TEMPEST IN A TEAPOT OR TITUS (1 Viewer)

[ROclockCK]

Without naming names there's an awful lot of unpleasant elitism here - the suggestion that a Blu-ray must be priced at a high level or otherwise the plebs will not appreciate all the hard work which goes into making them available! I'm neither a critic nor cheer-leader of TT (unlike many here) but simply a consumer and I buy those titles which I feel really, really want (six so far). But I do get a bit tired of constantly reading that the moaners wouldn't even buy them if the were $5. That's just silly - I'd certainly buy quite a few more if they were $5

Well, in a rather obvious and hilarious way you very much "named names" Douglas. So I'll take it from there, if you please.

As I've maintained all along, never wavering on this point either here or elsewhere, this is all about a simple "reality-check": For a saner and more stable market to survive for the kind of niche Blu-ray catalogue titles many of us seek, it is not "elitist" to support a price floor that recognizes such limited demand, merely "pragmatic". No matter how you price these titles...heck, you could go out with thousands more units priced by half but still end up with massive returns and warehousing. It's just simple math: the numbers who are truly interested in these vintage flicks in high def Blu-ray are no longer counted in the tens or hundreds of thousands, but mere thousands, or sometimes only hundreds. No company can survive off dribbles of sales from $5 and $10 Blu-rays. If the product has become that niche, then its base price should reflect that lower (though no less passionate) demand.

A couple of years ago, Image Entertainment tried exactly what you suggested with a range of modestly-priced Sony catalogue titles...some very good ones, and very well presented. But where are they now? How well has that worked out for them? Where is the flood of successful catalogue releases from Image to disprove TT's limited edition model? And what about Mill Creek? They ran with a bunch of Sony catalogue double-bills earlier last year. Anyone seen anything announced since?

I'm afraid it's become a very "niche" world we live in...which should never be confused with "elitist".

 

[McCrutchy]

A couple of years ago, Image Entertainment tried exactly what you suggested with a range of modestly-priced Sony catalogue titles...some very good ones, and very well presented. But where are they now? How well has that worked out for them? Where is the flood of successful catalogue releases from Image to disprove TT's limited edition model? And what about Mill Creek? They ran with a bunch of Sony catalogue double-bills earlier last year. Anyone seen anything announced since?

Image released several Sony titles in 2013 and appear to have more for 2014.

 

[ROclockCK]

...but mere handfuls of second tier titles Sean, and spottily scheduled. Certainly not the solid 60 plus catalogue releases we can expect from Twilight Time this year.

In relative terms, Image's modestly priced, scattershot sales model for catalogue via traditional retail is faltering, if not failing.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

For me, and perhaps for many, it comes down to a value proposition of the film involved.Some films to me are worth $30 or even more (Don't ask what I spent on the Criterion Evita LD on release day) to have in a quality edition. Extras are important to me, and I consider that in the value of what I'm getting.Sometimes you get a lot of value in a package for films that you're not hugely interested in. For me, when the Alien Quadrilogy set was on sale for $20, even though I'm not a big fan of the films, the value of that package compelled me to purchase. Other times, there are no extras but the film itself is so desirable to you that you'd pay twice the price asked. Sometimes a new release you have to get on day one, other times you wait for a sale. Everyone must determine for themselves where along the "value" spectrum any release lies and beyond that, what's the point of complaining.

 

[Keith Cobby]

I am only buying films on blu-ray which are either favourites or have exceptional image quality, irrespective of the price. My days of scavenging in bargain bins are over. I no longer buy any blu-rays because they are cheap.

 

[bruceames]

Where is the flood of successful catalogue releases from Image to disprove TT's limited edition model? And what about Mill Creek? They ran with a bunch of Sony catalogue double-bills earlier last year. Anyone seen anything announced since?

I'm afraid it's become a very "niche" world we live in...which should never be confused with "elitist".

