ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Aug 17 06 6:15 PM
Aug 17 06 8:33 PM
Aug 18 06 2:13 AM
Quote:If public domain cheapies sold well, it might provide incentive for studios to release better prints onto DVD and tap into the market.
Quote:Here's a question: is Hitchcock's REBECCA in the public domain? It was an independent production released through UA in 1940, and since then has been on several labels, including Anchor Bay. I have the same question about Spellbound and Notorious.
Aug 19 06 3:55 PM
Aug 25 06 6:28 PM
Aug 25 06 7:07 PM
Aug 25 06 7:27 PM
Quote:Nevertheless, I could see Criterion or Kino releasing all of our favourite horrors in their ultimate DVD editions, with sparkling prints
Aug 27 06 5:57 PM
Quote:Even a transfer of the best 35mm print from a private collector would be inferior to the results you get from a good transfer of the original neg or I.P. or fine grain.
Aug 28 06 10:53 AM
Quote:And exactly how many original negatives are floating around in the vaults for films of the 1930's? Universal hasn't exactly been giving us stellar transfers of their horror titles - look at THE INVISIBLE MAN and BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, which I consider their single best 1930's efforts! Very average. If brilliant negatives still exist (and I'm not saying for a moment that they don't) why doesn't Universal use them? What damage would be done by these films going public domain, provided that a hardworking company put time and effort into locating the best elements? Kino did just fine with THE OLD DARK HOUSE, and films where no original material is present (like NOSFERATU) have been well served... And we'd get so many more extras as well!
Aug 30 06 4:48 AM
Aug 30 06 5:08 AM
Feb 24 14 2:35 PM
Feb 24 14 3:53 PM
Feb 24 14 8:35 PM
Feb 25 14 2:19 AM
I think the "best available print" issue is key when we're discussing movies. With printed material, such as the authors mentioned, the content can be passed down in its entirety with no loss of quality. The quality is in the writing. Sure, there will be cheap paperbacks published but there will also be superior deluxe editions printed. This has already been proven true as cheap paperbacks and deluxe leather editions with ribbed spines and marbled endpapers co-exist for authors such as Mary Shelley, Bram Stoker, Twain, Shakespeare, etc. The consumer only has to decide which edition suits their fancy and pocketbook.
I believe that the points about inferior picture quality regarding films has also already been proven. There are very few public domain movies that have gotten a major restoration. Restorations and extras cost money whereas just grabbing the first beat-up 16mm print costs next-to-nothing. Alpha Video is a good example of a company that exits almost entirely off of public domain titles and they don't do any work on these releases to ensure the best picture and sound quality. Consequently, the image quality from release to release varies widely.
If Universal (or any company) is allowed to retain copyright on a movie they have a commercial incentive to protect their property. In this case, the property is literally the best film elements in their possession. Only financial considerations motivate the work needed on these films. And if someone did spend a lot of money on a restoration, since the film is in public domain, there is nothing to protect their work from another company copying their better edition and offering it themselves. Knowing this, a company would have to be nuts to invest heavily in film restoration when anyone could steal it with impunity.
Feb 25 14 9:22 AM
"I think the "best available print" issue is key when we're discussing movies. With printed material, such as the authors mentioned, the content can be passed down in its entirety with no loss of quality. The quality is in the writing. Sure, there will be cheap paperbacks published but there will also be superior deluxe editions printed."
I am certainly not a expert on this subject, but as all things, perception of what is a classic, is certainly different to all fans. The Universal film, The Old Dark House is certainly a classic to me, however the novel written by J.B. Priestley (Benighted 1927), is not. I have owned the G&D photoplay, and had little interest in rereading. The novel, which seems to be overlooked by the debaters, a must to understand Whale's direction, this subject and plot has little interest to me. The film's portrayals from Karloff, and Laughton are the delights of the feature for me, with Ernest Thesiger the best of James Whale's character presentations, for me....
The Brides Of Dracula, is a true classic film, for me. The Hammer feature is everything I want is a vampire film, leaving the viewer in total awe of what a classic is. The Monarch Paperback (cheap) issued when the film was released, a major classic to me. I have several copies, and have reread several times. The point is this word classic is hard to put your finger on, or is it? I give a lot of credit to some on this sight, Tom Weaver, Ted Newsom, and Bill Warren (I miss) as these individuals seem to be clued in on what, classic means to me. I don't buy that any films that have zombies, sadism or a lesbian sequence is a classic that should be a bluray extravaganza. I could care if these films went into pd or the whatever.
The Night Life Of The Gods, is a classic film and novel, to me. Universal didn't seem to agree, or what ever.
Feb 25 14 9:42 PM
chris schillig wrote:Allowing some films -- not to mention books, comic books and cartoons -- to slide into public domain might mean the audience would finally get to see them, albeit from smaller companies that don't have the high overhead of larger companies. If public domain cheapies sold well, it might provide incentive for studios to release better prints onto DVD and tap into the market. So the cheapies could be loss leaders or market tests for official releases. But I think this is not to be. As you mentioned, every time a major copyright lapse looms, the suits find a way to extend it. This protects some great films that already have DVD releases, but it keeps a bunch locked in the vault, too.
Feb 26 14 1:57 AM
Feb 28 14 11:37 AM
ryanbrennan wrote:What with the studios going the MOD route with titles that won't sell mega-copies it appears to me that the vault doors have been thrown open. Maybe this is merely an illusion, but it seems given enough time, everything that can be released will be released. I don't think the studios want to hold onto titles. They want to make money. Sitting on a title makes them no money. With the exception of Turner Classic Movies and maybe the old American Movie Channel there hasn't really been an outlet for the really obscure stuff. The MOD model is a way for the studios to cash in on stuff they thought was ready to turned into guitar picks.
Feb 28 14 8:09 PM
>since the film is in public domain, there is nothing to protect their work from another company copying their better edition and offering it themselves.<
(Cf; Alpha - and others.)
Share This