Who here would buy B & G's HOLLYWOOD on DVD unremastered

WaverBoy · Post by **WaverBoy** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:38 pm

There's a thread at Silent Comedians about the possibility (more likely futility) of HOLLYWOOD appearing on DVD, and even if it did, whether a wider audience or even silent film fans would buy it if it was pressed from existing masters. A post by Chris Snowden from that thread:

Hollywood will never be officially released on DVD, so this is all academic. But if it ever did, I think it would get a very mixed reaction, even from those who ought to leap for joy over it.

It seems to me that whenever vintage film material comes out on DVD, the reviewers always expect state-of-the-art production and loads of extras. When a product doesn't have that, it gets mixed reviews, which dampens collectors' enthusiasm and costs the DVD company the sales it needed just to break even on the project.

Check out the Criterion forums sometime. A lot of collectors are amazingly anal retentive, and will nitpick a DVD to death over what type of stereo sound it has, or whether there were enough commentary tracks to satisfy them.

Even at Nitrateville, you'll see collectors grumble that a DVD with two different scores to choose from didn't have three of them. The new Douglas Fairbanks set was greeted with a chorus of complaints.

I can just imagine the reception that Hollywood would get, packed as it is with interview clips that were shot in 16mm forty years ago. I'd like to think that collectors would be understanding about its technical limitations, but I don't think enough of them would be.

I'd like to think that silent film fans would know what to expect, and would still buy it even if it was pressed from the existing masters. I know I would in a heartbeat. So, c'mon, Nitratevillians -- who here would buy it? Who here would pass because it wasn't remastered?

http://www.silentcomedians.com/forum/vi ... php?t=1647

Jack Theakston · Post by **Jack Theakston** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:12 pm

I would pardon the actual film clips, seeing as they were produced when the climate was right (ie. transfer speed, scoring, editing, etc.), although it would be nice to see remastering of those conformed to the original, but I would expect that if any company was going to put money into issuing the films on DVD that they would at least re-master the interviews, the elements to which all exist in fine condition. 16mm or no, the quality on Rank telecine transfer would put those old transfers to shame, as proven by a number of Photoplay's latest works.

That being said, considering the state of the copyright limbo the series is in, these are all just pipe dreams. If someone was to say, "you can have it, but only as it exists," I'd still plop down the MSRP for it.

Post by **Mike Gebert** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:30 pm

I just want to make sure everyone remembers that this is a purely hypothetical discussion. There's no trading of copies made from copyrighted material on the board.

WaverBoy · Post by **WaverBoy** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Post by **Mike Gebert** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:44 pm

Nobody said you did anything wrong. Still, a post that mentions copies and wonders who'd want copies could pretty easily attract a response wanting a copy. I'm just making it clear before that happens.

FrankFay · Post by **FrankFay** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:07 am

If there was a DVD edition that was at least as watchable as the original, I'd buy it. The overall content and interviews are the important thing

Jack Theakston · Post by **Jack Theakston** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:21 am

What I wonder is, who are the offending parties in this? Is it ALL the companies or just one or two that are keeping HOLLYWOOD from being released?

Post by **Mike Gebert** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:25 am

I don't think it's any offending parties. I think it's the size of the task (renegotiating with so many parties) relative to the anticipated reward that prevents anyone from even initiating it.

Though since it came out on both VHS and laser, I'm surprised the contract precludes DVDs (at least that's what past discussion has implied).

Richard P. May · Post by **Richard P. May** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:31 am

Sorry to say, but I think the reality of the marketplace is the hangup.
The cost of mastering, packagine, promoting, getting shelf space, etc. is probably much more than the potential revenue from reissuing this set.
Not everybody is as interested in this period as the correspondents to this forum.

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:37 am

I asked Pat Stanbury of Photoplay what the situation currently is on Hollywood. Here's his response.

***********************

So, Hollywood. Fact number one: Photoplay has never had any claim of any sort on this programme. Kevin and David made it for Thames TV, and thus Thames owned it. David was an employee of Thames, Kevin was both employed and freelance for Thames. Fremantle is the successor to Thames's rights. Thus they are the current owners. I stress, Photoplay have no share in the programme, though obviously we have a strong emotional desire to see it available again.

