Let the Right One In (Tomas Alfredson, 2008)

[knives]

That's your example? A movie that is, like, a thousand years old, made in a totally different time and place and partially financed by the star? Try again. And if you think Angels and Demons wasn't intended to suck up every dime from everywhere possible, then I don't know what to tell you.

Paths of Glory is barely pushing sixty, not there yet, but I get, hope, it was intentional exaggeration. Also Hollywood is where it was financed, so you can strike place from the record. The point I was making with A&D was that while yes it was made to suck up every dollar it could the financiers knew full well that it wasn't going to cover its budget domestically and that any real money would come from Europe. Also, while this doesn't apply to blockbusters, most if not all indie films are in it for the art.
A more modern example in the Paths of Glory situation would be Che. That was made for at least sixty million and everyone involved knew it would not get that much in theaters. Another modern example is Malick. At this point financing him is a major risk that is very unlikely to be earned back such as the 70 million tag for Tree of Life. I think that is sufficient for the time part of your counterargument.

[TedW]

1) Sixty is a thousand in Hollywood years. 2) Hollywood of the 50s isn't Hollywood of the 21st century, so place is back on the record. 3) I don't understand your point about Angels and Demons. It was made to make money, period. 4) Che was financed territory by territory, with cable components, so the math is not quite as simple as you suggest. But yes, I'll allow that an artistic leap of faith was required by those who paid for it. But they certainly aren't in it to lose their money "for art's sake." 5) Malick is an exception. But his movie has Brad Pitt in it. Let Malick try to finance a $70 million art film with Joe Blow playing the lead. 6) If what you say about indie films was true, they would still be making them. The studios have largely gotten out of that business, even from an acquisition standpoint (I say "largely"). The only financing available in this country for "art" is from your mother and her cousin the dentist. We are in the middle of a global economic contraction. Nobody gives a shit about art at this present moment, I promise you.

My point stands.

[swo17]

And with all respect, your notions that filmmaking is just another job or that no film is "necessary" are pretty much fundamentally at odds with everything I value in film.

I said no such thing about filmmaking being "just another job," which implies hackwork. And I'm sorry, but nothing is necessary about any individual potential film, which is the context in which I said that. I'm sure you will have to defend or re-consider many values in your life as you get older, not just cinematic ones.

You're right. I was paraphrasing what I felt was the gist of your argument, not quoting. If I got your intent wrong, I apologize. However, you seem intent on taking my words away from their meaning and exposing contradictions that aren't really even germane to the discussion. So I don't really see the point of carrying this on much further.

Though for the record, I'm not some naive starry-eyed youth with delusions about what goes on in Hollywood. And I'm aware that there are far more important things in life than the movies. But it sounds like we go to the movies for different reasons. I don't just go to get my $10 worth.

[domino harvey]

I think the whole argument boils down to if you liked the film, you don't want to see your precious baby kidnapped and raised by new parents; if you could care less about the film, then why not let someone else raise the little bastard

[knives]

1) Sixty is a thousand in Hollywood years. 2) Hollywood of the 50s isn't Hollywood of the 21st century, so place is back on the record. 3) I don't understand your point about Angels and Demons. It was made to make money, period. 4) Che was financed territory by territory, with cable components, so the math is not quite as simple as you suggest. But yes, I'll allow that an artistic leap of faith was required by those who paid for it. But they certainly aren't in it to lose their money "for art's sake." 5) Malick is an exception. But his movie has Brad Pitt in it. Let Malick try to finance a $70 million art film with Joe Blow playing the lead. 6) If what you say about indie films was true, they would still be making them. The studios have largely gotten out of that business, even from an acquisition standpoint (I say "largely"). The only financing available in this country for "art" is from your mother and her cousin the dentist. We are in the middle of a global economic contraction. Nobody gives a shit about art at this present moment, I promise you.

My point stands.

Hollywood doesn't seem to have moved much according to this map, place stands. Even with Pitt and Penn I doubt, and the world doubts, your average run of the mill Mallick film will make more then fifty mil worldwide. Both actors as leads aren't instant money, especially for this sort of film. We even had a thread about it. A Lynch movie for example could have the whole cast of the Ocean's movies and still wouldn't make Ocean's money.
Also how aren't indie films getting made? I just saw Goodbye Solo two weeks ago and I'd call that Indie. Same thing for Wendy and Lucy, Paranoid Park, and The Girlfriend Experience.

Finally concerning my point about A&D is that some films are made with the knowledge that they won't be blockbusters in all sectors. When Warners made The Dark Knight they knew that they wouldn't get the same foreign money a Da Vinci Code could and vice versa. In those cases, much like I assume will happen with a LtROI remake, they're banking that the other sectors will make up for the weak sector.

P.S. Domino I haven't seen the movie so I don't have a vested interest in the remake, even though I would prefer a director I trust. I haven't seen mature psychological from Reeves yet, even though other directors have surprised me before.

[inri222]

Let the Right One In (UK - DVD R2 | BD RB)

Title: Let the Right One In
Starring: Lina Leandersson
Released: 3rd August 2009
SRP: £17.99 (DVD) £24.99 (BD)

Momentum Pictures has announced the DVD and Blu-ray release of Let the Right One In for the 3rd of August, priced at around £17.99 and £24.99 respectively. Bonus material will include commentary by Tomas Aldredson and John Ajvide Linqvist and deleted scenes. Artwork for the DVD release can be found below. We've just had confirmation from Momentum that they will be using the theatrical subtitles, not the 'dumbed down' subs found on the US release. Hopefully the Blu-ray will also be the correct 1080/24p and not the 1080/50i found on their release of The Promise.

