criterionforum.org

I bought Salo just as it was discontinued. Really debated on selling it (it is a a pretty shitty DVD) but held onto it. Even though I could get a pretty penny for it now I guess the collector in me gets more of a kick out of owning it and I'd just blow the $200-$300 on something stupid anyways. Same thing with that Little Shop of Horrors DVD with the alternate ending (though I'm not sure how much demand there is for that one, if any.) Even if there was a re-release I'd still hold onto it.

justeleblanc wrote:Why do you guys think the remedy has to do with Salo?

I thought it meant they will prevent a similar rights problem from happening again in the future.

I thought the same at first, but this doesn't really make sense, does it? I mean, how are they going to stop rights from being janked away?

If I knew a rerelease was coming for sure I would sell my copy of Salo in a heartbeat.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Salo is hugely overrated. I managed to see it at a rep screening a few years ago and aside from the grossout factor, I didn't see what the fuss all about. I'd rather Critierion bring some other Pasolini titles to DVD before reviving Salo.

They should make it part of a box set, a la the re-issue of Playtime.

it would certainly make a nice 4-film set with the Trilogy of Life, but that's never gonna happen. Not to completely derail the discussion, but when the hell is MGM going to issue Canterbury Tales and Arabian Nights?

If ever a film needed context and critical analysis, it is Salò, so I hope that Criterion is able to re-visit their previous barebones release and make it right. Given Salò's infamy, the 'Holy Grail' status of the CC edition, and the morbid curiosity aroused by frequent online discussion, I'd expect a new CC edition to sell like hotcakes.

I also own a good looking bootleg. One of my favs. I'm hoping that someone will re-visit 120 Days of Sodom, but with Bush Officials in the place of the Libertines.

oldsheperd wrote:I also own a good looking bootleg. One of my favs. I'm hoping that someone will re-visit 120 Days of Sodom, but with Bush Officials in the place of the Libertines.

they have. It was called Abu Ghraib.

Yeah, but maybe showing the American Public a Bush Character raping teen girls and boys would make them come to their senses about what Bush is doing to this country. They don't seem to be all that upset about torture at Abu Ghraib.

richast2 wrote:it would certainly make a nice 4-film set with the Trilogy of Life, but that's never gonna happen. Not to completely derail the discussion, but when the hell is MGM going to issue Canterbury Tales and Arabian Nights?

You mean Sony has it? Fuck!!! Look at what they are doing to their foreign films and catalog titles and you will see that the probabilities of Salo being re-released are very, very low.

Same thing with that Little Shop of Horrors DVD with the alternate ending (though I'm not sure how much demand there is for that one, if any.) Even if there was a re-release I'd still hold onto it.

There is a demand on the SE containing the alternate ending, but in the HTF chat, WB said that they want to revisit the film to do a new DVD.

dx23 wrote:

richast2 wrote:it would certainly make a nice 4-film set with the Trilogy of Life, but that's never gonna happen. Not to completely derail the discussion, but when the hell is MGM going to issue Canterbury Tales and Arabian Nights?

You mean Sony has it? Fuck!!! Look at what they are doing to their foreign films and catalog titles and you will see that the probabilities of Salo being re-released are very, very low.

Are you sure that Sony has the rights now? For some reason that doesn't seem right.

Narshty wrote:I As far as I was aware, Salo is a United Artists film, hence MGM, now the property of Sony.

I was under the impression that the rights were controlled by the Pasolini Foundation.

Lemdog wrote:

dx23 wrote:

richast2 wrote:it would certainly make a nice 4-film set with the Trilogy of Life, but that's never gonna happen. Not to completely derail the discussion, but when the hell is MGM going to issue Canterbury Tales and Arabian Nights?

You mean Sony has it? Fuck!!! Look at what they are doing to their foreign films and catalog titles and you will see that the probabilities of Salo being re-released are very, very low.

Are you sure that Sony has the rights now? For some reason that doesn't seem right.

Sony bought MGM, so they are the owners of the entire catalog by default, but i agree with Kinjitsu; I thought that the Pasolini foundation owned all of his films.

kinjitsu wrote:

Narshty wrote:I As far as I was aware, Salo is a United Artists film, hence MGM, now the property of Sony.

I was under the impression that the rights were controlled by the Pasolini Foundation.

That's what I thought. It would also explain the limited 2,000 pressings.

Gordon McMurphy wrote:

kinjitsu wrote:

Narshty wrote:I As far as I was aware, Salo is a United Artists film, hence MGM, now the property of Sony.

I was under the impression that the rights were controlled by the Pasolini Foundation.

That's what I thought. It would also explain the limited 2,000 pressings.

I was under the impression that MGM had the rights. They put out a DVD of Decameron a couple years ago that's still in print. It's got a beautiful transfer. It came out shortly after I saw new prints of all three Trilogy of Life films plus Salo at the Siskel Center in Chicago and thought that MGM owned all of them.

richast2 wrote:I was under the impression that MGM had the rights. They put out a DVD of Decameron a couple years ago that's still in print. It's got a beautiful transfer. It came out shortly after I saw new prints of all three Trilogy of Life films plus Salo at the Siskel Center in Chicago and thought that MGM owned all of them.

That likely predates the Pasolini Foundation's revoking the rights to most, if not all, of his films. But then, only Laura Betti knows for sure...

That likely predates the Pasolini Foundation's revoking the rights to most, if not all, of his films.

I don't think it does -- Image had previously released it (along with the rest of the Trilogy of Life), but their version went OOP at about the same time Salo did. So we can assume the Image version predated the revocation of the rights, but the MGM version almost certainly doesn't. (Wouldn't it be OOP if it did?)

The BFI licensed the film from MGM (it even has their logo on the back cover), hence the Sony theory.

What about the BFI Trilogy of Life? Were those licensed from MGM as well? Come to think of it, is there a site that has back cover scans of UK DVDs a la DVD Empire?

Another interesting part of the interview reveals that most of the Criterion staff who restore old films are working on the restorations of Seven Samuraii etc.... which -- to me at least -- explains the temporary attention to current cinema. When the Kurasowa films (and Tati) are done, then we'll probably return to the original path.

I'm not posting this in CRITERION 2006 since that thread's gone apeshit.

gigimonagas wrote:I wonder, how many people on this board own the real SALO?

I used to own two copy when it first came out and sold both of them by last year. Currently I own the French and Italian DVDs who are much much superior transfers than the horrible waterbeaver transfer.

I might consider purchasing the Criterion rerelease if they refuse to use the Waterbeaver transfer.

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:What about the BFI Trilogy of Life? Were those licensed from MGM as well? Come to think of it, is there a site that has back cover scans of UK DVDs a la DVD Empire?

Nope.

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:Come to think of it, is there a site that has back cover scans of UK DVDs a la DVD Empire?

Yes. Check out this Danish DVD site. Great source for front & back cover scans.

It has listings for the UK edition of SALO as well as a Danish pressing by another Criterion whose site can be found here.

Turell confirms Salo in '07.

Tribe

That will surely jumpstart the HD revolution. Put your Criterions on eBay STAT (I bought mine at retail). (And are ALL Pelosi's such bad eggs?)

Ah, I think he's talking about a regular DVD (from an HD transfer), not an HD disc. Still, this is great news. The film certainly deserves better treatment than it's had in the past. Any film that includes its own on-screen bibliography is crying out for some juicy extras.