1. Guest,
    If you need help getting to know Xenforo, please see our guide here. If you have feedback or questions, please post those here.
    Dismiss Notice

WHV Press Release: The Wizard of Oz 75th Anniversary (Blu-ray 3D)(Blu-ray)(DVD)

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Ronald Epstein, Jun 4, 2013.

Tags:
?

What version of Oz are you (or not) purchasing?

  1. I own the 70th Anniversary set and plan to buy the 75th Anniversary Set

    7.8%
  2. I own the 70th Anniversary set and plan to buy the standard Blu-ray Edition

    0.8%
  3. I own the 70th Anniversary set and plan to buy the standard 3D Blu-ray Edition

    27.1%
  4. I don't own the 70th Anniversary set and plan to buy the 75th Anniversary Set

    5.4%
  5. I don't own the 70th Anniversary and plan to buy the standard Blu-ray Edition

    4.7%
  6. I don't own the 70th Anniversary and plan to buy the standard 3D Blu-ray Edition

    7.8%
  7. I plan to skip Oz this time around altogether

    46.5%
  1. Ronald Epstein

    Ronald Epstein Administrator
    Owner

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 1997
    Messages:
    44,718
    Likes Received:
    3,681
    Real Name:
    Ronald Epstein
    Roland,

    The problem with the information you provided on that link...

    We are talking about the 2D Blu-ray disc, not the 3D restoration.

    We already know that there was work done to restore the 2D into 3D.

    The question is, for those concerned buying the new 75th Anniversary
    2D Blu-ray disc, is it the same transfer as the 70th Anniversary? Are
    consumers buying the same disc twice?

    Now, the article you provided does state the following...
    What does "recent" mean? That may very well mean they took the 2008 transfer
    and used that as the master for the 3D conversion.

    This is a real concern here for many, given the fact that when the Oz press release
    was issued, the studio made no attempt to put a NEWLY MASTERED label on the
    2D Blu-ray release.
     
  2. Lromero1396

    Lromero1396 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2012
    Messages:
    640
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ronald, you make a great point here. But I have to correct you on one thing: a 3D conversion of a 2D film should never be referred to as a 'restoration' or 'restoring 2D into 3D'. No matter how one looks at it, it is a revision: not a restoration.
     
  3. Ronald Epstein

    Ronald Epstein Administrator
    Owner

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 1997
    Messages:
    44,718
    Likes Received:
    3,681
    Real Name:
    Ronald Epstein
    I stand corrected. Thank You.

    I do have a nasty habit of throwing the word "restoration" around too often.
     
  4. rmw650

    rmw650 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    322
    Real Name:
    Richard W
    But we'll probably be seeing something even more creative and new by the WB when the 80th Anniversary of the film comes out in 2019, so again, are we expecting a release of this film with newer gimmicks associated with the film every 5 years until we reach the 100th anniversary in 2039, where it will be come the Centennial edition?
     
  5. ahollis

    ahollis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Messages:
    6,286
    Likes Received:
    1,317
    Location:
    New Orleans
    Real Name:
    Allen
    So with the re-imaging of this classic into 3D, does this restart the copyright period at year one?
     
  6. David Weicker

    David Weicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,176
    Likes Received:
    531
    Real Name:
    David
    Actually, if they put back the portions that people say are missing, this could be a 'revision' AND a 'restoration'
     
  7. JoeDoakes

    JoeDoakes Premium
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    551
    Real Name:
    Ray
    That's just strange. Especially from Warner.
     
  8. Jack Theakston

    Jack Theakston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    61
    I was treated to a preview of OZ in 3D last week. I'm a purist far more than most, but after seeing it, it has my seal of approval. The stereoscopy is terrific, and enhances the picture tremendously, to the point that you would be fooled into thinking the film was shot in 3D. Unlike many conversions, much money and TIME was spent in making the 3D look natural, rather than an end-result of cardboard cutout-looking characters. Even the opening Leo the Lion logo has layering, with the film curling around the mascot exhibiting roundness. I won't go into too much detail as to the painstaking means WB took to get to this end result—most of it is covered in the "making of" documentary.

    The sound mix is also impressive. Earliest generation tracks were used and it shows. Studio angles create an accidental stereo score, while isolated choral effects are effectively mixed as part of the front LCRs and in the surrounds. Aided by an alternate music & effects track that WB found, the surround channels have some interesting mixing—you can now hear the tremendous thunderclap when the Wicked Witch of the West leaves in a plume of red smoke.

