Studios Reducing/Ending Retail DVDs of Classics - Warner Interview - Page 4

Movies from the 1920s? ...probably not (apart from some silent comedies and cartoons); movies from the 1930s and 1940s? ...sure. Hopalong Cassidy, Shock Theater packages, The Little Rascals, Tarzan, Abbott & Costello, KING KONG, etc. Some theatrical re-issues (in the 1950s), and tons of it on local and network TV.

Heck, many of these same things were even popular with myself (an average pre-teen, not a film buff) and my fellow non-film-buff pals in the 1970s/early 1980s, along with the then-current stuff and re-run 1950s-1960s material.

As long as it was entertaining in some way, and much of it was, it didn't matter if it was old or new, in black and white or in color.

However, I wasn't directing my comments exclusively at children/teens, rather at the entire public at large. There are plenty of incurious, blinkered middle-agers and oldsters out there, as well.

THE AFRICAN QUEEN is probably the most known film from an "AFI TV special"-perspective that has not been released yet, but I like to think that if some of these films were given wider distribution they would become better known........but I agree, not all of them.

Anyway, it is probably a topic for another thread or even forum, but whatever happened to the annual AFI TV special? Aren't there more lists to compile and televise?

I agree. The average (general?) human in the U. S. of A. is now and has always been mainly interested in current fads/tends and entertainment. I delight in being an exception to the rule; as should all of us here. History and hindsight are invaluable.

One of the beauties of film is, on happy occasion, a certain something in said film will lead one to desire that certain something again. Suddenly one is compiling lists of films to see, and they are no less than 50 years old.

I am grateful that my journey began in the early 80s when "old" films were being thrown at us on home video. Times were different. We had mostly seen beat up prints on late night TV, and suddenly commercial free films at home were at our fingertips.

I'm pleased that I still have my VHS and LaserDisc collections. I'm sure many of those titles will never see a legit DVD release now.

Well, maybe a greater percentage of average kids.  Film culture at its height in this country, the 60's-70's, was driven by things like campus film societies.  Bogart as an icon comes from college kids in the 60's tapping into his persona and making him 'cool'.  Chaplin and Keaton were also big among that audience.  Unless you want to tell me you can walk onto your average state school campus today and sell out a Keaton festival.  And of course kids in the 50's and 60's were watching TV, whose programming was filled out by old movies.  I don't see how they COULDN'T be more interested. 

However...I'm pretty sure you can go from K through 12 these days without ever having to read anything by Dickens.  It seems pretty inarguable to me that the further away you get from a piece of art's creation the less it is consumed, as a rule of thumb.  So maybe the better comparison is, are kids today proportionately interested in anything that preceded them? If students in the 60's were getting into films that were 20-30 years old, would students of today do the same (films from the 70's-80's)? The answer to that I believe is yes, and suddenly the generational comparison isn't so one-sided.  In each case, the average kid is willing to go back only so far without having extreme prejudice toward it.  The resistance to older films doesn't necessarily get stronger, it's just that the boundary as to where that line is gets moved forward.  And with each successive generation another step removed, the burden in appreciating the whole history of film becomes greater, less likely and probably not fair.        

 The difference between then and now is that the rate of cultural change has been increasing, for various reasons. Things go out of fashion more quickly now, so in consequence, the age range of familiar cultural references has been narrowing. The age limit beyond which things are unfamiliar keeps getting closer to each succeeding generation's birth date. Growing up in the 1950s, I was unavoidably exposed to myriad cultural references going back 50 years and more, from all kinds of sources: radio, TV, films, cartoons, books, even comic books. Even contemporary ones contained these references. That 50 years of past culture I was immersed in has shrunk to what? Perhaps 20 years now?

Of course, I'm talking about what people are exposed to in the ordinary course of their lives. It's possible for any individual to acquire and pursue interests in all sorts of things on their own, including the culture of the past. It's gratifying to see evidence of that among the HTF membership.

