Wizard of Oz in blu ray - Wire Removal ?? (1 Viewer)

[WilliamMcK]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[rich_d]

Well...in 1939 people went to the movies once every three weeks, on average. http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/moviedata.html

Nonsensical. "Per Capita" is meaningless data to discuss the habits of the movie-going public as it includes the non-movie-going public. Obviously the number is much higher when the number is ONLY the movie-going public (whether that is once per year or most nights). Averages also don't tell you much unless broken down (further) by demographics. Certainly, a 20 year-old movie-goer in New York City is more likely to see a lot more films per year than a 70 year-old living on a lake outside Sanford, Maine.
SteveJKo is correct. It was a different era. One where MGM put out approximately 50 feature films per year. More than all the Hollywood Studios (proper) COMBINED do today.

 

[antoniobiz1]

Nonsensical. "Per Capita" is meaningless data to discuss the habits of the movie-going public as it includes the non-movie-going public. Obviously the number is much higher when the number is ONLY the movie-going public (whether that is once per year or most nights). Averages also don't tell you much unless broken down (further) by demographics. Certainly, a 20 year-old movie-goer in New York City is more likely to see a lot more films per year than a 70 year-old living on a lake outside Sanford, Maine.
SteveJKo is correct. It was a different era. One where MGM put out approximately 50 feature films per year. More than all the Hollywood Studios (proper) COMBINED do today.

Wow! Ok, let's do it your way. In 1939 one third of the population did not go to the movies. One third went once a month. One third went more. That was what? 6 hours a month of moving pictures, on average? 8? 10? Today everybody has an average exposure to moving pictures of 2/3 hours a day. That's 60/90 hours a month. For some on this forum, this goes one from the day they were born (sadly, I'm 48). Is this different to you? Do you believe we are, as an audience, amazingly different from what they were 70 years ago?
If you check imdb, you will see 990 entries listed for 1939 (American products, in english). For 2011, the number is 27,995. Are you saying that a CSI episode or a Simpsons episode or a Youtube trailer or a screenshot of "Raiders of the lost ark" do not contribute to the way we perceive "movie magic"? Or suspension of disbelief?
Today, we yawn at CGI. Did you yawn the first time you saw it?

 

[rich_d]

Nice post..........but may I offer one little correction? People in 1939 went to the movies a lot. And I mean a real lot. Today, many people probably couldn't even tell you the last time they saw a movie in a movie theater, it's been that long. But back then? Several times a week was a common experience. My mother once told me she averaged four times a week. By the time I was born (1959) we were living in the suburbs and TV had become the main entertainment medium of choice. I was lucky to get to the movies once a season. As you can imagine, being a movie lover I felt like I was born in the wrong era.

Well...in 1939 people went to the movies once every three weeks, on average. http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/moviedata.html

Wow! .... snip

Antonio ... perhaps it's time to lay off the espresso. SteveJKo very politely supported your post while making one rather glaring (to me) correction. Rather than just dealing with that you posted some meaningless data that I called you out on. It happens. Deal.

 

So, should they paint out seams in the backgrounds too?

 

[rich_d]

So, should they paint out seams in the backgrounds too?

Eric,
I really have no interest in a 'where exactly do you draw a line in the sand' debate. But in a time where Spielberg tells us that we are watching a version of Jaws that is better than what viewers saw in the theaters in 1975 ... I'm just not getting too high on my horse.

 

[antoniobiz1]

Antonio ... perhaps it's time to lay off the espresso. SteveJKo very politely supported your post while making one rather glaring (to me) correction. Rather than just dealing with that you posted some meaningless data that I called you out on. It happens. Deal.

My reply to SteveJKo was meant to be as polite as his correction. If SteveJKo feels differently (and I'd rather he said that, not you), I apologize as it was not my intention to be rude. I just tried to point out that using his family as sample led to very distorted conlcusions, and the numbers I quoted confirmed what I said.
That said, I think that when one discusses history, facts should be used to support what one says. That's what I tried to do, and I stand by what I said word by word. On the other hand, I am sure that no discussion should be based on assessing how much coffee one should have or what to do when somebody "calls one out", without bringing anything to the table that supports that "outcalling".
Alternate reply: whatever, pal.

