Studios Reducing/Ending Retail DVDs of Classics - Warner Interview (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Willis]

Originally Posted by Chuck Pennington

Check out my post with pics here: *** Official Warner Archive DVD Review Thread - Page 7 - Home Theater Forum Community

Chuck,

I saw your review right after I posted earlier here. Great review and screen caps. This looks like a buy for sure. I'll watch for discount coupons.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Originally Posted by James 'Tiger' Lee




I really do not like that last comment: its a patronising and insulting stereotype of young people. I'm sure its not meant to come out that way, but the suggestion young people know no better then "torture movies" is pretty insulting to me.

I personally have found people of my age who do enjoy and respect the classics. I have also found people who don't, but so what? You're always going to find people with different tastes and perceptions.

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.

 

[Greg_M]

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

 

[Michael Elliott]

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

Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi




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.

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.

 

[Greg_M]

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

 

[Greg_M]

Originally Posted by Matthew Brown

We've heard the argument before that new releases are always guaranteed. Of course the materials are in better shape plus the sales can ride on the publicity of the theatrical run. Besides for some movies, they only hit the theater to advertise that the DVD will be coming out.

I do wonder if older movies will be lost forever. If they aren't restored for DVD or Blu Ray, will they bother for broadcast TV? Won't Joe Six pack figure out in a few years that the older movies don't look so good on the new TV? Will these be restored? If so, why not on Blu Ray or DVD? Are we going to see less older movies on TV as well?

Maybe everything will just become "On Demand". This is why I'm not upgrading from standard DVD just yet.

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

 

[Greg_M]

Originally Posted by Ray_R

Does WB ever check Amazon Marketplace or fleabay for titles? I finally purchased the third Errol Flynn boxset earlier in the week and it arrived earlier from the time of my posting. Were it not for TCM, I'm 30, I wouldn't be such a huge aficianado and appreciator of older films.
Case in point: I'm quite a fan of James Mason and even DVR'd They Met in the Dark. HOLY SHIT I thought the movie was great! I also thank my local library system for having all those VHS of alot of older movies when I was younger.
That being said/typed-out, I don't support Warner Archives but I do support actual DVD releases. One particular set I'd love to get around to buying is The Thin Man Collection. I watched all of them on TCM and haven't had such fun laughter for comedy films in awhile. Just great. I'm even considering buying My Man Godfrey: The Criterion Collection DVD if I'm able to find a good price for it.
EDIT: Why not just have the Studios send all the older catalog titles to online retailers? I buy online alot so thins could actually be a positive outlet for their inventory.

What many do not realize is that while a title may sell well on amazon (that's great) if Walmart isn't carrying it - it's not coming out.

Walmart and Best buy and the big price chopper stores are calling the shots.

If Walmart wanted Classics - FOX, WB and SONY would release classics (they only seem to want the Disney Classic)

Unfortunately the video business has fallen into the hands of the "Lowest Common Demonator" retail stores. Walmart Shoppers have never heard of "The Bowery Boys" so they will not carry a box set

(I work in Hollywood and many people have never heard of Barbara Standwick - and they are in their 40's!!!!! and work for film studios!!!!!

Hey, there are people opn the streets of Hollywood who could tell you who James Cagney is and that's when they are standing in front of his picture)

Then again (at least in Hollywood) Jay Leno will show a picture of the president of the US and some dumb bunny won't know who he is? Or know that we have only 50 states! or that there are 50 stars on the American flag

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Originally Posted by Michael Elliott

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.

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.

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi




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.

"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.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Originally Posted by James 'Tiger' Lee




"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.

 

[David_B_K]

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.

 

[RickER]

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!

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

Originally Posted by David_B_K

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.

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

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

Originally Posted by RickER

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!

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

 

[Gary OS]

Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi

Well, I think you're being unfair here and vicious, for no reason.

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.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

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

I have already suspended one individual.

 

[Jeff Willis]

Originally Posted by David_B_K 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

 

[Gary OS]

Originally Posted by Jeff Willis /forum/thread/291337/studios-reduci...-of-classics-warner-interview/60#post_3594887

 

[Mark_D_Fischer]

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.
I think a greater problem is getting a handle on file sharing - which is running rampant here in Europe.

For the masses - all it takes is a Gap commercial to spike Audrey Hepburn's popularity. I'm sure that created a fair number of new classic movie fans - people who were curious, picked up one of her films - and were lead to other films.

As for the younger generation (I just turned 40) and as a kid watched some older films but didn't become an enthusiast 'til I hit my 30's. I think some of us codgers need to cut them a break.

 

[jdee28]

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.