced product prior to a certain date (I can't remember the date, it may be mid '80s)
MGM still owns United Artist produced product (which includes things like Rocky, Bond, etc) and titles that were made under the MGM banner after a certain date.
all the classic MGM movies, and even going into the 70's, are all under Warner now

 

[Lord Dalek]

1986. I believe the cutoff movie is Spaceballs.

 

[DeeF]

The Wizard of Oz is on TNT tonight, in high-def (1080i).

Hmm, very grainy.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Its been pointed out in the SD 4-Disc dvd thread how grainy the transfer was. It wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't the same except at a higher bit rate.

 

[DeeF]

Yes, I know. The mosquito noise just seems worse, somehow, in this high-def feed.

 

[RobertR]

I've never read anything that says the grain isn't film grain. There would be no good reason to find natural film grain objectionable. I'd hate to see the film have such grain digitized away.

 

[DeeF]

I'm not against grain at all. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "grainy." What I meant was... noisy.

The Wizard of Oz, in this high-def broadcast, doesn't look very pristine, for whatever reason. My HD-DVD of The Adventures of Robin Hood is older than TWOO, but looks more beautiful, to me.

 

[Paul_Scott]

I didn't watch the UR release, other than to spot check a few scenes, before I sold it off. But the opening Sepia sequences were still very grainy. just like the earlier release. I had thought that the grain on that first release might have been some kind of artifacting, but it evidently was intrinsic to the source. Once the color sequences start it seemed that grain structure was a lot finer.

FWIW, I was never all that impressed with the SD of Robin Hood. I expected a much sharper picture. After getting used to the sd disc, the HD DVD prperly blew me away. I thought Wizard in comparision, looked better, so I would expect the HD DVD to be quite a looker (though parts will always be noisy/grainy)

 

[DeeF]

Maybe the Technicolor negatives were in better shape than the opening sequence negatives. Maybe the opening sequences were down a generation, or something.

 

[Roger Rollins]

Paul's got it right.

I think the last MGM movie that Warner owns is 9 1/2 Weeks, which came out in early 1986.

The earliest MGM movies owned by the "current" MGM (if you want to call it that...) seem to be things like POLTERGEIST 2 (which came out in summer of '86, if I recall correctly) and SPACEBALLS (which followed about a year later).


As to OZ and its "sepia"/B&W opening & closing, I have read often that the original negative to these portions no longer exist. Perhaps they perished in the legendary and tragic fire at George Eastman House back in the '70s.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Two different presenting formats is not a fair comparison because we don't know about the condition of the film sources that were used for the former. Also, the two films are less than a year or less apart as to when they were filmed so I wouldn't see how being older plays into this argument.