Thank you, Big G-2. Hollywood corporate intrigues can be maddening. Rights to three or four of Preminger's films had reverted to the director, then to his estate after his death in 1986, so they were not controlled by their releasing studios. A&C was one, plus THE CARDINAL and SAINT JOAN; I'm unsure of the fourth (perhaps THE MOON IS BLUE). These were issued on VHS by Hal Roach in the late 80s, and the b&w films were colorized soon after. These rights in turn were acquired by Warner in the mid-90s, and that's when they put out an excellent widescreen VHS of A&C, with logo. This deleting-the-logo business started when the films came to DVD, for whatever reason.
Warner owns the pre-1982 MGM library, and in tape days most older MGM, WB, RKO and UA films were all released by MGM/UA. WB had sold its library of pre-1950 films to UA in 1956 for all of $2 million, one of the biggest steals in film history. When Turner merged with Time-Warner, the two halves of the WB library were reunited, after 40 years, under one owner. But in the vagaries of subsequent mergers and acquisitions, the post-1982 and UA libraries were separated from the others and were under control of MGM, not WHV, by the time DVD came along. Sony's purchase of MGM gave it control of these two libraries, and it has in turn licensed the release of UA films to Fox -- which is a good thing, as Fox is pretty good about issuing its holdings, which Sony/Columbia is not. It was Fox which finally released the Bond films you mentioned in completely restored prints, and for sale individually as well as in box sets, so you could buy what you wanted and didn't have to take films you didn't want. Sony also gained ownership of the Goldwyn films in this acquisition, and Fox has begun releasing them as well.
This is thumbnail and not necessarily 100% exact, but essentially the story. Still, as we're all saying on this thread, defacing a film in any manner is annoying and pointless. Also more difficult -- it has to be easier to just leave the movie intact than to cut or replace parts of it in the transfer. I don't know what gives with these guys.
reply
share
edward-miller-1
17 years ago
Universal did the same with the 50s Hitchcock movies that they released on VHS, since they inherited the rights through a proviso with the Hitchcock estate. They deleted the Paramount mountain and replaced it with the Universal globe. Thankfully, the DVD versions have the Paramount logo back where it belongs. Hitchcock made "Rear Window", "The Trouble With Harry", "The Man Who Knew Too Much", "Vertigo", and "Psycho" for Paramount, NOT Universal. Universal even tries to pass off the Bates Motel and house as their own "real" sets in their theme parks. What a joke! We all know that for ages Universal was a second rate studio. They inherited the classic Hitchcock library of the 50s through a fluke, because he moved to Universal in his old age, and because of the scam that Lew Wasserman perpetrated in one of his mega-deals. Because of Wasserman, it's hard for us to see any of the Paramount classics at all, because MCA-Universal has a stranglehold on that library.
reply
share
hobnob53
17 years ago
Exactly so, although they have still not entirely restored the Paramount logo on THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH -- it's back at the beginning of the film, but they've still got the (1980s version of) the Universal globe at the end; unlike the others, where "A Paramount Release" has been restored beginning and end. (They also inherited Hitchcock's ROPE, which was released by Warner Bros., and that logo has also been restored.)
Of course, PSYCHO was shot on the Universal lot by Hitch's TV crew (his show was filmed there), even though it was a Paramount release, so I suppose Universal can claim some connection there. In the 70s many prints of that film also had a substituted Universal logo; but unlike the other five the Paramount logo was put back on PSYCHO in the 80s. I don't mind the tacked-on modern Universal logo at the start but the elimination of any reference to Paramount irks me no end.
Still, it must be said that in general Universal is pretty good about keeping the original logos; they've never removed the old Paramount logos from the pre-1950 films from that studio that they've controlled for decades. Warner is the problematic studio here; ADVISE & CONSENT's Columbia logo was simply dropped, but others like SEVEN DAYS IN MAY and ZERO HOUR have not only had their original studio logos eliminated but modern WB ones substituted. (Warner is now even substituting its admittedly awful Warner Commuications logo of the 70s -- red background, "modern" W in a black square -- for their current one, which reprises the old logo and looks better, but is still not what was in the original. Paramount itself has done that on a handful of films, such as GODFATHER I and II. Columbia did the same on some of its old films in the 80s -- BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, for instance -- but thankfully dropped the practice.)
But you're right about Wasserman -- great deal-maker, but thanks to his meddling -- and the mind-boggling stupidity of Paramount executives, who after all consented to the sell-off of their library in 1956 -- Paramount's priceless pre-'50 legacy is in the hands of a studio which bottles them up from release, or insists on packaging several together so you have no choice in what you buy. And few if any extras.
