FOX MAY BE ON ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST, BLU-RAY WISE (5 Viewers)

[Beckford]

This came out on blu-ray as a Criterion.

Leave Her to Heaven

Novelist Richard Harland (Cornel Wilde) seems to have found the perfect woman in Ellen (Gene Tierney), a beautiful socialite who initiates a whirlwind romance and steers him into marriage before he can think twice. Yet the glassy surface of Ellen’s devotion soon reveals monstrous depths, as...

criterion.com

Yes, I know. The asterisked items on my list of favorites are the ones I already own on Blu-ray.

 

[John Skoda]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me even the most physical release-hesitant company would have to put out THE SOUND OF MUSIC out on 4K at some point. That's just too irresistible.

 

[Britton]

As a big Star Wars fan, I know the fanbase and I can tell you that every era of Star Wars movies is someone's favorite. There are people who loved The Rise Of Skywalker and think of the original Star Wars as some boring old movie. You can argue that any SW movie or TV show made after 1980 is simply riding the coattails of the first two movies but it ultimately doesn't matter because nostalgia dictates that they'll still be remembered and loved by some people.

And some people might say The Godfather Part III is their favorite. Doesn’t make it a classic.

 

[Capt D McMars]

And some people might say The Godfather Part III is their favorite. Doesn’t make it a classic.

maybe not for you, but for someone, LOL!!

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me even the most physical release-hesitant company would have to put out THE SOUND OF MUSIC out on 4K at some point. That's just too irresistible.

We woulda thunk it, but so far, they've resisted or seem to have zero interest. Heck, they didn't even bother to put out Mary Poppins on 4K disc either in the usual cross/tie-in promo w/ the new movie a couple years ago...

_Man_

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Time Disney was told that not everyone is interested in their Star Wars and Marvel films- many of which are rubbish in my opinion. Money makers- yes but classics -no. In fact I cannot think of any or their Star Wars and Marvel films that I would regarded as being a classic. Many or the Fox films are. In fact a massive amount are. They will be still remembered long after Star Wars and Marvel have been long forgotten.

Well, I guess the thing we have to live with is what is "classic" really has a shifting definition. I think the first two Star Wars pictures are now, officially, classics. They are a part of cinema history and are films that defined many things that came after them.

I don't think there is a Marvel picture that is yet a classic but...due to the fact those pictures have been a dominant part of the motion picture landscape for a good amount of time...some of them will probably be considered "classics" in the future, whether we like them or not.

I had some guys at my house recently and they were looking at memorabilia I have around here and I was showing them something from 1978 and I said "Remember when blah, blah, blah..." and one guy looks at me and says "No, I don't remember that I was not born until 1985."

I sadly admitted that was the year I graduated from High School making me some 18 years his senior. We stood there staring at each other. I don't know exactly what was going through his head but I was thinking "My god, I am 18 years older than this guy and did not catch on to that."

Plus, wake up call, yeah, I am old enough now that people have no idea about things that are a big deal to me.

I have these moments at times where I am reminded that I am over a half century old and so I am now in a phase of life where not everything I recall is something that is a shared experience anymore.

When I went to see Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood it did not occur to me until after the picture was over that a lot of people would have no idea what the story or the twists were about. Sitting next to me was a couple in their early 20s and they had no idea who Manson was or the story of Sharon Tate getting slaughtered.

I realized that unless you knew the story of what happened in real life, the picture would make very little sense. I believe Tarantino probably did not think of this when making it because the whole thing is bathed in this nostalgic glow and he was grooving on that, as was I watching it, but people in their 20s probably would have no clue. Charles Manson was not some big deal to them and that story was not really anything that would have been important at all to their lives.

I ended up in a conversation with the young couple and it was an eye opener. They had no clue who Manson was, knew nothing of the murders, so they watched the picture with no idea what Tarantino was doing. They just saw it as an odd fictional story that did not make much sense. When I told them who Manson was and where he appeared in the film and a bit about who Tate was and the murders, they were stunned. The guy said "Wow, I will have to go google that stuff and watch this again."

What is classic to us, probably is not classic to a lot of people.

I do think about what pictures will people be talking about 30 or 40 years from now. I have a feeling it won't be the same things we talk about now. So, maybe Marvel pictures will be seen as classics then and who knows maybe that terrible Tom Cruise mummy movie will have been totally reassessed and be considered a classic.

