Warner Archive Collection Blu-ray Discussion Thread

[Jlouisbarrett]

Originally Posted by NeilZ

Didn't Criterion acquire all three of them at the same time? Rebecca, Notorious, and Spellbound.

There was around a year and a half gap between Rebecca and Notorious, but it's been 3 years since then and still no Spellbound, which is a bit weird.

I was just wondering about this, and Spellbound was the one I was most interested in. Which figures.

[gudemameshiba]

No need to discuss Spellbound if we're in the Warner Archive thread talking about Criterion squatting on rights forever!

[Show spoiler]

I can't imagine this one needs as much restoration as Freaks…

[Hammerlover]

Originally Posted by NeilZ

Didn't Criterion acquire all three of them at the same time? Rebecca, Notorious, and Spellbound.

There was around a year and a half gap between Rebecca and Notorious, but it's been 3 years since then and still no Spellbound, which is a bit weird.

Well, as others have said, there may be an issue with the elements. The film has always had a rather gauzy look, though this may have been an aesthetic choice by Hitchcock and DP George Barnes (Hitch did say that he wanted the dream sequence to have a bold and sharply defined look, unlike the misty Hollywood norm for such sequences). But whatever the case may be, I just want it to get the Blu-ray release it deserves. SPELLBOUND, incidentally, was among my first purchases as a member of the CBS Video Club back in 1984--a bargain at only $59.99!

[captainsolo]

Well this was unexpected. After all this time I wrote WB again and suddenly got this box in the mail for my rotted DVDs.
Anyone with this issue should contact whv@wb.com. They can only help with in print or in stock titles.


I’m shocked it was this easy and after all this time that I have replacements for most things.

[Hammerlover]

Originally Posted by captainsolo

Well this was unexpected. After all this time I wrote WB again and suddenly got this box in the mail for my rotted DVDs.
Anyone with this issue should contact whv@wb.com. They can only help with in print or in stock titles.


I’m shocked it was this easy and after all this time that I have replacements for most things.

Congratulations! Persistence does pay off!

[merlinjones]

I would like to see The Bugs Bunny Show restored from whatever remains of color negative matched to colorized b/w negative and the color shorts (the color camera negative for TV footage was recut over the years so complete shows only survive in b/w). For me (and many boomers) this is an important legacy title.

[SoundOfSilence]

Originally Posted by koberulz

The MGM Blu is long OOP and predates Criterion's Blu-ray releases of Notorious and Rebecca.

Spellbound has elements issues.

In the case of Rebecca, Criterion acquired the rights to market the laserdisc in 1991, the rights to distribute the DVD in 2003 and the rights to sell Blu-rays in 2017.

My point was that Criterion is not sitting on the rights to Spellbound. It would acquire a license for each production run.

You may well be right and the elements of Spellbound are the obstacle to any future releases.

I don’t recall it being that bad when I last watched the M-G-M Blu-ray release. But it’s been a few years and I tend to be quite forgiving.

If I recall, the rights to Spellbound are held by Disney.

As far as I am aware, Warner only procured the rights to GWTW and A Star is Born from the Selznick collection.

I don’t believe WAC licenses from other studios. But happy to be corrected.

[DukeTogo84]

Just finished watching The Carey Treatment. As expected solid PQ from WAC. They rarely disappoint. Film was a lot more entertaining than expected, but it's James Coburn. He's nearly always reliable. Hopefully will be able to revisit Pat Garrett soon enough with the Criterion the way. Also hoping Paramount releases Affliction, which is one I haven't seen, but Coburn was nominated so it sounds like it might be one of his better performances.

[sonicyogurt]

Originally Posted by SoundOfSilence

If I recall, the rights to Spellbound are held by Disney.

The MGM disc lists the copyright as being held by ABC, which is under Disney's umbrella. I'm not sure if ABC has any autonomy in licensing out content or if everything routes through Disney overall.

[SoundOfSilence]

Originally Posted by sonicyogurt

The MGM disc lists the copyright as being held by ABC, which is under Disney's umbrella. I'm not sure if ABC has any autonomy in licensing out content or if everything routes through Disney overall.

The Criterion Blu-ray (Rebecca) also list the copyright as being held by ABC.

According to https://www.disneystudiolicensing.com/ all licensing inquiries for ABC titles to:

(ABC Library – Pre-1985)
Andrea Chain
Senior Paralegal
Ph: (818) 560-xxxx
Fx: (818) 560-xxxx
xxxx@disney.com

I assume that inquiries go through Disney. Though the contract would be with ABC.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by SoundOfSilence

In the case of Rebecca, Criterion acquired the rights to market the laserdisc in 1991, the rights to distribute the DVD in 2003 and the rights to sell Blu-rays in 2017.

My point was that Criterion is not sitting on the rights to Spellbound. It would acquire a license for each production run.

You may well be right and the elements of Spellbound are the obstacle to any future releases.

I don’t recall it being that bad when I last watched the M-G-M Blu-ray release. But it’s been a few years and I tend to be quite forgiving.

If I recall, the rights to Spellbound are held by Disney.

