Fun City Editions

[LordMatthias]

Originally Posted by Vincent Dawn

After Radio On came out, they said their next release was in January.

Edit:

Thanks. Any educated guesses as to what movie it might be?

[jah13]

The card stock is the same. The difference is the cut of it...side load vs o-card. You can try flattening and refolding. A replacement isn't going to be any different.

Originally Posted by A Tortured Duckling

Jah,

I received Radio On today and, while I genuinely appreciate the design of the slipcover and understand why you chose to go with this particular side-loading variant, I have to admit I do not like the thin card stock at all. Compared to the overall quality of your previous slipcovers, this one feels rather flimsy and no matter what I do, the spine on my copy won't stay closed and flat. Could this be a case of faulty folding or gluing? If so, could I get it replaced?

Thank you.

[jah13]

It would be the dream of FCE and a bunch of other boutique labels that all of us are familiar with. By all accounts, the rights holder isn't interested in making a deal, or making one that makes any kind of financial sense for the licensee.

Originally Posted by tehthomas

Any chance FCE could get the rights to 'Night of the Juggler'?

[jah13]

10 more, long days from now.

Originally Posted by LordMatthias

Thanks. Any educated guesses as to what movie it might be?

[Place Logo Here]

My copy of Radio On from the BF sale just arrived. I normally could care less about slipcovers, but this package really impressed me. Only way I can think of they could have topped it would be putting the BD case in an actual, plastic cassette-stylr case of that size.

[larrys]

Originally Posted by jah13

10 more, long days from now.

Seeing your avatar again reminds me to ask about Middle Age Crazy (1980), Dern's first starring role after the Oscar nom for Coming Home. One of several movies with the same basic theme after "10" was a huge hit and as a stupid 17/18 year old I saw all of them. Dern's film was, I think, considered the best of those.

It was released by Fox both theatrically and on VHS in 1989 according to imdb. Nothing since. Is it another one of those titles with music rights issues?

[jah13]

Rights, in general, as well as interest. It's not with Fox anymore.

Originally Posted by larrys

Seeing your avatar again reminds me to ask about Middle Age Crazy (1980), Dern's first starring role after the Oscar nom for Coming Home. One of several movies with the same basic theme after "10" was a huge hit and as a stupid 17/18 year old I saw all of them. Dern's film was, I think, considered the best of those.

It was released by Fox both theatrically and on VHS in 1989 according to imdb. Nothing since. Is it another one of those titles with music rights issues?

[tehthomas]

Originally Posted by jah13

It would be the dream of FCE and a bunch of other boutique labels that all of us are familiar with. By all accounts, the rights holder isn't interested in making a deal, or making one that makes any kind of financial sense for the licensee.

Thanks for the info. This sort of boggles my mind. They have the rights to something, which could be flipped into revenue. But they don't want it? With something like this where this is no viable home video or streaming option, there is no chance to capture any money from being a rights holder at the moment. Yet plenty of labels would love to restore this and put it out on disc, and likely this would also end up on streaming service, so also money there. Am I missing something?

[jah13]

The problem is that this rights holder is not a traditional film company. It's a multinational conglomerate, with thousands of holdings and this little film is not very high on that list, to say the least. Any revenue from this film would be a tiny drop in the bucket for them and doesn't justify the cost of activating their legal department. This is not an uncommon issue, alas.

Originally Posted by tehthomas

Thanks for the info. This sort of boggles my mind. They have the rights to something, which could be flipped into revenue. But they don't want it? With something like this where this is no viable home video or streaming option, there is no chance to capture any money from being a rights holder at the moment. Yet plenty of labels would love to restore this and put it out on disc, and likely this would also end up on streaming service, so also money there. Am I missing something?

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by jah13

The problem is that this rights holder is not a traditional film company. It's a multinational conglomerate, with thousands of holdings and this little film is not very high on that list, to say the least. Any revenue from this film would be a tiny drop in the bucket for them and doesn't justify the cost of activating their legal department. This is not an uncommon issue, alas.

Is it the same people that own Stepford Wives, Sleuth & Heartbreak Kid? If so, they cruising for a bruising with this rights sitting!

[jah13]

Not the same company, but a similar situation.

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Is it the same people that own Stepford Wives, Sleuth & Heartbreak Kid? If so, they cruising for a bruising with this rights sitting!

[tehthomas]

Originally Posted by jah13

The problem is that this rights holder is not a traditional film company. It's a multinational conglomerate, with thousands of holdings and this little film is not very high on that list, to say the least. Any revenue from this film would be a tiny drop in the bucket for them and doesn't justify the cost of activating their legal department. This is not an uncommon issue, alas.

Is this one of those situations where it would only be licensed along with a bundle of other titles, in which that would be only way they would be motivated enough to make a deal?

[jah13]

My sense is it hasn't gotten that far and what this company is looking for to make it worth their while is way out of line with what anyone could pay. They also don't have that many titles to begin with. It may be just JUGGLER and FOOLIN' AROUND.

Originally Posted by tehthomas

Is this one of those situations where it would only be licensed along with a bundle of other titles, in which that would be only way they would be motivated enough to make a deal?

[bergman864]

Please make your Twitter post a reality. We need more Little Joe on Blu-ray.

[Gacivory]

Morvern Callar? Way to start 2022 with a bang and a most wanted title from me!

[sb5]

Wow, Morvern Callar? A Lynn Ramsay release is huge news. Awesome stuff, FCE.

[RodneyOz]

Morvern Callar is a title I was beginning to think I would NEVER see on Blu-Ray - thank you Fun City!!

[bergman864]

Great pick with Morvern Callar. Glad to see it finally coming to Blu-ray.

[Mose Harper]

Originally Posted by jah13

My sense is it hasn't gotten that far and what this company is looking for to make it worth their while is way out of line with what anyone could pay. They also don't have that many titles to begin with. It may be just JUGGLER and FOOLIN' AROUND.

GAAARRRHHHH

Foolin' Around is another huge guilty pleasure for me that I've been missing greatly.

My best friend and I were fans of The Buddy Holly Story, and I remained a big Gary Busey fan for years afterward because he was great at playing such sincere, oafish mensches.

[Lianzantoro]

Originally Posted by Mose Harper

GAAARRRHHHH

Foolin' Around is another huge guilty pleasure for me that I've been missing greatly.

My best friend and I were fans of The Buddy Holly Story, and I remained a big Gary Busey fan for years afterward because he was great at playing such sincere, oafish mensches.

I saw both of those on HBO circa 1981. Both entertaining flicks. Night of the Juggler and Foolin Around that is.