"Ultimate Hitchcock Collection" Public Domain release (1 Viewer)

[george kaplan]

Unfortunately, not an option for those of us unwilling to put up with video and audio 4% too fast. :frowning:

 

[Richard--W]

Look for a multi-region DVD player with a pitch control.

 

[Robert Harris]

Can an Admin please change the title of this thread to: Pirated release?

 

[george kaplan]

Are you saying that there is a machine that will play a PAL disc at the proper speed? Or just fix the pitch? Cause if it's just fixing the pitch, but the picture is still going by too fast, and the sound is still being made too fast (even at the right pitch), then I'll pass.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Does anyone really think Criterion is going to waste time and release each of these early Hitchcock titles? Of course they're not going to so releases like these are the only way people can see the film. All this picture quality talk is just downright crazy at times because the bottom line is that there are films out there that no company is going to spend money on. Are we suppose to pretend these films don't exist because they don't have Warner quality?

 

[Ockeghem]

I find this talk of pitch and speed of the picture fascinating. I'd like to learn more about it.

I own Young and Innocent (a.k.a. The Girl Was Young) on DVD; the tune near the conclusion (Drummer Man) is performed at the correct pitch on my copy. (By pitch, I mean musical pitch in this instance, as opposed to another meaning that may be being discussed here.) The tune begins in D minor, then gravitates to C major as the conductor begins singing. It meanders to C minor right after 'it isn't a puzzle, it isn't a riddle, it's generally known,' and then we eventually get a wonderfully abrupt shift back to D minor as the conductor turns to his left toward the drummer, beginning that compellingly slow zoom (sorry if this is not the correct term) in toward the orchestra, finally residing on the drummer. I'm watching it right now on my PC, and I have chills every time I see this wonderful scene. How I would have loved to have been there when it was filmed. Heck, I would have loved to have been the piano player.

Incidentally, the edition I own is Vintage Movie Classics, and includes The Thirty Nine Steps, Young and Innocent, and Rich and Strange (Vintage 2031). I don't know too much about the edition, except that I enjoy watching it and have had no problems with it. The copy is very scratchy, but I'd rather have that than nothing at this point.

 

[John Hodson]

Waste time? And how would they be doing that exactly?

These are films by one of the 20th century's best and most famous directors, a name even those with only a passing knowledge of film is familiar with, not 'films out there that no company is going to spend money on'.

Most of these titles are available in properly licensed releases editions in R2, with transfers that beat the hell out of the bootleg garbage on the market; there's absolutely no reason at all why R1 will not be blessed with the same at some point.

Bootlegs; there is no justification whatsoever.

 

[Jon Martin]

True, but you are talking about films that have been available by countless companies on VHS and DVD for the past twenty years. The market is saturated, and the average person doesn't know the difference.

The rights holders are not interested in enforcing the rights they have. So, why would a company bother to restore a film and release it at a higher price if you know all the PD companies will continue to be able to release their versions with no problems?

 

[SD_Brian]

Aside from the obvious poor quality issue, I can certainly understand the usefulness of bootlegs: Sometimes there is a movie you really want to see and, if nobody's bothered to do a proper DVD release in your region...well, desperate times, desperate measures.

What I find odd is the indignation some people feel toward bootleging, meanwhile they champion hacking into and tampering with a Region 1 DVD player to make it region-free so that they can purchase DVDs of dubious quality that ARE NOT LICENSED TO BE SOLD IN THIS COUNTRY. It's the exact same principal.

 

[TravisR]

This thread is probably not going anywhere useful or pleasant.

 

[SD_Brian]

Probably not but, if we only kept the useful and pleasant threads going, imagine how empty the discussion boards would be!

 

[Michael Elliott]

Exactly. Any film buff is going to have movies they want to see that have never been released on VHS, LD or DVD and yet I'm suppose to hold out for a pristine looking print of something no one but a small group will want to see.

Silent films are hard enough to sell and just because it's Hitchcock doesn't mean people are going to pay high prices for it. Do people think there's a big demand for a $40 version of YOUNG AND INNOCENT? Is there anyone really holding out for a 2-disc SE of EASY VIRTUE? It's not like we're talking VERTIGO or PSYCHO here. And please, no one say all movies should be treated the same. It's a great thought but it's a fantasy. Not every movie is going to be remastered and released to DVD or Blu-Ray so if you want to see a film you have to see it anyway you can.

I've got over one thousand PD movies sitting here and I've probably got 1000+ silent shorts here that will never get released. Perhaps never is too strong of a word but it hasn't happened in the past 30 years so why should I expect or hold out for it happening in 2008?

 

[Patrick McCart]

Well, companies in the UK had no problem with doing full restorations or at least high quality remasters. I just shelled out for the R2 Universal box set of Laurel & Hardy films and Carlton's good The African Queen DVD. One can go onto Amazon.com and obtain bootleg DVDs of the L&H features that Lionsgate has not released.

