An E-mail Appeal to Mr. Wade Williams (2 Viewers)

[J. Casey]

Like others, I've found this discussion to be very informative. I purchased all of Mr. Williams' titles on DVD from Image and always became infuriated when I saw other companies selling the SAME transfers as a "PD title" (not just the same title, but the actual same transfer!). I even went so far as to contact Corinth Films about this problem, as I paid "full price" for the officially licensed discs. They gave me some insight into this at the time and I can only imagine Mr. Williams' frustration with this problem over the years.

I take Mr. Williams at his word that he is working to get these films out for the high definition home market. Sadly, I tend to believe his information about disc distribution. I don't fully understand how enough money is being made from all of the classics releases flooding the markets currently, unless it has something to do with volume--I mean, look at the number of releases coming just from Kino and Olive these days! Of course, this is a great thing for a classics collector such as myself and I snap them up. Mr. Williams has a relatively small library compared to MGM, so it makes sense that he needs a larger cut per title. Just a fairly uninformed opinion!

Personally, I'd pay Twilight Time prices for 3D discs of ROBOT MONSTER, CAT WOMEN OF THE MOON, and HANNAH LEE. After all, I just recently paid $30 for MISS SADIE THOMPSON and MAN IN THE DARK. I paid $35 for HOUSE OF WAX.

 

[Jeff S in NJ]

Personally, I'd pay Twilight Time prices for 3D discs of....

As would I (and have). However, I don't see this happening unfortunately. Remember too that the distributor as well as the rights owner need to come to mutual agreement on what is a fair price. If one party or the other thinks it is too little or too much, nothing's going to happen.

Unfortunately I think that is the case here with HANNA LEE. Nobody said to give it away for free, but on the other hand you got an open offer. Since you still haven't commented directly to that offer, I can only assume you feel it's "giving it away for free".

Let's get real here, the film is really nothing more than an obscure antiquity from long ago - it's nothing great (even though John Ireland says otherwise in the trailer!). It's not that interesting in the grand scheme of things. It has a limited audience (of which I admittedly am one). Sitting abound waiting for the "big bucks" to come your way will probably never happen. This is why I have little confidence I'll ever see it in 3D. Let's just say I hope I am proved wrong some day, and not when I'm too old to care.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Hey Guys-
There are plenty of labels that will release them if you give them away and bend over !!!! I have been ripped off by every label I have licensed to. Some stopped paying any royalties, no accounting, they pretty much do as they want and then sell your masters or
"lose" them when the term is up ! One went broke and the employees stole them. I have been a party to several lawsuits and won. However
these jerks go bankrupt and you get nothing. They tie up your assets for 7 years and then keep selling them until you file a lawsuit.

Susan has valuable films and they will make a fortune on DVD and she needs a "respectable " sum up front because that is for the most part all you every see because they write off everything and usually run out of money to pay you. Most of the time you can't
get a timely accounting.. The labels pay under a dollar for a DVD in Blu-ray and sell them for $ 19.95 or more. If you are lucky you get a
few bucks on the sale. One company sells 3000 Blu-Rays the first year-or more on these old classics.

I have reason to believe Susan will license her films and that my films will start showing up- LEGALLY - in Hi-Def and
Blu-Ray. We still have a lot of surplus titles from IMAGE to sell.this fall.

wade williams

To Wade:

One way for you to avoid being ripped off would be for you to create new masters, author-replicate-package the Blu-rays, and then sell only finished goods to a distributor who would take them to the retail market for you and shoulder dealing with the likes of Amazon, etc. You would get paid for every unit that sells through at retail and the accounting is clean & above board. Contact me by PM if interested and I'll put you in touch with the acquisitions people where I work.

Another way for you to avoid potential issues is to go the Twilight Time route and sell direct to the public - no middlemen involved and every $ comes to you. You would probably want a logistics team to handle the actual shipping, etc., to consumers unless you already have that in place. We can do that, too.

Please pass these ideas along to Susan Hart as well.

 

[RolandL]

...I am not giving away HANNAH LEE because it is PD. It was PD when I paid good money for it. It will be licensed and packaged with the other 3D movies ! It will be licensed like the other pictures I own as will any PD film in my library. They will all make money, some more, some less.. It will be up to the distributor who will do the 3D restorations, either 3D Archive or someone else.

Bob Harris brought up a suggestion how to protect any new restoration of HANNAH LEE in order to get a new copyright to prevent the theft and unfetted use of the film when it is re-released.. This will be the plan for the next re-release of HANNAH LEE.....

