Hitchcock Coming from Mill Creek September 25th (1 Viewer)

[docdoowop]

Alfred Hitchcock 20 Movie Pack

Blackmail
Champagne
Cheney Vase, The
Easy Virtue
Farmer's Wife, The
Jamaica Inn
Juno and the Paycock
Lady Vanishes, The
Lodger, The
Man Who Knew Too Much, The
Manxman, The
Number 17
Rich and Strange
Ring, The
Sabotage
Secret Agent
Skin Game, The
Sorcerer's Apprentice, The
39 Steps, The
Young and Innocent

 

[Simon Howson]

This is just a collection of bootleg public domain transfers that have already been released a thousand times. It is best avoided.

 

[docdoowop]

Can't be bootleg if it's in the public domain.

 

[PaulP]

Are these restored?

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

If a restored DVD of SABOTAGE ever hits, I'll be one extremely happy Hitchcock fan...one of his absolute best. That, PSYCHO, and FRENZY are my top three.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

It can if it's not and distributors act like it is.

Regards,

 

[Patrick McCart]

Mill Creek is one of the worst PD distributors. They use terrible transfers and even add a bug to the corner of the image. As if anyone would want to bootleg them. :rolleyes

 

[Jason Seaver]

Well, from previous threads I gather that there are legitimate questions about the early Hitchcocks being public domain.

 

[Jon Martin]

I've got to disagree. Mill Creek has some of the best of the PD transfers. The recent Ozzie and Harriet TV set got a lot of praise over in the TV section. Some are even letterboxed (like THE STREET FIGHTER films on the martial arts box). And most do not have bugs.

I have several of their 50 movie sets. For the price (under $20), the transfers are more than watchable.

As for this set, all of these titles are already available from other PD companies. But Mill Creek will probably have a better price.

 

[Richard--W]

I was considering buying a couple of the Mill Creek sets.

Which ones have bugs in the corner, do you know?

 

[WadeM]

I'm thinking from what I read here:
http://www.homemediaretailing.com/in...x=34&image.y=7

that we can expect another Hitchcock box from Lionsgate soon so that I would wait until the next Lionsgate Hitchcock release and forget this public domain stuff. I'm hoping that the quote below is referring to a new set, not the one from last year...

Quote: "Lionsgate’s partnership with Studio Canal will bring three new series: a Director’s Series, focusing on the works of such legendary directors as Alfred Hitchcock, Jean Renior and Jean-Luc Godard..."

and don't forget Hitchcock Presents Season 3 in October!

 

[Michael Elliott]

Mill Creek is the absolute best when it comes to releasing PD titles because they really, really search out hard to find titles and sell them very cheaply.

 

[Robert Harris]

These films are NOT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN!

RAH

 

[Simon Howson]

Well, they pretend the films are in the public domain, and often bootleg the transfers from Laserdiscs or other 'public domain' DVDs! Either way, spending money on these DVDs just delays the release of legitimate versions, with good transfers, and extra features.

 

[Michael Elliott]

That's what people claim yet how many years are we into DVD now? With all this time on this great format no studio has stepped up to deliver a remastered version of many of these films. I believe R2 has some remasters but that doesn't do any good for the many people here in R1. In fact, were there ever any good prints on VHS?

If the film isn't PD and the studio doesn't get them pulled then that tells me the studio doesn't care much about them anyways.

 

[docdoowop]

I fully agree.

 

[Jon Martin]

Who owns the rights and why aren't they doing anything about it?

There are at least six different companies currently releasing these films. Some, like Mill Creek, are more legit companies that know better.

Whoever owns the rights, why don't they send out cease and desist letters to all of them?

 

[Simon Howson]

You can just as easily look at it from the other way. If I'm some executive at Paramount, why would I OK spending a million dollars restoring a film like One Eyed Jacks only to release the DVD and compete against all the bootlegs? It would be doing the right thing for film heritage, but other companies are already making money from the film, that could've paid off some of the costs of a preservation / restoration.

A minority of public domain companies are doing a worthwile service by releasing hard to find films. Most of them are just trying to make a quick buck on properties they don't own.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Simon, why question would be the same as what Jon just said.

Don May of Synapse films has gotten several titles pulled from the PD market because he has the rights to them. If a very small company like Synapse can protect their rights then why aren't the right holders of Hitchcock or other films?

There's a foreign producer who I won't name but lets just say he doesn't care what happens to his films. He refuses to release them because he doesn't want to go through the paperwork so instead of releasing them through a company he just sent copies out via the "trading market" to where fans can trade them. He's losing money by doing this but that's how he wants it done. He doesn't care about the films, the money he could make from them or anything else.

I'm really not trying to defend Mill Creek in regards to these Hitchcock films but they're just releasing items that already have a hundred other prints out there. I was just in a dollar store here and they had nearly all of these Hitchcock titles. You can find these titles anywhere. I was defending Mill Creek against people throwing shots at them when I seriously doubt they own a single title from them. They have been a Godsend for horror, sci-fi, mystery and drama fans because they really do search out rare items and release them 50 for $20. I just get a little upset when people who wouldn't even bother watching one of these films come and say how bad the company is.

 

[Robert Harris]

By current international copyright statutes Mill Creek appears to be breaking the law, unless they are now the licensee of copyright for the titles in question. This may be the fact, and I have no information.

The US rights to many of these films are, or have been held by Criterion, but unlike the generic warnings on most DVDs and videos, the FBI has little interest in tracking down and pursuing those who illegally trade in 60 and 70 year old films.

Prison time and a $250,000 fine are set dressing. There is no reality to the warnings.

What this means is that one must litigate against any and all companies that trade in these films. In the end, the legitimate licensee is the loser.

If PD companies would cease from trading in copyrighted films, legitimate distributors might finally be positioned to make the investments necessary toward the creation of quality products.

RAH