NEW Wizard of OZ

Anyone thinking about getting this new (restored for the Nth time) DVD...
GET IT!

I have picked up each new "restored" video version, as it's one of my
favorite films. Somehow the technicians, this time, have managed to re-align
the 3 color strips so that they match up perfectly... at least this is what
I imagined to have happened... the picture quality and clarity are
BRILLIANT. I picked up on details I hadn't noticed before. I don't know how
they missed this in other releases. There is a lot of "air" (breathing) in
the sepia segment... but then there was a lot of air around in those days...
:^)

The original mono sound is terrific! (there is 5.1) The color is... well,
it's TECHNICOLOR.


....and then of course there is THE WIZARD OF OZ (50+years) ................
It also has lots of extras.


dave...................... www.Shemakhan.com

Lookingglass

"Lookingglass" <> wrote in message
news:3fSdnRitiJ3QXvjeRVn-...
> Anyone thinking about getting this new (restored for the Nth time) DVD...
> GET IT!
>
> I have picked up each new "restored" video version, as it's one of my
> favorite films. Somehow the technicians, this time, have managed to
> re-align the 3 color strips so that they match up perfectly... at least
this
> is what I imagined to have happened... the picture quality and clarity
> are BRILLIANT. I picked up on details I hadn't noticed before. I don't
> know how they missed this in other releases. There is a lot of "air"
> (breathing) in the sepia segment... but then there was a lot of air
> around in those days...
> :^)
>
> The original mono sound is terrific! (there is 5.1) The color is... well,
> it's TECHNICOLOR.
>
>
> ...and then of course there is THE WIZARD OF OZ (50+years)
.................
> It also has lots of extras.


The main difference that I noticed is that the flesh tones in the color
sequences don't drift between purple and green anymore. The flesh tones are
rock solid on the latest OZ. And of course, the picture looks better than it
has ever looked in the previous versions.

One-Shot Scot wrote:
> "Lookingglass" <> wrote in message
> news:3fSdnRitiJ3QXvjeRVn-...
>
>>Anyone thinking about getting this new (restored for the Nth time) DVD...
>>GET IT!
>>
>>I have picked up each new "restored" video version, as it's one of my
>>favorite films. Somehow the technicians, this time, have managed to
>>re-align the 3 color strips so that they match up perfectly...

Check out the restoration featurette:
The Nth-minus-1 restoration we got in '98-'99 was a chemical
reconstruction of the film print, but for this one, they hauled out the
big '05 all-digital in-the-computer Ultra weaponry that they used for
"Ben-Hur" and "Gone With the Wind"...

AND finally put it on more than one disk (y'know, seriously, it may
actually have *been* that 1-disk disaster that finally convinced Warner
to start fooling around with multi-disks for their classics)--
Not only leaving room for the commentary that should've been on the
earlier disk, and giving breathing space to the Angela Lansbury
documentary, but we finally got our Music-Only track back, for the first
time since laserdisc.

> The main difference that I noticed is that the flesh tones in the color
> sequences don't drift between purple and green anymore. The flesh tones are
> rock solid on the latest OZ. And of course, the picture looks better than it
> has ever looked in the previous versions.

I actually dug out my old '98-print copy that I hadn't thrown out yet,
for comparison:
The colors are only a little noticeably brighter, but it's the CLARITY
that hits you like a lightning bolt--You have to keep reminding yourself
it's from 1939. 0_0

Derek Janssen

"Derek Janssen" <> wrote in message
news:%Bl9f.7176$...
> One-Shot Scot wrote:
> > "Lookingglass" <> wrote in message
> > news:3fSdnRitiJ3QXvjeRVn-...
> >>I have picked up each new "restored" video version, as it's one of my
> >>favorite films. Somehow the technicians, this time, have managed to
> >>re-align the 3 color strips so that they match up perfectly...

