Warner Bros. has announced the release of the largest Blu-ray collection ever. 50 Movies* spread across 52 discs, including 16 of the Warner library's best picture winners, all presented in book-style premium packaging. The pack also includes two all-new exclusive documentaries (Tales from the Warner Bros. Lot and The Warner Bros. Lot Tour), hours of commentaries, film-specific extras, a limited edition 27" x 40" poster, and a postcard series of Warner Bros. movie posters designed by legendary Bill Gold. Additional Ultraviolet digital copies will included as well.
I think all these films are already been released on BD individually. Unless there are new transfers for these films, I don't see the point in releasing them in this box set. It's only good for collectors and people who don't own any of these films on blu, but want to.. I wonder how that Harry Potter Wizards Collection is doing as far as sales?. Haven't heard anything about it.
This would make an extremely nice gift for someone who hasn't jumped into Blu-ray just yet, but I'd wager most of us Blu-ray aficionados already own the majority of the ones we each like out of this set.
FYI: Warner Bros. also plans on releasing the James Dean films on Blu-ray for the first time next year, along with a new digital master for The Exorcist, and possibly a 3D Blu-ray for The Wizard of Oz.
Yes, you heard me right, WB is re-releasing The Wizard of Oz in theaters in 3D.
The only thing I'm really excited about are the James Dean films and the new Exorcist transfer, which Friedkin says "looks the way it did when [he] composed the shots on the viewfinder".
I regret to say this but, some of those titles are not Warner Bros. catalog. Grand Hotel, Mutiny in the Bounty, Ben Hur, The Wizard of Oz... All of them and others are MGM. It would better, for collection purposes to release something more genuine
I don't understand the mix of movies. Many people have certain types of movies they enjoy, and those movies cover every type of movie. I know I wouldn't want to watch every movie in that collection, because I don't like Horror or pure Drama movies. Personally, I'd just watch the Action, Adventure and Comedy movies. That means the $8.36/movie price is going to be higher for most people.
How many people are there that like every kind of movie? Maybe I'm wrong?
They have the Hangover and Sherlock Holmes
They Should've replaced those with the Jazz Singer and the Shawshank Redemption
They have the Blind Side and Natural Born Killers
Replace those with Best Years Of Our Lives and King Kong
Wow. Like others have said, this would be good for new blu-ray owners, but most of us already have a good chunk of those movies. They should have timed this with the release of bluray. Or convert them all to 4k format and waited until that was truly ready to debut. This just seems like a strange move, at this time.
I don't know, even for new BD owners/collectors, the movies in this box-set are all mixed-up together without any real reason. It's not like a Franchise Collection Box-Set, it's only random movies together...
I actually own 41 of the 47 already available, so I assume there are other people who like a wider variety of types in their collection. However, this set is a little too massive to be of any use, I think.
It would be nice if studios etc.. would sell these box sets like this and the 007 50th collection (that come to mind) by there self (empty box) for those who may already have the movies or most of them and would like to just add the discs together in a collection.
Much ado about nothing...However, lost in all the noise is the more note worthy, THE RIGHT STUFF, House of Wax (3D), Mad Max (3 film set), Little Caesar - Public Enemy - Petrified Forest - White Heat (Box Set Gangster Vol. 2), James Dean (box set), all coming in 2013. Goodfella's is added in the mix (as part of a gangster box set Vol. 1), but will it be upgraded this third time around (here's hoping)?
I don't see any that aren't already available individually. All the money wasted on developing and producing this collection (that hardly anyone will buy) could have been devoted to restoring a movie not already available on Blu-ray.
what the poster above said is a great point a number of the early movies in this collection are not WB films but rather MGM films they aqquired the rights to later on. They shouldnt have included non WB produced titles in this set. taking out titles like Oz, Gone with The Wind, Grand Hotel etc etc their are a number of classic 20s 30s era films that WB could have restored from their catalog that was originally produced on the lot at WB and included instead
this box set is actually worth it. especially if you dont own any of these. i calculated and each movie is roughly about $8.36 a piece which is cheap so yes on the surface the box set looks expensive but it is worth it!
