Scoop (2006) Blu-ray (Kino Studio Classics)

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

88 Films is releasing Annie Hall in the UK and were denied the 4K scan. Strange that wouldn't be given to them.

Wow, that's bizarre.

Annie Hall was fully owned by United Artists, so now Amazon.

I wonder why they would license the film, but deny the licensee access to a newer, superior video master they must certainly own.

The restoration was done from the negative, with Allen's involvement, but has vanished off the face of the earth since a few 2017 festival screenings:

https://www.woodyallenpages.com/2017...film-festival/
https://filmforum.org/film/annie-hall-film-2017

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

Wow, that's bizarre.

Annie Hall was fully owned by United Artists, so now Amazon.

I wonder why they would license the film, but deny the licensee access to a newer, superior video master they must certainly own.

The restoration was done from the negative, with Allen's involvement, but has vanished off the face of the earth since a few 2017 festival screenings:

https://www.woodyallenpages.com/2017...film-festival/
https://filmforum.org/film/annie-hall-film-2017

Yeah, it's strange. This is what 88 said:

The 4K master is not approved for home video apparently. We obviously requested it but were denied access. We also wanted to make a new transfer but again weren’t allowed to.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

Yeah, it's strange. This is what 88 said:

Thoroughly bizarre. I would have to think the only person who would need to approve the use of the new Annie Hall master for home video would be Allen, I wonder why he participated in the restoration and approved the 2017 theatrical screenings, but is blocking a 4K release.

I had assumed the lack of a UHD release was down to timid boutique labels, it's bonkers that it's presumably because he's the one blocking it.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

Thoroughly bizarre. I would have to think the only person who would need to approve the use of the new Annie Hall master for home video would be Allen, I wonder why he participated in the restoration and approved the 2017 theatrical screenings, but is blocking a 4K release.

I had assumed the lack of a UHD release was down to timid boutique labels, it's bonkers that it's presumably because he's the one blocking it.

This member made the claim that it's being blocked by a certain boutique label, but didn't provide any follow-up when asked for a source. Sounds like BS to me.

Originally Posted by Dailyan

"Annie Hall" and "Manhattan" have had 4K restorations for years but, supposedly, a certain label (not hard who to guess) has made MGM not make them license-able (Arrow's discs were suppose to use these restos but were forced to use the MGM discs).

[sherlockjr]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

This member made the claim that it's being blocked by a certain boutique label, but didn't provide any follow-up when asked for a source. Sounds like BS to me.

It seems that one label has become the boogeyman for arty titles that people want to see but no one's released. With pretty much zero evidence most of the time. They're just the go-to culprit.

If that label paid for rights years ago to scores of titles they won't release, it seems they have either very bad financial management or huge piles of money in the bank they're just sitting on like Mr. Moneybags.

I suspect neither of those things is true and that rights to many of those titles is either very complicated, or the specific licensing costs are more than any label wants to pay, or there are odd rights issues with those titles, or the elements are in sad shape and need a lot of time, effort and money to turn into a quality release. Not an evil label head who delights in keeping titles people really want out of circulation for their own amusement.

[poisonmail]

Originally Posted by sherlockjr

It seems that one label has become the boogeyman for arty titles that people want to see but no one's released. With pretty much zero evidence most of the time. They're just the go-to culprit.

You're partially right about this, but the tendency to license titles and then sit on them is something that actual former employees and associates of the label I've spoken to have bemoaned. When I asked one of them, she told me that the issue was often that the release schedule is very much beholden to the whims of the company's leadership. What that means and how it's changed since 2022 or so, you're welcome to speculate.

[sherlockjr]

Originally Posted by poisonmail

You're partially right about this, but the tendency to license titles and then sit on them is something that actual former employees and associates of the label I've spoken to have bemoaned. When I asked one of them, she told me that the issue was often that the release schedule is very much beholden to the whims of the company's leadership. What that means and how it's changed since 2022 or so, you're welcome to speculate.

Assuming we're talking about the big C, company ownership changed in 2024:

https://www.indiewire.com/news/break...es-1235007234/

I certainly can't see how either that company or a film's owners benefit financially from paying for licensing of many titles upfront without then actually releasing revenue generating product. Seems that would be the opposite of a good business practice

There probably are some occasions where that really does happen. I suspect many other times when certain desired titles are unavailable on disk for a long period, there are a myriad of reasons other than that one evil company is sitting greedily on titles aficionados want to own, cackling like Blofeld while keeping all those great films locked up unavailable, moldering deep in their private vaults.