[swo17]

So the rumors are true...I'd heard that some versions of the DVD with theatrical subtitles were showing up in Targets on the West Coast. Living as I do sort of on the West Coast, I thought I would check this out. Lo and behold, one of the three DVD copies of Let the Right One In that they carried at my one lowly Target had the theatrical subtitles! Unfortunately, they didn't even have any Blu-ray copies for me to check, though from what I've read elsewhere on the internet, no one has seen any fixed Blu-rays thus far. Still, this gives me hope that they might be available relatively soon. If anyone manages to find one, do keep us posted!

[jbeall]

So the rumors are true...I'd heard that some versions of the DVD with theatrical subtitles were showing up in Targets on the West Coast. Living as I do sort of on the West Coast, I thought I would check this out. Lo and behold, one of the three DVD copies of Let the Right One In that they carried at my one lowly Target had the theatrical subtitles! Unfortunately, they didn't even have any Blu-ray copies for me to check, though from what I've read elsewhere on the internet, no one has seen any fixed Blu-rays thus far. Still, this gives me hope that they might be available relatively soon. If anyone manages to find one, do keep us posted!

So how can you tell if it has the theatrical subs? Does it say so on the back of the case?

[swo17]

Yes. As mentioned earlier in this thread, in the box with the specs on the back of the case, the subtitles will say "English (Theatrical)" instead of just "English."

[jbeall]

Gotcha. My memory is going with old age, apparently. I checked three local shops, and they all had the inferior subs, so I was (wishfully) thinking maybe I'd missed something, but alas.

Also, deepdiscount and dvdplanet give no indication as to whether or not they're selling the version w/theatrical subs. So much for picking it up in the sale.

[criterionsnob]

Blu-ray.com review of Region free UK version with theatrical subtitles.

[Ben Cheshire]

Have Momentum Pictures reissued this yet with lossless audio? I ordered from Amazon.co.uk and case apparently always said HD audio,even though it originally didn't contain any such track. Now I don't know whether to open it... Amazon uk has discounted the blu severely, which might suggest they're selling out in order to replace stock with lossless, but this might just be wishful thinking...

[swo17]

Yes, it's been reissued with lossless audio, but you can't trust the case. The only way to tell if you have the corrected version is to check the number on the inner circle of the surface of the disc:

BVP00748 MP879BRR2_A 01 030MM LO = original
BVP01041 MP879BRR4_A 01 020MM LO = corrected

You can also tell if you have the original because there is a minor video glitch at about 1:42:55. (There is a boy emerging from behind a set of lockers. For a moment, the area around his face becomes pixelated.)

If you have the original version and want to get the corrected, send an email to Chanelle Francis at [email protected]. She responded to me very quickly. I am currently waiting for them to receive my disc and send a replacement.

Note: I got all this info from the avforums discussion here.

[Blood Pie]

I need to mail mine back but I'm too lazy.

[swo17]

Between this and the months of compulsively checking every B&M store I set foot in for a BD with theatrical subtitles, this is, about a hundred times over, the hardest I've ever worked to bring a film into my collection.

[Blood Pie]

To be honest, the lossless sound is nice but I don't see it as a deal-breaker and the video glitch stinks but it isn't the end of the world. I dont know if I will replace mine. Plus, the UK edition has a new commentary track not found on the US or Swedish release. And its quite good. Either way its the version I would get.

[mfunk9786]

Between this and the months of compulsively checking every B&M store I set foot in for a BD with theatrical subtitles, this is, about a hundred times over, the hardest I've ever worked to bring a film into my collection.

I am going to wait patiently to hear about the outcome of your experience with this exchange before proceeding, swo. Don't let me down.

I can live with having the wrong disc, as I'm deaf in one ear and am as a result no audiophile by a longshot, and one moment of pixellation won't send me into a tizzy. But I want itttttt.

[Ben Cheshire]

Did I forget to post this here, that Amazon.uk is still distributing lossy audio blus of this in Dec 2009.

[perkizitore]

And HMV too, although on the ring i can clearly see a 40, not 20 or 30!

[jbeall]

Saw the version w/theatrical subs in Target... too bad I've already bought the UK release.

[swo17]

DVD or Blu-ray? The DVD with theatrical subtitles has been available for months. In any case, I certaintly don't regret not giving Magnet my money.

[Ben Cheshire]

Another thing I found confusing about this was I expected my UK Blu ray case to say "theatrical subs," then when it didn't I figured out the UK blu ALWAYS had theatrical subs, it was only the stateside releases that have come out with corrected subs. (Hope that's right...)

[swo17]

The UK Blu-ray is by a completely different company and they never screwed up the subtitles in the first place so there was no need for them to qualify the description of their subtitles.

[jbeall]

DVD or Blu-ray? The DVD with theatrical subtitles has been available for months. In any case, I certaintly don't regret not giving Magnet my money.

DVD. Even after the release-date of the theatrical subs version, I looked in numerous stores and kept finding the old edition. I didn't want to order anything online since I couldn't verify the subs. C'est la vie.

[swo17]

I am going to wait patiently to hear about the outcome of your experience with this exchange before proceeding, swo. Don't let me down.

I got my replacement copy from Momentum in the mail today. The number on the inner circle checks out, the video glitch is gone, subtitles are theatrical, and it has the lossless audio tracks. (Though I believe the problem with the original issue was that the audio tracks were described as lossless but really weren't. Obviously, I don't have that disc anymore to compare to.) For those counting, it took 14 business days from the day I sent my disc back to Momentum until they got the replacement back to me. I just watched the film again tonight and everything looked and sounded great! It's hard to gauge at this point what constitutes "worth the wait" but I'm going to go ahead and say that yes, it was! My enjoyment of this great film was increased several times over just by knowing that I put nearly as much effort into bringing it to my TV as did the people who made the film.