What's new

TWILIGHT RELEASES LACK OF INTEREST (1 Viewer)

bruceames

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
777
Real Name
Bruce Ames
OliverK said:
I wonder how much it will cost to bring a title to Blu-ray including the image harvest from the remaining elements, I doubt the studios are able to do it below 100.000$ per title and often costs will be considerably higher. Now divide that by the money made on each disc for the studio and there you have the minimum numbers of discs to be sold at a certain price point to break even from purely a business perspective which is probably what applies for titles that need not be saved or preserved with a certain urgency.In the case of Sony it is at least interesting that they do not even try to release discs from some of their new 4k masters themselves, a good example being Hard Times that looks fantastic. So even with the master ready to go they do not want to do a release - that should tell us something about how they gauge the interest in this particular release, another example that is certainly more shocking (4k harvest and release from TT) is Philadelphia which I would have considered fairly popular.
If we wait until they spend $100k or more on obscure movies to restore them, as a condition for its release, then we'll be waiting forever. You just have to accept them as they are and IMO, that's a lot better than not getting it at all.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,604
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Towergrove said:
While we are not the general public we have always been one of the largest buying group for home video and the ones who fork out or are willing to fork out the most for releases. We are also the ones that can make or break a release based on our reviews of the product that's been released. We do have buying power and the studios attention. Also has the general public ever been a big buyer of catalogue cause even years ago the numbers for most catalog releases were very low and that includes rental outlet sales in that tally. The studios cater to us cause they know we will $pend. Is a business category that sells over $9 billion a year a niche? Asked my Eco professor and he says NO.
Our power is much less today than it was ten years ago.
 

FoxyMulder

映画ファン
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
5,385
Location
Scotland
Real Name
Malcolm
I don't think it costs $100K, if a small label like Arrow can pay for a 2K film scan of Zombie Flesh Eaters and then do the associated work to bring it up to scratch then there is no reason these large studio's cannot bring their catalog titles to market, they want profit now and they want it fast, they don't look at the long term anymore, you can see that with cinema releases too, if Titanic had been released two weeks ago it would have been pulled from the cinema and flopped, that is the reality of today's short sighted studio's and the attention span of some of the people growing up in today's world.

The reason i bring up Titanic is that it took a long time to become a hit and make money, with today's studio and theater chain mentality which demands instant profit, that film would have sunk and been labelled a flop.
 

rsmithjr

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2011
Messages
1,228
Location
Palo Alto, CA
Real Name
Robert Smith
FoxyMulder said:
The reason i bring up Titanic is that it took a long time to become a hit and make money, with today's studio and theater chain mentality which demands instant profit, that film would have sunk and been labelled a flop.
Some good points but yet me make a correction about Titanic.

Titanic opened at $30M in December, which was a quite good but not great gross then. Clearly in the first week it was seen as a loser given its large production cost. But, you do not close out a movie that has a $30M gross in one or two weekends, not even today. You play it out.

Then, in the second, third, and fourth weeks, something unexpected happened: the grosses held up, and the movie started looking like it might make back some of its costs anyway. (Both Fox and Paramount were by then up to their eyeballs in the production costs, especially Fox.) Titanic was building a following and word of mouth was excellent. Lots of returns.

By February, the grosses were still holding. Valentines Day weekend was a big moneymaker for the film. Paramount actually had to make more prints. Then the Oscars, and the film just kept going.

If Titanic were to be released today with inflation-adjusted numbers (or even the same raw numbers), it would not be pulled from the theatres. It opened well enough to be given more weeks and held well enough to get all the months that it got.
 

OliverK

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
5,733
bruceames said:
If we wait until they spend $100k or more on obscure movies to restore them, as a condition for its release, then we'll be waiting forever. You just have to accept them as they are and IMO, that's a lot better than not getting it at all.
100k was a guesstimate with all costs in including bringing the title to Blu-ray, this is for a production from one of the big studios, some may be a bit less and others a bit more. I think that the cost could be lowered in many cases but for example Sony will not simply do a cheap scan of a movie in order to please a few people who want a certain title on Blu-ray.
 

bruceames

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
777
Real Name
Bruce Ames
OliverK said:
100k was a guesstimate with all costs in including bringing the title to Blu-ray, this is for a production from one of the big studios, some may be a bit less and others a bit more. I think that the cost could be lowered in many cases but for example Sony will not simply do a cheap scan of a movie in order to please a few people who want a certain title on Blu-ray.
The quality of the scan will depend on the viability of the movie itself. They're not going to spend $100k on a movie that only a few people want on Blu-ray.
 

