WHV Press Release: Singin' In The Rain 60th Anniversary Ultimate Collector's Edition (1 Viewer)

[Cineman]

"Singin' in the Rain" is such an entertaining compendium of tributes to various star/director/studio influences in the history of the musical film to that point (1952), it is my opinion that omitting the Broadway Melody sequence or replacing it with something more modest would have left out the tribute to one of the greatest influences of all to the genre; Gene Kelly himself.
In the movie we got the Busby Berkeley tribute, the grand fashion show spectacle tribute, the Astaire-Rogers tribute, the Garland tribute, the comedic riff on the Eddy-MacDonald influence, and finally, the story-within-a-story large set cast of dozens, well...Gene Kelly tribute. That was the kind of sequence Kelly had by then made a signature influence of his own in musical film after the "Slaughter on Tenth Avenue" number in Words and Music (1948) and the title number in An American in Paris (1951), possibly others I can't recall at the moment. Personally, I always look forward to that sequence because you get so much of Gene Kelly "showing off" a medley of dance styles that he had and continued to incorporate in his work.
Oh, and you also get Cyd Charisse's legs...!

 

[Joe Caps]

Seeing as all of the Singin numbers were recorded at the same time, one can hardly call any of them last minute additions.
Gene Kelly had a mania about long big numbers, ever since the biggest hit one year was the Red Shoes, the biggest dance film of its year.
Not only was it not a Gene Kelly dance film, it wasn't even an MGm film, or an American one!!

 

[Matt Hough]

Yes, I just rewatched "The Making of Singin' in the Rain" on the DVD's second disc last night, and it said that "Moses Supposes" was the first number filmed.

Some other Kelly ballet moments filmed prior to Singin' in the Rain: "The Pirate Ballet" from The Pirate and "A Day in New York" from On the Town.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

I'll be picking up either the single disc or the inevitable retailer exclusive 2 disc version. Looking forward to seeing this in HD.

 

[rsmithjr]

I'll give you that Goodbye Mr. Chips is a flawed musical. It wouldn't have been had it been a straight remake and they left the songs out--which I believe to be Bricusse's weakest, ever...! Other than that, Peter O'Toole was perfect in that role, although he was a tad young. I have no idea why "Oliver" would be flawed?? I think the current dvd is flawed from a presentation standpoint, but the film itself is flawed? Yes, I too would like to hear your reasoning, Robert!

I have to admit that this is simply personal on my part, but since you wanted an explanation, here goes.
Dickens is my favorite author. I didn't quite feel that Oliver! captured the humanity of the David Lean version nor of the book, although it tries. I think musicals have a problem sometimes in this regard. Moreover, some of the staging and editing is uneven.
I have seen it a few times but it doesn't beckon to me for reviewing like many other musicals do. (To me, musicals have the strongest "replayability" of any film genre.)
I actually prefer Scrooge, from another Dickens novel and apparently reusing the Oliver! sets a few years later.
On the other hand, I like the songs in Goodbye Mr. Chips. They are sincere reflections of their characters, and really provide a foundation for the sentiment. I find the O'Toole version far superior to the original Donat version. I would love to see Chips on Blu-ray.

 

[Ejanss]

Yes, I just rewatched "The Making of Singin' in the Rain" on the DVD's second disc last night, and it said that "Moses Supposes" was the first number filmed.

My mistake, think it was "Make 'Em Laugh" that was hastily scribbled in, thanks to the sudden lack of more numbers for Donald O'Connor.
But the ballet was still more Paris peer-pressure, Vincent Minelli envy (who also did the Pirate ballet), and audiences expecting to see Cyd Charisse show up again, than Gene's own hubris.
Now, "Invitation to the Dance", OTOH...

 

[Ethan Riley]

I have to admit that this is simply personal on my part, but since you wanted an explanation, here goes.
Dickens is my favorite author. I didn't quite feel that Oliver! captured the humanity of the David Lean version nor of the book, although it tries. I think musicals have a problem sometimes in this regard. Moreover, some of the staging and editing is uneven.
I have seen it a few times but it doesn't beckon to me for reviewing like many other musicals do. (To me, musicals have the strongest "replayability" of any film genre.)
I actually prefer Scrooge, from another Dickens novel and apparently reusing the Oliver! sets a few years later.
On the other hand, I like the songs in Goodbye Mr. Chips. They are sincere reflections of their characters, and really provide a foundation for the sentiment. I find the O'Toole version far superior to the original Donat version. I would love to see Chips on Blu-ray.

That's a fair assessment; "Oliver" has very little to do with the actual book. The book has far less sympathy for Fagan and Dodger, for instance. The book doesn't try to redeem them, and they're not nearly as much fun as the film interpretations. The musical is very glamorized compared to the novel.
I agree with your comment about the sincerity of the "Chips" songs; I just don't like the sound of Peter O'Toole trying to sing, that's all. Petula Clark was of course, already a singing star, but it's beyond me why anyone paid Peter O'Toole to star in a musical...or two...!

 

[Ethan Riley]

Yes, I just rewatched "The Making of Singin' in the Rain" on the DVD's second disc last night, and it said that "Moses Supposes" was the first number filmed.
Some other Kelly ballet moments filmed prior to Singin' in the Rain: "The Pirate Ballet" from The Pirate and "A Day in New York" from On the Town.

