WIZARD OF OZ: 75th Anniversary Collector's Edition for pre-order (1 Viewer)

[Doctorossi]

I don't think, in the case of The Wizard of Oz, that the 3D version
is going to be the standard, historic representation of the film and
the only version available.

In fact, I don't foresee that for any classic that is upconverted to 3D.

The jaded witness in me might attribute that more to the state of the home 3D installed base than to any altruism on the part of the studios/rights-holders.

I am certain the studios are very much aware that the untouched,
original versions of these films must always be available.

While I understand the studios don't always do the right thing, this
is one standard that goes without saying.

Knowing your familiarity with the history of the home video industry, I'm surprised at your certainty about this question. Unfortunately, I do not share it.

 

[Robert Crawford]

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).

The bottom line is that 3D has never had anything to do with what this production of The Wizard of Oz is supposed to be and so, should not be allowed to alter it. It's no more appropriate an addition than would be new insert shots of Arnold Schwarzenegger skipping down the yellow brick road.

You can question it all you want, but I think lessons were learned from the failed colorization experiment and the maturation of the home video industry.

 

[Doctorossi]

Colorization failed so I don't know how that distorted the impression of the movie for future generations.

So, your defense of 3D conversions is premised on the idea that it, too, will fail?

Obviously, if this trend fails to catch hold, there's really not much of an issue to be concerned with. The potential for problems arises if these releases do succeed.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

You shouldn't be surprised, but that's fine.

The studios are very much aware of the backlash
that would take place if they replaced a classic film
forever with a 3D conversion. It's such a hypothetical
thought that I am surprised we are even discussing it.

It's laughable.

...but further discussion, I am certain, shall continue...

 

[Doctorossi]

You can question it all you want, but I think lessons were learned from the failed colorization experiment and the maturation of the home video industry.

One could argue that the very appearance of these conversions indicates to the contrary.

 

[Robert Crawford]

The jaded witness in me might attribute that more to the state of the home 3D installed base more than to any altruism on the part of the studios/rights-holders.



Knowing your familiarity with the history of the home video industry, I'm surprised at your certainty about this question. Unfortunately, I do not share it.

I guess it's unfortunate for you, but in time we'll see who's right on the availability of the non-3D format.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

One could argue that the very appearance of these conversions indicates to the contrary.

Oh come on....really?

Have the original untouched versions been withheld from
the public?

Until the studios turn around and say that the only versions
that will be made available are the modified ones (either colorized
or upconverted to 3D), I don't know why we are even having these
arguments.

It's not happening.

 

[Robert Crawford]

One could argue that the very appearance of these conversions indicates to the contrary.

Not much of an argument in my opinion.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Oh come on....really?

Have the original untouched versions been withheld from
the public?

Until the studios turn around and say that the only versions
that will be made available are the modified ones (either colorized
or upconverted to 3D), I don't know why we are even having these
arguments.

It's not happening.

Because what somebody did 20 years ago means it's going to repeat itself again.

 

[Doctorossi]

The studios are very much aware of the backlash
that would take place if they replaced a classic film
forever with a 3D conversion. It's such a hypothetical
thought that I am surprised we are even discussing it.

Perhaps it will make more sense to you if you realize that we are not discussing it (at least, I am not).

I'm not talking about the kind of backlash that (I agree) would surely arise if they were to do something like this in the near-term. I'm talking about long-term impact. I'm talking about 20 years from now, if customers who grew up watching the movie in 3D are a prominent part of the movie's market.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Because what somebody did 20 years ago means it's going to repeat itself again.

...and if that miraculously happens, let me know and I'll join all of you in
arguing against what is being done.

At that point, everyone has a valid argument.

Right now....there's nothing to indicate a bad choice is going to repeat itself again.

 

[Doctorossi]

I guess it's unfortunate for you, but in time we'll see who's right on the availability of the non-3D format.

I don't care who, between the two of us, is proven "right"; I care that The Wizard of Oz and other classic films are treated right. Regardless of future 2D availability, this is not a 3D movie.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Perhaps it will make more sense to you if you realize that we are not discussing it (at least, I am not).

I'm not talking about the kind of backlash that (I agree) would surely arise if they were to do something like this in the near-term. I'm talking about long-term impact. I'm talking about 20 years from now, if customers who grew up watching the movie in 3D are a prominent part of the movie's market.

If some customers prefer the 3-D conversion to 2-D version in the next 20 years then that's their preferance. However, that doesn't necessarily mean it's the only way they may watch it.

 

[Doctorossi]

I don't know why we are even having these arguments.

I lived through pan-and-scan, I lived through colorization, I lived through camera negatives of important classic and beloved films being mistreated and junked. I've seen enough to know that the studios don't care about art a whole lot further than they can make money from it in this fiscal quarter and that often, the only reason they do what's "right" is because we care enough about it to make it financially worth their while to do so. If people like us aren't policing them, well, maybe an optimist can give the benefit of the doubt that they'll police themselves, but history indicates that they emphatically won't.

 

[JPCinema]

So with the 3D conversion...Does that mean all the grain ( particularly in the B&W) will look like swarms of mosquitos "coming at you"....that could be scary!

 

[Matt Hough]

As they said on one of the Oz featurettes, this is the most protected movie in history, so the idea of the original going away or being unavailable simply isn't a viable option.

 

[Doctorossi]

If some customers prefer the 3-D conversion to 2-D version in the next 20 years then that's their preferance.

So, what if I prefer the 'Arnold Schwarzenegger skipping' version? Is that my "preference", as well?

I would argue that it's not the movie.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

We are all over the map here with your concerns.

The main concern seemed to start off as to whether the studios
would trash the original version and only make the modified one
available. That's not going to happen. If you feel it is or might...
well...why not wait until it does happen before you start slamming
the studios.

Then you say we aren't discussing that and change the topic to
which version film future generations will prefer. Well, hard to
predict but I suspect there will always be the original version available
and that gives consumers a choice.

Now you start introducing arguments about policing studios for
their past mistakes, talking about pan and scan, etc.

Listen, you lived through pan and scan because those of us that
owned widescreen displays were in the minority back in the 90s.

Don't totally blame the studios for not making anamorphic widescreen
releases happen sooner. Not totally their fault. There was a lot of
pushback from retailers like Walmart who would not buy widescreen
versions of DVDs because their customer base (who was the majority)
did not like (nor understand the black bars).

Films mistreated and junked? Yes, that has happened, but today,
a lot more care is put into preserving these films. And yes, I understand
not everything gets the Grade A+ restoration it deserves, but that is an
economic decision based on what the studio feels will sell. In some
cases, yes I will agree, a better job could be done.

But using these arguments to suggest that the studios are going to
trash original films for modified counterparts or that the public is going
to prefer the modified version in future generations doesn't quite hold.

 

[Doctorossi]

As they said on one of the Oz featurettes, this is the most protected movie in history, so the idea of the original going away or being unavailable simply isn't a viable option.

I don't mean going away or being unavailable in the 'all the copies have been burned' sense; I mean it in the 'popular version the public has standardized' sense.

 

[Robert Crawford]

So, what if I prefer the 'Arnold Schwarzenegger skipping' version? Is that my "preference", as well?

I would argue that it's not the movie.

You can argue about a lot of things, but I'm not going any further with this argument.