HOW CAN THE STUDIOS TOP THE EXCELLENT CLASSIC BLU-RAY OUTPUT OF 2012? (1 Viewer)

[JohnMor]

James Dean is a nice touch. I have been pushing Warner with private correspondences for about 5 years to get with the program and do 'anthology' box sets of a particular actor's work. Dean seems an obvious first choice because he only has 3 movies to remaster. But when Elizabeth Taylor passed in 2010 there should have been a deluxe box set of her work in the pipeline, and when Esther Williams died this year ditto. There also - by now - ought to have been deluxe box sets of Clark Gable's filmography, Norma Shearer, Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Lana Turner, Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland - I mean comprehensive, with singles to follow 6 to 8 months later. This doesn't seem to be Warner's philosophy, though.

No studio is putting out those kinds of boxsets on blu. Because no one is buying them anymore except for a few of us here. Everyone I know (except me), including the friend who got me into DVD, have stopped buying. And most all have sold off their collections as well (they want their "room back.") They stream and rent from Netflix. I doubt it will ever be like it was at the peak of the DVD market, when Warners was putting out great boxset after boxset. The craze is over except for a few of us diehards. Add to that the economy still isn't strong, and it's completely unrealistic to expect that level of releases from the studios. It's a different paradigm today.

 

[Robert Crawford]

No studio is putting out those kinds of boxsets on blu. Because no one is buying them anymore except for a few of us here. Everyone I know (except me), including the friend who got me into DVD, have stopped buying. And most all have sold off their collections as well (they want their "room back.") They stream and rent from Netflix. I doubt it will ever be like it was at the peak of the DVD market, when Warners was putting out great boxset after boxset. The craze is over except for a few of us diehards. Add to that the economy still isn't strong, and it's completely unrealistic to expect that level of releases from the studios. It's a different paradigm today.

Right on! I don't understand why it's so difficult to understand that people aren't buying discs at a volume that could support such a release strategy. I can't tell you how many people are using "on demand" and other streaming/downloading options to watch films today versus going out in buying discs from CC, Media Play, Suncoast Video, Virgin Records and Borders. Oops, I forgot, those retailers are out of business with BB on life support now too.

The Times They are a-Changin!

 

[TravisR]

Out of the people that I know, only one person that still buys anywhere near where they used to and that person still only buys DVDs. Streaming and On Demand is how nearly every person I know (be it casually or a close friend) watches movies and TV shows.

 

[Keith Cobby]

I was buying at least 10x the number of DVDs compared to my current purchases of blu-rays. This is because my main interest is in films from the 1940/50's and these are the slowest to be released, I suppose due to low sales and the cost of remastering. However, the titles I want are trickling out from Fox, TT, Criterion and Olive, although you do have to buy from wherever they are released. The big problem is obviously with Warners because they control so many of my most wanted titles. If over the next couple of years enough of my top 20 list are released I shall thereafter just be grateful when any others come out. I think for most people DVDs, streaming etc are sufficient.

 

[John Hermes]

I was buying at least 10x the number of DVDs compared to my current purchases of blu-rays. This is because my main interest is in films from the 1940/50's and these are the slowest to be released, I suppose due to low sales and the cost of remastering. However, the titles I want are trickling out from Fox, TT, Criterion and Olive, although you do have to buy from wherever they are released. The big problem is obviously with Warners because they control so many of my most wanted titles. If over the next couple of years enough of my top 20 list are released I shall thereafter just be grateful when any others come out. I think for most people DVDs, streaming etc are sufficient.

It would be nice if the blu-ray market were the same as the DVD catalog one in the early 2000s, but that's not going to happen. I agree with your thoughts.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I was buying at least 10x the number of DVDs compared to my current purchases of blu-rays. This is because my main interest is in films from the 1940/50's and these are the slowest to be released, I suppose due to low sales and the cost of remastering. However, the titles I want are trickling out from Fox, TT, Criterion and Olive, although you do have to buy from wherever they are released. The big problem is obviously with Warners because they control so many of my most wanted titles. If over the next couple of years enough of my top 20 list are released I shall thereafter just be grateful when any others come out. I think for most people DVDs, streaming etc are sufficient.