As far as I am aware, Warner only procured the rights to GWTW and A Star is Born from the Selznick collection.

I don’t believe WAC licenses from other studios. But happy to be corrected.

Criterion re-acquired Straw Dogs, Notorious, Rebecca, and Spellbound at the same time, as part of a bundle. Many years ago the older Kino insider confirmed they were outbid for this bundle by another label, which obviously turned out to be Criterion.

[EVOLVIST]

Speaking of Hitchcock, how does Kino have the right to Under Capricorn (1949), when as far I can tell it should sit squarely with WB?

[Gunsnroses092789]

Originally Posted by EVOLVIST

Speaking of Hitchcock, how does Kino have the right to Under Capricorn (1949), when as far I can tell it should sit squarely with WB?

It apparently is controlled by CBS/Paramount. Check out the back of Kino's Blu-ray. That's where they got it from. WB only distributed its initial theatrical run.

[EVOLVIST]

Originally Posted by Gunsnroses092789

It apparently is controlled by CBS/Paramount. Check out the back of Kino's Blu-ray. That's where they got it from.

Anything photographed by Jack Cardiff deserves better.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by EVOLVIST

Speaking of Hitchcock, how does Kino have the right to Under Capricorn (1949), when as far I can tell it should sit squarely with WB?

Warners only distributed it - it was made by Hitchcock and Sidney Bernstein's company, Transatlantic. As with Rope, Warners distribution rights lapsed. Warners took over Stage Fright from them during production, possibly due to cashflow problems after Transatlantic's previous films underperformed, and own it outright.

[captainsolo]

Originally Posted by Hammerlover

Congratulations! Persistence does pay off!

Persistence indeed! It took almost two years so at this point I was surprised anyone got my email.

[captainsolo]

Everything indicates Criterion is probably sitting on Spellbound since they've now done other ABC titles. MGM let Kino do The Paradine Case because it wasn't famous enough for them apparently and Kino wound up doing solid BDs for Lifeboat and Under Capricorn. Their Paradine Case BD is iffy but at least it's far better than the awful bootleg/public domain versions I saw first.

Capricorn was a major leap forward for a title that long had a terrible video history. Still I wish it looked better. Transatlantic was Hitch's attempt for independence but in hindsight they didn't choose the most surefire hits for projects. Rope is a masterpiece that wasn't sold very well and people only remember or reference to it for the long take "gimmick". Of course they forget he did it again in Capricorn which was a much harder shoot and practically bombed for several reasons: the film was sold as if were Gaslight but it was more of a doomed love triangle period film, people didn't like the long takes...and there was the little problem of the backlash against Bergman for her relationship with Rosselini.
Admittedly I take a slight pleasure in hitting people with hardcore lesser discussed Hitchcock titles whenever I get the chance. They expect the tried and true same five over and over. They expect Shadow of a Doubt-I get them with Paradine Case. They expect Rear Window-I hit them with Topaz. Under Capricorn is one that drags because of script issues mostly and it makes it one of the hardest sells to newcomers.

[Hammerlover]

Speaking of Hitchcock, nobody ever talks very much about FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT. Perhaps if Cary Grant had played the lead role, it would be more widely discussed today. At any rate, I think it's a crackerjack thriller with a fine cast, and the Criterion Blu-ray is highly recommended. And now back to WAC....

[captainsolo]

Originally Posted by Hammerlover

Speaking of Hitchcock, nobody ever talks very much about FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT. Perhaps if Cary Grant had played the lead role, it would be more widely discussed today. At any rate, I think it's a crackerjack thriller with a fine cast, and the Criterion Blu-ray is highly recommended. And now back to WAC....

Oh geez don’t even get me started. I’ve been obsessed with Foreign Correspondent since the first time I ever saw it as a kid. I think it should have won Best Picture over Rebecca, it shows Hitch’s British style perfectly married to American technical mastery, has a much freer feel being outside of Selznick, the lack of the leads desired improves the film and it is in many respects a proto-Bond film right down to the structure, suspense setpieces, foreign locale, Devil may care George Sanders performance and especially since Richard Maibaum worked on the screenplay. And to top everything off in one of the Master’s absolute masterpieces there’s that tacked on ending that never fails to send shivers down the spine. It is easily one of the best films Hitchcock ever made and it pains me to no end that we only hear about the same films over and over. Before the Criterion release it felt almost impossible to talk about it outside of Hitchcock fan groups.
Similarly I adore Saboteur and think the less famous leads make the film better.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

Just finished watching The Carey Treatment. As expected solid PQ from WAC. They rarely disappoint. Film was a lot more entertaining than expected, but it's James Coburn. He's nearly always reliable. Hopefully will be able to revisit Pat Garrett soon enough with the Criterion the way. Also hoping Paramount releases Affliction, which is one I haven't seen, but Coburn was nominated so it sounds like it might be one of his better performances.

Affliction was one the most disturbing movies I’ve ever scene. Coburn is great in it, but Nick Nolte really deserved recognition for his portrayal of a man slowly descending into the seven circles of hell. You know a movie is going to weird places when Willem Dafoe plays the sanest character.

It’s a terrific film but I’m not sure I could sit through it again.