Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Photo
- - - - -

WHV Announcement: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (Blu-ray Combo)


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 of 33 OFFLINE   Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Studio Mogul



  • 42,747 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted September 20 2011 - 12:07 AM


Posted Image


Alternate Cover Art:


Posted Image


Posted Image


8-Film collection $139.99 MSRP



 

Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

 Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders  Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

 Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive Click Here for our complete DVD review archive

 Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule  Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#2 of 33 OFFLINE   WinstonCely

WinstonCely

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 237 posts
  • Join Date: May 17 2010

Posted September 20 2011 - 09:24 AM

Any other details on the whole collection? My wife and I have been waiting since the the second film to buy any more, in the hopes of a set that rivals the Lord of the Rings collection.

#3 of 33 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 23,434 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted September 20 2011 - 09:42 AM

^ According to The Digital Bits today, "[t]here will also be a Harry Potter: The Complete 8-Film Collection on Blu-ray and DVD that same day, which will include the basic versions of all the films..." http://www.thedigita...com/#mytwocents My guess is a big set will come next fall after they've released the ultimate editions of The Deathly Hallows movies next year.

#4 of 33 OFFLINE   Steve Tannehill

Steve Tannehill

    Producer



  • 5,550 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 06 1997
  • Real Name:Steve Tannehill
  • LocationDFW

Posted September 20 2011 - 10:35 AM

No blu-ray 3D? Bummer.

#5 of 33 OFFLINE   cafink

cafink

    Producer



  • 3,045 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999

Posted September 20 2011 - 10:45 AM

Given that this movie was converted to 3D as an afterthought, with no artistic impetus for the effect or consideration of it during filming, a plain old 2D Blu-ray is fine by me.
 

 


#6 of 33 OFFLINE   AaronMK

AaronMK

    Supporting Actor



  • 768 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 30 1999
  • Real Name:Aaron Karp
  • LocationOrlando, FL

Posted September 20 2011 - 04:21 PM

I was waiting for a grand box set to make an upgrade to Blu-ray on these. (Only ended up getting the first four on DVD.) If The Bits is correct, it looks like in 2012, there will be a feature packed set worthy of taking the plunge! :)

#7 of 33 OFFLINE   Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Studio Mogul



  • 42,747 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted September 21 2011 - 04:46 AM


 

Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

 Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders  Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

 Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive Click Here for our complete DVD review archive

 Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule  Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#8 of 33 OFFLINE   michael deakin

michael deakin

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 187 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 20 2000
  • Real Name:Michael Charles Deakin
  • LocationWarrington

Posted September 21 2011 - 10:47 AM

The 3d version is available for pre-order here in the U.K Mike..

#9 of 33 OFFLINE   cafink

cafink

    Producer



  • 3,045 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999

Posted September 21 2011 - 12:37 PM

Interesting. Amazon UK actually has 3D Blu-ray pre-order listings for BOTH parts of Deathly Hallows: http://www.amazon.co...16651583&sr=8-2 http://www.amazon.co...16651583&sr=8-1 The first one was originally planned as a 3D theatrical release, but they couldn't get the conversion done in time so the 3D version was scrapped.
 

 


#10 of 33 OFFLINE   bob kaplan

bob kaplan

    Supporting Actor



  • 571 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 05 1999
  • Real Name:bob kaplan

Posted September 21 2011 - 03:19 PM

According the the listing they are "region Free"....so they should be playable in the U.S.; correct?

#11 of 33 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 23,434 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted September 22 2011 - 02:14 AM

According the the listing they are "region Free"....so they should be playable in the U.S.; correct?

Assuming that info is correct, yes.

#12 of 33 OFFLINE   Adam Lenhardt

Adam Lenhardt

    Executive Producer



  • 15,210 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2001
  • LocationAlbany, NY

Posted September 22 2011 - 12:11 PM

High-res cover art: Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

#13 of 33 OFFLINE   Johnny Angell

Johnny Angell

    Played With Dinosaurs Member



  • 5,588 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 13 1998
  • Real Name:Johnny Angell
  • LocationCentral Arkansas

Posted September 22 2011 - 02:00 PM

Given that this movie was converted to 3D as an afterthought, with no artistic impetus for the effect or consideration of it during filming, a plain old 2D Blu-ray is fine by me.