It is, what it is. I talk to my friends and associates every day and most of them still watch DVDs on their BD players. I mean newly rented or purchase DVDs that have a BD release of the same title. I really would like to blame the studios, but the reality of the situation is that the current state of catalog BD sales is much more complicated than simply blaming one cause of why catalog BD sales are not up to the DVD catalog sales numbers of ten years ago.

 

[Nick*Z]

It's that sort of chicken and egg mentality that has precisely killed the home video market. The old Field of Dreams philosophy will suffice herein. If you build it they will come. If you make it they will buy it. Like Keith Cobby and others, I was buying a ton of stuff from the mid-1990s to early 2000s because the studios were pumping out a ton of stuff for consumption. It isn't that the market has turned. It's that the home media 'evolution' has turned, forcing collectors to turn with it. If there's nothing to buy we don't buy - period.

The fact that 'nobody's producing' box sets like the ones I have been campaigning for means that sales are down in that area. Duh! Very cyclical logic, indeed. There's no difficulty understanding anything here. The studios have made their concerted push to streaming and digital downloads, which any self-respecting preservationist will tell you have about as much shelf life as potato chips. Not a smart move for preserving America's movie heritage, if you ask me.

And downloading only caters to those among us who don't really care about collecting or even movies per say, but just want 'something' - anything - to temporarily watch and then discard for the proverbial next best thing. The comment made about people 'still watching DVD on their Blu-ray players' is equally moot. If you haven't a Blu-ray of King's Row to watch on your Blu-ray player and want to see the movie then, hey, guess what, you watch it in whatever format it's currently available. Does that mean there's no market for the title on Blu? Uh...no. That means the studios have to get more proactive and aggressive at re-marking their vintage catalogue in new and interesting ways that will appeal to a broader consumer base as well as the collector.

Giving us the same titles regurgitated in different packaging has frustrated too many collectors into going the streaming route simply to get their fix. That doesn't mean they've decided to switch from collecting to streaming. That means they have been forced to switch because there is NO ALTERNATIVE!!!

If you were starving and I asked what you would prefer to eat, and you said pork roast and I said, all I have is chicken, you can darn well bet you'd choose to eat the chicken instead of going hungry. The same philosophy is today being applied to your home video consumption. It isn't give the people what they want. It's give them only what we want to give them and then they'll have to take it. Robert Crawford's comments about all the brick and mortar entertainment retailers going out of business is a moot point too. What? Box sets couldn't be sold on Amazon.com or other online retailers? Let's get real, shall we?

You build an audience for these catalogue titles with clever marketing and good solid work done on their transfers. But too many have been disappointments in the past leaving collector's cold, disappointed and/or disillusioned. Now, the studios artificially and deliberately shrinking the market to serve an agenda for streaming doesn't mean that the fan base has shrunk or gone. No, it REALLY doesn't mean that at all!!!

Don't be fooled by the numbers folks. They can and HAVE BEEN manipulated to suit a purpose - namely that studios would rather use lower bit rate streaming as a disposable entertainment with lower expectations from consumers for all around quality than proper hi-def digital mastering to strike up new scans for the Blu-ray format.

 

[Robert Crawford]

It's that sort of chicken and egg mentality that has precisely killed the home video market. The old Field of Dreams philosophy will suffice herein. If you build it they will come. If you make it they will buy it. Like Keith Cobby and others, I was buying a ton of stuff from the mid-1990s to early 2000s because the studios were pumping out a ton of stuff for consumption. It isn't that the market has turned. It's that the home media 'evolution' has turned, forcing collectors to turn with it. If there's nothing to buy we don't buy - period.

The fact that 'nobody's producing' box sets like the ones I have been campaigning for means that sales are down in that area. Duh! Very cyclical logic, indeed. There's no difficulty understanding anything here. The studios have made their concerted push to streaming and digital downloads, which any self-respecting preservationist will tell you have about as much shelf life as potato chips. Not a smart move for preserving America's movie heritage, if you ask me.