*Sigh.* Now why in hell didn't they hire Nancy Walker to be in that movie??

 

[David Weicker]

Oh, and you also get Cyd Charisse's legs...!

+1

 

[Rick Thompson]

I agree with your comment about the sincerity of the "Chips" songs; I just don't like the sound of Peter O'Toole trying to sing, that's all. Petula Clark was of course, already a singing star, but it's beyond me why anyone paid Peter O'Toole to star in a musical...or two...!

In Chips at least, the songs were written for O'Toole and within the limitations of his singing voice. But Man of La Mancha was written for original Broadway star Richard Kiley, who had a strong legit stage voice. That's asking for trouble -- which is what Arthur Hiller and the producers got!

 

[David Weicker]

Does anyone know when the single disc will be available for Pre-Order?
Also, while I'm asking, is it possible to get some clarification on what will be different between the Box and 1-disc?
I know someone posted that the single disc is up on the Amazon.CO.UK site, but that seems to be a 1 BR + 1 R2 DVD, so that's a different configuration (and with currency conversion plus shipping would be at least, if not more than, the US SRP).
As for the Box vs 1-disc, obviously the packaging and swag and DVD copy are differences. It is content I'm asking about.
I've seen the speculation in this thread (and contributed some myself). I'm looking for more 'official' information.
David

 

[MattPeriolat]

Ooof. Want the UCE (Sorry, I'm a sucker for the mega gut buster editions) and I absolutely love Singing', but wow, 90 bucks? For an umbrella?
Probably get it when the price drops. There is so much coming out this year and I'm already behind. Gotta prioritize.

 

[shazam]

Well, there, then now. Whatever happened to the lousy HD and BluRay transfers of THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT 1.2.3. Both current sets are terrible. If Warner Bros. could restore the Charlie Chaplin films around 6 years ago and MGM restored the James Bond films, why don't they do a complete restoration of the three movies that represent the MGM musicals? Seems Warner Bros. is distributing MGM movies, then they could do a 4K transfer to Blu Ray too. The Blu Ray titles they are putting out are boring. Maybe new 4K mastered transfers would help?
I look at the Blu Ray titles in stores and they are all titles that sold years ago and are now boring titles. I won't watch anything in 3-D but with 4K being five times better than Blu Ray, that is an interesting idea. And all studios should do this to all new releases...and the older titles. But, how many times can we re-buy titles we already have in our collections? Most are available in $5 bins or even lower at the Big Lot stores. 4K is the only solution. And Korea is working on 8K.

 

[Robin9]

. . . . . . Seems Warner Bros. is distributing MGM movies, then they could do a 4K transfer to Blu Ray too. The Blu Ray titles they are putting out are boring. Maybe new 4K mastered transfers would help?
I look at the Blu Ray titles in stores and they are all titles that sold years ago and are now boring titles. I won't watch anything in 3-D but with 4K being five times better than Blu Ray, that is an interesting idea. And all studios should do this to all new releases...and the older titles. But, how many times can we re-buy titles we already have in our collections?

Many people disagree that the movies Warners is releasing on Blu-ray are boring. If they are boring, that is the fault of the movies and remastering them will not make them less boring.
How many times anyone buys and re-buys a movie depends on their finances and their enthusiasm. It's impossible to generalise.
There is little point in remastering @ 4K as only a handful of people have equipment that can play 4K material and it is probable that the advantages of 4K will not be achievable in a domestic environment. I'm sure Sony will be pleased to sell you their new 4K capable projector.

 

[NY2LA]

I think Warners handling of their catalog titles has become decidedly lackluster on BluRay and the "That's Entertainment!" movies is a very good example. In the past they have remastered them by going back to each of the original movies' elements for each of the three films. Considering how many different clips are in each movie that's a hell of a lot of work. Clearly for BD they have not. As for mastering to 4K or higher, it's been done already for some movies, like How The West Was Won and A Star Is Born, and the reason for doing it is just good business. Mastering to the highest available resolution just makes it more cost effective for future releases. Sony was doing that over ten years ago - they set out to archive their catalog in HD for protection and future use.
Studios routinely take their customers for granted and shamelessly double and triple dip into our wallets because they know a certain percent of people will keep buying the same titles over and over. It's become quite obvious in the Blu Ray realm that the studios, including Warners, just aren't trying so hard anymore. And as a result Blu Ray is not the bonanza they had hoped for in no small part because we've become more wary, and no longer re-buy every title in our library when the BD comes out. In this economy they should be working even harder to win our money, and there are plenty of things they can do better that can add value without adding much if any cost. But they aren't doing much. And a lot of us aren't buying much.

 

And according to the director, The Exorcist is being re-released in a newly remastered edition next year for its 40th...and the buying continues.

 

[NY2LA]

And according to the director, The Exorcist is being re-released in a newly remastered edition next year for its 40th...and the buying continues.

Just what we need, another Friedken Exorcist redux. So this time he's added a few more Friedken subliminal frames?

 

Who knows. He says it now looks as it did in the viewfinder the day he filmed it...this is getting out of hand.

 

[NY2LA]

Who knows. He says it now looks as it did in the viewfinder the day he filmed it...this is getting out of hand.

They have a term for that... Glaucoma.

 

[Doctorossi]

He says it now looks as it did in the viewfinder the day he filmed it...this is getting out of hand.

I'm just impressed that he filmed it all in one day.