It seems like The Lady Vanishes is our first confirmed title for tomorrow, great news :D! Not my most anticipated upgrade, but a release I will definitely get. So here is the upgrade, let's see which new title(s) we get :ohnoes:. I hope for at least 3 titles.

Yeah I'm sure too, that should be City Lights, finally :D:D:D

I need to use /sarcasm/ tags

You guys DID see the wink icon, right?

You put it in spoilers. Now they don't want to spoil the surprise.;)

Makes sense since I just broke down and bought the UK import. :-) Oh well, I could never have too many copies of that film.

I was hoping for BIRDEMIC but I'll settle for Hitchcock. But seriously, I'd like to see the Hammer version of THE LADY VANISHES included as an extra but I have no idea if that is possible.

The Netflix HD did look pretty darn spiffy--
More to the point, if it had been remastered for broadcast HD, then it had been print HD-remastered at some point...The idea was clearly there at the studio, earlier.

I'd e-mailed Warner Archive to ask, ":strangle: :baseballbat: "...er, excuse me, to ask whether it was a "sales decision" (read, "Warner paranoid of ever releasing another catalog title ever again") that downgraded it off of Blu, or whether it was the usual Toho case of the Japanese not having their own Blu disk for the title yet, and holding up the rights to a US version.
I would encourage other interested parties to make the same inquiry, and hopefully press the issue.

Let's hope it IS Toho's fault, because if it's Neurotic Warner Catalog-Phobia again, get your rifle boys, we're goin' huntin'. :shakefist:

Good news about The Lady Vanishes. I've been holding off on the DVD for nearly a year and a half.

Might there also be a new Hitchcock title added to the collection?

It's actually not too darn bad at all (at least for the early "handcarved" look of Pinocchio and Snow White, the ones for Alice and Fantasia mean well but can't quite live up, and Bambi's so abstract/watercolor it doesn't make any difference anyway).

The POINT was, take yourselves a few years back to when Snow White first came out back in '09:
Back then, studios were panicking, because they literally didn't know whether audiences wanted classic 4:3 titles on widescreen Blu-ray.
After all the fuss about "letterbox" during the early DVD days, every studio held back on their vintage classics because they didn't know how audiences would react to side bars on their widescreen sets...The only reason Disney put out "Sleeping Beauty" as the first Diamond Blu-ray was, it was the only one they had available that was in widescreen.

But sooner or later, Disney on Blu would mean Snow White, and Snow White would mean reconciling the "side bar" issue with the mainstream public once and for all.
Here, just try and spot the "fake" borders, go ahead, just try: :D
(Warner at least never bothered with the issue, since they'd just recycled all their old 4K DVD masters for "Robin Hood" and "Casablanca", and didn't have to bother with making new side-filler.)

I have the Snow White blu and the side artwork is done in good taste imo. It doesn't distract.

I don't think they'd work for Criterions though...

Foreign Correspondent is on the Criterion Hulu channel. Would be AWESOME if we got that in addition to The Lady Vanishes tomorrow.

They could make some interesting side borders

I don't understand why pillar-boxing bothers people. The 1.33 to 1 AR has advantages over other "widescreen" ratios.

For example, a facial close-up is framed perfectly in 4/3.

It, um, would be difficult picturing what to use with "Seventh Seal". :eyebrow:

(And "Salo", fortunately, was in widescreen.)

Picked "3 Women" today at B&N, hopefully Criterion will get the rights to Altman's "Nashville"

"Health" ,"California Split" and "Images" are Altman films THAT HAS NEVER BEEN RELEASED ON HOME VIDEO IN ANY FORMAT

my bet is "Short Cuts" will be the next Altman CC blu.:)

1.33:1 is also a great ratio for seeing actor's full bodies together within the frame. Watching films from the 30s and 40s in particular, you'll actually see feet and legs!
It's a nice change from many contemporary films, particularly American films, that are made with the post-theatrical market in mind. It's often like watching TV, where you get a lot of talking heads.

I own Images (MGM) and California Split (Sony/Columbia) both on DVD, however OOP. Wish both could be released on Blu.

Split has a commentary track with Altman, Segal and Gould and Images contains a selected scene commentary w/ Altman and an interview.

Attachment 38027
Attachment 38028

For those who love the Eerie score to IMAGES there is a CD score out there.
http://www.screenarchives.com/title_...-2000-EDITION/
Attachment 38029

Harakiri comparison

It concerns me that the Criterion is noticeably cropped. In one screenshot, a person visible on the left of the MoC's frame is completely missing from the Criterion.
However, I think the MoC looks a little soft. Perhaps others will think the Criterion looks artificially sharpened.
Any thoughts?

I think it's silly for people to lose sleep, or panic, or become outraged because an inch of print is missing from the side of the film.

I think the thing is that it seems like there's no reason for something like that to happen, however, I do feel like the Criterion looks noticeably better than the MoC, and as you imply, it doesn't take much away from the experience. I think the Criterion is the one I'll go for.