18 Jan
2003
18 Jan
'03
2:03 p.m.
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Wayne M. Smith wrote:
There are some who would, but not enough to make it worth the expense.
As you know, I work for a company that is in this business and if we
thought for a moment that there was money in releasing high quality
versions of public domain titles where we own the original negatives
(and there is a long list of such titles where we do own those
negatives) then we would have done it yesterday. You are free to
disagree all you want, but this won't change the reality that companies
won't spend money to lose money, meaning that there are virtually no
remastered versions of public domain titles, and the quality of most of
what is out there will remain crap.
-W
Often it simply isn't worth it to build upon
something unless you
enjoy exclusive rights. The restoration of old films is a good
example. The studios that hold copyrights to old pictures
spend huge
amounts of money to restore the prints for issue
in DVD format
precisely because they hold exclusive rights and can make back what
they spend. In the case of public domain films, this simply doesn't
happen. As a result, you cannot obtain a decent quality
copy of most
public domain films because no one is willing to
spend money on
remastering when the public domain distributors are selling
the film
for $6.99 or less a pop. If you want an example,
go on
Amazon and read
the DVD reviews for "Royal Wedding" a
1951 Fred Astaire/Jane Powell
film that went public domain in 1979 when MGM neglected to
renew the
copyright.
I disagree. I am certain there are many people who would
prefer to pay more for a higher quality edition of the same
movie. I know I would.