Warner Brothers Home Entertainment Acquires Rights To 70 Films From The Samuel Goldwyn Library (1 Viewer)

[Keith Cobby]

For what its worth I think Warners are lobbing the odd title out on blu-ray but are really preparing for the end of distribution of packaged media. As I have posted before I give the blu-ray format another 5 years before streaming etc takes over. I don't think younger consumers care so much about picture quality as the members here do.Most people are happy with the convenience of music downloads even if they are of lesser quality than CD or vinyl and I think the same goes for video files. I am not interested in streaming, I want to select a title to play from my shelves.

 

[ROclockCK]

Niche-targeted and produced 33rpm record albums still sell. You just don't find them in Wal-Mart.

No doubt DVD will eventually go away in terms mainstream content delivery. But as long as collectors draw a breath, especially those living outside of the big centres, premium Blu-ray editions won't completely disappear.

 

[Ed Lachmann]

What is so hilarious about this "too expensive for Blu-ray" business is that somehow someone goes all out to press elaborate BDs of every film that Mario Bava and Tinto Brass ever even exhaled next to and we get gorgeous BDs of things like AN AMERICAN HIPPY IN ISRAEL. Then, it's "too expensive" to put out WUTHERING HEIGHTS? What planet are we living on? This is just absurd!

 

[JoHud]

What is so hilarious about this "too expensive for Blu-ray" business is that somehow someone goes all out to press elaborate BDs of every film that Mario Bava and Tinto Brass ever even exhaled next to and we get gorgeous BDs of things like AN AMERICAN HIPPY IN ISRAEL. Then, it's "too expensive" to put out WUTHERING HEIGHTS? What planet are we living on? This is just absurd!

That's the corporate big business factor creeping in which demands that profits be maximized above all other considerations.

Wuthering Heights still might happen. I don't think WB is done with Samuel Goldwyn blu-rays just yet. They just seem to be spacing them out to 2 blu-ray releases per year so it might crop up this Fall. Along with Pride of the Yankees, Wuthering Heights is definitely one of their higher profile titles.

The catch with Wuthering Heights is that there's no solid wide retail sales figures to go off of on that film during the DVD era (provided via the Samuel Goldwyn Company). It went OOP very soon due to the low print # of the HBO Video edition and I'm sure the main focus is what sold well during the MGM DVD years which leaves Wuthering Heights kinda out of the loop.

As for Walter MItty, God knows. The only rational explanation is that Samuel Goldwyn Company has yet to make an HD transfer. That or WB is skeptical on how well it will sell and is gauging this decision on how well the reissued DVD sells.

No one has brought this up, but where is The Hurricane? The OOP HBO Video edition is still the only R1 release of that film. Yet it has John Ford's name attached to it and it is far more recognized than his earlier work with Samuel Goldwyn, The Arrowhead. Not even a DVD reissue has emerged of this one. At least Wuthering Heights and Walter Mitty got that.

 

[Rick Thompson]

For what its worth I think Warners are lobbing the odd title out on blu-ray but are really preparing for the end of distribution of packaged media. As I have posted before I give the blu-ray format another 5 years before streaming etc takes over. I don't think younger consumers care so much about picture quality as the members here do.Most people are happy with the convenience of music downloads even if they are of lesser quality than CD or vinyl and I think the same goes for video files. I am not interested in streaming, I want to select a title to play from my shelves.

Which begs the question: Why did we spend all that money to convert to digital transmission with higher resolution, and buy all that transmission and reception equipment, if we're going to be happy with low resolution on maybe 11-inch screens? We could have stayed with NTSC for that, given better service to fringe areas, and saved buckets of money. Heck, NTSC even streams better with less strain on the net infrastructure!

Why did we bother?

 

[Nick*Z]

Dear Rick:

You're so right. Why did we bother? Here's the skinny. WB, like a lot of other studios, thought going HD would be a cinch. Just bump up the old transfer quality to 1080p and start ramming this stuff out. Problem: everything shows up in HD - dirt, scratches, et al. Crummy looking transfers sold at premium prices weren't cutting it, so WB just decided to go the streaming and archive route instead.

Streaming isn't the be all and end all - especially for collectors. It's another way Hollywood in general and WB in particular are dabbling with formats, trying to find one they can be comfortable with and still continue to do substandard work to bait the consumer into reinvesting in their product.