And downloading only caters to those among us who don't really care about collecting or even movies per say, but just want 'something' - anything - to temporarily watch and then discard for the proverbial next best thing. The comment made about people 'still watching DVD on their Blu-ray players' is equally moot. If you haven't a Blu-ray of King's Row to watch on your Blu-ray player and want to see the movie then, hey, guess what, you watch it in whatever format it's currently available. Does that mean there's no market for the title on Blu? Uh...no. That means the studios have to get more proactive and aggressive at re-marking their vintage catalogue in new and interesting ways that will appeal to a broader consumer base as well as the collector.

Giving us the same titles regurgitated in different packaging has frustrated too many collectors into going the streaming route simply to get their fix. That doesn't mean they've decided to switch from collecting to streaming. That means they have been forced to switch because there is NO ALTERNATIVE!!!

If you were starving and I asked what you would prefer to eat, and you said pork roast and I said, all I have is chicken, you can darn well bet you'd choose to eat the chicken instead of going hungry. The same philosophy is today being applied to your home video consumption. It isn't give the people what they want. It's give them only what we want to give them and then they'll have to take it. Robert Crawford's comments about all the brick and mortar entertainment retailers going out of business is a moot point too. What? Box sets couldn't be sold on Amazon.com or other online retailers? Let's get real, shall we?

You build an audience for these catalogue titles with clever marketing and good solid work done on their transfers. But too many have been disappointments in the past leaving collector's cold, disappointed and/or disillusioned. Now, the studios artificially and deliberately shrinking the market to serve an agenda for streaming doesn't mean that the fan base has shrunk or gone. No, it REALLY doesn't mean that at all!!!

Don't be fooled by the numbers folks. They can and HAVE BEEN manipulated to suit a purpose - namely that studios would rather use lower bit rate streaming as a disposable entertainment with lower expectations from consumers for all around quality than proper hi-def digital mastering to strike up new scans for the Blu-ray format.

The studios are in business to make money. They're not going to turn a blind eye to a profitable revenue stream. If catalog titles sold on BD are so profitable then why not sell more of them? Also, not everyone uses Amazon to buy their video products especially when it comes to folks that like to shop in brick and mortar stores.

 

[OliverK]

Unfortunately we don't get individual numbers from the studios but obviously sales of a given title on BD can be relatively low no matter how much money has been spent on bringing it to Blu-ray. This is a classic case of build it and they still don't come, at least not in sufficient numbers.

 

[ahollis]

It's that sort of chicken and egg mentality that has precisely killed the home video market. The old Field of Dreams philosophy will suffice herein. If you build it they will come. If you make it they will buy it. Like Keith Cobby and others, I was buying a ton of stuff from the mid-1990s to early 2000s because the studios were pumping out a ton of stuff for consumption. It isn't that the market has turned. It's that the home media 'evolution' has turned, forcing collectors to turn with it. If there's nothing to buy we don't buy - period. The fact that 'nobody's producing' box sets like the ones I have been campaigning for means that sales are down in that area. Duh! Very cyclical logic, indeed. There's no difficulty understanding anything here. The studios have made their concerted push to streaming and digital downloads, which any self-respecting preservationist will tell you have about as much shelf life as potato chips. Not a smart move for preserving America's movie heritage, if you ask me.And downloading only caters to those among us who don't really care about collecting or even movies per say, but just want 'something' - anything - to temporarily watch and then discard for the proverbial next best thing. The comment made about people 'still watching DVD on their Blu-ray players' is equally moot. If you haven't a Blu-ray of King's Row to watch on your Blu-ray player and want to see the movie then, hey, guess what, you watch it in whatever format it's currently available. Does that mean there's no market for the title on Blu? Uh...no. That means the studios have to get more proactive and aggressive at re-marking their vintage catalogue in new and interesting ways that will appeal to a broader consumer base as well as the collector. Giving us the same titles regurgitated in different packaging has frustrated too many collectors into going the streaming route simply to get their fix. That doesn't mean they've decided to switch from collecting to streaming. That means they have been forced to switch because there is NO ALTERNATIVE!!!If you were starving and I asked what you would prefer to eat, and you said pork roast and I said, all I have is chicken, you can darn well bet you'd choose to eat the chicken instead of going hungry. The same philosophy is today being applied to your home video consumption. It isn't give the people what they want. It's give them only what we want to give them and then they'll have to take it. Robert Crawford's comments about all the brick and mortar entertainment retailers going out of business is a moot point too. What? Box sets couldn't be sold on Amazon.com or other online retailers? Let's get real, shall we?You build an audience for these catalogue titles with clever marketing and good solid work done on their transfers. But too many have been disappointments in the past leaving collector's cold, disappointed and/or disillusioned. Now, the studios artificially and deliberately shrinking the market to serve an agenda for streaming doesn't mean that the fan base has shrunk or gone. No, it REALLY doesn't mean that at all!!! Don't be fooled by the numbers folks. They can and HAVE BEEN manipulated to suit a purpose - namely that studios would rather use lower bit rate streaming as a disposable entertainment with lower expectations from consumers for all around quality than proper hi-def digital mastering to strike up new scans for the Blu-ray format.

