A Few Words About A few words about...™ Meet Me in St. Louis -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

I totally agree that the standard cases have become worse. The PR, of course, is that less plastic helps save the planet. The reality is that it's probably a half-cent cheaper, and every half-cent counts. That's why I buy cases from Sleevetown and throw the "green" cases into the trash for their journey to the landfill. If their idea is really "save the planet," it's not working.

But 99.9% of people aren't that paranoid about their discs and the types of cases that they're in so while using the eco-friendly cases is saving money (and no doubt the primary goal), it is also using less plastic.

 

I haven't had one problem with the digibooks ruining the disc. To me they are just as secure as regular cases. Have you felt how thin the regular cases are? If I have a choice, I always go for the digibook if I can afford it.

 

[Rick Thompson]

I haven't had one problem with the digibooks ruining the disc. To me they are just as secure as regular cases. Have you felt how thin the regular cases are? If I have a choice, I always go for the digibook if I can afford it.

Agree with you about the regular "green" cases. That's why I replace 'em.

 

[ChristophNestel]

In 1944 MGM started to produce Spanish language versions of their films at their New York Studios with voice actors from Mexico. One of the first of these Hispano-American dubbings was "Meet me in St. Louis" which was released in Argentina and Mexico under the title "la Rueda de la Fortuna". For this version, all the songs were dubbed into Spanish with Estrellita Díaz providing both voice and singing for Judy Garland.


imdb also mentions this without giving the full background:

A rare version, dubbed in Spanish, exists, which was issued on VHS in Spain several years ago. This version features the entire soundtrack dubbed, including the songs, and several scenes deleted involving Margaret O'Brien deleted, dealing with Halloween, immediately after "The trolley song". TNT, in Latin America, after prologue dealing about how this film was restored presented it in its complete version but with the Spanish dubbed soundtrack lifted from that old version, which was not restored. For that reason, after "The trolley song" and during several minutes the films plays in English (after Judy Garland "sung" in Spanish) and then the audio reverts back to the dubbed version. Although that dubbed version was available in Spain, some people believe that it was actually produced in Mexico.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037059/alternateversions


In Spain, the movie had no theatrical release but was only dubbed in 1971 and released for Spanish TV under the title "Cita en St. Louis". The European Region 2 DVDs carried this new Spanish TV dub. But now I heard, that the BD carries the original MGM Hispano-American 1944 dub with the songs in Spanish. Can anybody confirm this? If yes, what did they do with the audio of the censored Halloween sequence?


In France the film was released 1947 under the title "Le Chant du Missouri". None of the European DVDs carried a French dubtrack so far. Is the French version a vintage period-dubtrack from 1947? Are the songs dubbed into French or do they remain in English on the French track?


Thanks for listening!

 

[bujaki]

The first time I saw Meet Me in St. Louis was in a B&W TV broadcast in Puerto Rico. It was indeed dubbed into Spanish (Latin American) and the Halloween sequence was deleted. I was shocked to hear Judy Garland singing in Spanish! I finally saw it complete and in a stunning Technicolor IB 35mm print at MoMA.

 

[benbess]

Watching this one again right now and—WOW—this is one of the movies that shows the power of TECHNICOLOR. What a great movie musical where everything comes together from the performances, to the songs, to the sets, to the emotions.

Here's a little of what RAH wrote in his original review from 2011....

"Scanned from the original camera negatives, and composited via the proprietary Ultra-resolution process, the resultant element from WB's MPI digital facility is nothing less than breathtaking. One might ask "where did the audio come from?"


In typical fashion, the studio wasn't happy to use the 1/4 magnetic archival audio.


Instead they returned to the original optical stems, and re-created the audio to sound better than it did in prints in 1944. This audio is 67 years old, and amazing."


(I wish Minnelli's wonderful 1948 Technicolor musical The Pirate, which of course stars Judy Garland and Gene Kelly, could also get this deluxe treatment.)

 

[Matt Hough]

From your fingers to Warners' ears....

 

[Astairefan]

I hope so, too! Of course, considering the overall lack of pre-1954 MGM musicals being released by WAC, I suspect they'll probably be watching the sales on Summer Stock closely. (after all, if that release, which some think didn't need as much work done, can't sell, why would the one that does need a lot of work do any better?)

 

[benbess]

As you'll recall, in the wonderful Halloween part of Meet Me In St. Louis the kids don't "trick or treat," but instead build a bonfire out of scrap wood and old furniture, and then go around and throw flour at people to pretend to "kill" them. Margaret O'Brien as Tootie is great in those scenes, as she is throughout the whole movie. And the differences in Halloween traditions between 1903 and today are kind of shocking, and recall a famous quote:

"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there." So runs the famous first line of L.P. Hartley's novel, "The Go-Between."