 

[SteveJKo]

...I apologize as it was not my intention to be rude...

Absolutely no need to apologize. We're going to have to agree to disagree on late 1930's film attendance though.

...SteveJKo is correct. It was a different era. One where MGM put out approximately 50 feature films per year. More than all the Hollywood Studios (proper) COMBINED do today.

Rich I knew numbers (of films produced) were big back then, but I'd totally forgotten how big. :jawdrop: I really was born in the wrong era.

 

[jackygage]

As a new member who stoked this conversation a few days ago I'm so happy to see this discussion continues! It's interesting to hear about the director's intent. With Star Wars we've found out what happens when we actually get to see what a living director does when he is able to show us what he intended us to see. He adds computer generated images. But what happens to history? What happens when it's 1939 and the only way to make a lion's tail wag is to use a wire/string? Perhaps they should find one of the old prints of The Wizard of Oz and plop that on blu-ray and let us see what they showed audience members in 1939! They could release that as a bonus/extra along with a cleaned up version of the film. What I want to see today is what the final product looked like in it's most complete finished form. I want to see how far the director was able to bring his vision of the film upon its release.

 

[Worth]

Rich I knew numbers (of films produced) were big back then, but I'd totally forgotten how big. :jawdrop: I really was born in the wrong era.

Well, the major studios may not be as busy as they once were, but according to the MPAA, there were 610 films released in 2011.
I couldn't find a reliable number for the amount of films released in 1939, but I'd be surprised if it were over 500. And, of course, there was no television production back then.

 

[rich_d]

Well, the major studios may not be as busy as they once were, but according to the MPAA, there were 610 films released in 2011.
I couldn't find a reliable number for the amount of films released in 1939, but I'd be surprised if it were over 500. And, of course, there was no television production back then.

http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/moviedata.html
This website puts the number of films released in 1939 at 761. Some of the releases may be foreign features (Hitchcock's Jamaica Inn and the like) but foreign titles had to be a small percent of the overall number.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Worth /t/296086/wizard-of-oz-in-blu-ray-wire-removal/90#post_3974350
Well, the major studios may not be as busy as they once were, but according to the MPAA, there were 610 films released in 2011.
I couldn't find a reliable number for the amount of films released in 1939, but I'd be surprised if it were over 500. And, of course, there was no television production back then.

The table would not be apples to apples, since the real number we should be talking about is the MPAA member totals. Every major and minor studio in Hollywood was a member back then, from MGM to Republic, from Columbia to United Artists. Their number of titles would be well over 500 and maybe even 600. Back then they had to make product for their theatres or they would go dark. That was an inconceivable thought. Today they do not care as long as their latest and greatest gets a 4000 screen release.

I just think it is hard to compare what went on in 1939 with today. There have just been to many changes and increase in venues for the entertainment dollar. 1939 was an era that is long gone - and era Gone With The Wind.

 

[rich_d]

I just think it is hard to compare what went on in 1939 with today. There have just been too many changes and increase in venues for the entertainment dollar.  1939 was an era that is long gone - and era Gone With The Wind. 

Wait ... 1939 segueing to a Gone With The Wind reference? Golf Clap.

 

[Stan]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

The type of restoration/preservation you've shown is a travesty to art in general. Horrible job in my opinion.
At least with the "Wizard of Oz" we're talking about a digital clean-up and fixing some minor flaws. As far as I know, nobody is taking the original elements and destroying them, they're still okay.
As someone above mentioned, it would be fun to compare the new version to the original, although I doubt the studio will spend the extra dollars to do that.
It is a fine line and none of us will probably ever agree, we get whatever the studios feel Joe 6-pack will buy at Walmart. (Yes that was rude, but face it, it's true).
As members of this forum, we're the elitist purists who want the best, but with few exceptions, the almighty dollar almost always wins out. Even with widescreen HDTVs now, people still bitch about the black bars on certain films and "why isn't my screen filled up". It's a never ending battle.

