Who Listens To Us Anymore? (1 Viewer)

[Persianimmortal]

To sum this all up: Tough beans that studios are being criticized. They have money and power...they can take it!

Two quick points in response to this:While I definitely agree that studios need to be able to take criticism, and there are certainly things to be critical of with some releases, the problem lies firstly with the fact that fans can be hypercritical to the point of absurdity - at least from the point of view of the studio. Remember that they're putting out something that is no longer a premium-priced product, so again, from their point of view, the perfection we seek doesn't gel with the $10-12 Blu-ray release they're aiming for. If BDs were selling for $35-50 each then it would be a different story.The second, and far more important issue that I raised in my previous post, is that studios don't need to take it, because Blu-ray catalog movie enthusiasts form such a tiny part of their overall revenue stream, that it doesn't make any business sense to meet our demands. The squeaky wheel does not get the grease if you have two dozen other wheels all working perfectly, providing the primary means of forward motivation.

 

[atfree]

I wonder at times when I read these forums, and read mods and insiders saying the studios won't comment on certain releases etc. What I wonder is why all the secrecy.....these are their owned properties so its not like a competitor will see it and say "Wow, Warners is prepping (insert title here), we better release (insert title here) to counter them". And most catalog releases (with exceptions like LOA, Ben-Hur, etc) get released with so little fanfare no one EXCEPT those of us on these forums even know about them.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I wonder at times when I read these forums, and read mods and insiders saying the studios won't comment on certain releases etc. What I wonder is why all the secrecy.....these are their owned properties so its not like a competitor will see it and say "Wow, Warners is prepping (insert title here), we better release (insert title here) to counter them". And most catalog releases (with exceptions like LOA, Ben-Hur, etc) get released with so little fanfare no one EXCEPT those of us on these forums even know about them.

A few reasons for consideration as to why it is that way. First, rights to certain films on BD might not be as clear cut as we think it is. Secondly, unexpected issues arise all the time as titles are being prepared for BD releases. Thirdly, like any other corporate entity and maybe, even moreso, the political game of survival within the studio structure is very cutthroat and darn right nasty. And yes, studios do counter market against each other on certain BD releases even catalog ones.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

I totally fail to understand the need for secrecy on certain issues such as answers to questions like this one:

HAS PARAMOUNT EVER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY DID FALL SHORT OF REQUIRED STANDARDS IN THEIR TRANSFER TO BLU RAY OF THE CLASSIC MUSICAL 'MY FAIR LADY'.
DOES PARAMOUNT PLAN TO REVISIT THIS PROJECT IN THE SHORT TO MEDIUM TERM.

The same question could be asked about certain other transfers which have fallen way short of any reasonable expectation, such as The Sting or The King and I.
Such basic hon-prejudicial and non-harmful information should be forthcoming and there can be absolutely no commercial reason for keeping such info, if gained, confidential. As a former senior journalist, I do understand when material should be privileged and why. This info would not confer any commercial advantage or disadvantage on anyone, apart from the meritorious action of admitting that yes, we screwed up on that one.

 

[MatthewA]

This is a tricky subject. I can understand why studios wouldn't want to respond to insults, name-calling, and paranoid innuendo, nor any kind of fraudulent means of creating interest in a title. Those are not going to get the studios to change their policies. On the other hand, if mistakes happen and no one says anything, those mistakes will keep happening. It would be equally irresponsible not to point it out.

I totally fail to understand the need for secrecy on certain issues such as answers to questions like this one:

HAS PARAMOUNT EVER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY DID FALL SHORT OF REQUIRED STANDARDS IN THEIR TRANSFER TO BLU RAY OF THE CLASSIC MUSICAL 'MY FAIR LADY'.
DOES PARAMOUNT PLAN TO REVISIT THIS PROJECT IN THE SHORT TO MEDIUM TERM.

The same question could be asked about certain other transfers which have fallen way short of any reasonable expectation, such as The Sting or The King and I.
Such basic hon-prejudicial and non-harmful information should be forthcoming and there can be absolutely no commercial reason for keeping such info, if gained, confidential. As a former senior journalist, I do understand when material should be privileged and why. This info would not confer any commercial advantage or disadvantage on anyone, apart from the meritorious action of admitting that yes, we screwed up on that one.

The only reason I could think of is because studios might have had their employees sign non-disclosure agreements regarding their work.

 

[Lord Dalek]

I believe the word "Schadenfreude" comes to mind.

 

[Persianimmortal]

I totally fail to understand the need for secrecy on certain issues such as answers to questions like this one:

HAS PARAMOUNT EVER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY DID FALL SHORT OF REQUIRED STANDARDS IN THEIR TRANSFER TO BLU RAY OF THE CLASSIC MUSICAL 'MY FAIR LADY'.
DOES PARAMOUNT PLAN TO REVISIT THIS PROJECT IN THE SHORT TO MEDIUM TERM.