Ok, maybe I went a bit too far with that last comment.

 

[roxy1927]

You graduated high school in 1985?
That depresses the hell out of me.

 

[StarDestroyer52]

Yeah, I'm not interested in getting into the debate of what is a classic to one person but maybe not another. For me I guess the frustration is Disney bought the 20th Century Fox library for a few properties and has basically locked the other films in the vault. I understand that it's Star Wars, Marvel, and the newer Disney animated films that make the money for Disney, but one would hope even if they aren't going to release Fox catalog titles on home video, they at the least make more of them available on say Hulu or another streaming service. Or license some of them out to a boutique label like Kino.

There are large numbers of Fox's late 20s-40s output that is basically unavailable to watch outside of film festivals, and that's a huge shame that many of these are going to languish inside the vault for decades, like films from the older days did after the original release.

 

[Kevin Antonio (Kev)]

Well, I guess the thing we have to live with is what is "classic" really has a shifting definition. I think the first two Star Wars pictures are now, officially, classics. They are a part of cinema history and are films that defined many things that came after them.

I don't think there is a Marvel picture that is yet a classic but...due to the fact those pictures have been a dominant part of the motion picture landscape for a good amount of time...some of them will probably be considered "classics" in the future, whether we like them or not.

I had some guys at my house recently and they were looking at memorabilia I have around here and I was showing them something from 1978 and I said "Remember when blah, blah, blah..." and one guy looks at me and says "No, I don't remember that I was not born until 1985."

I sadly admitted that was the year I graduated from High School making me some 18 years his senior. We stood there staring at each other. I don't know exactly what was going through his head but I was thinking "My god, I am 18 years older than this guy and did not catch on to that."

Plus, wake up call, yeah, I am old enough now that people have no idea about things that are a big deal to me.

I have these moments at times where I am reminded that I am over a half century old and so I am now in a phase of life where not everything I recall is something that is a shared experience anymore.

When I went to see Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood it did not occur to me until after the picture was over that a lot of people would have no idea what the story or the twists were about. Sitting next to me was a couple in their early 20s and they had no idea who Manson was or the story of Sharon Tate getting slaughtered.

I realized that unless you knew the story of what happened in real life, the picture would make very little sense. I believe Tarantino probably did not think of this when making it because the whole thing is bathed in this nostalgic glow and he was grooving on that, as was I watching it, but people in their 20s probably would have no clue. Charles Manson was not some big deal to them and that story was not really anything that would have been important at all to their lives.

I ended up in a conversation with the young couple and it was an eye opener. They had no clue who Manson was, knew nothing of the murders, so they watched the picture with no idea what Tarantino was doing. They just saw it as an odd fictional story that did not make much sense. When I told them who Manson was and where he appeared in the film and a bit about who Tate was and the murders, they were stunned. The guy said "Wow, I will have to go google that stuff and watch this again."

What is classic to us, probably is not classic to a lot of people.

I do think about what pictures will people be talking about 30 or 40 years from now. I have a feeling it won't be the same things we talk about now. So, maybe Marvel pictures will be seen as classics then and who knows maybe that terrible Tom Cruise mummy movie will have been totally reassessed and be considered a classic.

Ok, maybe I went a bit too far with that last comment.

One of the best comments I've read about this subject. I myself am only in my mid 20s so I say little about my film choices to my friends in their 20s and 30s, but the definition of a classic is subjective. My own definition is a film that has stood the test of time(20 years and beyond) and still is drawn upon for inspiration and for cultural impact. Love them or hate them quite a few marvel films have made history alone from the box office. And what gets me is its the same formula, but people don't care they love those films.

 

[Kevin Antonio (Kev)]

Yeah, I'm not interested in getting into the debate of what is a classic to one person but maybe not another. For me I guess the frustration is Disney bought the 20th Century Fox library for a few properties and has basically locked the other films in the vault. I understand that it's Star Wars, Marvel, and the newer Disney animated films that make the money for Disney, but one would hope even if they aren't going to release Fox catalog titles on home video, they at the least make more of them available on say Hulu or another streaming service. Or license some of them out to a boutique label like Kino.