Fremantle have been looking at the problems of renewing clip rights in the series for some time; with so many separate deals involved it is inevitable that there would be a lot of problems in doing this. I am helping them with this review, at the end of which we will know how much it would cost to put the programme back into distribution. The question will then be, can future expected revenues support this cost? THE DVD market is undoubtedly down, and the revenues from TV for this sort of programming are also not what they were. So it is possible that the costs will prove too great.

Previously, the series has been announced for DVD, but that was premature, before a clear picture of the rights situation had been formed, and those releases are now cancelled. There is currently no committed release for DVD.

A number of people have speculated that the programme will, or should be, remastered for release. Nice though that would be, it is wholly impractical, on cost and logistical grounds, to do so. So if the series does appear then it is likely to be substantially as originally screened.

****************

OK, that's how it stands today. But don't let that stop anyone from spreading disinformation and/or just plain gossip.

Oooh. Cranky this morning. Undercaffeinated.

rollot24 · Post by **rollot24** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:42 am

Even if it wasn't remastered, if it was an official release I would buy it in a nano-second just to support silent films on DVD, or any other way I can.

Post by **Mike Gebert** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:01 am

Actually, that seems pretty much like what everyone has speculated-- too many separate rights issues relative to anticipated revenue.

The remastering, that always seemed like a pipe dream to me. And frankly not all that necessary-- do I really care if grainy 16mm footage of Viola Dana in her 80s captures the hues of her beige living room accurately?

boblipton · Post by **boblipton** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:13 pm

It;s not beige, Mike, it's more like an offwhite ecru or maybe a pale taupe. I had my girlfriend of the time explain this to me at length.

Bob

SecondReel · Post by **SecondReel** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:31 pm

Mike Gebert wrote:Though since it came out on both VHS and laser, I'm surprised the contract precludes DVDs (at least that's what past discussion has implied).

The clearances could have been for a set period. It's why Eyes on the Prize disappeared. They had a heck of a time getting them updated and that was with willing donors (The Ford Foundation gave 65K just to figure out who was owed what) and positive press interest. Even then it's only available at institutional pricing.

Harlett O'Dowd · Post by **Harlett O'Dowd** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:45 pm

I've mentioned something similar to this before, but I'll re-phrase it here (Fred - maybe you could bring this to Patrick's attention.)

Like many here, I would buy a legal release of the series on DVD in a nano-second. That said, what I would *really* like to see are the full interviews, which, presumably, Kevin/Photoplay own outright.

SO

if a few company's and/or clips' prices pushed a DVD release into the financially impossible range, perhaps a re-edit with a few stills coupled with a bonus of the raw interview footage (even Kevin's audios from the 1960s) would be a godsend.

WaverBoy · Post by **WaverBoy** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:10 pm

Ooh, yes, the full interviews. I'd be all over that.

Darren Nemeth · Post by **Darren Nemeth** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:34 pm

I thought using clips of copyrighted films in a documentary was "fair use?"

Jack Theakston · Post by **Jack Theakston** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:50 pm

Fair use depends entirely on the usage. The doctrine of fair use boils down to:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

Since the documentary was a commercial work, this is one strike against it.

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

Clips are being used and not altered in any way, so it's not as if something significantly new was made out of it.

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

Some clips used run over three or four minutes in the documentary, although not much longer.

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Probably not, although this is always the argument in fair use cases.

Darren Nemeth · Post by **Darren Nemeth** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:57 pm

Jack Theakston wrote:Fair use depends entirely on the usage. The doctrine of fair use boils down to:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

Since the documentary was a commercial work, this is one strike against it.

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

Clips are being used and not altered in any way, so it's not as if something significantly new was made out of it.

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

Some clips used run over three or four minutes in the documentary, although not much longer.

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Probably not, although this is always the argument in fair use cases.

Thanks.

Gagman 66 · Post by **Gagman 66** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:22 pm

Well let me just say that my good friend Kyle was able to make some truly stunning transfers of Thames HOLLYWOOD on DVD-R from laser-disc using some relatively inexpensive enhancement gizmo's. If the series looked anywhere near that good on official DVD, I don't think many would complain about it.

By the way, His enhanced LD transfer of THE BELOVED ROGUE puts the official Kino DVD release to shame! It's hard to believe that it is even from the same source print. And his LD transfer of the Thames THE THIEF OF BAGDAD looks about the same as the Kino DVD, in terms of sharpness and clarity.