I sent a letter to WB a few years back basically saying the same thing a lot of you have on this forum; namely "hey guys - you're the ones who went HD on us - not the other way around. You created the market and encouraged the need. You can't just turn around after we've retooled our living rooms and say 'oh well, we lied'. Try streaming and settle for second best."

I can tell you this much. I know a lot of collectors who are FED UP with Warner and the rest of the majors and have decided Blu-ray is the last stop on their 'collecting' journey. For decades, Hollywood promised us bigger and better things and for decades that carrot has been dangling without any payoff - just a little bit out of reach and forcing us to buy Beta, then VHS, then Laserdisc, then DVD, then Blu-ray, and now streaming.

What's been lost in this shuffle is the studios' commitment to quality.

Because they can't? No, because they don't want to. Because they say the market isn't there. It's a 'settle for this or nothing' mentality. But where is their marketing strategy? Do you ever see a vintage catalogue release receive a big plug in ad campaigns. Or do a lot of you surf the net and by accident stumble upon a vintage title you didn't even know was out, given absolutely NO fanfare or PR to help reach a wider audience?

But here's the wrinkle. The market is there. It always has been. It's just that with time and shallow promises unfulfilled, the majors have managed to insult, wear down and alienate their own consumer base, hoping to still dangle the carrot just a little further down the line and have us chase after it as before.

"Oh, we said buy DVD. No, we meant Blu-ray. Same transfer. New format. Whoops! You caught on. We need a new transfer. We'll call it a 'collector's edition'. Let's also slap a 'remastered' and 'restored' sticker and hope you buy the same title again. We'll also repackage the thing with a new photo-shopped cover that any ten year old could produce at home. We won't upgrade the quality of the extra features. We won't add anything new. We won't do a complete remaster in 4k because that costs. We'll just stick with what we have and hope you're too, too anxious, naive and fiscally solvent to shell out again and again for the same darn thing! What's that? It didn't sell? Gee, it must be that the market's gone. Yep...no market for classics. Nobody wants to see that. Move on!"

Today's consumer is smarter than that. Hollywood doesn't think so. But it's true. We're not going to ditch a format just because the studios don't want to invest in it. It's the reverse. Hollywood's ditched us. If that isn't cause for personal outrage, I don't know what is. But the simple fact is we didn't quit this race before it was over.

Stick that in your hi-def player and spin it!

 

[Ed Lachmann]

I can tell you this much. I know a lot of collectors who are FED UP with Warner and the rest of the majors and have decided Blu-ray is the last stop on their 'collecting' journey. For decades, Hollywood promised us bigger and better things and for decades that carrot has been dangling without any payoff - just a little bit out of reach and forcing us to buy Beta, then VHS, then Laserdisc, then DVD, then Blu-ray, and now streaming.
But here's the wrinkle. The market is there. It always has been. It's just that with time and shallow promises unfulfilled, the majors have managed to insult, wear down and alienate their own consumer base, hoping to still dangle the carrot just a little further down the line and have us chase after it as before.
Today's consumer is smarter than that. Hollywood doesn't think so. But it's true. We're not going to ditch a format just because the studios don't want to invest in it. It's the reverse. Hollywood's ditched us. If that isn't cause for personal outrage, I don't know what is. But the simple fact is we didn't quit this race before it was over.
Stick that in your hi-def player and spin it!

Sorry to cherry pick your wonderful observations, Nick, but these really hit me hard and fast and mirror my own thoughts on the subject! You are so right about the whole stinking mess! I know I've about HAD IT, too and have lost ALL respect for the damned studios and WB in particular. I so HOPE that somebody influential there reads this because it really sums it up. WELL SAID!

 

[Jari K]

"hey guys - you're the ones who went HD on us - not the other way around. You created the market and encouraged the need. You can't just turn around after we've retooled our living rooms and say 'oh well, we lied'. Try streaming and settle for second best."Well said. We even got through the ugly format war where it was brother vs brother and all that BS. Now we are sitting in the bus and watch these movies via phone.

 

[CinemaCynic]

There's more than a little truth to that, count me among the "last stop" collectors with blu ray.

