Most Liked Content

The only problem though, and what unfortunately keeps this thing ongoing is that I have simply heard no credible explanation as to why Sony can on the one hand agree to do a restoration" of the compromised cut but somehow it's beyond their capacity to create a master of the extended cut with the original score.    And now a further excuse is that those of us who simply want this for our *home* viewing experience must be denied it beacuse this isn't how its presented theatrically now.    That would seem to imply that if Sony had been asked to provide the seamless branching offer during the whole delay period as opposed to going back and doing a restoration job  on the other viersion of the film that is no longer satisfactory from a viewing standpoint, they could have easily done it but for the fact that Mr. Redman and company clearly do not like the idea of letting others see the extended cut with the original score.    

What seems to be keeping this "thing" ongoing is you.  You've made the same point in how many posts now?  Seriously  And Sony nor anyone else owes you any "credible" explanation for anything.  What is or is not beyond their capacity is not known by you and frankly it's their business - they make those decisions and not you.  They own the film.  They own both cuts.  For "purists" - well, a purist would not want to watch the extended cut because it was not done by Mr. Peckinpah - it is its own thing, whatever one thinks of it.  For "purists" the theatrical cut with its original score is being offered here.  Again, what Sony could have "easily" done or not done is their business - you have no idea what their decisions are based on, but the decisions reside with them and they owe no one any explanation about anything.  Whatever Mr. Redman prefers or doesn't prefer, he is not running Sony and had they wanted to include a version of the extended cut with the Amfitheatrof they would have.  They didn't.  That's kind of the end of the story, isn't it?  Is there really a need to have another three pages of posts about it?  Nick has come here and explained - he didn't have to.  Thank him for doing so, and I'd say it's time to move on.  Just my two centimes.

This thread has been taking odd twists and turns.

The facts:

Shane was designed and produced as a 1.37 production.

Its release was delayed, and in the interim, the studios, which were up against a new competitor, and a free one at that, created the concept of wider and larger screens, in the hope of warding off TV.

Both wider and larger screens had existed before, but this was a new marketing push.

Shane, an extraordinary film, happened to be either in the right or wrong place at the time.  It was an unfortunate test case, that was cropped to fit a new aspect ratio.  What needs to be understood, is that Shane not only survived, and won kudos, not because of the wider aspect ratio, but rather, in a testament to the film's quality -- in spite of it.

Paramount has supported some superb work on Shane, from a 4k scan, to a new digital recombine and color.

The original scans were cropped to the proper aspect ratio, which is 1.37.  Concurrent with that data, a crop was also performed to 1.66.

The purpose of that crop, which was performed with the greatest respect toward the original, was to allow the film to be seen by the largest possible audience, while helping to pay for the restorative efforts, which come with a hefty price tag.

As I understand the situation, the 1.66 master was created and dedicated toward broadcast, while the 1.37 was destined for DCP and home video.

Why a 1.66 master was delivered for Blu-ray is an interesting question.  I choose to think of it as an possible delivery error.

When the 1.66 information initially came to light, no entity stood their ground, or was unwilling to discuss the situation.  Wheels were moving to try and solve the problem.  There were no wagons being formed into a circle.

Mr. Wells and Hollywood Elsewhere, came to the defense of the film, and created huge public awareness.  After that, things moved very quickly to correct the situation.

The bottom line, as I now understand it, is that there was never an actual planned intent to release a Blu-ray in any other ratio than 1.37.

Was the incorrect master shipped?  Was there a communication failure?

I have no idea.  All that is known, as absolutes, is that two masters were prepared, for two different purposes, and somehow, things went off track.  While it would have been interesting to see the film, lovingly maneuvered, shot by shot at 1.66, which was not as released in 1953, I'm thrilled that we'll receive a proper 1.37, as envisioned by the filmmakers in 1951.

Will I tune in when the film finds its way to broadcast?  Absolutely.  I'm interested in seeing something close to the widescreen release, and how it has been handled.

As to the missing dialogue, I've also received confirmation of a fix during re-records for the preservation project, based upon the DME.

RAH

"Two Donkeys In Poland" a.k.a "The William Friedkin Story"

 

**PLEASE READ WITH DISCRETION--ADULT CONTENT**

 

 

All right, without further ado, The William Friedkin Story, a.k.a. “Two Donkeys In Poland”.

