Paramount catalog titles in '04 (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Whitford]

Rustlers Rhapsody is a hilarous campy old west movie. I quess no one here knows about it.

 

[Bill Burns]

My concern was any impression that a lack of studio responsiveness (release dates, info, etc.) could be equated with a lack of studio concern for fan interest in any particular title, and customer/enthusiast feedback in general. One sometimes makes sense (most importantly for companies like Criterion, in fact, where advanced notice of intent might jeopardize their ability to secure rights, and of course the preparation of elements and supplements often delays their product), sometimes doesn't (as long as I have a month or so of notice -- the more the better, though -- I can plan my purchasing accordingly; otherwise, a title may have to wait a while), but the other is poor business. I'm glad that wasn't what you meant, Robert -- my fault.

P.S. Verbose? Who, me? Nah. The essayist in me dies hard ....

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Rustlers Rhapsody is a hilarous campy old west movie. I quess no one here knows about it.

1985? Hugh Wilson's follow-up to Police Academy? A warm and silly comic homage to the old-style cowpoke adventures starring Tom Bereneger, G.W. Bailey and Marilu Henner? The one nobody went to see despite a few admiring reviews and has since existed as a sorta-cult flick...and one that's definitely worth seeing for fans of the Western genre?

Nah, never heard of it.

It's a cute little movie, and one I look forward to seeing again...but not something I need to own.

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

Hmmmm, probably I'll check out Summer School, but the Digital Bits had a rumor mill post in recent weeks, talking about a South Park Bigger Longer and Uncut, SE and that I am all over. Actually that rumor was posted the day after I bought the bare bones release. D'oh

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Robert's right; the Big Studios just keeping ploughing away at putting together DVDs of the films they own and releasing them and people buy them, and that's all there is to it. They have neither the time nor the inclination to give up-to-the-minute reports on every catalogue title.

I love movies, and I love DVDs, but I understand that they are product in the marketplace which is there to make rich people richer. Criterion are different, of course.

If you were on the inside of this - if you worked in the DVD Department of a Big Studio, then I'm sure you would shocked at the way things work and be even more shocked at the attitudes of some people.

I don't know about everybody else, but I buy about 5 new releases per week and they are almost always older films, and 90% of the time I am delighted with my purchases. As long as that keeps happening, I won't ask for more. I know that somewhere down the line, Paramount will give me If... and Universal will give me Sometimes A Great Notion, but in the meantime, I'll just carry on buying what I fancy each week.

But input to Studios is well worth it... as long as they are listening...


Gordy

 

[todd s]

I would love a commentary by the actors who played Chainsaw & Dave. They aren't doing anything now. So it probably wouldn't cost that much.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

I don't think anybody wants to see an up to the minute report on what is going on, and even every day or week would be pushing it, but Once a month i could live with, and be extremly happy.

We now know some of the Paramount title for '04, and a few others too. Why would they even both to do that? Why not just keep everything under wraps until they come out?

I'm going to say - anticipation. It also stops the buyers from pounding them with emails, letters and phone calls about people wanting to know why a certain title isn't out. It isn't like the public has a master list, and just goes down to the next one they they know nothing about.

And what is so hard? Let's say that a studio has decided to put out a certain title, and the proce normally take 12 months (don't argue the lengths). On their January list, they put down it's expected release date and what is going on with the title now.

Guessing again, I'll start with the clearances. It could spend an average of 2 months there. If, during the 2nd month it gets delayed, the release date gets kicked up to the next month, January in this case. If the rights cannot be obtained, they put that down on their next list and state that they can't do it, and remove it from the expected release month.

I know that this will entail tons of resources and money, but I can't see any downside to doing something like that.

Glenn

 

[Robert Crawford]

Glenn,
Paramount is no different than any other corporation in which no project gets going until the budget is approved and they're able to pay for it which is probably why the first half of their titles are known while the second half titles are still in the process of being approved budget-wise due to the unknown state of the different film elements being used for those second half titles. Case in point, perhaps "The African Queen" isn't announced because it's probably still in the approval phase of the budget process in which Paramount is deciding the best course of action regarding the restoration of those elements and how they're going to budget the restoration of those film elements.






Crawdaddy

 

[David Lambert]

Keep in mind, too, that "announcing" something prematurely may cause that release to never happen. I think it was Bill Hunt (of The Digital Bits) who came here and explained this to the HTF a while back (if I named the wrong person, then my apologies). But it was Alien Quadrilogy being referenced in the explanation.

Basically, studio tells the world "we intend to release this on DVD". Behind-the-scenes people (director, producer, etc.) read this and get upset: "First I've heard of it!" Now the studio has an upset person to deal with. Then the fans start screaming and cheering, "Yay! It's coming! Praise the Lord!" Now studio has to go get music clearances and invite talent to do participation (commentary or interview or share materials they've saved), and since they see that this is a much higher demand item than they thought, suddenly their asking price goes up!


Bottom line is that a studio might actually get through the production process of a DVD a lot quicker if they keep it quiet until everything is firm.

 

[LarryDavenport]

I think The President's Analyst will come out in tact with the original music. Before they became just another crappy network, AMC showed it letterboxed with Barry McGuire et al. The print looked very clean.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Point well taken. I have to assume that an announcement for a June release means that everything has been cleared and they are now in production, be it just the main menu or the extras, but they have a date set.

Same thing. Why don't the other studios announce it when they are sure that the movies that have been cleared are waiting to get released? If they can't do it, they why does Paramount? I think that Paramount is 'one up' on the other studios for doing this.