But a couple of additional points:

1) The 2k/4k mastering process is largely occuring unabated, just as an issue of asset managment. Even tho there are plenty on the distribution side who dont see much value in library product, it is certainly worthless if not maintained and stored in an accessible format. The film will still rot eventually, and a library 'value' is only material if it remains intact! So why abandon NTSC? Well, aside from the fact that it sucked techincally (Never The Same Color), it could also never effectively or technically preserve, replace or upgrade industrial age assets the way digital allows when applied correctly.

2) You're fingering the marketing departments of studios as a major culprit, thats a bit of a generalization. The first problem comes with unrealistic expectations of profitability. Universal, for example, has trotted out their horror fims in every format you listed with the last round featuring quite robust restorations and, from what I understand, they didn't hit their projected targets. Targets which were probably unrealistic, released in a marketplace they and other studios oversaturated with SD inventory and few physical retail spaces that foster any kind of "discovery culture." Every studio still has a "true believer" or two in their corporate structures, but they're usually rendered powerless with a quick bit of sales math and corporate apathy.

3) You're skipping the very real consumer disaster of the death of retail. The types of chains and even boutique shops that used to service customers like us as well as account for the studio distribution network guaranteeing a sales floor have virtually vanished, online retail just killing the small and large "shop." I write this as a New Yorker who has witnessed the death of everything from Tower Video to the Virgin Megastore to RKO Video and last week even J&R went under. The few survivors stock only what they can sell, and very few walk into WalMart looking for a restored release of "The 400 Blows." And while I love many facets of online shopping you have to know what you're looking for generally. Simple impulse buying and experimentation are not well fostered in that form of sales.

4) The whole "genius" of the Warner Archive MOD program is low cost = quick profitability threshold. Sell 20 copies of something on SD DVD-R and you're in profit... otherwise the films would never get out there. I don't like it, but you'll never sell enough copies of a blu ray of "Trail of '98" to justify its pressing no matter how much you devote to marketing. It is not unreasonable to assume there will eventually be an HD version of that cheap a model, but nerds like us are required to also drive that market while we're instead being increasingly alienated by it.

5) Technology and culture have rewired themselves to, once again, see entertainment as a largely ephemeral and disposable commodity. An anthropologist would have a lot of fun analyzing this but we've come full circle from studio accountants and beuracrats melting down their negatives for a few pennies-worth of silver nitrate to a revival culture, to a collector culture, to a preservation culture and now back to a disposable one. The studios are encouraging this latest phase for the reasons you've outlined (selling and re-selling) but also because of a paranoid control of their IP. They've co-opted the internet from file sharing (stealing their product) to streaming (a low overhead licensng model) which only works if consumers are oriented towards disposability.

6) People just don't love movies as much as they used to. It isnt the only dominant form of entertainment anymore, and the younger kids are positively discouraged from spending any time on any one thing. Overcompartmentalization of entertainment will prevent mass movements or revivals of interest, which is pretty depressing.

I do hope that time and people eventually prove me wrong on every point, I'm just not optimistic. In the meantime I'm buying every classic I can on blu ray, as not only am I "done" with media upgrades, I also seriously doubt that any followup technology will meet with any long term success just by virtue of our cultural shift toward streaming. So, from my POV, Blu Ray is likely to turn out to be the last, best way to "own" a film as a part of a private collection, library or inventory.

 

[bujaki]

@JoHud You wrote:
"No one has brought this up, but where is The Hurricane? The OOP HBO Video edition is still the only R1 release of that film. Yet it has John Ford's name attached to it and it is far more recognized than his earlier work with Samuel Goldwyn, The Arrowhead. Not even a DVD reissue has emerged of this one".

[color=rgb(40,40,40);font-family:'Merriweather Sans', sans-serif;background-color:rgb(242,242,242);]A small correction: It's Arrowsmith, not The Arrowhead, unfortunately cut by the Production Code for reissue and never reassembled complete. The cut footage is probably lost. Arrowsmith is available only in an LD box.[/color]

 

[CinemaCynic]

@JoHud You wrote:
"No one has brought this up, but where is The Hurricane? The OOP HBO Video edition is still the only R1 release of that film. Yet it has John Ford's name attached to it and it is far more recognized than his earlier work with Samuel Goldwyn, The Arrowhead. Not even a DVD reissue has emerged of this one".