 

First, a bit of background. I’m a filmmaker. Or, I should say, I was a filmmaker; now I’m a teacher—I teach screenwriting at the University of British Columbia. Way back when, in the beginning of my career (late ‘80s early ‘90s), I went to film school at NYU (Tisch), back when there were, really, only two primary film schools of note, USC and NYU, three if you count UCLA’s grad program at the time. Consequently, NYU would arrange for us to have some amazing guest lectures, screenings, previews, etc.

 

While I attended NYU, I was also a teaching assistant. This allowed me to get into every guest lecture or screening, regardless of my program. We would regularly screen movies well before their release, presented by their director. One of those screenings was a screening with William Friedkin, where he showed his then upcoming film The Guardian. Being that it was Friedkin, EVERYONE at NYU wanted to show up, but it was limited to about 40 of us, all packed into a small screening room.

 

One more thing you need to know to make this story ‘work’. NYU’s film school had a reputation—and it was (and probably still is) exclusive. Meaning that, at the time, the film program, particularly if you were whittled down to direct anything, was very small compared to programs today—and these directing majors were the folks in the room. Add to that the fact that so many Hollywood luminaries had come through NYU’s gates (Scorcese, Spike Lee, Oliver Stone, etc.) and that there was a bit of a sense that we were all in a bit of a Hollywood ‘farm team’ environment and you may get what is at the core of this story: complete and utterly misguided hubris of the sort that only folks in their twenties, with a little bit of knowledge, can possess. (For example, I myself would soon win a fellowship from Warner Bros. that paid for my thesis film and gave me a job in Hollywood—so, you know, the signals were easy to misinterpret by even the most level-headed of us.)

 

Okay, here we go.

 

Friedkin comes into the room and he walks in like he owns the place, all charisma, SoCal charm and swagger—and friendly as hell. Great stuff. He sets up his film, The Guardian, and talks a bit about what he was going for, how they’re still working out the bugs, but this is a decent enough cut for us to see, blah, blah, blah. Anyway, he screens the thing and then, afterward, he answers some questions.

 

Things are going as expected, the usual questions about technique in the film we just saw, some about French Connection and The Exorcist, etc. Then it happens.

 

Someone in the back of the room says this:

 

“Mr. Friedkin, I’m sure you’re aware that we are all directing majors and that this is NYU—we all have a bright future ahead of us.”

 

At this moment, my buddy gives me this “WTF?” look and nods in Friedkin’s direction. There was what can only be described as a mischievous smile beginning to form on Friedkin's face. The kid continues:

 

“I guess what I’m asking is this: When we go out to Hollywood—and many of us have already got some offers—how do you go about deciding what project is right for you?”

 

Friedkin now looks genuinely puzzled. And he asks for the kid to ask the question again, pretending that he didn't hear the question. The kid begins repeating the question. Now, remember, this is a small screening room and we’re in a pretty intimate setting—you don’t need to raise your voice to be heard in here. (Remember this.)

 

Anyway, the kid’s about ¾ of the way through his repeating his question when Friedkin cuts him off. “Okay, I think I get what you’re getting at. You guys are the cream of the crop here at what may be the best film program in the world—hell, all sorts of guys have come out of here-Marty, Oliver Stone—and you’re almost out of here, things are happening. Hell, you’ve probably got a film out in the festivals right now—am I right?”

 

Well, the kid couldn’t be happier—Friedkin knows! He’s one of us! There’s hope! And what’s even better, I’m sure the kid was thinking, He’s going to confer on us some inside knowledge, some real deal stuff for us real deals!

 

And that’s when Friedkin goes into ‘Friedkin’ mode. And that’s when I knew that, for the kid, it was all over. Here’s what Friedkin says:

 

“Well, here’s what might happen… uh, sorry, what’s your name?”

 

(Let’s say the kid says, ‘Dave’.)

 

“Okay, Dave. Right. Well, you’ve got a point; you guys have to really start thinking about this, you've got to start getting your shit together. You’ve got your work out there, in festivals, and, here, NYU, and USC, the studios, the big boys, are checking you guys, your stuff out. NYU’s got quite a history of big boys coming out of this program.”

