Studio Logos

I agree that I love to see the original logos.  The first thing that comes to mind is the entire early Paramount library that's been distributed by Universal for years, the early Marx Brothers movies, W.C. Fields, and so many others (not to mention some of the Hitchcock films like Vertigo, Rope, Psycho and Rear Window).  I love that Universal is willing to keep the Paramount logo intact, and just throws their logo on beforehand - I think that's the way to go.  Whether it's a film that's changed hands and has a different studio distributing it now, or a film where the studio has just changed their logos over the years, I love seeing the film open with whichever logo was originally there.  (When I was a kid, I remember loving the Universal logo because they had that version in the early 90s that had little samples of the different versions through the ages, culminating in the most recent version - I loved the history there.)

When it's something simple like having Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (or Philosopher's Stone for you U.K. HTF members), having it changed from "AOL Time Warner" to "Time Warner" doesn't bug me as much because the basic logo design is still the same, but it is nice to have the historical context built in.  How about the Warner releases of the early 70s when it "Warner Bros - A Kinney Company" (for those that don't know, Kinney was a company that owned and operated parking garages in NYC) - that's always interesting to see.  Paramount's gone, in recent years, from being a Gulf & Western (or Engulf & Devour) Company to a Paramount Communications Company to a Viacom Company.

I agree completely that I love seeing that stuff there.  It really brings you back to a certain time and place.  With "Clockwork Orange" for instance, that was made when Warner was a Kinney company, and on some level, with Clockwork already being a really f'ed up movie (in the best way, of course), seeing that it was released by a company that owned parking garages somehow contributed to that dystopic feeling of the movie from the beginning.  For something like "Citizen Kane", it was an RKO Picture and I'm glad Warners kept it on their DVD - it wasn't an accident that Orson Welles made his movie there and it's worth preserving that.  There are countless examples but I love seeing the original logos.  By all means, slap on your new logo before the film starts, but keep the original stuff there.  I do understand that there may be times where specific legal rights and clearances might not allow an older logo design to be used without paying a ridiculously expensive royalty or something like that, and that all companies want their most current incarnation to shine the brightest, but all things being equal, I like to see the original logo there whenever possible.  It won't drive me insane if it's missing, but for instance, I saw the restored "Godfather" and "Godfather Part II" theatrical earlier this year, and it was weird to see the new Paramount logo there (albeit with a golden-hued tone), digital animation and all, instead of the older Gulf & Western that would have been on the original film.

I completely understand the reasoning behind these changes, but there's a big difference between understanding a change and agreeing with it!

I know I'm in the minority here, but aside from the love of them from a historical perspective, I can't really say I care about the logos.  I never viewed them as part of the film, except in the rare case where they're customized for a particular piece, such as Cat Ballou.  To me, the owner can put whatever they like on there; I'm more interested in the film. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having them, but I don't care if they're not included.  Anymore than if I buy a book, do I care if the original publisher's info and logo is included.  Does it really change "To Kill A Mockingbird" if the publisher is now HarperCollins instead of J.B. Lippincott & Co.?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnMor 

I know I'm in the minority here, but aside from the love of them from a historical perspective, I can't really say I care about the logos.  

I didn't mention above, but it's worth saying that I forget about the logo about five seconds after it flashes offscreen.  Academically it's something I'm very happy to debate and defend, but when it comes to actually watching the movie, I agree that it's usually the least of my concerns.

One thing about the recent Blu-Ray release of Blow Out I greatly appreciated was seeing the early 80's Filmways logo restored to the film, which I have never seen before.

I too dislike seeing a shiny, slick current version of a studio's logo replacing the old one on films which are thirty or more years old. It's the same to me as digitally erasing wires and removing walkie-talkies.