Glenn

 

[ScottR]

I hope The Ten Commandments has been taken from great source materials with a restoored soundtrack....and hasn't been DVNR to death....I'm so excited!!!!

 

[Simon Caleb]

Personally I'd love the longer European edition of Phase IV & roll on Sept 04 for that F13th unrated box set, now where is Danger Diabolik - Mario Bava??

 

[Joel Vardy]

"The African Queen" isn't announced because it's probably still in the approval phase of the budget process in which Paramount is deciding the best course of action regarding the restoration of those elements and how they're going to budget the restoration of those film elements.

This is my concern for a title that I believe to be an important piece of movie history/culture. How is it that 7 years after the format began and the 10's of millions of players sold, worldwide, a title like this would still be just in the 'approval stage'. The restoration effort can not be substantially different from other important classics already on the market for years. Had this title been in the hands of studios with a healthier respect for movie heritage, like Warner or Fox, we would at least know that the restoration process would yield a release in a particular timeframe (if not necessarily a precise timeframe if the effort is only in the early stages). Unfortunately, I'm not getting the sense that Paramount thinks about it's stable of important classics in a way that I would characterize as a 'socially responsible' fashion. It appears to be just another ROI (return on investment) project that simply hasen't risen to the forefront of their priorities.

I'm hoping that I'm wrong and that we will be pleasantly surprised one of these days. I've emailed Bill Hunt at thedigitalbits since they have this title listed as 'in the works' in their AFI 100 list, though I don't know what evidence they have for this since I haven't gotten a response.

I own the R2 version of this film and can see how some restoration work would be desirable, though even if they released this title without significant new work being done to it it wouldn't be worse than say Double Indemnity or the R1 version of 'The Last Emperor'.

Paramount would do its reputation a ton of good if they proceeded with this project independent of guarantees of a great return and made it their contribution to the preservation of important films. This boils down to a cross between corporate culture and management style. Let's hope that their assessment of project risks let's this one through the gates sooner rather than later.

Joel

 

[Walter Kittel]

This is my concern for a title that I believe to be an important piece of movie history/culture. How is it that 7 years after the format began and the 10's of millions of players sold, worldwide, a title like this would still be just in the 'approval stage'. The restoration effort can not be substantially different from other important classics already on the market for years. Had this title been in the hands of studios with a healthier respect for movie heritage, like Warner or Fox, we would at least know that the restoration process would yield a release in a particular timeframe (if not necessarily a precise timeframe if the effort is only in the early stages). Unfortunately, I'm not getting the sense that Paramount thinks about it's stable of important classics in a way that I would characterize as a 'socially responsible' fashion. It appears to be just another ROI (return on investment) project that simply hasen't risen to the forefront of their priorities.

I would suggest that Paramount's handling of Once Upon A Time In The West should allay your fears.

- Walter.

 

[John Hodson]

Gordon; I've heard that this is now tentatively scheduled for an April 2004 release.

---
So many films, so little time...

 

[Joel Vardy]

I would suggest that Paramount's handling of Once Upon A Time In The West should allay your fears.

Though encouraging, this title has two differences from African Queen in my opinion:

- It has been requested repeatedly here and elsewhere to indicate some level of commercial viability that may be higher than the AQ. In contrast, my inquiries here about AQ have yielded limited responses.

- AQ stands in a different class of movie despite all those who consider OUATITW one of the great westerns. AQ brought together two of the top rated US stars on the screen together for the first time (it yielded one of them his first Oscar) and was directed by the legendary John Huston with the help of one of the great DP's of the time.

It subsequently ranks very high on the AFI 100 list will OUATITW didn't make the list at all...not that this alone should make it inconsequential. It's just a relative positioning issue in the history of films.

Joel

 

[Walter Kittel]

In contrast, my inquiries here about AQ have yielded limited responses.

One of the issues surrounding The African Queen was who held the distribution rights. There were numerous requests to Fox on this title ( probably on the basis of the CBS/Fox LD release of AQ. ) I believe this uncertainty had some affect upon the number of requests and responses. Subsequently it was determined that Paramount held the rights, and there have been requests ( and feedback such as Robert's in this thread. )

I disagree with your relative assessment of the two films, but do share your desire to see The African Queen receive a DVD release worthy of this great film.

- Walter.

 

[Joel Vardy]

One of the issues surrounding The African Queen was who held the distribution rights. There were numerous requests to Fox on this title ( probably on the basis of the CBS/Fox LD release of AQ. ) I believe this uncertainty had some affect upon the number of requests and responses. Subsequently it was determined that Paramount held the rights, and there have been requests ( and feedback such as Robert's in this thread. )

You're right about the 'rights issue' being a point of confusion and perhaps partially responsible for the lack of responsiveness to my inquiries. Since we uncovered that Paramount owns the rights Mr. Blythe, some months back, indicated in a feedback session (on another part of this forum) that Paramount is 'evaluating the project' on the premise that 'significant' restoration was needed prior to release. That is the basis for my cynicism with regards to Paramounts intent to ever release The African Queen . Once again, I'm pretty hopeful that forums such as this one will wake up this studio's reluctance to take this on after all this time. As far as contrasting the project vis-a-vis Once Upon a Time in the West my point is that Paramount is prioritizing it's projects on a return basis and not necessarily using the same weighting factors as Warner and Fox for those handful of classics that should be released despite carrying certain commercial risks. I'm in no way saying that OUATITW is not worthy of classic treatment, as you point out, it deservedly received.

Joel

 

[Robert Crawford]

Joel,
You need to chill because the title is in the pipeline and that's about all I can say at this time.





Crawdaddy