UPDATE: I see that, while I was composing my post, Pete York was making the same point in his last two sentences, but more elegantly phrased.

Yes, I and all my school friends were always watching movies such as Gunga Din and Mighty Joe Young on channel 9's Million Dollar Movie.  They would re run these and other classics twice a day and three times on the week end.  We would watch them over and over until we had the scripts memorized.  That's how we learned to love the older movies.  They had a built in audience with us kids since thats what was showing on many of the local stations back then. So many of these older movies were very entertaining, well made and memorable.  Kids back then appreciated a good movie when they saw one-whether it was old or new.  I, myself never saw these films as being old because they seemed so timeless.

I remember that when I was in the Intro to Film class at BYU in Fall 2002 that the vast majority of potential film students were not familiar with anything much pre-80s, in a class of 25 students. They wanted to make movies, not watch movies.

Our professor on the first day of class read off the Sight and Sound great films list and asked us to tally how any we had seen. By that point, at age 23, I had seen 65% of them, and most of the titles I hadn't seen I had heard of. The 2nd highest tally in the class was someone who had seen 30%, and most had seen 10%, heavily skewed towards the 70s/80s (I think The Road Warrior was the most recent film on the list).

Most of the students that got into the program were able to expand their horizons, and there were some required film history classes, of course. But I was the only one in my class that was a Critical Studies emphasis. I was also only one of 3 non-animation majors to take the history of animation class, which was an elective, while the animation majors were required to take it. Barely any of the animation majors cared about the class - they'd rather be at their draft boards creating new work, the past remaining the past. And this is at BYU, one of the most prestigious animation film schools in the country for the last 10-15 years,

I inquired about helping at BYUs film archive/library in any capacity - one that has extensive papers and film elements for a non-LA/NY film school - and the curator, Jim D'arc (interviewed on the King Kong 1933 DVD bonus content) didn't know what to do with me, because no film student had ever inquired about such a thing before.

And while I was the "guy who had seen everything" in college, and while I now have another 7 years of film viewing under my belt, I still have only heard of barely a handful of the films being released in the Warner Archive. There's simply so much out there to dip into. Most people only scratch the surface, even if they consider themselves film buffs. Part of it is that the younger still haven't had enough time to watch as much as the older, which is simply a matter of opportunity. However, I suspect that the vast majority of people do not scratch the surface because other interests - sports, literature, family resposibilities, etc. - simply dominate their time more fully. Nothing wrong with that, but there it is.

The more time passes, the more there is to choose from, and every movie made prior to this weekend's new release has more competition to fight against for people's attention.

Maybe not the 20's, but I strongly disagree with the other decades. Back in the 60's & 70's, the average kid was given quite a bit of exposure to older films due to the fact that there was no cable or videos...you didn't have much choice to what you can watch and there was always a steady diet of old Horror/Sci-fi,  A&C films, Little Rascals, Bowery Boys, Three Stooges, etc on TV... there wasn't this phobia of having to watch...god forbid... BLACK & WHITE. That is why whenever I meet someone around my age, I can always bring up some of these older films and almost always get a nice conversation going.

Exposure is the key here....my wife is 26, and until we met I don't know if she ever saw anything in B&W. But now she has become a big fan of the Little Rascals, Bette Davis, I Love Lucy, The Honeymooners, ..etc. I'm sure if we had not met, she would never have gotten the exposure to this goldmine of older material.


Edited by Jay E - 8/12/2009 at 11:09 am GMT

Exactly.

As a child growing up during the 70's I can attest to that.  There was no media overload like there is today.  No video games, no avenue to rent movies or record movies, no VCR, no 500 channels to choose from, no cable/satellite.   So when there was a movie on late night TV, or a lazy rainy saturday afternoon it didn't matter if it was from 4 years or 40 years prior, it was a special event and it had my full attention. 

