Studios Reducing/Ending Retail DVDs of Classics - Warner Interview - Page 3

I realize this is insulting to you, but it's because you unfortunately bear the cross of being one of the exceptional "young ones" who doesn't fit the stereotype. The overwhelming majority of young people these days just have little to no need for really older stuff, sadly. I can understand that it's frustrating to encounter people lumping everyone together, but I don't always think people are literally including "everyone" around your age group when they make their statements. Nothing is ever 100% all-inclusive, but a general description may be formed based on the evidence.  Brian Ri and MatthewA have explained this all very well.

I've always though the video companies would let their classic films go OOP and then only make them available as "video -on -Demand"  - if you don't give consumers  a choice they will have to buy in to "Video-on -Demand" and then the studios will have complete control  -  they can raise the rates whenever they want and some titles will be with drawn from time to time

I'm with Jamie in that it's just a B.S. stereotype.

 

Joe, you throw a fit when people jump on you for not watching certain things so I'm always rather amused when you go after young people for not watching certain items.  I'm not sure where you're getting your evidence but I just got back from a 10-movie film festival (as you know) and there were countless young kids, teens being dropped off by their parents and so on.  The reason classic films live on is because new people are introduced to them.  The more truthful "stereotype" is that older film fans like to think that everyone younger is just stupid and that the old ones are the last of something special and the only reason these films are still around.

I stop buying DVD's at Best Buy - they only carry the newest top titles anyway - things are still cheaper on line and since they feel they don't need to carry catalog I feel I have no need to shop there - even for electronic equipment - their loss

The DVD release of new films is built into the advertising/theatrical release. Older films have already run their course and any income on them now is profit.
 
Really, to restore an older film cost maybe $1 million, to refilm it (with today's actors and writers) it would cost $100 Million (and not be as good -cases in point(  The posiden Adventure, Born yesterday, The Women - I can go on but you get the point).

You would think a studio would put some money into older films - The Bond films are always big sellers, So is "The Wizard of Oz, the Sound of Music etc - they have made back all production cost all that's left is manufacturing the DVD - Disnet knows this, that's why the spend the money to re-color (though no so much restore) their classic animated films

Michael, I'm afraid you're paraphrasing me incorrectly and haven't accurately considered what I wrote. Where have I said or suggested that "everyone younger is just stupid "?  I made a point of it to specify that it's not "everyone", and that nothing is ever "100%". You're one of the younger people here at age 29, and yet you are possibly the most enthusiastic and open-minded movie fan I've ever known. But if you really are honest about it, wouldn't you concede that you are quite the exception among your general age group? How many people your own age in your everyday life do you see watching silent short films? I think the fact that you do is highly commendable and impressive, but it's also relatively rare.

It's great to hear that so many younger people were at the movie festivals you've atteneded, but naturally if you're going to run into them at all, it would be at a movie festival (or on an online movie froum such as HTF). But in regular daily life, chances are more likely than not that the amount of teens and twenty-somethings interested in Bette Davis would be downright scarce. You've heard the examples here from some people who were teachers and can attest to their classes mainly being interested in things like Tarantino films, with no tolerance for anything before 1980, if that. These are facts, and we're not meaning to say that "NO younger kids are into old classics"...   But when I went to school in the late 60s and 70s, naturally there were more youngsters exposed to old classics through TV broadcasts with only a handful of stations, than there are today. That's simple math and logic. Isn't it fair to say that if you could poll the people who are watching TCM, that the majority of them are 40 and over? That's not to say that 1 or 2 out of 10 people aren't 21 or under, but it's obviously a lower ratio. 

And are classic films truly "living on"? I sure hope so, but even this very report we're chatting about in this thread speaks otherwise. If the movies are indeed to live on into the decades to come, then it will HAVE to be through the interest of the younger generation - people like yourself and James "Tiger" Lee. But right now in 2009 I think the main reason they cling on at all is due to the aging people from 40 - 90 who have always appreciated their type. Once those people are all deceased, THEN we'll see if the children of 2050 are as involved in oldies.

"Unfortunatly"? "Bear the cross"?

Honestly, I do not know why I waste my breath on you. Your anecdotal evidence, and that of those two posters, can be countered by that of Mr. Elliot and myself. Do you realise how unpleasant it is to come to these forums and see constant whinging from whiney creeps like you about what you think young people are like. You have no idea at all, you just love to spread intolerance of the young because its probably the only group you can still get away with being discriminating to.

Well, I think you're being unfair here and vicious, for no reason. My response to you earlier was done in a respectful manner, and wasn't meant to offend; I was just trying to explain why you might be taking things the way you do. I've made it clear a couple of times now that I don't mean to label "all" younger people as this or that; I even gave you and Michael Elliott props for being so into older classic movies. If you can cool off, go back and re-read what I wrote to you, but particularly my response to Michael's post. There is nothing malicious there, or not intended anyway. Sorry you took it as such.

