That's what I want to understand, too. I was under the impression that this was to be yet another restoration, but it seems right now that the conversion to 3-D is what's new as far as the film goes.
So, where do you draw the line with changing an artist's work?RobertSiegel said:To those who are ranting on the web sites about leaving the classics alone, this doesn't mean you can't watch it in 2D.
As long as the 2-D artwork is intact and available to the public, what's the problem?Doctorossi said:So, where do you draw the line with changing an artist's work?
That's a good question.Why do some people think that the 2D version is the same disc as previously released?
Umm...because they're Warner, and they're cheap?moviebuff75 said:Why do some people think that the 2D version is the same disc as previously released? No press release has been issued yet. When they first announced a 3D version, they stated that there would be a 3D version, as well as a newly-remastered 2D version.
Of course this is one movie that Warners hasn't been cheap on. While it wouldn't shock me if the 2D disc was the same as the old release, I wouldn't count on them doing so at least until someone gets confirmation from Warners.Ejanss said:Umm...because they're Warner, and they're cheap?
After its Ultra remastering (complete with computer-aided Technicolor alignment) on the DVD and '09 Blu, I don't know how much more "remastering" the print could take apart from fixing some glitch issues.
If they have fixed them, more power to 'em, but the extras are pretty much identical to the '09 Blu, so it's a reshuffling at least.
I believe the 2008 BDs include all the extras from the 65th Anniversary between discs 1 & 2 (watch out for the singe-disc release!), but I don't believe Warner upgraded any to HD. It's fairly rare that they do something like that.Sam Favate said:Forgive me if this was addressed earlier, but I'm curious whether the extras from the 65th Anniversary DVD have all been included and/or upgraded to HD? I would like to have the film on Blu-ray, but if the extras aren't necessary, I might just get the bare bones copy of the film to go with what I consider to be a great 65th anniversary package (lots of great content, cool repros of the theater program, photos, etc., all without being in a large cumbersome box).
And in the process distort the impression of the what the movie is for future generations. This is the same argument that was used during the colorization fiasco in the the '80's and '90's.Robert Crawford said:By the way, I'm not a fan of these 3-D conversions either and have expressed those feelings to Warner. However, I don't have a major problem as long as the original intent of the film is kept intact and available to the general public. These type of conversions and revenues generated might help restoration costs for other classic titles.
Yes. Not only is it misrepresenting the original art, but when a revision like this takes hold (and the studio's priority), I also question how long the original, unmolested version will remain available and easily accessible to the audience (see, again, the colorization era, during which a number of films saw home video release in defaced versions only).WilliamMcK said:And in the process distort the impression of the what the movie is for future generations. This is the same argument that was used during the colorization fiasco in the the '80's and '90's.
Colorization failed so I don't know how that distorted the impression of the movie for future generations. Again, as long as the original intent of the filmmaker is readily available to the general public, I don't have a major problem with 3-D conversions.WilliamMcK said:And in the process distort the impression of the what the movie is for future generations. This is the same argument that was used during the colorization fiasco in the the '80's and '90's.