Well we get to a chance to see how popular the James Dean set will be. Hopefully if it does will there will be more.

 

[Nick*Z]

Sorry to disagree, but you have to first look at what's been happening to the retail model before simply saying it was built and they still didn't come.

The retail model used to be thus - studios make discs. Discs hit retail outlets of every shape and size (mass market push). Public is saturated with product identity and knowledge and thus the numbers bear out this saturation with a quantity of sales.

The retail model since 2007 has been thus - studios make disc. Single out certain retailers to plug their product (the Wal-mart exclusive, the Best Buy exclusive, the direct to Amazon or Twilight Time exclusive, etc.) with some titles eventually going market direct after a year or so - simply to unload extra copies that didn't sell as 'exclusives' because frankly, not too many of us have either the time or the inclination to go 'chasing after' product that is given no fanfare of release. Let's be honest here, if you don't know something that you want is already out there for consumption how likely are you to buy it?!?

At the same time studios look at their aging catalogue and suddenly realize what it will cost to retool for hi-def. They also understand that the expectation for quality is lower with streaming and thus, lest costly. So, where do you think the effort will be spent?

It's not rocket science, folks. DVD would never have taken off had there not been that overwhelming push and saturation of the market place with titles and the subsequent and deliberate downsizing of the amount of movies being made available on home video in VHS. The same model in obsolescence is now being applied to weed out Blu-ray from the market place in favor of streaming. It's clearly the same model. It's time to recognize and label it as such!!!

In the case of DVD vs. VHS, studios could still mask imperfections and release non-anamorphic and unrestored content and the consumer bought it because they were not savvy to all that digital imaging could be and do for the art of watching movies. Now that the consumer has been educated by examples of the difference, the level of expectation has risen. But the studios have taken a step back because, again, cost is up and profit seems to be down. But it just seems that way. Numbers don't tell you the whole story. And there's been a deliberate attempt to shrink the market and push streaming as the ONLY viable alternative to watching stuff at home. That doesn't mean the audience for hard disc media has gone away. That simply means that in absence of their first choice, they've been pushed into complacency to settle for another.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Sorry to disagree, but you have to first look at what's been happening to the retail model before simply saying it was built and they still didn't come.

The retail model used to be thus - studios make discs. Discs hit retail outlets of every shape and size (mass market push). Public is saturated with product identity and knowledge and thus the numbers bear out this saturation with a quantity of sales.

The retail model since 2007 has been thus - studios make disc. Single out certain retailers to plug their product (the Wal-mart exclusive, the Best Buy exclusive, the direct to Amazon or Twilight Time exclusive, etc.) with some titles eventually going market direct after a year or so - simply to unload extra copies that didn't sell as 'exclusives' because frankly, not too many of us have either the time or the inclination to go 'chasing after' product that is given no fanfare of release. Let's be honest here, if you don't know something that you want is already out there for consumption how likely are you to buy it?!?

At the same time studios look at their aging catalogue and suddenly realize what it will cost to retool for hi-def. They also understand that the expectation for quality is lower with streaming and thus, lest costly. So, where do you think the effort will be spent?