Please have 3D Archive do the 3D restorations. All of their titles have excellent 3D. The 3D titles released by others,vary from fair to very good 3D. But most of them could have been better if 3D Archive had done the restorations, (exceptions Dial M for Murder, House of Wax and Kiss Me Kate which were done properly by WB). For an example, check out the corrections 3D Film Archive would have done to Creature from the Black Lagoon - half way down the page. 3D Film Archive could have also corrected many of the problems with titles from the 1980's - Coming at Ya!, Jaws 3D, Amityville 3-D and the Disney 1953 Working for Peanuts short.

 

[Paul Thrussell]

It's a shame that the Eastman OCN of IFM is in different hands than the rest of the materials, since I'd imagine it would improve upon third-generation elements (neg from seps) for the shots that it does contain. Shocking that it sold for just five grand (if I understand correctly!)

At any rate, I am sure the Blu-ray that Mr. Williams and a licensor will eventually come up with will be a revelation compared to previous video releases!

 

[disctrip]

All I can say is this...I am going to be 71 years old this year and unless people stop talking about it and start doing something, it is not going to matter to me. The people who love and remember these films are growing old. The younger generation could care less about purchasing a copy. Time is running out...and so are "profits".

 

[Ruz-El]

"needs a "respectable " sum up front"

this will be the hurdle on these moving forward, and I do not say that as a criticism of Mr. Williams in any way. I'd want strong terms too if I had a history of being ripped off. Thumbs held an agreement can be met sooner or later.

 

[haineshisway]

Hey Guys-
There are plenty of labels that will release them if you give them away and bend over !!!! I have been ripped off by every label
I have licensed to. Some stopped paying any royalties, no accounting, they pretty much do as they want and then sell your masters or
"lose" them when the term is up ! One went broke and the employees stole them. I have been a party to several lawsuits and won. However
these jerks go bankrupt and you get nothing. They tie up your assets for 7 years and then keep selling them until you file a lawsuit.

Susan has valuable films and they will make a fortune on DVD and she needs a "respectable " sum up front because that is for
the most part all you every see because they write off everything and usually run out of money to pay you. Most of the time you can't
get a timely accounting.. The labels pay under a dollar for a DVD in Blu-ray and sell them for $ 19.95 or more. If you are lucky you get a
few bucks on the sale. One company sells 3000 Blu-Rays the first year-or more on these old classics.

I have reason to believe Susan will license her films and that my films will start showing up- LEGALLY - in Hi-Def and
Blu-Ray. We still have a lot of surplus titles from IMAGE to sell.this fall.

wade williams

To be very accurate, what Blu-ray discs cost is irrelevant - you're leaving out the transfer costs, the authoring costs, the packaging costs, the art direction costs and the actual licensing advance. I can tell you in the case of my little movie that I released on Blu-ray, those costs added up to almost twenty grand, and I didn't have to pay an advance because I own the film. They don't "write off" those costs, they recoup them as they have every right to do and which is why they pay an advance royalty, usually based on a certain number of units.

 

[haineshisway]

There is a reality to what these kinds of titles will sell. And if someone is asking huge amounts of money and the licensee ALSO has to be responsible for the transfer costs, packaging costs, etc. the sales would not justify any huge outlay of cash. It's so easy to say this or that will sell thousands of copies and do amazingly well. What rights' holder wouldn't say that. It doesn't make it so and I think people here either know that reality or would be shocked at the low numbers titles like this actually sell at the end of the day on Blu-ray.

 

[Robert Harris]

There is a reality to what these kinds of titles will sell. And if someone is asking huge amounts of money and the licensee ALSO has to be responsible for the transfer costs, packaging costs, etc. the sales would not justify any huge outlay of cash. It's so easy to say this or that will sell thousands of copies and do amazingly well. What rights' holder wouldn't say that. It doesn't make it so and I think people here either know that reality or would be shocked at the low numbers titles like this actually sell at the end of the day on Blu-ray.

And getting lower as a major portion of potential viewers give up quality for ease and zero physical storage.

 

[Dick]

And getting lower as a major portion of potential viewers give up quality for ease and zero physical storage.

Yes, another example of the oh-so-sad dumbing-down of the U.S. populace in the age of Twittering and Tweeting and Texting and blind, greedy consumerism. I'm surprised anything of true quality or cognitive/emotional resonance still survives.

 

[Interdimensional]

Yes, another example of the oh-so-sad dumbing-down of the U.S. populace in the age of Twittering and Tweeting and Texting and blind, greedy consumerism. I'm surprised anything of true quality of cognitive/emotional resonance still survives.

Some people have different priorities, it's just a trade-off. Affordability and convenience has always been the deciding factor.

