Press Release Criterion Press Release: Romeo and Juliet (1968) (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[Matt Hough]

Duplicate post.

 

[Will Krupp]

And yet it's beautifully acted, especially by Leslie Howard, Basil Rathbone, and John Barrymore. And it's expensive looking. MGM spent a pretty packet on it and it shows.

And THAT one got an exclusive, two-a-day showing at the famed Astor Theatre in NYC.

"This picture will not be shown in any other theatre in New York this year!"

 

[bujaki]

Romeo and Juliet (1968) did not play with an intermission in Puerto Rico during its premiere engagement, when I saw it. It had continuous showings. I mention this because we always got the international release versions.

 

[DarkVader]

Bingo, I got my answer!

Following a world premiere royal film performance on March 4th, Romeo & Juliet was exhibited as a roadshow attraction (at the Odeon Leicester Square) in London.

View attachment 163129

I'll bet any money the intermission used on the DVD is from the British run, which is why no one can remember seeing it during its US exhibition.

Anecdotal testimony on the internet seems to indicate that Paramount cancelled the planned roadshow in the US since advance interest in the film came primarily from younger, college-aged filmgoers who eschewed traditional reserved seat attractions. This was the same demographic that made 2001 a major hit. 2001 had notoriously soft advanced sales, however, with most sell outs at Loew's Capitol in NYC coming from ticket sales on the day of each show. Paramount got ahead of the trend and gave it a relatively wide release, making a fortune in the process.

The film opened in the UK the day before my beautiful mom gave birth to me!

I was sure this film would have been released by Paramount as part of their "Paramount Presents" series. That series is shaping up to be a collection of odd choices. Big hits like "Reds", "Heaven Can Wait", "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Bad News Bears" were given regular blu-ray releases but titles like "King Creole", "Back to the Beach" and "Blue Hawaii" received "Paramount Presents" releases while this title and others like "Pretty Baby" are licensed out to boutique labels.

What is going on at Paramount?

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

The film opened in the UK the day before my beautiful mom gave birth to me!

I was sure this film would have been released by Paramount as part of their "Paramount Presents" series. That series is shaping up to be a collection of odd choices. Big hits like "Reds", "Heaven Can Wait", "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Bad News Bears" were given regular blu-ray releases but titles like "King Creole", "Back to the Beach" and "Blue Hawaii" received "Paramount Presents" releases while this title and others like "Pretty Baby" are licensed out to boutique labels.

What is going on at Paramount?

Maybe someone who actually cares (and has just enough clout/capacity to do so) decided to try and save it from the film(-grain)-hating (or film-phobic?) mess that is Paramount's home video (and/or "restoration") dept, LOL.

_Man_

 

[Will Krupp]

The film opened in the UK the day before my beautiful mom gave birth to me!

My grandmother's birthday was March 5th, too. I knew I liked you for a reason!!

 

[battlebeast]

Has anyone seen the Norma Shearer/Leslie Howard "Romeo and Juliet"? And do you have an opinion on it? I believe I saw it at a film festival in the sixties, but I don't remember much about it, other than, AS ALWAYS, adoring Norma Shearer.

I have it. It’s ok, WAAAAYYYY better than MIDSUMMER from 1935 (which is shame, as it’s my favourite Shakespeare).

The leads are too old in this ROMEO, but the acting is good. You can’t go wrong with Shakespeare’s words. It’s a decent production, though not the best.

 

[SD_Brian]

Hmm...I wonder if they will have to delay the release until this gets settled?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertain...newsntp&cvid=481af34ad9c94b68a7b87d68b3d8e32a

 

[KMR]

Hmm...I wonder if they will have to delay the release until this gets settled?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertain...newsntp&cvid=481af34ad9c94b68a7b87d68b3d8e32a

I'm wondering what details in the lawsuit support the part of this statement from the article that I put in bold below:

"The lawsuit states that both Hussey and Whiting have suffered 'physical and emotional pain, along with extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress' in the decades since the movie's release, as well as 'a lifetime of loss of earnings and other employment benefits and job opportunities.'"

Seems to be a rather odd claim, considering that this film is what skyrocketed them to stardom to begin with.

