Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

Discuss North American DVDs and Blu-rays or other DVD and Blu-ray-related topics.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
dustybooks
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:52 am
Location: Wilmington, NC

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1401 Post by dustybooks » Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:38 pm

Well, I’m really excited about San Francisco myself, I was just planning on finally grabbing the DVD thinking an upgrade would probably never happen.

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1402 Post by Ribs » Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:03 pm

domino harvey wrote:
Thu Jan 07, 2021 4:30 pm
I saw On Moonlight Bay has been added to HBOMax, so that plus the fact that it's terrible must mean a WA Blu-ray is coming soon, right
Announced.

(Along with My Dream is Yours (1949))

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1403 Post by domino harvey » Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:35 pm

The WA notes that Baby Doll Blu will be 1.85. It should be Academy...

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1404 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:48 pm

GREAT, I thought WA was one of the better labels at getting aspect ratios right..?

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1405 Post by domino harvey » Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:50 pm

Preemptive Bob F (don't summon his Google Alerts pls) "This is technically filmed and released in both widescreen and Academy and shot to protect both ratios," but having seen this movie many, many times, Warners were right with their initial instinct to release it in the open matte Academy version. I can't imagine how some of the Baker/Wallach scenes would even be watchable with the top and bottom cropped off

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1406 Post by hearthesilence » Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:16 pm

domino harvey wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:50 pm
(don't summon his Google Alerts pls)
This is the same guy who is known for his archival work and (more recently) "three-dee" presentations at respectable film institutions? Is he known to stir up trouble here?

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1407 Post by domino harvey » Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:22 pm

He and I have had some colorful interactions. His argument is always 100% that if it was ever shown theatrically in widescreen, it should be widescreen, period. Never any artistic or competing consideration apart from that data point. I do not question that he's done a lot of good in other aspects of film preservation, but citing him as the be-all on AR is not a compelling argument in my eyes

Of course, by saying all this, I have all but ensured someone tells him about this convo...

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1408 Post by hearthesilence » Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:57 pm

Hah! It would be useful to put that in the liner notes (along with a scan of the printed evidence), but it would be easy and historically useful to include both ratios - even if one ratio's preferred, they anticipated the other being shown to a substantial audience. It's like the whole stereo and mono debate with older records - I know mono's usually the preferred mix (it certainly is for me), but I'd still make the original stereo available. Even if they didn't give two shits about it, they still put it out, it got an audience, and it's the only way to hear the music in that format without any historical revisionism.

User avatar
RitrovataBlue
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:02 pm

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1409 Post by RitrovataBlue » Tue Jan 12, 2021 12:22 am

Surely the most rational thing to do would be to include both A.R.s, though that would likely reduce the P.Q. somewhat unless they were on separate discs. Most films that were framed for both ratios look immeasurably better in Academy, at least from the early days of matted widescreen. Still, Baby Doll is one of my favorite Tennessee Williams adaptations and I'll be picking it up regardless.

Rupert Pupkin
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:34 am

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1410 Post by Rupert Pupkin » Tue Jan 12, 2021 1:20 am

I'm happy with "Baby Doll" but I was expecting - hoping Criterion to release it like "On The Waterfront". a multiple ratio release would have been great.
I remember having watched the WEB 1080 release and it was pretty good. Apparently, regarding the comment at blu-ray.com there is no X4 restoration or new restoration; thus I assume it will be the same quality than the WEB release; that said; perhaps I'm mistaken - I have to check the video file; but I thought that the WEB 1080 release was 1:33.

La Fièvre dans le sang aka "Splendor of the grass" is another one of my favorite Elia Kazan which I'm still waiting to be released on blu-ray. There is a "decent" WEB 1080 release but it could look better. There is a Spanish Blu-Ray but I think that's not totally legit (you can find it on amazon.es).
I'm in love with Natalie Wood :oops: so such movie is a must-have.

