International Warners Rubbish (1 Viewer)

[Chris55]

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...

 

[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.

 

[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]

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.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Are we talking about DVDs or Blu-rays in this thread?

 

[Chris55]

Are we talking about DVDs or Blu-rays in this thread?

At the moment Blu Rays

 

[Robert Crawford]

At the moment Blu Rays

What are some of the other Warner titles you're unhappy with then?

 

[Chris55]

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.

 

[FrankXS]

I love the Warner Archives and their production team. I enjoy the product they put out and the variety of genre. WARNER ARCHIVES ROCKS!!!

 

[haineshisway]

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]

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.

 

[haineshisway]

Just to state the obvious: BD-25 isn't evil - it's fine if the film isn't three hours and the disc loaded with extras. Low bit rate is something else, but I guarantee you in a taste test most wouldn't identify correctly if able to identify at all.

 

[Chris55]

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 !

 

[Mark-P]

You want to look at the hundreds of bad reviews on Amazon , who wasted good money buying it, before you berate me !

And do you want to look at THIS THREAD, before deciding that you know more than the professionals who post here?

 

[haineshisway]

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]

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).

 

[Robert Crawford]

It's also the forum's right to shed light on misinformation being spread on this forum regarding home video products.

 

[Worth]

...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]

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.

 

[jcroy]

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.