ROclockCK

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
1,438
Location
High Country, Alberta, Canada
Real Name
Steve
rsmithjr said:
Some good points but yet me make a correction about Titanic.

Titanic opened at $30M in December, which was a quite good but not great gross then. Clearly in the first week it was seen as a loser given its large production cost. But, you do not close out a movie that has a $30M gross in one or two weekends, not even today. You play it out.

Then, in the second, third, and fourth weeks, something unexpected happened: the grosses held up, and the movie started looking like it might make back some of its costs anyway. (Both Fox and Paramount were by then up to their eyeballs in the production costs, especially Fox.) Titanic was building a following and word of mouth was excellent. Lots of returns.

By February, the grosses were still holding. Valentines Day weekend was a big moneymaker for the film. Paramount actually had to make more prints. Then the Oscars, and the film just kept going.

If Titanic were to be released today with inflation-adjusted numbers (or even the same raw numbers), it would not be pulled from the theatres. It opened well enough to be given more weeks and held well enough to get all the months that it got.
Absolutely correct Robert. Worldwide, Titanic had an unusually l-o-n-g play-off more akin to the classic roadshows. I mean, we're talking about a 3 hour and 14 minute running time here with no intermission, thus severely limiting the number of showings each day. I certainly remember those block-wrapping line-ups...in January and February!

Domestically, Titanic held onto the #1 spot with grosses in the $20 - $25 million range from December 21st 1997 right through April 5th 1998, when it was finally unseated by the opening of Lost in Space*.

So in the case of Titanic, slow and steady won the race.

* which, ironically, had one big week, then fell off precipitously like most other modern would-be blockbusters, eventually going into the books as a theatrical flop on a budget under one half of Titanic's.
 

FoxyMulder

映画ファン
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
5,385
Location
Scotland
Real Name
Malcolm
ROclockCK said:
So in the case of Titanic, slow and steady won the race.
That's my point above, slow and steady profits are good, but studio's want to make it quick, fewer chances are taken today.
 

ROclockCK

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
1,438
Location
High Country, Alberta, Canada
Real Name
Steve
bruceames said:
The quality of the scan will depend on the viability of the movie itself. They're not going to spend $100k on a movie that only a few people want on Blu-ray.
But studios don't do it specifically for the niche Blu-ray market...certainly not like they once did during the heyday of DVD.

Perfect examples: Sony's recent 4k restoration/remastering of titles like Fright Night...or Alamo Bay...or Bye Bye Birdie...or Nicholas and Alexandra...or Christine...or the Sinbad films...or heck, just pick a Sony title at random from TT's catalogue. Whether widely promoted as such, most of them have been remastered from 4k harvests.

In the modern home video food chain, TT gets the downsampled master for a limited Blu-ray release, but the studio now has a 4k DCP they can exhibit, plus an asset in optimum condition for streaming, download, and eventual 4k delivery. Licensing for the TT Blu-ray is merely deferring some of the upfront costs of work the studio would be doing anyway to future-proof its library.
 

bruceames

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
777
Real Name
Bruce Ames
Yes that is true Steve, but I had in mind the more obscure ones like those getting released now on DVD archive by Warner and Fox. There's only so much money they're willing to throw at a large percentage of their library, now, or ever, for preservation's sake. Studios were pumping out 100 movies a year each during the silent era, and then about 50 movies a year from the 30s and 40s. After that it's about half that much per year. So although many (if not most) of the silents are lost, quantity-wise their library is still top-loaded towards the older movies. Most are not very good but are still of interest because they always have known stars that appear in them so there will be a market (just not big enough to justify more than x dollars spent on a preservation scan)
 

OliverK

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
5,733
bruceames said:
The quality of the scan will depend on the viability of the movie itself. They're not going to spend $100k on a movie that only a few people want on Blu-ray.
You are missing the point, for Sony it is not depending on viability as you name it. They will simply not adjust their effort to cater to the few people interested in a Blu-ray, by now the Blu-ray is merely a byproduct of their asset protection efforts. If viability was a concern Alamo Bay certainly would not have gotten a 4k scan but an el cheapo 2k telecine.With regard to Warner Archive: The many DVD archive releases by Warner are on a completely different level and it remains to be seen how many of them would even result in a half-decent Blu-ray. I am all for releasing them at some point instead of not releasing them at all but then don't we all long for a really good Blu-ray of our favorite obscure movies ;)
 

bruceames

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
777
Real Name
Bruce Ames
OliverK said:
You are missing the point, for Sony it is not depending on viability as you name it. They will simply not adjust their effort to cater to the few people interested in a Blu-ray, by now the Blu-ray is merely a byproduct of their asset protection efforts. If viability was a concern Alamo Bay certainly would not have gotten a 4k scan but an el cheapo 2k telecine.With regard to Warner Archive: The many DVD archive releases by Warner are on a completely different level and it remains to be seen how many of them would even result in a half-decent Blu-ray. I am all for releasing them at some point instead of not releasing them at all but then don't we all long for a really good Blu-ray of our favorite obscure movies ;)
Future viability certainly is an important factor. Every film they preserve is an investment that have to make estimates on its long term return. Alamo Bay is a relatively new movie and thus has greater future sales potential, and it's condition was probably good enough to justify a scan to 4k.