Those are excpetions to the rule though. Kids today have seen 50 year old Tom And Jerry and Looney Tunes cartoons, the original Star Wars movies and Jurassic Park (which would probably be considered 'old' if you're a ten year old) but I wouldn't say that that means that they're steeped in film history. Eventhough they've seen some of the most famous 'old' movies or cartoons ever made, most kids have always and will always be primarily interested in what is new.

Ha! Happened to me enough times.  Let's say that between the two of us, we covered this point nicely.

I have to admit that up until about a year and a half ago I had seen only one silent film: Silent Movie. Somehow, I came upon The General on YouTube. My Mother had told me many times how great it was so I checked it out - and loved it! I've seen about 20 silents now and have purchased five with five more on my wishlist. So, at least one younger (28) person was able to find his way to the good stuff.

The entire interview is ludicrous... one only needs to look to what Sony is doing right to get an accurate sense of things.

The bottom line is that Mr. Feltenstein has sold out and claims that classic film fans are shrinking (what does that even mean??) or the point about irresponsible releases (Katie Hepburn Anniversary set with made for tv movies ring any bells, sir?) are simply suited to Warners new interests and directions and not an accurate take on anything substantial in re. to the indiustry. Classic films are less accessible and more expensive because studios like WHV have allowed them to become so. Let's not forget that it's the studios that drive the market. Warners is now steering it in a bad direction and passing off the responsibility onto the buyer. Apart from the economic conditions, nothing has changed in the past 10 years other than the decisions of the studios and rights holders. There will always be ways to turn profit on classic films with a little innovation and effort. Warners has chosen the easy way out however, and this interview confirms that. It's a sad turn of events.

I think part of this problem might have started with the exceptional King Kong set released a couple of years back. Since the astounding praise for that collection, the company seemed to get sidetracked and seemingly desperate to try to reproduce that packaging by investing way too much money in these silly "collector sets" of titles that have been released dozens of times over, at inflated cost, while making poor catalog decisions in releasing archival discs. What they should have done instead was put more thought into the films that have yet to be released rather than stuffing every last 1960s and 70s Katherine Hepburn stinkers into themed value packs thinking fans were undiscerning and would buy anything. For instance, they have not nearly begun to exploit their westerns or war catalog, undoubtedly among the highest selling of vintage genres in the classic film medium.Yet they released a surge of catalog films onto the retail market in the past two years, within too short a time span and without enough thought or discrimination as to what they were putting out, essentially flooding the market. Sony has got the right formula with their noir, precode, actor/director themed sets and the ratio at which they're putting these sets out. It proves that classic film is NOT dead, and to make statements that fans of cinema are shrinking is not only absurd but utterly idiotic. At the rate and cost that Warners is now dealing their classic film DVDs, it's no wonder they share this sentiment toward the buying public; The fault is entirely their own!

I will agree that Mr. Feltenstein's comments do sort of smack of self-fulfilling prophesy.  As has been pointed out by others, plenty of other distribution companies seem to be making money off of classics with a far more modest catalog to work with.  I mean, here we are coming up on Halloween and Warner chooses to release a Hammer sci-fi/horror flick with recognizable stars to the Archives.  That's just pure laziness.

Yes, including companies that make new transfers too instead of recycling 15 year old transfers.

I agree. The entire article just seems to be a justification of what Warner is doing now. It's very pat. It doesn't challenge Warner at all. It doesn't ask the question as to whether or not these conditions that Warner sees are actually true. Assuming that they are, the article also doesn't touch on the extent to which Warner created those conditions. The article serves well as a Warner press piece.

This is so true. Warner has made a lot of bad decisions the last few years as to which catalog films to release and how to release them. Warners peaked in 2006. It's been underwhelming since then. In 2007 and 2008, Fox for me was the leader in classic film releases, in how to package them, the titles released, the extras included, the transfers. Now with Fox gone, I'm glad Sony is taking up the mantle.

