Waterloo (1970) (Mediumrare)

[leocan]

Originally Posted by Modman

Here's another option (I believe they ship to Canada), whether you consider them better is up to you.

https://www.zavvi.com/blu-ray/waterl.../12917068.html

Thanks. Interesting that I had to open my browser in incognito mode to finally see the page. Without it I was redirected to the main page.

[TheHistorian]

Originally Posted by mattyl149

I wasn't necessarily going to double dip as I have the Imprint release, but damn, that is some nice packaging

I now feel a little less bad about missing the Imprint release!

[chas speed]

Does anybody know if this has any cuts for animal cruelty yet?

[Aclea]

No, but you can take it for granted it will be by at least 22 seconds.

[36crazyfists]

I bought from amazon.de from Koch Media .

https://bluray-disc.de/blu-ray-filme...-waterloo_1970

Funny enough after that the Napoleon project was gone from Kubrick and Stanley made my favorite movie Barry Lyndon .

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by 36crazyfists

I bought from amazon.de from Koch Media .

https://bluray-disc.de/blu-ray-filme...-waterloo_1970

Funny enough after that the Napoleon project was gone from Kubrick and Stanley made my favorite movie Barry Lyndon .

MGM killed Napoleon before Waterloo even started shooting as part of a cull that included Michael Anderson's Tai-Pan, Richard Fleischer's Caravans, George Pal's Logan's Run, an adaptation of Broadway musical Baker Street and a Julie Andrews musical to stem the studio's massive losses. Barry Lyndon and The Shining were both failed attempts to convince Warners he could be trusted with a big budget period film (only for Lyndon to go over budget) and produce a blockbuster (only for Shining to struggle to break even theatrically) to get them to revive the project.

[Killer Meteor]

Originally Posted by Aclea

MGM killed Napoleon before Waterloo even started shooting as part of a cull that included Michael Anderson's Tai-Pan, Richard Fleischer's Caravans, George Pal's Logan's Run, an adaptation of Broadway musical Baker Street and a Julie Andrews musical to stem the studio's massive losses. Barry Lyndon and The Shining were both failed attempts to convince Warners he could be trusted with a big budget period film (only for Lyndon to go over budget) and produce a blockbuster (only for Shining to struggle to break even theatrically) to get them to revive the project.

I find it so odd that The Shining didn't pull in the crowds that much, given its evergreen classic status these days.

[captainsolo]

Originally Posted by Aclea

MGM killed Napoleon before Waterloo even started shooting as part of a cull that included Michael Anderson's Tai-Pan, Richard Fleischer's Caravans, George Pal's Logan's Run, an adaptation of Broadway musical Baker Street and a Julie Andrews musical to stem the studio's massive losses. Barry Lyndon and The Shining were both failed attempts to convince Warners he could be trusted with a big budget period film (only for Lyndon to go over budget) and produce a blockbuster (only for Shining to struggle to break even theatrically) to get them to revive the project.

MGM's problems never ended once the the financial woes started. Most of them were their own making and eventually the era of Kerkorian happened. Then James Aubrey was put in charge and the desecration of the studio really began. He was the one who instigated the massive swath of cancelled projects, battled with everyone and hacked apart films. Most of all he made it a mission to wreck Pat Garrett.

Kubrick films never became runaway box office successes and 2001 took a few years to become profitable. Had MGM at the time been more forward thinking and less old school stodgy they could have done it sooner but it took them a while to realize the college crowd/trippy market.

Warner seemed content to let Kubrick stay as their prestige name. The more you look at it Kubrick had a dream sort of deal at WB no one will ever have again. Sure they wanted a hit film but were content to have him do something every few years because it gave them clout and prestige-and most importantly didn't cost all that much because Kubrick never had massive crews or budgets.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by Killer Meteor

I find it so odd that The Shining didn't pull in the crowds that much, given its evergreen classic status these days.

Horror blockbusters had always been a rarity - Universal's original Frankenstein and Dracula, Warners' House of Wax and The Exorcist and that was really it for the phenomenally huge grossers, with the genre always regarded as something you didn't spend too much money on if you wanted to make a profit. I think Kubrick's determination to have the next horror blockbuster came from being passed over for The Exorcist because the studio didn't believe he could stick to the schedule or budget and jokes that the little girl would be married with kids by the time he delivered his final cut (only for Friedkin to turn an 85 day shooting schedule into a 224 day one, the budget to treble and Linda Blair to mature so noticeably they had to tape down her breasts). Cutting The Shining for Europe was less a case of perfectionist tinkering as commercial necessity - Kubrick didn't draw a salary, only expenses and a first dollar percentage before ownership of the films reverted to him after 15 years, with Warners retaining distribution rights in perpetuity but with the proviso that Kubrick determined when they were released, reissued, put on home video and put on moratorium.

