WHV Press Release: The Wizard of Oz 75th Anniversary (Blu-ray 3D)(Blu-ray)(DVD) (1 Viewer)

[Ruz-El]

I voted skip since I have no interest in the 3D and will only buy the standard if it features corrections to some of the issues on the previous, and only once in the cheap bins.

 

[Mark-P]

Interesting in the voting that the only people who plan to buy the 75th Anniversary edition already bought the previous Blu-ray. Absolutely no votes for anyone buying Oz on Blu for the first time!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Interesting in the voting that the only people who plan to buy the 75th Anniversary edition already bought the previous Blu-ray. Absolutely no votes for anyone buying Oz on Blu for the first time!

That's not surprising since this forum is made up of collectors.

 

[Rob_Ray]

Interesting, you're going to view it in 3-D in a movie theater, but you have no plans to ever purchase a 3-D movie.

Same here. I have no plans to buy a 3-D television, but I have no problem with the idea of viewing 3-D in a theatre.

 

[Nick*Z]

I have to say that I am decidedly NOT a fan of retooling movies never meant to be 'enjoyed' in 3D. Even in the 1950s 3D was a gimmick and not a terribly successful one either. It took exactly two years to die and most of the movies shot in the format then, including Dial M For Murder were shown to the public in their flat versions ONLY or Mostly because the fad had outlasted its use. In the 1980s we had the briefest of resurrections with Jaws 3D and a few other misfires. Just awful.

No self-respecting Oz-phile would want to see The Wizard of Oz in anything but its original aspect ratio and theatrical presentation. Retooling flat movies for 3D is, at least for me, the same as colorizing B&W movies because it alters the original intent of the film makers. Vic Fleming DID NOT plan Oz as an 'in your face' 3D experience.

But let's set aside that fact for a moment and concentrate on another; namely, that way toooooooo much money has been allocated for this reissue when it might have been spent more prudently on mastering, restoring and releasing other 'lesser known' classics on Blu-ray.

Warner's current repository of classics includes their own backlog as well as that of MGM, RKO, Selznick and - most recently - Paramount home video. A lot of good stuff to get to. Certainly no shortage of titles deserving of the hi-def treatment and titles I would have preferred they put their backs into and release.

Titles like 'Around the World in Eighty Days, Giant, Anchors Aweigh, High Society, The Student Prince, The Valley of Decision, The White Cliffs of Dover, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Gaslight, Out of the Past, The Greatest Show on Earth, Alfie, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, The Swan, Cat People, I Walked With A Zombie, Honky Tonk, Mrs. Parkington, A Face in the Crowd, Ryan's Daughter, and on and on. To say nothing of the rest of their Hitchock holdings and a new remaster of their flubbed 3D rendering of Dial M For Murder - a legitimate 3D movie!!!

The real issue here is time and money. In my opinion both have been squandered on Oz unnecessarily. Especially since we already have the movie looking mint on Blu-ray in a lavishly appointed box set as well as single disc derivatives and presented in a way it was meant to be seen. And for what? A 75th anniversary. Not even an 80th or 100th. Odd, silly and spendthrift. Badly done. You can guess how I voted from this reply.

 

[Yorkshire]

Nick, I think you've got it spot on.

What next - a digitally revised 'nude' version? When will it end?

There are plenty of films that require a FIRST release on Blu-ray Disc - hell, even a first release on SD DVD - before we get into this sort of nonsense, and frankly we shouldn't be getting into it even then.

I will concede that I don't have to buy this, and if some people enjoy it then who am I to diminish the sum total of human hapiness? But I still feel like finding the people responsible and flogging them through the streets.

Steve W

 

[Mark-P]

Nick, unfortunately it's a business decision for Warner. The bean counters know they can make a return on their investment of a 3D version of Oz, but they would most likely not make much profit spending that same money on restoring some of the films you mention. It's sad but true.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I think the real problem is pretending that converting a 1939 Technicolor film to IMAX 3-D will look anything but odd. I'm sure that they put the best effort into it, but there's no way it will look right.

Why not just do a theatrical re-release via DCP like Lawrence of Arabia? I'd rather see Oz in 4K digital in a normal theater. Just have the tasteful 5.1 remix as the one alteration to the original version. The intentions are there, but this is going to turn off most people who just want to see a classic in a theater.

