The Wizard of Oz

[domino harvey]

You're gonna regret not buying that stupid box in a couple weeks when you're wondering what time it is

[dx23]

The 4th disc on the other set is just the digital copy, so you are not missing anything as far as I know.

[mfunk9786]

I was actually able to get Target to pricematch Wal-Mart. I know it's borderline criminal, but it sure was nice to get the Emerald set for $19.96. 8-)

[cdnchris]

You're gonna regret not buying that stupid box in a couple weeks when you're wondering what time it is

Damn it, you're right. What the hell was I thinking!?

Yeah, I knew the fourth disc was the digital copy so I wasn't concerned about that. And heck, I never thought of trying to price match Wal-Mart. Clever.

[mfunk9786]

It was as YMMV as it comes. I'm shocked that it worked. I had my reciept from Wal-Mart and actually went into Target to see if they had any copies of the Target exclusive Gremlins [they didn't] - and I thought "why don't I give pricematching with the reciept a try." Thank goodness for 8 AM store opening employee apathy.

[unclehulot]

I think most of the people here are going to prefer the Target Emerald Edition version, but you better hurry since it seems that they only stocked 5 per store.

That sounds about right....there were only 2 left at noon today at the location I grabbed it from.

I'm curious if the big boxed set version contains a list of all of the audio material in the "jukebox" section? It's pretty tough to navigate through all of that without a list of cues (thankfully, I still have the previous 3 dvd box version which DOES provide a detailed list), and a number of cues grouped under each menu selection....one reviewer (at dvdtalk) guessed there was 70 minutes of material, but the old dvd says it's over 4 1/2 hours, and that sounds closer to the truth to me.

[swo17]

I think most of the people here are going to prefer the Target Emerald Edition version, but you better hurry since it seems that they only stocked 5 per store.

My local Target had 6 in stock--that is, before I came through.

[dx23]

I think most of the people here are going to prefer the Target Emerald Edition version, but you better hurry since it seems that they only stocked 5 per store.

My local Target had 6 in stock--that is, before I came through.

I went by Target today and they had restocked. I purchase a copy for a friend of mine using a raincheck receipt I was given when they went out of stock last week for $35.99.

[paa400]

I went to my local Target on Friday and an employee told me they did not carry the Target exclusive version. I found it myself. There were two copies left.

[Michael Kerpan]

Anyone heard anything about a general blu-ray release of this yet?

[perkizitore]

Yes!

[manicsounds]

So for the BD releases, are there any bonus materials that weren't left off from the previous DVD 3-disc edition?

[aox]

The 2009 BD is being discontinued this year in anticipation for the 75th anniversary in 2014 where the film will be remastered and rereleased.

Finally, this film is getting deserved attention.

[hearthesilence]

Unless they're doing something radically different like transferring a pristine IB tech print (highly unlikely, but something I'd actually welcome), I doubt it's worth the time.

[aox]

Unless they're doing something radically different like transferring a pristine IB tech print (highly unlikely, but something I'd actually welcome), I doubt it's worth the time.

I don't really see how much improvement can be made above the 2009 BD release. Unless they finally get those 250gig BD discs that can play on the current players and hold a 4K scan. And even then, I bet the difference would be negligible on a 46" screen.

[hearthesilence]

If we're talking about a digital restoration put together in the same manner as the last one (scanning the three-strip negative and digitally combining them), you're absolutely right, it's not going to look much better.

Which is why I mentioned something radically different, like an IB tech print. The overall look and color is not going to look the same - there's no way a color image put together solely with those materials and that equipment from that era is going to look anything like a digital composite from the last 5-10 years, it's physically impossible. Whether it's 'better' becomes much more subjective too. It wouldn't be as sharp, it may even look muddier or a bit 'brown' but the image would have a great bloom to it that can't be replicated using the same process as the last restoration or any digital restoration.

[zedz]

When you think back to what Warner were releasing just a few short years ago, their present endless, cynical recycling of the same half-dozen 'classic' titles is incredibly depressing.

[matrixschmatrix]

Honestly, I imagine they could just re-release the current print of Wizard, claim it had undergone additional restoration, and put that money towards something more pressing. I doubt most people would notice or care.

[Matt]

Warner Bros. now thinks it invented The Wizard of Oz.

[eerik]

I don't really see how much improvement can be made above the 2009 BD release. Unless they finally get those 250gig BD discs that can play on the current players and hold a 4K scan. And even then, I bet the difference would be negligible on a 46" screen.

I thought the current restoration was done at 4K from 8K scan. I don't see any reason for a new restoration. Current Blu-ray release could be improved slightly by new higher bitrate encode.

[Gregory]

I've been trying to decide whether I ever want to see this film again. I saw it several times as a tot, liked it fairly well, but don't think it'd be my cup of tea now, at least not enough to seek it out on blu and revisit it, but I may do so. So I was looking at list project threads to gauge what its reputation is like among those of us who have a serious interest in 1930s films, musicals, etc. and it seems like its stature has dropped, but it still makes a surprisingly strong showing. It started at an incredible #10 position in the 2004 '30s list, then dropped to #23, and then to #42 last round. Still, 42 is a pretty high ranking given my impression from peers here that it doesn't hold its own against the great films of the decade. And in the Musicals genre list, it ranked at #21, beating out great films by Demy, Hawks, Tashlin, etc. etc.

Another reason this is surprising to me is that virtually no one has praised it in any list project thread (or in this thread, really), and yet people are voting for it. I wonder if there's a kind of stigma about appreciating this film. Presumably some of the support, but not all, comes down to feelings about it from childhood. Would anyone like to boldly step forward and say what they like about the film now? I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts about why it holds up. And I'm not saying it doesn't. All I have are memories of seeing it something like 25 years ago.

[dx23]

Warner Bros. now thinks it invented The Wizard of Oz.

Unbelievable.

[triodelover]

Would anyone like to boldly step forward and say what they like about the film now? I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts about why it holds up. And I'm not saying it doesn't. All I have are memories of seeing it something like 25 years ago.

I never think about the film until I finally decide to watch it again and I'm always glad I did. I don't really think it's childhood, maybe it's the schmaltz factor..or Bert Lahr...or Ray Bolger.. or maybe it's this song.

[Matt]

Would anyone like to boldly step forward and say what they like about the film now? I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts about why it holds up.

I don't know if I'm the best person for the job, but some of my reasons for loving it as an adult:

• It's unofficially the first film of MGM's legendary Arthur Freed unit, and it sets the visual style for the films to come out of that unit for the next two decades.
  The production design, costumes, make-up, and all other technical achievements, are exquisitely detailed and state-of-the-art for the time. And they lend the film a timeless air, particularly when you compare it with so many other films from the time that feel like holdovers from the 19th century.
  The Harold Arlen songs, though we are all overfamiliar with them, are peerless. If you just listen to it, "Over the Rainbow" is an extraordinarily beautiful song.
  I never get tired of Bert Lahr's comedic performance (though I would have vastly enjoyed Buddy Ebsen as the Tin Man more than I do Jack Haley, who is kind of prissy).
  I am a die-hard Judy Garland fan (completely unironically, I might add, though not quite a Queen), and this is Judy's Ur-text.

Those are not all my reasons and they may not be the kind of reasons you're looking for, but I feel this film earns its status as a received classic more than most.

[Matt]

I did prefer it as a once-a-year treat on CBS that the whole family would watch than I do the endlessly-recycled Home Video Event it's become, one of Warner's Ten Classics You Must Own, Preferably in a $79 Box Full of Cheap Tchotchkes. It's cheapened the film.