A Few Words About A few words about...™ It's a Wonderful Life -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Mark-P]

...Paramount's view is that if you don't have internet that can handle 4K loads, you are worthy of only discs from an old master. And really, does anyone think that a legit 4K and/or upgraded blu-ray wouldn't sell?

You don’t need 4K to access the new master. The new master will still stream in 1080p, or 720p, or even 480p for that matter.

Just one question, Josh.
If Paramount were to release their 4K restoration on an upgraded BD, would you make a purchase of it?

Speaking for myself I love the film. Classic.

And the iTunes 4K version is more than sufficient for me. No need to buy the physical disc. At a higher price no less.

Just sayin.

Same here. I have no need of a 2K Blu-Ray disc when I now have access to a 4K version. A more appropriate question would be “Would you purchase a 4K UHD Blu-Ray if Paramount were to release that?”

My only problem is the exclusive Apple ecosphere....I don't have Apple TV. I have Movies Anywhere, Vudu, and FandangoNow so my iTunes purchases only play on Apple TV. I purchased the iTunes 4k version but can't watch it anywhere but on my iPhone. My TV is Android based (Vizio M Series). Thats the problem with streaming....you have to subscribe/buy multiple services/equipment whereas a disc plays in any UHD player.

Well since Apple’s not your thing, you shouldn’t have purchased it there. The 4K stream is now also on Vudu for $16.99.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

My only problem is the exclusive Apple ecosphere....I don't have Apple TV. I have Movies Anywhere, Vudu, and FandangoNow so my iTunes purchases only play on Apple TV. I purchased the iTunes 4k version but can't watch it anywhere but on my iPhone. My TV is Android based (Vizio M Series). Thats the problem with streaming....you have to subscribe/buy multiple services/equipment whereas a disc plays in any UHD player.

I would argue that this is less a problem with streaming in general, but rather a specific problem with Paramount refusing to follow standard industry protocol by declining to join Movies Anywhere.

Virtually every major studio has joined Movies Anywhere, allowing consumers to access their purchases on all platforms regardless of which retailer the item is purchased at.

If Paramount was not refusing to join the vast majority of their industry peers in following this SOP, access to purchases of this title would not be restricted to a particular storefront.

The industry solved this problem. Paramount is just refusing to acknowledge that. Which I agree is problematic. But I don’t think that invalidates the whole concept of streaming. I think it just shows that Paramount is not keeping up to date with the rest of the industry.

 

[Tino]

A more appropriate question would be “Would you purchase a 4K UHD Blu-Ray is Paramount we’re to release that?”

Again, for me,I wouldn’t as the 4-K stream is more than enough.

 

[PMF]

[...]Same here. I have no need of a 2K Blu-Ray disc when I now have access to a 4K version. A more appropriate question would be “Would you purchase a 4K UHD Blu-Ray is Paramount we’re to release that?"[...]

Yes...absolutely...and without hesitation.
But my post to Paramount asks simply for an upgraded Blu Ray that will show off their restoration.
Certainly such a disc would superseded Paramount's transfer of 2009.
A 2K disc of the restoration will be less expensive than a UHD to manufacture; while also revealing far more PQ than what we've currently known.
As it it, I believe that it's been stated by RAH that an actual 4K/UHD may not be warranted;
as even the best of displays, players and projectors would reveal only the slightest of differences.
Hopefully, I paraphrased Mr. Harris correctly.

 

[atfree]

You don’t need 4K to access the new master. The new master will still stream in 1080p, or 720p, or even 480p for that matter.



Same here. I have no need of a 2K Blu-Ray disc when I now have access to a 4K version. A more appropriate question would be “Would you purchase a 4K UHD Blu-Ray if Paramount were to release that?”

Well since Apple’s not your thing, you shouldn’t have purchased it there. The 4K stream is now also on Vudu for $16.99.