 

Now some of the other knuckleheads in the room are getting on board.

 

“You know, you’re going to go out to L.A. and your going to have a meeting. Dave, you'll have a lot of meetings, sure, but let's say you’re going to have a meeting that might go a little something like this: They’re going to give you a script, Dave. But you know this. You’re going to come out of here and your going to see a lot of scripts. But you’re at a meeting at Universal for this one, at the lot. And this one’s the one, man. I mean the picture's on the studio's Christmas release schedule. This is big stuff. Here’s how the script starts, Dave:

 

It opens up in the clouds. Nothing but clouds, a perfect shot taken from IN the clouds, Dave—but that’s okay; beautiful credits are over these pillows of loveliness, Dave. Your credit, directed by… what’s your last name, Dave?”

 

He tells him.

 

“Great. And now we’ve got a big swell of music, Dave, right on the ‘Directed By’—which is your name, Dave. And you know whose music it is? John f%$#@n Williams, that’s who—the best. Like I said, Christmas release. And now, now, Dave, we come out of the clouds…"

 

He makes this moving shot gesture with his hands, his face oohing and aahing, at the shot he’s composing in front of us.

 

“And now we see them, Dave. Our main characters. They’re small—just dots, just dots on the horizon, a green horizon—a beautiful, green meadow in Poland, Dave.

 

And now the camera comes down—one of those perfect helicopter shots, just like that opening of The Sound of Music—you know the one.

 

And now, Dave, now we see what’s happening, we see our stars.”

 

And Dave and the rest of the chumps are hanging on every syllable now—who are the stars, they wonder? Bruce Willis? Eastwood? Meryl Streep?

 

“Two donkeys, Dave. Two big-ass, donkeys. And you know what they’re doing? They are f%$ing Dave, like no two donkeys have ever f$#%ed in the history of the world, I mean they are going to town. This is like The Last Tango In Paris of donkey movies.”

 

Well, finally, it dawns on Dave and company. It’s over.

 

“You still with me, Dave?”

 

Nothing. All we can hear is the air-conditioning.

 

Friedkin’s fired up now. “And this scene goes on, Dave, and on—for six pages! You look through the damn thing—all 137 pages—and you see that the whole thing is one donkey f%$# scene tied to another! And then the executive asks you, Well, whatta ya think? You want the job? We shoot in six weeks.”

 

Friedkin walks up the aisle a bit, gets poor Dave in his sights… and then lets in with:

 

“You know what you say, Dave?”

 

Dave says nothing. Wishing, no doubt, that he could just disappear.

 

Then Friedkin lowers his voice and says: “This is what you say, Dave…

 

YES! HOLY CHRIST, YES! I’M YOUR GUY! I’M YOUR TWO DONKEYS F%^$%ING IN POLAND GUY! I’VE BEEN WAITING TO SHOOT, FINALLY, A REAL EASTERN EUROPEAN DONKEY F$%#-FEST PICTURE FOR MY WHOLE MISERABLE LIFE. YES, YES, YES! JEZUZ ON A POGO STICK, YES, I’LL TAKE IT!”

 

He walks back down to the front and then says: “Dave—or any of you—if anyone, ANYONE, graces you with a job offer to clean the f&^%in’ studio bathroom—that’s what you say: YES!”

 

Lesson learned.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't chime in on this kind of subject, but here I feel it is important to clear up some really silly misconceptions about this film and its new score. Over the years, "Jack P," an alias, has seen fit to bash me personally, and now by extension Twilight Time, for ruining a film that this poster doesn't really have that much interest in -- he is only really concerned with the ethics, or lack thereof, involved in taking the radical step to replace the music in a then 40 year old film. So let's start with some basic facts:

 

In 2004, Paul Seydor, Garner Simmons, David Weddle and I were asked to record an audio commentary for the film. During the course of the commentary (carried over on the Blu-ray) some negative comments were made about the score and in particular Sam P's long, and enduring hatred of it.

As a result, Sony made the unprecedented decision to engage a composer to write a completely new score for the "extended version" (which Daniele Amfitheatrof had not scored) to perhaps better represent what the director's original intentions were. As we know, the "extended version" is not a director's cut, but an approximation of what Peckinpah may, or may not, have preferred.

