Studios Reducing/Ending Retail DVDs of Classics - Warner Interview (1 Viewer)

[Marcel H.]

Originally Posted by Pete York
It will be interesting to see what Sony and Universal are doing beyond this year. If they're still in the business of classics in 2010 we should be very grateful.

Time and sales will tell but there's too much doom and gloom around in those days and I'm quite optimistic that 2010 won't be so bad in terms of releases may be on par with this year and to me it's a good sign that two labels are starting to release catalog titles in these times, because they have faith that there's a market.

 

[DavidJ]

Originally Posted by Paul Penna

Why this should come as a surprise to so many, or so difficult to accept, is beyond me.

Why should we accept it? As film buffs, movie lovers, whatever term you want to use, that love classic cinema we should do whatever we can to draw attention to classic films and to our desire to have them well-represented on DVD. Our discussion of them can lead to others deciding to check them out for themselves. In the courses I teach on production, I will discuss modern films with my students, but I also discuss, cite and show parts of classics to them. They learn from them and in some cases discover a whole new realm of cinema.

 

[Rob_Ray]

Originally Posted by Paul Penna

Why this should come as a surprise to so many, or so difficult to accept, is beyond me. ...It's a cultural phenomenon, not a marketing thing. The attitudes, values and cultural perceptions that are reflected in the films of the past are increasingly alien to today's audiences, who, at best, regard them as quaint, but more frequently, simply irrelevant. ...

I was born in 1956. Coming of age in the late sixties and early seventies, the films of the 1930s were viewed as hopelessly quaint and totally irrelevant to the present. And in the late sixties, being "relevant" was everything.

But there was a nostalgia factor and a sense of being clued into something outside the current tastes that made the Marx Bros. and Humphrey Bogart and W.C. Fields seem cool and to use a word probably not yet coined, "retro." Some films and stars are of their time and have had their day in the sun. Betty Grable was huge in own her time, but even in the sixties, was somewhat overlooked. But other films and stars are timeless and can speak to new generations if they are only given the high visibility that broadcast television gave them years ago.

TCM, as grand as it is, can't do it alone. The Warner Archive project can help, but the closing of all the brick and mortar stores is putting the final nail in the coffin unless something on the Internet like YouTube can turn things around. Even after classic films left broadcast TV, the faces of Jean Harlow and Spencer Tracy were staring at us from all the VHS and laserdisc shelves at Tower Records, Big Ben, the Wherehouse, Virgin and all the other stores. Now, it's getting to the point where it's just available online or not at all. You have to type "Jean Harlow" into a search engine to find her now. And if you don't know who Jean Harlow is, then you're not going to discover her by accident.

The films and stars we love will be swept away into the dustbin of history unless something comes along to shine a light on them again. And it's only going to get worse for the stars of this century. Heath Ledger now faces the same fate and it will happen quicker for him. He won't have the 60 year grace period of posthumous popularity that television offered Jean Harlow. The culture is too disposable now.

No, it doesn't come as a surprise, but I don't want to accept it.

Edited by Rob_Ray - 8/7/2009 at 11:59 pm GMT

 

[Traveling Matt]

Nothing in this article really surprises me either. However, I firmly believe things go in cycles. It doesn’t look good now, but things change. Video technologies should only grow, improve and become more financially manageable in the recession-less future. It may not be easy to see at the moment, but hopefully it will happen and classic film fans will again benefit.
[COLOR= black]Quote: [/COLOR]
[COLOR= black]Originally Posted by [/COLOR][COLOR= black]Paul Penna[/COLOR] [COLOR= black]

It hasn't taken much reading between the lines over the past few years (decades, actually) to realize that the market for older films has shrunk dramatically, or that it's not a result of studio mismanagement of the market. The market for [/COLOR][COLOR= black]everything[/COLOR][COLOR= black] old has shrunk - you see the same thing with music and literature and just about every other aspect of the culture of the past. You could give this stuff as much exposure as you like, easily available and in the best possible form and still the vast majority of people today [/COLOR][COLOR= black]just wouldn't care[/COLOR][COLOR= black]. It's a cultural phenomenon, not a marketing thing. The attitudes, values and cultural perceptions that are reflected in the films of the past are increasingly alien to today's audiences, who, at best, regard them as quaint, but more frequently, simply irrelevant. Add to that the differences in film construction, particularly their pace, and you wind up with an audience that's just plain bored. Ideas of both [/COLOR][COLOR= black]what[/COLOR][COLOR= black] is entertaining and what [/COLOR][COLOR= black]makes[/COLOR][COLOR= black] something entertaining have changed.[/COLOR]