Incidentally, has anyone here seen THE FIRE BRIGADE? What I wouldn't give for a TCM premier! I have wanted to see this ever since first viewing those fantastic clips in Hollywood clear back in the early 80's! Anyone have a copy?

Darren Nemeth · Post by **Darren Nemeth** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:25 pm

They should just make a new documentary using footage they can use.

I bet they can find more stuff in those interviews and other stuff of interest.

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:45 am

Harlett O'Dowd wrote:I've mentioned something similar to this before, but I'll re-phrase it here (Fred - maybe you could bring this to Patrick's attention.)

Like many here, I would buy a legal release of the series on DVD in a nano-second. That said, what I would *really* like to see are the full interviews, which, presumably, Kevin/Photoplay own outright.

SO

if a few company's and/or clips' prices pushed a DVD release into the financially impossible range, perhaps a re-edit with a few stills coupled with a bonus of the raw interview footage (even Kevin's audios from the 1960s) would be a godsend.

And here is his response:

The interviews for Hollywood are owned, rights wise, by Fremantle, just as with the series itself. This was a work for hire. Neither Kevin nor Photoplay has any rights in them. Where we have used extracts in our own (ie Photoplay made) documentaries we have had to negotiate licences to do so.

When Hollywood was being made, it was decided to deposit complete 16mm check prints of the interviews, before they were cut, with the National Film Archive here in the UK. Alas, the original negs are no longer around, and apart from what is actually in the master tapes of the finished programmes, these check prints are the only source that survives. The prints are not always in the best of condition, and quite a lot of work has sometimes been needed to 'improve' the picture quality where we have accessed the prints.

Again, although it might sound an attractive prospect to add uncut versions of the interviews as extras to a DVD release, there is no way that could be financialy viable, given the sort of price the market could bear for this release. As a research tool for students or other interested parties a separate release of the interviews would be unique, if perhaps a little indigestible given the length of some of them, but how many people would be able to afford it?
******************

Fred

Post by **Mike Gebert** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:54 pm

was able to make some truly stunning transfers of Thames HOLLYWOOD on DVD-R

Really, guys, people in the silent video biz are going to see this as all but putting an 800 number out there, even if the intent is purely innocent. Realistically, I think it's no secret that LD-to-DVD-R versions of Hollywood are one of those things fairly easy to put your hands on where fans congregate, right up there with a certain movie about Uncle Remus, but the Internet is another matter from a dealer's room at a convention, and out of respect for the people who produce these things, let's try not to even have the appearance of offering stuff like this to the whole world, or urging people to go the bootleg route over a legitimate release that exists. A lot of our friends are hanging on by fingernails at the moment in a down DVD market, let's do what we can to support them.

Gumlegs · Post by **Gumlegs** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:50 pm

This one's a no-brainer. I'd buy the Hollywood series on DVD as fast as humanly possible. Maybe faster.

T0m M · Post by **T0m M** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:02 pm

Mike Gebert wrote:
was able to make some truly stunning transfers of Thames HOLLYWOOD on DVD-R
Really, guys, people in the silent video biz are going to see this as all but putting an 800 number out there, even if the intent is purely innocent. Realistically, I think it's no secret that LD-to-DVD-R versions of Hollywood are one of those things fairly easy to put your hands on where fans congregate, right up there with a certain movie about Uncle Remus, but the Internet is another matter from a dealer's room at a convention, and out of respect for the people who produce these things, let's try not to even have the appearance of offering stuff like this to the whole world, or urging people to go the bootleg route over a legitimate release that exists. A lot of our friends are hanging on by fingernails at the moment in a down DVD market, let's do what we can to support them.

I read the OP's post from a completely different perspective. I believe that he was simply illustrating that the copyright holders could produce a commercially acceptable DVD using the existing elements and minimal, inexpensive processing. In his view, full blown, expensive, digital restoration and remastering was not necessarily required.

Gagman 66 · Post by **Gagman 66** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:49 am

I read the OP's post from a completely different perspective. I believe that he was simply illustrating that the copyright holders could produce a commercially acceptable DVD using the existing elements and minimal, inexpensive processing. In his view, full blown, expensive, digital restoration and remastering was not necessarily required.

Tom M,

Bravo sir! You've Got it!!!! Thanks!!!