What's up with Fox? (1 Viewer)

[Steve Schaffer]

I can remember when Fox was roundly criticized around here for any number of reasons, while Columbia was praised for consistently high quality.

In the early days, it was very safe to buy any Columbia title with confidence that the picture and sound quality would be excellent, while Fox was iffy at best.

Now the situation is totally reversed. If I see the Fox logo on the back of a dvd package, I feel very confident about purchasing it while I wait for reviews on Columbia stuff to see if PQ is up to snuff.

Fox's commitment to quality releases of classic or obscure titles that obviously are not going to sell in the huge numbers of a recent summer blockbuster shows a real commitment to the Home Theater and Film enthusiast community.

 

[Stu Rosen]

You know, I'd hate if the criteria for a studio's value is its willingness to participate in this Forum's activities. I enjoy the responsiveness of Fox and even Warners and other studios, but if they don't care to cater to a particular forum, that's the studio's perogative.

Frankly, I care more if the studio gives me quality for my money, and in my experience, Universal has. The fact that a studio doesn't want to dump into the marketplace every single title in its catalog immediately may be disappointing to me, but for all I know it may prove to be a shrewd business decision for the studio.

All I'm saying is let's not make the litmus test whether a studio wants to sit in on a chat every now and again. To do so overestimates our importance and focuses on the wrong issue.

 

[TerryW]

Originally posted by Ronald Epstein


That may be true for DVD's but I think we have to give credit to Criterion & Company for giving birth to the Special Edition on Laserdisc.

As for Fox, I'm more than a little disappointed that their recent disc for THE BIG TRAIL was released in 1.33:1 and even says on the back that it's preserving the original theatrical aspect ratio. Wrong. Even though it was way back in 1930, THE BIG TRAIL was indeed one of the very first attempts at widescreen photography. I taped it off of AMC, I believe, and it's letterboxed. I really would like an explanation since Fox is usually very good about widescreen releases.

 

[Thomas T]

Terry, as has been noted elsewhere, The Big Sleep was shot both flat and in wide screen. Though Fox was remiss in not releasing the wide screen version also, they are technically correct that the film IS in its original aspect ratio since it is the flat version they are releasing, not the wide screen version. It's not like they are releasing a pan and scan job of a wide screen film.

 

[Dave Barth]

 

[Robert Crawford]

It's unfortunate that Fox didn't release the widescreen version of this film since most John Wayne and classic film buffs would have preferred the widescreen version intead of the Academy Ratio version. It's too bad they didn't restore the 70mm as they've done with the 35mm elements. Goes to show you that nobody's perfect.

 

[Robert Crawford]

So has Fox with their Studio Classics line being very affordable and with more extras than what Universal has provided at that price point.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

I remember being introduced to the DVD format when writing patent applications for Sony's HT division in February 1998. The inventors took me into the lab and showed me how capable digital video could be. As you may imagine the Sony lab's setup is [British understatement]somewhat impressive[/British understatement]. I stopped on the way home that night and bought my first DVD player.

But I wasn't really sure that DVD would ever really take hold in the marketplace. After all, Warner and Columbia had tie ins with hardware vendors Toshiba and Sony, respectively. It wasn't until I got my copy of Fox's "Patton" that I was sure. I hadn't even read any of the reviews: I had worn out VHS copies of Patton and would buy the DVD even if it was a crappy laserdisc transfer. I blindly purchased it from an online vendor. Imagine my surprise when I opened the box and pulled out a 2 disc special edition, with a new anamorphic digital transfer. I threw it in my machine and just couldn't believe how nice it was. The Patton set convinced me that DVD was here to stay.

 

[John Kilduff]

Fox has consistently impressed me with their DVD work...

My compliments to them.

Sincerely,

John Kilduff...

P.S,

The "Working Girl" DVD was taken off the market. Anybody have any word on what Fox will be doing with what I feel is Melanie Griffith's best movie?

 

[Randy A Salas]

So has Fox with their Studio Classics line being very affordable and with more extras than what Universal has provided at that price point.

