Warner Archive Collection Blu-ray Discussion Thread

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by SoundOfSilence

I know.

But under law they are still two separate legal entities.

Turner's property does not become Warner's.

Of course Warner has control over it through voting rights and control over the board.

But it does not acquire legal title to Turner's property. It would be unlawful for Warner to act as if it did.

You really need to just stop, you're making yourself look foolish with each and every one of these posts. You're coming across like a 12-year-old trying to explain legal process after having watched 3-4 episodes of Law & Order.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by SoundOfSilence

I know.

But under law they are still two separate legal entities.

Turner's property does not become Warner's.

Of course Warner has control over it through voting rights and control over the board.

But it does not acquire legal title to Turner's property. It would be unlawful for Warner to act as if it did.

Yes, when Warner acquired Turner Ent, that is quite literally what happened.

Warner owns Gone With the Wind, and all MGM productions made up until May 1986.

~Matt

[SoundOfSilence]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

You really need to just stop, you're making yourself look foolish with each and every one of these posts. You're coming across like a 12-year-old trying to explain legal process after having watched 3-4 episodes of Law & Order.

Thanks for the insight.

Perhaps you could explain what part of the law I have wrong?

[whiteberry]

Warner and Trafalgar Releasing are showing a new 2K restoration of ABBA: The Movie (1977) in theaters this week (May 12 and 14). Hopefully Warner will release this new restoration on blu-ray

ABBA: The Movie – Fan Event | Official Trailer | In Cinemas May 12 & 14 - YouTube

Original Trailer:

ABBA the Movie trailer. ABBA austalian tour 1977 movie trailer. - YouTube

[SoundOfSilence]

Originally Posted by Matt89

Yes, when Warner acquired Turner Ent, that is quite literally what happened.

Warner owns Gone With the Wind, and all MGM productions made up until May 1986.

~Matt

Warner did acquire Turner. I am not disputing this.

But the deal structure is important.

Turner Entertainment Co still exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Entertainment

"Turner Entertainment self-distributed much of its library for the first decade of its existence, but on October 10, 1996, Turner Broadcasting was purchased by Time Warner and its distribution functions were largely absorbed into Warner Bros. As a result, Turner is now an in-name-only subsidiary of Warner, serving merely as a copyright holder for a portion of their library.

...

Turner Entertainment's current library includes:

... Nearly all of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's film, television and cartoon library released prior to May 23, 1986 ..."

If Wiki has it wrong (and sometimes it does get things wrong). Fine.
Post a link.

But my posts were based on the best available data that I had at the time.

[Matt89]

Yes, but your argument was that they had to license Gone With the Wind from Turner to release the blu-ray, when they already control Turner's assets. Nothing needed to be licensed because Warner is already the parent company. That's what we're saying. Yes, we know Turner is the copyright holder, but like the link you posted says, they are an "in-name-only subsidiary" of Warner. Warner can release whatever the hell they want from Turner's library because it was merged with Warner in 1996.

~Matt

[SoundOfSilence]

Originally Posted by Matt89

Yes, but your argument was that they had to license Gone With the Wind from Turner to release the blu-ray, when they already control Turner's assets. Nothing needed to be licensed because Warner is already the parent company. That's what we're saying. Yes, we know Turner is the copyright holder, but like the link you posted says, they are an "in-name-only subsidiary" of Warner. Warner can release whatever the hell they want from Turner's library because it was merged with Warner in 1996.

~Matt

I never said that it did not have the power to direct Turner. Clearly it did. In fact, I did post it could direct its subsidiary company to do its bidding.

However, they did have to license it nevertheless.

Two reasons why:

If they didn't it could be regarded as a dividend payment, or distribution of corporate property, by Turner to its parent. That could give rise to unforeseen tax consequences.

There could also be issues if any division of Warner's (Turner Entertainment) was spun off in the future. Since there would be a hanging issue of misappropriation of a subsidiary's property by its parent.

This scenario may be unlikely at present. Nevertheless, it's still a matter of good housekeeping. You would still dot the 'i's and cross the 't's.

I understand your point. And I agree completely that Warner could direct Turner to license whatever it wanted. We are really just getting caught up in the detail of how that is done.

My original post was more focused on why the UHD of GWTW was never released more than who owned the rights.