I am almost, I repeat, almost certain this is incorrect. I saw an interview with Daniel Radcliffe in which he stated he was no fan of 3D. That for part 1, no plans had been made for the movie to be converted to 3D when it was filmed. Part 2, however, was planned to be converted. When I saw it in 3D, I thought it was excellent. Again, I emphasize my memory isn't quite good enough to swear in court about that interview, but I'm kinda, sorta, sure:)
Johnny
www.teamfurr.org
But a family cat is not replaceable like a wornout coat or a set of tires. Each new kitten becomes its own cat, and none is repeated. I am four cats old, measuring out my life in friends that have succeeded but not replaced one another.--Irving Townsend


#14 of 33 OFFLINE   cafink

cafink

    Producer



  • 3,045 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999

Posted September 22 2011 - 03:34 PM

Weren't they filmed simultaneously, though? Or at least back-to-back? They had more time to work on the 3D conversion of Part II just because of the extra 6 months between the two films' release dates, but I am under the distinct impression that the decision to do so was made after both films were complete. I'm not 100% certain either, though, and would love it if somebody could provide more concrete information.
 

 


#15 of 33 OFFLINE   ahollis

ahollis

    Producer



  • 6,085 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 01 2007
  • Real Name:Allen
  • LocationNew Orleans

Posted September 22 2011 - 05:06 PM




Originally Posted by cafink 

Weren't they filmed simultaneously, though? Or at least back-to-back? They had more time to work on the 3D conversion of Part II just because of the extra 6 months between the two films' release dates, but I am under the distinct impression that the decision to do so was made after both films were complete. I'm not 100% certain either, though, and would love it if somebody could provide more concrete information.


They were filmed back to back. Warner's at first had announced that Part 1 would be presented in 3D through the conversion process.  After the terrible results from Clash of The Titans, Warner's decided that they did not have enough time to re-work some of the special effects to give them a 3D bump so they can called off the 3D release for Part 1.  But since the films were filmed at the same time, they had time and of course money to go back work on the CGI to give it more of a 3D bump on Harry Part 2 and in the long run created a very satisfactory 3D film.


If the director is thinking 3D as he films the movie or if they have time to go back and re-do most of the CGI effects, you can get a very good and enjoyable converted 3D film.  The problem has been the rush to convert films to 3D, there was no thought given so you got the bastardized releases such as Clash of the Titans and Air-bender and about a hundred others including in my book, Green Lantern, Gulliver's Travels, Green Hornet and Thor.

I hope that by the time next summer gets here, filmmakers will understand you just can't slap 3D on the film and it be a wonder.  There is still a lot of thought and talent that has to go in to making a 3D film.





"Get a director and a writer and leave them alone. That`s how the best pictures get made" - William "Wild Bill" Wellman


#16 of 33 OFFLINE   cafink

cafink

    Producer



  • 3,045 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999

Posted September 22 2011 - 05:22 PM

I misspoke in my previous post. I said that the decision to convert the films to 3D "was made after both films were complete," but I meant after filming was complete. Allen's post confirms my initial impression of the conversion process for Deathly Hallows Part 2--they had plenty of time to work on the conversion and probably consider it in editing, special effects, etc., but still, they are working on a film that was shot with no consideration of a 3D presentation, so it doesn't really interest me. In researching this issue, I did come across an interesting article about the conversion: http://www.sfx.co.uk...l-be-different/ Producer David Heyman says that, even though the 3D theatrical release was scrapped for Part 1, "we’ve done 3D for the Blu-ray so Part One will be available in 3D in your home at some point." So I guess it makes sense that Amazon has it available for pre-order.
 

