GWTW and Wizard of OZ again in 2013 (1 Viewer)

[Doctorossi]

Warner re-working perfectly good existing editions wouldn't be as obnoxious if they didn't have so many great films not even on DVD-R yet.

Hey, at least re-releases with new video transfers is a step up from re-releases without new video transfers.

 

[MatthewA]

It just occurred to me that, unless copyright law changes again, both these movies are going into the public domain in 2034. Is it possible that Warner is trying to get as much money out of them as possible before they go PD?

And TonyD is right: The Dreamer of Oz needs to be remastered. I have an off-air recording of it on Beta, and that looks better than the disc!

 

[Mark Oates]

3D?
(grabs tin hat and dives down cellar steps)

 

[cineMANIAC]

I'm not sure about GWTW but the Oz reissue is an obvious cash grab/tie-in to Sam Raimi's new Oz film. It just seems like an unnecessary waste of funds that could be better spent on other titles. Anyone who is a fan of GWTW or TWOO has already purchased one of the myriad versions already released. How about giving some of the Archive titles a shot at Blu-ray?

 

[Ethan Riley]

The current WOZ blu looks so life-like. I can't figure out what they think they're going to do to improve it, unless they actually found some better harvesting material to work from. I don't remember what they used last time. Do they even still have the original negatives??
I never thought GWTW looked especially good on its current blu. I see some room for improvement there. But again--what would they even use to make a better image?
I don't think the re-re-re-re-re-releases of either of these films is hurting anything. I don't see why some assume that Warners is exhausting its resources doing these two films when they could be doing other films instead. That does not compute. I don't think these re-releases are "instead of" some other releases that people expected to see come out in the same time period. It doesn't hurt anything; the studios re-release stuff all the time.
I do wish they'd crack open the MGM musicals catalog a lot wider, though. So far we've gotten, what? FOUR of them?? And they're all damn good. I want to see what they'd do with Kismet or Ziegfeld Follies.

 

[JohnMor]

Originally Posted by Ethan Riley /t/322693/gwtw-and-wizard-of-oz-again-in-2013/30#post_3957016
I don't think the re-re-re-re-re-releases of either of these films is hurting anything. I don't see why some assume that Warners is exhausting its resources doing these two films when they could be doing other films instead. That does not compute. I don't think these re-releases are "instead of" some other releases that people expected to see come out in the same time period. It doesn't hurt anything; the studios re-release stuff all the time.

That's not exactly the case. I work in the financial end of the industry Despite popular (mis)conception, the studios and in particular the home video arms do NOT have unlimited budgets in actual practice. It's not a free-for-all with the sky the limit. It absolutely is a finite budget amount they have to work with at any given time. So (for example) if they chose to spend $1,000,000 for a new home video release of GWTW, that money is not available to go toward other home video releases at that time. (This has nothing to do with how much money the studios make in general, but everything to do with the fact that budgets are assigned and expected to be adhered to.)

 

[Ethan Riley]

So you're saying they wouldn't/couldn't temporarily increase the overall budget during that quarter in order to re-release those two particular films?

 

[JohnMor]

Not likely (although it could conceivably happen, but rarely does, especially on big ticket items). And these don't seem to be just re-releases (i.e. repackages). These appear to be re-do's. That means they've been in the pipeline for a while. The long line of authorizations and sign-offs and scheduling happens LONG before releases are even hinted at.

 

[cineMANIAC]

So just as that velvet box/UCE of GWTW was being readied for release, another edition was already in the works? This means that the "upgrade" coming up next year won't be the end of it - department heads are probably already scheming to find a way to reissue the title yet again in 2015

 

[Doctorossi]

It absolutely is a finite budget amount they have to work with at any given time.

There's also finite shelf-space and promotional and merchandising opportunity at retail. The more of these releases you push into stores, the less "room" is in the channel for other releases.

 

[Mark Oates]

Maybe it's a British thing, but I can't help having twinges about "having to play the game". We're all cynical enough to realise that the Studios aren't in it for the love of their product. They're businesses and their number one priority is selling their product to consumers to make as much profit as possible. They would be stupid not to have long-range plans and strategies for maximising their profits, and to have identified the titles which are "cash cows".
We, as informed consumers and enthusiasts really need to be encouraging the Industry to provide us with what we want - the best transfers, the more esoteric titles etc. It would be much easier for the Studios to not bother restoring titles, not to bother releasing catalogue titles beyond a few well-worn cash-cows. They could just as easily concentrate on putting out new product and coin it with the casual consumer (joe public if you prefer).
At the moment the Studios are willing to indulge us. They'll sit in on "chats" and listen to what we're looking forward to and what we'd like to see in the future. It makes good marketing sense to them to find out what more discerning consumers are interested in, as ultimately such items can be sold at a premium.
Although we are the hands who feed the Studios with our hard-earned cash, the Studios see it the other way round with their product feeding our desire to see and collect their material. What we see as consumers standing up for what they want, they see as biting the hand. There could come a time when returns from catalogue sales just aren't worth the hassle of the bad word-of-mouth before the release, the expenditure of restoration and the bad-word-of-mouth after the release because x reckons the colour's shifted towards the blue and it doesn't look the same as he remembers it twenty-five years ago. And y's screencaps look like the picture's been DNRed to death.
I just feel we may wind up with the market we deserve - current titles, and catalogue titles restricted to a handful of Tom Cruise movies. All served up albeit in Ultra High Definition, but only as PPV streaming. And the catalogue stuff drops off the servers every time Michael Bay drops a new one.