Thanks for posting!
reply
share
edward-miller-1
17 years ago
And thanks for that brilliant reply from you! There was another logo issue regarding two movies based on Tennessee Williams plays. When I first saw "Streetcar" in a revival at the Victoria Theater in Manhattan in the early 70s, it opened with the 20th Century Fox logo and fanfare, which really surprised me, because even in my early 20s I was a walking movie encyclopedia. Whatever connection there was with Fox, that logo is long gone and it opens with the WB shield, as appropriate. "The Glass Menagerie" is another story, however. It was a WB production, with Warner personnel, actors, and director, but somehow Fox now owns it and shows it on the Fox Movie Channel with the Fox logo. Since Charlie Feldman had a hand in packaging both of these movies, I wonder if he struck some kind of deal with Zanuck? Do you know anything about this, hobnob?
"If ah irritate you, jes think how ah irritate mahself."
reply
share
hobnob53
17 years ago
I've seen that too, and no, I don't know the background on that one. I've even heard "Menagerie" referred to as a 20th Century Fox film, which it ain't. My guess is similar to yours, that the rights of the production company that made it somehow transferred to Fox...although why "Streetcar" reverted I don't know. I doubt it was a deal made at the time, otherwise why not just release directly through Fox? But the individual studios' imprint on their films was so obvious that Fox logo or no, "Menagerie" has the look, sound and feel of a WB flick.
As an example, two films released by WB in the 50s were produced by an independent production company run by Milton Sperling - THE ENFORCER (1951), with Humphrey Bogart, and THE COURT-MARTIAL OF BILLY MITCHELL (1955), with Gary Cooper. Both these films are/were owned by Republic Pictures Corp. (which still exists as a corporation, though its filmmaking days ended in 1958), and it is RPC which released them on VHS and DVD. But in both cases they left the film intact, with the original WB logo; RPC also does this with the several other non-Republic pictures it now controls (several late Cary Grant films the star also produced, which were released through Universal, for instance). I think Paramount may now control all or much of the Republic library -- they acquired IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, which Republic had rescued from public domain hell by purchasing the copyright ten or so years ago. Whatever the crosscurrents of film company mergers and acquisitions, these movies seem to be being taken care of and left unaltered.
I'm going to see if I can dig up anything on the Menagerie/Streetcar front.
You sound about the same age as me, and like you, I've been a walking movie encyclopedia for the same amount of time. At least we've been able to track all these changes down the decades! See you later.
reply
share
edward-miller-1
17 years ago
It's a great pleasure chatting with you!
Regarding Sperling, he had a producing company, United States Pictures, that released exclusively through Warners for around a decade, and I think that Gary Coper had a financial hand in it, because he starred in many of them. The first, I believe, was "Cloak and Dagger" with Coop and Lilli Palmer, in 1946. After the company shut down, Sperling continued to produce for Warner Brothers, movies like "Marjorie Morningstar". Now all of these movies apparently belong to Republic Home Video; go figure why. This wasn't always the case; when I first saw "Marjorie" on television in the 60s, the WB logo was on the beginning and end of the movie. Now it has the Republic eagle where the WB shield should be. It's a puzzlement how these Warner films fell into Republic's hands, and I for one want the WB logo back on them, where it belongs!
Now, if only we could find all of George Cukor's missing footage from "A Star Is Born" and "The Chapman Report" I'd really be happy.
reply
share
hobnob53
17 years ago
I didn't realize there was missing footage from "The Chapman Report". (Some would argue that most of the picture should go missing!) But, yes, if only that missing "A Star Is Born" footage would somehow turn up, not to mention "Lost Horizon". Apparently Orson Welles's original ending to "Magnificent Ambersons" was tossed into the furnace in 1942, so I suppose that one's a lost cause.
I assume that since all Sperling's pictures made under his United States banner were owned by him/the company, WB had no claim on them and he or his heirs sold the rights to RPC. I'm a little surprised that the WB is gone from "Marjorie Morningstar" (which I confess to not having seen in probably 35-plus years), because ordinarily Republic tacks the eagle on before the film but leaves the body of the film alone. Of course, there can be problems: their VHS of "Billy Mitchell" used the WB logo at the start but at the very last scene (which in the actual film has THE END and the WB logo beneath, superimposed on a sky full of 1955 jets), their print abruptly cut to black with THE END and no WB. But that seemed to be the print they were using, not something Republic had done, and no eagle or other mention of Republic. On the DVD, the proper ending is restored. (The movie is also widescreen, in spite of the fact that the DVD case itself says it's full screen -- go figure!) But Cary Grant, or his estate, sold the rights to four or five of his films to RPC, and they left the Unviersal logo intact on all of them.
But one annoying exception: "Young at Heart" was a WB picture, as is obvious to anyone acquainted with their style (such as yourself!), but the Warners logo has been cut from that for years, and is still missing on the Republic DVD (the music opens over a black background until the rest of the credits abruptly kick in). I suspect this may be lost somehow, but Republic didn't do that; it happened decades ago, by the producers who seem bent on hiding the studio that released it. Ridiculous.
Please let me return the compliment -- I enjoy these discussions with you immensely. I hope we can also eventually continue them on other boards. Till later.
reply
share