criterionforum.org

It's to be expected given that Luhrrmann's version is coming out soon.

Zodiac Blu-ray is reissued on January 1st by Warner. Amazon lists it as a single disc release, I hope they are wrong...

Maybe it just fit everything from the 2-disc set onto one disc?

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Maybe it just fit everything from the 2-disc set onto one disc?

Warner isn't going to waste their time and money to re-do the discs if they can simply drop the second disc. Anyway, somebody on the Blu-ray.com forums said that Warner's press site lists it as a 2-disc set.

Warner's non-US disc of Zodiac was only 1 disc, and has the same extras as the 2-disc Paramount. They could save money and just use that disc.

It's only 10.49 on Amazon right now, btw.

Bear in mind the WB Blu of Zodiac has compressed audio and weaker PQ than the Paramount (going by the Beaver comparison)

So practically the same quality as the DVD (which I have)?

flyonthewall2983 wrote:So practically the same quality as the DVD (which I have)?

PQ likely still much better.

The price is too nice to pass up. Pretty sure I paid the same amount for the DVD.

Peacock wrote:Bear in mind the WB Blu of Zodiac has compressed audio and weaker PQ than the Paramount (going by the Beaver comparison)

For the PQ, looking at the caps-a-holic caps, and even zooming in, it really looks much closer to each other than what the specs are telling.
You even have an example of halos being worse on the Paramount than the Warner while definition being better (so clearly not EE-induced there)...

Just to wrap up the discussions, apparently the Blu-ray that Warner has put out of Zodiac is the exact same as the Paramount release, with a tiny WB sticker on the back. It might even just be back stock that Paramount had sitting in a warehouse, because that sticker near the barcode is literally the only addition/change from the OOP release. It's the 2-disc director's cut, and while backordered, it's only $11.98 on Amazon right now. Amazing deal considering how long it was OOP and the fact that this is still one of the best Blu-ray releases to date.

mfunk9786 wrote:Just to wrap up the discussions, apparently the Blu-ray that Warner has put out of Zodiac is the exact same as the Paramount release, with a tiny WB sticker on the back. It might even just be back stock that Paramount had sitting in a warehouse, because that sticker near the barcode is literally the only addition/change from the OOP release. It's the 2-disc director's cut, and while backordered, it's only $11.98 on Amazon right now. Amazing deal considering how long it was OOP and the fact that this is still one of the best Blu-ray releases to date.

And already OOS at Amazon.

Just backordered, not out of print or anything

Jeff wrote:Jack Clayton's dreadful adaptation of The Great Gatsby is due on Blu-ray on January 1.

Not surprisingly, delayed indefinitely. Look for an official announcement for early summer upon the 2013 film's theatrical release.

Paramount catalog has essentially been handed over to other distributors at this point. The Great Gatsby (1974) is now coming 4/23 from Warner.

Anyone know if we'll see Paramount's Jerry Lewis titles on blu ray at some point?

Well, there are these.

Is COME BACK TO THE FIVE AND DIME, JIMMY DEAN, JIMMY DEAN a possibility for Criterion? The supporting actor Mark Patton once stated that he had recorded an interview for an upcoming DVD release of the film. However, he made that comment a year or so ago. I haven't heard the title linked specifically to Criterion or Olive Films.

Jobla wrote:Is COME BACK TO THE FIVE AND DIME, JIMMY DEAN, JIMMY DEAN a possibility for Criterion? The supporting actor Mark Patton once stated that he had recorded an interview for an upcoming DVD release of the film. However, he made that comment a year or so ago. I haven't heard the title linked specifically to Criterion or Olive Films.

I was expecting this to be a bare-bones title that they pair up with a loaded 2-disc Nashville, but something on the original stage play would be nice. I'm sure they could get commentary from Karen Black, but Cher would be a tough one to get. Since it's never been released on disc & given the people involved, I'm sure it would be more popular today than when it was released.

This would be a great candidate for Criterion. Lots of potential interviewees for the extras, though the most obvious supplement, Altman's own The James Dean Story, is Warners and therefore out of bounds.

I'm fairly certain James Dean Story is in the public domain. There are a bunch of cheap releases from various companies, but none from Warner Bros. I'm also hoping Criterion or someone else releases HealtH, the only other Altman feature without a DVD/DB release. And of course all of that obscure stuff he did for TV in the 1980s/early 1990s, which would make for a killer Eclipse set.

Hollywood Elsewhere has some good news and some frankly terrible news on the forthcoming BD of George Stevens magnificent Shane; Shane Aspect Ratio Conflict

I've viewed Shane at an approximation of 1.66:1 and while it certainly is the original theatrical aspect ratio, it simply doesn't work. Because the film was not shot with a widescreen ratio in mind. It's ironic isn't it that Loyal Griggs cinematography - so perfect, it pricks my eyes with tears - won an Oscar, despite being hobbled when the film was released.

Unfortunately, Wells rather eccentric views (I'm being kind) on certain titles, may lead to his opinion here - which is totally correct - being dismissed (as the comments below the linked piece show). I have everything crossed that this turns out well...

John Hodson wrote:Hollywood Elsewhere has some good news and some frankly terrible news on the forthcoming BD of George Stevens magnificent Shane; Shane Aspect Ratio Conflict

I've viewed Shane at an approximation of 1.66:1 and while it certainly is the original theatrical aspect ratio, it simply doesn't work. Because the film was not shot with a widescreen ratio in mind. It's ironic isn't it that Loyal Griggs cinematography - so perfect, it pricks my eyes with tears - won an Oscar, despite being hobbled when the film was released.

Unfortunately, Wells rather eccentric views (I'm being kind) on certain titles, may lead to his opinion here - which is totally correct - being dismissed (as the comments below the linked piece show). I have everything crossed that this turns out well...

It helps that Robert Harris and Bob Furmanek are also in agreement that when the film was shot is the key and not when it was distributed. Furmanek's research into when Hollywood went widescreen during production is pretty clear on this, and we know he has some connections with WHV because he was able to get them to see the production records pointing to the widescreen release of Dial M for Murder for the Blu-ray.

Here's hoping we get the 1.33:1 version. It's not like Warner hasn't released 1.33:1 films from this era on Blu-ray before (An American in Paris, Singin' in the Rain, Quo Vadis, etc.)

david hare wrote:Shane certainly is far too close to the gate in 1953 to do the usual Furmanek grandstanding (for all his genuinely worthwhile work) and its production history doesn't comfortably accomodate any full commitment to some form of WS.

Bob, like most everyone else, is in absolute and full agreement that Shane was shot in Academy with *no* concession to any possible WS release.