New Warner Archives. order. (1 Viewer)

[Joe Caps]

Just put in a new order a few weeks ago and just received them.
I got Valley of the kings - first time widescreen. The film was originally stereo but is mono here.
Film looks good but colors do not pop.
Also received The Seventh Sin and Tip on a dead jockey - two fims I never realized were Cinemascope.

I took a chance to order tw films I had not seen in years - Drum Beat and Strange Lady in Town. They are both very early Warner Scope films. Originally stereo, the specs on the net said they were mono.
But no, - both turned out to be full stereo. this is important as Drum Beat has the silliest title song I have ever heard. It must be heard to be believed.

 

[Robin9]

Just put in a new order a few weeks ago and just received them.
I got Valley of the kings - first time widescreen. The film was originally stereo but is mono here.
Film looks good but colors do not pop.
Also received The Seventh Sin and Tip on a dead jockey - two fims I never realized were Cinemascope.

I took a chance to order tw films I had not seen in years - Drum Beat and Strange Lady in Town. They are both very early Warner Scope films. Originally stereo, the specs on the net said they were mono.
But no, - both turned out to be full stereo. this is important as Drum Beat has the silliest title song I have ever heard. It must be heard to be believed.

I have both Tip On A Dead Jockey and Strange Lady In Town. I've heard the picture quality of Drum Beat is very poor so I've never bought the disc. Please give your opinion of the disc.

 

[classicmovieguy]

I wrote Warner Archive a few months ago, asking about the status of several unreleased Eleanor Parker titles ("Lizzie", "Seventh Sin" and "Valley of the Kings" chiefly). I understand that the elements for "Kings" needed extensive work before they even considered releasing it. It's wonderful to now have it once again available for people to enjoy. I have a Spanish DVD release - probably taken from VHS - but I'm looking forward to seeing Warner's official disc soon. It's a great movie.

 

[Joe Caps]

I thought picture quality was decent to very good on Drum Beat. Remember, its early Warnercolor.

 

[Robin9]

I thought picture quality was decent to very good on Drum Beat. Remember, its early Warnercolor.

O K. Thank you. I put Drum Beat on my waiting list!

 

[John Hermes]

I thought picture quality was decent to very good on Drum Beat. Remember, its early Warnercolor.

Yeah, I have it and it's okay - nice to see it in 'Scope. One of my favorite Bronson roles.

 

[Douglas R]

Picture quality of Valley of the Kings is very poor. It looks as if Warner simply cropped their full frame master, with the result looking the same as if one had zoomed the TV screen from 1.33:1.

The CinemaScope Seventh Sin looks good. Sound is mono but credits say Perspecta stereo. I assume Warner no longer has the original stereo tracks? A bit odd considering nearly all of MGM post 1953 stereo tracks seem to have survived.

 

[Joe Caps]

Vqalley of the kings is a soft matte film - which means it was shot full frame, but NOT to be shown that way.
Seventh Sin was NOT a stereo film. It probably says Perspecta sound in the credtis.
In spite of calling itself perspecta stereo, it was NOT SUCH thing. But only mono sound counced around behind the screen/

 

[Nick*Z]

Have to say, the Warner Archive is doing one hell of a good job on their Blu-ray releases. Their DVD masters continue to be a crap shoot, however; some looking as though great pains have been taken to preserve the original intent and presentation value, while others look as though public domain is getting a run for its money. I don't doubt a lot of these masters are in a perilous state of disrepair. I also don't doubt Warner is being proactive in their pursuits. But their catalog is enormous and they need to spread the wealth and salvation around. I just worry that in the interim we will lose some truly outstanding examples of the 20th century's greatest art form, due to lack of due diligence from previous administrations that have allowed the decay to occur. Present regime at WB is having one whopper of a good start to 2016 on Blu-ray and we'll sincerely hope for more on the way.

I suspect Warner's philosophy is charting a 2-fold trajectory; with DVD MOD releases - to get as much of their catalog out their to the public in whatever condition it presently exists in; and with their Blu-ray releases - to satisfy the ardent collector who is sincerely looking for optimal presentation value of much cherished deep catalog. In a perfect world we would have already seen Warner release all of their Oscar-winning Best Pictures to hi-def: including The Broadway Melody, The Life of Emile Zola, The Good Earth, The Great Ziegfeld, Around the World in 80 Days and (on loan from Paramount), The Greatest Show on Earth. We would have also seen the likes of Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, High Society, Ivanhoe, The Three Musketeers, Red Dust, The Prisoner of Zenda (1936), Marie Antoinette, Romeo & Juliet, San Francisco, The Private Lives of Elizabeth And Essex, National Velvet, Mildred Pierce, Show Boat, Silk Stockings, Holiday in Mexico, Mrs. Parkington, The Student Prince, The Swan, Weekend at the Waldorf, The Unsinkable Molly Brown, Johnny Eager, and many others in our private libraries in hi-def by now.