Well put Paul. The other aspect of that concept is perhaps more practical than philosophical: the internet factor and its effects. In the past, older material was sidetracked by newer material only on TV and in theaters. Today, our attentions are drawn every which way by online video sites, like YouTube, as well as online games and other activites. The internet is the culprit guilty of mass culture change, in media and otherwise. This virtual world increasingly nudges the real world, and its perceptions and values, aside.

 

[Gary OS]

Originally Posted by Paul Penna

Why this should come as a surprise to so many, or so difficult to accept, is beyond me... You could give this stuff as much exposure as you like, easily available and in the best possible form and still the vast majority of people today just wouldn't care. It's a cultural phenomenon, not a marketing thing. The attitudes, values and cultural perceptions that are reflected in the films of the past are increasingly alien to today's audiences, who, at best, regard them as quaint, but more frequently, simply irrelevant.

Sadly, I must concur with Paul's statements. It's not something I want to see, or want to admit, but it is what it is. The vast majority of today's movie-viewing public, especially anyone under 30, simply couldn't care less about the classic films. And for the exact reasons that Paul has given. Heck, I find even many older folks (let's say, for sake of argument, people 50+ years old) seem to gravitate toward newer stuff. I realize that's purely anecdotal, but it's what I'm seeing.

Thank you, Steve, for starting this thread and linking an article that only confirms what I've feared for quite some time now. Some of us have been predicting this downturn was coming way before the economy tanked. I've personally been saying I saw this for a couple of years now. It's a shame, but it's not a shock.


Gary "very thankful for TCM - it probably is the last bastion of vintage material at this point" O.

 

[Simon Howson]

What constitutes a good business decision, however, is not in the eye of the beholder as it is right there on a balance sheet. What is implied here is that Fox did not get its return on the Joan Collins collection, irrespective of the films' quality, and probably for the reasons you cite as making it well worth it to you. Multiply that a few times and Feltenstein's point stands. I'm reminded of Fox putting millions into THE BLACK SWAN, which I purchased right after its release for $8. They have my gratitude and my money, but I don't know how happy the bean counters were with that.

Unfortunately you don't get to see the balance sheet results until after you have actually released the DVDs and found out how well (or not) they have sold. The studios mainly predict sales using historical data on previous formats, which aren't necessarily a good guide for future sales. If Warner didn't take a punt on the first Film Noir box, it wouldn't of had a chance to sell double their estimate, which prompted them to release 3 other volumes. It is wrong for Feltenstein to criticise a competitor studio when that studio released a box of classic films the way they should be done, and possibly had good marketing data to suggest it could be a profitable release.

 

[mdnitoil]

Interestingly, I wonder what this portends for things like Bowery Boys? If Warner is convinced that the market is tanking for this material, and their retail release schedule certainly seems to bear that out, what form will this material take? Once last gasp on SD or a dump into their Archives? I know we've been told not to worry, it's destined for a proper release but, that's a year away. Does anybody realistically see things getting any better in a year? The economy should improve, but we're told the market started to die well before the economy. Presumably the two things are independent, to a degree.

 

[Corey]

Made me go pre-order Esther Williams Vol. 2

 

[Pete York]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway

Sony, even prior to the Warner Archive was announced, had a press release or a statement in an article discussing the same type of distribution, so that wouldn't shock me for them. But Sony is also benefiting from winning the HD format war, so they may be in a slightly better position financially than other studios.

The money will still be made off the niche audience, but that's also exactly why the Warner Archive titles are $20, which has solicited complaints from those who were buying classics on DVD much cheaper over the last 10 years, rightly or wrongly.

I hadn't heard that about Sony, interesting. If the choice is a) doing nothing, b) MOD style model or c) downloads, I'd certainly prefer to see the studios go the MOD route. Not that I really have anything against 'c', but I imagine the studios would try something stupid, like restricting the consumer's 'use' under the DRM banner.

Originally Posted by Marcel H.




