Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Jeff Kleist]

It was being released, I wouldn't see it as anything out of the ordinary, just that Blu-ray was around. Same thing with African Queen. Both had licensing issues

[blueshadow | Kosty]

Originally Posted by Esox50

I don't disagree, but this is why I say 90% bust. The fact is that this was supposed to be the start of the flood gates for catalog titles. With the exception of a few you note, plus Saving Private Ryan and a few others...2010 is mainly a joke.

I would love to see the number of releases broken down by studio by year...

Its in the http://www.dvdreleasereport.com pdfs each week. Its better than you think. I think.

Download the latest week and check it out.

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by Esox50

I don't disagree, but this is why I say 90% bust. The fact is that this was supposed to be the start of the flood gates for catalog titles. With the exception of a few you note, plus Saving Private Ryan and a few others...2010 is mainly a joke.

I would love to see the number of releases broken down by studio by year...

I think Disney has released 6. And only 12 titles the entire year!

Not surprising, but WB has easily released the most titles again this year. Thank goodness for their support. Otherwise, we'd have much, much less to buy.

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by h0mi

Out of africa was released, which had never been available on DVD either. How often can we expect that to happen on a catalog release?

Universal released a Collector's Edition of that back in 2000.

[Braktastic]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

I think Disney has released 6. And only 12 titles the entire year!

Not surprising, but WB has easily released the most titles again this year. Thank goodness for their support. Otherwise, we'd have much, much less to buy.

Don't you think that maybe WB's 'support' is, I don't know, contractually obligated?

*Ducks and runs for cover*

[h0mi]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

Universal released a Collector's Edition of that back in 2000.

Oh. ... I retract my statement then. heh.

[Doctorossi]

Three cheers to Lionsgate for getting OAR out of Coppola for Apocalypse Now!

[jpaul1972]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

jeez guys-- 2010 a bust?

just off the top of my head--

The Alien series
The Back To The Future series
Psycho
Rocky Horror
Sound Of Music
Last Of The Mohicans
Saving Private Ryan and other Spielberg titles
The Exorcist
Beauty And The Beast
Maltese Falcon AND Treasure Of The Sierra Madre
Seven
American Beauty
Road To Perdition
King Kong (original)
Forbidden Planet
The Twilight Zone series
Clint Eastwood catalog titles

etc etc etc

And don't forget Casablanca & African Queen

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Esox50

2010 = 90% bust as far as Blu Ray titles. It absolutely amazes me how studios shoot themselves in the foot. Format war, DNR or crappy master on some titles, with-holding catalog. Total joke.
.

I'm hoping that one of the biggest reasons some studios are withholding their back catalogs, classics or not, is that they have noted our discontent with bad PQ and are doing something about it.

IMO, a recession is a good time to release even more BDs (especially ones with a DVD included, for those who haven't changed over yet). In bad times people may stop buying big ticket items, but they want to be entertained, and decently priced BDs wuld be one way. A significant number of people may want something meatier and more meaningful than what they get on air/cable, and high PQ catalog films (along with little seen indie and foreign) might provide that meat. In the great depression, those with a little disposable income went to the movies. In "The Age of Anxiety" Auden pointed out that times of dismay are good for the bar business. When Walt Disney was being pressured to cut back his staff in his last days with RKO, after making some cuts, he balked and said, "Let's kill 'em with product!" And he did; leaving RKO, he expanded into nature films, more live action, award winning short subjects, continued making animated classics, then added television and the parks, planting the seeds of the empire we know today. If the studios are disappointed in BD sales they should 1) provide top PQ (and some are) and 2) "Kill 'em with product."

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Three cheers to Lionsgate for getting OAR out of Coppola for Apocalypse Now!

Where have you seen that it will be 2.35?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Where have you seen that it will be 2.35?

Lionsgate tossed out a press release today. I was skeptical as the day is long (and part of me will continue to be 'til the disc is in my player), but it's the real deal, baby.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Where have you seen that it will be 2.35?