 

Some vigorous discussions about "revisionist" thinking ensued, but Sony engaged a young composer, Christopher Caliendo, with whom they had previously worked to handle the assignment. Paul Seydor and I were asked by the studio to consult with the composer, and give him background history on the project in an effort to guide him. This had been his biggest job to date--the schedule was tight, the budget small (isn't it always?) and there was no time to dilly-dally. The decision was made, and the studio machinery was now grinding. Caliendo spent all of the Christmas holidays furiously penning the new music, and the score was recorded in Jan 2005, to make an April theatrical run. I attended the recording sessions, and subsequently co-produced with Christopher a soundtrack CD of his music.

 

When the DVD was released in Summer 2005 as a single-disc, it was stressed that as it was not going to include the original theatrical cut as a bonus, it was deemed essential to not ditch Amfitheatrof's score, even though technically it had no place in the "extended version" -- to lose it altogether would have been an historical tragedy, so a seamless-branching option was provided to give viewers a "choice." It was a less-than satisfactory option as two title cards had to be prepared and it created the "neither fish nor fowl" effect of being an awkward hybrid. However, it was the only thing possible at the time. Christopher Caliendo had been put in a difficult position because his work, whether one likes it or not, was always going to court controversy and he would be at the center of an enduring argument about how fundamentally right or wrong is it to "tamper" with an artwork after the fact. Appreciating how much of a no-win situation this was for Christopher, a couple of years later I was instrumental in hiring him to score John Ford's silent epic, "The Iron Horse" for Fox (along with some other Ford silents), for which he deservedly received world-wide acclaim.

 

Now the Blu-ray:

 

Back in 2005 it never occurred to us that we would again be involved in a release of the title, least of all on our own fledgling label. Sony has done an incredible job of remastering the "extended version," even going so far to correct some errors in the 2005 dub which had been rushed due to time constraints. Here, reel-by-reel, the dub has been evaluated and subtly improved. The PQ, as is typical for Sony, is outstanding. But here's the rub: the brand-new Blu-ray master only contains the Caliendo score, and there are no awkward seamless--branching options. Instead, for the first time on a digital format the original theatrical cut has been remastered in all its slightly shorter glory, complete with the original score as it should be. And it has been isolated for the enjoyment of those who want to hear it apart from the film. CC's score is isolated on the "extended version." We believe this presentation is true to history, and that most Peckinpah fans will accept this as a fair compromise. We are well aware that not everyone will be (Hello, "Jack P!") and that in no scenario is everyone happy. But it's important to remember that the world is made up of a million decisions made in micro-seconds and that not all are the right ones. But most agree that given all the confounding possibilities, things come out even in the wash more often than not.

 

All best,

 

Nick Redman

I agree that the show never took the conservative side of a political issue, but Mike as an individual is shown to be hypocritical in his politics several times. His response to the women's movement is portrayed as not only disgraceful, but potentially indicative of a callousness on the part of male liberal leaders in general.

He is also taken to task in Games Bunkers Play and Edith Writes a Song for generalizing about black people and taking a condescending attitude to them. Later, in Mike's Move, his ideals about affirmative action don't pass the test of his real life experience.

Like Maude the series, AITF does embrace the liberal political viewpoint. But like Maude Findlay, Mike Stivic is often shown as not living up to his philosophy. And it's more than just him being personally arrogant; he really does come down on what the show sees as the wrong side of several issues.

Also, Archie is never proven right (at least from his starting point) on any political issue, but Archie is sometimes allowed to be morally superior. In Oh Say Can You See and Amelia's Divorce (among others), his old-fashioned loyalty, fidelity, and sense of responsibility are celebrated in contrast to the decaying values around him.

On the other hand, the implication that the Nelsons didn't even have a toilet in their house was pretty unrealistic, don't you think?

 

And by the way, as great as you think the Nelsons were, do you know what Ricky Nelson was up to in real life?  He didn't live the values you admire, that's for sure.

 

Who cares if the Nelsons' toilet was never used for comedy? Scatalogical humor is among the lowest forms of comedy. For the most part, movies and TV shows don't dwell on the unsavory aspects of life, like bodily excretions, menstruation and jock itch. We all know those things exist; but most generally don't find them "entertainment".

