It's Christopher Reeve, not Reeves. (many people do this, no doubt mixing up the surname with the first actor to play Superman on TV, George Reeves).

Perhaps they're going by the general release date. It premiered at the Globe Theater in New York on December 20, 1946 but went on general release on January 7, 1947:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_a_Wonderful_Life#Critical_response

but as also stated on that page: "The film was supposed to be released in January 1947, but was moved up to December 1946 to make it eligible for the 19th Academy Awards held in March 1947"

However, a 75th anniversary Blu-ray was released last year on November 16th 2021:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Its-a-Wonderful-Life-Blu-ray/299659/

So I guess both years (1946 and 1947) are 'correct' depending on your interpretation. I'd be inclined to go with the 1946 premiere date though because that was when some of the public first saw it.

It was originally released on December 20th 1946 so the 75th anniversary was December 20th 2021. :)

Vertigo
Black Swan
Shutter Island
Memento
A Beautiful Mind
The Machinist

Groundhog Day
Field of Dreams
The Shawshank Redemption
It's a Wonderful Life
Klaus (animated, 2019)
How the Grinch Stole Christmas (animated, 1966)

A Few Good Men
JFK

The Mothman Prophecies

The Changeling (1980) - not to be confused with the totally unrelated movie 'Changeling' starring Angelina Jolie

The Woman in Black (1989) - British TV movie, not the later adaptation starring Daniel Radcliffe

A movie should be as long as it needs to be (within reason) in order to properly tell the story, whether that's 90 minutes (or less) or 180 (or more). So nothing important cut out to shorten the running time and no padding added to lengthen it.

I fully agree with what you say. And regarding this part:

> I read online that Warner Bros planned to start phasing out DVDs and blurays this year in the process of going completely digital.

One thing worth noting is that when you stream a movie (or TV show) it's very heavily compressed.

With Blu-rays (for example) there is still some compression but the video and audio quality is still a lot higher and because of this the data takes up a lot more space - the average movie is usually somewhere between 30 to 40GBytes on a standard Blu-ray, while 4K will of course be even larger.

If studios start going down the 'streaming only' route (so no physical media at all) you can bet they'll still use very heavy compression; this wouldn't be so bad if they let people legally download purchased content using the same kind of compression that your average movie on Blu-ray is subjected to, but you can bet your bottom dollar that this likely won't happen, or if it does it will be on a very limited scale.

Using the above example digital only is bad if you want the best audio and visual quality, even more so if you have a large 4K TV.

And then of course you have movies that are stuck in 'streaming only jail' - two examples of this are the war movie 'Greyhound' starring Tom Hanks and the excellent Christmas animated movie 'Klaus'. The former is stuck with Apple TV+ and the latter with Netflix. I'd love to buy these on Blu-ray but I can't. There's piracy of course (which I don't indulge in) but even then the pirated versions will only be rips from the lower quality streams.

The customer is losing out, as so often happens.