One of the worst offenders is MGM who invariably replace the original logos from their films and replace them with Leo the Lion. The current MGM is really little more than what was United Artists yet, for corporate reasons - the MGM label having a better image than UA - they have totally removed the old United Artists logo from history, which I find really sad. Another point is that studio logos often include music as part of the original score for that particular film so it is especially annoying in those cases where cutting the logo also cuts part of the opening music.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnMor 

I know I'm in the minority here, but aside from the love of them from a historical perspective, I can't really say I care about the logos.  I never viewed them as part of the film, except in the rare case where they're customized for a particular piece, such as Cat Ballou.  To me, the owner can put whatever they like on there; I'm more interested in the film. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having them, but I don't care if they're not included.  Anymore than if I buy a book, do I care if the original publisher's info and logo is included.  Does it really change "To Kill A Mockingbird" if the publisher is now HarperCollins instead of J.B. Lippincott & Co.?

I agree with you, the logo isn't of much concern of mine, unless it becomes more part of the film like the example you mentioned.
 

My first awareness of this issue was the 1984 Universal re-release of the Paramount Hitchcock films in which the beginnings were botched, both in appearance and in the music.  I was THRILLED with the handling of it in the "Vertigo" restoration.

My vote:  100% in favor of retaining original logos.

Display whatever shiny new contemporary logos you want, a moment of black, THEN start the movie as originally released.

Pros:  Retains the original flavor of the film and documents its history.  Appreciated by all who are interested.

Cons:  NONE.  Those who have no interest in this kind of thing won't notice -- or spend one second wondering what's going on if they do.

The best way to deal with logos is to show a montage of them from the earliest versions through all the reinventions and reimaginings to the current one. Universal has done this on a handful of movies (Land of the Dead comes to mind). It always brings a smile to my face whenever I see it.

Logos are important. The one that comes to mind for me is the original, plain Lucasfilm Limited logo at the beginning of Star Wars. The new one just changed the tone at the beginning.

I'm waiting for the day they re-do "2001: a space odyssey" and they replace this:

with this:

I really wonder how Kubrick and Hitchcock and others would feel to know all their hard work and artistry on their films is completely dependent on a 10-second bit of celluloid that they had nothing to do with, attached to their work by a studio.  The "whole mood" of the piece they worked so hard on is altered by that little logo? And if people are seeing these films for the first time today, are they really seeing a different film because the logo is not what Warner Bros. or MGM happened to use when the film first came out?  As I said, I'm all for including them, but this whole thing about the mood being different or the viewing experience changed because of the logos strikes me as more about the mood of expectation we all felt when we first saw the films and our trying to recapture that, than about the work the filmmakers did on the actual films.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnMor 

I really wonder how Kubrick and Hitchcock and others would feel to know all their hard work and artistry on their films is completely dependent on a 10-second bit of celluloid that they had nothing to do with, attached to their work by a studio.  The "whole mood" of the piece they worked so hard on is altered by that little logo? And if people are seeing these films for the first time today, are they really seeing a different film because the logo is not what Warner Bros. or MGM happened to use when the film first came out?  As I said, I'm all for including them, but this whole thing about the mood being different or the viewing experience changed because of the logos strikes me as more about the mood of expectation we all felt when we first saw the films and our trying to recapture that, than about the work the filmmakers did on the actual films.

Of course it's not "completely dependent" on the logo.  But it certainly plays into the mood.  Can you imagine "A Clockwork Orange" without the "Kinney Company" intro card?  I would argue that Kubrick synced the original Saul Bass titles to "Barry Lyndon" to flow with the music (link below).  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8D4c0hLkZk

When I watched the "Barry Lyndon" Blu-Ray last night, it didn't affect my overall enjoyment of the film but it was definitely jarring at first to not have the Saul Bass logo.  .  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Adkins 

I'm waiting for the day they re-do "2001: a space odyssey" and they replace this:

 

 

with this:

 

Of course it will not happen as 2001 is owned by Warner Bros. now. The thing is the first logo above that opens 2001 is not even owned by MGM studios anymore. That logo is owned by

the MGM hotel chain and is used exclusively at the MGM Grand Hotel. I would guess there must have been some type of agreement when the movie studio and the hotel chain became separate companies that allowed MGM to keep the logo on 2001.

