WORST STUDIO/DISTRIBUTOR 2012">
Jump to content
Posted January 19 2013 - 11:33 PM
Posted January 20 2013 - 02:37 PM
Posted January 20 2013 - 03:24 PM
I voted for Universal. Even though I think they did an excellent job on the Monster set. But they botched Alfred Hitchcock set and a lot of their catalog titles. And my nomination and vote even came from my experience at Universal from the HTF meet. As it came across that they don't seem to have the same love and care for their catalog titles like Warner Brothers does.The love for the movies is a big part of it, isn't it? I was really impressed this year with the quality of work done with the 3-panel Cinerama movies. Poor source, very little money, but lots of love. I think that Universal has some love for their monsters, and it shows in the monster set. The Hitchcock titles, well, they just don't care.
Posted January 21 2013 - 01:40 PM
Posted January 22 2013 - 05:33 AM
Posted January 22 2013 - 09:32 AM
I voted for Paramount, too, and only because they WON'T release their 4K restoration of SAMSON AND DELILAH in any other format than standard DVD. Why not just put it out in a special VHS only edition and REALLY go retro? It could and should be the BEST BD OF THE YEAR, but not to give the people a choice make it the WORST! I loved them after WINGS, but this bone-headed move put them at the bottom of the barrel for me.At least if and when we do see Samson and Delilah on Blu-ray, it will be a quality job because of the effort they have put into it. The sad thing about Universal's work on the Hitchcock collection is that they may never bother to improve upon what they have released.
Posted January 28 2013 - 12:02 AM
Posted January 28 2013 - 12:34 AM
Fox, because they could've released the Flint blurays themselves instead of farming them off.I'd have to agree with that.
Posted January 28 2013 - 05:04 AM
Posted February 12 2013 - 09:06 AM
Posted February 13 2013 - 03:16 PM
Posted February 13 2013 - 03:50 PM
Posted February 13 2013 - 03:55 PM
I vote for Fox, because they still have their hand on the chicken switch when it comes to Blu, releasing hit or miss transfers. We had a superb dual layer of How Green Was My Valley, but only a single layer of Gentleman's Agreement. Hannah and her Sisters looked awful. So did their reissue of Jean Negulesco's Titanic. Yuck! Fox really is foundering. Two years ago they ruined West Side Story for me and for which I was promised but never sent a replacement disc as part of their program. But even the replacement, which I viewed via a friend who was more fortunate to get one, looked like the same old junk with just a slap-dash fade out correction in the main titles. Never mind the excessive edge effects and the terrible color manipulation in the credits.None of your complaints with Fox were released in 2012.
Posted February 14 2013 - 01:03 AM
Posted February 14 2013 - 12:04 PM
Dear Ray: Here's at least one from 2012 that positively stank - Von Ryan's Express. What was the point of doing a hi-def scan when color correction was never even an afterthought? Purplish blacks, jaundice granite and pumpkin orange flesh tones don't work for me, nor should they for anyone else. When I voted for Fox it wasn't with one movie in mind. Still, Von Ryan's Express is a pretty good example of the sort of slap dash, hit or miss way Fox seems to be handling their library.In the UK, Channel Four (incl. Film Four) show a lot of Fox catalogue titles in HD, so I was able to see what a mess this was. Also, the caps over at caps-a-holic proved to be spot-on, as they were with Cleopatra.
Posted February 15 2013 - 01:29 PM
Posted February 15 2013 - 07:14 PM
RE: Paramount - I'll agree they were scant to nil on the catalogue home front. But everything they put out - which wasn't much, I'll grant you - was perfection. I can't really fault Paramount for not doing more when what they did represented some of the finest work done on home video 1080p. We could all poo-poo and say more should have been done, as it undoubtedly should have fora 100th anniversary. But I actually respect the fact that Paramount didn't just go the route of just slapping any old junk on a hi-def disc without the proper restoration so that they could gloat about how many titles they had on sale for their anniversary. Quantity will never trump quality. NEVER!Most of what Paramount was pushing were old transfers: many from the 2009 Centenial Collection series. Sometimes they were very good: Sunset Boulevard. Sometimes merely ok: Chinatown. Wings seemed to be the only new transfer of a classic title they did for the year. They seemed to have largely given up on their library. That's why I voted for them.
Posted February 15 2013 - 10:54 PM
Originally Posted by JoeDoakes Most of what Paramount was pushing were old transfers: many from the 2009 Centenial Collection series. Sometimes they were very good: Sunset Boulevard. Sometimes merely ok: Chinatown. Wings seemed to be the only new transfer of a classic title they did for the year. They seemed to have largely given up on their library. That's why I voted for them.Not based on what the HTF Meet observed back in October when we visited Paramount. There was plenty of tape activity going on there with their library.
Posted March 02 2013 - 12:53 AM
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users