 

[Radioman970]

My thought is you just have to watch it and see if it succeeds as a 3D movie. Sight unseen, you can't really say if it was the right thing to do. A good standard answer when it's sight unseen and you don't quite like the idea is... well, it least it will bring a new audience to it, if even just a small percentage (or a big one, who knows...)

Personally, I can't wait to see it with my mom. She's had a tough year or so. Oz 3D will perk her up just before Thanksgiving and Christmas. I'll probably order her this set for Christmas. So, I'm really looking forward to this for so many reasons.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I would bet you anything that a few highly positive reviews
posted about how great OZ looks in 3D (if it actually does) and many
of the naysayers will rush out to buy it just to see it for themselves.

 

[JohnMor]

Even if I didn't dislike 3D, this is really too many trips to the well for me for this title. I know some people will buy each OZ edition, and I'm sure they'll be very happy with it. Maybe I'll change my mind for the 80th Anniversary Edition. Or the 85th. Or the 90th. Or the 95th.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I can't sympathize with you naysayers as long as the original intent of the film is available for the general public to view in the comfort of their homes.

 

[Nick*Z]

Nay saying implies an unnecessary contempt for something sight unseen. But I really don't need to see The Wizard of Oz in a format never intended (IMAX) which means the image will have to be open matte and slightly cropped on the top and bottom, plus with the added rebuke of 3D factored in to know that this is NOT how MGM intended the movie as it should be seen.

Whatever happened to the purist attitude that Warner took in the good old days - not "adding" anything to the original movie but merely preserving and restoring it in a quality befitting that which was seen by the paying public when the movie had its original theatrical debut?!?

The attempt to turn Gone With The Wind into a 70mm roadshow presentation in the late 1970s outraged fans and critics alike and continues to be the brunt of jokes about 'misguided' (how not to) attempts to make classic movies 'acceptable' for contemporary audience. I see very little difference, however, between that misguided attempt and this so called new one about to take place with Oz. It's soured me immensely on what we might next expect from WB.

Might I point out too that there is great need for improvements elsewhere in the WB archive and library. We need complete hi-def remasters of movies like Around the World in Eighty Days, and Giant, and Raintree County, and Scaramouche, and The Harvey Girls and Gaslight, and The Picture of Dorian Gray and so on and so forth. The list of potential candidates is nearly infinite.

Oz again a scant 5 years after WB's lavish box set and reformatted (i.e. 'improved') is not a priority. It's not even essential and I would argue - sight unseen, of course, though based on the aforementioned criteria - that it IS NOT an improvement! I am reminded of a quote from Jurassic Park herein and I'm going to paraphrase it to fit this conversation a little bit better, but dear boys at WB, "You were so excited about the fact that you could make these changes to Oz that you did not first reconsider whether or not you should make them!"

The answer, according to this poll thus far is that you should have thought through your actions more carefully!

It's a catch 22, unfortunately, because the real 'reel' damage has already been done. If we don't buy the new Oz, then WB will use the lackluster sales as an excuse to release even fewer classics on Blu-ray, arguing that there is quite simply "no market for them" - an argument I have heard before and for too long. But if we do buy it we're sending a message that it's quite acceptable to continue to bastardize old movies with new technologies simply to make a fast buck.

I really don't know what the answer is other than to continue to keep message boards like this one alive. Frankly, I am beside myself!!!

 

[FoxyMulder]

I'm fine with the release of the new 3D edition, i imagine it cost anywhere between $5m and $12m to convert depending on whether they are using the new cheaper method or the older method, i don't have a problem with it, my concern is what they do with the known issues on the last blu ray release, the missing line of dialogue and a few other things, will they fix it or just throw in that old 70th anniversary release, if they have fixed those issues then i'm all over re-buying it again and will probably just go for the whole package of 3D and 2D although not the boxed set this time around.

I do want to see them use their Ultra Resolution process on Scaramouche and other 3 strip Technicolor films but i don't see it as a one or the other thing, they should be able to do it all, provide this release in 3D and work on the other releases too.

 

[moviebuff75]

I am the Ultimate Oz fan, and I'm very excited about the new 3D release! I hope to get a lot of pleasure out of it. Of course, the original version will always be preferred and I can now watch both!

 

[Matt Hough]

Let us not forget that Gone With the Wind in that abysmal widescreen format was among the top grossing pictures of its year of release. First and foremost, these studios want to make money; it is a business, and if offering the public another way to view a classic will bring in money, you just know the studios are going to try it. I'm not surprised at all that Warners is going to try this with Wizard. And, if the release does make money, you can bet we'll see Gone With the Wind in 3D and likely other classics, too.