Which was my mistake....but if a disc had been released I wouldn't have to play "Who's on First" as to which streaming service to purchase from. Segmented choices is the biggest issue I have with cord cutting and why I'll never cut the cord or forego physical media.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Which was my mistake....but if a disc had been released I wouldn't have to play "Who's on First" as to which streaming service to purchase from. Segmented choices is the biggest issue I have with cord cutting and why I'll never cut the cord or forego physical media.

Or...if Paramount followed the industry standard practice of joining Movies Anywhere, it wouldn’t have mattered which retailer you purchased it from as your purchase would be accessible from all retailers.

I don’t think this is a problem with streaming in general, I think this is a problem with Paramount specifically not following accepted practices in this industry.

And I agree it’s sucks and it places an unfair burden on you as a consumer. But I place 100% of the blame on Paramount as the rest of the industry already got together and solved this issue.

 

[atfree]

Or...if Paramount followed the industry standard practice of joining Movies Anywhere, it wouldn’t have mattered which retailer you purchased it from as your purchase would be accessible from all retailers.

I don’t think this is a problem with streaming in general, I think this is a problem with Paramount specifically not following accepted practices in this industry.

And I agree it’s sucks and it places an unfair burden on you as a consumer. But I place 100% of the blame on Paramount as the rest of the industry already got together and solved this issue.

Wait til Disney opens their own streaming service...and others follow. Then we'll have to subscribe to 10 different services to get content from multiple studios. And, yes, I know Disney owns Movies Anywhere but every studio is gonna want their own exclusive service.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I would argue that this is less a problem with streaming in general, but rather a specific problem with Paramount refusing to follow standard industry protocol by declining to join Movies Anywhere.

Virtually every major studio has joined Movies Anywhere, allowing consumers to access their purchases on all platforms regardless of which retailer the item is purchased at.

If Paramount was not refusing to join the vast majority of their industry peers in following this SOP, access to purchases of this title would not be restricted to a particular storefront.

The same could be said about Disney not joining Ultraviolet several years ago.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Wait til Disney opens their own streaming service...and others follow. Then we'll have to subscribe to 10 different services to get content from multiple studios. And, yes, I know Disney owns Movies Anywhere but every studio is gonna want their own exclusive service.

Sure, but Disney’s service will be a completely different beast. Buying a movie on iTunes / Vudu / Movies Anywhere.

Subscribing to Disney+ or other streaming services like Netflix is the modern equivalent of an HBO cable subscription in the 1990s.

One doesn’t really affect the other.

The same could be said about Disney not joining Ultraviolet several years ago.

To a certain extent, absolutely. The problem with Ultraviolet was that the different retailers didn’t buy in. Vudu was really the only place to use a UV subscription. There were a couple other services that folded, and FandangoNow was briefly a UV partner - but I think the big problem with Ultraviolet was that it didn’t really offer much of a choice in which storefront/device you could use. Movies Anywhere really is significantly better in that regard because one purchase takes care of iTunes, Vudu, Amazon and Google. Before MA, you had to choose which one of those services to use and were basically locked into that purchase in that storefront forever.

Disney ultimately had the muscle to force the storefronts to play nicely together, which brought us Disney Movies Anywhere, and that instantly worked better than Ultraviolet. Movies Anywhere is what UV should have been from the start.

 

[Kyrsten Brad]