It's not rocket science, folks. DVD would never have taken off had there not been that overwhelming push and saturation of the market place with titles. But then a studio could still mask imperfections and release non-anamorphic and unrestored content and the consumer bought it because they were not savvy to all that digital imaging could be and do for the art of watching movies. Now that the consumer has been educated by examples of the difference, the level of expectation has risen. But the studios have taken a step back because, again, cost is up and profit seems to be down. But it just seems that way. Numbers don't tell you the whole story. And there's been a deliberate attempt to shrink the market and push streaming as the ONLY viable alternative to watching stuff at home. That doesn't mean the audience for hard disc media has gone away. That simply means that in absence of their first choice, they've become complacent to settle for another.

If true then why are some titles made available on BD as well as streaming?

 

[Nick*Z]

Because the studios could not simply go 'cold turkey' on one format and switch everything over to the other without insulting and alienating the consumer base that they encouraged in the first place to buy into that format a scant 6 or 7 years ago. You tend to lose faith in entities that rake you over the coals so obviously. It wouldn't be the same conversation if we were talking about outright flops like the Sony mini-disc or DIVX and Betamax's lack of market share in North America. There, the public clearly said "Enough! I'm sticking with what I have." But Blu-ray had an enormous push and has been relatively successful, particularly where new releases are concerned.

But somewhere along the way the powers that be took a look at the cost of restoring catalogue and backed away. You will notice they haven't done the same regarding their new releases. Why? A movie made today is guaranteed a Blu-ray release first, quite often with a corresponding release to stream for those who prefer to view their movies that way. Why? If there were NO market for hi-def Blu-ray the format would have gone the way of the mini-disc and studios would NOT be releasing them to hi-def either. But the profit margin is definitely there. So the Blu-ray format is NOT a failure. It can also be made a viable profit center for catalogue items too. But the retail model MUST change.

No more 'exclusive' anything. Period! Put in an investment for promotional tie-ins and media marketing campaigns into your catalogue. No, it doesn't have to rival the hype and dollars you spend on new release marketing but it should mark a definite presence. You want to know how I first found out that Grand Hotel, Mrs. Miniver and Chariots of Fire were coming to Blu earlier this year? On this forum.

Now, how many people who would like to own these movies but have zero interest in partaking in ANY of our discussions herein would know to look to HTF for such updates? Ah, not too many right? So, marketing is the key. Together with a renewed commitment from the studios to market their titles in new and different ways. I keep saying this and hopefully one day it will get through. But you cannot re-release the same titles with the same transfer quality and the same extras in the same box sets as before and just expect that we'll all make a B-line to repurchase.

I have my suggestions but for now I'll keep them to myself. But I assure you, at least some of them would work. Time and money...and to quote Rex Harrison, "Logic...why is it never tried?"

 

[Richard V]

If true then why are some titles made available on BD as well as streaming?

My guess would be that streaming has still not penetrated sufficiently to abandon the BD market altogether. They realize there is still a market for physical media, but I agree that they are trying to squeeze out the BD in favor of streaming. IMO the avg consumer is not a videophile, and quite honestly is perfectly satisfied with streaming quality. I and others are not, and will always prefer BD. if BD and DVD are one day abandoned, then I will just have to be content with my personal library, as I guarantee you, I will NEVER convert to streaming.

 

[Nick*Z]

Yes, Richard. My sentiments exactly. I was an early adopter since VHS, then laserdisc, then DVD and now Blu-ray. My computer is not in the same room as my home theater, so either I need to run some cables or download to a memory stick before I can watch anything streaming online. That amount of time and effort on my part isn't feasible. I simply won't do it. Add to that the downgrade from Blu-ray's image quality and NO, it's never going to happen in my house. Guaranteed.

As per the average consumer not being a videophile - I would agree with you except that I cannot tell you how many times I have been at my local video retailers and heard seemingly average people come in requesting titles on Blu-ray. They obviously know about the technology and have already made the concerted decision to seek it out instead of DVD or DVD-R formats.

But the studio output isn't keeping up with their inquiries. That alone may kill the market. I mean, ask for Mary Poppins once on Blu-ray and told it's not available, how likely is the average consumer likely to ask for it again. No, they'll buy the DVD today and be 'contented' with it and never seek out the same title again on the superior 1080p format because they have better things to do with their money - and whoops - there went another possible stream of revenue for the studios to support Blu-ray simply because they (the studios) did not react to the need to have the title available for the consumer to purchase in the first place.