One need look no further then Olive Films. Yes Image and Mill Creek had price points too low to sustain the business model, but Olive released a "flood" of Paramount movies last year (much more than in 2012) at reasonable price points (low 20's on Amazon, cheaper at other sources like ImportCDs). So their business model is working, and it's making Paramount's catalog more accessible and widely available.
If Sony prefers to use almost exclusively TT's highly niche model at high prices and low release volume, then they are doing their vast libary a disservice.
Fox licenses out to TT as well, but they at least release most of their films (which are better as a whole) themselves.
Warner and Universal are still very active in releasing catalog.
So please don't confuse "niche" with the state of the Blu-ray catalog market as a whole.

 

[Persianimmortal]

So please don't confuse "niche" with the state of the Blu-ray catalog market as a whole.

We discussed this issue a while ago in this thread, wherein I point your attention to this graph:

And the following quote from the article:

Older movies are also getting more space via inexpensive DVDs at the checkout stands of grocery stores and drugstores, says David Bishop, president of Sony Corp.'s Sony Pictures Home Entertainment.

Unlike beautifully packaged Blu-ray upgrades, such [DVD] movies appeal to price-conscious impulse shoppers who, according to Warner's Mr. Baker, account for 80% of catalog purchases.

Put those two tidbits together and it's very clear that catalog sales are falling, and the vast majority of those catalog sales that remain are on DVD. The catalog market on Blu-ray is not doing all that well.

 

[bruceames]

Thanks for the info. I never saw that chart before, and it is very interesting. I actually had thought that catalog was the driver behind falling disc sales, but if that graph is right then it's new release.

Sure catalog is falling, but not at as fast as rate as disc sales, which is a good sign.

However I agree catalog on Blu-ray has never done that well (outside tentpoles and Disney titles), but it's not in that bad a shape where a business model like TT is required. Maybe later, but certainly not now.

 

[Persianimmortal]

The graph shows physical disc sales, so the reason why new releases are dropping faster is because of rapid growth in the digital market. I'd suggest (and the general responses on this forum confirm) that digital delivery is significantly less popular with catalog buyers.As to whether the TT model is necessary, well by virtue of the fact that TT was created and is thriving, I'd say you're off the mark. As always, the question comes back to this: if catalog releases on BD are so profitable, why do studios farm much of it out now to the boutique providers like TT?

 

[bruceames]

The graph shows physical disc sales, so the reason why new releases are dropping faster is because of rapid growth in the digital market. I'd suggest (and the general responses on this forum confirm) that digital delivery is significantly less popular with catalog buyers.As to whether the TT model is necessary, well by virtue of the fact that TT was created and is thriving, I'd say you're off the mark. As always, the question comes back to this: if catalog releases on BD are so profitable, why do studios farm much of it out now to the boutique providers like TT?

Digital sales were growing fairly slowly during the years represented by that graph, so it's definitely not digital, but rather other reasons like people realizing it's not worth it to collect movies.

You may call the TT model as thriving, but they release so few titles and in such limited quantities. Olive releases 5 times as much as TT.

I'm not angry at TT, they're trying to make a buck like everyone else. However I'm not too happy with Sony for not using a more optimal model such as Olive, where more can be released and at reasonable prices. It doesn't have to be either bargain bin $5 or $30 ($35 with shipping) and limited to 3000 copies. The sweet spot is around $20 and doesn't have to be limited quantities and sold exclusively through one seller. Olive's business model has already proved that. And as has been stated other studios like Fox, Universal and Warner are still releasing a lot of catalog themselves (and in about the same volume as they have been, perhaps slightly less)

 

[ahollis]

Let's don't forget the Legend Films /Paramount deal of 2008. They released 30 or 40 titles on DVD. most with great name reconiztion, then offered some as double features on Blu-ray. The agreement was never extended to include more titles which leads me to believe it was not successful. The model didn't work because I saw many of those titles in the Wal-Mart cheap bins. And what about Anchor Bay? They had a good number of titles from Fox and Disney but those agreements were not renewed. But by who, Fox and Disney or by Anchor Bay because the model didn't work anymore. The Olive agreement with Paramount seems to be more successful but there has been discussions on some of the transfers and their price for Blu-rays has increased to the upper 20 dollar mark. The company is so secret that they could have limited number of pressings, such as 5000 DVDs and 5000 Blu-rays. And Twilight seems to be releasing more classic titles than Warner's at the present time. Twilight has four or five titles a month while at the best Warner, including WAC Blu-rays, about an average of one a month. The only studio that maybe releases more titles them selves is Fox. Twilight Time's business model works for them or they would not continue to expand the monthly offerings. I have several titles that may not of seen the light of day. The transfers for Oliver, Bye Bye Birdie and Those Magnificent Men were sitting on the shelves a few years before Twilight used them. Their home studios had no interest at the time.