[color=rgb(40,40,40);font-family:'Merriweather Sans', sans-serif;background-color:rgb(242,242,242);]A small correction: It's Arrowsmith, not The Arrowhead, unfortunately cut by the Production Code for reissue and never reassembled complete. The cut footage is probably lost. Arrowsmith is available only in an LD box.[/color]

Actually "Arrowsmith" was released on SD DVD by MGM in 2005.

 

[bujaki]

Oops! I must have missed that DVD release of Arrowsmith. How I wish they could find the cut footage with Myrna Loy probably being the biggest victim of the censor.

 

[Richard M S]

With the caveat that IMDB is the source, this is what it says about Arrowsmith:

"Myrna Loy's role was substantially reduced when the film was reissued because the Production Code had taken effect. The missing scenes have been restored on the DVD."

I do not have the DVD, how accurate is the above?

 

[Ed Lachmann]

Matt brings up a host of good points. The questions, though, that I would have are:
1. If one goes to the trouble and expense of a 2K/4K master, why is it not economically feasible to produce BDs, even in limited amounts, for sale to international customers? A recent article stated that BD sales in Germany were booming. But do get rid of the silly region encoding.
2. Even though movies are not a dominant force in culture, why is that some of the worst grade D schlock movies, even dated ones that kids wouldn't even know about, are released regularly in BD while bonafide "A list" classics and even Best Picture winners are "too expensive" to release even when 2-4K masters ALREADY exist?
3. Similarly, no blu-ray of TRAIL OF '98 I can kind of understand, but the lack of, say, AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS, THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH and AUNTIE MAME baffles me.
4. The idea of "projected targets" in sales would hopefully be somewhat realistic. But, would the above titles really sell less than WITCHBOARD 2? Just how much money do they expect to make?

 

[bruceames]

I'd love to see The Hurricane come to Blu-ray. Haven't seen that one since the VHS days.

 

[CinemaCynic]

Matt brings up a host of good points. The questions, though, that I would have are:
1. If one goes to the trouble and expense of a 2K/4K master, why is it not economically feasible to produce BDs, even in limited amounts, for sale to international customers? A recent article stated that BD sales in Germany were booming. But do get rid of the silly region encoding.
2. Even though movies are not a dominant force in culture, why is that some of the worst grade D schlock movies, even dated ones that kids wouldn't even know about, are released regularly in BD while bonafide "A list" classics and even Best Picture winners are "too expensive" to release even when 2-4K masters ALREADY exist?
3. Similarly, no blu-ray of TRAIL OF '98 I can kind of understand, but the lack of, say, AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS, THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH and AUNTIE MAME baffles me.
4. The idea of "projected targets" in sales would hopefully be somewhat realistic. But, would the above titles really sell less than WITCHBOARD 2? Just how much money do they expect to make?

I'll try to respond in order.

1) scanning may be a necessary expense for asset managment but it does not follow that mastering, pressing and distributing are also. Those latter three steps are things many studios have sought to minimize if not entirely divest as they cost money and require staff. They tend to record their annual profits not only by sales but also in operational cuts. Sad, but a crummy corporate norm. Why have staff and expense on mastering, pressing, marketing and distribution when some boutique company might take it off their hands and pay then a license fee for the privelidge?

2) there's no accounting for taste but "schlock" still has cult and breakout potential depending on the title. The Godzilla films coming out soon are a good example, piggy backing on the new Sony feature release. And like any release its as much about who chooses to pursue the title. Kino was always a very interesting purveyor of everything from silents to foreign treasures but now releases a lot of questionable euro-horror under Redemption. Clut can still cause enthusiasm, irrationally perhaps, while "classic" has the stink of "old" about it, therefore a kind of ageism that discriminates against their releases in some quarters. And it isn't as if some of those A list films don't get out on blu ray elsewhere. To be a serious blu ray collector at this point you have to go region free and peruse the foreign releases. Does it make any sense at all that Cleopatra (1934), Make Way for Tomorrow, Ruggles of Red Gap, Sullivans Travels, Boomerang, Lifeboat, Destry Rides Again and many others are availiable on Blu in Europe but not here? Not one bit, but the boutique operations overseas (as well as our domestic ones) are the best hope we have of actually obtaining these films on Blu in the near future.

3) You picked 3 'A' titles I truly detest but I take your point, they are major popular works. The Warner Archive selections for blu ray have been nothing short of baffling. I was happy about Hudsucker Proxy... thats about it.