I've abstained from buying more Warner Archive catalog on MOD DVD simply because I am never quite sure what I am going to get - polished gemstone or regurgitated VHS master slapped to disc. Now, WB has done a miraculous job of leaning more towards the former than the latter with these DVD releases. But again, my favorites are sometimes not theirs and as such do not get the same consideration I would have hoped for. My bad luck, I supposed. Alas, I don't believe in throwing good money after bad!

Finally, while virtually ever hi-def release from the Warner Archive has been an absolute peerless winner - truly raising the bar in hi-def mastering, much to the delight of fans - I'm not entirely certain I understand the executive logic of putting such box office clunkers as Billy Rose's Jumbo, Deep in My Heart, and, Thank Your Lucky Stars ahead of, say, Mildred Pierce, or All This And Heaven Too, or Now Voyager, or Random Harvest, or...well, you get the picture. Warner's wellspring of amazing art is bottomless for the time being. Lots to consider and collect and yes, 2016 has thus far yielded an embarrassment of riches in hi-def as well as a few curiosities: Susan Slept Here before The Unsinkable Molly Brown?!?!? Really?!?!?!?! Dark Passage before To Have and Have Not....what?!?!?!?

I guess my overall comment here for WB on DVD is wait and see. My comment for their Archive hi-def releases is 'buy with confidence'. Just don't always expect the movie being released to be of the same caliber as its transfer!

 

[Joseph Bolus]

These days when I purchase MOD DVDs from their catalog it's for the late 50's-early 60's "oaters". I have finished off their "Maverick" series -- including the late 70's "New Maverick" and 80's "Bret Maverick" -- and have now started on "Bronco" and "Sugarfoot".

For the most part the quality is "close" to commercial DVD releases. The only differentiation appears to be the "compression" factor of the transfers. (For example, "The New Maverick" pilot for the "Young Maverick" series had previously been released on commercial DVD; and the main difference between the two transfers was the "crisper" presentation on the commercial DVD. That commercial release was solely devoted to the pilot, while the MOD release included two regular series eps on the same disc. ) And even there -- at a maximum of 4 eps per disc -- it's not too bad.

BOTTOM LINE: So far, I've been pleased with all the MOD DVDs I've purchased from the Archive.

 

[Randy Korstick]

I have literally hundreds of Warner Archive discs and there is no noticeable difference from commercial releases. A digital file is a digital file. The only difference is if it is compressed too much which sounds like that is the case in the above example but that happens on many commercial releases too. Season 2 of the big valley and season 1 of the rifleman suffer from being over-compressed. Season 1 of Cheyenne which was a commercial release looks worse than season 2-7 that were all Mod releases. Season 3-5 of Maverick(MOD) look identical to Season 1-2 (commercial releases). So there are examples both ways but they are exceptions. All professionally made discs are created equal.

 

[Joseph Bolus]

I have literally hundreds of Warner Archive discs and there is no noticeable difference from commercial releases. A digital file is a digital file. The only difference is if it is compressed too much which sounds like that is the case in the above example but that happens on many commercial releases too. Season 2 of the big valley and season 1 of the rifleman suffer from being over-compressed. Season 1 of Cheyenne which was a commercial release looks worse than season 2-7 that were all Mod releases. Season 3-5 of Maverick(MOD) look identical to Season 1-2 (commercial releases). So there are examples both ways but they are exceptions. All professionally made discs are created equal.

I agree with this.

The only way I saw a difference in the two presentations of "The New Maverick" was on my 120" FP system.

The MOD presentation was *very* presentable even though it shared the disc with two additional one hour episodes. The commercial release was just a smidgen crisper. Considering the pilot was a little over 90 minutes and was sitting by itself on a dual layer disc, it definitely *should* look a little better If the MPEG-2 compressionists are doing their job.

 

[classicmovieguy]

I agree too. The only time I *really* see some compression action going on is when I play some of the older releases (of longer films) on my Blu-ray player.

 

[David Weicker]

sorry - wrong thread.

I apologize.

 

[classicmovieguy]

Can we please stop the discussion about streaming vs downloads vs blu-ray in this thread. This is supposed to be about the Marx Brothers and Universal Monsters.

We don't need another thread hijacked by this round-and-round-and-round discussion. What are we up to - about 200 threads taken over by this endless back-and-forth.

Please stay on topic.

Please.

Errr... I think *you* may be in the wrong thread...

 

[David Weicker]

Errr... I think *you* may be in the wrong thread...

Sorry - wrong thread. I apologize.