Official **LIVE** Questions Transcript --- WB Chat (March 29, 2005) (1 Viewer)

[DouglasBr]

YES!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Okay, that's your opinion which has been stated three times so far in this thread. If you want feedback from Ron then I suggest you contact him.





Crawdaddy

 

[RobertSiegel]

Dave K: I was the only one who asked about Lucille Ball, but in sticking with the requested rules, I only mentioned one title, and that's MAME (1974). They said that IF they release it they want to do it right, and that would be 5.1 stereo. But, they said, since the movie was always mono, it would be extremely expensive. Then they threw in the joke "Lucy's vocals cry out for 5.1 don't they" which I thought was funny, because Lucy was pretty bad, but the reason I want it and in stereo is the fantastic orchestrations, and there are a few great songs that Lucy does not sing.

So I am not sure what to make of their answer. Does that mean that they will only release it if they can do a stereo remaster, and that's just too expensive, or that because of costs it will be mono if they release it? Oh well.

I was surprised no one asked about Twilight Zone: The Movie, or the MGM "Dark Shadows" movies. One would think those would be out already. To me the most exciting mentions were the Ben Hur remaster (from original 65mm elements) and Wizard of Oz in untra-resolution.

It was a great chat, my first time in the Warner chat. I wish the other studios cared as much about their fans to do this occasionally. Also, some people remained in the chat room after Warner left, and we all agreed that a regular chat, with or without studio members, would be a great way to meet other members, we had some good chatting after it was over.

 

[MichaelSloan]

Does that part about midgets in Warner's future- bad boy bill hunt have anything to do with me?

 

[Ronald Epstein]

JohnMor, thanks for making that point.

Okay....A few words....

Sorry it took me till page 5 to talk with all of you
but I have spent the entire morning editing the
transcript so that it may be posted in a timely
manner.

Parker and I wish to again thank Warner Home
Video for their participation in last evening's
chat. I think it is important to reiterate that
it was Warner that contacted us about having the
opportunity to talk with all of you.

That being said, it saddens me to read the same
kind of complaints every time we hold these sort
of chats.

Allow me me address a few.....

First, as far as the studio being vague in their
answers....

Can't blame them! Many of you just don't understand
that there is a need to keep release plans very
confidential until there is a proper moment to
announce. Studios compete against each other to
slot releases accordingly and I am sure that Warner
Brothers doesn't want to blow the cover on all their
release plans for the year.

As far as I am concerned, there was a lot of very
cool information given out during last evening's
chat. In fact, I am thankful we got some exclusives!

The plugs? Why can't Warner plug their upcoming
releases. These folks gave us three hours of their
time and it's no secret that they are doing it in
part to promote themselves.

Missed turns? I'll only briefly say that anyone
that has previously attended these chats knows that
the IRC (which we run these chats upon) is prone to
server lag and other difficulties. We made it very
clear before the chat that the order of names that
"YO'd" in would be different on OUR screen than
YOURS. Parker and I were on the phone together
during the entire chat and we compared the order
of names. Know what? Many times our lists were
totally different.

We also ignored every person that did not
heed our request to use a first name but instead
used a nickname or put numbers in their name

The type and/or quality of questions asked? Well,
this chat was certainly geared more towards television
releases than film. There was also no discussion
on the technical aspects of DVD production. But you
know what? This is obviously how our members wanted
the discussion to run. There have been previous chats
where technical questions were asked...and answered.

Once again, NO, we will not compile a list of
questions in advance. This is a LIVE chat and
we want the experience to be a totally impromptu
one. Understand we are giving the opportunity for
ANYONE to ask ANYTHING they want.

Only 7 people per round? This is a random number
we came up with and it seems to work. Realize I have
to sit here and scribble the names down on paper
and retype it as the LINEUP before the first question
gets answered. SEVEN is a good number that I can
deal with to do this in a timely manner.

Only ONE turn and ONE question? Can you blame
us for trying to enforce this? Did you see how
many titles/questions some of you tried to cram
into your one turn despite the fact we asked you
not to? We try to move through this chat as fast
as possible in order to accomodate as many questions
as possible. For every person that crams a handful
of questions into his/her turn is extra minutes that
needs to be spent on answering that question. Frankly,
it's rude!

Hmmm, what else....

Sorry I could not keep up with Warner's answers
and press them for more information. Parker and
I are constantly busy writing down names from the
YO list and looking ahead to the next question.
Half the time I don't even read the responses
Warner gives until I get to read/edit the chat
transcript. This is how busy we are during the
entire chat and we greatly appreciate the fact
that we weren't sent private messages during the
entire process.

I'm sorry for those that felt the chat did not
live up to expectations. Frankly, I think we
should be grateful that a studio like Warner
Brothers took the time to talk with all of us.
How many other studios do you see doing this
sort of thing on a regular basis? We gave the
opportunity for ANYONE who had the luck of being
picked to ask ANYTHING that THEY had on their mind.
It's a very fair process. Doesn't get much better
than that!

....and you know what? Nothing is perfect and
no matter how we run these chats not everyone
is going to be satisfied.