There are large numbers of Fox's late 20s-40s output that is basically unavailable to watch outside of film festivals, and that's a huge shame that many of these are going to languish inside the vault for decades, like films from the older days did after the original release.

Plus some of the tv shows from fox. I would atleast think they could liscense some of these shows to a shout factory and other companies.

 

[OliverK]

It's on Disney+ in 4K HDR in Canada.

Shawn Belston mentioned that Patton was prepared for a UHD release and I would think that something may also have been in the works for The Sound of Music and maybe others.

It would be nice if Disney took the Star Wars and and Marvel / superhero stuff and sold the rest of the Fox catalog to a company that actually cares.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Yeah, I'm not interested in getting into the debate of what is a classic to one person but maybe not another. For me I guess the frustration is Disney bought the 20th Century Fox library for a few properties and has basically locked the other films in the vault. I understand that it's Star Wars, Marvel, and the newer Disney animated films that make the money for Disney, but one would hope even if they aren't going to release Fox catalog titles on home video, they at the least make more of them available on say Hulu or another streaming service. Or license some of them out to a boutique label like Kino.

There are large numbers of Fox's late 20s-40s output that is basically unavailable to watch outside of film festivals, and that's a huge shame that many of these are going to languish inside the vault for decades, like films from the older days did after the original release.

Of course, it would be my preference for these pictures to get released. I keep thinking that with all of the streaming now eventually they will get everything out there on a channel.

Whether or not we see Blu-rays of them is another story.. I am not trying to get into a debate about what we feel are classics, I just wonder how many people will buy Blu-rays of old films. How much of an audience is there for them.

What I seem to see here is that younger generations have much less tolerance for not just older films, but films in general.

The block of time to watch a film seems too long for younger people. I think a lot plays into that including just that with technology now and the speed at which news and information is delivered, 5 minutes ago is now a long time ago to people never mind 50 years ago or more.

If there are only a few thousand of us left that are watching old movies what value do companies place on letting us see them?

 

[TravisR]

When I went to see Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood it did not occur to me until after the picture was over that a lot of people would have no idea what the story or the twists were about. Sitting next to me was a couple in their early 20s and they had no idea who Manson was or the story of Sharon Tate getting slaughtered.

I realized that unless you knew the story of what happened in real life, the picture would make very little sense. I believe Tarantino probably did not think of this when making it because the whole thing is bathed in this nostalgic glow and he was grooving on that, as was I watching it, but people in their 20s probably would have no clue. Charles Manson was not some big deal to them and that story was not really anything that would have been important at all to their lives.

I ended up in a conversation with the young couple and it was an eye opener. They had no clue who Manson was, knew nothing of the murders, so they watched the picture with no idea what Tarantino was doing. They just saw it as an odd fictional story that did not make much sense. When I told them who Manson was and where he appeared in the film and a bit about who Tate was and the murders, they were stunned. The guy said "Wow, I will have to go google that stuff and watch this again."

OK, if they didn't know Charles Manson, surely they must have understood the references to the "three Georges" or James Stacy riding a motorcycle or Polanski's dog being named Sapperstein, right?

When the OUATIH novel came out this year, I read it and loved it but I saw a lot of feedback from friends and random people on Twitter who were baffled by nearly all the references (there's waaaaaay more in the book than the movie) and while there were one or two people mentioned in the book that I didn't know, the idea that a reader wouldn't know all of this old junk that is constantly referenced throughout never occurred to me.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

OK, if they didn't know Charles Manson, surely they must have understood the references to the "three Georges" or James Stacy riding a motorcycle or Polanski's dog being named Sapperstein, right?

When the OUATIH novel came out this year, I read it and loved it but I saw a lot of feedback from friends and random people on Twitter who were baffled by nearly all the references (there's waaaaaay more in the book than the movie) and while there were one or two people mentioned in the book that I didn't know, the idea that a reader wouldn't know all of this old junk that is constantly referenced throughout never occurred to me.

It did not occur to me either but if you think about it Manson and the murders are now very long ago. Manson over time was mentioned in the media less and less. Mostly when he would come up for parole and this was not frequent and really became a smaller and smaller news item. So, I don't know what timeframe to put on it but I would say after a certain date (the 1980s maybe?) probably he becomes mostly an unknown to people.

