NYTimes asks: why aren't -these- on DVD? (1 Viewer)

[Jon Martin]

Interesting article, especially the part about MGM. I think we now know why some of the titles are OAR and others aren't. If they can't find the master for something like ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK, that probably explains why something like REMO WILLIAMS was released only full frame.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Wonderful to hear about the Marx Bros. and W.C. Fields comedies being worked on.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Mark Edward Heuck]

Nope, can't let MGM off that easily.

ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK is a title they have license on but do not own. As such, they have to pester the licensor (StudioCanal) for elements, and with the fractionalization of the old Embassy library, that is a difficult task.

But REMO WILLIAMS and other pan-scanned titles are from libraries they own outright, including UA and Orion, who were generally good about maintaining elements. It is their own negligent choice to not present them in proper OAR.

 

[Damin J Toell]

But REMO WILLIAMS and other pan-scanned titles are from libraries they own outright, including UA and Orion, who were generally good about maintaining elements. It is their own negligent choice to not present them in proper OAR.

Yes, UA was wonderful about maintaining elements. This is why we have that great 70mm roadshow DVD of It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, right? It's not like they were ever about to just junk all the remaining bits that they owned of that film, right?

Whether MGM has access to proper elements for Remo Williams or not, it's a bit overbroad to assume that, just because a studio owns a film as opposed to licensing it, they have all necessary elements for it.

DJ

 

[DaveB]

I also recall the early WB releases as very shoddy in a/v quality, extras and presentation, and packaging.

As an example, my Fugitive disc has non-anamorphic, sub-vhs quality video, generic menus and extras (selectable chapters!), all in an ugly snap case.

In my mind, Warner has come a long way in rising to become one of the elite DVD studios of today.

David

 

[Kwang Suh]

As an example, my Fugitive disc has non-anamorphic, sub-vhs quality video, generic menus and extras (selectable chapters!), all in an ugly snap case.

Eh? Every version of the Fugitive that Warner has released was anamorphic. As for the transfer, it wasn't too hot

As for Warner's early history, they have been and still are a huge supporter, and especially early on, the primary supporter of DVD. Too bad I haven't bought anything from them for ages.

 

[Paul_Stachniak]

We should really do something about this Blade Runner cancellation. I smell a petition brewing!

 

[David Lambert]

As for Warner's early history, they have been and still are a huge supporter, and especially early on, the primary supporter of DVD. Too bad I haven't bought anything from them for ages.

Which means you've missed fabulous DVDs from Warner lately such as the 2-Disc Special Edition line (The Adventures of Robin Hood, Yankee Doodle Dandy, Treasure of Sierra Madre, JFK, Casablanca, The Right Stuff, Once Upon A Time In America, The Color Purple, A Christmas Story, Space Jam, etc., etc.). You've skipped terrific TV-on-DVD sets from shows like The West Wing, E.R., Friends, Smallville, Babylon 5, La Femme Nikita, The Ben Stiller Show, Space Ghost: Coast To Coast, and more that even *I* can't remember. You've missed great releases of timeless classics like Silk Stockings, Objective Burma!, Chisum, Cahill: U.S. Marshall, The Spirit of '76, The Life & Times of Judge Roy Bean, The Master of Ballantrae, Scaramouche, Knights of the Round Table, What's Up Doc?, Nuts, The In-Laws (1979, mind you), Little Women, The Omega Man, Soylent Green, The Haunting, House of Wax, The Thing, Where Eagles Dare, Tightrope, Beast from 20000 Fathoms, High Sierra, To Have and Have Not, The Gold Rush, Limelight, Modern Times, The Great Dictator. You've missed anamorphic re-releases of the Vacation series movies and other things. You've missed The Looney Tunes Golden Collection.

I'd say that 2003 was a great year for Warner!


To bring this back 'round to the point of the thread, every studio has been as prolific lately as they possibly can be, I would imagine. If there is a big, obvious title that hasn't made it to DVD yet, I imagine that in most cases the studio hasn't forgotten about it; they just can't get it done yet for some reason. Which doesn't go to say that the project couldn't be prioritized more, but in most cases I doubt it's completely off their radar.

But not everything can come out simultaneously, and even the biggest, most-wanted projects (like King Kong) must sometimes wait for something or another.


In most cases, if something's not on DVD yet, there's probably a good reason for it. Maybe the only thing to do is to give the studios time. Still, it doesn't hurt to remind them that you and others are waiting for it...that goes to prioritization.

One of these days I'll be overjoyed when Fox puts "Scavenger Hunt" on DVD. But I sure hope "Cocoon" is available on DVD first!