If the studios had really been smart about weeding out competing formats they would have taken a look at what DVDs were in low quantities in their warehouses and still strong sellers in retailers and online - start remastering these titles for Blu-ray and wait for the quantities on DVD to run out. Then announce that the title would no longer be available in any format henceforth except Blu-ray; a sort of Disney moratorium redux scenario which would have served their market share quite efficiently without alienating home video enthusiasts en masse. That's how you build interest in your product and revenue for a new format at the same time!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well guys, I just can't buy your argument even if I do agree the studios would love nothing, but to give us streaming material. I just can't see the studios, who's survival is based on profit, ignore a significant market for BD consumers, if said market was generating so much revenue it was having a plus effect on their profit margin. They need such profits to make their stockholders happy as well as support the investment necessary for new film projects.

 

[JohnMor]

So the all studios just decided at the same time they no longer wished to take in the money they were making during the height of the dvd era? Why? And nearly all the brick and mortar stores (Tower, Wherehouse, Virgin, Suncoast, etc.) all chose to close and go out of business when people were still clamoring to buy discs? Why?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Will any of you that think the studio is mainly to blame for the lack of catalog titles being released on Bd, acknowledged that it's simply not just the studios at fault, but a number of other reasons outside of their control that factor in why BD catalog titles have remain behind SD DVD releases?

 

[Nick*Z]

I think we're giving the studios too much credit for progressive thinking. If we were talking about the day of the mogul with their gambler's philosophy on the industry you wouldn't have what's been going on these days when bean counting and market share are THE ONLY concern. A fellow historian once pointed out, the business of making movies was always profit centered and driven. Agreed. No argument there. But at least in those days there was what is known as taking a chance in the industry. Without chance we wouldn't have movies like Fantasia, Citizen Kane or Lawrence of Arabia.

And no kidding, we've clearly seen what the lack of a strong mogul at the head of any studio has done for its future forecast and outlook. Demolishing the backlots, selling off prized possessions (costumes, props, sets) for tuppence at auction, throwing out animation cells, original music cues, scripts, publicity stills because no one first stopped to re-think their innate value as not only museum piece artifacts but also cultural heritage worthy of preservation.

The home video format war that began between VHS and Betamax near five decades ago continues to rage on. The formats have changed. But the battle remains the same. To answer John Mor's question as to why the studios allowed catalogue on DVD to wither at the height of its popularity - the answer is simply. At some point the studio realized they had invested as much as was necessary to delve into enough of their catalogue to turn a profit. Why restore and remaster more titles when you can simply recycle what's already been cleaned up for a new format (eg. Bluray). It's the same old story now.

Only for the first time in the home video marketing model, the format being pushed (streaming) IS NOT an improvement but a definite step backward from all that has been achieved. The pendulum has swung the other way and once you limit the public in what they can watch and how they are able to gain access to it they will settle for what you're offering because there is nothing better to compare it to or with.

Weeding out the Blu-ray connoisseur is the first step to dumbing down consumer expectations so that one day someone will say the same thing they used to about Betamax vs. VHS. Beta was clearly the superior format in that war but it died a quick and painless death in North America not because it wasn't good, but because the studios were happy to stick with a format that they preferred for the sake of copy encryption. It had nothing to do with catering to the overall quality of their product or meeting and exceeding the public's voracious appetite and taste for the best possible home video viewing presentation.

Those of you who think streaming is the panacea for tomorrow's generation need to wake up. It's not. Regrettably, the only way some of you will take notice of this is when it becomes the only viable format and then the studio's decide to pump out even more - less than stellar - quality on it.

I'm going to bow out of this conversation after this post because, frankly, I've said all that needs to be said about my point of view. Just remember, it isn't ONLY my point of view. Industry insiders and various other publications who know far more about it than I do have echoed these sentiments too. But like most of what goes on in Hollywood these days and regrettably North America in general, you first have to lose what you once had before you're willing to recognize that its gone and sorely missed.

Sad. Very sad, indeed.

 

[TravisR]

Not everything is a conspiracy.