 

As to "Nelson Family Values" and Ricky Nelson's private life, you are confusing reality with heightened reality. O & H represents those old fashioned values. It does not mean they were paragons of virtue in real life. Bing Crosby represents Americana to a lot of people, but it appears he was rather cruel to his sons in real life.

 

What constitutes comedy or "funny" is extraordinarily subjective. What provokes gales of laughter in some may provoke crickets chirping for others. For example, I have never found Robin Williams to be funny. I didn't like him on Mork and Mindy. Don't like his movies (Mrs. Doubtfire is excruciatingly unfunny to me), didn't like his "guy-on-coke-stream-of-conciousness" style of stand-up. The only thing I ever liked of his was the voice of the Genie in Aladdin. But, I daresay he has had a successful career, so I am swimming against the tide on that one.

 

In terms of collecting TV shows and movies, comedy is my least favorite genre. After awhile, even stuff that I find funny is no longer funny because the jokes become stale (like Buck Barrow's "don't sell that cow" joke from Bonnie and Clyde). The only comedies I watch with regularity are silent comedies. For some reason, the well constructed sight gags of the great silent clowns still make me laugh.

Which all begs a fairly obvious question.  Why on earth would anyone trust any information from the studios about correct aspect ratios for the next few years?

Bob, your research has shown beyond any doubt the very clear fact the the studios were almost entirely untrustworthy in regard to the information they passed to the trades papers about the correct aspect ratios for fims.

That's quite leap in logic. Years? After the initial kerfuffle - a matter of months - and the odd, well, oddity, why on earth wouldn't you trust the studios? The studios set the AR agenda, first and last.

I'm baffled as to how you can come to those conclusions. If anything, Bob's research has showed entirely the opposite, surely?

Frank, as the person who coined the "crystal ball" phrase here at HTF when referring to upcoming releases, it was hard for me not to take what you initially wrote personally.  So I just want to go on the record with a couple of things:

 

1) I can only speak for myself when I write this, but God knows it's true.  I don't "get off" on having inside info like someone dangling the proverbial carrot in front of the horse.  I've only written things in the past with the purest of intentions.  It was simply about sharing good news, as best I was able without revealing a source or upsetting a source, with my fellow HTF friends.  And that's all it ever was.  As I said, I can't speak for others who divulge insider info, but my motives were not self-serving.  Ron has said the same thing.

 

2) I've actually stopped being the one to initiate hints any more with what I hear/read from my "crystal balls", in large part, for the very reason Jeff stated above: I'd get flak for it if something didn't materialize as I had hinted.  But the truth is studios do change their plans, on the fly sometimes, and dvds that are on the schedule can and are pulled from time to time.  Recently I've backed up other "crystal ball" hints if I knew them to be true, but that's it.  I'm sticking to my vow from late last year not to initiate such posts anymore.  And after today, I'm probably not even going to back up other hints about upcoming releases.  I'm tired of having my motives and sources questioned when all I ever wanted to do was share good news with my friends here. 

 

 

Gary "thanks to Ron, Travis and Jeff for sharing their thoughts - take care" O.

This place is as good as any to thank Gary OS and the other folks that share the info that they do. I'm sure most of us are happy to get any early news and don't have a sense of entitlement to any more than what they already give.

Funny Girl.

 

I saw the Broadway show a couple of times.  I was working at WB/7 Arts, and used to get house seats from Mr. Stark's office.

 

I saw the film in roadshow release, in a 70mm blow-up.

 

Not a great deal to discuss here, as my thoughts are easy.

 

Funny Girl, the Great William Wyler's only filmed musical of which I'm aware.  Just watch the way that he directs the extraordinary Walter Pidgeon.

 

There are probably half a dozen truly great filmed musicals.  The obvious ones.  Singin' in the Rain, My Fair Lady, Gigi.  While one could add to the list, Funny Girl must be one of them.

 

I've had a 16mm dye transfer print.  Two 35s, one US and the other the original UK roadshow print.

 

I'm going to get personal here, as it's really a necessity.

 

Funny Girl has seen a great deal of use over the years.  It isn't a happy negative.  70mm printing from the original negative was not helpful.  Columbia's Grover Crisp took on the project a dozen years ago, producing dye transfer prints.  The word "restoration" is heavily over-used.  Funny Girl is a true Restoration.