At its face value, your contention is valid, Robert. No, Universal hasn't released similarly packaged DVDs at the same price point as Fox's Studio Classics. But it has done pretty well for $5 less. These new and upcoming Universal DVDs retail for $14.98 (vs. Fox Studio Classics at $19.98):

Sneakers SE This one has a 45-minute retrospective, director's commentary and a trailer.
Fahrenheit 451 This has an ensemble commentary, loads of new interviews, alternate opening, trailer, image gallery and a 45-minute retrospective. I consider it to be one of the best DVDs of the year, especially at that price.
Andromeda Strain This has a half-hour retrospective, 10-minute Michael Crichton feature and a trailer.
Coal Miner's Daughter This has commentary by director Michael Apted and star Sissy Spacek and
interviews with Loretta Lynn and actor Tommy Lee Jones, plus a trailer.
Winchester '73 This has only one major supplement, but I think everyone would agree that it was a major pleasant surprise: an audio interview/commentary with Jimmy Stewart. And a trailer.

Now, don't get me wrong. I love Fox. I really do. And I wouldn't be so silly as to get into an argument about the legacy of the above movies vs. those classics from Fox. Your response, Robert, just struck me as hyperbole.

Universal has been doing OK lately, too--despite the fact that it doesn't participate online or offer tours of its home-entertainment division. In fact, looking at the recent $14.98 releases in the Fox War Classics line (ask Joe Caps about their lack of the original 4-channel audio), one could say that Universal is offering more extras than what Fox has provided at that price point.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

I love Fox. Always have. Tough to knock a studio that bankrolls dicey projects like Down with Love, Moulin Rouge, Fight Club and Ravenous. But that's a different department.

Their home video output is consistently Grade-A in my book. Big Trouble in Little China? Die Hard? The Day the Earth Stood Still? The French Connection? From Hell? Say Anything? The list of superlative releases goes on and on...

Slow releases aside, their treatment of The Simpsons on DVD is pretty damn excellent.

Oh and I haven't properly thanked anyone yet for my Miller's Crossing DVD. So great to finally own this one.

I only wish I could forgive them for canceling Futurama...but that's an different department again.

Wait...what was the question again?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Randy,
When I mentioned the extras of the Studio Classics you have to remembered that most of those films were made 50 years ago or beyond with most of the cast members dead while the Universal examples you mentioned except for "Winchester 73" were films made more recently. Furthermore, I found your response rather amusing as I try not to deviate this thread any further from being about Fox into a discussion about which studio is giving us more value. If you go back to my previous post, my main point is that Fox is giving us good value too in line with their price structure. Also, we're mixing up a two-tier pricing structure from Fox with $19.98 for their Studio Classics while having a $14.98 price for other classic releases such as "The Long Hot Summer" versus the $14.98 price point for Universal. I still contend that Fox overall is giving us more extras for their Studio Classic line versus the majority of Universal's catelogue releases. Also, I don't have a problem with Universal pricing structure at this time, but Fox has been more affordable with their catelogue titles a lot longer than Universal has been until this year. Hyperbole, sorry I don't agree!





Crawdaddy

 

[Dan Rudolph]

If you want to complain about Fox, there's always nitpicking. I find their cases to be poorly packed (loose discs) and be broken more than other studios'. Also, the cover often isn't in correctly, then gets torn by the security sticker. The DVDs themselves I have no complaint about. All of their releases look good, a surprisingly large percentage of their catalog titles have special features and their dedication to tv on dvd is unmatched.

 

[Jon Robertson]

Universal aren't exactly the greatest. I'm assuming the person who's responsible for this is Colleen A. Benn, since she gets huge credits on all the Universal documentaries.

Even worse than the serious lack of back catalogue titles (which is, admittedly, improving) is the lack of care taken in selecting and restoring source elements and transferring them onto disc. Take two of the most visually ravishing films I've ever seen - Douglas Sirk's Imitation of Life and Josef von Sternberg's The Scarlet Empress.

Both look pretty rotten on their DVD incarnations (the latter in particular), when I've seen better transfers for both of them. If anyone has the indispensible documentary A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies, look at the sumptuous clips of The Scarlet Empress - totally pristine and a smooth, rich, velvety nitrate look. Now look at Criterion's disc (the master for which Universal provided) - grainy, unstable, very high contrast and liberally sprinkled with speckles, damage and scratches, near-ruining one of the most wonderful things about the film - its images!

Likewise, Douglas Sirk's films need the utmost care when being transferred to DVD - Sirk gives dramatic significance and emphasis through his use of colour and light. A letterboxed copy a friend in the States sent me from AMC looked delicious, and I had the highest hopes for the DVD. Alas. It's not dreadful, but much of the film's impact is lost - the image is often soft, grainy and the colours look nowhere near as sumptuous as they should. Squeezing a 125 minute film plus trailer onto a single-layer disc was not the best way to deal with the situation. Happily, Criterion's discs of All That Heaven Allows and Written on the Wind couldn't look any better than they do.

