Warner Archive Collection Blu-ray Discussion Thread

[apearson28]

Originally Posted by bustthru

Same thing here.

[playingphysicist]

Originally Posted by Gunsnroses092789

Very few Warner films have 4K DCPs, especially older ones. Even if you look at titles WAC announced as 4K scans, they're listed as standard DCPs on Park Circus. I also think WAC tends to do 4K scans and them restores them in 2K anyway So these being standard DCPs doesn't necessarily rule out Blu-rays to come.

The head of WAC thinks that B&W films - and therefore the bulk of their library before the 60s - don't really benefit from 4k releases (I tend to lean in that direction myself). I think that's why we don't see much in the way of UHD releases for their color films too.

[tangerinewolf]

Originally Posted by Riwriwriw

Freaks and the already announced 31 Dr Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde would make for a wonderful October.

Definitely! Looking forward to Jekyll and Hyde (1931). As for Freaks, a few years ago George F. said, in a WAC podcast, that they were in search of better elements. At about the same time, a rumor was going around that Criterion had it. Haven't heard any anything since then.

[Rayjg]

Originally Posted by playingphysicist

The head of WAC thinks that B&W films - and therefore the bulk of their library before the 60s - don't really benefit from 4k releases (I tend to lean in that direction myself). I think that's why we don't see much in the way of UHD releases for their color films too.

Really? I guess that's how Criterion got Citizen Kane.

[EVOLVIST]

Originally Posted by bustthru

Same thing here.

Yeah, I don't know what you do for a living, but I am a professional writer (it was a joke that I work in the adult entertainment industry), so maybe they don't want consumers who may have a conflict by means of their purchasing power.

I can't remember the other selections, but I think there were IT related jobs, and perhaps film industry related jobs that might exclude someone.

[jkoffman]

Originally Posted by playingphysicist

The head of WAC thinks that B&W films - and therefore the bulk of their library before the 60s - don't really benefit from 4k releases (I tend to lean in that direction myself). I think that's why we don't see much in the way of UHD releases for their color films too.

Where did you hear/read that?

[randian]

Originally Posted by playingphysicist

The head of WAC thinks that B&W films - and therefore the bulk of their library before the 60s - don't really benefit from 4k releases (I tend to lean in that direction myself).

That doesn't make much sense to me, resolution and color space are not the same thing. Everything benefits from higher resolution, unless you're doing lower resolution to hide source degradation. Not all B&W is a scratchy high-generation mess. B&W benefits from HDR too. Then again Warner accedes to Nolan's ridiculous "no scans from OCN" demand, so maybe they don't care generally about doing best possible work.

[playingphysicist]

Originally Posted by jkoffman

Where did you hear/read that?

Was posted earlier in this very thread, he said it on one of those podcasts he's been going on.

[jkoffman]

Originally Posted by playingphysicist

Was posted earlier in this very thread, he said it on one of those podcasts he's been going on.

Found it. Here's what George Feltenstein said:

...the difference between a regular Blu-ray and a 4K Blu-ray depends on the film and when it was made. I think a lot of older classics from the 30s and 40s -- especially if they're in black and white -- they don't really benefit from a new 4K disc. Whereas a 4K scan or a new master on a Blu-ray disc -- and the television will upconvert if you got a 4K television -- they look magnificent.

[REPLAY]

I have The Great Ziegfeld 1936 MGM on DVD. Would love to see Warner put this out on Blu-ray.

[playingphysicist]

Originally Posted by jkoffman

Found it. Here's what George Feltenstein said:

Yes, that's it. If that is how he feels, I am not surprised we're not seeing much in the way of UHD from Warner Archive.

For the record, I am getting the UHD of Double Indemnity when it comes out later this month from Criterion, but I have just read mixed opinions on how much B&W movies really benefit.

[Hammerlover]

Originally Posted by tangerinewolf

Definitely! Looking forward to Jekyll and Hyde (1931). As for Freaks, a few years ago George F. said, in a WAC podcast, that they were in search of better elements. At about the same time, a rumor was going around that Criterion had it. Haven't heard any anything since then.

Criterion is also rumored to be sitting on another of my most-wanted titles: ARSENIC AND OLD LACE.

[playingphysicist]

Originally Posted by Hammerlover

Criterion is also rumored to be sitting on another of my most-wanted titles: ARSENIC AND OLD LACE.

See I always thought Freaks was PD, but maybe Warner has the best elements (not surprising). Sometimes I swear Criterion just sits on stuff forever (how long has it been known they have the rights to Spellbound?).

[xochipilli]

Originally Posted by playingphysicist

Yes, that's it. If that is how he feels, I am not surprised we're not seeing much in the way of UHD from Warner Archive.

George said just two or three podcasts ago that the cost of producing UHD discs is currently outside the range of WAC's budget. That's why they haven't pursued the format yet.

[Hammerlover]

Originally Posted by playingphysicist

See I always thought Freaks was PD, but maybe Warner has the best elements (not surprising). Sometimes I swear Criterion just sits on stuff forever (how long has it been known they have the rights to Spellbound?).

Yep. They released the DVD in 2002, so twenty years.

[SoundOfSilence]

Originally Posted by Hammerlover

Yep. They released the DVD in 2002, so twenty years.

It may be that Criterion no longer has the rights.

The owner of the rights may have licensed Criterion to produce a limited run. Say 5,000 copies.

M-G-M produced Spellbound as part of a three disc set about ten years after the Criterion release. Which would indicate Criterion no longer has the intellectual property.

I find the M-G-M release okay. Certainly enjoyable. But not up to WAC standards.

I have no idea who holds the rights now.

[El Sleezo]

I’ve just assumed Spellbound has element issues. And if they would’ve acquired it from an ABC/Selznick license, maybe it will be too late, with all of Kino’s Selznick releases going OOP.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by SoundOfSilence

It may be that Criterion no longer has the rights.

The owner of the rights may have licensed Criterion to produce a limited run. Say 5,000 copies.

M-G-M produced Spellbound as part of a three disc set about ten years after the Criterion release. Which would indicate Criterion no longer has the intellectual property.

I find the M-G-M release okay. Certainly enjoyable. But not up to WAC standards.

I have no idea who holds the rights now.

The MGM Blu is long OOP and predates Criterion's Blu-ray releases of Notorious and Rebecca.

Spellbound has elements issues.

[captainsolo]

Originally Posted by xochipilli

Oh, did some of the unreleased films on the slate actually get restored? I had asked earlier and apparently noone had been there or heard what was the condition of the masters. Do you happen to know which films had work done?

I poured over the schedule like I do every year looking for possible upcoming releases and prints to look forward to perhaps hitting the arthouse repertory circuit.
They showed a number of prints this year and a few digital screenings that didn’t have a lot of fanfare. The big surprises for me were Ben Burt’s new edit of Spy Smasher, the IB print of Flame and the Arrow, a screening of All of Me which has been in rights hell, a digital screening of The Third Man which still hasn’t had its 4k version released here and a newly struck 70mm print of Spartacus among other things. The Tall T was shown in a 4k restoration which apparently is new. Topkapi was shown from a restored print which I don’t think has been scanned for Blu-ray.

[NeilZ]

Didn't Criterion acquire all three of them at the same time? Rebecca, Notorious, and Spellbound.

There was around a year and a half gap between Rebecca and Notorious, but it's been 3 years since then and still no Spellbound, which is a bit weird.