Should this cynical DVD practice be stopped

Sherlock Holmes (2010) appears to be a straight-to-video release.

The thing is, if a film already exists called Inglorious BastarRAB and Tarantino decides to make one called Inglourious BasterRAB, you can't accuse the distributors of the first film of being cycnical. They own the rights to a film whose title has been borrowed by another film-maker so of course they have the right to sell their film. The same with Assault on Precinct 13 or The Wicker Man or Alfie or The Italian Job or countless other films: the owners of the original aren't being cynical. It's the producers of the new films who are cashing in.
 
Well it's nothing to do with the producers of the original films, it's the companies that have the rights to release them on DVD - the issue of remakes is another matter and one that's probably got many other threaRAB on this forum ;). I do see the OP's point - it's all very well to release the old version while everyone's talking about the new one, but it is evident that they're designed in such a way as to deceive people into thinking they're buying something else. I remember being young and being in a garden centre, and seeing a VHS cartoon of 'Pocahontas' shortly after the Disney one had been released. The artwork was nothing like the Disney one, but someone unsuspecting might think it's the real deal and buy it for their soon-to-be-disappointed grandchildren. It wouldn't matter, except it's evident that the deception is deliberate. It's not necessarily the case that someone's stupid just because they don't have an awareness of cast lists and years of particular films - some groups of people just aren't as clued on to this sort of thing and love the opportunity to buy what they think is a nice present for someone.
 
Anyone buying Pocohontas in a garden centre deserves it. I don't buy my shrubberies from HMV for similar reasons.

And where does this pandering to the inept end? Cut unemployment by having someone standing at every bus stop in the UK, "You're getting on the number forty-six. Do you want to get on the number forty-six?" Hell, Apple should market a device that senses what we are about to do and discusses it with us until we are absolutely certain it is the right course of action. They could call it the iWouldn'tDoThatIfIWereYou.
 
That's pretty much exactly what I said. I don't really care whether films are remade, but it's daft to accuse the owners of the rights to the originals of cycnicism because they repackage their films to look like the cynical remakes that are also in the shops.
 
if u buy films that freely that you toss stuff in the cart without a second look too bad really:P theres always text on the back.
the year made should clue anyone off:P
 
Maybe it is punishment for the complete lack of originality in Hollywood today and I definately put Tarantino in that category. Seriously though, It does sound like a cynical exercise to update artwork, but let's face it, how else are distributors able to get people to watch the originals when shiny new remade ones with Hollywood mega budgets steal their thunder. What I mean is that lovers of cinema are more than likely aware of the existance of originals, but casual film fans are not. Another point is that modern remakes are usually inferior products anyway. I use Assault on Precinct 13 as an example, one a masterfully directed suspense film, the other some some turgid Laurence Fishburne vehicle.
 
My mate was caught recently.

He complained that he'd bought The Last House on the Left and it turned out to be the original movie and not the remake.

Personally, I prefer the original but then I saw it 20 years ago originally and appreciate it for what it is.

My mate is of the Saw generation and thought it was terrible.

He got the remake and was happy. When I saw it, I wasn't.
 
Simple - buyer beware.

If you can be fooled into believing you are buying a new movie when you have actually bought a re-packaged old one, then you have made a mistake. Simple.

You should make sure you are better informed.

I mean come on - how can you mistake the original version of Inglorious BasterRAB for the new one? Just a quick scan of the back cover would make it stunningly obvious it is not the same movie.

But if some people are daft enough to just to pick up a dvd by the title and not even look at the cover, well more fool them.

But I find it even more astonishing that in this age where movies are publicised to death on every possible media format that people could even make such a mistake.

And of course, if you are going to rely on you dear old granny to buy a movie for you, well...nuff said.:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top