The Devils (1971) (Ken Russell) Discussion Thread - Page 17

Wes · #**161** 12th November 2011, 09:47 PM

Good stuff Paul, I actually still have that sell-thru tape at my Mom's house...

Check out this clip of Oliver Reed on Parkinson in the '70's, not drunk or crazy, just great. In this clip, he talks about The Devils

Paul@TheOverlook · #**162** 12th November 2011, 09:57 PM

That's a great interview with Reed, he very eloquently defends the film and Parkie is a bit of a tit.

The Reaper Man@Cult Labs · #**163** 13th November 2011, 06:05 AM

Only ONE Devil's artwork as far as I'm concerned......take note please BFI.

The Reaper Man@Cult Labs · #**164** 13th November 2011, 06:07 AM

And PLEASE keep this where it belongs-in the ****ing bin!

The Limey · #**165** 13th November 2011, 10:23 AM

More info from Michael Brooke in regards to the difficulties of a BD release and as a response to the following question:

Quote:

But f*** that s**t, the BFI should release Ken's version in 1080p and be damned. I'll pre-order at £60...

Quote:

I suspect this is tongue-in-cheek, but it's impossible for three reasons.

Firstly, the BFI's entire business model, particularly the operation of the BFI National Archive (its single most important activity), depends on maintaining good relationships with rightsholders. So breaching Warner's copyright is simply not an option - quite aside from the fact that Warner would almost certainly take legal action (bearing in mind that the BFI is a far juicier target than the people behind the bootleg release), the long-term consequences for the BFI would be far more serious. Especially if other major rightsholders got wind of this, which they obviously would do.

Secondly, if you want access to decent materials, you have to apply to Warner, which means drawing up a contractual agreement with them in advance. Although the BFI can often supply an alternative, this may well not be true in this case. As it happens, I've seen the 35mm viewing copy held by the Archive, and in no way is it suitable for anything other than Steenbeck viewing - it's riddled with scratches and splices, and would look hideous. I daresay the master copy looks better, but it's also probably not pristine: Warner's materials will definitely be superior. Also, stating the obvious, the Archive's own prints are of the 1971 British theatrical version.

Thirdly, the 2004 version only exists as an SD Digibeta, so a genuine 1080p release isn't possible without a fresh HD transfer of the original 35mm materials... which are held by Warner. So even if you decided to defy Warner on the subject of copyright, you'd have to physically break into their vaults in order to pull this off.

Stephen@Cult Labs · #**166** 13th November 2011, 10:27 AM

Someone really needs to ask him about artwork for the dvd!

Paul@TheOverlook · #**167** 13th November 2011, 10:31 AM

...but if the BFI was to defy WB and shanghai the materials from the major's vaults, it would make a great film in its own right!

This is all getting a bit ridiculous now. People should be thankful of the hard work that the BFI is putting into this release.

napalm-in-the-morning · #**168** 13th November 2011, 10:34 AM

Even an SD release is better than no release and it will be a lot better than the ghastly bootlegs doing the rounds. They are horrible and do the film no service at all.