A Few Words About A few words about...™ Warner Bros. Home Video & The WB Archive Collection -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[ahollis]

I like the fluff.

 

[commander richardson]

There really are too many great movies in the Warner library as yet to be released while decidedly B and C grade fluff like World Without End and From Hell It Came inexplicably get pushed to the front of the line for Blu-ray releases. I really cannot believe WAC is getting more money from these releases than say the release of Seven Brides for Seven Brothers or Around the World in 80 Days. And yes, Night Moves is a great movie. So is Reversal of Fortune, another 'more recent' catalog I would absolutely love to see on Blu from WAC. We all have our wish lists and that's fair. But more recently it just seems like WAC is going for lesser known and even lesser desired titles when considering just how vast their holdings are and how very much superior stuff is not even getting consideration, much less a release in hi-def.

As we continue to move away from standard def equipment and into 4K monitors, there really is no point to DVD anymore. It's time to focus moneys and time on upgrading deep catalog to a method of presentation that can take advantage of the superior technologies out there. A lot of stuff needs to get out there: more Gable, more Garland, more Davis and Crawford, and where, oh where is Errol Flynn in this equation?!? Or Lana Turner, or Stewart Granger, or Gene Kelly, or Sinatra, Bing Crosby, Jeanette MacDonald/Nelson Eddie, Spencer Tracy/Katherine Hepburn, Mario Lanza, Jane Powell, Esther Williams etc. and so on?!?! Shocking how much sublime talent is yet to be adequately represented on Blu-ray. Let's not even talk about in 4K. But a good Blu of these stars better films would suffice for most and really...at this late stage in the game, it really is high time to expect more Grade 'A' catalog outweighing some of the junk that's come before it. Okay, okay; one man's poison... But seriously. There's been more B catalog in WAC's pipeline of late, and I cannot help but feel at the grave expense of spending quality moneys on better, bigger, more popular film fare instead. Thoughts? Ideas? At this point, I'm hanging on hopes and dreams.

I firmly believe that .......nobody..............at Warner Archives reads or even knows of this web-site in which we are suggesting various of their titles for release..........I watched one of their releases recently about a tree in some sort of garbage horror film..........this really has to be one of the worst movies ever released..........so bad I even forget the title...........and I tell you this......if they continue to release this sort of shocking output then they should stop releasing anything at all..............and where the hell is Ryan's Daughter on Warner Archive BD.........????????????.........probably one of the most requested movies that remains unreleased on BD..........Just get on and release it..............please......and stop messing us about..............

 

[Rick Thompson]

As we continue to move away from standard def equipment and into 4K monitors, there really is no point to DVD anymore.

Speak for yourself. Not every film's elements stand up to blu-ray standards, and not every film — probably not most films — is financially viable for blu release. Just look at how many don't sell out even limited-run release.

And as for High Society, it's a white bread snoozefest — and I like Crosby, Sinatra, Kelly, Holm, Armstrong and Cole Porter! Ditto Ryan's Daughter, which I saw in original release. Slow-moving and dreary, a major disappointment from both David Lean and Robert Mitchum.

 

[Worth]

There really are too many great movies in the Warner library as yet to be released while decidedly B and C grade fluff like World Without End and From Hell It Came inexplicably get pushed to the front of the line for Blu-ray releases. I really cannot believe WAC is getting more money from these releases than say the release of Seven Brides for Seven Brothers or Around the World in 80 Days.

It's not just about how much money they'll make on the release - it's also about how much it will cost to create a master that's up to snuff. In many cases, these "B" and "C" titles have elements that are in much better condition than a lot of genuine classics, so even if they don't sell as many copies, it still ends up being more profitable.

 

[Robin9]

It's not just about how much money they'll make on the release - it's also about how much it will cost to create a master that's up to snuff. In many cases, these "B" and "C" titles have elements that are in much better condition than a lot of genuine classics, so even if they don't sell as many copies, it still ends up being more profitable.

