Press Release BVHE Press Release: Nightmare Alley (4k UHD Combo) (1 Viewer)

[darkrock17]

Gotta disagree with you, Andrew. They have had arrangements with several other labels. These deals are spotty and temporary, but they have happened.

In the past they let others companies distribute some of their titles, but that was over 20 years ago. Now that they own Fox; they won't let anyone touch any of those titles but them and them alone.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Kino currently distributes many films owned by Disney, but hey, why let facts get in the way of unwarranted Disney bashing?

 

[TravisR]

A few Guillermo films have been released a second time to include his commentary track. Perhaps that can happen even under the Disney/Fox banner. Companies love for us to double-dip, and some of us are willing to do that just to have the addition of a commentary. Add a black and white version, it would be a must-have.

In today's home video market and with the movie's flatout terrible box office, I don't think there's a chance of a double dip. I'm sure they'll sell it digitally or put it on Hulu but I can't see a physical release happening. I'd be happy to be wrong though.

 

[Charles 22]

No black and white version? That's a disappointment from my pov.

But I love this movie and will probably get this release.

I'm quite glad you asked that question, because when I saw it at the theaters, it was in b/w. Just before I saw the movie, I looked it up on IMDB for some reason, and saw all those lovely color pictures. And to contrast that though, the poster to the movie was all b/w. While what little I knew of the movie, said b/w, I never saw a single shot on the net that wasn't in color, though I haven't looked into it very deeply. I mean, just like the header pic here, in color.

The funny thing now I realize, is that you WEREN'T saying the movie was in color, but that's only me interpreting what you said incorrectly. What you are saying is you know the movie less than myself, and you're just generally disappointed it's in color. It IS in b/w, at least at my theater it was. What you might want to do, if it's still at the theaters, is call them and ask if it's in color or not. No, better yet, if an employee would just answer that question rote, they may generally think that's a stupid question (I mean aren't all new movies in color? Duh?). Ask them if it's in b/w, and you might even introduce the definite reality that there's more than one version. I don't know, maybe it is only in color, and some theaters decided to switch the color mostly off. I'm pretty sure I did see some color at times, but it was only in certain scenes and very pale color, if that.

It was pretty funny, thinking the movie was in b/w because of it's poster, but then thinking it was in color because of IMDB, and then finding it's in b/w when you get there.

 

[Charles 22]

Probably. It seems like those would have been reversed in the olde days of yore.

Guess they're hoping some that might want the physical disc would be impatient enough to sign up for the streamer and may stick around as a subscriber.

I think the allegedly hype thing that is going around, is that you're a cool cat if you do everything on your cellphone. You eat your meals on your cell phone, and you feed your cell phone too. I mean what sane person would see a movie in a theater, or on a widescreen tv, when they can be a hit at parties with a miniature screen? I mean, the girls have to get REALLY close to see it that way, right? Hmm, that is something of an advantage perhaps. But yes, such a terrible viewing experience.

 

[TravisR]

I'm quite glad you asked that question, because when I saw it at the theaters, it was in b/w. Just before I saw the movie, I looked it up on IMDB for some reason, and saw all those lovely color pictures. And to contrast that though, the poster to the movie was all b/w. While what little I knew of the movie, said b/w, I never saw a single shot on the net that wasn't in color, though I haven't looked into it very deeply. I mean, just like the header pic here, in color.

The funny thing now I realize, is that you WEREN'T saying the movie was in color, but that's only me interpreting what you said incorrectly. What you are saying is you know the movie less than myself, and you're just generally disappointed it's in color. It IS in b/w, at least at my theater it was. What you might want to do, if it's still at the theaters, is call them and ask if it's in color or not. No, better yet, if an employee would just answer that question rote, they may generally think that's a stupid question (I mean aren't all new movies in color? Duh?). Ask them if it's in b/w, and you might even introduce the definite reality that there's more than one version. I don't know, maybe it is only in color, and some theaters decided to switch the color mostly off. I'm pretty sure I did see some color at times, but it was only in certain scenes and very pale color, if that.