As far as MGM replacing the UA logo, there wasn't a UA logo until about 1967 when Transamerica bought UA. Films such as "Inherit The Wind " and "West Side Story" had no studio logo when first released. Later UA puts its logo on its older films. When Transamerica sold UA , the original UA A Transamerica logo was removed. That may have been at Transamerica's request. Over the years when UA changed their logo they also changed the logo on earlier films much like Warner Bros. does now.

Also remember sometimes it is the studio that sold the films that wants its logo removed. This happened with RKO when it sold its films to TV and Paramount had its logo removed from all the cartoons it sold to other companies like Popeye and Betty Boop.

I would like the original logos restored just because I would like to see what they looked like. However I remember hating when Warner Bros stopped using the shield in late sixties in favor of the ugly W. A Warner Communications Company.  It was exciting when ' Whats Up Doc", "Blazing Saddles", and "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" used the Warner shield at a time when it was only used on Warner Bros. Records.

Is  there any trade mark infringement to use a logo you don't own? Do MGM and Paramount need to give permission to Warner Bros and Universal to use their logos? Is there a charge?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garysb 

 

As far as MGM replacing the UA logo, there wasn't a UA logo until about 1967 when Transamerica bought UA.

That's not correct. United Artists were using this logo from the '30s. The logo was not used on every film and sometimes the logo was only used at the end of the film but I saw many films theatrically in the '50s and '60s which had the UA logo and which MGM have now removed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce 

I wonder if any of it has anything to do with rights issues of a trademark image such as Leo the Lion or the Warner Shield? Obviously it doesn't for a studio replacing their own older logo...but for instance I wonder if Warner has to pay a licensing fee to MGM, every time they release one of their old films? After all the MGM lion and logo are a registered trade mark.

Doug

I'm sure if Warner Bros had to pay MGM for the use of Leo the Lion they would have scrapped the logo from the films long ago! I suspect that when Ted Turner bought the MGM library from Kirk Kerkorian, it included the right to keep the original logos on the films - having "MGM" films was a status symbol for Turner. Kerkorian retained the right to use the logo but he was only really interested in having it for his hotel.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Adkins 

Can you imagine "A Clockwork Orange" without the "Kinney Company" intro card?  I would argue that Kubrick synced the original Saul Bass titles to "Barry Lyndon" to flow with the music (link below).  

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8D4c0hLkZk

 

When I watched the "Barry Lyndon" Blu-Ray last night, it didn't affect my overall enjoyment of the film but it was definitely jarring at first to not have the Saul Bass logo.  .  

 

 

 

 

 

Synching music is often done to a logo, but I would argue that Kubrick would have synched it to ANY logo Warner was choosing to use at the time.  I bet if WB was using the current shield then, he'd have synched the music over it and not given the logo a second thought.  That same SB logo opened Streisand's A Star is Born and The Main Event with dialogue over it, so it's not like Kubrick directed that logo as part of the opening of his film in particular.  I absolutely LOVE that SB logo and would love to see it restored to the 70's films it preceded, but it's presence or lack thereof does not change the films themselves. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas R 

That's not correct. United Artists were using this logo from the '30s. The logo was not used on every film and sometimes the logo was only used at the end of the film but I saw many films theatrically in the '50s and '60s which had the UA logo and which MGM have now removed.

 

 

I stand corrected. Here is a Wiki entry I found about the pre TransAmerica UA  logo.

Nickname: "The Hexagon"

Logo: Over a grainy-looking background, we see the words "UNITED ARTISTS" appearing inside a 3-layer gold/brown hexagon shape. "Presents", in gold script, is sometimes shown below.

Variants:

• On movies produced by London Productions, this logo would appear in an in-credit version of this logo, with the words "Distributed by" above it.
• There are 2 more color variants: A sepia-toned variant from the mid 1940s-1950, a black and white variant from 1934-1941, and a color variant from 1950-1967.
• On A Bridge Too Far, the byline "A Transamerica Company" fades in below.

FX/SFX: The logo zooming-out.

Music/Sounds: Probably the intro of any UA movie playing throughout. Other times, it's silent.