Lionsgate seems to have the DVD rights to the rest of the StudioCanal films, but Criterion can get the ones owned by Granada/Carlton (like The 39 Steps and The Lady Vanishes). They could probably put out an Eclipse set of those films. I think it would consist of Sabotage, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Secret Agent, and Young & Innocent. Lionsgate has enough StudioCanal films to make two more 5-disc sets like their first collection. It doesn't really matter whether or not they're great films, though. The name recognition is there. Why do you think Warner and Universal bothered to put out Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Stage Fright, Topaz, and Saboteur? If price is the issue... would you still side with the crappy PD label versions if the official DVDs were out with a higher price? That's basically the reasoning behind theft.

I think non-profit bootlegs are sometimes needed in very rare cases, but not when every film in question is available in mostly pristine quality in R2. Except for Easy Virtue, all one has to do is import in order to have a steady line of high quality DVDs from Hitchcock's first film to his last.

 

[Michael Elliott]

The point Brian was making is that those R2 discs are not meant to be sold here. You are not suppose to own a region free player in this country. There's reasons for a regional code and there are reasons why they are used. If the right owners of MURDER agree for a Spanish company to release it in Spain, as a PAL R2 release, those rights are not for it to be released or seen in America.

Thankfully most right owners don't go after this type of thing but I believe Miramax went after a few stores in America that were selling R2 discs of movies they owned for R1 release. There have been a couple Jess Franco titles that were released in R2 and the R1 owners put a stop to their sale.

Hacking into a DVD player to make it region free is illegal. It's just as illegal as the dozen $1 DVDs of THE SKIN GAME out there. You can't be against one and for the other IMO.


It would actually depend on the film. With these early Hitchcock titles I'd stick with the PD versions. They simply aren't that great of films so I wouldn't pay too much for them unless they were packaged together at a cheap price. I'm a die-hard Lugosi fan and own all his PD titles but even though I love them, I wouldn't pay $15-$20 for them.

I'm a movie fan first and anyone who digs into "non-mainstream" stuff are going no where if they wait for remastered versions of these films or if they wait for a DVD release. I sold off my VHS collection when I first bought a DVD player and it was a mistake because hundreds of titles I owned are still not on DVD. A studio can't release everything they own as it would be impossible so if you want to see a film you will have to do whatever it takes to see them.

I now own 22 of those "50 Movie Packs" from Mill Creek. It would be impossible for me to pay $10-$15 for a single movie on these. I wouldn't have bought them at $10 but I would watch them for $0.10, which is the price they come to. I'm not sure how many people would be willing to watch all 50 movies on each of these sets but if you are, then you can't pay top dollar for them nor would you be willing to.

 

[cafink]

You are not "supposed" to own a region-free player in that DVD manufacturers have decided that they don't want you to and have made it difficult to do so by selling players and discs that have been regionally encoded. It's an understandable decision from an economic point of view, but that doesn't mean it carries any legal weight.

In the U.S. at least, there are laws which forbid the distribution/sale of copyrighted works without the permission of the copyright holder. There are no laws against watching movies imported from another country. The movie studios obviously don't want you to do so, and they make it difficult for you through regional coding, but that doesn't make it illegal to do so.

In fact, the governments of several countries (Australia in particular, and I believe New Zealand is looking into it as well) have suggested that regional coding itself may be a violation of WTO trade agreements.

 

[Ockeghem]

I'm pleased to read this. I own the U.K. releases of DS9 and VOY, and I live in the USA. Two seasons of U.K. VOY cost me $5.00 more than one season of VOY distributed in the U.S. Besides, in some cases you get more for your buck with the U.K. releases, and the packaging--an important selling point with me--is often much more durable. I couldn't believe it when I discovered that the special feature on the Defiant (DS9) wasn't included on the American release, but was included on the British release. And the special features included in VOY for some sets were more extensive than those included in the U.S. release.

 

[Jon Martin]

I don't think you can compare the two.

When you buy a DVD from another region, someone who should is getting the money. But, when you buy a bootleg, someone who shouldn't is getting the money.

 

[SD_Brian]

Try telling that to the U.S. copyright holders.

 

[cafink]

What gives the U.S. copyright holders any greater a claim to the money than the U.K. copyright holders, or the Japanese copyright holders, or the Australian copyright holders, or the Chinese copyright holders?

 

[SD_Brian]

Um...the fact that they are in the U.S. and have legal rights to the sale of a particular title in the U.S.? Just as the U.K. copyright holder would have sole claim to a title sold in the U.K. or Japan or Australia, etc. Regardless of the region, importing a disc from another region is violating someone's distribution and copyright.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be xenophobic by singling out the U.S. copyright holders