Quite right. I'm bewildered that we have these vehement posts from people who can't get their heads round that simple and obvious fact.

 

[Ed Lachmann]

Honestly, it would be wonderful to see more real classics occasionally along with the low end fluff and odd 70s thru 90s's stuff. I've been watching the old standard DVDs of many films I'd kill to have as blu-rays. They seem pretty much "up to snuff" if not for the low resolution. Really, just to bump a few of them up to HD would satisfy me. They do have a telecine there, don't they? I know what a strain that would be on their precious profit margin, however, and one wonders how Kino can do it so well and so often. Better yet, cut a deal with the likes of Kino, Olive or Flicker Alley (classic silents) for the titles they would obviously otherwise allow to fade away in a vault somewhere and only trot out for an occasional screening once every ten years.

 

[Paul Penna]

Quite right. I'm bewildered that we have these vehement posts from people who can't get their heads round that simple and obvious fact.

It's because they're so much better qualified to run a home video business than the people who have been doing it successfully for decades.

 

[Robert Crawford]

It's because they're so much better qualified to run a home video business than the people who have been doing it successfully for decades.

It's just not in the home video business, but a range of industries as well as sports, politics and what-have-you.

 

[Richard M S]

I have a somewhat different perspective. Since I purchased High Society and most of the aforementioned titles in VHS, and then laser disc and then dvd format, I am in no hurry to purchase a blu-ray release. Other than a few must-have releases, even with the Twilight Time titles, unless everyone is saying they are awestruck by the print quality, I now look to see what new extras are included before I buy something a fourth time.

 

[benbess]

Most Warner Archive blu-rays do have "knock your socks off" picture quality imho. But the extras are often rather slim.

Btw, here's a handy list of the Warner Archive blu-ray titles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Archive_Collection

 

[Alan Tully]

It's not just about how much money they'll make on the release - it's also about how much it will cost to create a master that's up to snuff. In many cases, these "B" and "C" titles have elements that are in much better condition than a lot of genuine classics, so even if they don't sell as many copies, it still ends up being more profitable.

All so true, but, if a studios worth is its back catalogue (& studio real estate I suppose), then it makes sense to work on their films & not let them rot away (MGM excepted). In the Errol Flynn box set, one of the worse looking transfers was Dodge City, & that's had a good looking Blu-ray release, & two of the best looking transfers were, The Sea Hawk & They Died With Their Boots On, b/w movies, I wouldn't think they'd need a lot of work, the same with the b/w The Bad & The Beautiful. It is true that the most successful films have the most bashed around elements (The Robe will never look as good as The Egyptian). Anyway, as usual looking forward to the next announcements & hoping for another title to be crossed off the wanted list.

 

[Robin9]

Honestly, it would be wonderful to see more real classics occasionally along with the low end fluff and odd 70s thru 90s's stuff. I've been watching the old standard DVDs of many films I'd kill to have as blu-rays. They seem pretty much "up to snuff" if not for the low resolution. Really, just to bump a few of them up to HD would satisfy me. They do have a telecine there, don't they? I know what a strain that would be on their precious profit margin, however, and one wonders how Kino can do it so well and so often. Better yet, cut a deal with the likes of Kino, Olive or Flicker Alley (classic silents) for the titles they would obviously otherwise allow to fade away in a vault somewhere and only trot out for an occasional screening once every ten years.

Films like Bad Day At Black Rock, Ride The High Country and Seven Days In May are neither "low end fluff" nor "odd 70s thru 90s's stuff."

