Tim Burton Collection from WB

[Wally Q]

Originally Posted by insomniac013

LOL

I've gotten the douche treatment over a question dealing with the DreamWorks library since that's all shot to hell in terms of who owns what and made to feel like a Neanderthal who doesn't know anything. So I approve of this.

[Cat III]

I'll chime in that I'm also a huge Ed Wood fan (the movie and the man). I think it's the last good movie Burton directed (full disclosure: I haven't seen Batman Returns or Big Fish). I'm glad the guy's become successful, and maybe it's just coincidence, but it seems like ever since the Hot Topic explosion he's been content to glide along, assured that his visual style will carry the film.

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

To deny that he was the primary driving force behind the movie is practically impossible.

He may have been the driving force in devising it and getting it made, and determining the look of the characters and universe, but if he didn't lay out the shots, then I think his name above the title is a perfectly accurate way to credit him.

[Chattery]

Preordered as I held off buying the Batman boxset, as well as not having any of these (besides Corpse Bride on HD DVD).

Seeing as Dark Shadows is being produced by Warner Bros, I wonder if any of these discs, or the book, will have a "sneak peek" of sorts for Dark Shadows? Actually, doubtful as this is a retailer-exclusive, the sneak peek wouldn't theoretically reach as many people as a mass release.

It is an odd collection of film, and they don't seem to be in actual chronological order (Mars Attacks is between the Batman films despite coming out four years after Batman Returns). What is also interesting is how this is a seven movie set, and not a all-round eight. While I already own Sweeney Todd, I would have expected to see that as well. However just doing a quick net search seems to be Paramount distributing that in the US. Weird seeing as though it may be a co-production between Paramount and WB, my Blu-Ray has the WB logo on the side.

Whatever, I'm thankful the only one I have is on a dead format so technically these will all be fresh to my library, but not to my mind as I've seen all multiple times, with the exception of Pee Wee's Big Adventure - the only Burton film I'm sure I've never seen.

Really looking forward to it, and would like to put forth a theory on the release date sometime in late April/early May, as Dark Shadows is being released mid-May in the US. Does anyone else think this may be the case?

[GuruAskew]

Originally Posted by Wally Q

LOL

I've gotten the douche treatment over a question dealing with the DreamWorks library since that's all shot to hell in terms of who owns what and made to feel like a Neanderthal who doesn't know anything. So I approve of this.

What you did in that thread was equally ignorant. You had people correctly stating that Spielberg's "Munich" was controlled by Universal in the US and you had to confuse things by bringing up "Gladiator" and Dreamworks and Paramount. A simple post about what studios own what Spielberg movies was derailed by your nonsense.

It's not that you didn't know, it's that you didn't know what you were talking about yet you still felt the need to grace us all with your expertise. Kinda like this "Ed Wood is Touchstone not Disney, stupid!" genius.

Back on this release: Warner Bros. only recently put out the last of their Burton films in the US with the "Charlie" and "Pee-wee" discs in October and now the repackaging begins. Until "Dark Shadows" is released Warner has no more Burton films to sell to you.

Sony, Fox and Paramount all have Burton Blus that are missing DVD extras and/or are lacking in the a/v department... Disney controls the only Burton film altogether unreleased on Blu. What do these things have to do with Warner Bros. releasing 7 films they own in new packaging? Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

[Psycho Taxi Driver]

Going off topic

Looking at his filmography he hasn't done anything original since Big Fish [i am not including Corpse Bride] and that was 2003

It's all been remakes or rehashes

Burton used to be a film maker I adored now i'm just meh

[mcready]

i wonder will the corpse bride have a lossless audio this time?

[USiT]

Nice collection, now the question is... this one or the FNAC one

[Fryman86]

Originally Posted by Gattman

Going off topic

Looking at his filmography he hasn't done anything original since Big Fish [i am not including Corpse Bride] and that was 2003

It's all been remakes or rehashes

Burton used to be a film maker I adored now i'm just meh

And why aren't you counting Corpse Bride? That was completely original whereas Big Fish was adapted from a book. Don't get me wrong, I love Big Fish, just wondering. The two films I've felt so so about from Burton are Charlie(never been a Wonka fan either though) and Alice In Wonderland. As for Alice I just thought it was a mistake to give it too much of a story since the original is just about nonsense and her meeting over the top characters.

