Steven Spielberg on UHD

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by BNex99

I believe Lincoln was originally distributed internationally by Fox (both theatrical and home video), which of course means that it's now controlled by Disney outright. But initially, the rights were separate.

But I think you're right on everything else. And there were a few other DreamWorks co-productions that Spielberg didn't direct, but that also had their distribution rights split up in confusing ways (such as The Time Machine).

Very good point! Lincoln was the same as Bridge of Spies! I'll correct that one, thanks!

[martydmc12]

Originally Posted by BNex99

I believe Lincoln was originally distributed internationally by Fox (both theatrical and home video), which of course means that it's now controlled by Disney outright. But initially, the rights were separate.

But I think you're right on everything else. And there were a few other DreamWorks co-productions that Spielberg didn't direct, but that also had their distribution rights split up in confusing ways (such as The Time Machine).

At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that Disney buying 20th Century Fox was one of the worst things to happen to filmmakers and movie lovers in the history of the medium. Damn it to hell I still wish they were an independent studio (not owned by another movie studio). They were the kings at the start of 4K with titles like Alien and Die Hard; some of the best looking 4K's I own. Now their 4K releases are just mediocre at best, with some of the lousiest packaging in the industry. It just breaks my heart that Disney just doesn't give a rats ass about cinema, and will eventually own everything.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by martydmc12

At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that Disney buying 20th Century Fox was one of the worst things to happen to filmmakers and movie lovers in the history of the medium. Damn it to hell I still wish they were an independent studio (not owned by another movie studio). They were the kings at the start of 4K with titles like Alien and Die Hard; some of the best looking 4K's I own. Now their 4K releases are just mediocre at best, with some of the lousiest packaging in the industry. It just breaks my heart that Disney just doesn't give a rats ass about cinema, and will eventually own everything.

It's not just home video. Fox used to be among the only remaining producers and distributors of mid-budget ($40-$60 million-ish range) dramas/thrillers, etc for grown ups. Now they're really just the domain of streaming.

[martydmc12]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

It's not just home video. Fox used to be among the only remaining producers and distributors of mid-budget ($40-$60 million-ish range) dramas/thrillers, etc for grown ups. Now they're really just the domain of streaming.

It's one thing to see longtime struggling studios like MGM/UA get bought out, but I found the sale of Fox as complete shell shock. A vibrant and major player in the industry suddenly just vanished overnight, all because Rupert Murdoch couldn't care less about the owning a movie studio, and Disney wanting the distribution rights to the original Star Wars trilogy (Fox still had those for a few more years), and the rest of the Marvel catalog. Normally when you hear about studios buying out others is for their vast catalog of titles, yet it's been pretty obvious from the get-go that Fox's catalog is completely meaningless to the mouse.

I keep thinking about the Ford at Fox Collection, and how since seeing The Fabelman's I've been on a bit of John Ford kick. How great it would be if Fox re-issued that set onto Blu-ray and/or 4K, but that will never in a million years happen with Disney controlling those titles.

We're lucky that Spielberg has the power to get his titles released onto physical media when and if he so chooses, remasters and such. But he's just one director among dozens upon dozens of great filmmakers with great catalogs of films we might never see remastered and upgraded to Blu and 4K, most especially if they're Fox titles.

In my personal opinion as a film lover and physical media collector, we're truly living in A Tale of Two Cities, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by martydmc12

It's one thing to see longtime struggling studios like MGM/UA get bought out, but I found the sale of Fox as complete shell shock. A vibrant and major player in the industry suddenly just vanished overnight, all because Rupert Murdoch couldn't care less about the owning a movie studio, and Disney wanting the distribution rights to the original Star Wars trilogy (Fox still had those for a few more years), and the rest of the Marvel catalog. Normally when you hear about studios buying out others is for their vast catalog of titles, yet it's been pretty obvious from the get-go that Fox's catalog is completely meaningless to the mouse.

That's not what Iger said, and Hulu recently added a (albeit paltry) "Fox" section. But Iger really wanted Fox's overseas infrastructure for streaming -- basically the Fox agreement was heavily pursued to support Disney +. The library was a bonus. The larger issue is that the back catalog has so many pre-existing licensing agreements, it's going to be a while for those to term out and have a true "Fox" home of any substance in the streaming realm.

[martydmc12]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

That's not what Iger said, and Hulu recently added a (albeit paltry) "Fox" section. But Iger really wanted Fox's overseas infrastructure for streaming -- basically the Fox agreement was heavily pursued to support Disney +. The library was a bonus. The larger issue is that the back catalog has so many pre-existing licensing agreements, it's going to be a while for those to term out and have a true "Fox" home of any substance in the streaming realm.

I wouldn't trust a single breath that comes out of Iger's mouth. He's the reason Disney is such a POS company. He's a lousy CEO who has zero interest in film preservation, the history of cinema, or his company's film history. It's all merchandise, theme parks and money, money, money. If an IP can't be exploited in a way that it won't make back a billion dollars, he and the rest of the company treat as expendable.

What back catalog has so many per-existing license agreements? Granted I'm not privy to internal contracts and deals made with anyone else, nor would I assume anyone with that knowledge would be sharing this kind of information on a Blu-ray forum, but I call bullshit. Where's "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" on 4K? Titles like that were scanned and restored long before Disney acquired Fox, with preparations underway to release it on physical disc. As I made a point in a previous post about the Ford at Fox collection -- you're telling me that those older films are all hung up with other licensing agreements, so therefore Disney/Fox can't release them? I seriously doubt it, not older titles like those. They won't do squat with them, because they're only catering to Gen Z and the streaming generation, and could give a rats ass if films like those ever see the light of day again.

