Why has Warner Archives stopped putting out 70's, 80's & 90's stuff?

THE NIGHT DIGGER and WILD ROVERS made it in. I'm not sure if there is an answer but the wheel comes around eventually, and if this spin brings THE MERRY WIDOW I'm not complaining. 

Wait: In a few weeks someone will post, "Why is there NOTHING from the 20s, 30s, and 40s?" 

I have no idea when they were released but I was pleasantly surprised to find The Outfit and Strange New World at Kim's Video, two of my fav 70's flicks, on the Archive label. They charge full price but it's the only B&M that carries the Archive titles in NYC. They have tons of 70's stuff.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOOSETVTV 

It's now Mar. 8th, 2011 and Warner Archives, for the third time in a row, has released OLD movies and bad Hanna-Barbera cartoons....and NOTHING from the 70s, 80s and 90s. No comedies or action movies or dramas...maybe a western, but none of the other things. Why? Why are they seemingly narrow-casting toward movies from the 20's/30's/40's suddenly? Can anyone explain this?

I have been wondering the exact same thing. There was that week last year where they were releasing a bunch of movies from the 70's and 80's and then... nothing. Personally, I would like to see them start a bunch of classic tv series releases by season. If they can do it for the cartoons, they sure can do it for 30 minute sitcoms.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOOSETVTV 

It's now Mar. 8th, 2011 and Warner Archives, for the third time in a row, has released OLD movies and bad Hanna-Barbera cartoons....and NOTHING from the 70s, 80s and 90s. No comedies or action movies or dramas...maybe a western, but none of the other things. Why? Why are they seemingly narrow-casting toward movies from the 20's/30's/40's suddenly? Can anyone explain this?

Just a guess but I suspect that the films from the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s do very well for them. Personally, I very rarely purchase their 80s titles and never anything beyond the 80s.

Last week's DAYS OF GLORY (1944) makes five Jacques Tourneur films so for from the WA . . . while films from all decades and genres are welcome, it really is older, more obscure films by directors I admire, that makes these MOD programs important to me.

You have to wonder if marketing research is showing Archive demographics to be of  a certain type and age. No offense.

How much from the 80s and 90s is in there to be extracted? I can think of a few titles (like the promised FOURTH PROTOCOL)--what's everyone waiting for?

Not sure about the 80s, but from the 90s there is:

Impulse (1990)
Act of Piracy (1990)
The Rainbow Thief (1990)

Street Justice (1990)

Born to Ride (1991)
Until the End of the World (1991)
Hurricane Smith (1992)
Christopher Columbus: The Discovery (1992)

That Night (1992)
Heart of Darkness (1993)

Reckless Kelly (1993)

The New Age (1994)

Rapa Nui (1994)

Second Best (1994)
Bodily Harm (1995)

Deceptions II: Edge of Deception (1995)
For Better or Worse (1995)

Kleptomania (1995)

Sweet Nothing (1995)
The Run of the Country (1995)
Suburbia (1996)
Some Mother's Son (1996)

Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina (1997)

The Proprietor (1997)

Plus some cult genre titles:

Midnight Cabaret (1990)

The Granny (1995)

Last Gasp (1995)

The Outpost (1995)

There's probably more though.

Yeah, I'd rather have CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS: THE DISCOVERY than THE MERRY WIDOW ...but seriously it may be that in some cases the rights are up in the air, or who knows why? In any case the intent is to empty the vaults, so patience, no pushing, BODILY HARM fans, let Erich von Stroheim through the door first...

I think in general you'll see more films from the 30s and 40s because the sheer number of films in their library from the height of the studio era far outweigh number of films from the 70s, 80s and 90s. I'm not sure what the exact breakdown is in Warner's overall library, but really I'd guess it's simple math more than anything else.