 

[Jay E]

I would agree with the NY Times article about Warner at least in regards to older catalog titles. Warner was the worst studio in getting these DVDs out on the market. They only seemed to re-release the older titles that MGM lost the rights to. They also released a slew of full-frame DVDs in the early days, something I'm hoping they will go back and correct in the near future.

Thankfully they have changed their tune over the past couple of years and are now one of the best, if not the best, in releasing pre-1980 titles on DVD. They have come a long way.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

While Warner was a big backer of DVD initially, the first releases were followed up by flippers galore (Pelican Brief, for example, STILL available only as a flipper), and tons of P&S-only discs. If it was a comedy, or an action film, chances were good it would get a P&S only treatment. There are still literally dozens of Warner discs I would buy that still are P&S only. And Warner refused to for years to do anything with its or MGMs gigantic catalogs. Finally, they've turned that around, but it's about 3 years after they should have done sone. They're headed in the right direction but Warner still has a plethora of crappy releases to make up for.

 

[Randy A Salas]

While Warner was a big backer of DVD initially, the first releases were followed up by flippers galore

Warner issued 15 flipper DVDs total. Since then, five have been reissued without the flip.

 

[Ted Todorov]

As I understood the article Warner was mainly criticized for being devilishly slow in releasing films from it's vast classic library: i.e. stuff from the 30s and 40s (they have MGM's whole library from that period besides their own). Unless I am under the wrong impression, that criticism still stands.

I am also surprized that there hasn't been more reaction to the news of the Blade Runner SE cancellation: was this already common knowledge?

Ted

 

[Jack Briggs]

No, I think we're hearing it for the first time.

 

[Greg_M]

Damin J Toell
"It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" was made by United Artists in 1962-1963. MGM got the video rights during the 1990's. Prior to that the United Artist library was released through FOX (CBS-FOX to be exact)

MGM would never have been able to maintain the film elements for "Mad World"

Most of the 70-MM MGM films are now under Warner Bros. control. MGM elements should be pretty good - most have survived but some were destroyed in a fire years ago.


The NYT article reads more like a high school newspaper article - and THIS From the New York Times! :frowning:


As for Warner:

Warner and Columbia were the first studios to support DVD.

1. Warner released many flippers because of this very reason - when DVD first came out they could only fit 130 minutes or so on one side of a disc.

2. Warner also tested the market by releasing Pan and scan (Full frame) films like "Arthur" and "Private Benjaman" again these were to test the market. These titles were not very wide (OAR) to begin with and I believe both features were made at Orion which Warner obtained during the 80's? The film elements on these titles were never great to begin with.(Most Orion features weren't especially those made during the late 70's when film stocks were at there lowest quailty) Check out "Excalibur" or "Caddyshack"

By the way "Excalibur" was one of the first released DVd's and had a director commentary track.

3. Warner tested "classic" black and white films early on and they DIDN'T sell!. The early adopters of DVD were the action film fans. (Disney, FOX and Paramount hadn't even released a DVD)

Warner does need to release some of the early titles like "Arthur" (widescreen and cleaned up)But without WB there probably wouldn't have been DVD.

 

[Conrad_SSS]

As I understood the article Warner was mainly criticized for being devilishly slow in releasing films from it's vast classic library: i.e. stuff from the 30s and 40s (they have MGM's whole library from that period besides their own). Unless I am under the wrong impression, that criticism still stands.

Wrong! Even the article admitted that Warner has made a big turnaround in this regard recently. Just in the last few months we had the superb Warner Legends releases, 4 new Bogart classics, the incredible LOONEY TUNES GOLDEN COLLECTION, the truly cinephile-oriented Lon Chaney double disc set, great Cole Porter musicals last spring, super sci-fi horror films like THE THING, THE HAUNTING, and HOUSE OF WAX coupled with MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM, then there were more Errol Flynns like THE PRINCE & THE PAUPER and OBJECTIVE BURMA (gorgeous transfers!), Minnelli's FATHER OF THE BRIDE, and an amazing MILDRED PIERCE..and that just scratches the surface!

And they've already announced DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE ('32 and '41), POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE, WIND AND THE LION, WHERE THE BOYS ARE, DAYS OF WINE AND ROSES, GASLIGHT, GOODBYE MR. CHIPS '39, THE GREAT ZIEGFELD, MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY, MRS. MINIVER, THE SUNSHINE BOYS, and unofficially we've been told that vintage MGM Garland musicals are heading our way as well....

As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to classics on DVD, Warner is now the king, having achieved a 180 degree change from just a year or two ago.