The same question could be asked about certain other transfers which have fallen way short of any reasonable expectation, such as The Sting or The King and I.
Such basic hon-prejudicial and non-harmful information should be forthcoming and there can be absolutely no commercial reason for keeping such info, if gained, confidential. As a former senior journalist, I do understand when material should be privileged and why. This info would not confer any commercial advantage or disadvantage on anyone, apart from the meritorious action of admitting that yes, we screwed up on that one.

You're seriously asking why a company does not openly admit to making a mistake? What benefit could it possibly give them to admit there's a problem with a particular release? Any admission of culpability would only expose them to having to recall and reissue the disc. The only possible way I could see them admitting a problem is if there's an unmistakable issue that actually prevents the viewer from watching the movie - such as the recall program Paramount set up for The Godfather II BD that was faulty (stopped playing/pixelated at a certain point).

The main reason for secrecy, whether in corporate or government affairs, is to cover one's own backside in case something goes wrong. While I fully agree that they should be open and honest, let's face it, there's not much to gain for most companies in taking that approach.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I totally fail to understand the need for secrecy on certain issues such as answers to questions like this one:

HAS PARAMOUNT EVER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY DID FALL SHORT OF REQUIRED STANDARDS IN THEIR TRANSFER TO BLU RAY OF THE CLASSIC MUSICAL 'MY FAIR LADY'.
DOES PARAMOUNT PLAN TO REVISIT THIS PROJECT IN THE SHORT TO MEDIUM TERM.

What if the studio doesn't believe that they fell short of required standards?

With at least some of these cases, it might be as simple as that. How can Paramount acknowledge they did a poor job on something, if they genuinely believe that they did not?

Just as one small example or thought (to be clear, I'm referring to movies in general and not any titles specifically)... In my (admittedly limited) experience working on releases of DVDs/Blu-rays for a tiny label (from 2006-2009), the overwhelming majority of QC work and spot checks I did on discs were on monitors smaller than what I had at home at the time. During my time there, I visited some other small labels, and found that they weren't using screens much larger. I wouldn't be in any way surprised to find that what most studios use for quality control were screens much closer to being 40" than setups comparable to what many readers here have at home. If all of the work is being done on smaller screens, and then all of the checking of that work is done on smaller screens.. some of these things may not even be noticed, even when complaints come in. Without wanting to put words into anyone's mouth, there have been instances where the reviewers on HTF and experts like RAH might say something to the effect of, "On a small screen, it looks fine, but when watched on the largest flatscreens and on projectors, it looks terrible." So... if the studio is doing all of their work on monitors that are the size of the screens the reviewers think the discs look fine on... that's maybe one answer right there. Maybe for some titles they did hear complaints, but to their eyes, on their screens, those problems simply aren't evident.

A studio can't apologize for a problem that they genuinely don't believe exists.


edit: to be clear, I'm not saying that I think all of the releases are perfect. I just wonder if at least some of the time, if they genuinely believe they're putting out a top of the line product and are surprised to discover that people are having issues with it

 

[Worth]

And most catalog releases (with exceptions like LOA, Ben-Hur, etc) get released with so little fanfare no one EXCEPT those of us on these forums even know about them.

I think the truth is that very few people outside of forums like this care about them.

 

[cineMANIAC]

The problem isn't that studios don't listen to their customers, it's that the people who run the home video departments don't have any real clout or decision-making authority. To studio brass, films are products to be sold based on their perception of what the market wants, that market being people who wander into the movie section at Walmart on their way to the bathroom. I'm sure that there really are true film enthusiasts at the studios who make suggestions, throw ideas around, that sort of thing, but ultimately it's the accountants who have the final say. It's those same accountants who have decided movies should be DNR'd before they're released to the public (Universal), same guys who put together a list of 5 or 6 popular titles to be re-released once a year (Warner) and the same folks who came up with the brilliant idea of farming titles out to other studios who then just sit on the majority of them (Paramount).

 

[jcroy]

The problem isn't that studios don't listen to their customers, it's that the people who run the home video departments don't have any real clout or decision-making authority. To studio brass, films are products to be sold based on their perception of what the market wants, that market being people who wander into the movie section at Walmart on their way to the bathroom. I'm sure that there really are true film enthusiasts at the studios who make suggestions, throw ideas around, that sort of thing, but ultimately it's the accountants who have the final say. It's those same accountants who have decided movies should be DNR'd before they're released to the public (Universal), same guys who put together a list of 5 or 6 popular titles to be re-released once a year (Warner) and the same folks who came up with the brilliant idea of farming titles out to other studios who then just sit on the majority of them (Paramount).

