Robert Harris on The Bits-Interview with Warner's George Feltenstein Official Thread (1 Viewer)

[Charles H]

THE SENATOR WAS INDISCREET --the William Powell with the delicious Myrna Loy cameo -- is owned by Republic via Artisan (and on to Lion's Gate and Paramount?) It was released on VHS and it's a terrific comedy (directed by George S. Kaufman).

 

[RafaelPires]

Manhattan Melodrama, another terrifc Loy/Powell movie, that counts with Clark Gable too. Another good choice for a dvd.

 

[george kaplan]

I may not be as high on some of the non-Thin Man Powell/Loy films that have been mentioned here as some of you, but I'd certainly buy a set like that, especially if it had the truly great non-Thin Man Powell/Loy film Libeled Lady and I Love You Again. I'd also love to see some other William Powell films, especially his Philo Vance ones and other great ones like The Ex-Mrs. Bradford and Rendezvous (a film I like a lot more than most other people).

 

[Joe Karlosi]

After reading all the comments over the word "ridiculous," I went through the entire interview to see how it came off for myself. I must be honest, I was put off by the term too. I don't think there is anything "ridiculous" about people wanting titles that are not as popular as the "big sellers," and which will not make a studio as many millions. Okay, so one year WB will make only 10 million instead of 11. If they put out some lower-selling items amidst their blockbuster profits, maybe they'll only clear 5 million in one given year. But it will still gain them a ton of new fans and consumers from all areas of life and ages, interested in different types of movies.

I love the classic "A" films, but I'm also eager for drive-in stuff like the 1958 version of ATTACK OF THE FIFTY FOOT WOMAN (one of my likely-to-be-called-"ridiculous" choices).
I also want ALL of the Bowery Boys films, even if they're not on the quality level of the THIN MAN series. I sincerely appreciate Mr. Feltenstein's interview -- but I already know that things guaranteed to sell a substantial amount of units are going to be put onto DVD.

For those older and "lesser titles," there are many of us who would gladly give WB our money for nice editions instead of settling on those films from other sources.

Warner has become my favorite studio and they've been doing some excellent work in the last couple of years, giving many older films (and their horror library in particular) their due. But we need a "drive-in" or "midnite movies" type of line as well. Because while I enjoy the classics like CITIZEN KANE and ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, I like to settle in with THE BOWERY BOYS MEET THE MONSTERS too!

 

[GlennH]

My sister asked me about the status of THE VALLEY OF DECISION, with Gregory Peck and Greer Garson. I've never seen it, but it sounds like a good one, so here's a vote for Warner to get it out on DVD.

 

[Ravi K]

Great interview. I have been very impressed with WB's classic output of the past year or two and it is great to hear the man behind everything talk with such passion and enthusiasm about his work. I am now seriously considering buying the That's Entertainment box and some other WB classic titles when I have some spare cash. Thanks, WB and RAH, for me being hungry but entertained

 

[RafaelPires]

The Valley of Decision is, in my opinion, a great movie. Though I think that almost all of the Greer Grason's pictures are excellent.

 

[Thomas T]

I think some posters are overly sensitive about the term ridiculous. We ALL have oddball favorites that we would love to see released but are guaranteed to lose Warners money. It IS a business after all. Warners main concern is showing a profit to their stockholders, not providing us with obscure pet movies nobody else wants.

Here's just some of my Warners wish list. Ridiculous? You bet! They'll never see the light of day on DVD, Warners has more important and profitable titles to release ... but I can hope.

The Girl Most Likely (1957) A musical with Jane Powell and Cliff Robertson. RKO.

Looking For Love (1964) This Connie Francis musical has never been released to home video in any format. MGM.

Sombrero A minor musical with the likes of Yvonne DeCarlo, Cyd Charisse Ricardo Montalban and Vittorio Gassman. MGM.

South Sea Woman (1953) Burt Lancaster and Virginia Mayo. Warners.

Strange Lady In Town (1955) A Mervyn LeRoy directed western with Greer Garson and Dana Andrews. Warners.

Tension At Table Rock (1956) A western with Richard Egan and Dorothy Malone. RKO.

So don't take it personally, guys! We live in a real world, not a fantasy world and as much as I'd love to have these films on DVD, it's ... well, ridiculous to even conceive of such a thing.

 

[Roger Rollins]

Thomas, I love THE GIRL MOSY LIKELY, and if RKO hadn't been going under at the time, I think the film would hae done "OK". The Martin/Blane score as orchestrated by Nelson RIddle is excellent, and Jane Powell leads a terrific cast. Too bad the film is ignored in all circles.

Who knows? Maybe it will surface someday...

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Then I'd have to say it's ridiculous for Warner to continue to hold onto "lower selling" movies that they feel won't make them a mint. They should license them out to smaller companies who may give them some attention. Because while I fully understand the mentality of "business sense", film is not just about seeing which one of the big guys can churn out the biggest profit -- it's also about preserving our cinematic heritage, and being able to enjoy all areas of this art form.

So, do all the older and more obscure films - especially those which are not "A" titles or extremely popular titles like KING KONG and THE HAUNTING - remain on the shelves to rot? I'm sorry, I just don't get this. I've never understood what the harm is in releasing, say, 1 or 2 "low profit" releases for every 10 sure-fire blockbusters. I think Warner did a very admirable thing by salvaging something like MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM out as an "extra bonus" on their more popular HOUSE OF WAX disc. I hope they can find more ways to issue these less popular and "non-A" films.

I think WB has been doing outstanding work lately, and one of the 2005 releases I'm greatly excited about is their VAL LEWTON COLLECTION. Yet even there, those movies are like the "cream of the crop" of their horror titles. The ones more highbrow and respected (and rightly so). I'd like to see something along the lines of MGM's "Midnite Movies" line as well. Not instead of their mainstream moneymakers, but as something on the side.