 

Mr. Crisp has now outdone himself.

 

The new Blu-ray of Funny Girl will be one of the most perfect catalog releases of 2013.  Bar none.

 

Color, density, shadow detail, grain structure.  It's all there.  In spades.  David Bernstein was in charge of color for this one.

 

Hat's off!

 

If one doesn't fall for Fanny Brice by the 20 minute mark, either the viewer isn't human or has no heart.

 

The main titles are perfect for the first time on video.  The dark reds are dead on.  The flesh tones, perfect, as are the blacks.

 

One of the greatest musicals of all time.

 

An absolutely perfect Blu-ray release.  This is a thousand dollar Blu-ray at a trifle of that cost.

 

Image - 5 *

 

Audio - 5

 

Extremely Highly Recommended.

 

To borrow a phrase from my friend Mr. Ebert...

 

"Two thumbs up, and they couldn't possibly be held higher!"

 

RAH

 

Note:

 

For those with an interest in the technical, this is a Sony 4k derived release, although not marketed as such.  The quality went in, before the logo went on...

 

Have I made my point?

We're very happy to say this is scheduled on TT for later this year. One of our all-time favorites!

If his explanation remains unsatisfactory, as it did, then he's not going to get my thanks for it.   

 

His explanation was more than satisfactory. That you remain unsatisfied is another matter.

Thanks, Moe, appreciate it. But if one thinks about it logically the "issue" is whether or not the music should ever have been replaced originally...there will always be (legitimate) arguments about whether or not that was the right thing to do. The point is, in 2004, Sony made the decision to re-score the picture for the "extended version," thus forever making the new score a part of that film. When the film is screened theatrically, as it regularly is, are viewers given the choice of which score they should watch it with? Of course not. Paul Seydor, Grover Crisp, and I will be speaking at an upcoming screening of the new DCP at Chapman in Orange County next month, and it will be shown with the Caliendo score. For all intents and purposes, from this point on, that is the music for the "extended version." We completely accept that there are purists who wish that wasn't the case, but rightly or wrongly, that is the case.

 

TT's new Blu-ray could not offer the seamless-branching function of the DVD simply because there is no Amfitheatrof score on the new master. However, we really did feel it was necessary to include the original theatrical cut with the original score, and Sony readily agreed to do the restoration, which they didn't have to do, to make this the best release it could be, considering all of the difficult and complex circumstances.

 

Best,

 

Nick.

It seems to me this has been handled in exactly the way it should have by Twilight Time. They present the original theatrical cut of the film with the original score and they present the extended cut of the film...as Mr. Redman states "not a director's cut"...with the score that was created to give us that alternative version.

 

I don't think it is a matter of which score is better, what matters is the film is presented in the best way possible for both versions that exist. If you forced the original score into the "extended cut" what you really end up with is a third version of the film and one that also would not be Mr. Peckinpah's "director's cut" because no such cut exists. 

 

We have the preserved history now of the theatrical cut and the "extended" version with the score created for it. 

Good, well-rounded comments from FanCollector that I agree with 100%.  I realize AITF is considered a classic sitcom and I respect that many people love the show.  But since it's been on display a bit here over the last day or so it gives me a chance to correct a wrong impression about my personal dislike for the series.  It's absolutely N-O-T all about the Lear worldview factor.  Not even close.  Here are some of the other reasons:

 

1) Anyone that knows me here understands that I don't care for any series, of any genre, that is filled almost exclusively on a sound stage.  AITF does this in spades and it comes off as very claustrophobic, as did all the Lear shows, so they don't appeal to me personally.

 

2) I've never been a fan of the video-taped sitcom.  I much prefer shows that were filmed. 

 

3) Urban settings in sitcoms have never been my thing.  I prefer rural or small town settings.  Again, I think the claustrophobic feel that a lot of small houses jammed together in a neighborhood create has a lot to do with it.  When I'm watching a TV show I don't want to feel walled in.  Just me.

 

4) As mentioned here earlier, the 70's sitcoms seemed to bring a real drab feel with them.  Viscerally, it's a turnoff to me to see the lack of beautiful colors in these shows that were so prevalent in the late 60's sitcoms.