"No, 'tis not so deep, nor so wide, but 'tis enough..." - William Shakespeare
Frank Capra's beloved classic finally makes it to Blu-ray in less than beloved form from Paramount. The marketing is oddly skewed toward the colorized version, which I scored, easily broke in half and tossed into the garbage where it belongs. When the lead line begins: "This 2-disc collection set includes the colorized version as well as the pristine black & white version," I'm suspect. I just don't see the colorized version being the deal maker. This is unfortunately much like Fox's Oklahoma! release featuring the 35mm version of the film, with the groundbreaking Todd-AO version as a horrific extra.
I love this film, and have since I first saw it decades ago, but after viewing this new Blu-ray am wishing that it had been left in the public domain, where it would have received far better and more respectful treatment.
What's wrong?
Simple.
This is one of the titles that will remain a sales staple. Therefore, budget should not be a concern. My perception is that after some nice film elements were created several years ago, the film was transferred to HD, released on standard definition, and finally that same transfer, which probably looked fine in standard definition, is being used for Blu-ray, rather than going back to film and doing it correctly. This seems to be the new Paramount ethic, and it really needs to be discussed, both by the public, as well as (hopefully) on Melrose.
What we have is a pretty film element that has been transferred, processed, grain reduced, sharpened -- to give it that wonderful Christmas tinsel look -- and then compressed by someone who apparently has no idea what they're doing. The final result can be seen in various Paramount releases, inclusive of The Untouchables. While this is far from what we saw in Patton and The Longest Day, it is far from acceptable in 2009.
What you'll see on screen is something shorn of grain, and what grain survives appears almost like a suspension in liquid. As someone moves, they seem to force whatever grain there is out of the way -- pushing it in all directions as the obviously terrorized grain attempts to not come in contact with whomever is on screen. They almost appear to be repulsed magnetic particles.
This particular It's a Wonderful Life will please those with smaller screens, as well as those with larger screens who care little of quality and aren't seeking a film look. It gives me no pleasure to suggest that those who do care are apt to be extremely unforgiving of the poor craftsmanship. And there is no rationale to forgive.
It's a Wonderful Life is one of the great films. Now that it has made its way to Blu-ray it is ripe for a recall and replacement by someone -- anyone -- who knows how to bring a film to Blu-ray. I'll repeat something that I've said before. The job is simple. Scan the element, clean and stabilize where necessary and take it to Blu-ray. It ain't brain surgery. To make it personal, this is something that I could do with my eyes closed, and probably over the phone, although being on site would probably create a better final product. The point that I'm trying to make is not to disparage, but simply have it understood that this is not film restoration -- merely a transfer, can very easily be performed correctly and with a final Blu-ray product that can look like very stable and clean projected film.
That, as I understand it, is what Blu-ray, with its incredible technical potential, is all about.
It's a Wonderful Life is most assuredly Not Recommended!
RAH

I’m not sure but if I didn’t know better, I’d say you didn’t like the colorized version of IAWL

On my part it might be interesting to run a comparison on my new Viz 75 of the color version and the new 4K B&W. I know I really like both versions on the 2009 Blu but back then I was far less discriminating Of video quality. Just a step up in PQ from the DVD ( on my old Sony 36 WEGA CRT) was good enough for me.

See what you people have done to me here!!

Oh and you should have kept the color disc for a coaster.

 

[Rick Thompson]

Would I buy the 4K disc? Depends. Is that big white scratch (or whatever it is) on the right still there? If it's gone, absolutely yes, I'd buy (ditto for a blu sourced from it). If it's still there, absolutely not. What would be the point of getting a higher resolution bad print? As for streaming at lower resolution (NTSC at best with Verizon Wireless), again, what's the point?

 

[Mike Frezon]

Count me among those ticked off there's not going to be a Blu-ray release (apparently) of this new restoration of IaWL. I would really love to see it that way.

And I "get" that it's a business decision. Paramount must have its reasons. I just prefer Philip's reasoning (in the post with which he revived this thread). It's too bad. But I'll just have to be content with the Blu-ray disc of the film I already have.

It's too bad this needs to turn into yet another discussion about streaming vs. physical media...but I guess that's a very pertinent topic based on what's happening with this particular restoration (and its non-release on disc).

 

[Mike Frezon]

If Paramount were to release their 4K restoration on an upgraded BD, would you make a purchase of it?

I'm not Josh...but I sure would. Certainly not because I want to spend another $20 (or whatever) on another disc of the film...but I would love to see this new restoration and just how good this already-good looking film can actually look.

I’m not sure I understand the point of the question. I’m in a pretty small minority of entertainment consumers. The choices I would or wouldn’t make can’t be seen as representative of market forces or consumer behavior.

Man, Josh, that has never stopped a member of this forum from expressing themselves before! If all our members took that stance, this forum would be out of business tomorrow!