 

[Robert Harris]

I can offer a bit of information in regard to films which go unreleased, which should not be construed as coming from Warner Brothers, or any studio, as the comments do not.

I recently looked into obtaining a license to release an annual event on DVD which shall go unspecified.

While a license was available, an upfront payment toward musical rights worked out to the $30,000 area, after which one would have a payments to be made against the contract.

Unless an entity which can afford to lose copious amounts of dollars wishes to step forward, this programming will undoubtedly never be seen on DVD.

When it comes to older black and white films, the production of a new fine grain master is usually in order; color necessitates either re-combination of color negatives, the production of a reasonably timed color interpositive, or the re-combination of color masters.

The costs, not inclusive of a frame of restoration work?

Approximations --- $8 -10,000; $35 -50,000; $10-12,000; $40-60,000.

This before a transfer which can range at the low end (for a final result which would ellicit nothning but complaints) of around $10,000 up to and inclusive of high end properly rendered work at anywhere from $100-250,000.

After all of these costs, which must be met up front, there is then the payment of license fees and royalties.

The message here is that in many cases the situation is not a simple "we won't," but rather "we can't."

As a final point I'll refer you to something that Mr. Feltenstein did note, which is that the many minor films which made appearances on VHS on laser did not do so until 7 to 10 years, or more into the format, and then by film elements which simply didn't matter, as quality could not be seen on either of those formats. Today, most films are transferred to high definition, which disallows all lower end film elements and transfers.

RAH

 

[Robert Crawford]

Robert,
To be honest, I'm starting to believe that some people just don't get it that this isn't VHS or Laser and that more expensive work needs to be completed before releasing any classic film onto dvd. Case in point, Universal just released some Marx Brothers films in which many are already complaining about the dvd quality, even though, they haven't even seen the dvds. Sure, Universal could have spent a lot more money and done a better job on the dvd presentation and maybe, they should have since we're talking about the Marx Brothers. However, my point is that if Warner took that same approach on some of their obscure titles that they know won't sell a lot of, they too would be criticize by these same people as to why Warner released such a substandard product. Either way, the studio can't win with some people. I applaud any studio that if they can't release a quality dvd then they're not going to release it at all. Furthermore, if a studio's policy is not to license out their assets to other companies then so be it, since it's their property. Also, I understand that such a company policy might not make sense to a movie buff outside of the industry, but companies usually have good reasons for having such a policy that outsiders simply can't comprehend such as long range plans of their own about said assets, poor condition of the film elements or any number of reasons.






Crawdaddy

 

[Mark Zimmer]

I do find it curious that teeeny-tiny DVD houses like Synapse (who are lucky to sell a couple thousand units) are able to do proper time-corrected transfers of PAL-NTSC conversions of some weird Eurotrash cult film without the combing artifacts that the gigantic Warner was happy to spew out on the Chaplin set. What does Feltenstein have to say in his own defense on that dismal performance?

 

[Thomas T]

.....

 

[Robert Harris]

The Chaplin series was not produced by Mr. Feltenstein. The films were a pick-up.

RAH

 

[Patrick McCart]

n/m

 

[GlennH]

Patrick, you need to carefully re-read the post you quote. Joe wasn't saying that THE HAUNTING or KING KONG are obscure or rotting. Quite the opposite. He's talking about the titles that are NOT "A-list" or popular, like those are.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Correct - thanks, Glenn..

There is something I'd like to discuss in response to Robert Crawford and Mr. Harris regarding the difference in quality from VHS/Laser as opposed to DVD and how "more work needs to be done when it comes to releasing a DVD" --

Am I correct in saying that not every film given necessarily needs to be given this extreme type of special treatment for a DVD release? While films like CITIZEN KANE and THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD were obviously meticulously cleaned up and worked on, and look stunning, I watched TARZAN AND HIS MATE recently and it didn't look especially enhanced or tweaked.

So what I'm trying to get at it is, I'm not sure it's necessary for every obscure and lesser-selling film to get the full, expensive "restoration or cleansing" treatment. While I would expect Warner to spend money on a stellar presentation of, say, A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, I would be pleased to get something like Michael Curtiz' THE WALKING DEAD (1936) looking at least as good as it did on Laserdisc. Sure, I'd love it to be remastered and given the full works -- but I can understand WB perhaps not going all-out on more obscure movies.

I just hope Warner doesn't believe we fans think everything must be overhauled and painstakingly restored or worked on. If WB holds this policy about every film in their library, it may be admirable but then I'm afraid it IS extremely unlikely that the Bowery Boys films or other lesser titles may be worth it.

The unfortunate truth is, the WB films in question are easily able to be obtained on DVD-R or what have you. I don't mean this to be any type of endorsement of that, but I'm just saying we'd all much rather get these films from the studio themselves.

 

[Robert Harris]

There is a distinct difference between a preservation element which might have been made in the mid-1950s and a new element.

Unless an Oneg or what the original elements are, have been printed in some recent vintage, it is normal that for DVD, that they at least be re-visited.

In short, it is not simply a matter of putting whatver element happens to be sitting in the vaults on a datacine.

We're not referring here to restoration, but merely to clean preservation or duplicating elements.

RAH

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I understand -- but is it possible that WB may still be able to put out satisfactory older/obscure/low selling titles without spending a lot of money on them, by taking the least extensive approach to them? Maybe using less-than-optimum elements?

Though I would love for Humphrey Bogart's RETURN OF DOCTOR X to look as beautiful as TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE, I don't realistically expect that.