I'm all for seeing movies released in the best quality possible, and I'll pay more for that privilege. But I'm also realistic and don't expect them to spend any more time/money on a film than its future sales (on all formats) would justify and I just hope to get them sooner or later.
 

ROclockCK

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
1,438
Location
High Country, Alberta, Canada
Real Name
Steve
OliverK said:
With regard to Warner Archive: The many DVD archive releases by Warner are on a completely different level and it remains to be seen how many of them would even result in a half-decent Blu-ray. I am all for releasing them at some point instead of not releasing them at all but then don't we all long for a really good Blu-ray of our favorite obscure movies ;)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but although the WAC hasn't exactly been prolific with its Blu-ray output, WB hasn't been shortchanging us in terms of quality. IIRC Gypsy was remastered from a 4k harvest. And Jumbo looked pretty terrific too.
 

OliverK

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
5,733
ROclockCK said:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but although the WAC hasn't exactly been prolific with its Blu-ray output, WB hasn't been shortchanging us in terms of quality. IIRC Gypsy was remastered from a 4k harvest. And Jumbo looked pretty terrific too.
I own Gypsy myself and it looks very nice but I think we both agree that the majority of masters that they produce the DVDs from will not result in Blu-rays like Gypsy or Jumbo.A few of the ones I have do not even get a passing grade as a DVD which is why I predominantly get black and white movies from the DVD archive collection. Preferably in the academy aspect ratio - these look at least decent.
 

ROclockCK

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
1,438
Location
High Country, Alberta, Canada
Real Name
Steve
bruceames said:
Future viability certainly is an important factor. Every film they preserve is an investment that have to make estimates on its long term return. Alamo Bay is a relatively new movie and thus has greater future sales potential, and it's condition was probably good enough to justify a scan to 4k.
No doubt. But it is also important to note that Alamo Bay was never remastered nor released even for DVD. Its only previous home video incarnations were standard rez, colour-challenged, panned and scanned VHS tapes and Laserdiscs back in the mid-to-late 80s. MIA ever since.

Sony's short term commercial prospects for Alamo Bay from any single home video source would place this title on the same footing as any other vintage, deep catalogue "obscurity"...which, unless some kind of miraculous Malle/Cooder/Harris revival should occur, means it will never likely receive very wide play. However, the studio now has this state-of-the-art asset which they can use for multiple delivery and revenue streams. So in aggregate, it might become a modestly profitable title for them over time. A bit here, a bit there; it all adds up...especially in the future digital delivery realm.
 

ROclockCK

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
1,438
Location
High Country, Alberta, Canada
Real Name
Steve
OliverK said:
I own Gypsy myself and it looks very nice but I think we both agree that the majority of masters that they produce the DVDs from will not result in Blu-rays like Gypsy or Jumbo.A few of the ones I have do not even get a passing grade as a DVD which is why I predominantly get black and white movies from the DVD archive collection. Preferably in the academy aspect ratio - these look at least decent.
Well yes...I meant only that what WB has chosen so far for WAC Blu-ray treatment has been handled respectably (yet again with The Americanization of Emily). As pokey as their WAC Blu-ray output has been to date, WB hasn't been at all shoddy in their selection criteria or disc production.

You're right though, some of those best recovery WAC DVDs will never make the transition to high def. I feel pretty much the same as you do about their B&W academy ratio titles...generally pretty good, or good enough, even upscaled.
 

Dick

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 22, 1999
Messages
9,913
Real Name
Rick
OliverK said:
A few of the ones I have do not even get a passing grade as a DVD which is why I predominantly get black and white movies from the DVD archive collection. Preferably in the academy aspect ratio - these look at least decent.
And even black and white is no guarantee: i.e. BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT and WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS. Generally, Warner Archive releases are very good to excellent.
 

Ethan Riley

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,280
Real Name
Ethan Riley
classicmovieguy said:
I would have thought we'd be seeing at least a few of the live-action Disney titles on Blu this year... :/
Disney had a huge dump of animated titles last year, and this year...we're supposed to get excited over Sleeping Beauty yet again??
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,711
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top