Paramount catalog titles in '04 (1 Viewer)

[Joel Vardy]

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

Crawdaddy,

With all due respect to your position here, that statement was uncalled for. Had you indicated that this title was already in the pipeline but you couldn't disclose any more details, I would not have said what I said.

Joel

 

[Robert Crawford]

What exactly did I say was uncalled for? I think you're being very sensitive, especially, since you basically blasted Paramount with both barrels while I'm just urging you to calm down a bit.




Crawdaddy

 

[Derek_McL]

No I don't think Paramount deserve much criticism for the none appearance of a few major classics : The Miracle of Morgan's Creek, The African Queen (which of course the studio never produced) and Ace In The Hole. Apart from those three I can't think of many others from Hollywood's golden age that Paramount has the rights too that aren't already out there in some version or another. Even The African Queen has had a perfectly reasonable release from Carlton in the UK not flawless but not all that bad.

I'm not sure about the silents (?) but Universal own almost all the classic Paramount films (pre 1948 I think ?) so a lacklustre list of new releases for next year (IMHO) isn't all that surprising. Sorry but I can't work up that much enthusiasm for The Greatest Show On Earth and The Ten Commandments SE although including the silent version might just result in a sale. If Paramount own the rights lets have their silents possibly in a series like the TCM/ Warner projected one : films like Wings (1927)and Von Stroheim's The Wedding March (1928)would be great.

 

[Joel Vardy]

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

Naturally, your inside information made you react to my irritation with Paramounts 'footdragging'. Since they are not eager to show their hand (perhaps a bit of a different policy posture from other studios since this may not come to pass) I concluded, without other evidence, that they dropped the project for now and are not putting forth any funds for the time being. In the scheme of things this is no big deal. Maybe it will get funded, maybe it won't but in comparison to the mountains of drivel being released week after week, the classic film enthusiast in me is a bit saddened at the pattern. On the other hand I have been heartened by the apparent turnaround in attitude at Warner with the wonderful recent Bogart and other 2-disk specials. I hope the numbers reward the studios who are willng to stick their commercial necks out a bit (this includes Fox IMHO). Even Universal is making an effort (despite plenty of criticism around here about their QC snafus). All in all most studios are doing a great job with their classics (just look at the tremendous job Disney has done of late -- a big thumbs up for their willingness to show their hand about future releases with a 12 month release window). This thread, however, is about Paramount's policies and intentions and I reserve the right to be unimpressed with their performance on release schedules, though plenty impressed with the quality of their product.

It all boils down to the art of marketing visibility. How much respect do you have for the paying public to risk embarrassment when you show your pipeline with the caveat that all rights to change the schedule and/or delete titles as new information becomes available is reserved. Is it better policy to hold out any information till 6-12 weeks prior to the release with 'firm dates' or share some development plans that may or may not come to pass. I clearly prefer the later (my opinion is based on my professional experiences about public preannouncements). I'm sure others may disagree.

Joel

 

[Robert Crawford]

I don't think I misread your posts at all. So, you've been after this title for two years, well, there are titles I've been campaigning for on this forum for five years, but I realized the studios have a different timetable than the one I have when it comes to those titles.

Secondly, the question of the dvd rights to this film wasn't really known until this year, therefore, I don't have a problem with Paramount taking their time and doing this great film justice, presentation-wise on dvd.

Thirdly, if you think what I said to you is a personal attack then you have a much broader interpretation of our forum rules than the HTF Administrative Staff does.






Crawdaddy

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Paramount would have to be pretty dumb to not be working on a SE of The African Queen: it's a great film - a bona fide classic, in fact and many, many people would love to own it on DVD.

But the original Technicolor negative isn't in the best of shape and substantial photo-chemical and digital restoration/refurbishment is probably required. Paramount only recently acquired the rights to the film, so they will be working out exactly what they need to do with this much-loved film.

All good things come to those who wait.


Gordy

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

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

Yes! What's the source for this?


Gordy

 

[John Hodson]

Gordon; I ordered this from dvdsoon.com when they inadvertently let slip (then removed) a few Paramount titles earlier this year, If... amongst them. I emailed dvdsoon a few days ago to ask them the status of the title and they told me that Paramount had told them that April 2004 was likely.

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

 

[Thomas T]

I can't beliee some of the stuff I'm reading here! Paramount not behaving in a "socially responsbile" manner? Paramount doesn't have to tell us a thing! Zip! Nada! They owe us nothing! They don't even have to release The African Queen at all if they don't want to. Who says they owe it to us?

It's coming. I'm grateful. Some of us who lurk around the HTF are appreciative. Thank you, Paramount.

