HTF REVIEW: The Wizard Of Oz - Three-Disc Collector's Edition (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED). - Page 12

Brazil.

Brazil - The Complete Monterey Pop Festival.....Baring in mind that Criterion does not have the resources that the big studios have I would say the fact that it has taken them this long to match up to a small house like Criterion does not speak well for the the big guys.

You'll not likely get a lot of people agreeing with you on this off topic point.

Perhaps not, but I will continue to think Criterion is overrated. That is NOT a criticism of them, as I DO understand their lesser resources. However, they were surpassed as the best years ago - it's not like Oz is the first package better than a Criterion release.

And while Brazil is very good, I don't think it compares with Oz or a number of others. Non-anamorphic transfer, anyone?

But you're right that this is off-topic, so I should probably give this a rest. Sorry...

Saying Criterion is overrated because other companies are now doing much better is like saying Jerry West/Pete Maravich/Oscar Robertson/Julius Erving are overrated because Michael Jordan did things so much better.

Without those legends, there would be no MJ.

Are current SEs better than Criterion discs? Yes. But if it wasn't for Criterion spearheading and virtually inventing the Special Edition for home video, there would be no Oz package.

Having said that, I haven't bought a Criterion disc in a while, so don't mistake me for a Criterion fanboy or apologist, but I think that their contribution to home video cannot be overestimated.

I know people don't seem to care about my missing word, but it does bring up a valid point. Restoration teams have to be very careful that they are not changing history by the decisions that they make (especially if the film elements are in good shape, as was the case with Oz.) Altering one word may not seem to many to be important, but it is more than that. It is the fact that a person or persons made the decision that the word was a mistake to begin with (even though the Continuity Script includes the word) and uses their own judgement to delete it some 60 years after the fact. What really is the point of even messing with it? The new release of Oz is fantastic, and the best it has been presented on a home video format.....but, I would prefer to decide on my own what was a continuity error and leave it at that.

I mentioned this in another thread but it seems to be sidelined as everyone is posting here. I just wanted to ask if anyone actually bought both the 2 and 3 disc edtions. I could only find the 2 disc and went with it intially instead of waiting and once the 3 disc was in stock a week later I could not resist - mainly because of the added features - and purchased one. Besides, I like the artwork on both covers and also got the 2 disc with a slip cover. Am I alone?

Bad analogy. I'm comparing Criterion TODAY against all the others TODAY. Not dealing with their prior works and what they've meant to the field. People act like Criterion still produce the best DVDs, and that's not the case. This has nothing to do with the past - it's about current performance...

I've never thought that myself, just that, for the vast majority of more "obscure" titles Criterion releases, they do the best job. And their extras are interesting and informative, not filler puff-pieces. And the studios do that very well too, just not as reliably.

All I meant was: this is a Criterion-like package at ~ half the Criterion price (at least here)...putting what I thought was some price perspective since the diff between 2/3-disc packages was mentioned.

To sum it up: I don't think the 3-disc Oz is too expensive at all, it just looked that way when right beside the 3-disc Titanic at my store.

Oz isn't anamorphic either, but since it's Academy ratio we'll give that a pass. Brazil would indeed be better with an anamorphic transfer, but since it was released at a time when anamorphic wasn't always a sure thing on even big studio films, we can also give it a pass and the issue is a wash. If you're comparing production values, content, and packaging, then Warner's effort on OZ is every bit as good as Criterion's effort on Brazil.


Criterion produces the best DVDs of films that no one else is willing to produce great DVDs of, hands-down. Criterion also has a reputation for doing the best job that can possibly be done on a particular title. They don't always hit a home run, but chances are VERY high that if they're producing a title it will be spectacular. That simply cannot be said of the major studios, where even high profile titles can be, and often are, botched. Criterion releases are typically overpriced though, IMO.

But what about ScottR's word?

I am intrigued by the question, and sort of surprised that the usual anal-retentive analysis and commentary hasn't followed.

I mean no negative characterization by the "anal-retentive" psychological term. (I identify-- some of my best friends are the type )

Regards,

DG

The article I talked about actually says there were three "fixes" made:

1. The aforementioned "Don't..."
2. 10-12 frames where chicken noises in Reel One disappeared
and were added in.
3. The scene with Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion over the rock
viewing the Winkie March. The tempo sped up due to
some deleted rough cut footage. The music was re-timed.

I'm not saying there should be an outcry, but I would have preferred a mono track that was cleaned up, but included all dialogue and effects as heard for sixty six years. I think it was a judgement call that the word was a mistake, when really it wasn't what they thought they heard.

You know, people can be misunderstanding all they want to, but I have the perfect right to say that I want my favorite movie unaltered. Despite this fact, I am loving this set...it's just something I will notice everytime I watch it, because I have seen the film some 200 times.

ScottR wrote:



I'm totally in agreement with you Scott. Preserving the original theatrical performance is extremely important and IMO, it's important to point out the error in the deletion.

In the 1950's, as a kid, I was thrilled to get the opportunity to record the audio portion of the "Wizard Of Oz", one of the special nights of the year it was telecast, and I would listen to that tape every night for months. As a result, at the next years telecast, everyone in my family was amazed that I was able to know every word, duplicating the nuances and emotions.

