DVD Review HTF REVIEW: The Wizard Of Oz - Three-Disc Collector's Edition (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED). (1 Viewer)

[Mark B]

I captured a bit of the LD from my Pioneer CLD-990 through a Pinnacle Studio "blue box," created a dvd file and captured the frames with PowerDVD.

 

[Mattias_ka]

Thank you Mark. Then I understand the fuzzy quality of the picture.

 

[Matt Czyz]

While reading up online about "Return to Oz" (which I think deserves much more recognition than it currently does), I came across this poster:



Guess I know where the 2-Disc art came from now

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Ok, finally (between muppet DVD reviews) getting to this and what better thing to do on a Thursday night than resurect a sleeping thread so here's my impressions from the other night when me and two other HTF fellows checked out the DVDs.

The new DVD clearly has color that is warmer and more consistent with the "glow" that I would expect from a projected film print. Also, the flesh tones in the previous DVD tended towards red/blue and at times were less natural. So despite the "gold cast" to the new DVD, the color was definitely right. When Dorothy comes out into the land of OZ, the old DVD feels like she's walking into a warehouse with props lit by flourescent lighting. The new DVD feels like she's walking into a land of make-believe.

Something to keep in mind with these screen-caps we all look at so closely on our computer monitors. When's the last time you calibrated your computer display to be a perfect 6500 kelvin? Yes, I'm aware that most PC screens are designed with color in mind because of photos etc...but my point is that on a projector calibrated specifically for accurate color reproduction the new Oz DVD was unquestionably more "correct" when compared to the previous disc.

Detail...

This was where I really went back/forth and my final impression is that while the old disc feels "sharper", the new disc reveals just as much absolute image detail...it's just less "sharp". Detail and apparent sharpness are NOT the same thing...and when I find myself looking for specific details like dots in Dorothy's dress or blades of grass/detail in the costumes my eyes see just as much in the new disc as in the old...yet the old disc feels "sharper". However, that doesn't mean the old disc is better, because the new disc has "bloom" that the old disc utterly lacks. The old DVD feels more clinical...but the vibrancy and depth on the new DVD just "bloom" with film-like ease and it really looks much more like a projected Technicolor film print (very similar to the way the new Ben-Hur DVD has a lush sense of bloom and depth not perceived on the previous 'sharper' but flatter DVD presentation).

Also, compression is better on the new DVD which really helps some of the grainy B&W sequences...they started to look/feel "digital" when the MPEG encoder would get maxed out on the old DVD (dancing backgrounds and noisey-looking film grain) but the new DVD feels much more natural, the backgrounds are more stable, and the grain is more film-like. Also, there's less moire/aliasing on Dorothy's dress in the B&W segments on the new disc and to my eye they appear a bit more detailed.

So that's my take. The new disc really looks and feels more in keeping with what a projected print of this movie ought to do. Even if that darn rivet was perfectly visible in both DVD versions...

 

[Travis Brashear]

(For a far less analytical view...)

I just finished watching my 3-disc version and (as an owner of the previous Special Edition DVD, as well as the Ultimate Edition LaserDisc) I can sum up my impression in just a few short words: oh my freaking God! THE WIZARD OF OZ has never, never looked this good. It wasn't just a joy to take in this image--it was an honor.

Interestingly, I followed it up with a viewing of the Special Collector's Edition of 1953's THE WAR OF THE WORLDS and, while not quite as spot-on an image as TWoO's Ultra-Resolution remastering, it was still an astounding video experience. This is what it feels like when people make that "died and gone to heaven" comment...

 

[MarkHarrison]

Thanks DaViD. Even though I'm done with the set, I've been looking forward to your thoughts. Nothing against the other fine reviewers here. It's just that you and Herb usually seem to review the movies that most closely match my tastes. As a result, I tend to read more of your reviews than others. And that in turn gives me more context to read along with your comments.

 

[Paul_Scott]

that was the only criticism i had with the old disc. and the only area i expected this release to better. everything else looked remarkable to me. details like the strings holding up the Lions tail were easily discernable to me on the old release.

 

[Jonathan T.]

I really like Return of Oz, though it scared the crap out of me as a kid.

I know this is blasphemy to some, but I would love to see someone like Peter Jackson take the Oz novels, starting with the original and start a series of movie that are more accurate translation of the books.

Return to OZ is closer that the wizard of oz, is costuming and set design are clearly inspired by the books illustrations, but it jumbles the stories together.

The World of OZ that Baum created was a much darker place than what we see in MGMs The Wizard of OZ, and it would make stellar material for a new franchise.

(saldy with disney in charge we will probably never get anything more than that dumb muppet movie, god, disney owns the muppets and the wizard of oz, how awful)

 

[rich_d]

What I think is worse is that anyone owns rights to any literary work after more than 100 years.

 

[Lyle_JP]

Don't be so hard on Disney. It looks like they will be doing justice to the Narnia Chronicles. Disney execs aren't so dense that they haven't figured out that "dark" can sell.

-Lyle J.P.

 

[Jonathan T.]

well disney does seem to me taking steps to a turn around, but I still wont be holding my breath for a good "by the book" ox adaptation any time soon.

 

[rich_d]

You never know ... perhaps Paul Bunyan is in the works.

 

[Kevin M]

[Fred Flintstone]Droll...very droll.[/Fred Flintstone]

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

Notice that it says all of the titles written by Baum are in the public domain, including the illustrations. Disney owns nothing. And since the books are in the public domain, Disney was free to make a film inspired by them using the Muppets (which they DO own, unfortunately). And so is anyone else, I'd imagine.

Or am I missing something?

Oz Books Copyright Info from Wizard Of Oz FAQ

 

[Jonathan T.]

I was under the impression that Disney owned the film rights somehow. perhaps i have bad information.

EDIT:

Upon further reflection, I am sure I have gotten myself completely confused.

 

[Brian W.]

Oh, yeah, the Oz books and all the Oz characters passed into public domain long ago... Which is why, if you go into the children's section of any large bookstore, you'll see about 10 different editions from different companies, and there have been many more than that. As is Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, the complete works of Dickens, etc., etc.

 

[Al (alweho)]

Pan is not PD in the UK - due to special legislation protecting the royalties that are traditionally paid to the Great Ormond's Children's Hospital.

That's why Disney dropped out as a co-producer of the recent live action version Universal eventually released on its own - the Mouse didn't want to pay royalties on any merchandising.

Even though the title is PD everywhere else in the world, producers are still encouraged to pay some kind of royalty to the hospital as a goodwill gesture. The UK special legislation was intended to nudge folks into doing the right thing outside of the country.

 

[Al (alweho)]

Disney held a few rights until they finally went into PD. "Return to Oz" was an attempt to try and cover some of those fees Walt had paid for rights many years earlier but never got around to using.

The original 1939 Wizard of Oz was based on only one of the books "...and Walt had owned the rights to the novels for a number of years, even embarking in the late 1950s on an aborted feature starring members of The Mickey Mouse Club." (excerpt from "The Disney Studio Story" by Richard Holliss & Brian Sibley)

 

[JasonRH]

I've read plenty in this thread about the video but was interested in more comments comparing the original mono track to the new 5.1 mix. What do people think of the new mix?

 

[Mike_Heggemann]

Just wondering if anyone else noticed this:

On Disc 1, In the "We Haven't Been Properly Introduced" segment for Terry (the dog that played Toto), it is revealed at the end the Terry was female.

However, when they show the clip of "Terry" from "Tortilla Flat", the dog that Frank Morgan holds up (the one that's supposed to be Terry) is OBVIOUSLY a male!