 

[JoeDoakes]

The type of restoration/preservation you've shown is a travesty to art in general. Horrible job in my opinion.

You know, some times one can take respecting others views a bit too far.

 

[Stan]

You know, some times one can take respecting others views a bit too far.

Don't want to start any type of argument here, but sometimes I'm a bit naive.
I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say. Was I being rude? If so, I apologize, didn't mean for it to come off that way.

 

[bryan4999]

Perhaps they should find one of the old prints of The Wizard of Oz and plop that on blu-ray and let us see what they showed audience members in 1939! They could release that as a bonus/extra along with a cleaned up version of the film. What I want to see today is what the final product looked like in it's most complete finished form. I want to see how far the director was able to bring his vision of the film upon its release.

I agree with this suggestion, it would be a fascinating bonus feature. The restoration of JAWS featurette on the recent blu-ray includes a few seconds of what the raw scan of the OCN looked like and it was fascinating. It really looked like film! Yes, the contrast and color were a mess but nonetheless I would like to watch the entire movie that way, just out of curiosity. Or maybe at least some complete scenes if not the entire film. Those little snippets are fascinating but they last only 10 seconds or so.

 

[theonemacduff]

This ain't wire removal, just some Photoshopping for fun.
Of course, I have no idea what the original colour would have looked like, I just like to fool around with images.
It occurs to me too, that if the original film-makers relied upon the print production process to hide things like wires, or the "seams" of the mattes, or the littleness of the models used on model shots (e.g., the car pulling up to Manderley in one long shot in Rebecca), then there really is no "philosophical" problem as such. And is there really much value in watching an older film in high definition that has NOT had some work done on it? The silly Photoshop example above does have a bit of a serious point, and that is, that it is now possible to bring older films back to the condition in which they were originally presented. Chemicals degrade; digital tools can bring them back. Leaving the wires in seems to me on a par with leaving the faded colour faded.

 

[Yorkshire]

I don't know if tghis helps, but here's another story from another medium.
Back in 1967 when The Beatles released Sgt. Pepper, hi-fi wasn't very hi-fi.
At the end of the album there's a long, sustained piano chord. To sustain it as long as possible, as the volume from the piano faded, the engineer (Geoff Emerick ) turned the volume faders/knobs up, to squeeze every last second of noise from the piano. A few seconds from the end, someone at the other side of the studio threw a scrunched up piece of paper in the bin. You usually wouldn't have heard this, but it came out on the tape, as the microphone was turned to full.
Anyway, when they heard this on the tape playback George Martin and Geoff Emerick guessed it wouldn't show up on the vinyl. When their test pressing came back they were right, and no matter how hard they tried, they couldn't hear it, even with the volume turned up and their ear right in the speaker. Whether this was due to the standard of the tape-to-vinyl transfer at the time, or the standard of their record player, amp and speakers, is open to debate.
Twenty years later Martin prepared the CD release, and sure enough the paper can be heard on the CD, even on a modest system.
Now the sound was left on the CD, but it's clear from the interviews I've read that they were concerned that they didn't want it heard back in '67. I think they wanted it on the CD to show that they'd done the best job possible, or to show off the new format, or whatever.
Were they right? Well, if you want everything off the tape on the CD, then they were right. If you want to hear what was heard in '67, and what 'the artist originally intended' then they were wrong. No one wanted the sound in '67.
Steve W

 

[theonemacduff]

I still have a cassette tape of SPLHCB, recorded off an original Parlaphone LP. I would buy the discs, play once, then once more to record, then shelve. Alas, after the divorce my turntable departed, and I've yet to get the equipment necesary to digitize my vinyl; but that would be my preferred way to listen to the album, that is, taken from the vinyl rather than from a new version of the original tapes, since I've no wish to hear the crumpled paper (Lenon-ish as that gesture might be). I wonder: would the paper show up on a digital version taken from the vinyl? Presumeably, it is in there somewhere, but searching for it strikes me as like blowing up the Zapruder film to squeeze out every last mite of potential data, a fool's errand.