 

[Nick*Z]

Wow! Clearly, I've struck a chord. Okay, realistically, a lot of Warner's catalog had some quality photo-chemical work done back in the mid-1990's to ready it for LaserDisc. Titles like Bathing Beauty, Marie Antoinette, Romeo and Juliet, Random Harvest, The Harvey Girls, Good News, Ryan's Daughter, National Velvet. They all had upgrades and color correction via new image harvests. When we made the leap to DVD Warner wasted absolutely no time reissuing these, along with other deep catalog that also had upgrades (like The Women, The Sea Hawk, Captain Blood, etc.), to the new format. Perplexedly, the stall has been on achieving new masters for hi-def. Do these cost money? You bet! But WAC has proven they are willing to spend time and money correctly. Look what they did to On Dangerous Ground and Dodge City in Blu. The DVD's were horrendous. The Blu-rays are stunning.

So, is an investment in catalog worth it? You bet. Can the studio afford to do it? At least one a year...you better believe it! So let's just get off the pot about 'we' on the 'outside' 'knowing better' than those working behind the studio walls. With regards to some of the more critical choices being made today, I think its easy to see better choices could have, and should have been made.

Again, I'm not against releasing the fluff. But it shouldn't be the only stuff coming down the pike, especially when there is so much vintage stuff MIA currently. The mentality you all need to get over here is, 'it's not feasible at this time', which became something of George Feltenstein's mantra only a decade or so ago when asked about classic movies on Blu-ray. Then the market and the technology shifted. 4K on the horizon, the studios forced to play 'catch up' once again. And clearly, Mr. Feltenstein (whom I greatly admire, just in case there is any doubt among this readership) and WAC have found a way to make full-blown restorations like On Dangerous Ground, and, new masters of already 'restored' elements not only possible but feasible. And new software has made it even more economical to go back and re-align old Technicolor records. So remastering a travesty like The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex for a stunning 1080p presentation should be, if not easy and cheap, then nevertheless more streamlined and fiscally friendly. Need proof. Dodge City. Move on.

But hey folks - restoring classics won't get ANY cheaper or easier 10, 20, 30 years from now. Has WAC been proactive.
Absolutely!
Could they do more!
Sure.
Will they do more?
I have every faith in them.
Should they do more?

If you need an answer to that one you, then you really have no business contributing to this or any other forum discussion about film preservation and asset protection.

It's a no brainer. Deal with it!

PS - who said those currently sailing the boats in the home video divisions have had great success in the past?!? Nearly every regime responsible for the outpouring of classics on various formats in the past has either been dissolved, broken apart, shrunk down to the point of extinction, or presently mangled by the nickle and dime mentality of bean counters in the front offices who see 'asset management' as a necessary evil for quick cash when they can, but in no way the bread and butter for future generations to enjoy for the cultural artifacts they actually are. Sad truth, I know, but truth nonetheless. Are there good examples of 'the good shepherd' among them? Yes. Mr. Feltenstein, Sony's Grover Crisp and Fox's Schawn Belston among the champions. Hooray for them. They're only three men and some closer to the age of retirement than others. Who will follow them...hmmmm!!!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

restoring classics won't get ANY cheaper or easier 10, 20, 30 years from now.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Warner has a top notch program for preservation of physical assets, so any film being held in their vault is probably going to be fine indefinitely - that is, even if they haven't yet been restored, they're being kept in such a way as to not get any worse. On the other hand, digital technology continues to improve and aid in restoration. In ten years, the cost of processing power will have decreased along with the cost of digital storage. Just as it was impractical to do a full digital restoration 20 years ago and now it's commonplace, I imagine it'll be even easier in the future. Faster processors will mean that software that does dirt removal and damage repair will take less time to repair each frame. Digital storage will be cheaper, so the cost of housing all of those film frame scans on a server while they're being cleaned will be less. One of the obstacles to full 4K restorations now is data storage; another is processing speed. Both of those will be less of an issue in the future.

I suspect that's all part of the reason some titles are waiting longer in line. Studios and preservationists are constantly developing new tools for the job, and there may be certain titles where someone like Mr. Feltenstein knows that it would be impractical to try to restore it now, but that there's a new tool in development that will make the restoration viable a year or two from now.

I suspect that with a studio like Warner (or Sony or Fox) that there's a lot more going on behind the scenes than we're aware. On the other hand, I imagine there's very little of interest going on at MGM and Paramount, which are barely functional as production entities at this time.