 

5) I just don't like the caustic attitude between the characters.  It seems like they are always fighting or arguing, and that's not something I find entertaining.  It wasn't the way I was raised and I honestly don't care to see it played out on TV.

 

Again, I'm not in any way trying to tear down another poster's favorite show.  I'm only explaining that my general dislike for the Lear sitcoms had a lot more to it than just one particular thing.  For me it was a combination of factors that lead to a perfect storm that was very unappealing.  But we all are different and what one finds unappealing another will find appealing.  That's what makes the world go round. 

 

 

Gary "hang in there, everyone - and have a great day" O.

I sympathise with Frank's post. He has a legitimate concern, looking from
the outside in.

I also read Jeff Willis' response above and an immediate unfortunate memory
came to my head. It was a perfect response about how scenarios go very wrong.

As someone looking somewhat from the inside out, I understand studio secrecy
and how sometimes, when they THEY try to do the right thing, it can go very wrong.

We used to have many studio chats on this forum. In the near future, we hope to
be able to repost the transcripts of the chats we have had over the years in a special
area.

When these live studio chats occurred, members would ask about when their
favorite titles were going to be released. Pending on what studio we were talking
with, they would either be forthright in their response or somewhat cagey.

I remember it was Warner Bros. that decided they would give our forum an exclusive
announcement on an upcoming release. For the life of me, right now I can't recall
what it was. The membership was very excited about the news. However, as does
regularly happen, the studio ran into a snafu that caused them to put that title on the
backburner. When the title failed to be released as promised, the membership here
gave the studio hell. It was if they were promised something and it was taken away.

This is just one of the many reasons why it is almost impossible to get the studios to
do a live chat with us anymore. The membership holds them accountable to every
word they speak. The reality is, plans change for some unseen reason. Sometimes,
the consumer just doesn't understand the reasons why, and if there is too much
information out there already, it causes considerable backlash.

Here's another example...

Warner knew early on that they would release The Bowery Boys to DVD. They
made that announcement here. It took (I am guessing) five years for those discs
to be released. There are valid reasons for that delay, one of which was due to the
changing climate of how classic films were being sold. But the fact that many members
felt that a promise was made to them and nothing was happening, caused a considerable
amount of negative feedback towards the studio.

Let me stop here for a moment and say that anytime anyone gives backlash to
Warner Bros. in this manner, I highly infuriated. They are the one studio that
I feel cares about their library and consumers more than anyone. 

I knew that the studio was still committed to the project. I couldn't really talk about
it other than to try and calm the waters, repeatedly posting things like "be patient, the
studio has not given up on these films." However, anyone from the outside looking in
couldn't even accept my promise that the studio hadn't given up on them.

I can understand why people are reluctant to post "tips" here. Jeff is right on the money
when he says that those persons are held accountable when things don't pan out.

Maybe this better explains all the secrecy. I think there are people here like myself, Gary
and others who are privy to some studio plans, who try and share vague tips when we
are able. It's an attempt to say, "be patient, we are hearing things." At the same time,
it's important to always protect your sources, so that information is going to be very limited.

Frank,

This can be an easy or difficult question to answer because I don't know
who in particular you are citing or what exactly has been said.

Let me try to address your question from my perspective since I am someone
that occasionally will hint at upcoming releases....

The studios keep release information very close to their chests.  It's quite
understandable given the fact that they all compete against each other in
securing optimal dates to release their product.

There are members on this forum that know people in the home entertainment
industry and through conversation with them, learn sensitive data that is
understood should not be shared openly.  What I presume you read from time
to time are these individuals attempting to provide a vague hint about product
that may be related to current discussion.

I have done it from time to time in an attempt to assure members that there
is studio movement on a release they may be concerned about.  When I post
information, it must be as vague as possible to protect the source.

I am somewhat confident that other similar sorts of posts that you read from
members here are being done under the same circumstances.

 deleted

Well, I hope some wise person goes and writes a letter to the editor about these "facts."  It IS sad.

 

Agreed.  So much for printed reference...

 

I believe the Kubrick 2001 point is a simple typo.  His desire was to shoot in 7mm.  Actually 6.5, but prints were to be seven, and played by on very early Apple devices.

 

RAH