Oliver (1968) (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

Because the Oscars are rubbish. The Oscars do a filmgoer's thinking for him. The Oscars tell people what they should like or dislike. People actually believe that a "best picture" is deserving of that title. Meaning, all the other films produced that film are not the best picture; that they're somehow inferior because they were not validated by the politically-charged, easily-swayed nominating committee. The Oscars are not an arbiter of taste and art and craftsmanship; they are an arbiter of commerce. That's what they've become. Every year, the studios send out the films they wants as notches on their belts. Once nominated, the studios wine and dine the voters shamelessly. Nobody's supposed to know about it. It's not supposed to happen. Yet it does.

And anyway, since when are the Oscars about movies anyway? After Oscar night, all I hear about is what some crap starlet wore on the red carpet. Nobody's talking about movies; they're talking about gowns. It's such a joke. So, to utterly fly in the face of your logic, I absolutely love movies and want nothing to do with the Oscars--because they stand for the exact opposite of "love for movies."

So much for the Oscars then.

 

[Rick Thompson]

To the folks offended because the Oscars are about commerce -- well, duh! That's what they've always been about; they were started as a way to get publicity for motion pictures. The Oscars being about commerce and PR has never bothered me.

It's just the reason I don't take them seriously.

 

[Ethan Riley]

Exa

To the folks offended because the Oscars are about commerce -- well, duh! That's what they've always been about; they were started as a way to get publicity for motion pictures. The Oscars being about commerce and PR has never bothered me.

It's just the reason I don't take them seriously.

Exactly; I just think you should ignore them when discussing film. Because ultimately they're not about film.

I just believe they make people stop thinking. They see a blu-ray and it says "Best Picture Oscar Winner" and they think, "well, this is the BEST film. There are no BETTER films." That's it. Game over. And so they don't even look to judge other films for themselves.

Another thing the Oscars do to less-than-perfect films is make people start resenting them. Now, is "The Greatest Show on Earth" a bad film? No. It's just okay. But it won the Oscar. somehow. And people take it out on that film: "How dare this piece of trash win an Oscar...grrr!" Trust me, if it hadn't won, it would just be another "okay" big budget flick from the 50s, like the Egyptian or whatever, and it would be probably a lot more fondly remembered than it is. I wonder if Oliver is in that same boat. I don't know. Usually when people don't like "Oliver" it's because they don't like musicals in general. It's actually a very fine example of its genre, and one of the best of its era. It probably shouldn't have won Best Picture, but don't hold it up as an object of scorn just because it did...

 

[TravisR]

I just believe they make people stop thinking. They see a blu-ray and it says "Best Picture Oscar Winner" and they think, "well, this is the BEST film. There are no BETTER films." That's it. Game over. And so they don't even look to judge other films for themselves.

That seems quite likely but I would put the blame on the person for not using their brain more than I would put it on the Oscars.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

There is no rational business case for Limited Editions. Small initial pressings, sure. But any business plan that has built-in un-met demand is a bad plan.

Actually, there is.When you release only a certain lower number of copies you pay lower royalty fees to the guilds and unions to release that material. That is a business plan decision. When you pay up front for all your copies to the licensor, you give them certainty on the balance sheet which makes them more inclined to deal with you, as you have seen the relationship expand with the licensors this is proved out. TT is taking on all the risk by paying up front and saving the studios from having to monitor accounting.Like this model or not there are genuine and legititmate REASONS they are both limited and limited to that many copies.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Just read this whole thread today, but I've only ever found one reason to own "Oliver!", which was the Pioneer Laserdisc to get the trailer for 1776...

 

[Cineman]

Actually that count of 10 awards for Gone With the Wind is accurate. It won 8 competitive awards and TWO special awards: for William Cameron Menzies (as you said) and a Class III special award (in certificate form, not a statuette) to Don Musgrave and Selznick International for "pioneering the use of coordinated equipment in the production of Gone With the Wind." (Maybe for that huge crane and track used to film the train depot sequence?)

That's where the number ten came from.

I wonder how many other Best Picture Oscar winners up'd their total count on ads and posters to factor in those Special/Class III type certificates and related Thalberg Awards? Often, the ad or poster actually lists the category for their touted Oscar count and I just don't remember seeing any touting their producer's Thalberg Award or one of the technical certificates, do you?

 

[Cineman]

Because the Oscars are rubbish. The Oscars do a filmgoer's thinking for him. The Oscars tell people what they should like or dislike. People actually believe that a "best picture" is deserving of that title. Meaning, all the other films produced that film are not the best picture; that they're somehow inferior because they were not validated by the politically-charged, easily-swayed nominating committee. The Oscars are not an arbiter of taste and art and craftsmanship; they are an arbiter of commerce. That's what they've become. Every year, the studios send out the films they wants as notches on their belts. Once nominated, the studios wine and dine the voters shamelessly. Nobody's supposed to know about it. It's not supposed to happen. Yet it does.

And anyway, since when are the Oscars about movies anyway? After Oscar night, all I hear about is what some crap starlet wore on the red carpet. Nobody's talking about movies; they're talking about gowns. It's such a joke. So, to utterly fly in the face of your logic, I absolutely love movies and want nothing to do with the Oscars--because they stand for the exact opposite of "love for movies."

