Robert Harris on The Bits - 12/22/04 column - OFFICIAL THREAD (1 Viewer)

[Haggai]

Has that been announced, or even rumored? I haven't seen a thing about a Chinatown re-release.

 

[Steve...O]

Paramount is fully deserving of their #2 ranking in my opinion. They have done a superb job with the majority of their releases and have done an admirable job in making them available to the masses at a very reasonable price.

They, along with Universal, trailed only Warner in my personal rankings this year.

There is no controversy in regards to Criterion. They serve their market very well, and they should be proud of their work. It is no shame to be in the top 5.

Steve

 

[Felix Martinez]

First of all...great column, as always, Mr. Harris. And I agree with you. Two Uni titles that I personally feel need proper re-releases are the wonderful "Somewhere In Time" and the intense "Sorcerer."

Cheers,

 

[rich_d]

Simply my guess based on a oh so familiar trend:

Last month it had its 30th anniversary screening in L.A. in a soldout event where a newly struck 35 mm print was shown. Most of the people involved with the production made the event (that is, those who are allowed in this country). Reports were that the print looked wonderful.

The current disc's (after years of being a pretty pricey single disc offering) price dropped like a rock this year.

 

[John Hodson]

While I can't help but agree with that, my perception is that Paramount is slowly improving (certainly in terms of transfer quality) while Universal is simply tossing out product with little care and no affection - and Universal is just as guilty in R2 as in R1.

 

[widescreenforever]

and Columbia Sony Pictures really dropped the ball earlier this year by releasing a special edition of ANNIE in DTS, but in full frame only, for this 2.35:1 Panavision film.
Very very disappointed.

 

[Robert Harris]

To John Hodson...

I was referrring, not to the classic films actually owned by Parmount, but rather, to their pre-1949 sound library, which is held by Universal.

Paramount is doing a yeoman-like job of mining their own vaults.

RAH

 

[Matt Butler]

RAH,
I couldnt agree more about your post re: Universal re-releasing their current titles over again instead of focusing on issuing something new.

Where the hell is a proper release of The Sting or The Deer Hunter?



Remind me of what film youre thinking of?

 

[widescreenforever]

Has to be ..Godfather Part Two

 

[Michael Elliott]

SEs of THE DEER HUNTER, THE STING and many others are coming next year according to a thread at DVDTalk.

Here's the way I look at it. I think us fans of older films have become spoiled due to the brilliant work Warner is doing. As we've discussed on other threads, there's a very good chance a lot of these older films will never be released by the majors because they simply aren't going to sell enough copies. With that in mind, I think Universal is doing a great thing by packaging these classics together and selling them because it means people will do more blind buys.

24 Abbott and Costello films for around $60. As a die hard fan, I would pay $30 for each of those 24 films but if Universal did that, there goes the majority of the blind buys and they aren't going to sell as many copies. In other words, not enough copies would be sold so we wouldn't get these films released. Pricing them cheap will mean they will sale. In some ways, Warner is also doing this with their boxed sets but we still haven't seen anything "smaller" so to speak. I bought the FRANCIS set because it was $15 and a good price to try the series out. I wouldn't have paid $15 a movie, which is the price for one Warner, Fox or whoever else's titles.

For whatever reason, Fox has already said they are not going to release their Charlie Chan films because they wouldn't sell good enough. I personally think it's due to other issues but if they really feel these things won't sell then they should do exactly what Universal is doing. Throw 4-6 films in a set and price it at $20. Fans will buy these and it will get blind buys.

It would be great if every studio treated their classic films like Warner but for whatever reason, they aren't. I would much rather have those 24 A&C films looking the way they do than to not have them at all. And again, I think we are getting a bit spoiled because even if those A&C films aren't "Warner quality", they're still looking very good and better than before. If Warner quality is an "A+" and everyone else is a "B", would you rather have no product or that "B" product?

 

[John Hodson]

Depends on whether that 'B' product is at least in the correct AR...

 

[Michael Elliott]

Discussing the classics, I think Universal has released their older films 1.33:1, which is correct.

I might take a beating for this but I'd take an open matte disc over nothing as well.

 

[John Hodson]

Michael, I think you know what I'm referring to; Colossus is old enough to be given 'classic' status. Your point, presumably, on Charley Varrick is moot, but I also thought their treatment of the Oscar winning Missing was a downright shame (and, yes, we do have it on DVD in the correct AR, but it deserved so much more...)

To name but three...

 

[Robert Harris]

1974 was a typo which should have read 1973.

The film referred to is The Sting.

And again to Mr. Hodson...

Charley Varrick was released on laserdisc in wide screen. The new DVD must be derived from a cable or TV master. Could this be NBC having its way with the studio?

As Universal was an early adopter of wide screen, this doesn't make sense.

 

[Michael Elliott]

John, I actually wasn't refering to either of those titles. Why Universal would do that to them is beyond me but if I was a fan, I would consider getting them.

To me, in the end the main thing is the movie and I personally can't say I'm going to boycott a favorite movie of mine just because the DVD isn't what I wanted. We grew up watching these films a certain way and I can continue to watch them that way if there isn't a better release. I bought five "open matte" titles this year. 3 DEATH WISH films from MGM and 2 POLICE ACADEMY movies from Warner. I didn't care for the PA but bought the box but the DW films are among my favorites. Since I enjoy the movies I bought them even though they weren't widescreen.

The same with non-anamorphic. I broke down and bought VERTIGO yesterday because I wanted to see the movie again. If a better version comes along then I'll buy that too.

Artisan/Republic/Lions Gate released some classics earlier in the year, which looked from fair to downright horrid. I personally wouldn't tell anyone NOT to buy them if they were a fan and since it's doubtful we'll see a re-release. THE COURT MARTIAL OF BILLY MITCHELL was non-anamorphic 2.35:1 but the picture quality was the worst I had ever seen from a major, a mid-major or a public domain label.

 

[John Hodson]

I would consider buying non-anamorphic or, under protest, open-matte transfers of films I love. I would never consider buying p&s transfers of 'scope films - film is by it's very nature a visual medium and if it's not 'scope you are missing part of the story, like reading a novel with every other page missing.

I watched a 16:9 broadcast of Hell in the Pacific the other night; Boorman's wonderful 'scope film was ripped apart. I've said this before and I'll say it again - we put up with this rubbish and they'll simply feed us more of it.

 

[Matt Butler]

Thank Christ!!

 

[ArthurMy]

Two things: It's fine to throw many kudos to Criterion, who did some great things this year (none greater than Eyes without a Face, which was unmentioned in this article), but the restoration of M had nothing whatsoever to do with them. Their disc looks a bit better than the Eureka region 2 DVD, but both were derived from the same restoration which, again, cannot be credited to Criterion.

Thing two - which also has to do with Criterion - your list includeds Godard's A Woman is a Woman - I don't know what went wrong or where it went wrong but something went wrong because the entire transfer borders on being completely out of focus. It certainly wasn't that way in the theater and it's not that way on the unrestored clips in the extras. No, I'd have to put that on my botches of the year list.

Also, Columbia put out many more "classics" than are listed.

 

[Patrick McCart]

It was one of the first Techniscope films, so that may explain why it looks that way.

ADD:

Wouldn't the original prints be dye-transfer, too? This could explain for "sharpness" missing in newer prints.

 

[ArthurMy]

Well, I saw it when it was first released and it sure didn't look out-of-focus or soft then. And again, the clips in the various documentaries, although crappy-looking in terms of color and wear, certainly look sharper than what's on view in the "restoration".