 

[David Lambert]

The NYT article reads more like a high school newspaper article - and THIS From the New York Times! :frowning:

I'm at work at the moment, logging in while I eat a spot of lunch. Because of that, I don't have my NYT account login info with me, so I can't check.

But - if I recall correctly - wasn't the writer of the article someone who, in their signature, stated that they normally write for Slate or something? It seems like the Times just picked this up freelance, and perhaps didn't hold it to their normal standards.

Not saying that this is the right thing for the NYT to do, though. I'm only a so-so writer, in my mind, and if something I wrote caught the attention of some publication of their caliber and they wanted to run it, I would expect them to put it through their usual paces (but hopefully still check with me to make sure I was happy with my name on the end result!). The reactions in this thread show that we do indeed hold a paper like the Times up to a higher standard than a DVD news site or even most other publications. If this had run in Wired, probably noone would have been so critical of the style.


Maybe a real newspaperman will come along and offer an opinion on what I'm saying. :wink:

 

[Damin J Toell]

"It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" was made by United Artists in 1962-1963. MGM got the video rights during the 1990's. Prior to that the United Artist library was released through FOX (CBS-FOX to be exact)

MGM would never have been able to maintain the film elements for "Mad World"

Most of the 70-MM MGM films are now under Warner Bros. control. MGM elements should be pretty good - most have survived but some were destroyed in a fire years ago.

I'm sorry, Greg, but you seem to have missed the point. Mark Edward Heuck argued that MGM should have no problem getting elements to certain films in their video catalog, as they own the films outright and the films were produced by studios (UA being named as one) that were "generally good" about their elements. All of the things you say are true, but none of it is related to the discussion that was happening: whether UA was good about their elements, and whether owning a film outright as opposed to licensing it necessarily affects the quality of elements one can have access to.

DJ

 

[JulianK]

Part of the reason that Warner released so many full-frame DVDs early on was because they realised that the format needed a critical mass of popular titles to appeal to potential consumers. This at a time when at least two of the other major studios weren't releasing DVD product at all!

Warner has also been very keen on keeping prices down, and have always marketed their catalogue releases at the lower end of the price scale. To keep costs of those early releases down they couldn't afford to create new transfers. There's hardly any incentive to create widescreen versions of films like the Police Academy sequels now, let alone back when 99% of DVD owners were still struggling with the concept of widescreen, and anamorphic!

Warners pioneered DVD almost single-handed, and without them we'd still be here discussing the latest laserdiscs!

 

[Greg_M]

Damin J Toell

Quote "Mark Edward Heuck argued that MGM should have no problem getting elements to certain films in their video catalog, as they own the films outright and the films were produced by studios (UA being named as one) that were "generally good" about their elements"

That may be true, but United Artists was never a film studio in the sense that MGM, Warner Bros. or Fox was. United Artists was formed as a partnership and didn't own a "Studio lot" and their elements are scattered all over. I'm sure MGM has many of UA's elements but most of the UA elements have been stored in various warehouses and much of it is hard to find. One reason why "Mad World" "Around the World in 80 Days" & "West Side Story" 70mm elements are almost gone or beyond repair.

Untied Artists went bankrupt following the 1980 release of "Heaven's Gate" There was no studio left to preseve the film elements at that point.

 

[Kwang Suh]

Which means you've missed fabulous DVDs from Warner lately such as the 2-Disc Special Edition line (The Adventures of Robin Hood, Yankee Doodle Dandy, Treasure of Sierra Madre, JFK, Casablanca, The Right Stuff, Once Upon A Time In America, The Color Purple, A Christmas Story, Space Jam, etc., etc.). You've skipped terrific TV-on-DVD sets from shows like The West Wing, E.R., Friends, Smallville, Babylon 5, La Femme Nikita, The Ben Stiller Show, Space Ghost: Coast To Coast, and more that even *I* can't remember. You've missed great releases of timeless classics like Silk Stockings, Objective Burma!, Chisum, Cahill: U.S. Marshall, The Spirit of '76, The Life & Times of Judge Roy Bean, The Master of Ballantrae, Scaramouche, Knights of the Round Table, What's Up Doc?, Nuts, The In-Laws (1979, mind you), Little Women, The Omega Man, Soylent Green, The Haunting, House of Wax, The Thing, Where Eagles Dare, Tightrope, Beast from 20000 Fathoms, High Sierra, To Have and Have Not, The Gold Rush, Limelight, Modern Times, The Great Dictator. You've missed anamorphic re-releases of the Vacation series movies and other things. You've missed The Looney Tunes Golden Collection.

Oh, I wasn't insinuating that they stopped releasing good stuff. I just haven't bought anything from them for a while.