I think quality still matters to most people, and it's more important than ever to master films from the best materials in at least HD, original aspect ratio. I'm sure we've all seen just how garbled standard-def video can look when streamed digitally. It's often much worse than it would've been with analog transmissions. Start with a faded transfer with a host of other issues, and it will be unwatchable. It's like with each technological advance, artifacts build up at every level. There's scratches and filmgrain, then analog video artifacts from the video master, then compression artifacts, and finally streaming artifacts, which seem to magnify every other issue and distort sd video far worse than hd.

 

[Worth]

Yes, another example of the oh-so-sad dumbing-down of the U.S. populace in the age of Twittering and Tweeting and Texting and blind, greedy consumerism. I'm surprised anything of true quality or cognitive/emotional resonance still survives.

An interest in older films has always been a niche pursuit. There are certainly plenty of examples out there of the dumbing-down of society, but poor sales of obscure 60 year-old movies isn't one of them. It's not as though there was some huge passion for the work of the Lumiere brothers in the 1950s. Also, I'm not sure how people opting not to buy something serves as an example of greedy consumerism.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Speaking of aspect ratios, none of Wade's vintage standard-def transfers of post-1953 widescreen films have been in the correct and director-intended widescreen ratios, including this one:

 

[Randy Korstick]

This is not an attack on Susan Hart but Ive heard / talked to many label insiders who have approached her about releasing her film library on both DVD and bluray. The word is she is asking for unreasonably high amounts of money for them. "She's a nice lady but her asking price is too high" is what Ive been told basically. And Im sure shes a nice lady and everything..but as a fan/collector who wants her films on home video, year in and year out it's the same thing -we are still waiting for her to agree to some deal. Even the Arkoff estate has had home video releases such as Earth vs the Spider and War of the Colossal Beast. Come on Susan , lets get your films out there !!
Both you Mr Williams and Susan Hart have very desirable movies that fans of that era who enjoy and appreciate those films want and speaking for myself, Im very eager to see them on bluray.
I love those movies and I would love to have them in HD on my shelf.
Please work some kind of deal for them - there are plenty of labels who would release them Kino, Olive, Criterion, Shout Factory, you name it

I have heard and read that many times too but how do we know that its not the label/labels that are offering a ridiculously low amount for the films. They could be telling her these are old B-schlock movies that are not worth much just hoping she may fall for it or basing their offer on what they acquired other 50's sci-fi titles for. And those titles may not be nearly as popular as these. I mean the films she has are certainly worth more than Phantom from 10,000 leagues, Invisible Invaders and Curse of the Faceless Man. We don't know the truth either way since we are not involved in these business transactions so its probably best to not accuse either side. It certainly does nothing to help get the films released.
This is not directed at you personally just in general since I read assumptions that it is all Susan Harts fault all the time.

 

[Mossman-Williams]

Peter-
The first offer on IFM was from TWILIGHT TIME. The problem was again the restoring of the
negative.They do excellent work !

I have considered releasing my top films direct and probably will end up doing the major titles . One of the owners of TWILIGHT TIME has been a close friend for years. I rely on his expertise and advice as well as Kit Parker, VCI and FILMS AROUND THE WORLD.
All have been in long time distributors major distributors.

Furmanek seems to blame me for the various distributors not releasing some of my films in the proper aspect ratio. Once I license my library it's out of sight out of mind until the license terminates. I don't buy the DVD's or look at the sample copies.

Wade Williams.

 

[B-ROLL]

Speaking of aspect ratios, none of Wade's vintage standard-def transfers of post-1953 widescreen films have been in the correct and director-intended widescreen ratios, including this one:
View attachment 33361

"Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Thanks for you reply, Wade. I do hope you take the next step in getting these films out to the public again.

Regarding aspect ratios, normally I would think those are decided upon in the transfer stage by whoever is handling the elements and not by the end distributor when creating a disc master. Perhaps that's not how it was done in the past, however.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Once I license my library it's out of sight out of mind until the license terminates. I don't buy the DVD's or look at the sample copies.

Wow. I would think as the owner of these assets, you would want them presented in the best possible light. You don't even look at screeners for quality control purposes?

On our 3-D restorations, we go through many screeners before we sign off on it. We want buyers to have the optimum quality on every title.

Also, please tell me which restorations have been done directly by Twilight Time? Thanks!

 

[Interdimensional]

Once I license my library it's out of sight out of mind until the license terminates. I don't buy the DVD's or look at the sample copies.

Wade Williams.

I'd advise against this approach in future. When you put your name on a product, that should mean something.

Perception is important, if people see your films in substandard presentations, it looks like nobody cares. Not only does it detract from the enjoyment of the film, the unspoken message is that the film wasn't worth investing in a decent remaster. It diminishes the film. Conversely, if you'd gone along with the Criterion proposal you mentioned earlier, it would've really boosted the profile of those films. The same goes for films the 3-D Film Archive has been involved with.