 

[ahollis]

I can't sympathize with you naysayers as long as the original intent of the film is available for the general public to view in the comfort of their homes.

I have to agree with you. This release is not for the collectors or film buffs as we have been satisfied. This is for a new audience. During one of the early RealD demonstrations at the Chinese in Hollywood they showed the Singin' In The Rain number in 3D. It was amazing and I could see where it could attract a new audience.

 

[Ejanss]

Oz again a scant 5 years after WB's lavish box set and reformatted (i.e. 'improved') is not a priority. It's not even essential and I would argue - sight unseen, of course, though based on the aforementioned criteria - that it IS NOT an improvement! I am reminded of a quote from Jurassic Park herein and I'm going to paraphrase it to fit this conversation a little bit better, but dear boys at WB, "You were so excited about the fact that you could make these changes to Oz that you did not first reconsider whether or not you should make them!"
I really don't know what the answer is other than to continue to keep message boards like this one alive. Frankly, I am beside myself!!!

Good, you two have your own conversation and let the grownups talk.

Unlike the pipe-bomb throwers who are distracted by their own causes and now convinced that A) Warner is out to "ruin" every classic ever made with 3D, and B) they're going to "pull a George Lucas" (you can usually spots the age group of whoever posts that ), and "permanently replace" the original, I retain some actual context perspective of why we're getting this.

Why? Ohh, twenty-five years later, it's STILL all that damn Ted Turner's fault.
And no, I'm not talking about colorization--I'm talking about Turner beating "his" three MGM-library trademarks into the ground as marketing icons (notice we're now all talking about Gone With the Wind 3D, and they just happened to show a Singin' in the Rain conversion...). And after Warner acquired Turner, they got the idea: Competing with Disney and Universal--especially when all you've got for an amusement park is Six Flags--now means that studios have to have Franchise Brandnames, to compete with Disney's mice and princesses, and Universal's monsters, cars and sharks. Warner, meanwhile has its own arsenal of "weapons" to remind us of their corporate identity: Batman, Harry Potter, Bugs Bunny, Lord of the Rings, and, of course, "Warner Classics". You can guess what the first three Classics are, and Casablanca usually shows up as fourth. (Ironically, the only one of the four "Warner Classics" Warner originally did produce.)

And speaking of Jurassic Park, you'll notice we got the Oz reissue announcement during the Warner 90th Anniversary, just a few scant weeks after Universal announced its Universal 100th line of classic reissues. Now, now, boys, quit fighting in the mud, or you'll both get a time out!
Nobody got up one morning and want to chase his "dream" of seeing Oz in 3D, it's just marketing. And, since I HAVE a 3D setup (thanks to my free PS3 upgrade, I had a player long before I got my screen), it makes no difference to me. All the cries of "They're REPLACING it!" can be quickly silenced in two seconds by the fact that we're getting the 2D Blu along with it (presumably the fixed version, although I'll have to go check my 70th copy), and to me, the 3D version is nothing more than one more "alternate" track for watching it, like the commentary or isolated music tracks.

I'm sure some posters think, if they just keep hammering away with hate-rant posts, they'll change minds. Unfortunately, they may do just that, and not in the way they hoped.

Nay saying implies an unnecessary contempt for something sight unseen. But I really don't need to see The Wizard of Oz in a format never intended (IMAX) which means the image will have to be open matte and slightly cropped on the top and bottom, plus with the added rebuke of 3D factored in to know that this is NOT how MGM intended the movie as it should be seen.

So...it IS sight-unseen, then?

(No, really, why not go that extra mile, and actually use that catchphrase all the fundamentalist anti-"Last Temptation" protestors all got together and decided to use with reporters, to makeit sound like they'd all thought it up themselves: "I don't have to swim in the sewer to know what's in it!"?
Y'know, just for that sense of solidarity, and the sake of keeping up tradition. )

 

[Bob_S.]

Well, I didn't see an "undecided" option so I didn't vote. I'll probably pass since 1. I already have the 70th box set and 2. I don't have a 3d set up yet (though that hasn't stopped me from getting other 3d/bluray combo movies). However, I do plan on seeing this in the theater and if I am really impressed i might buy it somewhere down the road.

 

[Sumnernor]

Not quite in the "3D" vain My family o0nce owned the COMPLETE set of the OZ books and they have somehow disappeared. Can one still get these books?.