4) Projected sales are never realistic. The projections themselves are cooked up with varied agendas that often have little to do with evidence based analysis. And, sadly, even when they're cut to the bone of what 'experts' think possible, there are titles that manage to underperform even then. Again, there's no reliable base model without the retail engine of years past, everyone's sort of winging it and blu ray is prematurely seen within many studios as a terminal medium, lessening enthusiasm even further. As for Wichboard 2, it entirely depends who is distributing it and what their break even point is. And I wouldnt be surprised if it outsold Autie Mame (as an example) simply because its a genre picture with some cult awareness that crosses generational lines. That says awful things about our culture perhaps but then I am a cynic...

 

[JoHud]

2. Even though movies are not a dominant force in culture, why is that some of the worst grade D schlock movies, even dated ones that kids wouldn't even know about, are released regularly in BD while bonafide "A list" classics and even Best Picture winners are "too expensive" to release even when 2-4K masters ALREADY exist?

Most of those blu-rays are handled by much smaller niche labels that depend on hardcore fans to survive. They don't expect near the sales a big studio like WB or Universal does and often the profit margins are razor thin. As such, most of these films are outside of the studio mainline libraries and are either public domain or part of smaller libraries. There's also a lot more leeway when it comes to those cult films because licensing costs are often very affordable compared to studio product.

Big companies like WB have much more flexibility in making profit off of its films and these libraries are large enough that they don't have to take a second glance at its less profitable holdings and can just cherry pick particular AAA classics or cash cow franchises. Thankfully we got the WAC which does its job filling that market (though not in HD)

Also as said before, cult schlock just has as consistently solid fandom spread across multiple generations. More so than many of the quality yet obscure deep catalog melodramas.

[color=rgb(40,40,40);font-family:'Merriweather Sans', sans-serif;background-color:rgb(242,242,242);]A small correction: It's Arrowsmith, not The Arrowhead, unfortunately cut by the Production Code for reissue and never reassembled complete. The cut footage is probably lost. Arrowsmith is available only in an LD box.[/color]

That's what I meant, thanks.

 

[Brandon Conway]

For the record, the new Godzilla is a Warner release, not Sony. Warner simply doesn't have any of the older films to exploit like Sony, Universal, Tokyo Shock, Section23, etc.Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Nick*Z]

The picture is even more abysmal when one looks at how poorly mismanaged time-honored television series have been handled by the studios in general and Warner in particular. Not to divert away from this conversation - which was, after all, begun about Warner's commitment (or lack thereof) to the Goldwyn library and other 'movie' classics in their kitty - but when one looks at the 'picture' for TV series released to home video the view is even more remote and depressing.

Time-honored series like Dallas and Falcon Crest (both under Warner's banner) look as though they've been fed through a meat grinder - severe color fading, chroma bleeding, excessive dirt, nicks, chip and scratches. Warner also owns such titanic mini-series as John Jakes's North and South, and, The Thorn Birds. All of the aforementioned were original shot on film-based stock, not video, so there's really NO good reason for them to be looking as utterly weak and awful as they do.

Because the internet age has made it possible to get negative feedback from consumers buying this stuff almost immediately and that negative feedback undoubtedly has a very NEGATIVE effect on the studio's bottom line. Nothing can kill sales, interest and faith in a studio's product like a shoddy slap-dash effort, purchased by a consumer with giddy excitement that is snuffed out once they take the shrink wrap off and play the disc!!!

One more criticism worth noting: Warner's now defunct cartoon releases of the Hanna-Barbara cartoons like original Scooby-Doo and Jetsons. I mean, they didn't even bother to progressively scan some of these episodes before transferring them to DVD. Digital combing on a DVD release from 2002?!?! Are they really serious?!? Do we really look that gullible?!?!

See, the problem now, in 2014 that is, is that we're all beyond the looking glass - into the future of hi-def for which nothing less than perfect will do and regrettably, NO masters of any of the aforementioned titles currently exist. Warner was involved in the hi-def race early on - making the misfire of going HD rather than Blu-ray and thus losing - and wasting - a lot of time and money by betting on the wrong horse. Their library is vast - HUGE, in fact. Arguably, the largest archive of filmed and TV entertainment in the world. Where to begin? What to remaster?