There was an interview with the head of Kino Lorber a few months back conducted by the YouTube channel Cereal at Midnight, and he even said that Disney has absolutely no interest in theirs or Fox's back catalog, because it doesn't make them big money, and they're only interested in big money. He said something along the longs he can't even get anyone at Disney to talk to him, because they just don't care.

As for pursuing streaming and Hulu, well not every country outside the United States has access to Hulu. I'm right next door in Canada, and Hulu is not available here, which means there are no streaming services that carry very many Fox titles outside of the U.S.

The fact remains, Disney taking over Fox will go down as one of the worst things to happy in Hollywood motion picture history.

[klauswhereareyou]

Disney had a shoddy history of supporting their own live action catalog on blu-ray that they owned pre Fox aquisition. I had zero faith they'd do any different with Fox catalog stuff. Just glad Fox owned their stuff when 4K came out so at least we got a few things (like Alien and Die Hard in 4K UHD) before Disney took control.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by martydmc12

The fact remains, Disney taking over Fox will go down as one of the worst things to happy in Hollywood motion picture history.

The fact remains, Fox put themselves up for sale. Disney didn't "take them over". Fox initiated the offer, buyers came to buy. If not Disney, it would have been Comcast or someone else. Petroleum companies and wine cooler merchants have bought control of film studios in the past. At least Fox is in the hands of an actual entertainment business, as opposed to a telecommunications conglomerate or social media platform. If Fox selling their studios and assets is one of the worst things to happen in Hollywood history, I shudder to wonder where the Hollywood Blacklist ranks, along with cast and crew abuses that are so rampant, people have to die before anyone pays any attention.

[captainsolo]

When I saw the 4K DCP of Sugarland Express making the arthouse circuit I figured a Uni Spielberg UHD boxset had to be forthcoming.

Aside from rights holder complications Minority Report had the visual differences even between DVD and BD for the grading so it might require a complete overhaul if they tried to bring a specific look into HDR. I still don't know if the bluer colder look on the DVD is theatrically accurate or the nonfiltered BD look is.

[Ernest Rister]

Bridge of Spies (Blu, not 4K) just added to the DMC. $10.98, + tax and shipping.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by captainsolo

When I saw the 4K DCP of Sugarland Express making the arthouse circuit I figured a Uni Spielberg UHD boxset had to be forthcoming.

Aside from rights holder complications Minority Report had the visual differences even between DVD and BD for the grading so it might require a complete overhaul if they tried to bring a specific look into HDR. I still don't know if the bluer colder look on the DVD is theatrically accurate or the nonfiltered BD look is.

I believe the Minority Report DVD is accurate to the theatrical look. The 35mm release prints had the bleach bypass process applied to them, like Saving Private Ryan.

The BD of Minority Report seems to be a new scan from the negative, which would lack the bleach bypass, of course. I believe the BD of SPR suffered the same problem.

The difference on MR varies from shot to shot, but in each case it's fairly subtle, it doesn't ruin the intent of the movie or anything:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...=30480&i=5&l=0

For SPR, I think they corrected this for the UHD and added the bleach bypass look digitally. Hopefully they'll do that for Minority Report, if it ever reaches uHD.

[martydmc12]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

The fact remains, Fox put themselves up for sale. Disney didn't "take them over". Fox initiated the offer, buyers came to buy. If not Disney, it would have been Comcast or someone else. Petroleum companies and wine cooler merchants have bought control of film studios in the past. At least Fox is in the hands of an actual entertainment business, as opposed to a telecommunications conglomerate or social media platform.

Not arguing that Murdoch didn't put Fox up for sale, it's just who they sold it to.

I strongly disagree with it being better when in the hands of another entertainment company, which overall should seem like a good thing. As you said, petroleum companies, wine coolers, even Coca-Cola owned Columbia Pictures for a brief stint. The difference is that those owners have no idea what they've gotten themselves into, and don't understand the movie industry simply because there is no other business quite like it. Because of that, they "usually" stay hands off and let the filmmakers and studio executives keep things running things as per usual. I think it might have been in been in Art Linson's book "What Just Happened" where I recall a story about how Rupert Murdoch really didn't understand the business, didn't care how it was being run, and let Hollywood do their thing just as long as it was generating money. The problem now is Disney has been a poorly run studio since before Michael Eisner left the company, and has only gotten worse since Iger has come and gone and now back again. I couldn't think of a worse company to own a studio like Fox, and I'm sure it would have been in better hands with Comcast or Viacom, but not Disney.

Disney is far too niche and caters to a specific demographic, which is families. At least we can give Eisner, Frank Wells and Jeffrey Katzenberg credit for creating Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures to create out other genres that the Disney label won't touch. Now those divisions are long gone, and Disney is back to family oriented movies only. Not exactly a good fit for a majority of the titles in the Fox library.

Back to Spielberg, it was Tom Rothman at Fox that got Lincoln made when no one else would touch it, which I recently just learned in an interview with Spielberg. Would Disney/Fox today dare put up the 50% for a movie like Lincoln in 2023? Then again, doubtful most studios probably wouldn't in today's comic book movie climate.

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

If Fox selling their studios and assets is one of the worst things to happen in Hollywood history, I shudder to wonder where the Hollywood Blacklist ranks, along with cast and crew abuses that are so rampant, people have to die before anyone pays any attention.

WTF are you talking about? There's a big difference between film & cinema history and preservation versus social justice issues. If you can't separate the two, then I don't know what to say. They're two completely different subjects that have nothing to do with the other. I'm talking about movies, you're talking about something else entirely.