International Warners Rubbish

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chris55

Auditioning
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
6
Real Name
chris
I've had so much disappointment over the years with Warners discs that I wouldn't really know where to begin. A lot of the expensive sets I've bought of Stars and musicals and TV series, all from Warners, have been faulty, either when first bought them or when I went to play them again, even though I look after my DVD collection very carefully. The latest mishap is the same two movies on two different discs on a Warners set, even though marked differently on each disc. And, of course, to top it off, the disgusting copy (virtually looking like an old tape recording) of the classic movie "Giant" on Bluray. Being a Bluray, I automatically thought it would be remastered at least, but the copy was awful, to say the least. Warners are really going to have to pull their socks up or will soon be out of business as I,for one , will not be buying anymore of their DVDs...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: roger.howerton

Angelo Colombus

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
2,157
Location
Chicago Area
Real Name
Angelo Colombus
With Giant I believe Warner Bros did the best they could on releasing the Blu-ray. The original negative not in great condition adds to some of the issues but overall the Blu-ray looks fine to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimbo64

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
19,249
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
The Blu-ray for Giant accurately represents the look of the film. It’s just not, and never was, a great looking film due to choices made by the original production team on film stocks and post production team on editing and compositing choices. It’s not that the Blu is bad; it’s that the extra resolution of the format reveals the flaws in the original work.
 

Chris55

Auditioning
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
6
Real Name
chris
With Giant I believe Warner Bros did the best they could on releasing the Blu-ray. The original negative not in great condition adds to some of the issues but overall the Blu-ray looks fine to me.
Well, Warners released "Swing Time" (1936) recently on a Blu Ray, remastered, even though they didn't have the original negative, which is lost apparently, and for a b/w movie made nearly twenty years before "Giant", it looked fantastic and like a new movie, albeit b/w, so it is ridiculous to suppose that they couldn't have done the same thing with "Giant" , when releasing it on Blu Ray. The fact is that if they go to a lot of trouble to correct a bad print or negative, even if it looked like that originally, they can work wonders digitally as I've seen many times with vintage movies these days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roger.howerton

Chris55

Auditioning
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
6
Real Name
chris
What are some of the other Warner titles you're unhappy with then?
Well , as regards DVDs, "Classic Musicals From the Dream Factory" Vol.2 are nearly all faulty discs and far too many others to list here. The Blu Ray I was complaining about, wasn't faulty, just a poor picture quality for a Blu Ray release.
 

haineshisway

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
4,771
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce
Well, Warners released "Swing Time" (1936) recently on a Blu Ray, remastered, even though they didn't have the original negative, which is lost apparently, and for a b/w movie made nearly twenty years before "Giant", it looked fantastic and like a new movie, albeit b/w, so it is ridiculous to suppose that they couldn't have done the same thing with "Giant" , when releasing it on Blu Ray. The fact is that if they go to a lot of trouble to correct a bad print or negative, even if it looked like that originally, they can work wonders digitally as I've seen many times with vintage movies these days.
It might behoove you, and this is just an idea, to actually learn about film, film stocks, opticals, and what Warners was doing back then on certain films. They worked from the original Giant negative. The film is almost one long optical from start to finish, and sadly the opticals were terrible then and terrible now - there is zero that can be done about it. When there are the few shots that are not opticals, they look great - sharp and beautiful. Unfortunately, George Stevens at that point loved long dissolves and since none of the opticals were cut in short, they literally go from scene to scene with almost no non-optical footage. You disparaging Warners for doing yeoman work with a very problematic element is neither helpful nor warranted.
 

titch

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
784
Real Name
Kevin Oppegaard
Before everyone rushes to the defence of Warner Bros, it's easy to forget that Warner were originally one of the worst when it came to paltry encoding on their blu-rays, a hang-over that lasted for years after they abandoned HD-DVD. They used BD-25s for ages and were still encoding many of their titles with a very low bitrate up to five years ago - Gravity, anyone? Giant probably wouldn't have benefitted from better encoding anyway, with all the inherent issues baked-in. However, things have changed for the better - I now generally have no quibble with Warner's releases - Warner Archive's are particularly stellar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nick*Z

Chris55

Auditioning
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
6
Real Name
chris
It might behoove you, and this is just an idea, to actually learn about film, film stocks, opticals, and what Warners was doing back then on certain films. They worked from the original Giant negative. The film is almost one long optical from start to finish, and sadly the opticals were terrible then and terrible now - there is zero that can be done about it. When there are the few shots that are not opticals, they look great - sharp and beautiful. Unfortunately, George Stevens at that point loved long dissolves and since none of the opticals were cut in short, they literally go from scene to scene with almost no non-optical footage. You disparaging Warners for doing yeoman work with a very problematic element is neither helpful nor warranted.
You want to look at the hundreds of bad reviews on Amazon , who wasted good money buying it, before you berate me !
 

haineshisway

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
4,771
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce
You want to look at the hundreds of bad reviews on Amazon , who wasted good money buying it, before you berate me !
No, I don't want to look at hundreds of amateur reviews by people who don't understand film. I'm not berating you - I'm telling you it would be helpful to you if you learned a bit about film and why things are the way they are with certain titles. Berating is something wholly other, my friend.
 

jcroy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
6,092
Real Name
jr
It might behoove you, and this is just an idea, to actually learn about film, film stocks, opticals, and what Warners was doing back then on certain films.
(On a huge tangent without going into politics).

As much as I agree with you on this issue, in general people are entitled to believe whatever they want about any issue regardless of whether it is highly informed detailed facts or outright stupidity / ignorance / fantasy.

Independent of being highly informed or stupidity / ignorance, people are entitled to waste their own cash on whatever they want. If the OP is angry about Warner creating "substandard" transfers of old classic films, then he/she doesn't have to waste their own cash on such releases.

(It is also the OP's absolute right to remain uninformed about Warner's film restoration practices).
 

Worth

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
3,955
Real Name
Nick Dobbs
...As much as I agree with you on this issue, in general people are entitled to believe whatever they want about any issue regardless of whether it is highly informed detailed facts or outright stupidity / ignorance / fantasy.
If you choose to believe that the Earth is flat, that's your prerogative, but don't assume other people are going to agree with you.

Ignorance used to be something people were ashamed of. Now, it seems to have become a badge of honour.
 

Thomas T

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2001
Messages
4,768
The fact is that if they go to a lot of trouble to correct a bad print or negative, even if it looked like that originally, they can work wonders digitally as I've seen many times with vintage movies these days.
Are you suggesting that Warners alter a film's original look if it doesn't coincide with contemporary tastes? I've seen Giant in both major re-releases and in revival houses, on TV, on laser disc and on DVD and it's never looked as good as in its blu ray incarnation. Is it a stellar disc? No but as someone has already pointed out, it was never a stunning visual. You can digitize and scrub and wax a sow's ear for HD but it's never going to be a silk purse. It is what it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack K

jcroy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
6,092
Real Name
jr
It's also the forum's right to shed light on misinformation being spread on this forum regarding home video products.
Definitely.

It is like a classic metaphor of bringing the horse to the water, but one can't force the horse to drink the water.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
345,110
Messages
4,731,057
Members
141,389
Latest member
Billman