 

[Keith Cobby]

The main concern (of course) is are our own favourites being released. In the last year or two some titles I never expected have been released and other, more high profile, titles haven't. Although sales of classic films are in decline, the WA format should allow more titles to be released. I am much more confident than a couple of years ago.

 

[benbess]

Just watched Barbara Stanwyck in the pre-code movie Baby Face on Warner Archive Streaming. Interesting movie....

 

[Dave Lawrence]

But let's see: The Wheeler Dealers, The Rounders, From Hell It Came, Vision Quest, Valley of the Gwangi, World Without End, Demon Seed and 36 Hours ahead of High Society, Marie Antoinette, National Velvet, Julius Caesar, Captains Courageous, Goodbye Mr. Chips (1939), Scaramouche, The Prisoner of Zenda (Ronald Colman)...hmmm.

Hmmm... 36 Hours, The Wheeler Dealers and Demon Seed, along with Bad Day at Black Rock, are all WAC BD titles I'm planning to purchase soon. (I'm also getting their recent DVD releases of Ladies of the Jury and A Girl in Every Port, since I don't expect to see BDs for them anytime soon. Both are blind buys, but the former features Edna May Oliver and the latter features Groucho, so I think the likelihood of my enjoying them is pretty good.)

On the other hand, I have no interest in some of the yawn-worthy "A" films listed, and wouldn't take a free copy of Seven Brides for Seven Brothers if it was offered to me.

So for me, WAC is doing just fine with their film selections, and I hope they keep on tipping toward the interesting, sometimes unusual, typically entertaining "B" and "C" stuff.

(But I'm not completely satisfied with WAC right now. They need to get back to putting out more TV releases; lately they've gone cold on putting out anything worthwhile. No offense to the fans of Urkel and the Wayans Brothers.)

 

[Astairefan]

The main concern (of course) is are our own favourites being released. In the last year or two some titles I never expected have been released and other, more high profile, titles haven't. Although sales of classic films are in decline, the WA format should allow more titles to be released. I am much more confident than a couple of years ago.

I think this says it all. We all have our wants and desires here. Me, they could release exclusively film musicals from the 30s to the 50s and I would be happy (although my wallet wouldn't be), but at least one or more people on here would complain if that is all they did, and rightfully so, because they are not catering exclusively to me. And the way they are doing it, I am finding (and enjoying) so many films I would not have otherwise considered. All of January's releases appealed to me, and I had never seen (or even heard of) three of them, yet those that I have seen, I have enjoyed, and February's Love In The Afternoon, a film I had never seen or heard of, feels like one of my top blind buys from them! So I can only hope they continue doing what they have been doing (although I would prefer they at least TRY to release some more 30s films and/or pre-1950 MGM musicals).

 

[TJPC]

I think this says it all. We all have our wants and desires here. Me, they could release exclusively film musicals from the 30s to the 50s and I would be happy (although my wallet wouldn't be), but at least one or more people on here would complain if that is all they did, and rightfully so, because they are not catering exclusively to me. And the way they are doing it, I am finding (and enjoying) so many films I would not have otherwise considered. All of January's releases appealed to me, and I had never seen (or even heard of) three of them, yet those that I have seen, I have enjoyed, and February's Love In The Afternoon, a film I had never seen or heard of, feels like one of my top blind buys from them! So I can only hope they continue doing what they have been doing (although I would prefer they at least TRY to release some more 30s films and/or pre-1950 MGM musicals).

I agree. There are many movies (especially westerns!) that I would not even open the drapes to see if I had a drive-in in my back yard but just because I don't like them it doesn't mean others can't enjoy them.

 

[Nick*Z]

And no such inference was made by yours truly either. A simple call for more variety, perhaps, and much more from the 30's and 40's than what's been provided to us as yet by WAC. I think most of us can concur this is where the real deficit has been thus far!