 

[bruceames]

And Twilight seems to be releasing more classic titles than Warner's at the present time. Twilight has four or five titles a month while at the best Warner, including WAC Blu-rays, about an average of one a month. The only studio that maybe releases more titles them selves is Fox.

Warner released 39 of their own films on Blu-ray last year (debut only and not including WAC) and 24 from Paramount. Twilight Time released 26 films (about half each from Fox and Sony). Here is the release year distribution for both

Twilight Time:
2000+: 1
90's: 1
80's: 3
70's: 11
60's: 5
50's: 1
40's: 3
30's: 1

Warner (not including WAC and Paramount)
2000+: 6
90's: 6
80's: 6
70's: 4
60's: 0
50's: 1
40's: 5
30's: 5
20's: 2

 

[Twilight Time]

We just love the fact you compare TT's output to WB...TT is a 2 man operation -- versus the might of the Time / Warner empire...looks like we're coming out even...by the end of the year we'll be ahead!

 

[ahollis]

Warner released 39 of their own films on Blu-ray last year (debut only and not including WAC) and 24 from Paramount. Twilight Time released 26 films (about half each from Fox and Sony). Here is the release year distribution for both Twilight Time:2000+: 190's: 180's: 370's: 1160's: 550's: 140's: 330's: 1 Warner (not including WAC and Paramount)2000+: 690's: 680's: 670's: 460's: 050's: 140's: 530's: 520's: 2

I don't count the 2000's and the 90's when comparing Warner to Twlight, only classic titles from 80's back. But you make a point of including the Paramount titles so I concur that Warner had more titles. Let's how this year looks with the addition of MGM and soon to announced fourth studio. Right now Twlight is doing 5 titles a month with one in May as a double feature.

 

[ahollis]

We just love the fact you compare TT's out to WB...TT is a 2 man operation -- versus the might of the Time / Warner empire...looks like we're coming out even...by the end of the year we'll be ahead!

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

And lets not forget with the Sony library, in addition to TT, you have Image and Mill Creek deals, plus the scraps (Ishtar) that Sony releases themselves.

 

[ROclockCK]

According to a blurb I read last year Ted, Mill Creek apparently has a lot of Sony titles, including deeper vintage catalogue, which they're still sitting on for some reason. Perhaps they're just waiting for more DVDs of those titles to go out of print? Who knows, but they've been eerily silent ever since that last announcement.

And I should note that my previous comments were not meant to disparage Mill Creek's handling of Sony's library. Most of the titles I've seen so far have been better than average for value priced discs. Although sometimes iffy (as in stripped-down) on the sound end using legacy Sony HD masters, and invariably going out with zero features, many have been very good indeed (e.g. see RAH's A Few Words About Mr. Sardonicus).

 

[Moe Dickstein]

It wasn't you Steve, someone else mentioned that Sony was only dribbiling out through TT, and neglected the fact that essentially the entire Sony library has been licensed out (much as Paramounts has)

 

[David_B_K]

I am only buying films on blu-ray which are either favourites or have exceptional image quality, irrespective of the price. My days of scavenging in bargain bins are over. I no longer buy any blu-rays because they are cheap.

I still buy cheap discs if I come across them. The TT discs I buy are Must-haves. If a disc is cheap enough, i may buy something not on my radar. A week ago, I was in Costco and saw A Letter to Three Wives for $8.99. I knew it was a classic and had seen it before. It was not a must-have, but I decided I could use it For $8.99. It was a nice-to-have disc at a good price. I don't tend to buy nice-to-haves from TT, only must-haves.

 

[bluelaughaminute]

We just love the fact you compare TT's output to WB...TT is a 2 man operation -- versus the might of the Time / Warner empire...looks like we're coming out even...by the end of the year we'll be ahead!

Will these new MGM titles from TT be region locked like MGM titles have been from companies like Shout?