The above was just a kid thing, but it helped me realize that Uncle Henry, putting Toto into Miss Gulch's basket and Dorothy saying "Oh, Toto. Don't..." was a moment of young Judy Garland's acting genius, putting herself in the character of Dorothy, imagining the emotion of the realization she was going to lose Toto - "OH! Toto, and with the emotion of a child's helpless nuance of a whimper to Uncle Henry - "Don't...".

A moment of child's great acting, cut out, no one else will be able to experience.

Paul

P.S. After viewing this DVD with a DLP projector on a (16X9) 110” screen (Don’t know what the diagonal inch measurement for the 1.37:1 picture on it was.), I have to say that the clarity and color was outstanding! Just like I remembered it at the movies. A reference quality disc effort!

I think I've seen every post in this thread since its inception. One question I haven't seen...and I almost hate to bring it up...

I purchased the 2-discer. It did not have an insert listing chapter stops. Did anyone get an insert? The only paper in mine was an ad/promotion for Turner Classic Movies.

Did the 3-discer have one? Seems a shame the two-disc set did not. The 1999 WB snapper had all the chapter stops listed. I guess I could just make a scan of that...if they match up.

There was a brief discussion earlier about a slipcase and how some 2-disc back covers did not list contents. My copy had no slipcase...but did contain a listing of all the various features/specs included on the two-discs within.

The 3-disc set has a chapter listing on the fold-out, and quite a listing it is. I think there is something close to 40 chapters.

The lack of inserts has been my only gripe about WB's move from the digipak for the 2-disc special editions. Seven Brides, Philadelphia Story, Bringing Up Baby, Chariots of Fire -- all are in keepcases with no inserted material. I don't recall if any of them have chapter listings on the outer slipcases.

(prepares for thrown stones)

I think I prefer the older packaging, in the absence of inserts with (at least) chapter listings.

Quoting myself:



One flaw I forgot to mention.

Did anyone else notice in the ending B&W segment, where Dorothy is laying on the bed with the towel over her forehead; the piece of hair fluttering on the bottom of the center of the screen, right on Dorothy's elbow? It stayed there the whole scene. It's very noticeable on a large screen and I was just hoping that the projectionist would take an air blower and blow it out of there!

It makes you feel like it's in your projector! Now it's there for posterity.

Paul

I was wondering about that piece of lens-fuz too...while they were removing scratches and print damage...why not that as well? It's EXTREMELY distracting and I hardley think it's a "director approved" artifact.

I am not exactly sure of the 2-disc slipcase question, but yes it does list the contents, unlike the cover (the rare slipcase that actually has a use). Around here, this disc is hard to find. Low stock I guess, and not promoted like the 3-disc.

Yes it is puzzling as to why this wasn't fixed. It is there for a while as it is not the shortest of cuts. Well I guess there is always the HD version. Or will it stay and just look highly defined?

I don't have a problem with it because it was always there...I do have a problem with what I mentioned above, because it was always there, and was changed.

How do you know it was always there?

Sometimes stagnant artifacts are not worth touching up because they'll look worse.

The hair at the bottom was either photographed in-camera or there when the fine-grain positives were made of the B&W segments (the negatives were lost, unlike the Technicolor bulk of the film). If it's there for an entire shot, there's nothing that it can be replaced with, other than a guess by using nearby pixels. So, it's either... accept the hair being photographed-in or replace it with picture information that wasn't originally there.

I just watched the promo for this DVD which is linked to that ad thing at the top of the main HTF page. Did anyone else watch it? Did anyone else notice that they show a photo of Oz illustrator W. W. Denslow and identify him as L. Frank Baum? Yeah that kind of ticked me off.

Sorry, Craig...but I'm a little confused by your post. Are you saying your 2-disc had a slipcase and that there was no listing of contents on the back of the cover of the amaray case?

In other words, your back cover did NOT look like this?



This cover (from DVDEmpire) is similar to mine. Keep in mind, I did NOT have a slipcover. Mine has a full-body-length-image of Dorothy, the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Lion (no Glinda). They are holding hands on the yellow brick road. The box which contains the contents of Discs 1 & 2 are the same...but the contents are set differently. Most everything else seems the same...except, of course, there is a sku on my copy.

Your copy--with the slipcase--didn't have a chapter list insert, did it?

Mike, sorry for more confusion, I was confused before too. I think the prob may be the use of terms slipcover/slipcase/cover.

So...the cardboard outer thing that you didn't get: mine looks just like your pic, except with a cutout for the UPC.

My Amaray back cover insert sounds like yours, front of slipcover matches front of Amaray.

I haven't opened it yet, may exchange for the 3-disc.

Gotcha. So the image above is the back of the cardboard sleeve/slipcase/slipcover!

Its weird that they put the credits for the doc on the back cover of the Amaray, but not on the back of the slipcase cover.

Ah well. Worse though is the lack of chapter list/insert. I realize the two-disc set is a bargain...but a chapter list for a film like this is practically a "must".

Maybe someone could post an image of the 3-discer's chapter list? :b

Can someone check the scene in question on a previous, non-WB version? It may very well be an edit stutter mistake that they indeed fixed. I can't tell.

I don't think it's stutter. I am holding on to my old MGM disc for that reason. It does indeed sound like "Oh Toto, don't".

Here is a script. (I don't know how it is).