Arrow Films

Latest news on Arrow Video and Arrow Academy releases. Lists and polls are STRONGLY discouraged.

Moderators: MichaelB, yoloswegmaster

Locked
Message
Author
User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Arrow Films

#201 Post by MichaelB » Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:37 am

Mondo Digital on Bicycle Thieves and Les Diaboliques.


User avatar
Feego
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Arrow Films

#203 Post by Feego » Wed May 11, 2011 9:27 pm

Beaver on Bird with the Crystal Plumage. Really glad I bought the Blue Underground edition.

User avatar
Murdoch
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Upstate NY

Re: Arrow Films

#204 Post by Murdoch » Wed May 11, 2011 10:30 pm

Wow the Arrow is awful, oh that Storaro

User avatar
Der Spieler
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:05 am

Re: Arrow Films

#205 Post by Der Spieler » Mon May 16, 2011 11:54 am

I know I might be viewed as "that anti-Arrow asshole" - which I'm not - but I'll give my opinion nonetheless. To me, the camera shots alone are proof enough that the new AR is unnatural. You only see the right side of the viewfinder... lol. Companies should probably be highly suspicious when they're sold materials supervised by Storaro. In fact, they should turn it down altogether knowing it'll most probably be butchered beyond reason. I'm very glad I own the Blue Underground release which sports more natural colors, has the right AR and seems to have an overall better transfer.

User avatar
perkizitore
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:29 pm
Location: OOP is the only answer

Re: Arrow Films

#206 Post by perkizitore » Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:40 pm

Cat gets pushed back, new release date is late September.
Hopefully they will utilize a different transfer than Blue Underground.

User avatar
Cash Flagg
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:15 pm

Re: Arrow Films

#207 Post by Cash Flagg » Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:19 pm

perkizitore wrote:Hopefully they will utilize a different transfer than Blue Underground.
Why? Other than the comments over at Land of Whimsy, reviews have been uniformly positive.

User avatar
manicsounds
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:58 pm
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: Arrow Films

#208 Post by manicsounds » Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:29 am

dvdoutsider wrote:The Kentucky Fried Movie (cert. 18) will be released on UK DVD by Arrow Video on 4th July 2011 at teh RRP of £17.99.

Featuring widescreen 1.85:1 and full frame 1.33:1 presentation options, the original mono soundtrack and optional Danish, Dutch, Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish subtitles, extra features will include:

•Audio commentary by director John Landis, writers Jerry Zucker, David Zucker and Jim Abrahams and producer Robert K. Weiss;
•A Conversation With David and Jerry Zucker – a feature length interview with the co-creators of The Kentucky Fried Movie, Airplane and The Naked Gun about their lives and career, from growing up and starting out in show business to their comedy influences;
•David and Jerry Zucker’s on-set Home Video shot during the making of the movie;
•Behind-the-scenes photo gallery;
•Original trailer;
•Four-panel reversible sleeve with original and newly commissioned artwork by Graham Humphreys;
•Double-sided fold-out artwork poster;
•Collector’s booklet featuring brand new writing on director John Landis by critic and author Calum Waddell.
Nice, it'll have the Ancor Bay commentary and lots more.

User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: Arrow Films

#209 Post by Finch » Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:18 pm

Cash Flagg wrote:
perkizitore wrote:Hopefully they will utilize a different transfer than Blue Underground.
Why? Other than the comments over at Land of Whimsy, reviews have been uniformly positive.
Bill Chambers from FFC also thought the disc was fine.
IThe third Dario Argento title to get a Blu-ray upgrade from Blue Underground in as many months might just be the best of them from a transfer standpoint, though with its tack-sharp focus and hard, flat lighting schemes, the film probably lends itself to HiDef better than the more diffuse, more baroque Deep Red and Inferno. Cover copy alleges that this 2.35:1, 1080p presentation was sourced from the original camera negative, and I'm inclined to believe it: grain has that ultra-fine, answer-print quality and textures--and textiles (dig the occasionally loud '70s attire)--really pop. The pristine condition of the film elements suggests that, as Argento's most popular renter, The Cat o' Nine Tails was protected over the years from neglect, although I don't doubt that Blue Underground worked their usual voodoo on it to bring it up to code; gone are the scratchy opening credits that marred the movie's previous incarnations on home video.

