Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Film_Fatale

Members
  • Posts

    15,982
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Film_Fatale

  1. I can only guess it's only a matter of time before they're reissued, especially if it also means releasing them on Blu-Ray for the first time. And if they do release BR versions, they'll probably work on new transfers, as well.

     

    Yes, the age of home video can bring occasional frustrations, but do you really think we were better off in the age *before* home video?

  2. You do know that saying something is not available on home video is generally a shorthand way of saying there is no R1 DVD available, right?

     

    I mean I have a multi-region DVD player but I still say it "isn't available" if it hasn't come out on DVD in North America.

  3. > {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}

    > Paramount sold all their back catalog at that time (due to one of their many financial problems) to MCA. Universal was bought by MCA, so that's how they ended up in Universal's "care". They also own the Hitchcock Paramounts through a different deal I think. They are very spotty on releasing old Paramount product, especially anything from the silent era through the 1930s.>>

    >

    > Mndean,

    >

    > Paramount still owns its silent film library as well as its post-1949 film library.

     

    This is part of the reason that I prefer to refer simply to Paramount's film library without having to explain which Paramount films are no longer part of the studio's film library. For the record, Paramount didn't sell every single one of its pre-1949 talkies -- they still own the rights to 1944's *The Miracle of Morgan's Creek*, because when they sold a big chunk of their library it was primarily for TV showings and nobody at that time would have thought the movie could be shown on TV.

     

    This is why I just find it easier to refer to the Paramount film library and hope people in the TCM forums will have at least some idea of which Paramount movies Paramount still owns.

  4. > {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote}

    > Well, no wonder I am so broke...the new Entertainment Merchants Association annual report on the home entertainment industry says that in 2007 there were 12,177 DVD titles released.

     

    Holy guacamole! :0

  5. > {quote:title=mndean4709 wrote:}{quote}

    >

    > Well, maybe, but I hope you're not including any of the pre-1950 Paramounts which are unavailable, because they're all owned by Universal, or to be exact, a Universal-owned entity called EMKA. Paramount sold all their back catalog at that time (due to one of their many financial problems) to MCA. Universal was bought by MCA, so that's how they ended up in Universal's "care". They also own the Hitchcock Paramounts through a different deal I think. They are very spotty on releasing old Paramount product, especially anything from the silent era through the 1930s. They've only released a few things from that era that haven't already been out on VHS, and little of it is shown outside of film festivals. We only occasionally see a Paramount from the '30s on TCM, and it's usually one that Universal has recently released, so the intent is likely to pitch new product. A few of the Asian Images films were old Paramounts, but that's a special series and it's doubtful that during regular programming TCM will be showing any more Paramounts than they have in the past.

     

    When I say Paramount's film library, I mean exactly that: Paramount's film library. By definition, any Paramount movie that is now part of some other entity's film library is *not* a part of Paramount's film library.

  6. > {quote:title=mndean4709 wrote:}{quote}

    > Note that I'm not defending Paramount, but that they're far from the only studio to have let great films rot due to neglect.

     

    But surely you'd agree that Paramount has one of the worst track records when it comes to even trying to make much of its film library available to the public on home video. If they made a bigger effort to do that, then perhaps they could use the profits from DVD sales and TV licensing to fund the preservation of its film library.

  7. Ah, good to have an official confirmation, then.

     

    Another movie that I think had been mentioned before, but without official confirmation until now:

     

    City Lights Home Entertainment and Amazon.com have just announced that Hector Babenco's 1985 film Kiss of the Spider Woman will be released in dual collector's editions on both DVD and Blu-ray Disc on 7/22, both available exclusively at Amazon. The 2-disc DVD (SRP $25.99) and Blu-ray ($27.95) are now available for pre-order, with extras TBA. Already currently available on DVD from Amazon is the Tangled Web: Making Kiss of the Spider Woman documentary (SRP $16.99). It's as yet unclear whether this documentary will be included on either the new DVD or Blu-ray editions. We'll have more information when it's available. Meanwhile, here's the cover art...

  8. Not sure if this has already been mentioned (if it has I forgot about it):

     

    Also, we've gotten official confirmation from the good folks at Kino International that they're planning to release Fritz Lang's Metropolis and Wong Kar-Wai's Fallen Angels in high-definition on the Blu-ray Disc format sometime in 2009. The exact street dates and special features are all still to be determined, so we'll follow up with them over the next few months. But still - good news indeed. Those are terrific titles.

  9. > {quote:title=PrinceSaliano wrote:}{quote}

    > How credible is this article?

     

    Strictly speaking, it's not an article - it's a blog entry. But it's written by Peter Bart, Variety's editor-in-chief for I don't know how many years, and a former Paramount executive himself back in the day. So I think the guy knows what he's talking about in this case. As lzcutter has also said, similar info on the condition of the negative has appeared in other credible sources.

     

    For the record, I won't always agree with Bart on matters strictly of opinion, but when it comes to hard facts about Hollywood, he's more than likely quite well-informed.

  10. > {quote:title=Edgecliff wrote:}{quote}

    > filmlover, its like communicating with a stone wall. I offered this advice some time ago (re synopsis, etc) and this person just goes ahead and does whatever he wants to. By all these postings it looks like CK spends all of his time on these threads.

     

    When a person's sense of self-importance comes from posting tons of redundant and irrelevant information on a bulletin board, perhaps it's best to ignore such a person. If that person showed a sincere desire to engage in intelligent conversation, it would be a much different situation. But under the current circumstances, it's kind of like running into someone in the sidewalk who is constantly screaming at the top of his lungs and trying desperately to get whatever attention he can. If you give such person any attention, you may very well become an enabler.

  11. > {quote:title=MissGoddess wrote:}{quote}

    > I think Newman's music is so beautiful, though I'd heard it in a thousand vaguely South Pacific scenes and cartoons before I ever saw The Hurricane.

     

    I think for the laserdisc release, they included an isolated music track. Or that might be some other movie I'm thinking of, but in any even I agree with you on the music.

  12. > {quote:title=laffite wrote:}{quote}

    > And, of course, it has nothing to do with pleasing people, as some might suggest. It's about accuracy and common sense.

     

    Neither of which you should really expect on the Internet, but at any rate, the obit on the first post is complete.

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...