Please let this be wrong!

How reliable is this site?

So far every release in the Studio Classics line has been in OAR.

Of course, most of them are pre-1950 films, too.

I only have two in this series, The Day The Earth Stood Still and The Mark Of Zorro. However, I intend to buy more as this series has some great films in it. I really want My Darling Clementine.

I just got that one this week. What a great film!

I'm seeing most of these for the first time - and so far 9/10ths of them have been great great movies, deserving of the "classics" title.

I'm glad I've been picking them all up. Even the not-so-great entries (like Titanic) were still pretty entertaining.

The Grapes of Wrath came out yesterday. A word of warning about the Canadian edition at least. At first sight, the majority of the promised Special Features do not appear on side A of the disc. That is because they are "hidden" on Side B, which is not indicated on the Side A menu and which is not marked on Side B of the disc itself. At first, I thought I had been gypped by a low-cost Canadian edition where they had forgotten to remove the description of the features on the packaging. But I was wrong - everything is really there (including a Biography Special 45 min documentary on D.F. Zanuck), only poorly marked. [As you may or may not know, some Canadian editions skimp on the special features, while others actually give you more than the US edition.]

There is no Canadian edition. All R1 Fox Studio Classics discs are the same in both the U.S. and Canada.

Many of the FSC discs are single-sided, dual layered. About a third of them, mostly those that have a lot more extras, are double-sided to handle all of the extra features. This is a GOOD thing.

Personally I'd prefer two discs to a flipper, but at least the feature appears intact on Side A. They don't hide the extra features - but you have to read the tiny writing on the ring.

And of course, they list all of the special features on the back of the case.

Besides, if a DVD is double-sided (shiny on both sides), you can pretty much assume there's content on both sides. That's usually the case.

My point was that there is NO WRITING AT ALL ON THE SIDE B RING and that the Special Features menu on Side A doesn't say what it SHOULD say, namely: See other features on Side B.

I've got The Day the Earth Stood Still and All About Eve, and will be picking up a copy of The Grapes of Wrath.

By the way, if you go to the website -- http://www2.foxhome.com/studioclassics/ -- and roll your mouse over "More Studio Classics," a pop-up will appear with pictures of the movies in the series. Roll your mouse over those pictures, and you can learn that the collection includes that lost classic: The Ghost of Mrs. Muir. rotfl

Remember, boys, there is a difference between collecting and accumulating.

Meaning what? Again, ProfessorEcho, you are denegrating someone else's DVD collecting.

The Grapes of Wrath is generally considered one of the finest films of all time, and it's the film that made Henry Ford a star.

The new DVD features an excellent presentation of the film, with a great transfer and lots of supplemental material and documentaries.

What's your problem, dude?

I'm watching The Grapes of Wrath right now and the restoration (not to mention the fake stereo sound) is making my jaw hit the coffee table every five minutes or so. When I think of the time I spent over the years convincing friends that this is one of the most important films ever made (right after The Childhood of Maxim Gorky) when the only evidence supporting this contention at the time was the usual ratty copy with scratchy sound generally available at your local repertory cinema... I could scream!

I didn't find the remastered sound to be too bad - the old soundtrack, as you mentioned, was in pretty bad shape. They re-master old soundtracks in 5.1 all the time - a pleasing stereo track is hardly cause for complaint from me (although I suppose purists will be upset).

The fact is that The Grapes of Wrath both looks and sounds better than it ever has before in a home video format. I'm glad they pushed this title back nine months and used the better elements - their hard work and extra time really paid off in my estimation. :up:

Jough, this is the last time I will ever be responding to anything you write, so from here on in, you're on your own. Good Luck.

Nowhere on my post did I mention THE GRAPES OF WRATH. The comment, obviously, had to do with buying a series of DVDs for reasons other than wanting the films themselves, e.g. spine numbers, similar packaging, the mere fact that it's released as a series, etc. This, in my opinion, is not COLLECTING, it's ACCUMULATING.

If all my posts are proving to be so obscure, why don't you simply IGNORE THEM AND ME. Please.

P.S. It's a cheap shot, but you've taken them at me, so I'm not above reminding you that Henry Ford never starred in movies, he manufactured automobiles.

So when someone only buys stamps that he founds beautiful that would be COLLECTING, while getting complete series of stamps would make someone a stamp ACCUMULATOR?

I believe the proper expression is "completist".:D

About Grapes Wrath...
 

I wasn't complaining about the sound. I was just amazed by it. The ersatz stereo fills the front perspective very nicely while even the original mono comes out sturdy and clear as a bell and very acceptable on its own.

Somehow, I think I'll manage.

Well, who's doing that? These are some great films.

And despite your desire to re-invent English, even if someone bought them all to complete their collection, it would be COLLECTING, not accumulating.

See, to collect in this context means "To accumulate as a hobby or for study."

To accumulate means "To mount up; increase." It comes from the Latin cumulus, meaning "heap."