The way that I've seen it listed when playing in black and white was "Nightmare Alley: Visions In Light And Dark" or something like that as opposed to the regular title when it's in the standard color version.

 

[Charles 22]

The way that I've seen it listed when playing in black and white was "Nightmare Alley: Visions In Light And Dark" or something like that as opposed to the regular title when it's in the standard color version.

Wow, thanks, that's what my version was, the visions poster. I have to tell the folks though, For the first five minutes of the film, maybe longer, I thought they had the film screwed up, because most of it looked too blurry. Not real bad, but just not sharp at all. I don't know if my eyes adjusted or not, since I only noticed it early on. It was, BTW, played at a theater I haven't been to in two years, so maybe they just turn sharpness down a tad?

 

[warnerbro]

You can get the original criterion bluray version for 19 bucks now. I never get tired of watching it.

 

[Richard Gallagher]

I'm beginning to wonder if releasing films to subscription services like HBO Max and Hulu one month prior to their digital sale debut and on physical 6-8 weeks is canibalising sales.

It's also airing on regular HBO on 2/17 and 2/23.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

From personal experience, I think it is cannibalizing sales.

I was going to buy this on 4k as I had never seen it.

Last weekend, my GF told me it was on Hulu and HBO. I was shocked. I couldn't believe Disney released this to streaming services prior to the disc release.

We watched it and enjoyed it. Thought the film was very well done.

However, for me, it has no repeat watch value and I no longer will be considering a disc purchase.

I think it's suicide for these films to be put on a streaming service prior to disc launch. Maybe the studios are testing the waters to eliminate disc releases altogether to see how well they stream? Hope that is not the case.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I think it's suicide for these films to be put on a streaming service prior to disc launch. Maybe the studios are testing the waters to eliminate disc releases altogether to see how well they stream? Hope that is not the case.

I think that's the general idea!

 

[jayembee]

Kino currently distributes many films owned by Disney, but hey, why let facts get in the way of unwarranted Disney bashing?

They do, but they are all existing contracts that have been around for a few years. I don't believe there have been any new ones since 2019. When Kino had a licensing deal with Disney, it was for subsidiary catalog titles like ones from Touchstone and ABC Pictures. All of the Fox titles they licensed were from before Disney acquired Fox. While most, if not all, of those are still in print, all but one of them are from 2016-2017. That one exception was Ruby Gentry, released in April 2018. (Well, technically, there was The Runner Stumbles in 2020, but that was owned by the production company, not Fox).

The only label that still seems to be able to release licensed-from-Fox titles is Criterion, which has been notorious for working out a license deal for a title, and then taking years to actually get it through the production pipeline. Well, there's also the UK label Signal One, which had a deal for a bunch of Fox titles that were released in the 2015-2018 timeframe. They had all sorts of issues since then, and were finally able to put out a half-dozen or so last year. I've no idea if there are any Fox titles left for them to release.

 

[TravisR]

I think it's suicide for these films to be put on a streaming service prior to disc launch. Maybe the studios are testing the waters to eliminate disc releases altogether to see how well they stream? Hope that is not the case.

I think that discs are an afterthought at this point and they're much more focused on getting content for streaming. Whatever that does to discs' sales, they don't care because they aren't as important as streaming.

 

[Rob W]

I'm beginning to wonder if releasing films to subscription services like HBO Max and Hulu one month prior to their digital sale debut and on physical 6-8 weeks is canibalising sales.

This is all about studios looking to drive new subscribers to their streaming services ( and retain the ones they already have ) by giving the streamers an exclusive window before customers can access the films by the traditional outlets. They all know that sooner or later only a chosen few services will survive, and those will be the ones with the largest subscriber bases.