 

[SD_Brian]

I'm wondering what details in the lawsuit support the part of this statement from the article that I put in bold below:

"The lawsuit states that both Hussey and Whiting have suffered 'physical and emotional pain, along with extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress' in the decades since the movie's release, as well as 'a lifetime of loss of earnings and other employment benefits and job opportunities.'"

Seems to be a rather odd claim, considering that this film is what skyrocketed them to stardom to begin with.

That part seemed like a bit of a stretch to me as well, unless they've been screwed out of residuals. Seems like it would be a hard case to make/prove, but I guess that's why I'm not a lawyer.

 

[moviebuff75]

And she went on to work with the director again.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Five cents says this gets tossed. Presumably most if not all of the defendents (Dino, Zefferelli, Charlie Bludhorn, etc.) aren't even around anymore.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I'm amazed this isn't statute barred at this point. Most civil claims in my jurisdiction have a 2 year statute of limitations.

 

[RobertMG]

I'm amazed this isn't statute barred at this point. Most civil claims in my jurisdiction have a 2 year statute of limitations.

She told Variety in 2018 "Nobody my age had done that before," she said, adding that Zeffirelli shot it tastefully. "It was needed for the film. Everyone thinks they were so young they didn't realize what they were doing. But we were very aware. We both came from drama schools and when you work you take your work very seriously" Bigger question is sure Paramount owns the film today but todays Paramount had nothing to do with the film they should be suing Gulf and Western who owned the studio then.

 

[battlebeast]

It makes me go HMMMM that 55 YEARS LATER, the month the Blu ray finally arrives in North America, they decide to sue.

I wonder if the is wasn’t sparked by Criterion asking if they would do a commentary/interview…

 

[SD_Brian]

I'm amazed this isn't statute barred at this point. Most civil claims in my jurisdiction have a 2 year statute of limitations.

There was a 3-year window in California where the statute of limitations was lifted. It expired on 12/31/2022, so lots of last-minute suits, with some incidents dating as far back as the 1940s, got filed.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-12-28/child-sex-abuse-lawsuits-california-deadline-ab218#:~:text=Starting Jan. 1, California is,through the end of 2025.

 

[RobertMG]

It makes me go HMMMM that 55 YEARS LATER, the month the Blu ray finally arrives in North America, they decide to sue.

I wonder if the is wasn’t sparked by Criterion asking if they would do a commentary/interview…

Maybe Criterion will sell more because pple will want to see what the hub bub is about

 

[Stephen_J_H]

She told Variety in 2018 "Nobody my age had done that before," she said, adding that Zeffirelli shot it tastefully. "It was needed for the film. Everyone thinks they were so young they didn't realize what they were doing. But we were very aware. We both came from drama schools and when you work you take your work very seriously" Bigger question is sure Paramount owns the film today but todays Paramount had nothing to do with the film they should be suing Gulf and Western who owned the studio then.

Except that Gulf+Western no longer exists. It was renamed Paramount Communications in the mid-80s [around the time of Paramount's 75th Anniversary celebrations] and is now a unit of Paramount Global.

 

[jayembee]

Bigger question is sure Paramount owns the film today but todays Paramount had nothing to do with the film they should be suing Gulf and Western who owned the studio then.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that while today's Paramount had nothing to do with the film per se, they would still be considered the same legal entity as the Paramount that made the film in 1967, and thus would still have to assume any legal liabilities for what the 1960s "Paramount Pictures" may have done.

 

[RobertMG]

I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that while today's Paramount had nothing to do with the film per se, they would still be considered the same legal entity as the Paramount that made the film in 1967, and thus would still have to assume any legal liabilities for what the 1960s "Paramount Pictures" may have done.

Might depend on the original contracts Lawsuit over King of Kings 1961 MGM had agreed to rights in perpetuity then in 1987 or 1988 lawsuit by PC Films claimed they had the rights MGM/Turner/ won the suit because in 1960/61 the word perpetuity put in the contract by MGM's lawyers won the case for Turner because they were successors to MGM library ---- so what was the original contract between the stars and Paramount - NO NUDE SCENES? Which sounds doubtful and how can what Zefferelli said to them be used as he is no longer here?