If Fox did it so right in 2007 and 2008 and was driven out of the business in 2009, that's not a very good sign, is it?  They did everything they could and it still went bad for them. What do you attribute that to? 

Fox did a lot of great things. Their set Murnau, Borzage and Fox is amazing, and quite a coda to their erstwhile commitment to classic films. Also their Tyrone Power sets are great too! They just over-reached themselves. They could also have shown better discretion when chosing titles, and had better methods of marketing too. Instead of doing a Joan Collins collection, they could have included some of those films in a Cinemascope of the 50s set, or something like that. They also never did come out with A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. But they tried, and their library didn't come anywhere near Warners. Warners had been running on fumes for years.

Perhaps classic film's final hope is better technology, technology that makes a digital transfer cheaper and easier. Maybe that will happen, and a few years down the line we'll see a renaissance for classic films on commercial media, when these studios don't have that much to lose with these releases.

Quote:

I rarely find myself agreeing with or in any way ever defending the studio heads, but in this case I can't completely dismiss everything Feltenstein said out of hand.  Now that doesn't mean I don't also agree with many of the points some of you have made about oversaturation and unwise decisions by the execs.  We have the infamous Fox chat from a few years ago where we were told that the studio couldn't release their Charlie Chan films because they'd, and I quote, "lose their shirts."  Well, we know that wasn't true at all and the sales for those Chan sets proved the exec wrong.  So they do make mistakes and miscalculations.

Having said all that, I basically do believe Feltenstein when he says most of the studios have decided to scale back, if not completely abandon, releasing older films onto standard DVD.  I also agree that the rise of Blu-ray has actually hurt classics on DVD for the reasons stated in the article.  I'm not sure how anyone could argue against those points.  Blu-ray is taking up more shelf space at retailers, and regardless of what a few of us on these boards think, the majority of consumers probably don't care about having the Charlie Chan sets (just as an example) re-released in Blu-ray. 

And I still believe the majority of the buying public (not even getting into the "age" debate again) is more interested in newer titles, and especially newer titles on Blu-ray.  That's the rage right now and while I'd like to believe there's a substantial market for older material still out there, I honestly don't believe that's the case unless we are talking about the major A films.  And a good percentage of those films have been released, and some will still get the Blu-ray treatment.  But anything beyond those biggies?  I just don't see a turnaround in this format.  I think we have seen the "golden age" of vintage film on dvd, and while it was a great ride, that era is quickly coming to a close.  I don't like it.  But I do believe the basic points outlined in the article are true.


Gary "and yes, I think there's at least some amount of spin from Warner in the article to pimp their Archive program - but the larger point about the death of classics on dvd is still spot on in my opinion" O.

Now more than ever is the time when studios can profit from a well produced set since the market competition is so scarce. Unfortunately when Fox was at their prime releasing all of their great Cinema Classics titles, there were dozens of high scale releases pouring out every week, overshadowing these films and splitting consumer spending, divding the studios, buyers and profits. There's no question that Sony's Icons of Screwball will not ever sell as high as Warners initial set with high tier titles like The Phillidelphia Story or Bringing Up Baby, nor will it ever reach or attain mainstream sales that could ever compete with any new Hollywood blockbusters. But if properly pushed with the right kind of advertising, that shouldn't relegate it to financial failure eitherl There's a safe middleground that Mr. Feltenstein seems to be willingly neglecting here. I expect that all of the classic film and DVD enthusiasts that are aware of the new Sony set will surely support their endeavours and thanks to the lackof effort on the parts of studios like Warners, Fox, MGM, etc. they should do quite well with sales. Even if it isn't ever in the Amazon top rankings!  Now is the time for studios to take advantage of the dry spell in the classic film market, because even a more obscure release now stands a better chance of garnering the deserved attention of consumers then in past years with so little else out there. DVD sales may be down, partly due to the economy, partly due to the advancing technology and partly due to the studio decisions that put us in this position. But there will always be a market for quality home video releases when given the right push, and I hope Sony can prove this to all of the naysayers like Mr. Feltenstein whose answer to the studios own oversights is the lazy man's escape - (overpriced poorly mastered dvd-r's will suffice). Go Sony!!!