I now get my tv service via high-speed internet (which gives a superior picture to my previous cable-based delivery) and that means I have an ultra-fast connection. The 4K picture from my Disney+ and Netflix 4k subscriptions is superb, with no macro-blocking or other visual artifacts that used to plague streaming video at slower speeds. I have never bothered to upgrade my Star Wars blu-rays for Episodes 1-6 as the 4K streams on Disney+ are so good, and they even offer Dolby Atmos which was the one thing that discs used to offer that streamers didn't. I can't honestly say I can see a significant loss in quality. In short, I have been far more selective buying discs that are also available in high-quality on my streaming services. I use the Criterion Channel to check out Criterion titles I want to see but am unlikely to purchase. (They release a lot of titles that for me are likely to be a one-viewing experience but I still want to see.) I delayed upgrading my DVD of Written On The Wind and instead watched the HD transfer on the channel last week. It was superb quality and much better than the dvd but I am unlikely to watch it again for several years so that's a lost sale to Criterion. This is an excellent point Ron has made; how much repeatability is there in a lot of the titles we buy, especially with the huge selection of other content the streamers also offer that competes for our viewing hours ?

I am lucky in that I can walk 7 minutes to a brick-and-mortar store that is still dedicated to film buffs and stocks virtually every new release in all the disc formats. How many of us can still say that ?

I recently purchased the 4K steelbook for the new Dune and when I purchased it I genuinely wondered if there would still be a 4K disc business for me to complete the story when part 2 makes it way to home video in 2024 or 2025....

 

[Ronald Epstein]

This is all about studios looking to drive new subscribers to their streaming services ( and retain the ones they already have ) by giving the streamers an exclusive window before customers can access the films by the traditional outlets. They all know that sooner or later only a chosen few services will survive, and those will be the ones with the largest subscriber bases.

I now get my tv service via high-speed internet (which gives a superior picture to my previous cable-based delivery) and that means I have an ultra-fast connection. The 4K picture from my Disney+ and Netflix 4k subscriptions is superb, with no macro-blocking or other visual artifacts that used to plague streaming video at slower speeds. I have never bothered to upgrade my Star Wars blu-rays for Episodes 1-6 as the 4K streams on Disney+ are so good, and they even offer Dolby Atmos which was the one thing that discs used to offer that streamers didn't. I can't honestly say I can see a significant loss in quality. In short, I have been far more selective buying discs that are also available in high-quality on my streaming services. I use the Criterion Channel to check out Criterion tiles I want to see but am unlikely to purchase. (They release a lot of titles that for me are likely to be a one-viewing experience but I still want to see.) I delayed upgrading my DVD of Written On The Wind and instead watched the HD transfer on the channel last week. It was superb quality and much better than the dvd but I am unlikely to watch it again for several years so that's a lost sale to Criterion. This is an excellent point Ron has made; how much repeatability is there in a lot of the titles we buy, especially with the huge selection of other content the streamers also offer that competes for our viewing hours ?

I am lucky in that I can walk 7 minutes to a brick-and-mortar store that is still dedicated to film buffs and stocks virtually every new release in all the disc formats. How many of us can still say that ?

I recently purchased the 4K steelbook for the new DUNE and when I purchased it I wondered if there would still be a 4K disc business for me to complete the story when part 2 makes it way to home video in 2023 or 2024.

Good read, Rob!

Streaming services are getting better and better mostly because Internet connections are becoming faster.

I have 940mbps coming into my home. I have more than enough bandwidth to take advantage of the video and audio codecs. However, 100mbps is fast enough, really, to get decent 4k quality into the home.

I think it's inevitable disc purchases are going to be delegated to boutique labels and the shrinking amount of collectors.

As you, Robert Crawford, and others have suggested, we are possibly seeing the beginning of a trend where theatrical films will go to streaming services before disc. And, sadly, as we have been seeing for years, the disc formats continue to decline and in the not-too-distant future, streaming will become the only place for people to view first-run films.

 

[Charles 22]

From personal experience, I think it is cannibalizing sales.

I was going to buy this on 4k as I had never seen it.

Last weekend, my GF told me it was on Hulu and HBO. I was shocked. I couldn't believe Disney released this to streaming services prior to the disc release.

We watched it and enjoyed it. Thought the film was very well done.

However, for me, it has no repeat watch value and I no longer will be considering a disc purchase.

I think it's suicide for these films to be put on a streaming service prior to disc launch. Maybe the studios are testing the waters to eliminate disc releases altogether to see how well they stream? Hope that is not the case.

