MARTIN & LEWIS "MONEY FROM HOME" (1 Viewer)

[Danoldrati]

HI
The Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis film "Money From Home" is available for
sale on the Legendfilm site and some select Target stores. There are a couple of other rare Paramount films for sale "WON TON TON THE DOG THAT SAVED HOLLYWOOD" and RHUBARB(1951). Thought you might be interested.
Dan

 

[Charles Ellis]

I saw this film in 3-D (as it was originally released in the 50s) a few years back at Film Forum here in NY- if only the 3-D version could be released on disc!

 

[Richard--W]

I saw it projected in authentic 3-D as well. The entire audience was pleasantly surprised. I'm not a Lewis-Martin fan, so I wasn't expecting much. Seen as a standard flat film, MONEY FROM HOME is an engaging dramatic comedy, well-produced and well-acted. In authentic 3-D, one sees just how much thought went into the staging and lensing. It was the surprise hit of the World 3-D Expo in Hollywood in 2003, and it made even more friends at the second World 3-D Expo in 2006. The Film Forum in NYC saw what a hit it was and brought many of those authentic 3-D films to New York. New Yorkers might have another chance to see MONEY FROM HOME again in early fall of 2009.

There are a couple of home-video 3-D systems that could show off MONEY FROM HOME and other superior 3-D films to good advantage, not to mention profit, but the studios just aren't interested. Not yet anyway. Meanwhile, Legend's standard DVD is excellent quality and I recommended it.

 

[GregK]

Yes.. if Paramount could think "outside the box", this one would make for a nice 2-disc DVD set. Have a single disc cheap-sell through version be basically identical to the current Legend release, while a slightly more expensive 2-disc set could include a second disc using one of the superior 3-D formats (or two 3-D options on the 2nd disc, if the lesser quality anaglyphic version must be also included for marketing reasons). Even with a price increase, I don't think it would any surprise as to which edition would sell more copies.

 

[BillyFeldman]

Paramount did think outside the box. They licensed it to Legend.

 

[Bradley-E]

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...roze-over.html.

Whole thread about the Paramount/Legend films titles.

 

[Richard--W]

Good idea. Using the standard DVD to help disseminate the stereoscopic version in authentic field-sequential 3-D is a perfectly valid proposition and good marketing. It would be self-destructive, however, to include an anaglyph version. Anaglyph is easily done, but it is a pseudo-process that produces extremely poor 3-D and eye-strain. Time to put anaglyph behind us. An anaglyph option will only confuse consumers as to what authentic 3-D is and discourage them from buying more.

 

[RolandL]

Anaglyph is all we ever get from the studios.

 

[Jack Theakston]

Unfortunately, it's much easier to include a pair of anaglyph glasses than it is to include field or frame-sequential equipment.

The Legend DVD is quite nice and the color is very vibrant (it's been boosted a little). The only shame is that the original stereo soundtrack is now lost.

 

[Richard--W]

Hi Jack,

If the standard flat print is an option on the DVD then Stereoscopic viewing equipment doesn't have to be included. However shutter-glasses and the tiny pulse box should be on hand, and sold separately for those who want to try the stereoscopic option. One helps sell the other. Keep the price as low as possible and the product will move.

Taking the pseudo-3-D route with anaglyph would only prove to be self-defeating and disasterous.

 

[TonyD]

that topic is just titled "hell just froze over"
so how would anyone know what it was about.

 

[GregK]

Richard,

What I was alluding to, and I believe Jack as well, is the marketing considerations of 3-D video on a far wider scale. While field-sequential and Sensio 3-D DVDs are routinely sold through smaller outlets just fine, the far larger B&M stores are always concerned about returns. In this case, a number of people might purchase a 3D DVD thinking they can watch 3-D "out of the box". But with the superior 3-D video formats, that simply isn't the case. And with field-sequential and HDTVs, one can no longer just assume if they purchase LCD glasses and a pulse/controller box, that additional processing isn't required (depending on how the DVD player or HD display device converts fields to frames). This can spell returns from disgruntled "Joe 6-packs" who assumed all is well when 3-D plastered is on the label, but then fail to read the fine print.

I'm not a "fan" of anaglyph. But 'if' putting both anaglyph and field-sequential options on a release allowed for a wide release, I would be for it. ..Joe 6 Pack could just drink more beer and stick with the anaglyph or 2D version. But at least he would know it's not the best 3-D can be, as there would be a superior 3-D version on tap for those so inclined to purchase the needed extras. Money from Home is roughly 100 minutes. Two 3-D versions could fit on one dual layer DVD and still look very clean.

 

[Richard--W]

Thank you for your good reply.

If Joe 6 Pack can tell the difference between a BluRay player and a DVD player, between a 16x9 display and a 4x3 television, and hook them up once he gets home, then he is smart enough to distinguish one stereoscopic system from another. The solution could be as simple as color-coordinated labels on the cover art. Labeling "field-sequential y version" in red and "field-sequential yyy version" in blue makes things as easy for Joe 6 Pack to distinguish as "Full Screen Version" and "Widescreen Version." If the corresponding pulse box and field-sequential glasses are placed on the shelf adjoining the DVD, I can't see why retailers should worry about returns.

I maintain that an anaglyph option is a bad idea, for the reasons given below. Anaglyph only leads to customer disappointment and dissatisfaction. It is simply not a viable process in the age of high-resolution digital displays. If an anaglyph option were included, retailers would have good reason to worry about returns.

Or do you think I'm overlooking something?

=======
postscript: informing consumers that a field-sequential device is needed to view the stereoscopic option is simply a matter of stating so on the cover art. If a "Director's Cut" can sit on the shelf beside "Theatrical Version" and consumers have the acumen to chose one over the other, they can comprehend that a stereoscopic option needs a special plug-in device, like on their home computers. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Bradley-E]

I don't know; the thread was not created by me.

 

[RolandL]

They would need to specify which TV's field sequential would work properly. The old standard CRT's work fine with it. HDTV's have to be certain models. The best would be the ones with a 120 hz refresh rate for no flicker.