I found it interesting talking to the couple that did not know of him. At first when I was telling them it was referencing real events they thought it was a true story and all the insanity with Pitt and DiCaprio was real. I laughed and explained they were not real and what they show taking place was not real and meant to be an entertaining twist once the Manson clan members get out of the car and head up the hill to commit the murders.

When I told them the Manson clan members actually slaughtered Tate and her friends and were not killed themselves by Brad and Leo they got fairly confused. This was the point where I realized that if you don't know at least the basics of what happened the whole damn movie makes no sense at all. He basically made a film to appeal to people over a certain age or at least to appeal to people that know the whole Manson/Tate story.

I spent a while wondering if Tarantino thought about this and I kind of think he didn't because the whole story is probably so ingrained in his brain he does the same thing we all do...which is assume everybody would know about Manson, his cult and the murders. This was pretty much what my wife and I discussed on the ride home.

 

[MartinP.]

Regardless of what people knew or didn't know in the case of Tarantino's film, it was quite successful. Makes me wonder what people brought to the table when they were watching Inglorious Basterds.

It also reminds me of H.L. Mencken's original thought on this, which has often been simplified to a line or two: "No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby. The mistake that is made always runs the other way. Because the plain people are able to speak and understand, and even, in many cases, to read and write, it is assumed that they have ideas in their heads, and an appetite for more. This assumption is a folly."

 

[Robert Crawford]

Damn, this thread has taken a strange turn.

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

maybe that terrible Tom Cruise mummy movie will have been totally reassessed and be considered a classic.

If that happens, I hope I'm a mummy at that point.

 

[TravisR]

It did not occur to me either but if you think about it Manson and the murders are now very long ago. Manson over time was mentioned in the media less and less. Mostly when he would come up for parole and this was not frequent and really became a smaller and smaller news item. So, I don't know what timeframe to put on it but I would say after a certain date (the 1980s maybe?) probably he becomes mostly an unknown to people.

I found it interesting talking to the couple that did not know of him. At first when I was telling them it was referencing real events they thought it was a true story and all the insanity with Pitt and DiCaprio was real. I laughed and explained they were not real and what they show taking place was not real and meant to be an entertaining twist once the Manson clan members get out of the car and head up the hill to commit the murders.

When I told them the Manson clan members actually slaughtered Tate and her friends and were not killed themselves by Brad and Leo they got fairly confused. This was the point where I realized that if you don't know at least the basics of what happened the whole damn movie makes no sense at all. He basically made a film to appeal to people over a certain age or at least to appeal to people that know the whole Manson/Tate story.

I spent a while wondering if Tarantino thought about this and I kind of think he didn't because the whole story is probably so ingrained in his brain he does the same thing we all do...which is assume everybody would know about Manson, his cult and the murders. This was pretty much what my wife and I discussed on the ride home.

On the surface, I find it odd that people wouldn't have at least a cursory knowledge of Charles Manson but you're right, the murders were decades ago and Charlie as the boogeyman via TV interview pretty much ended in the 80s so anyone under 35 isn't likely to really know much about the murders. That being said, I don't think it mattered to Tarantino if a segment of the audience didn't know the real outcome whether they accounted for that or not.

All of this raises the question: were there people who watched the end of Inglourious Basterds who said "Man, I didn't know they killed Hitler like that!"

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

On the surface, I find it odd that people wouldn't have at least a cursory knowledge of Charles Manson but you're right, the murders were decades ago and Charlie as the boogeyman via TV interview pretty much ended in the 80s so anyone under 35 isn't likely to really know much about the murders. That being said, I don't think it mattered to Tarantino if a segment of the audience didn't know the real outcome whether they accounted for that or not.

All of this raises the question: were there people who watched the end of Inglourious Basterds who said "Man, I didn't know they killed Hitler like that!"

Manson was burned into my brain because when I was a kid in the 1970s I watched that TV Movie with Steve Railsback and quite honestly he scared the living shit out of me. I was fascinated and horrified by Manson. So, I have walked around since childhood thinking everybody knows who he is but younger people don't and I just don't think a lot of people throw around Manson references in normal conversation anymore.

I would hope they still teach kids about WWII though so there are not incidents where they think Tarantino's picture has anything to do with reality. Although we do live in strange times, ha!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Please, no more Manson discussion!