TWILIGHT RELEASES LACK OF INTEREST (1 Viewer)

[ahollis]

Hercules and Tarzan look to be coming in June or so.

Yawn.

 

[bruceames]

No doubt. But it is also important to note that Alamo Bay was never remastered nor released even for DVD. Its only previous home video incarnations were standard rez, colour-challenged, panned and scanned VHS tapes and Laserdiscs back in the mid-to-late 80s. MIA ever since.

Sony's short term commercial prospects for Alamo Bay from any single home video source would place this title on the same footing as any other vintage, deep catalogue "obscurity"...which, unless some kind of miraculous Malle/Cooder/Harris revival should occur, means it will never likely receive very wide play. However, the studio now has this state-of-the-art asset which they can use for multiple delivery and revenue streams. So in aggregate, it might become a modestly profitable title for them over time. A bit here, a bit there; it all adds up...especially in the future digital delivery realm.

Yes I admit that, like many others in the sale, I bought Alamo Bay simply because it's making its optical disc debut on Blu-ray. There aren't many Blu-ray "exclusives" so the novelty of it drew me in. Swamp Water was another (which I bought earlier for regular price), and I thoroughly enjoyed that one, so I thought what the heck.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Yawn.

 

[Ed Lachmann]

Hercules and Tarzan look to be coming in June or so.

The Steve Reeves classic would be wonderful, but with my luck this is probably not that one.

 

[LouA]

The Steve Reeves classic would be wonderful, but with my luck this is probably not that one.

I believe Brandon is referring to the Disney animated films , but on another thread on this site it was mentioned that both Hercules and Hercules Unchained were being restored for possible release .

 

[Rutledge60]

TT is actually making things impossible for collectors with a limited income, which is why I don't like TT.

Many of their releases are important titles in my DVD collection that I would like to upgrade to Blu-Ray, but the output of this company has now accelerated to the point that I've more or less given up. I can't immediately purchase all of the titles I want, and it's likely many of these Blu-Rays will sell out before I can purchase them. Therefore, the net effect of TT for me is a gap in my Blu-Ray collection that otherwise wouldn't be there if the studios had released these titles. It really makes no sense that the studios didn't release them, since most or all of the transfers were already done.

I guess I wouldn't feel bad about this if these Blu-Rays were genuine special editions that justified the price and limited availability. However, most of them are nothing more than standard studio transfers with no extras that would otherwise be continuously available from Amazon for $15 or less.

The studios won't release them because by the time they get done with creation and marketing to a small audience it isn't worth their time. Companies like TT get releases that otherwise would never see the light of day. The transfers have been done to preserve the films for posterity and nothing else. If the movies weren't falling apart in the can, they would never be remastered..

 

[rsmithjr]

That's my point above, slow and steady profits are good, but studio's want to make it quick, fewer chances are taken today.

You have a great point but I think Titanic is a poor example since it would have made it even in today's fast-paced marketplace.

Better examples might be: Bonnie and Clyde, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, The Hustler for example. All of these films were initially ignored and only did well because they were kept in theaters and allowed to build slowly. Might not happen today for any of them.

Of course, there are also examples of films that did poorly on release but then turned profits thanks to home video. Star Trek 1 (turned a profit only on home video, which saved the series); Somewhere In Time (got its fame through cable and video showings).

Incidently, Rocky Horror has now been in continuous release for 39 years; that's a record. I was even young in 1975 when I first saw it.

 

[ROclockCK]

The granddaddy of them all is Blade Runner...a film that woefully underperformed theatrically, but became an evergreen property on home video via multiple releases in every format.

 

[ROclockCK]

BTW, dude here looks like screenwriter Gordon Dawson...and he's signing Alfredo Garcia booklets! Won't be any "lack of interest" in that scribble!

TT's April 23rd pre-orders could get rather interesting...

 

[AnthonyClarke]

A quick note to PersianImmortal .. sadly, a direct comparison by a contributor in the Aspect Ratio Documentation thread cofirms that the UK and US 'A Big Country' Blu rays are identical ... both stretched. The comments that it appears ok only come from people insensitive to this issue.
But GETTING back on the Twilight track .. it would be great if Disney would let this boutique label issue movies maybe lacking commercial appeal but still conomically viable on the Twilight business model .. eg Pollyanna and The Parent Trap and maybe Freaky Friday. The latter two could be double-discs for two versions of each.
Much as I find the TT model annoying for a cash-strapped Australian facing high freight costs and lack of a discount seller (eg Amazon or Mars), I would immediately spring for them!

