Scream Factory Blu-ray Discussion Thread

[GeoffOliver]

Originally Posted by SonnybytheSea

If Disney was going to buy MGM, it would of happened 15 years ago when MGM almost folded!!! Disney definitely wanted The Wizard of Oz (1939) at certain points of time and then all of a sudden MGM sold it to WB, so I think that might have caused a feud between Disney and MGM... since I could only see Disney buying the company for those Ruby slipper rights!!!!

Warner has owned The Wizard of Oz for almost 25 years, and they actually acquired it when they bought Turner. Turner inherited MGM’s entire studio catalog in the early 80s when they briefly owned the studio. That was long before Disney was what it is now. I’m sure Disney would love to own the film, but I doubt they would (or could) acquire Warner to do it.

If Disney acquired MGM, it would probably be for James Bond.

[SonnybytheSea]

Originally Posted by GeoffOliver

Warner has owned The Wizard of Oz for almost 25 years, and they actually acquired it when they bought Turner. Turner inherited MGM’s entire studio catalog in the early 80s when they briefly owned the studio. That was long before Disney was what it is now. I’m sure Disney would love to own the film, but I doubt they would (or could) acquire Warner to do it.

If Disney acquired MGM, it would probably be for James Bond.

Sorry I didn't make my original post more clear, I don't mention what year it was when MGM sold The Wizard of Oz to WB. I only mentioned that MGM went into really bad financial trouble 15 years ago.

From my understand, WB owns the license to The Wizard of Oz (1935) film, but I didn't know they owned the copy right on the Ruby Slipper or The Wicked Witch of the West being Green etc.

I was referencing that when Disney made Return to Oz they tried to get the rights to The Wizard of Oz from MGM and ended up having to pay an exorbitant amount to use the Ruby Slippers. So if Disney was attempting to buy up MGM it would have been for that, now since it was already sold to WB why would they even bother.

I'm assuming that when MGM sold The Wizard of Oz to WB, that Disney Studios was probably pissed cause they have been trying to get the rights for the original book since the 50s I believe. It's apparently been one of Walts main goals to do his own Oz film from what I've read about the golden age of Disney....

[Slob]

WB probably got Wizard of Oz when they acquired the entire MGM catalogue pre-1980s. Doubt there was a specific transaction for just that film.
Disney did use the green Wicked Witch of the West in Once Upon A Time tv show.

[NeMo_ET]

FYI for any Canadians around here - My Bloody Valentine has dropped to $26.99 on amazon.ca.

[NeMo_ET]

And Pet Sematary 2 is $24.99

[Member-222782]

Originally Posted by BarnDoor

This despite their 9 Paramount announcements prior to April's slate ranging from 1975-1992?

Given their Carpenter love I don't think there was any question they'd go after Escape from L.A. - it was just a question of whether or not Paramount would give it to them. I sincerely hope we see Breakdown at some point.

I should've said "it seems as if they're now primarily interested in Hammer and older horror titles". Past releases aside, I still think Shout is currently leaning towards more classic, or "Golden Age" titles, which isn't a bad thing, I guess. I do recall Jeff Nelson or maybe Cliff saying that titles from certain eras (namely the 80's) weren't moving to their expectations. If they're having better success with Hammer, 50's sci-fi and other older periods, it is what it is. As for Escape From L.A., now we know that pretty much anything is fair game to license

[Mr. Thomsen]

Originally Posted by Pi905

Random question here. I recently bought Scream Factory's Sleepaway Camp Blu-ray directly from Amazon, and while everything seems in order, the case art (no slipcover) is slightly blurry. Compared to my other Scream/Shout blus, including the Jeepers Creepers blu I ordered alongside Sleepaway Camp, and every bit of text and image on those covers is crisp and sharp, whereas Sleepaway Camp has a slightly lower resolution almost like a bootleg.

I am in the same camp (bada-bum-tisch!)

I got Sleepaway Camp II and III from Amazon about a month ago, and while the one was fine (I forget which one), the other looked exactly like you describe, slightly blurry, more like a photocopy of a cover instead of a real printed cover.

I wrote Shout/ Scream about it, and while they never answered my question whether it was a bootleg (I suspect not), they offered and indeed did send out replacement artwork to me.

(I had to go through a re-shipper for an US address, though, as they could not ship it directly to me here in Denmark. So the replacement is still lying in a warehouse in California waiting for me to have it shipped on.)

[Pi905]

Originally Posted by Mr. Thomsen

I am in the same camp (bada-bum-tisch!)

I got Sleepaway Camp II and III from Amazon about a month ago, and while the one was fine (I forget which one), the other looked exactly like you describe, slightly blurry, more like a photocopy of a cover instead of a real printed cover.

I wrote Shout/ Scream about it, and while they never answered my question whether it was a bootleg (I suspect not), they offered and indeed did send out replacement artwork to me.

(I had to go through a re-shipper for an US address, though, as they could not ship it directly to me here in Denmark. So the replacement is still lying in a warehouse in California waiting for me to have it shipped on.)

