The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic? (1 Viewer)

[SunnyNoble]

THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1-2-3 has long been a favorite of mine

 

[cineMANIAC]

We're off to a good start - The New York Daily News has given 'Pelham' four stars. I usually trust their opinion. Note to MGM: We don't need a 3-disc Ultimate Edition - just remaster the film a little bit and include the trailer. Most of us will be happy.

 

[Paul.S]

Good to know--thanks. Think I'll go look into getting my tickets for Friday night!

 

[Harry-N]

Yeah - I forgot that important factoid...

Harry

 

[Mike LoMonaco]

If you're referring to the original here, I agree -- no need to go Three Disc Ultimate Edition psycho...just a good, clean transfer and perhaps a multichannel audio mix from the mono...

 

[Mike LoMonaco]

That was an interesting fact that I overlooked -- this Pelham remake is being made by Fox, yes, with the co-production by Scott's Scott Free studio? The original was released by MGM, wasn't it? But wasn't Quantum of Solace released by Columbia/Fox/MGM?

 

[Paul.S]

Yes, the original is an MGM film.

QOS is a completely different situation. (I recommend checking out John Cork's "The Road To Casino Royale" docu on the re-release CR BD and DVD if you want to learn more about the remarkable backstory on some of the parties--specifically how Columbia and [Bond producers] Eon, Danjaq and MGM/UA were on opposite sides of the Kevin McClory litigation but then all reconciled to come together and make CR).

Danjaq produced and, along with MGM (specifically UA) and Columbia, owns QOS. Sony had theatrical distribution rights throughout almost the entire world. Fox had nothing to do with the financing, production or theatrical release of the film. The only reason there's a Fox logo on the back of our QOS BD is because Fox handles home video distribution for MGM titles. (This remarkable messiness happened one year after Sony became a minority owner of MGM: they lost MGM home vid rights to Fox.) Same thing with, say, Silence Of the Lambs and Raging Bull: Fox had nothing to do with the making of those films years ago; they're just the current holder of the home vid rights. (This was not the case when CR hit home vid, which is why you don't see a Fox logo on the back of that DVD/BD--that's a Sony title. Notice how CR has Dolby TrueHD and QOS has DTS-HD MA?)

It's as clear as the plot for Mission: Impossible, huh?

 

[Mike LoMonaco]

At the end of the day, what I meant was that it can be a bit overwhelming and daunting keeping on top of which studio creates the film, which one markets it and which is in charge of releasing the title to the home video formats -- it seemed weird to me on Quantum that Fox even had their name on the case because the film was clearly opening as a "Columbia/Sony-MGM" vehicle, as was Casino...

 

[Paul.S]

Re "At the end of the day, what I meant was that it can be a bit overwhelming and daunting keeping on top of which studio creates the film, which one markets it and which is in charge of releasing the title to the home video formats"

IMDb's "Company Credits" is your friend.

It's all at once more and less complicated than it seems. QOS is just a gnarly example. FWIW, generally speaking the studio (as opposed to production company) listed first in the billing block has domestic theatrical and is marketing the film at least domestically. Generally speaking, whoever has dom theatrical also has home vid. In the case of a co-prod, the studio in second position likely has theatrical rights in some international territories. And the order in the billing block is the order in which you will see studio logos appear onscreen at the beginning of the pic.

 

[Mike LoMonaco]

I wouldn't be that interested or obssessed, to need to seek a website directory to find this info out!

 

[cineMANIAC]

Yes, the four-star review is for the remake

 

[Paul.S]

Ahh . . . interested enough to post questions to a online discussion forum thread (in which you are the top poster) but not interested enough to use an excellent, popular resource to independently seek out the answers to those questions. Got it!

In the words of Col. Jessep, "I would rather you just said "thank you" . . ."

 

[Mike LoMonaco]

Thanx.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Can we get back on topic without further sidetracking this thread. Thank you.





Crawdaddy

 

[Mike LoMonaco]

'Daddy, I have made my apologies.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I was at Fox Studios this morning and had the opportunity to pass
along our concerns about the non-anamorphic repackaged catalog release.

All I can tell you is that notes were taken by the studio and will be
passed along to the MGM marketing team.

At best, they will get the message that we want to see a proper release
done of the original film. My only concern is that with this recent
repackage it may be very difficult for them to go back and get yet
another modified version out a few short months later. If I were a
betting man, I would bet the house you will not see a re-release of
the title anytime soon.

 

[Alex cosmo]

It was on the CW in HD last night (edited of course), would they make a brand new restoration just for that? Wonder if they would try to package both versions together like Day the Earth Stood Still.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Alex,

The problem is, the original and remake are not the same studio.

There could be no dual packaged release.

 

[TravisR]

The remake is actually a Columbia/Sony picture so, unfortunately, it's very unlikely that that will happen.

EDIT: Ron beat me to it.

 

[Robert Crawford]

The remake is a dual production between Columbia and MGM so I think something could be worked out if they really wanted it to do something regarding the remake's video release with perhaps the original as an extra.






Crawdaddy