Quote:
Originally Posted by benbess
Not insane. No. Criterion never owns the films or the masters they make. I think that's how they sell some studios on letting them do big titles. In others words, "We'll just have a 3 year (or whatever) license to use the new master that we make, and then it can go back to you to sell." Or something like that.
Of course, most of the time Criterion doesn't make their own masters, they just use the ones that the studio has or makes. But sometimes C does their own restoration and mastering work....and in those cases the master belongs to the studio when Criterion's deal runs out.
|
Actually I would say most of the time they do their own masters. And I believe they own them. Of course the rights to release the movie expire according to the licencing deal they make with the studio. But studios using Criterion's masters, I've never heard of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by benbess
They are both owned by Universal, which doesn't seem to care much for catalog titles, even by the Master of Suspense. Hitchcock was even one of U's biggest stockholders when he was alive. Go figure. Sometimes I wish Universal would just sell parts of their catalog to someone else if they're not doing anything with it...
|
I felt that way too, until now. Universal promised to make some of their classics available in 2012 due to their 100th anniversary, and they've already announced "All quiet on the western front" and "To kill a mockingbird" for February. I'm sure we'll see some more Hitchcock in 2012. Maybe the titles you mentioned.