Quote:
|
Not necessarily; there's a lot of stuff out on DVD right now that didn't get put out on VHS because they wouldn't have sold enough units to make it worth it.
|
This is true, but we were referring to titles that are only out on VHS (and usually relatively minor titles)
Quote:
|
The studios are surely aware that the DVD market has many more potential buyers in it than VHS did, and moreover it is more accepted now that people want to have old archive material than it was in the days of tape.
|
But demographics generally don't change. If you sold 60% of 4,000 units (a conservative number for a commercial release, but a reasonable one for a boutique label), even though there are more consumers, chances are that you're only goint to sell 60% of your product on a new format-- if that. Some people are satisfied with buying something once.
A good example-- in the early '90s, Paramount put out an entire library of their silent films on VHS. According to someone I spoke to there a couple of years ago, those poor sales are a large reason why films like WINGS will not be released in the near future on DVD.
Quote:
|
It may simply be a case of waiting, and of course, there could be rights problems. Universal's Classic Sci-Fi set, Warner's Legends of Horror, Columbia's Karloff sets are good signs..
|
Yes, this is true, too, but again, it depends on the company. The home video industry is REALLY hurting right now-- more than most people know. I garuntee you that unless things change within the next few months to a year, the market will not support minor releases anymore. Not unlike VHS, which went through this same problem about ten years ago, companies will find they need to be more selective about the releases they put out.
Quote:
|
Though I think some of it is connected to the dreaded Sony grabbing up the MGM and Tri-Star libraries and then deciding the best thing to do is leave it all to rot in the cellar whilst they release the same films they did last year.
|
Well, in Sony's case, they did make a great effort to clean up MGM's mess and there are a number of titles I can name where they went out of their way to try to restore before their contract ran out (and subsequently went unfufilled). MGM is now its own entity again, and rehired practically the same staff, except for the restorative division of its archive.
A common misconception is that the archival and video divisions of any film company are the same-- they're often not. While one relies on the other to keep product available, but they're departments that are run by different people, with different agendas.
And who is to say what condition certain films are in? When certain companies don't even make budget for certain high-budget films to be restored, what are the chances we'll ever see a low-budget sci-fi movie fixed up properly?