Time and sales will tell but there's too much doom and gloom around in those days and I'm quite optimistic that 2010 won't be so bad in terms of releases may be on par with this year and to me it's a good sign that two labels are starting to release catalog titles in these times, because they have faith that there's a market.

I can see the studios looking at it in either of two ways. One, they don't take into account the current climate, see 'low' sales (at least compared to 5 years ago) and scrap future releases. Or two, see the same sales in the context of the current climate as modest but something to build on. Unfortunately, the easy way is the first scenario. Then again, these sets could be a surprise hit and make this discussion irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Simon Howson



Unfortunately you don't get to see the balance sheet results until after you have actually released the DVDs and found out how well (or not) they have sold. The studios mainly predict sales using historical data on previous formats, which aren't necessarily a good guide for future sales. If Warner didn't take a punt on the first Film Noir box, it wouldn't of had a chance to sell double their estimate, which prompted them to release 3 other volumes. It is wrong for Feltenstein to criticise a competitor studio when that studio released a box of classic films the way they should be done, and possibly had good marketing data to suggest it could be a profitable release.

What you're saying is true, but I think Feltenstein is referring to the end result--unsold product clogging up retailer shelves and causing those retailers to sour on classic releases. Retailers returning product is a fact, the suppositions are towards explaining it, and there are really only two explanations--either there was no market or there were "irresponsible releases". And we know there is a market for the right releases. I may be parsing here but in the article he doesn't mention anybody specifically, his quote is placed after the writer's Joan Collins reference making it seem like he brought it up (which I guess he could have off the record). Although he obviously is talking about other studios, I don't think he would directly criticize a competitor on a specific, well done release in an interview.

 

[Ray_R]

Does WB ever check Amazon Marketplace or fleabay for titles? I finally purchased the third Errol Flynn boxset earlier in the week and it arrived earlier from the time of my posting. Were it not for TCM, I'm 30, I wouldn't be such a huge aficianado and appreciator of older films.
Case in point: I'm quite a fan of James Mason and even DVR'd They Met in the Dark. HOLY SHIT I thought the movie was great! I also thank my local library system for having all those VHS of alot of older movies when I was younger.
That being said/typed-out, I don't support Warner Archives but I do support actual DVD releases. One particular set I'd love to get around to buying is The Thin Man Collection. I watched all of them on TCM and haven't had such fun laughter for comedy films in awhile. Just great. I'm even considering buying My Man Godfrey: The Criterion Collection DVD if I'm able to find a good price for it.
EDIT: Why not just have the Studios send all the older catalog titles to online retailers? I buy online alot so thins could actually be a positive outlet for their inventory.


Edited by Ray_R - 8/8/2009 at 09:41 pm GMT

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Pete York

I hadn't heard that about Sony, interesting. If the choice is a) doing nothing, b) MOD style model or c) downloads, I'd certainly prefer to see the studios go the MOD route. Not that I really have anything against 'c', but I imagine the studios would try something stupid, like restricting the consumer's 'use' under the DRM banner.

Found the article re: Sony and MOD style releases:

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6525167.html?nid=3513

This was January 2008, and it never came to fruition, with Warner beating them to the punch this year. It seemed practically ready to go from the article.

 

[Alan Tully]

Well it was great while it lasted. I now own so many of my favorite films, some quite rare (with a good batch of very rare Hammer movies coming from Sony in September in the UK). This could be a bit of a nail in Blu-ray's coffin, as we now know that just a tiny fraction of classic films released on DVD will make it to Blu-ray.

 

[Jeff Willis]

Steve, good thread here. Those of us that primarily reside on the Std TV/DVD board have seen the trend recently as well....less of the older shows seeing releases.

As someone here mentioned, it's been a good ride while it lasted. WB has released many titles that are in my collecttion so while I'd like to see more, I'm grateful that I have many titles that I'd not have guessed would have been available.

 

[Marcel H.]

Over at the Classic Horror on DVD Forum, someone talked to Mr. Schlesinger about, e.g. future Hammer titles:

Mike Schlesinger kindly gave me the following information just last week:

"There will be at least one more Hammer set, but it won't be until at least next year and no content has been decided yet."

http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/25234/t/Anymore-Sony-Hammer-sets.html

 

[BradleyS]

I'm sure the general thrust of this article is correct, but one flaw is that it's based entirely on an interview with a representative of the one studio that has almost completely stopped releasing classic films (except via the Archive). I'm sure someone from Sony, who is releasing a number of classic boxed sets in the next few months, would have a different perspective.