+1, Gary.  Your example of the Chan sets reminded me of that Dick Van Dyke Show set on the TV/DVD side.  It was thought by the "powers" that the set wouldn't sell well.  As far as I know, it's been a good seller for Image.

As far as WB, I think that Feltenstein missed some of the point about the classics.  As some have mentioned here, his response seemed to me to be too simplistic.  However, I can't argue his point that the classic-movie DVD mkt has peaked and is in decline.

We TV/DVD guys know that the golden age of older shows getting released on a regular basis seems to be a thing of the past.  I don't like that one bit but it seems to be the case.

As for WB, I try to look at it as "half-full" when I see the movies that I have in the collection...some great Gangster sets, Cagney, Bogey films, and that gem...The Thin Man box set.  As Gary mentioned earlier about the Andy Hardy movies, we know that it was mentioned by WB as coming but that was a couple of years ago, if I recall correctly.  Given the changing times, I wonder if we'll see that happen or they might appear on the Achive site.  That would be a risky purchase though, with the # of movies in the series, on DVD-R.

I still don't know why other studios can't copy Warner, but do it better. Proper remastered & pressed discs sold direct & only available for a fixed time (9 months - a year). All the studios have to remaster their back catalogues, as TV stations are showing more & more films (& increasingly in HD). I don't know why a big studio can't do this & make a profit, a small company could.

Actually, with the lack of catalogue titles available this year (or at least titles I would purchase), I have been able to get up to date with my DVD wishlist.  I hope Criterion and Masters of Cinema continue with their magnificent classic efforts.  I have just purchased a heap of MoC silents and they are simply breathtaking.

 I will never own a DVD-R, not for $20 anyway. DVD-R's are not a long term option for a movie library. Now if they sold them for $5 thats a different story. That would be akin to a rental. And if the studios only want to sell new movies, or direct to video, thats fine. I can find other things to spend my money on.
I tend to think we will still find old movies getting released, but without a doubt at a much slower pace. And thats fine too, just do them right!

A DVD-R is not going to win over the classic film collector.

     Quote:

I concur about the pricing structure, and more importantly, the viability and durability of DVD-R's in general.  The only thing I have purchased from the Warner Archive is the Lex Barker Tarzan set, and I only bought that because the price was cheaper and I used a coupon on top of the discounted starting price.  But even so, I don't believe I'd buy any more even at $10 a pop.  Just not worth it for me.  And I'm still not sold that the format is as durable as regular studio DVD's.  So I'm not on board with the idea like some of my friends here are.  But to each his own on that count.

Some of my TV buddies on the other board think Warners is going to be offering season sets of older classics like 77 Sunset Strip in the near future at reasonable prices.  I totally disagree (but would love to be proved wrong).  If the company even thought about doing TV shows in this format, and doing it correctly, we are only talking 2 hour long episodes per disc.  Nothing more than that would result in even half-way decent quality.  So you do the math.  If an older b&w show ran for at least 30 episodes per season (and most ran for more), we are looking at 15 or more DVD-R's for just one season.  How low a price can Warners offer something like this for?  At $20 a pop that's $300 for 1 season.  At $10 it's $150 per season.  Even at only $5 for each disc that's still $75 for 1 season.  And that's if the show only ran 30 episodes! 

Nope, I just can't see this current system working in the long haul with either TV or even larger movie series like ANDY HARDY or some of the mystery/detective series that have anywhere from 6 to 12 films (and some have more than that).  Again, this is just my two cents.


Gary "I agree that $5 per disc is about all I'd generally be willing to pay in this particular format" O.

Gary, How were those Lex Barker Tarzan's to watch? Those were one's that stood out in my mind to possibly purchase but I never pulled the trigger.