The Wizard of Oz 3D Blu-ray 75th Anniversary Ultimate Collector's Edition

I can assure you that my outrage is totally genuine, and I have no curiosity at all about a 3D Oz. This strikes me as both a cynical cash-grab and a desecration of the work of the original filmmakers. I also have no desire to watch a colorized version of Psycho, listen to Louis Armstrong's Hot 5 recordings in reprocessed stereo, or watch a hologram of Tupac Shakur caper around the stage.

In the words of Citizen Kane's Jed Leland, "what an unpleasant old man I have become...."

 

I get what you're saying, but I think think outrage should be reserved for when something is tampered with permanently, and the original becomes unavailable....like the original Star Wars films seem to have been. No colorized film has become the definitive version, and the same applies here...

 

I thought the 3D "Top Gun" made sense - all those flying sequences theoretically would've looked cool in 3D...

 

I would think so. I watched "Red Tails" in 3D on my Panasonic plasma with the 3D being created on the fly by the TV from the 2D HD cable feed, and man were those battle sequences awesome in 3D.

Derek

 

Maybe they could just extrapolate what "should" be on the sides and fill it in with CGI. Isn't that the next step?

 

It's actually much worse than that!
But, thank goodness you aren't the dictator of consumerville.


Somewhere...

Emerald City in hologram baby! Follow the yellow brick road...

 

I wish they had done that with The Simpsons' first few seasons -- make the show into 16x9.

But I'd be opposed to doing it for a classic 1.33 movie.

 

TV show altered = A-OK, but "classic movie" = bad idea.

Huh?

 

Very different mediums. It'd depend on the show: one could argue that The Untouchables and a handful of others were noir-ish enough that they specifically needed to be in B&W. But I think those are rare. Colorizing I Love Lucy and Leave It to Beaver is not going to be looked upon as an artistic sacrilege the way doing it to, say, Citizen Kane or Psycho would be. Different rules for different mediums.

I'd have no problem if the director specifically approved colorizing a B&W version -- and that is permitted by the DGA. But again, I'd only sanction it if it were done perfectly, to the point where you couldn't tell it was shot in B&W. And that's very rare (and costs plenty big bucks).

 

I'm conservative on these matters but, I have to admit that if any old film might be worth a watch in 3D, this could be the one. Not a permanent change, but an alternative watch. Sure, why not? And, I agree, turn on the 3D at the same time as the color!

 

I think colorizing anything in film or television from B&W is wrong and ridiculous . Not only does the fake color look terrible but it also ruins the lighting that is so crucial to B&W cinematography.

 

That's hard to argue with. In a perfect world, the colorization technicians would always use a timed B&W element as a guide so they could at least get the density levels in the ballpark, so each scene would neither be too bright or too dark. We actually did that on the HD colorized version of Night of the Living Dead, and in that case, director George Romero actually participated in the color decisions.

I think it's hard to do, and no question, it's a compromise. You might call it the visual equivalent of taking a mono song and remixing it into stereo... more like remixing it into 5.1 surround. No matter what you do, it's going to be fundamentally and profoundly different from the original. My point is I think you can do it with style, taste, and good judgement, but the greater risk is that it'll be done cheaply, badly, and look tacky.

 

God I can't even imagine Night of Living Dead in color. How did it turn out?

 

So if "colorization" and "3D" is sacrilege, what then does it bode for the movie itself?
I mean, it's just not right that a (gasp) picture movie was made from a 1900 novel by L. Frank Baumbook! - OMG! How dare Hollywood polute our eyes!

And what about...