As for the box set, my OCD wants to kick in and tell me that I won't be able to alphabetize the movies, nor will I have case artwork, however, I really want that book and the only film I already own is Batman so the value is incredible. Yeah I'm going to go ahead and preorder. For those that have some of these already, are they all one disc movies? If so I'd assume they are the same extras etc. just new disc art.

[denger76]

By far the best Burton film is Ed Wood. This movie was serious and yet funny as well which IMO is a very hard thing to pull off. I am hoping that Burton does his same magic for the upcoming Dark Shadows flick. I am a DS fan and have heard that the film is a comedy horror show which if done right could be good however if too much over the top would be really bad.

[GuruAskew]

Originally Posted by Gattman

Going off topic

Looking at his filmography he hasn't done anything original since Big Fish [i am not including Corpse Bride] and that was 2003

It's all been remakes or rehashes

Burton used to be a film maker I adored now i'm just meh

Almost every Burton movie is an existing property or concept. The Pee-wee Herman character existed as a live improv character and was featured in his own stage show pre-Burton. Batman was obviously an existing character. Ed Wood was a biopic based on a book. Mars Attacks was based on a trading card series. Sleepy Hollow was a book too, as was Planet of the Apes (which was also a multimedia juggernaut).

What does that leave? Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands and The Nightmare Before Christmas. You could arguably pull Beetlejuice off that list; it was an original screenplay but it wasn't initially Burton's. It had made the rounds as a straight horror film and was attached to Wes Craven before it landed in Burton's lap and was heavily rewritten to suit him.

The "lack of originality" of his post-03 work has already been pointed out with one exception: "Corpse Bride" is based on a Russian folk tale.

Originality in the story/writing department has NEVER been a Burton trademark. He's undeniably known for taking his visual style and story sensibilities (outsiders, macabre humor etc.) to existing properties whether you want to admit it or not. From "Frankenweenie" to "Alice in Wonderland" this has been the case with few exceptions, it's not as if it's some new trend that's materialized out of nowhere in the past 9 or 10 years.

You can say what you want about Burton's last decade. It as far as I'm concerned "Big Fish" and "Sweeney Todd" rank among his very best movies.

[ssjmichael]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

Originality in the story/writing department has NEVER been a Burton trademark. He's undeniably known for taking his visual style and story sensibilities (outsiders, macabre humor etc.) to existing properties whether you want to admit it or not. From "Frankenweenie" to "Alice in Wonderland" this has been the case with few exceptions, it's not as if it's some new trend that's materialized out of nowhere in the past 9 or 10 years.

Yep I agree. You know pretty much right away that you're watching a Tim Burton movie. His visual style is really unique, if not a little bizarre at times. I don't care whether they're original ideas or not. In fact sometimes I imagine what would be Burton's take on existing and popular character. It's fun to see characters we all know get re-imagined into something completely different.

[horizonline]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

Almost every Burton movie is an existing property or concept. The Pee-wee Herman character existed as a live improv character and was featured in his own stage show pre-Burton. Batman was obviously an existing character. Ed Wood was a biopic based on a book. Mars Attacks was based on a trading card series. Sleepy Hollow was a book too, as was Planet of the Apes (which was also a multimedia juggernaut).

What does that leave? Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands and The Nightmare Before Christmas. You could arguably pull Beetlejuice off that list; it was an original screenplay but it wasn't initially Burton's. It had made the rounds as a straight horror film and was attached to Wes Craven before it landed in Burton's lap and was heavily rewritten to suit him.

The "lack of originality" of his post-03 work has already been pointed out with one exception: "Corpse Bride" is based on a Russian folk tale.

Originality in the story/writing department has NEVER been a Burton trademark. He's undeniably known for taking his visual style and story sensibilities (outsiders, macabre humor etc.) to existing properties whether you want to admit it or not. From "Frankenweenie" to "Alice in Wonderland" this has been the case with few exceptions, it's not as if it's some new trend that's materialized out of nowhere in the past 9 or 10 years.

You can say what you want about Burton's last decade. It as far as I'm concerned "Big Fish" and "Sweeney Todd" rank among his very best movies.