 

[Bill Burns]

To come, uninvited, to Joel's defense on one point, Thomas: "socially responsible" refers to the fact that films are works of art entrusted to studios, who are, whether they commission their creation or buy them after the fact, patrons of the arts -- filmmakers make them for the public, and any persistent and willful disregard for this trust is socially irresponsible (the studios that wilfully destroyed silent film holdings exercised a blatant, though perhaps at the time not quite so obvious, social irresponsibility). I don't see, from the perspective of a film/DVD patron, anything to indicate social irresponsibility on the part of Paramount today (the early Paramount material now held by Universal is finding its way to DVD, and thus public presentation, in lovely shape, for instance, something for which I assume we have both studios to thank), but I'm not a film restorer/preservationist, and such an individual would be far better able to characterize the care with which any given studio is treating its backlog.

The basic idea is sound, though, and therefore worthy of discussion, whether there are studios falling into irresponsibility at the moment or no: a museum that buys a slew of original van Goghs owns those paintings, but that doesn't give them the moral right to stuff 'em in a closet and never display them. That's "social irresponsibility," but moreover it is moral irresponsibility. Is it a legal right? Sure, the museum owns the paintings, and so the curators can do what they like with them. But it's irresponsible to keep them from the public, and a break of trust with the painter -- or, in the case of cinema, with the filmmaker.

Movies are made for the public, not for the privileged few archivists you can run a can from a studio vault at will. That's why it's a social responsibility to maintain public accessibility to films, though this will foremost mean theatrical showings, rather than home video releases.* The public projections of holdings by George Eastman House, UCLA Film and Television Archive, and other archival houses are an excellent example of social responsibility.

A means to meet such social/moral obligations that is fiscally realistic (and, for businesses such as studios, specifically profitable) must be found, of course, and that's the dichotomy of business and art with which filmmakers and producers/studios have struggled since the first actualities in the late 19th century.

Deserved praise tempered with justified criticism is always the most meaningful sort of patronage/advocacy, and part of the artistic trust described above lies with the public, who must remain watchful that those who hold our cinematic heritage are treating it (both in preservation and in presentation) with proper care and concern. A lack of such watchfulness has led to the outright destruction -- in some cases due to deliberate action, in some cases due to neglect, in just about all cases due to disinterest -- of thousands of films.

* That model changes more and more the closer home video comes to reproducing a full cinematic experience, of course, and the imperative for DVD can be argued as morally greater than that for VHS in this regard, though DVDs, of course, are still incapable of fully reproducing the visual information of 35mm (and even good quality, native 16mm) film. That the format reaches a potential audience of millions who cannot travel to a few specialty theatres that might show a revival may negate this consideration, though, and make the DVD imperative still greater. When HD-DVD arrives, and if it delivers something more or less equatable with 35mm film resolution (this remains to be seen), the issue will be moot: a good faith release to the format will be akin to fulfilling the trust implicit between film maker and film owner, after it has had its due consideration in the theatrical market. We may have already reached this philosophical point with DVD (I tend to think we have), but I'll leave that to others to argue.

 

[Derek_McL]

Yes Bill I think agree with most of what you've said. The point I was trying to make was it was a little unfair to lambast Paramount when only three A-list classics among the films they own : African Queen, Ace In The Hole and Miracle of Morgans Creek await release. Those desperate for The African Queen and I can understand Joel in thinking Paramount are dragging their feet a bit on this title can always get the Region 2. Actually I'm quite surprised The African Queen hasn't been released when almost every other important Bogart film is available yet that was the one for which he won an Academy Award. Also the sad loss of Katie Hepburn earlier this year I thought might have speeded things up. Still the rumours of an April 2004 release sound promising and if we can expect a restoration comparable to Sunset Boulevard it will be worth the wait.

I don't know if I agree with you Bill in your assertion that the early Paramount material owned by Universal is finding its way to DVD. Yes some of it is but its an extremely slow process. I didn't think I'd be defending Universal UK here but they are at least giving UK buyers boxsets of Deanna Durbin, Cary Grant (including Bringing Up Baby), Fred and Ginger and the Marx Brothers (four of their Paramounts). Where are these releases from Universal or Warner in the US ? For the first time we in the UK are ahead of the game when it comes to classic film on DVD.

Actually Universal have released very few of the Paramounts they own. Most of whats available apart from Bing Crosby and Bob Hope has been licensed out to Criterion and Image Entertainment. Perhaps Universal thinks the likes of W.C. Fields, early Gary Cooper and Marlene Dietrich, Mae West and Peston Sturges just won't sell. It possibly goes back to commercial reasons as you say Bill.

The Abbott and Costello sets I suppose are a step in the right direction but while I find them OK I would much prefer to see more of those early Paramounts. I hope we will even if we have to rely on Criterion or Image. As you say Bill at the end of the day the rights owner can release what they like when they like and classic film DVD releases have generally been pretty good.

At the end of the day its all down to money and the visibility of the films. I agree with Joel that it can be frustrating when you consider all the garbage that does come out. Yes there is a pact between the rights owner and the film-maker but I wouldn't leave the film goer or consumer out in the cold.

Lots of films are getting unjustly forgotten by the masses because they aren't on DVD. Before home video and DVD I got all my film education really from watching television. In the 70s,80s and some of the 90s all the major classic silents and talkies were regularly aired on mainstream Television.