[jkoffman]

I prefer the sequel.

7238CA22-2ED0-4922-857C-8162FA986CF7.jpg

[Rayjg]

Originally Posted by jkoffman

I prefer the sequel.

Attachment 276218

Ghoulies II? It's definitely more polished than the first.

[darrellmaclaine]

Originally Posted by Ned Brainard

As noted in a previous post, it did air once on TCM back in 1995, and I would wager that it likely aired once or twice before that on TNT. In the early days of TCM, a few of these "rights situations" films aired once or twice before they were flagged. That's likely what happened with Remains to be Seen. As for MGM, while I wouldn't say it's the norm, there are some titles out of circulation for rights issues - Joe and Ethel Turp Call on the White House, Florian, Port of Seven Seas, Christopher Bean, and It's a Wise Child are a few additional examples from the MGM library. My guess is that rights issues probably affect the MGM catalog as much as any other studio. It is likely more obvious when an MGM title is out of circulation than it is for a contemporary title from Paramount or Fox thanks to the proliferation of the MGM library on TCM.

It has had a more recent broadcast than 1995 on the UK TCM, as I was loaned a DVDR offair from a digital broadcast (undated but presumably at least 2005 or later). Could still have been in error of course!

It's a pretty enjoyable film, actually. One of the cheapo B-musicals they were experimenting with at the time where they replaced big budgets and opulent visuals with lots of energy and gusto.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by SoundOfSilence

Warner did acquire Turner. I am not disputing this.

But the deal structure is important.

Turner Entertainment Co still exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Entertainment

"Turner Entertainment self-distributed much of its library for the first decade of its existence, but on October 10, 1996, Turner Broadcasting was purchased by Time Warner and its distribution functions were largely absorbed into Warner Bros. As a result, Turner is now an in-name-only subsidiary of Warner, serving merely as a copyright holder for a portion of their library.

...

Turner Entertainment's current library includes:

... Nearly all of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's film, television and cartoon library released prior to May 23, 1986 ..."

If Wiki has it wrong (and sometimes it does get things wrong). Fine.
Post a link.

But my posts were based on the best available data that I had at the time.

Turner Entertainment Co. does not exist except as a name on paper as the copyright holder of those movies. There is no one to "direct" or to license the movies from. They are owned by Warner.

As for why GWTW did not receive a UHD release on its 80th, you are free to speculate all you want. Political reasons are very likely, but there could be other reasons.

[Ned Brainard]

Originally Posted by darrellmaclaine

It has had a more recent broadcast than 1995 on the UK TCM, as I was loaned a DVDR offair from a digital broadcast (undated but presumably at least 2005 or later). Could still have been in error of course!

It's a pretty enjoyable film, actually. One of the cheapo B-musicals they were experimenting with at the time where they replaced big budgets and opulent visuals with lots of energy and gusto.

Interesting to learn. Sometimes rights problems only pertain to certain countries. In the case of Remains to be Seen, it may very well be cleared for distribution in the UK and Europe. The Perfect Specimen, another rights hell title for WB, has played on UK TCM in more recent times while it is still prohibited from circulation in the US domestic market.

[Ned Brainard]

Originally Posted by SoundOfSilence

I wasn't aware of the screening on TCM.

I saw the post after I had made mine. Didn't bother to edit it.

I was wondering why the Marion Davies' film hadn't been released. It's one I have been looking for.

This may be of interest.

https://www.copyright.gov/orphan/com...24-Langdon.pdf

According to the author of the letter it seems that MGM obtained a license only allowing limited screening rights for their own film. That would surprise me. But perhaps Hearst had some say in the contract.

Though I note from IMDB that it was a joint production with Cosmopolitan Productions. So perhaps that is where the rights are tied up. Either with the Hearst estate or perhaps Paramount.

To me this seems more likely.

But anything is possible.

The Marion Davies library at LOC (in other words, her personal prints that were donated after her death) contains a print of It's a Wise Child. Other than the still current copyright, there are no donor restrictions on the print. When the film goes PD in 2027, some enterprising person or firm might be able to go in and do something with the film finally.

[CineClassics]

It's likely GWTW didn't receive a 4k release on its 80th anniversary due to the recent controversy surrounding the film. It's a shame, because the blu-ray is fantastic and I think the 4k would be a marvel. Hopefully they'll release it at some point.