"I think in general you'll see more films from the 30s and 40s because the sheer number of films in their library from the height of the studio era far outweigh number of films from the 70s, 80s and 90s."--Indeed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Cashill 

"I think in general you'll see more films from the 30s and 40s because the sheer number of films in their library from the height of the studio era far outweigh number of films from the 70s, 80s and 90s."--Indeed.

Yep, back in the 30s and 40s, Warner's, MGM, RKO and Monogram were making close to 50 features a year, and that does not count the MGM and Warner Cartoons and Shorts.   Warner basically has only their catalog of films for the 70s, 80s and 90s and that would run about 20 films a year tops.  They also control the pre-1986 MGM, and most Lorimar, and Allied Artists titles of that era but by the early 70s those companies was down to less than dozen films a year.  Warner's has said that the ALEX IN WONDERLAND, THE STRAWBERRY STATEMENT, and LAST SUMMER were coming.
 

Allen, I'm sure you meant to say that WB owns the pre-1986 MGM library. MGM releases after that, as well as the entire United Artists library, are owned by MGM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Point-Blank 

Allen, I'm sure you meant to say that WB owns the pre-1986 MGM library. MGM releases after that, as well as the entire United Artists library, are owned by MGM.

Your quite right, but I thought majority of people on here knew that so it was redundant.  And MGM also owns the the majority of Orion, AIP, and Filmways titles along with several smaller production and distribution company titles such as Cannon, besides many United Artists titles. 
 

It's the UA titles they have that bug me the most as it was one of my favorite studios. I wish WB could dig into that library.

I keep holding out for the 6 hour cut of Until the End of the World that Wenders showed in NY and LA about a decade ago.

I really want Ralph Bakshi's 1982 film Hey Good Lookin'.  Maybe the WAC responded to my request for the scrapped live-action cut of the film (in case you didn't know, the film was originally meant to be a mixture of live-action and animation ala Roger Rabbit, but after Bakshi completed filming the live-action portion of the film, he was forced into remaking it into an entirely animated film) and they're to find/restore that version.

THE TRAVELING EXECUTIONER would be nice to have. That one never turns up on TV and has never been on home video. Are there rights issues?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOOSETVTV 

The VHS version (STREET FIGHT) had live-action AND animation--Phillip Michael Thomas from MIAMI VICE is in the live-action sequences.

You're actually referring to the film that preceded HEY GOOD LOOKIN' in production, COONSKIN, which is currently tied up in a rights dispute between Bakshi and a party claiming to have inherited the defunct Bryanston assets.  All previous releases of HEY GOOD LOOKIN' have been the animation-only version released in '82; Bakshi's original cut has yet to surface in any public fashion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Edward Heuck 

You're actually referring to the film that preceded HEY GOOD LOOKIN' in production, COONSKIN, which is currently tied up in a rights dispute between Bakshi and a party claiming to have inherited the defunct Bryanston assets.  All previous releases of HEY GOOD LOOKIN' have been the animation-only version released in '82; Bakshi's original cut has yet to surface in any public fashion.

 

"Coonskin" and "Hey Good Lookin'"........I hope these get released soon.

AVALANCHE EXPRESS just came out, very typical 70's era all star cast disaster/espionage hybrid. (I still prefer the Fox cut, damn it!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by walter o 

AVALANCHE EXPRESS just came out, very typical 70's era all star cast disaster/espionage hybrid. (I still prefer the Fox cut, damn it!)

Besides the opening, what else is different about the cuts?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahollis 

Besides the opening, what else is different about the cuts?
 

 

thats it really, I just prefer the credit right after the fox logo. (probably because thats how I initially saw it, but it flows better as introducing Shaw and Schells character after the train station scene established the plot better)
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by walter o 

thats it really, I just prefer the credit right after the fox logo. (probably because thats how I initially saw it, but it flows better as introducing Shaw and Schells character after the train station scene established the plot better)
 

 

Thanks.  I really hate that Warner Bros. logo on this.  It just takes away from the era this film was made in.