I wonder how it is decided which is the OAR in the case of films released in 70mm, where the aspect ratio is usually about 2.20:1, may be planned for it, and later goes to 35 mm using an AR of 2.35 or 2.39? In the case of living directors &/or living DPs, do they ask which AR was favored in the compositions, if there was one consistently composed for?

I'm pretty sure that the 70 mm version of the first release of Apocalypse Now was approx 2.2. The print I saw also had a rather quiet ending compared to the 35 mm version of those days. The ending of Redux, of course, was different yet, but that's part of what we love about Coppola.

[johndoyle123]

anychance of a rumor mill update so we can have a hint at what the studios have planned for next year and such ,,,,

maybe paramount and sony will release a classic
you never know stranger things have happend

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by garyrc

I wonder how it is decided which is the OAR in the case of films released in 70mm, where the aspect ratio is usually about 2.20:1, may be planned for it, and later goes to 35 mm using an AR of 2.35 or 2.39? ...

If the movie was shot in 65mm, then 2.2:1 of the 70mm prints would be OAR, not the slightly top/bottom cropped 2.4:1 ratio of the 35mm prints. Conversely, if the movie shot in 35mm anamorphic then blown up and cropped to 2.2:1 70mm (i.e., APOCALYPSE NOW), then the 35mm anamorphic ratio should be considered the "original" aspect ratio.

Vincent

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

If the movie was shot in 65mm, then 2.2:1 of the 70mm prints would be OAR, not the slightly top/bottom cropped 2.4:1 ratio of the 35mm prints. Conversely, if the movie shot in 35mm anamorphic then blown up and cropped to 2.2:1 70mm (i.e., APOCALYPSE NOW), then the 35mm anamorphic ratio should be considered the "original" aspect ratio.

Apocalypse Now! involves some photography and some exhibition in each format, so it's an altogether greyer scenario. I, for one, would've been happy with a 70mm or 35mm theatrical ratio (2.20:1 or 2.35:1) on disc, but I certainly wasn't anticipating we'd get either.

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Apocalypse Now! involves some photography and some exhibition in each format, so it's an altogether greyer scenario. I, for one, would've been happy with a 70mm or 35mm theatrical ratio (2.20:1 or 2.35:1) on disc, but I certainly wasn't anticipating we'd get either.

I've never heard of any parts of APOCALYPSE NOW having been shot in 65mm. Where did you get this info?

Vincent

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by jpaul1972

and don't forget casablanca & african queen

and showgirls!!!

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

I've never heard of any parts of APOCALYPSE NOW having been shot in 65mm. Where did you get this info?

I, too, would like to know about this. I can't recall anything in Apocalypse Now being filmed in 65mm. It all looked anamorphic (35mm Technovision) to me. Despite the use of 70mm blow up mag stripe prints the OAR should really be 2.35:1.

Even if Lionsgate uses a 2.20:1 ratio that would still be much better than the 2:1 stuff that was only acceptable for DVD and 4:3 TV use. Either way, I'm taking the wait and see approach on whether Apocalypse Now will truly be presented in 2.35:1 or 2.20:1. Don't want to get up my hopes too much only to be disappointed.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

I've never heard of any parts of APOCALYPSE NOW having been shot in 65mm. Where did you get this info?

Hmm... perhaps I'm misremembering. I could swear I read something about Coppola having mixed in some 65 cameras for second unit, here and there over the shoot. I seem to recall that a number of 65 cameras were involved in some of the multi-camera set-pieces like the Kilgore sequence. Maybe none of that footage made the cut? Or maybe they were only talking about planning to do that, but abandoned the idea. I wish I could remember where I read/saw that.

[MerrickG]

Can someone please enlighten me as to why all this 35mm and 70mm talk about Apocalypse Now is such a big deal? Bluray is going to bring out the best PQ regardless.

I am certainly aware of Apocalypse Now and some of it's history, but I have never actually seen it.