Availability: Rare; as most UA releases of this period only used a text notice; the easiest place to find this logo is on Heaven's Gate and it has been preserved on the VHS release and TV airings of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum and the VHS release of Thunderbirds are Go. It can also be seen on older VHS releases of Marty. This logo can occasionally be seen on TCM, and the logo (or lack thereof) is preserved on very early Magnetic Video releases, including The Pink Panther (where the latter situation occurs).

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnMor 

Synching music is often done to a logo, but I would argue that Kubrick would have synched it to ANY logo Warner was choosing to use at the time.  I bet if WB was using the current shield then, he'd have synched the music over it and not given the logo a second thought.  That same SB logo opened Streisand's A Star is Born and The Main Event with dialogue over it, so it's not like Kubrick directed that logo as part of the opening of his film in particular.  I absolutely LOVE that SB logo and would love to see it restored to the 70's films it preceded, but it's presence or lack thereof does not change the films themselves. 

I guess the Saul Bass logo is the one I called the ugly W. Sorry about that.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mr_carl/5148723953/

Warner Bros never changed the logos of the pre 48 Warner pictures it now owns since it bought Turner. Is it only the Warner Bros pictures that they always owned that they update the logo?

I think the rationale behind which logos change and don't (in regards to the pre-48, etc.) has to do with how the logo is positioned on the film.  For instance, in the earlier Warner pictures where they've kept the old logo, the logo itself was actually part of the film, where it faded directly into the titles, sometimes even on the same background that the titles were on - so there's really no smooth way to change that without affecting the start of the film.  But in any event where the logo appeared as a separate entity, that is, with a fade to black before the official picture start, I think that's their cue to change it.

I was pleased to see the original '70's Warner Bros logo (black on red with a double zoom effect) reinstated when they released the special edition of Enter the Dragon DVD.

I always associated that logo with the musical drum cue and it never looked right with the shield logo.

When I upgraded my USA Gladiator DVD to a UK version of the Blu-ray, I was surprised to see the logos for Dreamworks and Universal had swapped positions - no doubt due to the distribution rights changing from USA to UK.  I'd got so used to seeing the spining globe disolve to the strains of Hans Zimmer, that having the sequence change was very strange.

Same thing for Minority Report.

Finally, on Twister, the US DVD had the Warner logo exploding, but my UK BD has been replaced with a Universal logo being destroyed.

It's amazing how ingrained these idents become in our memories of film presentations. 

One of my favorite logos was the United Artists

Transamerica logo with the set of lines reaching up

towards the sky and then expanding outward.

I believe that logo was used in the early 70s.

MGM has completely removed those old logos.

Of course, Warner has been a big offender of

changing old logos to new. 

For me, using original logos has always been a big

deal. It immediately takes you back to the era the

film was from.  Those logos are a burned-in memory

that one never forgets, and unfortunately, hardly sees

anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein 

One of my favorite logos was the United Artists

Transamerica logo with the set of lines reaching up

towards the sky and then expanding outward.

 

I believe that logo was used in the early 70s.

 

MGM has completely removed those old logos.

 

Of course, Warner has been a big offender of

changing old logos to new. 

 

For me, using original logos has always been a big

deal. It immediately takes you back to the era the

film was from.  Those logos are a burned-in memory

that one never forgets, and unfortunately, hardly sees

anymore.

I agree with that wholeheartedly. They're part of the film, it makes no one angry to leave them in, why waste time removing them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnMor 

I know I'm in the minority here, but aside from the love of them from a historical perspective, I can't really say I care about the logos.  I never viewed them as part of the film, except in the rare case where they're customized for a particular piece, such as Cat Ballou.  To me, the owner can put whatever they like on there; I'm more interested in the film. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having them, but I don't care if they're not included.  Anymore than if I buy a book, do I care if the original publisher's info and logo is included.  Does it really change "To Kill A Mockingbird" if the publisher is now HarperCollins instead of J.B. Lippincott & Co.?

Amen. I wish I could understand why anybody gives a shite, aside from some tiny, perfect-world preference. But that's just me.