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

Originally Posted by Rob_Kozlowski

Quote:

Exactly, Rob. I grew up with old movies on all the local Chicago broadcast channels, and now I teach at a film school where 90% of the students have never even HEARD of the Marx Brothers. Fortunately, they were delighted by a clip from DUCK SOUP. Still, there was offered a Films of the 1930s class this fall and exactly ZERO students signed up. And now, TCM is the only channel really showing any movies made before 1990. The Godfather is pretty much the oldest movie of which these kids are aware and I'm sure in another 20 years, young people will have no knowledge of films that lack CGI and graphic scenes of torture.

I really do not like that last comment: its a patronising and insulting stereotype of young people. I'm sure its not meant to come out that way, but the suggestion young people know no better then "torture movies" is pretty insulting to me.

 

[Jim_K]

Well nothing lasts forever.

This boom in classic catalog titles was fun while it lasted and while I do wish we could've gotten another year or two out of it I can say on the positive side that my glass is about 4/5 full. While there's still some highly desired key titles I fear will never be released, I'm pretty satisfied with the variety of titles I did get to add to my collection.

I've noticed the studios starting to taper off catalog releases starting as long as 3 years ago so this is no surprise for me especially in this economy.

My own personal theory as to where the market went is that DVD collecting was a fad for many during the boom years. I think the real core market for catalog titles was more or less the same as it is today sans economic conditions but the market was buoyed by people purchasing anything and everything, collecting just because it was cool to collect DVD's at the time.

I don't think I'll see another boom period for catalog media like what we had in my lifetime.

 

[Alan Tully]

The Hammer films for release in September are exclusive to a company called Movie Mail, so it looks like a deal between them & Sony. They are: The Camp On Blood Island, Yesterdays Enemy, & The Damned (US These Are The Damned), all 'scope & b/w.

Originally Posted by Marcel H.

Over at the Classic Horror on DVD Forum, someone talked to Mr. Schlesinger about, e.g. future Hammer titles:


Quote:

http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/25234/t/Anymore-Sony-Hammer-sets.html

 

[Brandon_D]

I am a 22 year old male and classic film lover and am extremly grateful for the wealth of classic film on DVD. Warner Home Video and TCM have educated me greatly and I will continue to watch TCM an purchase whatever classic film becomes available, in cluding Esther Williams vol 2!!

I don't have a blu-ray player yet, but when I get one I plan to purchase whatever classic films are available in that format. I know that many classic film might never see a blu-ray release but thank God for the longevity of the DVD format. Yet, I'm sure that the essential classic films will find thier way to blu-ray.

We've already seen:
Casablanca
The Searchers
Adventures of Robin Hood
Rio Bravo
Gigi
American in ParisWizard of Oz(Coming)
Gone with the Wind(Coming)
North By Northwest(coming)
The Third Man
That's Entertainment Trilogy
Ben-Hur

I'm sure we'll see eventually:
Singin in the Rain
Citizen Kane
It's a Wonderful Life
The Philadelphia Story
Miracle on 34th Street
Meet Me in St. Louis
All About Eve
Rear Window
Vertigo
Psycho
Yankee Doodle Dandy
The Maltese Falcon
Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Double Indemnity
Grapes of Wrath
Mr.Smith Goes to Washington
The Band Wagon
Top Hat/Swing Time
Seven Brides for Seven Brothers
The Thin Man
It Happened One Night
and others

 

[BrianRi]

Stereotype?!? Get a grip, my feline friend. Rob_Kozlowski is a teacher who was stating facts (you know, those icky things that get in the way of our preconceptions) about a class that was offered, and then used his observations of students at his school to make a generalization. There are always exceptions,. I was a film studies major in the late '90s, an am completely in accord with Mr. Kozlowski's point-of-view. At my school, all the young whippersnappers could talk about was how cool Quentin Tarantino made violence look. I remember hearing a couple guys deride and mock Double Indemnity as being so "old-fashioned". I have many other like anecdotes. Generalization or exception to the rule? Generalization or stereotype? I say it's the big G all the way. And I say it's entirely justified. You don't? Fare thee well, Mr. James 'Tiger' Lee.

Originally Posted by James 'Tiger' Lee