Oz again a scant 5 years after WB's lavish box set and reformatted (i.e. 'improved') is not a priority. It's not even essential and I would argue - sight unseen, of course, though based on the aforementioned criteria - that it IS NOT an improvement! I am reminded of a quote from Jurassic Park herein and I'm going to paraphrase it to fit this conversation a little bit better, but dear boys at WB, "You were so excited about the fact that you could make these changes to Oz that you did not first reconsider whether or not you should make them!"
I really don't know what the answer is other than to continue to keep message boards like this one alive. Frankly, I am beside myself!!!
Good, you two have your own conversation and let the grownups talk.
Unlike the pipe-bomb throwers who are distracted by their own causes and now convinced that A) Warner is out to "ruin" every classic ever made with 3D, and B) they're going to "pull a George Lucas" (you can usually spots the age group of whoever posts that ), and "permanently replace" the original, I retain some actual context perspective of why we're getting this.
Why? Ohh, twenty-five years later, it's STILL all that damn Ted Turner's fault.
And no, I'm not talking about colorization--I'm talking about Turner beating "his" three MGM-library trademarks into the ground as marketing icons (notice we're now all talking about Gone With the Wind 3D, and they just happened to show a Singin' in the Rain conversion...). And after Warner acquired Turner, they got the idea: Competing with Disney and Universal--especially when all you've got for an amusement park is Six Flags--now means that studios have to have Franchise Brandnames, to compete with Disney's mice and princesses, and Universal's monsters, cars and sharks. Warner, meanwhile has its own arsenal of "weapons" to remind us of their corporate identity: Batman, Harry Potter, Bugs Bunny, Lord of the Rings, and, of course, "Warner Classics". You can guess what the first three Classics are, and Casablanca usually shows up as fourth. (Ironically, the only one of the four "Warner Classics" Warner originally did produce.)
And speaking of Jurassic Park, you'll notice we got the Oz reissue announcement during the Warner 90th Anniversary, just a few scant weeks after Universal announced its Universal 100th line of classic reissues. Now, now, boys, quit fighting in the mud, or you'll both get a time out!
Nobody got up one morning and want to chase his "dream" of seeing Oz in 3D, it's just marketing. And, since I HAVE a 3D setup (thanks to my free PS3 upgrade, I had a player long before I got my screen), it makes no difference to me. All the cries of "They're REPLACING it!" can be quickly silenced in two seconds by the fact that we're getting the 2D Blu along with it (presumably the fixed version, although I'll have to go check my 70th copy), and to me, the 3D version is nothing more than one more "alternate" track for watching it, like the commentary or isolated music tracks.
I'm sure some posters think, if they just keep hammering away with hate-rant posts, they'll change minds. Unfortunately, they may do just that, and not in the way they hoped.
Nay saying implies an unnecessary contempt for something sight unseen. But I really don't need to see The Wizard of Oz in a format never intended (IMAX) which means the image will have to be open matte and slightly cropped on the top and bottom, plus with the added rebuke of 3D factored in to know that this is NOT how MGM intended the movie as it should be seen.
So...it IS sight-unseen, then?
(No, really, why not go that extra mile, and actually use that catchphrase all the fundamentalist anti-"Last Temptation" protestors all got together and decided to use with reporters, to makeit sound like they'd all thought it up themselves: "I don't have to swim in the sewer to know what's in it!"?
Y'know, just for that sense of solidarity, and the sake of keeping up tradition. )
Edited by Ejanss, June 09 2013 - 01:36 AM.