Re: Fox announce 'The Clark Gable Collection Volume 1' in August
Quote:
| I thought about this situation at work today and I'm just gonna stick with my "screw Fox" attitude. They can keep the Tracy, Moto, Chan and Gable in their vaults. |
Whoa! That's pretty extreme there, Michael. Any one of us on this forum would
prefer to pay no more than only $1 - $10 per film, but would you REALLY prefer that Fox kept all their vintage films in their vaults forever, rather than charge $15 - $20 each for some of them? Believe me, I'm NOT rolling in dough and I can stand to spend as
little as possible on releases... but don't forget that we're still saving an awful lot of cash from other movies by other studios. Which is why I look back to those days where I was paying as high as $30 sometimes for
a single videotape movie on VHS, and even bought USED tapes in 1982 for $50 a piece sometimes!!
You may ask, "so what does all that past history have to do with the current market?" and I would definitely see what you mean. Hell, even I recently frowned when I had to pay $12.99 for a new Sam Arkoff Double Feature when I expected in to be only $9.99 --!! But it's just a matter of my being spoiled by too much of a good thing.
Anyway - the main thing is, whether the films are priced quite cheap or higher than other studios, I'd still think we'd rather have them released to DVD than not at all!
Quote:
| I just paid $50 to Warner for a 6 film, 8 disc set of Tennessee Williams films. And now Fox wants me to pay $50 for three films??? |
Those Universal Abbott & Costello 8-movie collections I've now seen at Best Buy for $14.95. It's gotten to the point where $19.99 or $24.95 seems outrageous for those collections to me (and they all have 8 MOVIES!!!) -- so I see what you mean -- but I think it's a matter of us having gotten so used to incredibly low prices in the past.
Quote:
| As Robert has said, from 1999-2005 I supported these studios by buying every classic title they released. When I say every I really mean EVERY title. I've got over 2000 titles in my collection and a high majority of them were blind buys. Blind buys of me supporting "classic" titles by buying everything even if I wasn't interested in them. I bought all of Fox's Studio Classics even several that I wasn't too interested in. The whole time people wanted the Chan's, Moto's, Gable's and, for me, the Loretta Young titles. After all of this support of buying lesser titles, we're finally getting some known titles but at a very high price. |
I don't understand. You're saying you used to buy 2000 or so DVDs - even blind buys - in the past (I presume some of these were $15 or more each?) and
now you're saying these sets are too high? While admittedly they are higher-priced than their competing studios, I still think the price is better than what I used to pay for tapes.
Quote:
| You can mark my word that (to mix subjects) Columbia is going to run their Midnite Movie line into the ground by doing this. That series lived so well because MGM gave us 2 films for $10. Now Columbia is giving us one film for a retail of $20. There goes your blind buys and there goes your sales. Those in charge then say "well, people just don't want these titles" and we, the fans, don't get any more releases. |
This goes back to what I said above. I got so spoiled by paying $9.99 for the MGM Midnite Movies that recently I almost felt cheated by paying $12.99 for the Lion's Gate Double Features! If Sony continues to market their Midnite Movies but makes them $20, that will definitely not be pleasurable, but the main thing is that I'd rather have the films. You're definitely right that many fans won't "take a blind chance" because the films are higher priced, but I think you're fighting a losing battle. And if the studios release ZERO oldies because nobody wants them at $20 each, then we all lose.
Michael, didn't you think the TCM Warner Laurel and Hardy set (with only two features - THE DEVIL'S BROTHER and BONNIE SCOTLAND) was just as "overpriced"? Wasn't it $40 for two films? I paid $30 "on sale". It's got some nice extras, but I know you've never been that big on extras.