I believe I heard somewhere in the _Gone With The Wind_ commentary that the
computer re-alignment of the three Technicolor strips was pixel-perfect to
the extent that the film alignment looked better than it did in 1939. I'm
sure that OZ was restored the same way.

Now, if everything that we have heard is true, Warner has restored _King
Kong_ (1933) -- the Fay Wray version, not that Jessica "Oh Kong, Oh, Oh, Oh
Kong" Lange piece of **** -- to the Nth degree. November 22 will be an
expensive day for me, because I plan to buy ALL three _King Kong_ DVD sets.

> ... but we finally got our Music-Only track back, for the first
> time since laserdisc.

I remember that. The mono soundtrack was on one channel and the music-only
track was on the other.

"One-Shot Scot" <> wrote:

> Now, if everything that we have heard is true, Warner has restored
> _King Kong_ (1933) -- the Fay Wray version, not that Jessica "Oh
> Kong, Oh, Oh, Oh Kong" Lange piece of ****

Well, it would *have* to be the "Fay Wray version" that Warner has
restored, since they don't own the "Jessica Lange" version".

-- jayembee

One-Shot Scot wrote:
> Now, if everything that we have heard is true, Warner has restored _King
> Kong_ (1933) -- the Fay Wray version, not that Jessica "Oh Kong, Oh, Oh, Oh
> Kong" Lange piece of **** -- to the Nth degree. November 22 will be an
> expensive day for me, because I plan to buy ALL three _King Kong_ DVD sets.
>
Why? I was under the impression that the three disk set with the two
other movies contained the two disk set as two of its disks? Am I wrong?

dick

Dick Sidbury wrote:
> One-Shot Scot wrote:
>
>> Now, if everything that we have heard is true, Warner has restored _King
>> Kong_ (1933) -- the Fay Wray version, not that Jessica "Oh Kong, Oh,
>> Oh, Oh Kong" Lange piece of **** -- to the Nth degree.

(Which, as pointed out, Paramount already released, and inspired Peter
Jackson to go back to 30's-retro.)

>> November 22 will be an
>> expensive day for me, because I plan to buy ALL three _King Kong_ DVD
>> sets.
>>
> Why? I was under the impression that the three disk set with the two
> other movies contained the two disk set as two of its disks? Am I wrong?

Nope--
You can get Kong *with* Son of (sorry, "Last Days of Pompeii" seems to
be on hold), or without, but it's the same Nth-degree Ultra print.

Derek Janssen

"Derek Janssen" <> wrote in message
news:0Iw9f.39873$...
> Dick Sidbury wrote:
> > One-Shot Scot wrote:
> >
> >> Now, if everything that we have heard is true, Warner has restored
_King
> >> Kong_ (1933) -- the Fay Wray version, not that Jessica "Oh Kong, Oh,
> >> Oh, Oh Kong" Lange piece of **** -- to the Nth degree.
>
> (Which, as pointed out, Paramount already released, and inspired Peter
> Jackson to go back to 30's-retro.)
>
> >> November 22 will be an
> >> expensive day for me, because I plan to buy ALL three _King Kong_ DVD
> >> sets.
> >>
> > Why? I was under the impression that the three disk set with the two
> > other movies contained the two disk set as two of its disks? Am I
wrong?
>
> Nope--
> You can get Kong *with* Son of (sorry, "Last Days of Pompeii" seems to
> be on hold), or without, but it's the same Nth-degree Ultra print.
>
> Derek Janssen
>


Here is how Amazon has outlined the 3 King Kong releases:

King Kong (2-Disc Special Edition)

*** *** ***

King Kong (Collector's Edition)

This is the one which seems to cause all the confusion. According to Amazon,
in addition to the 2 KK DVDs, it contains the following:

Collectible tin packaging

20-page reproduction of original 1933 souvenir program

King Kong memorable scenes postcards

Vintage King Kong poster mail-in offer

*** *** ***

The King Kong Collection (King Kong 2-Disc Special Edition/Son of
Kong/Mighty Joe Young)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/se...625347-2206213