Who are they targeting with this release? I would think that somebody ready to pay this kind of price, would
a) already have a blu-ray collection, and potentially own up to half the titles included here, or
b) be a newbie to blu-ray, not owning any, but if he held out that long, surely he'll wait some more?
... so I don't see where you go from here. But maybe that's just me.
This reminds me of the $400.00 Criterion Kurosawa box set from a couple of years ago. Most of the Kurosawa films in the set had already been previously released on Criterion, and the last few (that were new to the set; mostly early works of his) , were released as a smaller box set shortly thereafter. With most of the material already being out, plus the high price tag, this was a totally unnecessary release. It was Criterion's big, year end, release for that year, as well. Turns out, it was one of their least selling collections ever, and was a big flop for them. They even went so far as to explain on their website (apparently after getting lots of angry mail about it) that they had intended this set as a "gift set" or "starter set", rather than a serious collector's set. But you'd have to really love that person to give them a $400.00 "gift set" of DVDs. Actually, THIS WB set makes even less sense, as very few people will like all or even most of these titles. They mixed a lot of recent popular fare with some serious classics. People who like the critically-acclaimed classics likely won't care for a lot of this newer stuff, and the young people who like this newer popcorn stuff probably wouldn't like those old movies. The set should have at least been more consistent. Seriously, "The Hangover", "The Blind Side", and "Harry Potter" in the same set with "Citizen Kane", "Gone With the Wind", and "Casablanca"???
Yes, it's actually a good deal for someone who just got a blu ray player and is starting their collection, but anyone who has been collecting for any decent amount of time probably has a good number of these already.
I read about thsi on the Digital Bits, and there is still some interesting stuff in that article they haven't reported here yet, like a James Dean boxed set, as well as digi-book singles of all three movies, and more.
I guess WB has a lot of extra money to lose by putting out a set like this. I suspect that not even those new to BD would bit on this because of the price when they can just go out and get the titles they want individually cheaper.
It's certainly not unheard of for a studio that is commemorating a major anniversary to release a big box set of films it owns the rights to. It's more a sampling of the many kinds of films owned by a studio. I clearly remember United Artists issuing a huge, expensive box set of DVDs a few years ago with a similar philosophy.
One of the main problems with this set, though, as others have pointed out, is, given the fact that the box is being issued to help celebrate Warner's 90th birthday, it stands to reason that all the films included should have been actually produced/funded by Warner Bros. Pictures itself, using the Warner name and not subsidiary companies. It should not include films from New Line Cinema (e.g., The Lord of the Rings trilogy).
Nor should it include films that were produced by other studios, such as Metro Goldwyn Mayer, RKO Radio Pictures or the David O. Selznick studio and acquired later by Warner (and there are many such films on that list). The WB has made enough films to be able to easily come up with fifty of its own films for such a release.
I already own nearly all the films in this set that I would be interested in owning.
Come to think of it, I'd drop NBK and replace it with JFK.
The Hangover with Deliverance
Harry Potter 1 with Beetlejuice
The Bodyguard with The Searchers
Sherlock Holmes with Led Zeppelin's The Song Remains The Same
The Departed with The Shawshank Redemption
I've been collecting blu-rays for less than a year, so if only the price were less than 300 it would be tempting, but perhaps I
should be glad it's priced so high I will save my money for individual releases, including stuff not in this set.
I can understand the desire to include recent or relatively recent releases in order to make the collection's scope up to date, but how of Earth can they justify calling The Hangover or Sherlock Holmes among "The Best" of Warner Bros?
Leaving aside the quibble or whether they should include the acquired MGM and RKO libraries, it seems odd that they aren't using this set as an excuse to finally bring some of their other classic catalog films to Blu-ray. Like The Big Sleep, To Have and Have Not, Captain Blood, The Sea Hawk, Scaramouche, The Asphalt Jungle, A Night at the Opera, The Band Wagon, any of the Astaire/Rogers films, at least one of the Val Lewton horror films.