 

[JohnMor]

/t/322693/gwtw-and-wizard-of-oz-again-in-2013/30#post_3957150
There's also finite shelf-space and promotional and merchandising opportunity at retail. The more of these releases you push into stores, the less "room" is in the channel for other releases.

True.

 

[NY2LA]

Although we are the hands who feed the Studios with our hard-earned cash, the Studios see it the other way round with their product feeding our desire to see and collect their material. What we see as consumers standing up for what they want, they see as biting the hand.

Now can we please just isolate that one very likely on the nose statement, and recognize it as illustrating a "bad attitude" on the studios' part?
This sort of attitude goes waaaay back, before the recession, before BluRay, before even DVD. I once stood face to face with the head of homevid of a major studio who dismissively said "the fans will buy it anyway."
Now call me crazy, and no doubt some will, but to me that is a bad attitude. Arrogance, I'd say. But we are supposed to just take that? Just, as the old saying goes, "close our eyes and think of England?" Meaning open our sore wallets and buy it again?
It's been a sad fact that when studios screw up a release, if there is a backlash, they seem to blame the product itself for its lack of success rather than their own mistreatment of it. Yet we hear that "they" lurk in forums where all manner of desire and disappointment is discussed.
I once heard someone say "the best defense is to take offense." That kind of thing happens a lot. Catch someone doing something wrong or unpopular, call them on it, they act all offended, (or other people may seem to on their behalf, and leap to their defense) and the thing they did wrong or unpopular seems to get excused in the long run. They get away with it, and what does that teach them? The fans will buy it anyway. And if they don't, we won't give them what they want anymore, so they'd better kiss our keesters everytime we throw them a bone. I see that as a bad attitude. But if we speak up against that kind of thing, we're the ones who are wrong?
I'm all for supporting catalogue releases in general, especially when they do things right or well, but it doesn't really seem to help in the long run. Does anyone else feel like they're stuck in a bad marriage?

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by NY2LA /t/322693/gwtw-and-wizard-of-oz-again-in-2013/30#post_3957424
I'm all for supporting catalogue releases in general, especially when they do things right or well, but it doesn't really seem to help in the long run. Does anyone else feel like they're stuck in a bad marriage?

Yep. But we stay together for the few times they happen to get it right.

 

[NY2LA]

Yep. But we stay together for the few times they happen to get it right. 

Ha - but the spouse has earned quite a few nights on the couch, doncha think?

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by NY2LA /t/322693/gwtw-and-wizard-of-oz-again-in-2013/30#post_3957438
Ha - but the spouse has earned quite a few nights on the couch, doncha think?

Yes. I thought I'd never get out the burn marks from the Columbia lady's torch.

 

[NY2LA]

Yes. I thought I'd never get out the burn marks from the Columbia lady's torch.

I venture that's not as bad as the stench from a thick layer of fox-droppings.

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by NY2LA /t/322693/gwtw-and-wizard-of-oz-again-in-2013/30#post_3957451
I venture that's not as bad as the stench from a thick layer of fox-droppings.

True, but those are easier to clean up after than the MGM lion.

 

[Mark Oates]

I'm all for supporting catalogue releases in general, especially when they do things right or well, but it doesn't really seem to help in the long run. Does anyone else feel like they're stuck in a bad marriage?

Absolutely, but a bad marriage can go either of two ways - acrimonious divorce (which we don't want) or counselling (which we'd rather not do, but if it means we get to keep the DVD collection so be it).
I don't think we should let the Studios get away with second-rate product, but then again we shouldn't pre-judge on hearsay evidence. I'm simply advocating the carrot rather than the stick. You only have to read the kind of self-aggrandizing PR that Hollywood spouts to realise you're dealing with egos. Big, bloated, thin-skinned, possibly bipolar egos. Not necessarily individuals (in deference to our esteemed insiders), but collective, corporate egos that run scared of losing their parking spaces in the wake of shareholder-driven pogroms.
We, as informed consumers and enthusiasts, do have friends within the industry. The similarly minded individuals who don't take the easy option - who get the movies and tv shows we love restored, prepared and released on home video formats. We need to support them, but we also need to support those faceless individuals higher in the corporate echelons who could cut restoration budgets or just decide "1776 is crap, let's leave it in the vault". Remember the words of Sun-Tsu/ Michael Corleone or Niccolo Macchiavelli (depending on your source): Keep Your Friends Close And Your Enemies Closer Still. Egos are cheap to stroke but expensive to mend.

 

[JohnMor]

Originally Posted by NY2LA /t/322693/gwtw-and-wizard-of-oz-again-in-2013/30#post_3957424
I once stood face to face with the head of homevid of a major studio who dismissively said "the fans will buy it anyway."

The truly sad thing is... they (we) DO.