Scream Factory Blu-ray Discussion Thread

[NeMo_ET]

I also wouldn't call the 13 Ghosts remake bottom of the barrel. It's only ever been released as a barebones double feature, which is now OOP. Goes back to my statement about double dips that aren't readily available. It fits perfectly within their lineup, has room for improvement and in my opinion was actually a pretty decent remake. Bad acting aside, I thought it had a pretty cool atmosphere/setting and thought they did a pretty good job with the ghosts as well.

[RedHarvest]

Originally Posted by BarnDoor

Obviously they can't flood the SDCC slate with classic Universal horror and Hammer titles (and this is coming from someone who loves both, especially the latter). I'd say two Hammer tops, and for the Universal, again, maybe a couple. I guess it all depends what they have up their sleeve in the long run.



If they give us a Lost Boys CE, I'm expecting a site exclusive Tim Cappello NECA figure, with a small tub of oil accessory so you can apply it yourself (in all seriousness, I guess a Kiefer Sutherland figure would do very well, but I imagine getting Warner to play ball with this would be difficult).

Best idea I've heard all week!

[RedHarvest]

I'm betting we will never see Jason Voorhees grace the Scream Factory brand. He's too popular/iconic. Even if the legal hassles get sorted out (doesn't look like it will be anytime soon, from what I'm reading), I seriously doubt the character will be licensed to anyone other than its owners.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by RedHarvest

Even if the legal hassles get sorted out (doesn't look like it will be anytime soon, from what I'm reading), I seriously doubt the character will be licensed to anyone other than its owners.

I'd even say, why would the owners go through the financial burden of the legal hassles and then turn around and reduce their profits by licensing the title out? It's obviously possible, but it's hardly likely.

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

I'd even say, why would the owners go through the financial burden of the legal hassles and then turn around and reduce their profits by licensing the title out? It's obviously possible, but it's hardly likely.

If that's the case, then I guess the only hope would be Warner Archive for Jason Goes to Hell?

[Member-222782]

Yeah, anyone hoping to see unreleased (or underreleased), independent cinema from Shout/Scream better get used to NOT seeing much, if anything. Their specialty are dressed-up double (or triple) dips borrowed from major studios. Nothing wrong with that, but I, personally, don't expect Shout to stray too far (if at all) from the mainstream since they themselves said they don't do very well with the indy stuff. Vinegar Syndrome has the indy market well covered. It's a good thing they're all about high quality when it comes to presentation even if the films aren't always good.

[dwk]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

I'd even say, why would the owners go through the financial burden of the legal hassles and then turn around and reduce their profits by licensing the title out? It's obviously possible, but it's hardly likely.

I dont know. Paramount went through a legal battle to prove they owned La dolce vita and then licensed it to Criterion.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

If that's the case, then I guess the only hope would be Warner Archive for Jason Goes to Hell?

To be honest, I know that the "Friday the 13th" legal troubles are a whole elaborate thing, I don't know enough about it. It seems possible, to me, that part of tying up the legal troubles would also involve uniting the franchise under one roof, ie trying to reacquire those rights from Warner, but there could be all sorts of things preventing that. Assuming that New Line had no restrictions on their rights to distribute the film (other than not having the rights to the title), I guess nothing would prevent them from licensing it to Scream, but this is way further in the weeds on this conversation than I should be.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by dwk

I dont know. Paramount went through a legal battle to prove they owned La dolce vita and then licensed it to Criterion.

I actually wrote that post hoping somebody would bring up counter-examples, because I was curious to hear them. That said, in this case, they sound like pretty different cases. I don't want to get into a long sidebar, so this will probably be reductive, but in the "La Dolce Vita" lawsuit, Paramount was the plaintiff, because they were the party being infringed. There was a specific action (DVDs being manufactured and sold) which they were claiming was a violation of their distribution rights, and the end result of the lawsuit would either be that the action would be ruled illegal and Paramount would make money or the action would be ruled legal and the other company would make money. Both entities had a clear and direct financial interest in winning the lawsuit. The "Friday the 13th" rights issue, while undoubtedly representing the potential for a lot more money, isn't really like that. Both parties believe that if they win, they will own something which has a long-term financial value, but not a direct and immediate pay-off. So the former lawsuit would, up to a point, result in a profit for somebody. The latter lawsuit would only result in a potential profit for somebody. With that in mind, the idea that they would spend money on lawyers for a potential profit and then subsequently reduce that potential profit seems doubtful, I don't see what the upside would be for them.