 


#17 of 33 OFFLINE   Johnny Angell

Johnny Angell

    Played With Dinosaurs Member



  • 5,588 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 13 1998
  • Real Name:Johnny Angell
  • LocationCentral Arkansas

Posted September 23 2011 - 10:20 AM

, but still, they are working on a film that was shot with no consideration of a 3D presentation, so it doesn't really interest me.

So no matter the final result, you're not interested because it wasn't filmed to be 3D? Seems rather close minded to me. The 3D in Part 2 was just fine, IMHO and that of another poster. Just because There's a Clash of the Titans out there, it doesn't mean every 3D conversion will be bad.
Johnny
www.teamfurr.org
But a family cat is not replaceable like a wornout coat or a set of tires. Each new kitten becomes its own cat, and none is repeated. I am four cats old, measuring out my life in friends that have succeeded but not replaced one another.--Irving Townsend


#18 of 33 OFFLINE   cafink

cafink

    Producer



  • 3,045 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999

Posted September 23 2011 - 10:33 AM

No, the reason I'm not interested isn't simply because it wasn't filmed in 3D. I know of several 3D movies in which at least part of the live-action footage was shot in 2D and converted to 3D later (Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland and Alex Winter's The Gate, for example). But in those cases, the 3D conversion was part of the plan--it was just another option in the filmmakers' toolbox. That's fine with me and a perfectly valid way of making a 3D movie, given that the 2D footage can successfully and convincingly be converted to 3D The reason I'm not interested is because the 3D conversion was a business decision by the studio, not an artistic decision by the filmmakers. As I said before, there was "no artistic impetus for the effect or consideration of it during filming." I don't have any reservations about the quality of the conversion. Clash of the Titans is infamous for it's poor 3D conversion, but I thought it looked just fine, honestly. I have no doubt that the 3D version of Harry Potter looks great. But I'm no more interested in it than I am in any other film that is altered after the fact. It's inclusion would be a nice bonus, but it's certainly not a deal breaker for me.
 

 


#19 of 33 OFFLINE   Johnny Angell

Johnny Angell

    Played With Dinosaurs Member



  • 5,588 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 13 1998
  • Real Name:Johnny Angell
  • LocationCentral Arkansas

Posted September 24 2011 - 01:45 AM

The reason I'm not interested is because the 3D conversion was a business decision by the studio, not an artistic decision by the filmmakers. As I said before, there was "no artistic impetus for the effect or consideration of it during filming."

So the motive behind the decision is what matters? So if a studio sets out to make "Psycho Cheerleaders in Bikinis Meet the Munsters" purely to make a few bucks and somehow comes up with a movie to rival "Citizen Kane", you won't be interested because of the initial motivation? Many times the making of docs point out that the director's first choice for the lead can't be had because he's two expensive or not available and they go to the 2nd or 3rd or 4th choice based on who they can get. There are so many business decisions made on any movie that are made for commercial reasons only. I'll make my decision to watch based on the final results.
Johnny
www.teamfurr.org
But a family cat is not replaceable like a wornout coat or a set of tires. Each new kitten becomes its own cat, and none is repeated. I am four cats old, measuring out my life in friends that have succeeded but not replaced one another.--Irving Townsend


#20 of 33 OFFLINE   cafink

cafink

    Producer



  • 3,045 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999

Posted September 24 2011 - 03:57 AM

Many times the making of docs point out that the director's first choice for the lead can't be had because he's two expensive or not available and they go to the 2nd or 3rd or 4th choice based on who they can get. There are so many business decisions made on any movie that are made for commercial reasons only.

And I generally enjoy those movies in spite of the commercial considerations, not because of them. 3D conversions differ from many other moviemaking business decisions in that the conversion of an existing 2D film to 3D does not alter it intrinsically. The version of the film unaffected by the business decision--the original 2D version--remains. As I said before, I'm sure the 3D version of Harry Potter looks great, and that the 3D effect is convincing. There are plenty of black-and-white films that have been successfully and convincingly converted to color, too, but I'm not interested in watching any of them, either. I'd prefer to simply stick with the film as originally made by the director.
 

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users