Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

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

Warner

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

Poll: Which Version of Oz are you (or not) purchasing? (126 member(s) have cast votes)

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

  1. I own the 70th Anniversary set and plan to buy the 75th Anniversary Set (10 votes [7.94%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 7.94%

  2. I own the 70th Anniversary set and plan to buy the standard Blu-ray Edition (1 votes [0.79%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 0.79%

  3. I own the 70th Anniversary set and plan to buy the standard 3D Blu-ray Edition (34 votes [26.98%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.98%

  4. I don't own the 70th Anniversary set and plan to buy the 75th Anniversary Set (5 votes [3.97%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 3.97%

  5. I don't own the 70th Anniversary and plan to buy the standard Blu-ray Edition (6 votes [4.76%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.76%

  6. I don't own the 70th Anniversary and plan to buy the standard 3D Blu-ray Edition (10 votes [7.94%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 7.94%

  7. I plan to skip Oz this time around altogether (60 votes [47.62%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 47.62%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#181 of 297 Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Advanced Member

  • 37,310 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted September 16 2013 - 06:00 AM

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...

 

 

In the meantime, the View-D team worked closely with Price at Warner Brothers, who provided a 2K version of the studio’s recent restoration of the film - See more at: http://www.studiodai...h.oLfDlxD2.dpuf

 

 

 

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.   


Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

gallery_269895_23_10043.jpg Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders gallery_269895_23_1316.jpg Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

gallery_269895_23_773.jpg Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive gallery_269895_23_992.jpgClick Here for our complete DVD review archive

gallery_269895_23_7246.jpg Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule gallery_269895_23_3120.jpg Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#182 of 297 Lromero1396

Lromero1396

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 637 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 2012

Posted September 16 2013 - 06:59 AM

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.   

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.



#183 of 297 Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Advanced Member

  • 37,310 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted September 16 2013 - 07:24 AM

 

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.

 

 

 

I stand corrected.  Thank You.

 

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


Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

gallery_269895_23_10043.jpg Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders gallery_269895_23_1316.jpg Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

gallery_269895_23_773.jpg Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive gallery_269895_23_992.jpgClick Here for our complete DVD review archive

gallery_269895_23_7246.jpg Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule gallery_269895_23_3120.jpg Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#184 of 297 rmw650

rmw650

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 770 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2012

Posted September 16 2013 - 04:47 PM

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?


Edited by rmw650, September 17 2013 - 02:30 PM.


#185 of 297 ahollis

ahollis

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 5,133 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 01 2007
  • Real Name:Allen
  • LocationNew Orleans

Posted September 16 2013 - 08:10 PM

So with the re-imaging of this classic into 3D, does this restart the copyright period at year one?
"Get a director and a writer and leave them alone. That`s how the best pictures get made" - William "Wild Bill" Wellman


#186 of 297 David Weicker

David Weicker

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,274 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 26 2005
  • Real Name:David

Posted September 16 2013 - 08:34 PM

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.

 

 

I stand corrected.  Thank You.

 

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

 

 

 Actually, if they put back the portions that people say are missing, this could be a 'revision' AND a 'restoration'



#187 of 297 JoeDoakes

JoeDoakes

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,508 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 01 2009
  • Real Name:Ray

Posted September 18 2013 - 06:20 AM

Warner is not giving up that information. I have tried many times to get

an answer directly from them and it seems the question is being dodged.

 

I am presuming this is the exact same release as the 70th Anniversary.

 

However, I would advise everyone to wait for reviews which will

hopefully arrive in time enough for people to cancel their preorders

if my assumptions are correct.

That's just strange. Especially from Warner.



#188 of 297 Jack Theakston

Jack Theakston

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 848 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 2003

Posted September 19 2013 - 08:05 AM

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!


-J. Theakston

#189 of 297 Russell G

Russell G

    Fake Shemp

  • PipPipPip
  • 9,520 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 20 2002
  • Real Name:Russell
  • LocationDeadmonton

Posted September 19 2013 - 08:12 AM


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.

 

 

 

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.


My wallet cries me to sleep!
 
This post kills threads!


#190 of 297 Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 23,134 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted September 19 2013 - 08:33 AM

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.

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

Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#191 of 297 Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 23,134 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted September 19 2013 - 08:35 AM

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!

I'll be there this weekend after reading yours and GregK comments.  I'll also buy the new BD.


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#192 of 297 Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Advanced Member

  • 37,310 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted September 19 2013 - 08:36 AM

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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 3D
is 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

Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

gallery_269895_23_10043.jpg Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders gallery_269895_23_1316.jpg Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

gallery_269895_23_773.jpg Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive gallery_269895_23_992.jpgClick Here for our complete DVD review archive

gallery_269895_23_7246.jpg Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule gallery_269895_23_3120.jpg Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#193 of 297 Charles Smith

Charles Smith

    Extremely Talented Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 3,871 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 27 2007
  • LocationNor'east

Posted September 19 2013 - 08:50 AM

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

 

On that recommendation ... done deal.

 

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



#194 of 297 FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • PipPipPip
  • 3,183 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted September 19 2013 - 08:54 AM

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.


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#195 of 297 Jack Theakston

Jack Theakston

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 848 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 2003

Posted September 19 2013 - 11:04 AM

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.

 

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.


  • Mark_TB and ahollis like this
-J. Theakston

#196 of 297 Mark-P

Mark-P

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,927 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 2005
  • Real Name:Mark Probst
  • LocationCamas, WA

Posted September 19 2013 - 11:38 AM

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!"



#197 of 297 moviebuff75

moviebuff75

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 04 2009
  • Real Name:Eric Scott Richard
  • LocationIndianapolis, Indiana

Posted September 19 2013 - 01:06 PM

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.


Proud HTF Member Since: April, 2001


#198 of 297 Jack Theakston

Jack Theakston

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 848 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 2003

Posted September 19 2013 - 02:23 PM

Eric, what were the issues with the normal release?


-J. Theakston

#199 of 297 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Advanced Member

  • 2,721 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted September 19 2013 - 02:36 PM

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!

 

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!


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com

 

As there has been some colorful debate about the meaning of "Director-approved" transfers and how it relates to how widespread 1.66 was in the UK, I will make the following point. The dominant aspect ratio at British Studios between 1955-1970 WAS 1.75. This is based on research going through trade listings of hundreds of British films, as well as studio archives and other primary sources. 1.85 was the second most listed aspect ratio, with 1.65/1.66 a distant third.

 

Tom Crossplot - July 2013


#200 of 297 moviebuff75

moviebuff75

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 04 2009
  • Real Name:Eric Scott Richard
  • LocationIndianapolis, Indiana

Posted September 19 2013 - 02:38 PM

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.


Proud HTF Member Since: April, 2001






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Warner

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users