MovieChat Forums > The Day of the Locust (1975) Discussion > Shame On Paramount!!!! Shame!

Shame On Paramount!!!! Shame!

posted 20 years ago by hook-12
24 replies | jump to latest

So the film comes out onto the great DVD but of cause Paramount Home Video once again delivers a bare bone disc with no extra features at ALL.
Very unsetting to a movie collector who enjoys commentaries, interviews as well or at lest a Theatrical trailer!
All you get is a menu and scene selections! Why the heck bother with a menu?
There’s only the film so just let it play from the start.

AGAIN Paramount does still not understand these DVD perks!
They seem very lazy over there in the home entertainment department.
Would have loved to have seen or heard the actors discussing the making of this film.
Hey Karen Black did a commentary for her 1978 horror film "Burnt Offerings" so what’s the deal here.... why it's Paramount!

By the way Karen should have won the Academy Award for this film, she was fantastic.

On an extra note the picture quality on this DVD is awful! full of distracting grain and color fade; almost resembles between laserdisc and vhs.

all you fans of the film should save your money and let paramount learn how to release their older catalog films.

[–] memattohyeah 20 years ago

Karen Black has said in interviews that making "The Day of The Locust" was an unhappy experience for her so she most likely wouldn't have done a commentary for it. She said John Schlesinger and Donald Sutherland were mean to her. But I must agree that it is shameful that the DVD release of this film is so "nothing". At least they remixed it in stereo....

[–] dchristrev 20 years ago

I'm just grateful that it's out on DVD...sure I would love to see some commentary, but when you're building a DVD collection, and one of your favorites finally comes out in that format, it's a time for celebration.

I agree that Karen Black should have at least been nominated for "Locust" but she would not have beaten Louise Fletcher for "Cuckoo's Nest"

[–] groucho_de_sade 19 years ago

memattohyeah wrote:
"She said John Schlesinger and Donald Sutherland were mean to her."

Please expand on this. I'd be interested to know what exactly Ms. Black suffered at the hands of Sutherland (one of my favorite actors) and Schlesinger. Do you have any more information on that?

"I don't want some renegade necrophile princess as MY roommate!" -- Peggy Gravel, DESPERATE LIVING

[–] neldddy3 20 years ago

Paramount is notorious for releasing barebones dvds, right behind MGM. Old or new, they figure a trailer is giving away too much. Paramount still uses that logo on top that says "Widescreen Collection," as if it's still brand new to see widescreen in the home. (By the way, Locust is filmed in living color for those who don't know)

Someone needs to wrest the Paramount and MGM film libraries so they can properly get released on Dvd. I believe Paramount also released Nashville but that at least had an interview and a commentary. They release tons of titles I love, but come with absolutley nothing. I usually wait till the price drops. You can get Locust which is faily new and others for 5 bucks or less if you shop around.

[–] MarkGriffin-2 16 years ago

Couldn't some overpaid executive at Paramount spring for a bonus feature DVD documentary once in awhile? If Warner Home Video can do it, why not Paramount? The only legitimate attempts that I can recall in recent memory to supply some thoughtful supplemental content were "Sunset Boulevard," "Reds" and some of the Audrey Hepburn titles...While "Locust," "Rosemary's Baby," "The Odd Couple" and "On A Clear Day You Can See Forever" -- titles screaming out for features --are released in bare bones vanilla editions.

It's time for someone at Paramount Home Video to wake up and realize that the reason consumers usually purchase DVDs is for the bonus content and extras.

Memo to Sumner Redstone...?

[–] stopsign9999 15 years ago

the DVD is terrible. But I suppose, considering Paramount's track record, we should be glad that there is even a DVD at all.

[–] thedevilyouknow00 20 years ago

The picture quality is also not the greatest. I guess we're supposed to be grateful we're even getting this release.

Wonder if that's the way it was shot though...

And we deserved a trailer at least.

[–] gentcallr 19 years ago

That's not the way it was shot. I first saw this movie in 1975 when I was 18. The cinematography was was of many things that made an impression on me. It had a sparkly, slightly soft-focus, gold-tinged quality. I can see how this might be difficult to reproduce on DVD or VHS. It was nominated for an academy award for best cinematography. It lost to Barry Lyndon, which might get my vote for best cinematography of all time.

[–] nycruise-1 17 years ago

I owned a VHS version bought in 1982 (which I wore out over the years until the DVD came out!).

I remember the picture quality looking faded back then.

A cousin of mine watched it. She had studied moviemaking of the seventies. She said "Oh - that's a classic 70s look: vaseline on the lens to make it soft focus, maybe muslin in the front of the camera to make it look faded".

I remember watching this movie on the big screen when it was coupled with GATSBY at a New Haven Art house theater. I distinctly remember GATSBY having a more "saturated" look.

"Don't call me 'honey', mac."
"Don't call me 'mac'... HONEY!"

[–] curious_chaos 9 years ago

Ugh that makes me so jealous of you. I just watched it for the first time last night and I loved the coloring, but I can totally see how your description could be. It sounds beautiful.

[–] tody711 8 years ago

I watched an old VHS copy and it was great. Both pic and sound. Colors so vibrant. Trust VHS...

[–] ministerwithoutportfolio 19 years ago

I found much similarity between Nashville and Day of the Locust. Almost like Karen Black was developing a specialty in playing roles which illustrate the dark underbelly of American society...

[–] addicks1947 19 years ago

Don't forget that Paramount has the worst record of all the majors for looking after its back catalogue - many classics have had to be rescued from 16mm prints, and even more are lost. So the quality is not surprising.

They may also be trying the Warners' trick of releasing bare bones, then releasng a special edition with extras a few years later to get our cash twice.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] abcpc 16 years ago

The same TURDS who just released "Cloverfield" WITHOUT any Blu-Ray copies!!!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]