Film adaptations

• The Fairylogue and Radio-Plays is a 1908 multimedia presentation made by L. Frank Baum which featured the young silent film actress Romola Remus.
• The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is a 15-minute 1910 film, based on the 1902 stage musical, directed by Otis Turner, and may have featured Bebe Daniels as Dorothy.
• His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz is a loose 1914 adaptation by Baum that became the basis for the book The Scarecrow of Oz.
• The Wizard of Oz is a 1921 film project, directed by Ray C. Smallwood, but never completed.[citation needed]
• Wizard of Oz is a 1925 film, directed by Larry Semon in collaboration with Frank Joslyn Baum and featuring a young Oliver Hardy.
• The Land of Oz, a sequel to the Wizard of Oz is a virtually unknown 1932 film featuring the Meglin Kiddies.[citation needed]
• The Wizard of Oz is a 1933 animated short directed by Ted Eshbaugh.
• The Wizard of Oz is the 1939 musical film by MGM, directed by Victor Fleming and starring Judy Garland, Frank Morgan, Ray Bolger, Bert Lahr, and Jack Haley. It is the story's best-known adaptation.
• Journey Back to Oz is a 1974 animated film, begun in 1963, the official sequel to the 1939 film.
• Fantasia...3 is a 1966 Spanish film directed by Eloy de la Iglesia. One segment is loosely based on The Wizard of Oz.[citation needed]
• The Wonderful Land of Oz is a 1969 low-budget children's-movie adaptation of The Marvelous Land of Oz, directed by Barry Mahon.
• Ayşecik ve Sihirli Cüceler Rüyalar Ülkesinde is a 1971 Turkish film, directed by Tunç Başaran known to bootleggers as "The Turkish Wizard of Oz".
• Once Upon a Time is a 1976 film in which Maria and Mary-Lou get sucked down a well into Holleland. It is loosely based upon, and also pays homage to, "The Wizard of Oz".
• Oz is a 1976 Australian rock musical film, also known as Oz – A Rock 'n' Roll Road Movie or 20th Century Oz.
• The Wiz is a 1978 movie directed by Sidney Lumet starring Diana Ross as Dorothy and Michael Jackson as the Scarecrow, based on the Broadway musical of the same name.
• Return to Oz is a 1985 film by Walt Disney Pictures, directed by Walter Murch and starring Fairuza Balk as Dorothy.
• The Muppets' Wizard of Oz (2005) Starring Ashanti, Queen Latifah and The Muppets. Miss Piggy plays all of the witches, Pepe plays Toto, Kermit plays the Scarecrow, Gonzo plays the Tin Man, and Fozzie plays the Lion.
• Apocalypse Oz (2006) is a short film parody of The Wizard of Oz and Apocalypse Now.
• Oz the Great and Powerful is a 2013 film by Walt Disney Pictures and prequel to the 1939 film, directed by Sam Raimi.

OM double G!
Announced adaptations

• Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return is an upcoming 2014 animated film, based on one of Roger S. Baum's books.
• Dreams of Oz is an adaptation of the Calibre Comics series, Oz, scheduled for 2012. An adult Dorothy is having dreams of the magical land of Oz again. When she returns, the Wizard has shown his true evil colors, and the two parts of Oz are at war. She has to choose between Hunk (the Scarecrow), Hickory (the Tin Man) and Zeke (the Cowardly Lion) and vanquish evil before it's too late. It is to be directed by Pearry Teo. The film is scheduled to be released in 2014.
• L. Frank Baum's Wonderful Wizard of Oz is an independent film project.

and, and,

Television adaptations ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptations_of_The_Wizard_of_Oz

OM double-triple G! - I want my Oz 3DeeeeeeeeeEEEEEE

 

It turned out like every other colorization.... pointless and unnecessary. With color, the film loses the creepiness it once had.

 

I will not be purchasing the upcoming 3D Oz. This is blatant capitalistic recycling in order to cash in on what seems to be an endless cash source for Warner Bros. I will not be purchasing the book tie-ins (see http://judygarlandnews.com/2013/05/14/two-new-oz-books-on-the-horizon/) either.

 

The production of the original film was also "capitalist recycling"...

 

I'm not sure why WB is calling this and "Gone with the Wind" "75th Anniversary" editions since it's been 74 years!

Well, at least they're attaching a number. Sony put out "Anniversary Editions" for movies like "Boyz n the Hood" that came on "unremarkable" anniversaries - for instance, it was the 12th anniversary of "Boyz".

Every movie can be an "anniversary edition" is you want it to be, obviously, but traditionally, they go with "divisible by 5" anniversaries...

 

Warner isn't the only studio guilty of this practice, Colin...Disney is planning to release the 50th Anniversary blu-ray of "Mary Poppins" in the 4th quarter of THIS YEAR, for a movie that doesn't ACTUALLY celebrate it until 2014!!!

 

Actually, I thought it was one of the best colorized films I'd ever seen. We did a lot of work to improve the overall timing in HD, and again, director George Romero was involved and did approve the work (this was in 2004). Romero has been very bitter over the years that, due to copyright and distribution problems on the original film, he made very, very little money on the 1968 version of Night of the Living Dead. He did get paid for the colorized version.

 

I'm sure hard work did go into it and I'm glad Romero got paid, but I still think it's pointless. It's a movie that really works in black and white.

 

Every colorized film is pointless. None are more pointless than the others - "pointless" is an absolute!

 

No argument here.

 

Wal-Mart has an "exclusive" version on sale for $19.96 today. The page pictures the box set, however. I ordered one, even though I don't believe it.