Anyway, I think the last time I watched this movie with my family was when our now 17 year old daughter was about 10. As I talked about those Halloween scenes in Meet Me in St. Louis over dinner last night, to my surprise she remembered it quite clearly. I also mentioned the Hartley quote, and then she made me smile a bit by asking if we did trick or treating back when I was growing up in the 1970s.....! My wife and I said yes we did, but it did make me think that for young people today the 1970s are further back in time than the 1944 release date of the movie was to people back in the 1970s, which is when I first saw part of this movie on the black-and-white tv my parents had then.

Back in 1944 the turn of the century was already far in the past, but for older movie goers that era still in living memory. You can imagine there was a lot of nostalgia for the clothes, songs, cooking, and manners of what during World War II already seemed quite foreign. I imagine there were lots of conversations about those things around dinner tables after people watched the movie back when it came out. And a lot of people did. It was a pretty expensive and lavish movie, but actually was hugely profitable not just on first release but also on re-release a few years later. From wikipedia....

Budget $1,885,000[2]
Box office $6,566,000 (original release)
$12,800,000[3]

 

[Keith Cobby]

Currently reviewing my blu ray collection and watching a film each day which i haven't seen for years. Today was another Judy Garland film. Never been a huge fan (except for Oz) and didn't really enjoy it that much, apart from the two great songs. I prefer her films when she has a strong partner. So giving it away!

 

[Malcolm R]

Like you, I enjoy a couple of the songs, but never really liked the film. I find most of the characters obnoxious and unlikeable, so it's really chore to sit through.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

How amazing. Still, it's your opinion.

 

[ahollis]

I’ve always found it enchanting and entertaining. But that’s what’s great about film, one person likes it and the other person hates it. I so glad we all don’t have the same opinions. Life would then be so boring.

 

[Robin9]

Currently reviewing my blu ray collection and watching a film each day which i haven't seen for years. Today was another Judy Garland film. Never been a huge fan (except for Oz) and didn't really enjoy it that much, apart from the two great songs. I prefer her films when she has a strong partner. So giving it away!

Only two great songs? The Boy Next Door, The Trolley Song and Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas. Which one don't you like?

 

[Mark-P]

Currently reviewing my blu ray collection and watching a film each day which i haven't seen for years. Today was another Judy Garland film. Never been a huge fan (except for Oz) and didn't really enjoy it that much, apart from the two great songs. I prefer her films when she has a strong partner. So giving it away!

As you sort through your collection, I see that you are bumping a bunch of old threads only to state your displeasure. Please don't do that. You're just poking at hornets' nests. Instead you should just start a thread called "I'm sorting through my Blu-ray collection and here's what I'm getting rid of"

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Counterpoint: I enjoy hearing why films do and don’t work for people. Keith is articulating what he doesn’t like in a well reasoned, non confrontational way. It’s exactly why I like being on this forum, to have these discussions.

Of course, if Keith wants to donate his copy to me, I still have the two disc DVD edition..

I always forget that Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas comes from here. This is a movie I don’t watch often at all and then when I do, I wonder why I don’t watch it more often.

 

[Robert Crawford]

As you sort through your collection, I see that you are bumping a bunch of old threads only to state your displeasure. Please don't do that. You're just poking at hornets' nests. Instead you should just start a thread called "I'm sorting through my Blu-ray collection and here's what I'm getting rid of"

I have to disagree with you there. I don't mind Keith stating his displeasure with certain films in older threads as it facilitates further film discussion within those respective threads. I'm not a big fan of this movie either, but, I will never delete my Blu-ray from my film library. It's the type of movie that I will visit once every 5-10 years. One more thing, being not a big fan of a movie doesn't mean I don't like a particular movie. It just means I like it to a certain degree.

 

[Mark-P]

I have to disagree with you there. I don't mind Keith stating his displeasure with certain films in older threads as it facilitates further film discussion within those respective threads. I'm not a big fan of this movie either, but, I will never delete my Blu-ray from my film library. It's the type of movie that I will visit once every 5-10 years. One more thing, being not a big fan of a movie doesn't mean I don't like a particular movie. It just means I like it to a certain degree.

To me it just seems messy, with controversies being stirred up all over the forum that could all be contained in one thread. Healthy debate, sure. But do we have to “scorch” the whole forum to do it? I notice that the threads he bumped to say he liked the film got no further comments. It’s only the ones where he didn’t that got further debate.

 

[Robert Crawford]

To me it just seems messy, with controversies being stirred up all over the forum that could all be contained in one thread. Healthy debate, sure. But do we have to “scorch” the whole forum to do it? I notice that the threads he bumped to say he liked the film got no further comments. It’s only the ones where he didn’t that got further debate.

I guess you and I differ on what "messy" and "scorch" means in these discussion threads. I don't see either of those words being appropriate to the kind of discussion so far taking place in those threads today.

 

[ahollis]

I don’t mind Keith’s comments on his thoughts on each title thread. If it became one thread, in my opinion, it would lead to confusion on who’s talking about which titles.