Sadly thats no longer the case so I worry where is the ordinary person on the street going to discover the world of classic film except through DVD or HD-DVD releases ? Only the diehards go to theatrical screenings. For instance today's youngsters aren't getting the chance to discover as I did the magic of the silent clowns like Chaplin,Keaton and Lloyd. I find that very sad. So I think the big studios do have some responsibility to keep us reminded about about cinema's great and glorious past.

About six months ago there was a programme on Channel 4 here in the UK which purported to list the top 100 Movie Stars of all-time yet failed to mention the following : Laurel and Hardy, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, The Marx Brothers, James Cagney, Errol Flynn, Gary Cooper, Marlene Dietrich and many others. Part of the job of the big studios in releasing DVDs is to fight that ignorance.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Cheers, John.

"One man can change the World with a bullet in the right place."


Gordy

 

[Joe Caps]

They have Deanna Durbin Box sets in the UK? You could probably put all of her films in four box sets here - What Gives - Universal, get moving and release Rodgers and Hammersteins Flower Drum Song while you're at it.

 

[Greg_M]

Was "THE AFRICAN QUEEN" a Paramount tile? I remember FOX home video releasing the film during the 80's. If this is the case who would actually restore the film? There could be many reasons why "African Queen" hasn't been restored up to this point. Paramount only stared getting films originally released by FOX during the last few years "Scrooge" "Little Big Man" "My Fair Lady" (VHS Only)

 

[Robert Crawford]

United Artists had the distribution rights during it's initial theatrical run. CBS/Fox had videotape and LD distribution rights and finally the dvd distribution rights have passed onto Paramount.




Crawdaddy

 

[Scott Strang]

A Smile Like Yours

I'll buy that. Hopefully it looks better than my LD copy of the flick.

 

[Bill Burns]

I don't know if I agree with you Bill in your assertion that the early Paramount material owned by Universal is finding its way to DVD ....

Oh, it's not a definitive opinion, by any means , but I'm very happy with both the quality of the content and the pricing structure on releases such as their Bing Crosby double feature discs (four altogether, which amounts to eight films, including their first Crosby double, Holiday Inn / Going My Way), their Bob Hope doubles and singles (I've seen one of the doubles, but "hope" to pick up more ... eh, sorry, it's early), their George Burns/Gracie Allen triple feature disc (W.C. Fields appears in at least one of the films, if I recall), their classic western series', and other classic releases, including their licensed product to Criterion ... some of those are Universal productions, some Paramount (I haven't looked up each to see how many fall into which category, but they're all of at least good, and often very good to great, quality, with perhaps three exceptions among those I've seen, one each among the major licenses: Criterion, Kino, and Image). We already have word of nine (nine!) classic titles of the 30's and 40's for early next year (Febraury 10th sees the release not only of eight Abbott and Costello films in a single set, but also the pairing of the 1934 Imitation of Life with its re-remake, which is already available on its own). Theirs may not be the most robust classic dedication on the format (Fox probably has them beat by virtue of the Fox Studio Classics line, and that second Marilyn Monroe Box if it was released this year ... but Universal is still right up there with even the king of the hill for quantity of releases in a single year), but it seems very healthy to me, and so long as cost and quality are maintained, I'm expecting very big things, the possibility of the complete A&Cs among them, throughout the coming year. In fact, with the WB, Fox, and Universal line-up in January and February, one might rightly feel as if they're living through an entire year of releases in just those two months. 2004 is getting off to a grand start indeed, and Universal is at least keeping, and possibly, one could argue, for their unmatched pricing structure if for nothing else, even setting the pace in the quality/quantity/value race.

Perhaps Deanna Durbin won't be far behind. Here's hoping. The IMDB lists 22 feature films to her credit (a 23rd is a 1999 German short to which she contributed her voice as the sole cast member, again by way of IMDB details). Sampling two from the 40's, I see they were Universal productions. A few boxed sets of the A&C variety would cover her work in fine order. Oh, and according to the Preston Sturges estate (as I believe I read around here somewhere), Universal is considering sets of releases for his films that would pair a famous title with a lesser known title. That gets a rarified double .

 

[Jesse H.]

MIA Paramount titles - where they at?

all OAR of course - and trailers too please

Danger: Diabolik - not dubbed
The Conformist
A New Leaf
The Friends of Eddie Coyle
Hustle
Mahogany
1900
Reds


J.

 

[JonZ]

Nothing on that list I want except maybe Star Trek since I skipped the first release.

Id love to get a proper release of Black Rain

 

[Paul_Scott]

yikes.

that list came out last fall, and i was sure it was only a partial list to be embellished closer to release time- but nope. that seems to be the extent of Paramounts catalog offerings for the first 6 months of the year at least.

i guess i can say now it, i'm officially disappointed.
especially after some strong catalog output in Q3 & Q4 of last year.
i can't remember the last catalog title i picked up from them- must have been back in early Dec.

hope the last 1/2 of the year is going to be a lot stronger than the first.