User avatar
antnield
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:59 pm
Location: Cheltenham, England

Re: Arrow Films

#210 Post by antnield » Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:33 pm

Image

User avatar
Duncan Hopper
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 5:16 am
Location: http://www.eldiabolik.com
Contact:

Re: Arrow Films

#211 Post by Duncan Hopper » Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:40 am

Why on earth do Arrow persist with these horrible unrepresentative misogynistic covers?

Thankfully they've hired iconic poster artist Graham Humphreys for their release of The Kentucky Fried Movie'.

Yes, I know this cover also has a half naked women on it, but at least it is faithful to the films content.

Image

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Arrow Films

#212 Post by MichaelB » Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:44 am

Duncan Hopper wrote:Why on earth do Arrow persist with these horrible unrepresentative misogynistic covers?
I've no idea, but at least you're not stuck with them. Gimmick it may be, but I really like their 'window' design that lets you have four alternative covers.

User avatar
Der Spieler
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:05 am

Re: Arrow Films

#213 Post by Der Spieler » Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:21 am

Duncan Hopper wrote:Why on earth do Arrow persist with these horrible unrepresentative misogynistic covers?
Visit Melton's website and you'll have your answer.

Melton on the cover of Stendhal Syndrome: "It's always fun when I'm told to make a cover sexy." The people at Arrow must really be morons. Last time I checked, the paint scene in Stendhal Syndrome was not supposed to make the viewer horny... The girl was raped in the most awful way. Using that set-up for a tacky cover indicates bad taste in my opinion.

I mean don't get me wrong: I love naked gals as much as the next fellow but it really seems like they were out of place on most (if not all) of these covers. The artworks were already eye-catching without the totally gratuitious soft porn. I'm pretty sure they could've come up with attractive, yet appropriate covers. Adding naked girls is ridiculous. Just my opinion. For instance, COTLD didn't need the naked girl to be cool. Neither did Deep Red, and so on.

doc mccoy
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 8:07 am

Re: Arrow Films

#214 Post by doc mccoy » Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:43 am

Why on earth do Arrow persist with these horrible unrepresentative misogynistic covers?
Apparently because their titles sell better with those sort of covers; bizarre as it may seem, they've found that when they sell with traditional artwork, the titles do not sell as well.

User avatar
Der Spieler
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:05 am

Re: Arrow Films

#215 Post by Der Spieler » Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:49 am

They should've put a naked girl on the cover of Bicycle Thieves then, they would've sold more copies.

doc mccoy
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 8:07 am

Re: Arrow Films

#216 Post by doc mccoy » Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:52 am

Der Spieler wrote:They should've put a naked girl on the cover of Bicycle Thieves then, they would've sold more copies.
That's a thought - did that release flop?

User avatar
Der Spieler
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:05 am

Re: Arrow Films

#217 Post by Der Spieler » Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:59 am

I don't know, I was pointing out the stupidity of that logic: "We've found out that by putting tacky, misleading covers for our movies, we sold more copies, so we went on with that."

User avatar
Stephen
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 4:11 pm
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Re: Arrow Films

#218 Post by Stephen » Sat Jun 11, 2011 12:37 pm

Duncan Hopper wrote:Why on earth do Arrow persist with these horrible unrepresentative misogynistic covers?

Thankfully they've hired iconic poster artist Graham Humphreys for their release of The Kentucky Fried Movie'.

Yes, I know this cover also has a half naked women on it, but at least it is faithful to the films content.

Image

Aha, a release of extraordinary magnitude...

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Arrow Films

#219 Post by MichaelB » Sat Jun 11, 2011 12:50 pm

Der Spieler wrote:I don't know, I was pointing out the stupidity of that logic: "We've found out that by putting tacky, misleading covers for our movies, we sold more copies, so we went on with that."
Seems logical enough to me, and anything but stupid. Deliberately misleading people is an age-old tradition in film marketing, and is especially effective when you're dealing with material that's generally quite well known - because fans will buy it regardless of the cover. So if this artwork opens up a whole new market... well, what's stupid about that? Or indeed illogical?