I took it off the list, but I give it credit for having good characters and a semi-decent cast. I was banned from a forum in 1989 for saying that btw..

[rubystone356]

Originally Posted by USiT

Nice collection, now the question is... this one or the FNAC one

very interesting indeed.
I now remember one of the pay channels was showing ed wood in HD. anyone see it? this was recently like a few months ago.

my favorite include the two batman films and also edward scissorhands. I also liked big fish. I would say that was his most normal movie since the original batman movie. I was not a fan of sweeny todd. the only ones that I didnt see in the theatre was pee wee and corpse bride. I did see them later on home video.

thanks for everyone responding about the favorite burton films.
hopefully more will share.
Jacob

[Fryman86]

As far as favorite Burton films go, the first Batman will always hold a special place for me since I grew up with it. I didn't see Beetlejuice untill I was older (it came out when I was 2) but I love it now and I did grow up with the cartoon version. I didn't "get" Pee Wee as a kid but find it fun in a quirky way now. I liked Nightmare and Edward Scissorhands when they were originally released, but as I got older the themes became more apparent. I was initially I was disappointed with Corpse Bride, and I think that's because I expected in to be Nightmare Before Christmas all over again. I enjoy it now by its not really a favorite. As mentioned in my previous post I'm not that big a fan of Charlie and I think Alice tried to hard to have a story. I will say though that despite not really being a big fan of Charlie, the backlash against it pissed me off because a large number of people had the complaint that he "ruined it because it wasn't like Willy Wonka." News flash, Burton's version is closer in tone and content to the original book. "Wonka" made a lot of political and socially motivated changes. If you just like the Wonka version better then that's fine, but don't make up uninformed excuses. Okay end rant. Of the post 2000 films my favorite is Big Fish and then Sweeny Todd. When I was taking Film Theory, I wrote my final paper on Big Fish and Burton's thematic style, which most people ignore in favor of his visual style (which is very strong so I understand why it happens).

[prkprkprk]

Anyone think this is going to remain a limited exclusive to Amazon? I'm thinking around the time Frankenweenie and Dark Shadows come to blu-ray it'll be released in retail stores and such. It's possible WB will make another set adding in Dark Shadows.

[ssjmichael]

Originally Posted by prkprkprk

Anyone think this is going to remain a limited exclusive to Amazon? I'm thinking around the time Frankenweenie and Dark Shadows come to blu-ray it'll be released in retail stores and such. It's possible WB will make another set adding in Dark Shadows.

Most Amazon Exclusives tend to stay that way from what I've seen. It's possible that the entire collection isn't exclusive but rather something in the set is. Like say the hardcover book, or one of the movies. I wouldn't be surprised to see a slightly tweaked version selling on wbshop.com as an exclusive there.

[Fryman86]

In reference to the Amazon Exclusives, the Ghostbusters Videogame exclusive technically stayed that way (the package wasn't sold elsewhere), but the main draw was a Slimer statue which ended up selling seperatly on retail sites for $30 meaning I overpaid lol.

[ssjmichael]

Originally Posted by Fryman86

In reference to the Amazon Exclusives, the Ghostbusters Videogame exclusive technically stayed that way (the package wasn't sold elsewhere), but the main draw was a Slimer statue which ended up selling seperatly on retail sites for $30 meaning I overpaid lol.

I got that slimer edition from Amazon for $30 a few Black Friday's ago

[Wally Q]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

What you did in that thread was equally ignorant. You had people correctly stating that Spielberg's "Munich" was controlled by Universal in the US and you had to confuse things by bringing up "Gladiator" and Dreamworks and Paramount. A simple post about what studios own what Spielberg movies was derailed by your nonsense.

It's not that you didn't know, it's that you didn't know what you were talking about yet you still felt the need to grace us all with your expertise. Kinda like this "Ed Wood is Touchstone not Disney, stupid!" genius.

I never stated matter of fact that Munich was Paramount or this and that, it was more speculative considering how convoluted and confusing the rights are after Paramount acquired DreamWorks and various pickings of their library. I never stated with any authority that Munich was Paramount but that it may have been.

A simple misunderstanding and then you come along like an ass who lacks an tactful skills and ridicule like I'd committed some heinous crime. So please don't compare that situation to "Touchstone not Disney" because that's an insult and you're wrong.