Calvin
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:12 am

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1411 Post by Calvin » Tue Jan 12, 2021 5:58 am

Rupert Pupkin wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 1:20 am
I'm happy with "Baby Doll" but I was expecting - hoping Criterion to release it like "On The Waterfront". a multiple ratio release would have been great.
I remember having watched the WEB 1080 release and it was pretty good. Apparently, regarding the comment at blu-ray.com there is no X4 restoration or new restoration; thus I assume it will be the same quality than the WEB release; that said; perhaps I'm mistaken
It's from a "new 2021 HD master"

User avatar
EddieLarkin
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1412 Post by EddieLarkin » Tue Jan 12, 2021 6:49 am

Why would Baby Doll be 1.37:1 but not A Face in the Crowd? Why was that one's widescreen ratio simply accepted without question?
domino harvey wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:22 pm
He and I have had some colorful interactions. His argument is always 100% that if it was ever shown theatrically in widescreen, it should be widescreen, period. Never any artistic or competing consideration apart from that data point. I do not question that he's done a lot of good in other aspects of film preservation, but citing him as the be-all on AR is not a compelling argument in my eyes
That's pretty disingenuous considering in his research he specifically points out the great many films that were shown in widescreen theatrically but were indeed composed at 1.37:1, and got caught in the changeover.
How Baby Doll looks on a master from 15 years ago is of little value to determine how it was originally composed. Just because it looks well framed doesn't mean there isn't additional side information that would allow a 1.85:1 framing to not be as tight as simply cropping the DVD would indicate.

This actually just happened with The Curse of Frankenstein. When it had its first Blu-ray release in 2012, it came in both 1.66:1 and 1.37:1 ratios. Many people pointed out that the latter must be correct because scalps were getting clipped in some shots of the 1.66:1 version. But with WBA's new release, it's shown that in the older restoration inexplicably there was a vertical stretch introduced which was pulling the whole frame upwards!

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1413 Post by tenia » Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:59 am

I'm finding those discussions about AR more and more fascinating considering how many releases have now shown how you can maintain a certain AR (x:1) while having very different info in the framings. Look for instance what was done on The Face of Mu Manchu, with one roll being zoomed in while still maintaining the same 2.35 AR. Compare the new Second Sight presentation of Dawn of the Dead's Argento Cut with the previous restoration. Or Il Generale della Rovere's US presentation vs the French one. And of course, there are the numerous Lakeshore titles released by Arrow that have the right ARs but are showing way too much info.

I didn't know this in the past and used to solely stick to "is it the right AR number or not ?" (1.37, 1.66, 1.85, etc) but have since learnt that you can get the AR right but the info in the framing wrong, and I'm always surprised not to see this kind of things picked up more often within these discussions. They thus seem like very theoretical discussions that are overlooking how a given movie can be presented at a given ratio with very different info into the frame, depending on how the extractions from the original elements have been performed.

FlickeringWindow
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:27 pm

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1414 Post by FlickeringWindow » Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:03 am

Baby Doll was one of a handful of mid-50s films released on DVD in 4x3 by Warner almost two decades ago - Dial M for Murder, Kiss Me Kate, and Them! - plus a few others. Not to mention all the other errant ones from other studios like the Creature from the Black Lagoon, Sabrina, Hondo, etc. that were corrected for Blu.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1415 Post by hearthesilence » Tue Jan 12, 2021 2:58 pm

EddieLarkin wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 6:49 am
How Baby Doll looks on a master from 15 years ago is of little value to determine how it was originally composed. Just because it looks well framed doesn't mean there isn't additional side information that would allow a 1.85:1 framing to not be as tight as simply cropping the DVD would indicate.
Spot-on point. When WA announced the aspect ratio for their BD release of While the City Sleeps, I was skeptical it could work after cropping the import DVD to the same ratio, but that was not the case at all - the BD has much more picture information on the side that isn't seen on the academy ratio DVD. (The import DVD now looks a bit awkwardly composed compared to the BD.)