I've given this example elsewhere, but in 1992 I was involved with a 35mm revival of Belle de Jour that deliberately marketed it as some kind of upmarket porn film. It broke the house record at both screens. Maybe it would have done that too if it had been marketed as a Luis Buñuel art movie: there's no way of knowing. But what I can say with close to total certainty is that it wouldn't have done any better, because I don't imagine for one second that people who already knew what Belle de Jour was were put off in any way.

User avatar
Der Spieler
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:05 am

Re: Arrow Films

#220 Post by Der Spieler » Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:00 pm

When you need to put naked girls on your products in order to attract attention it shows you don't have much faith in your material. I've never seen any Argento movie that featured anything like naked bimbos. Arrow had a chance to come up with original artwork that fit the movies and they brought those insults instead.

You obviously know more than me about film marketing but I can't condone any deliberate attempt at misleading the public to sell more products. It's just the fan speaking though. If I was a film exec, perhaps I'd reconsider my position to cash a bigger check: who knows? But from where I stand, it sounds pretty depressing.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Arrow Films

#221 Post by MichaelB » Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:38 pm

Der Spieler wrote:When you need to put naked girls on your products in order to attract attention it shows you don't have much faith in your material.
Not necessarily, for the reasons I've already given. I had total faith in Belle de Jour's merits as a film, but if the marketing had been targeted at people like me, it would have been a waste of effort. Not least because the only information I needed was "where is it playing?"

Much the same is true of the cover for Deep End - again, the Skolimowski fans will buy this regardless, so there's no point targeting them.
I've never seen any Argento movie that featured anything like naked bimbos. Arrow had a chance to come up with original artwork that fit the movies and they brought those insults instead.
But they also supply three alternatives, so it's not as though you're being forced to stick with it. Personally, every time I get a new Arrow release, just about the first thing I do is change the cover.
You obviously know more than me about film marketing but I can't condone any deliberate attempt at misleading the public to sell more products.
How many trailers have you seen that are scrupulously accurate about a film's merits? Compared with ones that aren't? In any case, misleading posters are a longstanding tradition in Italian exploitation.
It's just the fan speaking though. If I was a film exec, perhaps I'd reconsider my position to cash a bigger check: who knows? But from where I stand, it sounds pretty depressing.
When it comes to independent distribution, it's not so much a case of "cashing a bigger cheque" as "being able to afford to carry on". If this marketing tactic really is working, good luck to them - they'd obviously be mad to drop it.

User avatar
Der Spieler
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:05 am

Re: Arrow Films

#222 Post by Der Spieler » Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:51 pm

I totally understand your point of view, don't worry. But at the end of the day, every time I see one of those ugly Arrow covers, I throw up in my mouth a little.

User avatar
manicsounds
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:58 pm
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: Arrow Films

#223 Post by manicsounds » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:36 am

Remember that Arrow have said their covers are more in line with the old VHS tapes of the 1980s for exploitation films, when the covers didn't match the content exactly (See "Video Nasties: The Definitive Guide" for more on that). I personally like that. Plus they give you alternate covers to choose from too.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Arrow Films

#224 Post by colinr0380 » Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:28 pm

While I'm not the biggest fan of Arrow's lurid covers either, I'm much more embarrassed about some of the taglines for Shameless Video's line up. It took me ages to overcome my revulsion at, say, Torso's "Where whores meet saws!" cover line to finally buy it and find out that these covers too are thankfully reversible. It still makes me feel like (even more of) a creepy weirdo when buying them though!

Which means that I would probably never have plucked up the courage/suppressed my gag reflex long enough to have bought any of the old video nasty tapes from the early 1980s!

User avatar
Feego
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Arrow Films

#225 Post by Feego » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:47 pm

I have to say that I'm not in love with Arrow's covers either, but at the same time they don't bother me that much. I can appreciate the connection to old VHS covers. Speaking of which, if you need an 80s cover art fix, this website is a must. Click on the video company logos for an orgy of wonderful/terrible VHS art!

Locked