It's a daunting task, and one which requires someone with an innate love of this material - nee 'a creative', plus a general business acumen and understanding of the archival elements to step in and step up to the plate and begin the work that needs to be done one title at a time. There really is NO good reason why a big outfit like Warner could not - and should not - be releasing one major deep catalogue title per month to hi-def. If they're worried about projections (i.e. sales figures) than do each as a limited edition series the way Twilight Time does. Heck, drop the figure down to 1000 copies selling exclusively on Amazon and see where the chips fall. I guarantee you, they'll sell and another minting will be necessary.

What we really don't need from Warner now is more of their hand-sitting exercise while all the original elements continue to decompose - some at an alarming rate. I have repeatedly applied for this position, written letters, memos, and even a detailed report of the home video marketplace and where I think Warner needs to improve - because what's needed here is a very fresh pair of eyes to rid Warner's home video department of its ennui and 'wait and see' mentality. All of the aforementioned materials went to Warner Home Video's George Feltenstein. None were answered. Chagrin and shame on him!

Besides, these aren't minor titles we're talking about. They were produced on an epic scale and on film-based stock. They look atrocious on DVD, and nothing like they should. But I digress. Regarding the comment made earlier in these posts: that people just don't love movies the way they used to...this really doesn't explain all of the activity on these message boards then, or the fact that the European Blu-ray market for classics is over the moon with hype and popularity. North America is a far bigger market. But we need to get off our duffs and promote the cause, the movies and the magic with a full-on assault marketing thrust and not just quietly sneak out a few titles willy-nilly here and there, with no rhyme or reason attached. That isn't cutting it! That much is definitely evident!!!

And yes, Warner's archive Blu-ray program has baffled me too. A musical like Billy Rose's Jumbo gets a hi-def release before The Band Wagon, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, Bells Are Ringing, Cabin in the Sky, The Great Ziegfeld, Broadway Melody of 1940, Babes on Broadway, High Society,The Student Prince, Brigadoon, It's Always Fair Weather, Words & Music, Till the Clouds Roll By, Good News, The Harvey Girls, etc and on and on?!? Yes, the disc looked fabulous. But where oh where is the marketing strategy here...releasing a movie that, by all accounts, is not only symbolic of MGM on its way out and did very poorly at the box office indeed.

George Feltenstein - who used to be in charge of home video but now helms the archive division exclusively - was once quoted as saying something to the effect that you cannot trust the 'creatives' to oversee production and distribution of home video or you'd wind up sinking the enterprise overnight with misguided releases and personal favorites rather than what's profitable for the studio as a whole.

With that logic in place, Billy Rose's Jumbo seems even MORE of an odd duck for the hi-def treatment - its overall profitability utterly paling to the aforementioned titles I've listed herein. So, Mr. Feltenstein - whose personal fav was this and who green-lit this turkey for a hi-def release ahead of the rest?!?

And who will be blamed when the title doesn't meet projected sales figures? Not the studio. No, the consumer will get a swat on the wrist, and the edict from on high will once more be "Oh, there's just no market for classics on Blu!" WRONG!!! Very wrong, indeed. And misguided on so many levels I don't really know where to begin.

 

[bruceames]

For what its worth I think Warners are lobbing the odd title out on blu-ray but are really preparing for the end of distribution of packaged media. As I have posted before I give the blu-ray format another 5 years before streaming etc takes over. I don't think younger consumers care so much about picture quality as the members here do.Most people are happy with the convenience of music downloads even if they are of lesser quality than CD or vinyl and I think the same goes for video files. I am not interested in streaming, I want to select a title to play from my shelves.

I agree it looks like the studios want to move on to digital, and Warner as usual is leading the way. Disc is still very profitable for new releases but the catalog well has pretty much run dry.

I'm not ready to collect movies on digital UNLESS

1) it's full Blu-ray quality and not available on Blu-ray

2) it's 4k and looks better than the Blu-ray version

I think those are going to happen sooner or later, and when that happens I'll just have to get used to the fact that I won't really "own" those movies (not that I really own them on disc, but I do own the disc, which to me is practically the same thing), but just have the "right" to see them whenever I want.

As for Warner on Blu-ray, it appears they've become disinterested and are making no effort anymore to promote the format or showcase their classics.