The Arrow Thread

[Stephen@Cult Labs]

Michael, do you know if it'll include the previous features (Withnail & Us, etc)?

[Michael Brooke]

Originally Posted by Stephen@Cult Labs

Michael, do you know if it'll include the previous features (Withnail & Us, etc)?

I don't know - I only know about the new stuff. They may well decide that those particular extras have been seen so many times before that they're not worth it, but I honestly don't know either way.

[Stephen@Cult Labs]

Thanks Michael. I'll hang onto the other blu-ray as well for the time being then.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Stephen@Cult Labs

It's Withnail & I and Arrow, that's all I need to know to buy it again

Same here.

[J Harker]

Originally Posted by Michael Brooke

Just to answer a question a few posts back, restorations are NOT in the public domain: for copyright purposes they count as new works.

None of which will prevent chancers claiming otherwise, of course - when I was at the BFI we caught someone who'd blatantly nicked the 1903 Alice in Wonderland restoration and pulled the "public domain" excuse, even though the BFI owned what is believed to be the only surviving copy even before they restored it - so the only way he could have got hold of it would be from ripping it from a BFI DVD, which is illegal in itself.

On the other hand, if you stumble upon an original 1903 print yourself, there's nothing to stop you releasing it.

Would I be right in thinking though that a number of restorations to undertaken by the bfi are done primarily in the interest of artistic/historic preservation as opposed to making a financial profit?

[sjconstable]

Originally Posted by J Harker

Would I be right in thinking though that a number of restorations to undertaken by the bfi are done primarily in the interest of artistic/historic preservation as opposed to making a financial profit?

The BFI is a non-profit organisation anyway so technically the former applies to everything they do.

[Michael Brooke]

Originally Posted by J Harker

Would I be right in thinking though that a number of restorations to undertaken by the bfi are done primarily in the interest of artistic/historic preservation as opposed to making a financial profit?

Both. Obviously, the profit motive isn't paramount in the way that it would be if the projects were handled by a wholly commercial restoration, but they'd be happier if restorations paid their own way (only about half the BFI's income comes from central government: the rest is self-generated).

And of course they have to protect their work legally, just as much as any other rightsholder does. The silent Hitchcock restorations averaged out at £100K apiece - so the last thing they want is for some scrote to claim "public domain!" and do their own unauthorised release on the back of the BFI's materials. (The composers of the new scores might have something to say about that too!)

Although it's because the restorations cost £100K apiece - money that is almost certainly not recoupable on the open market (even when you factor in sales across all media - DVD, BD, TV, VOD, you name it - it's unlikely you'll make back those sums on titles like Champagne, Downhill or The Farmer's Wife) that organisations like the BFI generally end up taking on the task instead of the actual rightsholders - the Hitchcock titles are split between Network and StudioCanal in the UK.

[bizarre_eye@Cult Labs]

New cover art for the standard release of Theatre of Blood:

[Stephen@Cult Labs]

I'll be expecting despatch emails for Theatre Of Blood & The Delta Force tonight or sometime tomorrow.

[Rik]

Not a fan of that artwork at all, might have to go for the steelbook instead