Universal just don't seem to have any interest in striking new elements for transfer from the original source materials - from the quality of their discs, they seem to use whatever pre-print materials they immediately have to hand. If they're in fine condition, great. If they aren't, tough.

 

[Joe Caps]

Fox, according to Robert Harris, also seems to have someone in charge of restoration and it shows, both in DVD releases and in fox letterbox films showing up on the Fox Movie Channel.
FXM recently had letterbox showings of Francis Of Assisi and Story of Ruth and both looked fabulous. The new DVD releases of Blue Max and From the Terrace haven;t looked this good in years.
I think that we fans of twentieth Century Fox are giddy with all the classic new releases and we want to buy more as soon as possible.

 

[Paul_Stachniak]

I certainly can't complain about Fox. I recently picked up Barton Fink and Miller's Crossing, great discs, for an excellent price. And god knows I've spent my share of cash investing in season of the X-Files, M*A*S*H and 24. And I will continue to buy them.

Perhaps the problem is, that some people are looking for recent films to be released by Fox. As those titles are the ones the click, as opposed to a Barton Fink. Hell, so little people know what that is. But Fox continues to shine as far as I'm concerned.

Now, if they could only settle this little problem with Mike Judge and finish that awesome 'Office Space' SE.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I'm not a very big patron of Fox classics on DVD yet (I'm dratically cutting down on DVD spending this year) but they DO well.

I might be wrong, but Fox may not get the time, effort, or money needed to produce lots of great DVDs at one time. Fox is one of the few studios that still is nearly all their own films. Universal owns a ton of Paramount films and a lot from other studios. WB owns films from every studio pretty much. MGM also has a ton of different labels within their own company.

To be honest, besides the best-known Fox films, a lot of their movies have been overlooked. How many of their 1930s films are talked about much today?

I still think Fox was making a poor choice with Sunrise and The Big Trail...but they're not doing awful. They could be like Artisan and sit their catalog...then do poorly presented DVDs.

 

[Joseph Bolus]

My only real problem with any FOX DVD remains the very early "5-STAR" The Sound of Music release. The transfer lacks detail in places, has poor contrast, and is edge-enhanced out the kazoo. But again, this was a very early FOX DVD release and has been, for me at least, the only real disappointment. (This in spite of the aforementioned True Lies which, in spite of being non-anamorphic and suffering from some edge enhancement, at least was made from a pristine print with glorious black levels and a kick-ass soundtrack. Plus, we've been promised a SE of this movie as soon as Cameron can get around to it.)

What I would really like FOX to do is to give us a Lowry Digital "Ultravision" enhanced version of The Sound of Music at some point in the near future. (I own the recently released "Singin' in the Rain" DVD that was given this treatment, and it just blows me away every time I play it.) The film and the fans of this movie really deserve it.

 

[Augustin Rodriguez]

Fox is OK in my book. I don't think that they are the kings or daddies of DVD though. Their response to the full screen demands of the uneducated consumers has certainly risen some new thought patterns. If the studios would just take a stand can you imagine how much money they would save NOT reformatting films for video release? I'm sure it would be huge.

I also don't care for their dual aspect ratio releases. No cover art on the disk and only one side has actual lettering. It looks very poor and lazy. If you think they are saving us money, think again. It always seems like I spend more money on Fox titles than any other studio. There titles are good and the quality is decent but they are not pioneers in this industry. In fact no one is.

I have the highest level of respect for Fox studios and the support they have given this forum and it's members. I love their catalog titles and upcoming films, so please don't get me wrong. Yes, they have raised the bar for special edition DVDs, but why stop there. Keep going Fox. Set new standards. Keep the other studios on their toes.

Personally I think Paramount studios has risen to the challenge and continually put out good product. This is my report card:

Top Ten Studios (1 being the best)
1 New Line Cinema
2 Paramount
3 Fox
4 Warner Bros.
5 Dreamworks
6 Disney
7 Universal
8 Columbia Tri Star
9 MGM
10 Everyone Else

Remember, I think Fox does a great job on most of their titles, but they are not infallible. Thanks for reading.

Augustin

 

[DaViD Boulet]

And their newest Fox Studio Classics release, The Song of Bernadette (coming June 3).

Woohoo!

Add me to the list of folks who would love to see a new Sound of Music DVD that looks *really* film-like without all the halos and "rining".