The large movie companies are owned and operated by huge conglomerates which are publicly traded on the stock market.

- Universal is owned by Comcast (Nasdaq: CMCSA)
- Disney is traded on the New York Stock Exchange as NYSE: DIS
- Paramount is owned by Viacom (Nasdaq: VIA)
- Sony is traded on the Tokyo Stock Exchange and as an ADR on the NYSE: SNE
- Warner is owned by Time-Warner (NYSE: TWX)
- Fox is owned by 21st Century Fox (Nasdaq: FOX)


The largest shareholders of such companies, are typically institutional investors and mutual funds. (ie. They only care about the stock value going up).

The management typically don't own many shares in the companies they run. They're largely hired guns. (ie. They can also be fired easily, especially if the stock price goes down too much on their watch).

 

[bruceames]

Haven't read all the fine posts in this thread but IMO regarding catalog (the primary source of requests and complaints) the studios aren't listening that hard because that market on physical media has all but dried up for them and it's like an afterthought at this stage. Their minds are on the future of digital.

 

[Brandon Conway]

The only significant money for BD/DVD is in new release titles (film or tv), and maybe the Super A-List catalog title (the vast majority of which have been released on both formats at this point (the Godfather/Wizard of Oz types) or have been prevented from an earlier release due to various rights issues (Batman TV Show)). The remaining catalog titles are small potatoes in the home video world. Frankly, I'm stunned we are getting as many as we are, though most of that is because of the specialty sublicensing labels.

 

[revgen]

because Blu-ray catalog movie enthusiasts form such a tiny part of their overall revenue stream, that it doesn't make any business sense to meet our demands. The squeaky wheel does not get the grease if you have two dozen other wheels all working perfectly, providing the primary means of forward motivation.

So these movie studios put out blu-rays that only enthusiasts would be interested in, butcher the transfer with EE, DNR, incorrect AR's, and they're shocked when these enthusiasts complain?

It doesn't have to be perfect. Most of the Olive Films blu-rays (before 1953) are okay. Simple, straightforward transfers from the best available complete sources. No frills. No full fledged restoration. Is that really too much to ask?

 

[Keith Cobby]

If we reach the end of this year and none of my 'wish list for 2014' have been released or announced (most are mainstream classic titles with the exception of Slightly Scarlet) then I think I will accept the situation and then just be grateful for the occasional title being released.

It seems to me that the classic titles we want (and there are very many of them) are being released in a random way with no reason why some titles are favoured in place of others. I expect that the large format films referred to earlier require much investment to bring them to an acceptable standard and that there is currently no appetite to spend the money.

I accept that streaming and not disc collecting is the future (although not for me) and that the future has arrived.

 

[Robert Crawford]

So these movie studios put out blu-rays that only enthusiasts would be interested in, butcher the transfer with EE, DNR, incorrect AR's, and they're shocked when these enthusiasts complain?

It doesn't have to be perfect. Most of the Olive Films blu-rays (before 1953) are okay. Simple, straightforward transfers from the best available complete sources. No frills. No full fledged restoration. Is that really too much to ask?

How do you define "not perfect"? Earlier you say they butcher the transfer with EE, DNR, incorrect AR's, so I'm asking what is "not perfect" in your estimation?

 

[revgen]

How do you define "not perfect"? Earlier you say they butcher the transfer with EE, DNR, incorrect AR's, so I'm asking what is "not perfect" in your estimation?

I don't really understand your question.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I don't really understand your question.

What is acceptable to you? You stated you didn't have a problem with Olive releases so much, yet you listed other defects that you stated butchers the transfer.

 

[revgen]

What is acceptable to you? You stated you didn't have a problem with Olive releases so much, yet you listed other defects that you stated butchers the transfer.

Olive doesn't do EE, DNR, or botched AR on their pre-1953 discs.

As far as what is acceptable to me depends upon the film.

I can't really give an exact definition of what that is, but let's just say I don't expect The Red Menace (1949) to look like Casablanca (1942). Nor do I expect The Red Menace (1949) to come with commentary from Roger Ebert and Leonard Maltin explaining to me how important the movie is.

 

[Dr Griffin]

If we reach the end of this year and none of my 'wish list for 2014' have been released or announced (most are mainstream classic titles with the exception of Slightly Scarlet) then I think I will accept the situation and then just be grateful for the occasional title being released.

It seems to me that the classic titles we want (and there are very many of them) are being released in a random way with no reason why some titles are favoured in place of others. I expect that the large format films referred to earlier require much investment to bring them to an acceptable standard and that there is currently no appetite to spend the money.

I accept that streaming and not disc collecting is the future (although not for me) and that the future has arrived.

And as I go into this future, I only expect to pay about half of the cost I paid for the physical version - total, all aspects considered.