The Oscar (the actual award, that is, not the ceremony on that one night, which of course is more about star gazing and glamour), is very much about movies. A review of the Oscar archives tells us much about what we valued as a culture in a given era, what was taken for art vs commerce, how the two blended together and IF the two blended together in what is a pop culture art form to begin with.

Today, movie lovers ought to treasure the idea of the Oscars more than ever. Look at the list of Best Picture Oscar nominees for virtually any year pre-1990 or so and you'll see a list of mostly adult, relatively intelligent, largely screenplay and/or acting dependent product, many of which ALSO landed on the top box-office draws of their year. But you cannot count on those kinds of movies, the small, non-CGI spectacular, landing on any list of top box-office draws today. No, today, just about the only reason a studio or a producer puts so much as a dime into a small, intelligent, screenplay and/or acting dependent movie rather than the next comic book/kiddie/gross out comedy franchise is in the hope of possibly being associated with an Oscar nominee. For the sake of, oh, let's say bragging rights or personal legacy.

Anyone who looks forward to the next Woody Allen movie, probably the next Martin Scorsese movie (unless he too is now on the huge, CGI-laden, 3D spectacular track from now on..), the next Cohen Bros. movie, the next small movie from a passionate writer and director no one has yet heard of with an actor or two in it we'd all thought couldn't or wouldn't do anything on a budget too small to support a horde of dinosaurs or space aliens, thank the Oscars for that, because it is very likely those filmmakers' careers (and, yes, I am including Allen and Scorsese here, too) would have been OVER decades ago had it not been for studios and producers willing to set aside some money for the sake of a potential Oscar nomination rather than capturing the "top box-office" spot on opening weekend.

 

[Matt Hough]

I remember one egregiously creative Oscar count notable: after the 1965 Oscars were presented, MGM began advertising Doctor Zhivago as the winner of 6 Oscars. It had won five technical categories, but MGM creatively divided the Art Direction/Set Decoration Oscar into two separate awards and advertised its wins for months with that number. As I recall, the Academy finally put its foot down and made them change their ad copy.

 

[Cineman]

I remember one egregiously creative Oscar count notable: after the 1965 Oscars were presented, MGM began advertising Doctor Zhivago as the winner of 6 Oscars. It had won five technical categories, but MGM creatively divided the Art Direction/Set Decoration Oscar into two separate awards and advertised its wins for months with that number. As I recall, the Academy finally put its foot down and made them change their ad copy.

Ha! That's funny. I also imagine AMPAS does what it can to make sure ads don't confuse the difference between what it means to "win" a competitive Oscar and "receive" an Oscar or being cited for a technical achievement. Most high profile recipients respect the difference, too. I mean, after someone like Cary Grant or Peter O'Toole is given an Honorary Oscar, you really don't see subsequent DVD/Blu-ray releases of their work touting them as "Oscar winners" or anything like that.

 

[CULTMAN1]

Noach the date of October 21st is the date given to vme by my rep at Sony UK whom I have a DVD trade account with. It is pretty well nailed on......
This masterpiece of music, acting,cinematography and direction should look fabulous on Blu Ray provided Grover Crisp really is doing one of his legendary restorations in 4k.
It might even get a release here in 4k in the UK this autumn from Park Circus on a limited release basis prior to its blu ray debut, would seem sensible......

 

[bluirv]

I just received As Good As It Gets and Tootsie from Amazon.de and they are both region-free.

I would assume that Oliver! would also be region-free due June 13, same as in the U.S. Their price for Oliver! is $17.95 USD.

 

[CULTMAN1]

I think the DE release in a couple of weeks will be REGION B for Oliver! It is out in the UK Oct 20th from Sony Columbia. It will be very interesting to see how the transfer is.....

 

[Garysb]

I think the DE release in a couple of weeks will be REGION B for Oliver! It is out in the UK Oct 20th from Sony Columbia. It will be very interesting to see how the transfer is.....

Have any releases from Sony/Columbia from Germany been region locked to date ?

 

[Roger Grodsky]

There seems to be a Japanese release that is either Region A or all-region (depending on the web site).

 

[Simon Lewis]

Received the German Blu-Ray this morning. It states region ABC on the back and plays fine in my region A locked player.

I've watched a few scenes and the picture quality looks very good, much better than DVD. There is an overture and intermission.

English soundtrack is DTS-HD MA 5.1

Not much in the way of extras, but there are interviews with Mark Lester and Ron Moody, which look fairly recent, because they are in HD.

 

[lukejosephchung]

Have this title shipping to me via Amazon.de, along with "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner", "The Wild One", "The China Syndrome" and "Sleepless In Seattle"...looking forward to checking all of them out when I receive them next week!!!

 

[classicmovieguy]

No interview with Shani Wallis????

 

[Mark-P]

Have this title shipping to me via Amazon.de, along with "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner", "The Wild One", "The China Syndrome" and "Sleepless In Seattle"...looking forward to checking all of them out when I receive them next week!!!

I'm ordering all mine from Amazon.it. They are even cheaper than Amazon.de. Even though Amazon.it charges more for shipping, it is still cheaper than Amazon.de provided you buy several at once. I'm getting 7 Blu-rays for about $12 a piece!

 

[classicmovieguy]

My experience shopping at Amazon.de is that their shipping to Australia is VERY slow - last time I ordered something from them it took just shy of 5 weeks to arrive. On the flipside ordering from the UK barely takes more than a week.