I hope I addressed everyone's concerns.

BTW, thanks to John Simon and Robert
Crawford for their assistance in this thread.

 

[RobertSiegel]

I am not sure why some people are complaining about the chat, I thought it went very well. You kept getting the chance to ask a question, and of course in 3 hours time, not everyone will get in a question. As for the occasional promotional lines from the Warner people, since they took 3 hours out of their time to be there, I see nothing wrong with promoting some of their upcoming special editions.

 

[LaurenceGarvey]

To Charles Ellis of Staten Island (or was it Charles Staten of Ellis Island?):

Please note that I specifically DID ask about the MGM short subjects, including Benchley, Pete Smith, and Crime Does Not Pay. I wanted to put a bug in their ear to consider these as a boxed set, and I did that. Their response was that no collection is planned, but they'll continue to release them as bonuses on vintage film DVDs.

I am kicking myself for forgetting to ask about FRA DIAVOLO, but time is short and the more stuff I would've posted, the better the chance they wouldn't have answered all my questions. (I wanted to ask about the Andy Hardy films and FROM HELL IT CAME, too).

To those who were upset that more questions didn't get answered about stuff like SPIES LIKE US or FUNNY FARM: well, you were probably as bored reading about The Bowery Boys and as I was reading about whatever the hell TV shows were being asked about. So -- that's fair.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Thanks for your feedback Ron.

I wonder if there would be a way to have someone there with you in the chat that is there just to clarify responses, i.e., the Batman "Yes and Yes" answer that left myself and other users a bit confused as to whether that first yes did actually include Mask of the Phantasm.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Brandon,

One of the big problems is that some of you
ignored our request to ask ONE question. Handfuls
of titles were thrown at them at once.

I think they were simply selective in what they
wanted to answer either because so many titles
were thrown at them or perhaps there was something
they could not talk about.

I bet you ANYTHING had people respected our request
and posted ONE title per turn, that particular
title would have garnered their utmost consideration
in answering.

 

[Jon Hertzberg]

 

[RobertSiegel]

Ron, thanks for your post. It's obvious that alot of work went into this chat, especially to watch over and run the chat and I for one very much appreciate the opportunity I had last night for the chat and to ask a question. I had many titles I wondered about but followed the rules and asked about only one (MAME,1974). But some of the questions with 10-15 titles in them was wrong, I noticed those took much time for Warner to answer, thus decreasing the time for the total amount of questions from each person trying to get in and ask something.

I really wish all of the studios would be open to such chats. It is very clear that the people in the Warner video department care very much about movies and are trying to provide us with the best possible transfers, unlike some other studios who take a print and transfer it without a trailer or anything extra, even though in some cases we know material is available. That's when it gets frustrating.

So a big thanks to Warner and HTF. If Warner is reading this, I want to add something I have not heard mentioned in the chats. Thank you for using the original poster art on the covers of your classics. This artwork was created over the years by experts in selling film, and to me is just as much a part of the film's history as the movie itself. The studios that use these modern covers with airbrushed photos and not using the original movie logo and typeface are missing out on what it's all about.

 

[Reagan]

Hey I liked the chat (just read the transcript) and am glad everyone involved pulled it off.

-Reagan

 

[ZackR]

All I can say is that I am thrilled with some of the SE's coming soon - Network, Streetcar, All The President's Men, etc!! Also, I still hold out for re-releases of the Superman films. The current set was an excellent release, but I would love a true SE of the last 3 films (especially Superman II) and I am still dying for the theatrical cut of Superman: The Movie with the original soundtrack. Oh, and the thought that the 80's/90's Superboy TV show is being at least considered made me a VERY happy camper! Thanks again for a great chat!

 

[JohnMor]

Amen to that!

 

[EricSchulz]

Thanks to Warner, Ron and Parker (and everyone else involved) for a great chat session! You are right Ron, no matter how the chat is run or whatever rules you choose to impose, SOMEONE is not going to be happy...for me, I am not happy at the prospect of working a second job just to afford all these great DVDs in the pipeline! But if I do that, then I won't have time to watch them all...I need to win the lottery, FAST!

 

[Brandon Conway]

Well, with the awesome response they gave to my Astaire/Rogers question, I was certainly glad I only asked one question.

 

[Jon Hertzberg]

Over the Edge is coming...with commentary from director Jonathan Kaplan! Excellent news.

 

[JohnMor]

Okay, I can't fight this anymore. I'm going to join the complainers and reveal how WB infuriated and insulted me in the chat. During their "shameless" self promotions they kept saying "Hey, film fans, buy this upcoming set, buy that upcoming set. You'll love 'em!" But when it came to The Doris Day Collection (the one I'm looking forward to the most in the next few months) they said, "Don't forget your mothers. Buy it for them." I'm so humiliated!

 

[Brandon Conway]

JohnMor = :b

 

[BrettB]

Thanks to everyone, Warner Bros., Ron, Crawdaddy, John, etc. Your efforts are much appreciated. The amount of griping is a shame. Rock on, don't let it get you down.