Yes, I agree with you, that the movie has very little or no replay value. Also, since I haven't seen it both ways, I can only doubt seeing it in color would change that. I think that's because the whole film's value is based on not knowing what's going to happen, and the ending is profound enough, should you bump into this in decades, and get the feel of knowing this guy manipulates people, then the end will come rushing back to you very quickly, and you will realize you're wasting your time watching it, because the mystery is gone. It's not a bad ending, it's just the movie leads up to it for so long, and it is rather impactful, it would seem hard to forget such an exit.

BTW, what was the purpose of the baby in the jar, especially the end one? A number of things to consider: The baby was a fake? The same baby fake or otherwise? So either they're trying to get across to you that circus ringleaders did stuff like that, or at least in that fantasy world they did, or that from some strange reason, after the original owner died, that is the same baby and another ringleader would want taht. I understand the symbolism of course, that the protagonist is going back to his roots, and that it is rather haunting, but I don't get it beyond that, and it's peculiar enough, it seems there has to be more to it. You would think with all the foreshadowing they did, the end baby wasn't an accident.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Personally I believe the 2021 version is so well crafted that it does have replay value. If for no other reason than the production values and cinematography. I recently viewed both versions of the film (1947 version on Turner Classic Movies) and (2021 version on HBO Max) and enjoyed both iterations tremendously. While I understand the sentiment that knowing how a tale ends can rob a film of some of its narrative strength, sometimes it's the journey not the destination. I think the acting (for the most part) in both versions is strong enough to warrant revisitation of both versions.

I do think that premiering on streaming / cable prior to a disc release does hurt media sales. How could it not? But, this is a title that I will be adding to my library. Not today, but soon enough.

- Walter.

 

[Sega]

A must-have in 4K.

 

[Malcolm R]

It's a shame the studios seem to be willing to sacrifice the low-income customers that cannot afford high-speed internet, the latest and greatest high-tech devices to play the content, or multiple subscriptions to streamers. Some don't have credit cards or even bank accounts. There are also still large swaths of the country that don't have access to broadband internet even if they can afford it. Access to broadband infrastructure and cell phone service has been an ongoing discussion in Vermont for years, and we're one of the smaller rural states. Many of these people still buy discs to watch movies.

I was in Walmart yesterday and there was a group of people all excited because the store had refilled the DVD "dump bin". They ran to the front of the store to get a cart so they could take some off the top of the bin and and begin to sort through them.

 

[Charles 22]

Personally I believe the 2021 version is so well crafted that it does have replay value. If for no other reason than the production values and cinematography. I recently viewed both versions of the film (1947 version on Turner Classic Movies) and (2021 version on HBO Max) and enjoyed both iterations tremendously. While I understand the sentiment that knowing how a tale ends can rob a film of some of its narrative strength, sometimes it's the journey not the destination. I think the acting (for the most part) in both versions is strong enough to warrant revisitation of both versions.

I do think that premiering on streaming / cable prior to a disc release does hurt media sales. How could it not? But, this is a title that I will be adding to my library. Not today, but soon enough.

- Walter.

If you can separate yourself from, actually, the journey along the way, that's the key. I don't think you're really talking about what the new film does itself, but more having an interest in how the movies are done between them - maybe not. But for me, I can stand only so much slimeball, and we see plenty of it in the new movie. There's not a single redeeming character, not one. I realize that's the overall tent to the movie, but while it's fine to see it once, I don't really want to see such repulsive characters, in the same old way, doing the exact same things.

You could do worse, but most movies at least leave you somebody to sort of root for, even if they're a minor character. There's just no hope when everybody is slime. Don't mistake me, I don't think the film needed a hero, but just somebody that was in it enough that was at least not "in on the act". Well, I guess the guy's wife was as close to what I'm looking for, but only nominally. She did become better, but she was fairly much as much slimeball as anybody else. I think, other than the main villain just going way overboard, she was just somebody that went along with it, but just had hesitations, and I think she did quite a few times raise objections, but she just kept losing.

I don't know if Ronald gets all of that out of why it's not worth re-watching, but as best I can, that's why I think I want nothing to do with it anymore.