 

[bruceames]

Parent Trap and Freaky Friday are economically viable as a general release directly from Disney. The assumption people sometime makes is that all the economically viable releases have already been made, but the truth is that Blu-ray's market only supports a limited number of catalog releases per year (about 1/3 that of DVD). So here we are at year eight and still this huge backlog of "economically viable" movies that purely by chance have not had their "turn" yet. Well movies like Parent Trap and Freaky Friday will certainly have their turn and those movies should and deserve a general release so to be enjoyed by more people. Let the TT model be limited to those movies that otherwise would not get released on Blu-ray ever, NOT just so they can get released now to those willing to pay $30 and close off access to everyone else for at least 3 more years.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

I do hope you're right. But it is odd how Disney seems to be shelving their heritage live-action.

 

[Keith Cobby]

Many films are economically viable on blu-ray but the compromise is the quality. Olive put out what they are given and are a mixed bag. Of course what we all want are full restorations of our favourites and many of these will not generate a return.

 

[Yorkshire]

Obviously, I'd love a full restoration of every title.

But you know what? If that's simply too expensive, I'll go for a non-restored version.

With many films, the only chance we'd ever get to see them, were it not for home media, would be on a 35mm print in a re-run cinema. If they go back and scan even unrestored earlier elements, we should be able to get something at least a little better than that.

And if that's the worst we're getting, we're not doing too badly, are we?

Steve W

 

[davidmatychuk]

If Olive had done nothing except provide best-ever-home-video-version-nothing-remotely-close Blu-Rays of these Cary Grant films - "The Grass Is Greener", "That Touch Of Mink", "Indiscreet", "Father Goose", and "Penny Serenade" (with "Operation Petticoat" to come in 2014) - I would say they've done a great service for fans of classic Hollywood movies.

 

[bruceames]

I do hope you're right. But it is odd how Disney seems to be shelving their heritage live-action.

Yeah, hopefully that will change soon. But they have been releasing more back catalog the last few years (especially in 2012) than ever before. Here are the counts of their "debut" on Blu-ray catalog releases for each year in the US.

2013: 23
2012: 51
2011: 10
2010: 10
2009: 13
2008: 19
2007: 15
2006: 11

I'm sure every studio would love to issue more catalog but there's only so much new material the Blu-ray market can bear without cannibalizing other releases.

 

[Dick]

They will simply not adjust their effort to cater to the few people interested in a Blu-ray...

Blu-ray continues to out-sell DVD. Why is everyone so damn determined to put an end to this wonderful format? This could become a self-fulfilled prophecy if enough people keep repeating "Blu-ray is dead" or "Blu-ray is losing out to streaming" or "Blu-ray catalog titles are not in demand anymore." How about we find a way to express our optimism about niche companies like Twilight Time and Criterion and Shout! and Olive and Flicker Alley and Cohen and others, who are carrying the torch (and quite well, thank you)? Sony and MGM and Warner Bros and Fox may be relegating their Blu catalog titles to MOD's or to niche distributors, but the fact that they are doing even that strongly suggests they believe there is some mileage left in these titles.

 

[bruceames]

Blu-ray continues to out-sell DVD.

Where did you read that? Blu-ray has never outsold DVD in any single week in its history. The closest it came was during Avengers week in 2012 when the format as a whole got 44% of the sales.

Blu-ray now averages around 32% of the optical disc (not CD) sales while DVD gets the remaining 68%, but that percentage is only going up about 4 percent per year. A big reason why DVD is so entrenched and refuses to give up ground is because the format is so viable for virtually any type of release. Last year over 10000 titles got released on DVD (in the U.S.) vs. only around 2000 for Blu-ray. With that kind of volume discrepancy there is no way Blu-ray can ever overtake DVD.

 

[schan1269]

BD outselling DVD?When pigs fly and farts smell like roses...

 

[FoxyMulder]

BD outselling DVD?When pigs fly and farts smell like roses...

We have flying pigs in Scotland, they live next door to Nessie up at Loch Ness and my farts do smell like roses.