Yes, I know that. I never said it isn't owned by WB. MGM released the video during that brief period they were owned by Ted Turner, before he divested all of MGM's assets save for the library, currently owned by Warner Bros.
I hope you find someone willing to take the plunge. I don't think Criterion will take it though, nor does it seem like a Shout! Factory title, either.
And that WaPo article is the same one I linked to this thread a year ago. Long story short, someone at MGM/UA Home Video wanted to make a master...
The RKO catalog is hit or miss. The multitude of companies that had acquired the library before they ended up at Turner did horrible jobs maintaining the negatives. That's why they're still so many titles that aren't available in HD let alone Blu-Ray. I don't know in what kind of shape "Sylvia...
While I'm not holding my breath, a part of me hopes that Grossberg and TCM succeed in their quest. Given the hell we've been going through for over a year, we all need to hope for miracles, even for something with insurmountable odds like finding the lost reels of Ambersons.
Sometimes They Come Back initially debuted on CBS in 1991 and was shot in Super 35 with the intention of releasing it theatrically overseas. DVD and Blu-Ray releases tend to present it in the theatrical aspect ratio.
And even if Criterion does pick it up, I doubt they would be able to do a restored version of the roadshow. Even the Criterion roadshow of "Mad Mad World" was a reconstruction that took the best of the existing elements and did what they could. Is it possible to do this for "The Alamo?" Who knows?
Apparently, the LD liner notes said the extended cut used an existing master of the shorter cut done in 1990 and inserted the roadshow footage in there. Maybe MGM didn't see the expense in adding the Todd-AO credit back in?
For the past few months, I've been waiting in baited breath for what titles YouTube will be making available for free on their official channel. These are titles that have been licensed for streaming on YouTube and recently began offering titles licensed from Disney, Warner, and Paramount. Big A...
This brings up an interesting question: why did it take until 1975 for NBC to get rid of their "In Living Color" bumpers? I'd like to say it was because of the popularity of the NBC Peacock but even then I don't know why it took until 1979 for turn the peacock into the network logo.
"Sony will handle distribution of Lionsgate’s packaged-media releases in the U.S. and Canada beginning in July."
I know that the 70mm "roadshow" is in terrible shape, but are there 70mm prints of the general release version in better shape? I'd rather have that preserved if the laserdisc cut can't. It appears that all video prints are derived from a 35mm source.
No, it's more like, "let's put a disclaimer in front of it so we don't look like the PC police or racially insensitive." It's just optics. They can't be one-upping dead people who found ethnic humor totally appropriate when the company's namesake thought it was okay, too.
I don't know how in this day and age how people would respond to tribal nudity in films. I'm pretty sure The Mission, with all the shots of naked native children, would probably get away with a PG-13 today, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone on the Internet accused the director of having an...
Universal doesn't have the rights anymore. It's one of those Saul Zaentz titles that have been licensed to Warner Bros. Since WB have been more open about the idea of licensing or sublicensing to third-parties, I can see Criterion taking it.
I think I saw a version on AMC 15 years ago that showed the Terminator leaving the gun shop after he kills an employee there. Never saw it on any other copy.
EDIT: I might be thinking of this.
Disney+'s editing habits are bizarre. If they could leave "We Are Siamese" intact on "Lady and the Tramp" with a content warning in front of it, they should have left Daryl Hannah's butt intact on "Splash," plain and simple.