    Many have criticized this for being "revisionism." To this, I say, there is no way Victor Fleming and Co. would have seen this and have been unimpressed. And as long as the flat version is available, this already gimmicky film is available in another flavor that will make seasoned experts on it look at it from a different perspective.

    In other words: it's got my endorsement...PICK THE BLU-RAY UP!
     
  9. Russell G

    Russell G Fake Shemp
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2002
    Messages:
    10,841
    Likes Received:
    486
    Location:
    Deadmonton
    Real Name:
    Russell
    Doesn't matter if we think they would like it or not, they're dead, this IS revisionism and unnecessary. I'd rather see Warner's put the money into producing new films that are as good as the classics they feel the need to change and "update" for an audience that hasn't asked for it.
     
  10. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    28,171
    Likes Received:
    3,872
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    Warners put their money into a project that will probably make them additional money over their investment. They looked at this project as a sure thing, while producing new films can be iffy investment-wise and return. Also, probably a lot more expensive to make new films.
     
    ahollis likes this.
  11. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    28,171
    Likes Received:
    3,872
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    I'll be there this weekend after reading yours and GregK comments. I'll also buy the new BD.
     
  12. Ronald Epstein

    Ronald Epstein Administrator
    Owner

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 1997
    Messages:
    44,718
    Likes Received:
    3,681
    Real Name:
    Ronald Epstein
    Thank you for saying this.

    Every once in a while someone states that this was a wasted
    effort on Warner.

    I suppose time will tell if that is true or not, but I think OZ in 3Dis going to sell very well for the studio.

    The classic film market, on the other hand, has not been doing
    well at all for the past several years -- so much so, a lot of its
    distribution is being farmed out to other companies.

    Warner rarely lets anyone down on their classic library and generally
    puts a considerable amount of effort into titles they know will sell.
     
    ahollis likes this.
  13. Charles Smith

    Charles Smith Extremely Talented Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    4,990
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Location:
    Nor'east
    Real Name:
    Charles Smith
    On that recommendation ... done deal.

    I have no need for another Big Box Set, but the standalone Blu-ray set will be MINE.
     
  14. FoxyMulder

    FoxyMulder 映画ファン

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    1,612
    Location:
    Scotland
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    I think i am going to buy this and give it a spin at Xmas, worst possible scenario is i don't like the image quality and i sell it, best scenario is i enjoy it, whatever the case may be i think my interest is high enough to give it a spin even though i tend to dislike conversions.
     
  15. Jack Theakston

    Jack Theakston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    61
    Exactly—OZ has generated SO much money for the restoration department that has made other projects possible that this incarnation not only breathes new life into one of our favorite films, but will undoubtedly continue to make other projects possible.

    Call it revisionism if you will (I honestly don't think so—the core film is still there intact), but the majority of even seasoned purists will find this new version most agreeable.
     
    ahollis and Mark_TB like this.
  16. Mark-P

    Mark-P Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,890
    Likes Received:
    788
    Location:
    Camas, WA
    Real Name:
    Mark Probst
    In the new Warner Archive podcast (dated 9/17/2013) even George Feltenstein gives a hearty endorsement to Oz in 3D. He said at first he was skeptical of the whole idea, but was immediately won over once he actually saw the finished product, saying that the conversion was very respectful to the original intent and not gimmicky.
    I'll have to admit this has made me curious to see it. Originally I was on the side that screamed "sacrilege!"
     
  17. moviebuff75

    moviebuff75 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    306
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Real Name:
    Eric Scott Richard
    So, if they have fixed the 3D version but not the original 2D version, then that is disappointing that they care more about the revised version than the original.
     
  18. Jack Theakston

    Jack Theakston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    61
    Eric, what were the issues with the normal release?
     
  19. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,477
    Likes Received:
    4,156
    I agree 100%. When Jack, Greg Kintz and I saw a few scenes at the Warner Bros. Motion Picture Imaging facility in Burbank last week, we were knocked out. It looked as if we were viewing stereo slides taken on the set.

    Yes, it's that good!
     
  20. moviebuff75

    moviebuff75 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    306
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Real Name:
    Eric Scott Richard
    Jack, 1998 WB remastered the film for re-release in theaters for the 60th Anniversary. The audio engineers mistakenly thought that one of Judy's lines was a stutter edit. It wasn't. It's in the original cutting continuity and she clearly yelled out "Oh, Toto! Don't..." They excised the firs half of the line. The edit was only supposed to be for that theatrical release, but has carried on through today. Second, on the last Blu-ray, when Glinda's bubble is leaving and the Munchkins are running towards it, there is a digital glitch, resulting in lost frames.
     

Share This Page