Why are companies trying to pass movies that have production dates that are from 03' as a New Release? I seen that Anaabolic did this with their newest Bring Em Young release..That movie was damned old but they just passed it off as a new release..I know it is a new release but damn movie was made 2 yrs ago why wait so long to release it?
mod note: changed thread title to normal case per the Forum Etiquette
What's wrong? If its the first release than its new.
When I first read the subject, I thought you were talking about re-releases with new title. I remember a Dutch re-release of Jenna's CONQUEST with a new title that suggest that its a spoof of the Johnny Depp Pirate film. That's what I call cheating the customer.
But I can't see anything wrong with shelving a film and releasing it at a better time.
There are alot good reasons for shelving a title, the market already being flooded with a particular performer, legal issues or simply keeping it for a time the company has not enough lately produced stuff for release.
btw, because I wasn't able to answer you in the DVD-R-thread : Your description of former copyright laws and recent changes in the USA sounds pretty much the same as in Germany.
It can be frustrating. Most movie companies do compilation DVDs. It's a way to save money by not shooting something new and at the same time providing a variety of content for fans that aren't so die hard and know that the scenes are from an old flick.
There's nothing but pluses to the movie company with comps. But for fans there's pluses and minuses. Sometimes and older production on its own wasn't all that great but had a good scene in it. Here's a way to get the "best of" scenes of mediocre movies. But sometimes it's just a cheap attempt to pass previously shot content off as new and with most porn fans not so hard core in their knowledge or research of former productions, it works.
When we sign model releases to perform in a scene, unless we work out a seperate deal, most of these companies can use that footage for whatever they want and for however long they want. Some model releases are so overwritten, they can turn us into trannys for smut mag ads, sell the footage as content to other companies, etc.
If a porn star wants to be strong, she can agree to shoot under the stipulation that her footage is ONLY used for that scene. No comps, no re-sale, nuttin. The problem with that is, unless the girl is a megastar or the movie was written around her, most movie companies will just find someone else to do it.
Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat 3713 Posts 9/01
Posted - May 15 2005 : 6:22PM
There are several issues in the thread tied together.
1. Some studios take forver and then some to release scenes shot eons ago (and released as new). There is nothing unethical about this, but I do wish that the slow pokes will work faster. After all, when the cute teenage babe has poped out 3 kids and is now fat and middle aged since the scene was recorded, the title of Teen Babe is suspect.
2. Some studios rerelease old titles as new (and often at the new price). Sometimes, there is a name change with an intent to deceive. While rereleasing old catalog titles in the DVD format is a acceptable, the buyer should be made aware that this is an old rerelease.
3. Compilations are fine as long at they are clearly marked as such. I hate comps being passed out as new. On the other hand, getting all the favorite scenes or talent in one DVD is nice.
Clear labeling on the status of the release is ideal but we are taking about the adult industry here.
Why would a company wait 3 yrs to release something as new? I wouldn't want to see no movie made 3 yrs ago..thinking it was recently filmed. I think this is misleading the customers. Only other I can think is that they ran out of new material so they pieced together the junk stuff and released it. Boxcovers can be very misleading you know.
Thousands good reasons. Three examples I mentioned above.
Or a good example from mainstream filmmaking. The classic American dark comedy ARSENIC AND OLD LACE was released years after it was filmed. Simple reason: The contract didn't allow to release the film until the play at broadway was done. And the broadway version of ARSENIC AND OLD LACE ran for many years.
From experience I can tell you why we sometimes leave a scene on the shelf for a (long) time: The scene doesn't fit in the theme of one of the current releases. We are aiming for a certain running time of a DVD, the scene is too long, but we don't want to cut it, so it has to wait for a future title. We shoot or buy several scenes with one performer, but we don't want to use them all in one title. We have the opportunity to shoot or buy a scene we really like, but there are no immediate plans for it, it gets shelved, and we actually forgot that we had that scene or thought we had already used it Depending on the release schedule there might not be enough time to edit a particular scene if it is one that needs lot of editing.
So you see, plenty of reasons why scenes not always get released immediately.
