dan_smee
ONE love, blood, life
I really don't know why people think Paramount would be so difficult when U2 shit is basically a licence to print money.
This
I really don't know why people think Paramount would be so difficult when U2 shit is basically a licence to print money.
I'm guessing syncing footage of them performing IGC with the audio from the R&H performance was due to sound quality. If I recall they only did other songs that day to keep the crowds happy and excited while they set up to film Streets.
I really don't know why people think Paramount would be so difficult when U2 shit is basically a licence to print money.
If I recall they only did other songs that day to keep the crowds happy and excited while they set up to film Streets.
1988s 'Be There'?
It's from the War era but a great song nonetheless...
Yeah I know - I was saying that Wild Irish Rose was the 1988 equivalent.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Well it depends, there are two issues...including the R&H movie as it is in a possible box set, and then using "unreleased" R&H footage as "new" bonus material.
I'm not sure what the incentive for Paramount to allow U2 to include the film in a box set, given the existing DVD & BD is not OOP as far as I know. I also don't frankly see the point unless the film is cleaned up & given a new transfer....so who pays for that?
With regards to R&H outtakes, I'm not even sure where the actual film is being stored...with U2 or in the Paramount archives? I suppose it's possible that while Paramount owns the R&H film, U2 has ownership of the raw footage, but that's just speculation. I do know that McG made sure U2 retained the ancillary (including home distribution) rights to U23D after the experience w/Paramount...i.e. essentially having to sign over the rights in order to finance the film.
In any event, if Paramount has the film it's likely that the negatives might not be in the best shape, depending how it was stored (you'd be surprised). So that would have to be cleaned up, mastered, etc....not to mentioned edited into something coherent, if it's going to be used. It's not just a matter of throwing onto a disc. Again, who pays for this? Who has creative control?
No doubt, the two parties could work something out if the profit potential is enough...but I'm not certain it's there.
here's my offer for this set:
Nothing.
Not even the price of the digital downloads, which i would appreciate if u2 put up personally.
Here's my offer for this set:
Nothing.
Not even the price of the digital downloads, which I would appreciate if U2 put up personally.
paramount is absolutely shitting money right now. they lost ~$450 million last year and replaced their CEO, i'm sure they'd be happy with anything that's a guaranteed money-maker right now. i don't think paramount would be much of an issue unless there was some sort of already-existing legal obstacle.
I don't see how a reissue of a movie that's been available on VHS, DVD & BD for decades is a "guaranteed moneymaker." Especially if they have to put money into restoring it.
The TJT30 Marketing Blitzkrieg is just fine with me but where the fuck are the new 2017 subscribers gifts from u2.com?
I really don't know why people think Paramount would be so difficult when U2 shit is basically a licence to print money.
Figured I'd buy the vinyl box and I like how it complements the 20th anniversary edition for me with the only major bit of redundancy being having the album and associated tracks on vinyl this time instead of CD...so there's a lot of great bonus stuff here for the fans.
Just not sure what option would be best...Amazon or Amoeba (since they have killer coupon codes and fine prices) or perhaps going with U2.com since you can get the cool tote bag for seemingly the same overall price. Tough decision.