Personally, I would figure a lot of people would buy DVD and Blu copies of the new restoration because most people want "the best" version of the film...and a number of new copies are probably purchased each holiday season.

But like I said earlier, it's Paramount's football and they can go home with it at any time. It's their decision. And they must feel as if this is the best route for them. But even though I'm not a typical media consumer, I'd still like to be on record that I'd snatch up a copy on release date. I oftn see the HTF as an advocacy site on these type of things.

If the restoration is as good as they are saying, I wish it could be seen by as many people as possible. Especially me.

I'm also still waiting for VCI to put out a Blu-ray of a new restoration of the 1951 A Christmas Carol.

 

[JohnMor]

As you say, Mike, it’s Paramount’s football. But it seems to me the biggest cost has already been spent, so why not try to recoup some with some dvd/blu-ray/4K disc sales. The heavy lifting’s been done and how much can the disc replication and a little artwork cost? It’s not like they have to press 500,000 copies or put major advertising out in stores or anything but it’s bound to sell some.

I mean, 3 years ago they put out Vidor’s War and Peace on blu-ray and I can tell you more “average consumers” have heard of and want IaWL far more than WaP.

 

[Malcolm R]

There have been a number of issues with disc replication and manufacturing this fall. Maybe Paramount simply decided to release the digital version this year and may release a disc next year?

 

[Mike Frezon]

There have been a number of issues with disc replication and manufacturing this fall. Maybe Paramount simply decided to release the digital version this year and may release a disc next year?

I could live with that...

 

[Brian Kidd]

I know it's after Christmas, but I decided to purchase the 4K streaming version when it was on sale on Christmas and gave it a watch. It's one of my all-time favorite films.

To be honest, I don't think 4K is worth it in this case. It certainly looks good and, at times, far better than previous releases, but I just don't think that the difference in watching the 4K version and HD version of the restoration is great enough to justify purchasing the 4K. Certainly, if it's the same price as the HD version it won't hurt anything to get it. It looks very nice. It just isn't a film that has benefits from viewing it in 4K resolution. HDR hasn't been overdone, which is good, but it didn't really improve the image quality either, that I could see.

I suppose my disappointment is more that a 4K release is kind of a waste, in this case, and will further muddy the opinions of the average viewer who, rightly, won't really see much, if any, difference between 4K and HD. If the studios want 4K and HDR to continue to grow, they need to not use it on content that doesn't benefit from it.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I know it's after Christmas, but I decided to purchase the 4K streaming version when it was on sale on Christmas and gave it a watch. It's one of my all-time favorite films.

To be honest, I don't think 4K is worth it in this case. It certainly looks good and, at times, far better than previous releases, but I just don't think that the difference in watching the 4K version and HD version of the restoration is great enough to justify purchasing the 4K. Certainly, if it's the same price as the HD version it won't hurt anything to get it. It looks very nice. It just isn't a film that has benefits from viewing it in 4K resolution. HDR hasn't been overdone, which is good, but it didn't really improve the image quality either, that I could see.

I suppose my disappointment is more that a 4K release is kind of a waste, in this case, and will further muddy the opinions of the average viewer who, rightly, won't really see much, if any, difference between 4K and HD. If the studios want 4K and HDR to continue to grow, they need to not use it on content that doesn't benefit from it.

I respect your opinion, but I totally disagree with it as I think the 4K stream on iTunes looks beautiful and far better than any previous Blu-ray presentation of it.

 

[Lord Dalek]

If the studios want 4K and HDR to continue to grow, they need to not use it on content that doesn't benefit from it.

The problem with that is the list of films that won't benefit much is increasing rapidly as the initial hype that was 4k continues to evaporate.

 

[Brian Kidd]

I respect your opinion, but I totally disagree with it as I think the 4K stream on iTunes looks beautiful and far better than any previous Blu-ray presentation of it.

It looks quite good, however I'm curious as to your opinion on whether or not the 4K version is a significant improvement over the HD version of the restoration. I agree that the restored version is an improvement on the currently-available Blu-ray.