Obscure? I don't think you meant that word - but you have, after all, addressed me directly, and your claims are somewhat ludicrous. I'll make you a deal, though - if you stop posting ridiculous replies, I'll stop responding to them to set the record straight.

Oops. Yes, I somehow blended actor Henry Fonda and the director, John Ford, there, somehow.

Well, I still say that John Fonda is a hell of an actor anyway. ;)

Perhaps "completist" is a better word, but, yes, if someone buys something they don't specifically have use for and don't want, beyond fulfilling some arbitrary standards set by someone or something else, to me that is accumulating, not collecting. To buy a DVD from a series just to complete the series and put it on a shelf, but never watch it, is, in my opinion, accumulating. It's also obssessive-compulsive and anal, but that's another story. In any case, why let Fox or Criterion and or any other company tell you what you should have on your shelf. You are, one hopes, no longer a child collecting marbles. The argument about stamps and coins and baseball cards does not apply because there is value attributed to having complete sets in those and other hobbies. The inherent value of most DVDs will not increase simply because you have every one from a series. In fact, once the technology changes, which it will, how proud are you going to be to have all those unwatched DVDs in your now worthless collection? So be an adult, make your own decisions and don't be sucked in by a good marketing campaign.

Who said anything about never watching it? Why are you so obsessed with other people's collecting habits?

I'm just here to collect movies I like. If I end of acquiring a whole series along the way then so be it; which is something I don't see happening. I gave up trying to be a completist with hobbies back when I was 19 or 20.

I would like to check out the Fox Studio Classics series in its entirity eventually. Most of the reviews are fairly positive in regards to the films and content.

Again, the rest of the English-speaking world would disagree here. You can make up whatever meanings to words you'd like, but if you intend on trying to engage other people in meaningful debate (although I don't think this is actually your intention) you should probably learn the right words.

You seem to be getting awfully upset by:

a) something that has absolutely nothing to do with you, and
b) something that NO ONE DOES.

It seems you think that everyone on this forum is a moron (and there are certainly enough posts to back that up - I'm looking at you, Other Forum ;) ).

Who said that they were buying DVDs to complete a series and never watch or enjoy the movies? You're putting words in other people's mouths, making a simplistic argument based on absolutely NOTHING, and making yourself look very very foolish in the process.

Why try to stir up an argument for a problem that doesn't exist except in your own mind? And even if people wanted to buy DVDs to use as skeet - what's it to you? Why do you care so much about other people's buying/collecting/spending habits?

Talk about obsessive compulsive!

Don't be hatin'!

Thank god you're here to teach us all how to make our own buying decisions. I can't believe we all bought all of those discs just to accumulate them up until now!

THANK YOU, PROFESSOR ECHO! :D

I'm sure this was said in jest, at least I hope it was, but I chose to respond to it, first in a humorous way, then in a serious way. A few of the posts at the beginning of this thread made mention that they were considering buying the entire series, but probably wouldn't since all the titles weren't ones they were interested in. I was inspired by that to remind folks, equally in jest, that there is a difference between collecting and accumulating. I then elaborated on it and admitted "completing" was probably a better word. There were no accusations or personal attacks, other than the ones readers chose to see in it. It was my opinion and the last time I checked, opinions were still allowed on these boards. To those of you who consistently disagree with mine, why on earth do you continue to read them?

Because, as a "completist", I like to read ALL the posts in a thread, no matter who posts them (to follow the discussion). However, when certain comments are made, it basically compells someone to reply (like what I am doing here).

I'm all for free speech, which means you get to say what you want to say, but others also get to respond to what you say, without any incrimination for doing so.

BTW - I have over 5,000 DVDs, quite a few of which are "accumulations" granted because I haven't watched them yet, but I plan to see them all someday. Because of that I think of myself as a DVD collector, although I do not have any "completist" collections like all the Criterions, or all the New Line platinum discs, etc., although, I do kind of wish I did, for a few reasons.

Those reasons are: A) I teach film (college professor). B) I do film research. C) I hate renting. D) When friends come over, it is nice to let them choose whatever they want to watch. Their tastes might be different from mine, but I'm willing to watch anything, as I do have very eclectic tastes. Not that I'm undiscerning when it comes to movies. However, I recognize not all movies are going to be great, but for me that does not mean I should not own a movie just because I thought it was so so.

Thanks everyone for the heads up on Sunrise in this series. I saw the package deals at Costco but didn't get them. I purchased only one DVD in this series so far, Song of Bernadette because a friend of mine who is catholic suggested I watch it. I'm now trying to get Sunrise off of eBay, before the price soars up to high. I also want to get most of the movies in this series eventually. :)

I will not make a special effort ot collect FSC, no, but I am trying to collect all Best Picture Award winners, and some of them are indeed FSC, so there is some crossover, but it is not intentional.

In general, I like to watch vintage cinema, so I could easily see picking some of these up, but it most certainly isn't because of a number on the spine.