Part of the disappointment was because the video market was in its early days and nobody expected it to be as big as it would, so after a $19m budget and a big marketing spend when the theatrical take wasn't anywhere near expectations it didn't initially look like they could look forward to much more than TV revenue, but as the home video market grew, like Blade Runner, it was there that the film really became a moneymaker.

Originally Posted by captainsolo

Kubrick films never became runaway box office successes and 2001 took a few years to become profitable. Had MGM at the time been more forward thinking and less old school stodgy they could have done it sooner but it took them a while to realize the college crowd/trippy market.

Warner seemed content to let Kubrick stay as their prestige name. The more you look at it Kubrick had a dream sort of deal at WB no one will ever have again. Sure they wanted a hit film but were content to have him do something every few years because it gave them clout and prestige-and most importantly didn't cost all that much because Kubrick never had massive crews or budgets.

Warners never lost money on a Kubrick film - partially because people were so desperate to work with him he could sometimes pay less than union minimums, which is one reason those shoots could last so long without busting the bank even if he had A-list stars and a 400-day shoot (Clockwork Orange cost around $1.3m and pulled in $114m theatrically) - and because of the home video explosion (Full Metal Jacket was phenomenally profitable for all concerned despite good but not exceptional theatrical numbers). It wasn't always plain sailing - Ted Turner absolutely loathed the deal Kubrick had but was powerless to end it - but everybody won because as infuriatingly drawn out as his working process was, he was even more financially motivated than the studio. But it wasn't until the late 90s that they'd even consider something as expensive as Napoleon again, by which time...

There is one guy who has that deal today, though may not in the future: Christopher Nolan. Until Tenet he was money in the bank and critical acclaim too. Whether its relative failure (it was a big moneyloser but still the highest grossing US film released during the height of the current unpleasantness by a wide margin, which has to be taken into consideration) loses him that status or they'll stick with it as the commercial landscape improves (if he wants to stay after the AT&T/HBO Max farrago, that is) remains to be seen.

[Prometheus 1962]

I think it's a real pity they've decided to go with that Blu-Ray case insert for this release. I realize that may have been one of the movie posters used at the time, but I think it looks godawful. I much prefer the image Imprint used on their Blu-Ray release:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....L._SL1160_.jpg

Anyway, I ordered it (I guess it will take a few days to get it here in the USA), so I just hope the film itself looks good. I don't know anything about Mediumrare, but I'm guessing they're no Criterion.

[Prometheus 1962]

Originally Posted by ShellBeacher

I see that Amazon UK is still not shipping to the U.S.?

They just shipped a copy to me - I live in Maryland.

[Bourne1886]

They’ve finally shipped it to me, hopefully I’ll get it tomorrow, but just like Basic Instinct Amazon U.K has been dispatching to overseas customers first even though it’s a U.K release. Amazon U.S doesn’t do that.

[Scottishguy]

Got mine today. Will be giving it a watch later.

[Darby1985]

Moi aussi.

As I said on the Dad's Army thread, how fun that these came out on the same day given "Napoleon" was the derogatory nickname for Mainwaring, and he dreams about being Bonaparte.

Really stacked edtion, this. They've gone above and beyond - even the reversible poster art is different to the reversible sleeve art.

[Douglas R]

I’m pleased they included the original souvenir book, albeit in a reduced size, which wasn’t available when I saw the film on first release.

[Scottishguy]

This is looking very good indeed. A superior video encode over the German release, and they fixed the colour.

The stereo is in sweet LPCM, and is the default audio.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

This is looking very good indeed. A superior video encode over the German release, and they fixed the colour.

That sounds a bit worrying: much of the first third of the picture is apparently supposed to have a tallow candlelit look in the evening palace and ballroom scenes to reflect the light sources in the sets, which, unlike the dreaded Ritrovata, isn't carried throughout the rest of the film or accompanied by pea soup green exteriors on the German disc. Sony tends not to piss around with the original colour scheme but as The Deep showed, that's not always reflected in the encoding from those they licence to.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Darby1985

Moi aussi.

As I said on the Dad's Army thread, how fun that these came out on the same day given "Napoleon" was the derogatory nickname for Mainwaring, and he dreams about being Bonaparte.

Really stacked edtion, this. They've gone above and beyond - even the reversible poster art is different to the reversible sleeve art.

Asked in the army thread, but do you have a pic of the reversible cover on Waterloo look pls

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by Douglas R

I’m pleased they included the original souvenir book, albeit in a reduced size, which wasn’t available when I saw the film on first release.

Ironically I do have the original souvenir brochure but never had the chance to see the film on the big screen.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Aclea

That sounds a bit worrying: much of the first third of the picture is apparently supposed to have a tallow candlelit look to reflect the light sources in the sets, which, unlike the dreaded Ritrovata, isn't carried throughout the rest of the film or accompanied by pea soup green exteriors on the German disc.

What I mean by fixed, is. That the colour isn't bleeding like on the German disc.

Also image stability is superior.