People who cannot understand a figure of speech like a generalization are not worth the waste of time it takes to respond to them. A generalization by its very nature does not mean every single person.

I wouldn't mind if someone say, "hey, don't include me", but when they get "highly insulted" by a generalization it makes me wonder how they would react when someone was deliberately trying to insult them?

If I watch a golf tournament on TV, should I be highly insulted that the advertisers assume the the bulk of their audience is made up of middle-aged to older men who have prostate problems and use viagra and cialis? Apparently, they have decided that most viewers fit that profile and they will sell more product that way. It is not true that every single viewer fits their demographic profile, but in a broad sense, they are probably correct.

 I have to lie to my kids, 18 and 16, about when a movie was made to get them to watch. They wont watch anything made in the 80s, or older. I didnt raise them this way!

It is the tone of the generalisation I object to. Specifically the "torture" part.

Bet you they watch them when you're not around!

Agreed, Joe.  As David_B_K has said, if one is terribly offended by a generalization (as opposed to a personal attack) then I say just don't worry about it.  You'll never be able to convince some people of certain truths, no matter how axiomatic they are.


Gary "I'm definitely concerned that no one, of any age, is going to have the same amount of exposure to classics that we've been blessed with over the past several decades" O.

Under no circumstances will we tolerate the type of behavior
that has been exhibited in this thread.

I have already suspended one individual.

  Funny, but true in a lot of cases.


True, I see it that way too.  But it's nice to see the exceptions that aren't 'Boomers or older that post at HTF about the older movies and TV shows, like yourself....that's the generation that came after us 'Boomers, I won't say it  (you know I'm kidding)

My nephew still amazes me that he likes the original Dick Van Dyke Show and other TV shows from the 60's.  Here's a "Millenium Kid" that likes the older shows as well as 50's - 70's movies, like "12 Angry Men" (orig) from '57 and "Guns Of Naverrone" ('61), 'The Sting" ('73), etc.  We've been going thru some of my movie DVD's since we have the HD TV at Mom's & my house and my nephew hasn't given any  to any of my movies yet.  The closest one was the orig "Planet of the Apes" ('68).  He liked it but didn't rate that one as high as others.

Plus, the kid got me plugged into the "Matrix" movies and that short-lived TV show "Firefly".  I like both and I've been around since '55.  But, I rarely watch movies anymore that have been out since the late 90's...same for network TV....in TV's case, I never watch current shows.  There's just not much that's come out since the mid 90's that looks interesting to me.



 I know what you mean....that's ironic.  Just tell them that they're about to "go where no man has gone before" when you all are watching the classics.
Edited by Jeff Willis - 8/11/2009 at 03:52 pm GMT

Being born in March of '65 I keep telling myself I'm a Boomer.  I know I'm stretching the line, but I can't stand the thought of being labeled a Joneser, Baby Buster or, worse yet, a Generation X person.  Ugh... 


Gary "please let me be included in the 'Boomer' club" O. 

 I had a conversation w/ a colleague at work yesterday who I only just now discovered has a great interest in older films.  He'd just seen "My Darling Clementine" and was raving about it.  We discussed the younger generation - and he said that thanks to things like You Tube, he felt there were new opportunities to see classic film - and clips he's found there have turned him on to things he would have not been exposed to otherwise.  There will always be ways for the curious kids to discover things.

There has been a lot of talk here about the younger generation skewing older films. What about the older generation? I'm 30, and I've run across quite a few older folks, in their 40s and above, who could care less about classic films. My parents are a prime example; they don't watch any older stuff.

All entertainment today is aimed at select groups, to niche audiences. Those who like classic films are no different; they are a niche group, with both older and younger members. They should be treated with the same respect as all other niche audiences get; perhaps more, as classic films have a great potential to still reach a broad audience. Maybe the reason these entertainment companies don't treat it like other niches is because they assume it skews older. Older people are the ones with the disposible income though. And does it really skew that old? Perhaps if they researched it more, they'd might find quite a number of younger folks buying and appreciating this stuff.

That's a good point.  I know that my brother-in-law is over 10 yrs older than me and he watches current network shows and is a lot more up to date on recent movies than me.  Another example of breaking the generality myth.

I'm actually quite surprised by the age disparity here, I suppose in what constitutes as "young", being 25 years old myself and having a very broad appreciation for film, especially of "older" films.  From my experience, I would say that exposure alone has a lot to do with it, and that sitting through a few very good movies from that time period can shatter many preconceived notions I've experienced of "Black and White movies are boring" as well as the propagated myth that anything newer is better.