[Blu-Dre]

The Friday the 13th lawsuit only pertains to profit participation from the past and new content going forward. Paramount and WB/New Line Cinema can do as they please with the films they own (including licensing them for home media to other companies.)

[kraven]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dre

The Friday the 13th lawsuit only pertains to profit participation from the past and new content going forward. Paramount and WB/New Line Cinema can do as they please with the films they own (including licensing them for home media to other companies.)

That doesn't fit with the game not being able to release the jason x dlc because of the lawsuit.

[critterdvd]

Originally Posted by kraven

That doesn't fit with the game not being able to release the jason x dlc because of the lawsuit.

That's different because the game is a new entity creating new content (even if it is based on an existing movie). The movies already exist and thus nothing new would have to be created. Technical difference....

[kraven]

The game existed before the lawsuit.

[TripleHBK]

Originally Posted by kraven

The game existed before the lawsuit.

But new content by way of Jason/counselor skins were being created for it after the lawsuit.

The bigger issue with licensing said films in my mind would be in regards to creating new special features for said releases. Do those features exist as the sole property of Scream Factory, or because they undoubtedly would use content from the films but done in a new way, fall under the "new content" umbrella which the lawsuit covers?

[thatguamguy]

The game which was released prior to the lawsuit isn't affected, they can continue to sell that game, they just don't have the rights to distribute new content for the game until the lawsuit is settled (which doesn't matter anymore anyway, because the company made the voluntary business decision to abandon development of the game).

Think about it like this -- if you have a good friend and you say "You can borrow my car any time that you want," and then your car gets repossessed, your friend can't go to the repo lot and borrow the car that used to be yours; the repossession invalidates the conditions upon which the previous agreement was entered into.

[The Geek]

I'm really happy with their release of "The Brain"

[mrtbonex]

I hope SF release more garbage movies like Thirteen Ghosts and Feardotcom. Can't wait to watch more unwatchable trash from my favorite label!

[TripleHBK]

Originally Posted by mrtbonex

I hope SF release more garbage movies like Thirteen Ghosts and Feardotcom. Can't wait to watch more unwatchable trash from my favorite label!

...but I'd happily re-buy both of those.

[dkelly26666]

Not likely a Scream title, but maybe could be a Shout Select one, that I'd really like to see is Sean Penn's disturbing, "The Pledge", a criminally underseen, underrated little gritty thriller with Jack Nicholson in a late career, understated, more subdued performance as a detective who, right as he's retiring, becomes involved with a case of a serial killer who targets little girls. Jack promises a family that he'll not stop looking, even though he's no longer a cop, and he doesn't. Mickey Rourke, Robin Wright-Penn, Aaron Eckhart, Benicio del Toro, Tom Noonan, and Helen Mirren star. Sean Penn directs. It's a Warner title, so maybe one Shout could do. It's so creepy and unsettling, it might even qualify for a Scream title.

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

Not likely a Scream title, but maybe could be a Shout Select one, that I'd really like to see is Sean Penn's disturbing, "The Pledge", a criminally underseen, underrated little gritty thriller with Jack Nicholson in a late career, understated, more subdued performance as a detective who, right as he's retiring, becomes involved with a case of a serial killer who targets little girls. Jack promises a family that he'll not stop looking, even though he's no longer a cop, and he doesn't. Mickey Rourke, Robin Wright-Penn, Aaron Eckhart, Benicio del Toro, Tom Noonan, and Helen Mirren star. Sean Penn directs. It's a Warner title, so maybe one Shout could do. It's so creepy and unsettling, it might even qualify for a Scream title.

Considering it's a Morgan Creek title, it'll most likely show up as a Sony MOD release.