Thanks to you and everyone else here being so helpful. I'll reach out to them and see if I can get a replacement!

[agenda]

Originally Posted by Mr. Thomsen

I got Sleepaway Camp II and III from Amazon about a month ago, and while the one was fine (I forget which one), the other looked exactly like you describe, slightly blurry, more like a photocopy of a cover instead of a real printed cover.

That's nothing compared to the next two from Code Red which I both own, and mark my word when I say: when you hold them in your hands, you know exactly what I mean. Here we go for christ sake:

[Camp_Crystal_Lake]

Since Scream Factory has re-released some of their films on Blu Ray, with new 4K masters, is there any chance of them dipping their foot into the 4K Blu Ray game with HDR?

[LordSummerIsle]

Amazon must've caught on that Jeepers Creepers is going OOP. Price has jumped $10. Get it before they're all gone!

[LordSummerIsle]

Originally Posted by agenda

That's nothing compared to the next two from Code Red which I both own, and mark my word when I say: when you hold them in your hands, you know exactly what I mean. Here we go for christ sake:

I have them both, and I know exactly what you mean

[Thomas Veil]

Still nothing new on MBV? Wonder if this will even be released on time.

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by Thomas Veil

Still nothing new on MBV? Wonder if this will even be released on time.

We're a month away from Valentine's Day and specs haven't even been released.

Embarrassing.

[Member-222782]

Yeah, kinda weird. I mean, I preordered it from Shout and there's no specs? What did I preorder? A slipcover? lol

[rickah88]

Never bought the 2009 disc, so I don’t need my announcements. I’m sure it will have the few extras included on that disc plus more.
Preorder locked and loaded.

[bizzle]

Originally Posted by Pi905

Random question here. I recently bought Scream Factory's Sleepaway Camp Blu-ray directly from Amazon, and while everything seems in order, the case art (no slipcover) is slightly blurry. Compared to my other Scream/Shout blus, including the Jeepers Creepers blu I ordered alongside Sleepaway Camp, and every bit of text and image on those covers is crisp and sharp, whereas Sleepaway Camp has a slightly lower resolution almost like a bootleg.

I do not think it's a bootleg though, maybe just a bad printing batch? I opened it up and the discs are pressed, the reversible art is there, and the disc played without a hitch with menus and special features in tact. I set up for an exchange from Amazon but the copy I got in return had the same blurriness. It's only really noticable with smaller text like the technical specs and movie summary on the back, but I was wondering, has anyone ran into this situation before?

Thanks!

Ha! Funny to see this crop up again. I actually posted in the Sleepaway Camp specific spread back in October saying the same exact thing. I just kind of shrugged it off but now I am thinking I should reach out to SF to see if I can get a replacement cover as it looks exactly like you said: A copy of a copy.

[Pi905]

Originally Posted by bizzle

Ha! Funny to see this crop up again. I actually posted in the Sleepaway Camp specific spread back in October saying the same exact thing. I just kind of shrugged it off but now I am thinking I should reach out to SF to see if I can get a replacement cover as it looks exactly like you said: A copy of a copy.

Well I have good news! I contacted Shout through their order inquiry form on their site explaining the situation (even mentioning I purchased through Amazon), and they have already put it in place to ship me a new cover next week so definitely go for it!

[zbinks]

Originally Posted by SonnybytheSea

Sorry I didn't make my original post more clear, I don't mention what year it was when MGM sold The Wizard of Oz to WB. I only mentioned that MGM went into really bad financial trouble 15 years ago.

From my understand, WB owns the license to The Wizard of Oz (1935) film, but I didn't know they owned the copy right on the Ruby Slipper or The Wicked Witch of the West being Green etc.

I was referencing that when Disney made Return to Oz they tried to get the rights to The Wizard of Oz from MGM and ended up having to pay an exorbitant amount to use the Ruby Slippers. So if Disney was attempting to buy up MGM it would have been for that, now since it was already sold to WB why would they even bother.

I'm assuming that when MGM sold The Wizard of Oz to WB, that Disney Studios was probably pissed cause they have been trying to get the rights for the original book since the 50s I believe. It's apparently been one of Walts main goals to do his own Oz film from what I've read about the golden age of Disney....

Whatever Disney paid for the use of the slippers in Return to Oz would have been completely dwarfed by the hundreds of millions of dollars that Turner ultimately paid for the pre-1986 MGM catalog. Without the benefit of hindsight, Disney was probably more pissed that they had bothered to license the use the slippers, at all. By the time the Turner / MGM transaction closed, Return to Oz had already been released to theaters and had performed disastrously at the box office.

[ProfondoRosso]

Originally Posted by agenda

That's nothing compared to the next two from Code Red which I both own, and mark my word when I say: when you hold them in your hands, you know exactly what I mean. Here we go for christ sake:

I don’t have THE FOREST, but TRAPPED! My lord I was convinced I had a bootleg...but I ordered direct from Ronin. It’s certainly poor quality but the SF covers in question are almost as bad.