I'm not sure I agree with the assessment that the classic film fanbase is shrinking, and even if it is, it won't come close to vanishing completely.  I don't think restoration efforts or the releasing of new "old films" on DVD will ever completely stop--just slow down to accomodate a changing market.  I will also note that I have not bought a single item from the Warner Archive on the single fact that there are plenty of pressed discs I plan on owning in the future, including those that will be released by Sony, Warner, Universal, and (presumably) Paramount in the future.  Maybe once I start to itch for newer releases, I'll start being a bit more anxious about classics on DVD.

Other than The African Queen which is supposed to come out this year (supposedly for real this time), how many "major" titles from the pre-1970s era remain unreleased in region 1? That may also be a factor in sales slowing down.

I think that's true. I like to think of myself as someone who's pretty knowledgeable about film history and classic cinema, but I have to admit, I've never even heard of many of the films that are part of the Warner Archive program. They're not even targeting a niche audience any more - they're targeting a niche of a niche.

I agree most major titles have been released, though there are still some holdouts - and the studios know what films these are and have been trying to get them out.  For one reason or another a film like ("The Devils" or "African Queen") is being held up but others are really so obscure that they will only appeal to a niche market - but there should be support for that niche market - even if it means licensing out titles that would rot in the vaults to a smaller company.

Same here.  Having admitted that, I'm not near the movie DVD collector that most are here.  I mainly collect TV/DVD sets.  I have about 230 DVD movies in my collection.  Most of them are the well-known movies.

Regarding the WB Archive, your reason is why I've only ordered the Barker Tarzan's from their store as of today.  There's just not much on their list that I'm wanting to add to the library, at least not so far.  My "want" list is small with movies but unfortunately, my top few are owned by other studios.

From Warners, how about The Magnificent Ambersons? That's been talked about for years. Also a Jean Harlow box. I remember from the chat that they said to expect Harlow in 2011. I was shocked! Well, after seeing their slowdown in releases this year, it's not so shocking any more.

I hate to say it (and I'm talking about all ages of media consumers, not just the under-25 set), but in a nutshell, apparently--

Classic* movies (or TV shows, music, literature, etc) to the general population = casting pearls before swine.

* for my purposes, "classic" (a.k.a. "old") is defined here as most anything created more than 15-20 years ago... soon to be 1-5 years ago.

At this point in time, we have, roughly--

Several centuries' worth of music and literature (and a century's worth of "modern" music and lit)
110 years' worth of short-form films
90 years' worth of feature-length films
60 years' worth of made-for-television programming

--some fantastically brilliant, some abysmally awful (and some "so-bad-it's-good"), a large amount mediocre; the high-brow, the middle-brow and the low-brow. But none of this matters, because none of it was minted in 2008-2009. Too much for shallow, mercurial sensibilities to endure, it seems.

Hey, I like a fair amount of new stuff, too, but not to the exclusion of the above, as sadly too many people today do (as reflected by sales, rentals, ratings). Maybe this isn't true of the majority of the people posting here, but in the wider world... damn straight.

Since when did something's copyright date also become its cultural expiration date?

I'm guessing its been only in the last decade, give or take a few years.
 
Why?
 
I'll leave the speculation to you.

Well, I guess I can't argue that a strong majority of what would be considered the A film classics have been released, but there's a bunch more I was hoping we'd see on dvd.  Warners has a boatload of stuff, and I do mean a boatload, that I was looking forward to.  Maybe some are still coming, but I'm concerned.  Between them and the other studios, there's still a lot of stuff sitting out there.  The Bowery Boys, a couple more Abbott and Costello films, more Charlie Chan films, tons and tons of other Detective/Mystery series, the Blondie series, the Andy Hardy series and much more.  We have been told many of these were coming, but now I have to wonder.  So yeah, there's been a lot of great stuff released.  But that doesn't mean there isn't quite a bit more.


Gary "I wasn't anywhere near done collecting all the things I was looking forward to" O.

Hi,

Since people are still discussing the older/younger generation issue, I just want to clarify my original point. Rob Kozlowski was specifically generalizing (is that an oxymoron?) about his experiences at the FILM SCHOOL where he teaches. He said that not a single student showed up for a class on 30's films and many had not heard of the Marx Brothers.
 
At a FILM SCHOOL. 

Maybe there are variables I don't know about--maybe it's a really small school or there is some other variable. On the other hand maybe it's the USC or UCLA film school, or NYU. Nevertheless, for me, this was never about addressing an entire "generation". My own opinions were meant to be confined within the walls of Mr. Kozlowski's school. I don't think anyone has the authority to appoint a spokesperson (or, in this case, a spokestiger) for an entire generation. I made no comments and had no interest in addressing the issue on a generational basis, but Mr. 'Tiger' Lee seemed to growl anyway. Again, just trying to clarify my statements and position--Film School; Films of the 30's Class; Zero sign-ups. That says something to me.

And keep those cards and letters comin' in, folks!

Since forever. I said it earlier but do you think the average kid in the 1950's or 1960's was interested in movies from the 1920's, 1930's or 1940's?