I'm guessing it's become cost-prohibitive to put something out in various aspect ratios, which is why it isn't universally done. I'm sure people will continue to debate which is the preferred ratio, but if it became a common practice to release a film in all ratios that originally saw release, it would still save everyone the headache of someone griping about a film's unavailability in whichever given ratio.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1416 Post by tenia » Tue Jan 12, 2021 5:52 pm

I'm not sure it's purely cost-related. I can also imagine labels and studios gathering enough info to instead freaking pick one ratio and stick with it. While it might be historically understandable for some movies to be available on multiple ratios, decision-making people also need at some point to make the decision as to what is supposed to be the proper AR and framing of the movie they're releasing and not choosing instead to not choose.

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1417 Post by movielocke » Tue Jan 12, 2021 10:22 pm

Fifteen years ago it was common for telecines to be zoomed slightly for academy films or for the zoom to be applied for final Home Video master. At a minimum this was to clear the rounded corners at a max it was because they felt the film felt wrong/ too loose. The rationale was that theatrical projection of academy will spill at least that much to standard screen masking and keystoning.

If Baby Doll was zoomed 5% (a common choice) at either telecine or HV master, it would look excellent in academy, as the dvd does (because the top bottom framing is closer to the widescreen lines the camera operator was referencing on their ground glass whilst filming) but it would also look wrong cropped down to widescreen. Because now the cropping would be more severe than the vertical information that was framed for.

But with a full aperture scan that doesn’t have an old school zoom, it should look excellent in widescreen. I watched it last summer, the credits are certainly widescreen compliant and the camera work following actors vertically protects for widescreen, not for academy. Watching it I kept thinking it should be widescreen and I was toggling back and forth with my TVs settings during the first reel and settled on academy because cropping it was too much.

But in this instance of a new scan, academy framing probably wouldn’t look as good as it feels in the current dvd.

User avatar
swo17
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1418 Post by swo17 » Tue Jan 12, 2021 11:31 pm

Camera movements are the biggest tell in my opinion, i.e. does the camera move to keep an object in the widescreen frame when it would have easily stayed in the Academy frame without movement? Such scenes tend to play perfectly in widescreen but awkwardly in Academy

User avatar
L.A.
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 7:33 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1419 Post by L.A. » Tue Jan 19, 2021 5:19 am


User avatar
dustybooks
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:52 am
Location: Wilmington, NC

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1420 Post by dustybooks » Tue Jan 19, 2021 10:37 am

L.A. wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 5:19 am
Restored Doctor X in Spring 2021.
I just bought the Legends of Horror DVD box a couple of months ago so this one's my fault.


User avatar
david hare
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: WellyYeller

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1422 Post by david hare » Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:49 pm

Roddick wrote:
Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:52 am
david hare wrote:
Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:00 pm
They are already prepping the 51 Showboat, and a number of other Freeds are already done.
Great to know about this potential upcoming releases. Do you have anymore hints of WAC futures classic titles that you could give us?
If I did I would but I ain't gotta clue. You might take your cues from what's been up at itunes and elsewhere over the years in 720 or 1080 Downloads. A couple more Astaire Rogers, a couple more Metro Marx Brothers. They did complete the Lewtons but after disapponting sales through licensing (Shout Factory, etc) of Leopard Man and Body Snatchers they haven't found a buyer. The remaing Lewtons should be have been a fucking no brainer for fucking Criterion but I just give up on that label now. Criterion is totally irrelevant for archival/golden age Amermcan cinema. Their heads are up the arses of the College crowd and that's the end of that.

User avatar
senseabove
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:07 am

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1423 Post by senseabove » Fri Jan 29, 2021 2:37 pm

Amazon leaked one of the next round's titles, another entry in WAC's "... huh?" line:

Image

User avatar
bottlesofsmoke
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2021 12:26 pm

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1424 Post by bottlesofsmoke » Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:04 pm

Interesting. Anecdotally, when I had a YouTube movie channel, The Student Prince (with Lanza’s singing) was one of the most viewed, with dozens of comments about Lanza. So maybe he’s got more of a following than we think. If WA actually took that into account, rather than just using a spinning dartboard, is another question, though.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

#1425 Post by Monterey Jack » Mon Feb 01, 2021 12:02 am

I guess we're never getting De Palma's Femme Fatale, huh?

Post Reply