I find it ironic that the very first movie ever featured on TCM by the late, great Robert Osborne was Gone With the Wind, where Osborne proclaimed it arguably the greatest film ever made and the apogee of Classic Hollywood. This was in the not so distant past of 1994. Fast forward to today and TCM is doing everything it can to pander to modern audiences--the film has a trigger warning before the network airs it, as though viewers are too stupid to understand certain depictions from certain eras are no longer acceptable. TCM doesn't show the film at it's Classic Film Festivals and it's highly unlikely they'll show it on their upcoming TCM Cruise, etc.

All of this to make a much broader point: as classic film fans, we need to be very concerned about the movement to censor older films because they don't measure up to modern sensibilities. The entire GWTW controversy started when a screewriter called for it to be censored. This movement didn't start with random trolls on the internet, it started with a veteran Hollywood screenwriter actively campaigning for its removal, and then actors applauded its temporary removal from HBO.

All of us here are presumably fans of classic cinema. It's our duty to safeguard these iconic films from political correctness run amok.

[Mr. Thomsen]

Oh, get over yourself!

NOBODY is censoring old movies. Adding a simple disclaimer in front of GWTW is not equal to censorship, and GWTW is far from the first movie that had that happen to it. Why is this any different than the warning stickers you guys have been living with on your CDs for 30+ years now?

[filmlover22]

I agree. Some of these old films have scenes/characters that are reprehensible because of their racism. Having a warning/disclaimer is definitely not censorship. There will always be people who are discovering these films for the first time. Putting things in historical context is the least we can do as we preserve these films for future generations.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by CineClassics

This movement didn't start with random trolls on the internet, it started with a veteran Hollywood screenwriter actively campaigning for its removal

No it didn't: in his op-ed article in the LA Times John Ridley expressly stated he was not calling for or supportive of a ban, but expressing amazement that it had just been dumped on HBOMax without any contextual advisory card. (FWIW Spike Lee also supported the view that GWTW and also Birth of a Nation should still be screened as long as they were placed in a historical context.) The film was pulled from the channel for just 16 days while this was addressed, during which time the DVD and Blu were still available.

It's always a mistake at best or a lack of empathy or consideration at worst to assume that because you can put a film into its historical context that everyone, regardless of age, upbringing or life experiences can as well, especially when to most audiences films are just transitory distractions, not something they have studied or are guaranteed to have any knowledge of their history or the pervading cultural assumptions of their day. Advisory warnings are simply a sensible way of keeping difficult and sometimes insensitive (in part or whole) material in circulation and minimizing offence.

[Rayjg]

Which CDs have racist warnings

[CineClassics]

Originally Posted by Mr. Thomsen

Oh, get over yourself!

NOBODY is censoring old movies. Adding a simple disclaimer in front of GWTW is not equal to censorship, and GWTW is far from the first movie that had that happen to it. Why is this any different than the warning stickers you guys have been living with on your CDs for 30+ years now?

Nobody is censoring old movies? What happened to Disney's Song of the South?

GWTW isn't currently censored, but that's the road we're heading toward. Why didn't Warner release a 4k of GWTW for its 80th anniversary? One would really have to suspend disbelief to think the reasoning is anything other than fear of backlash.

So, yes, all of you who have proclaimed GWTW isn't censored are technically correct. But it is crystal clear that the industry is distancing itself from celebrating this film because it doesn't align with modern sensibilities.

The evidence (no 4k release, not showing it at festivals, Disney parks removed the film poster on Sunset Blvd at Hollywood Studios after the recent backlash, etc.) is irrefutable. It's not censored, but moving forward, it will be largely ignored, not rereleased, or ever celebrated among the film community at large. That in itself is essentially a form of censorship.

[Aclea]

Definition of censored

: suppressed, altered, or deleted as objectionable : subjected to censorship

You can stream GWTW, you can still buy it on DVD and you can still buy it on Bluray even though it makes less and less money each year as audience tastes change. It even still has the odd screening. It has not been cut or (beyond now having reissue credits) altered. It certainly has not been suppressed. You'd be hard pressed to find a more easily available film from 1939.

If not having a 4K release is 'censoring,' then most of film history - including modern films - is somehow censored.