Interview Interview with Twilight Time: Nick Redman on who they are, their business model and more. (1 Viewer)

[SeanAx]

Originally Posted by Wade Sowers

Enfield's THE UNDERWORLD STORY is out on MOD from the Warner Archieve in a fine looking print. THE SOUND OF FURY/TRY AND GET ME was mentioed last year at a Seattle film noir festival as in line for a restoration by the Film Noir Foundation.

Indeed, it is on the Warner Archive and I'm surprised I forgot, since I own that edition and watched it last year. For some reason, the old VHS cover was stuck in my mind.


I've seen a lot of support for what Twilight Time and other small labels doing on these boards, and legitimate criticism of mistakes in mastering and presentation. That is what I value this site for.


But there is also a lot of complaining about the direction the business is heading. I came of age as a home theater collector in age of laserdiscs. I purchased the deluxe "Citizen Kane" and "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull" sets from Criterion. Even used, they were more expensive than retail prices today on new Blu-ray editions, which are superior in sound and image and (in most cases) supplements. Now I have a huge collection, thanks largely to being in the business myself, but I recall the days when I obsessively videotaped movies from cable TV just to have them. Those options are still open. There is TCM and Fox Movies (I recorded "Fear and Desire" and William Desmond Taylor's "Huckleberry Finn" earlier this month). There is OnDemand and Netflix. Even libraries carry huge collections of DVDs and even some Blu-rays (largely educational programs but also classics and TV shows and anime and all sorts of things). And in a city like Seattle, we have Scarecrow Video, with rarities and imports in addition to most every new DVD and Blu-ray release of import. There is more access to more movies than ever before. I have to remind myself that the ability to own a film in a superior format is still a luxury, not a right. Especially if there is access to it via rental or streaming options.


Clearly, if there was still money to be made in DVD and Blu-ray sales of catalogue and classic titles, the studios would be making it. They are driven by profit. It's not a conspiracy, it's a matter of economics and saturation and the high cost of mastering, packaging and releasing a DVD or Blu-ray. That's why MOD has come about, making well over a thousand titles available that the studios would otherwise not release on DVD, and it is has improved greatly in just the two years its been around. That's why labels like Twlight Time have been created, to find new ways to make films available in models that are on a smaller scale than the studios deem worth their time. That's why Blue Underground and Synapse and Cinema Libre and Microcrocinema plug away in their own bailiwicks. Like Criterion and Kino and New Yorker and Olive and Milestone many others, they are in it for more than just money. They believe in movies and they believe in us.


We can and should hold them to a standard of quality when it comes to releasing their titles, and we can argue price, but the fact is they put out films that won't sell huge numbers, and thus smaller scale means higher prices. The best we can do is support what we value, for their sake and ours.


Sorry if this got too preachy. I got carried away in end of the year musings.


A happy new year to all and I hope 2012 brings your favorite film to DVD / Blu-ray in the best edition possible!

 

[Jon Hertzberg]

Indeed, it is on the Warner Archive and I'm surprised I forgot, since I own that edition and watched it last year. For some reason, the old VHS cover was stuck in my mind. I've seen a lot of support for what Twilight Time and other small labels doing on these boards, and legitimate criticism of mistakes in mastering and presentation. That is what I value this site for. But there is also a lot of complaining about the direction the business is heading. I came of age as a home theater collector in age of laserdiscs. I purchased the deluxe "Citizen Kane" and "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull" sets from Criterion. Even used, they were more expensive than retail prices today on new Blu-ray editions, which are superior in sound and image and (in most cases) supplements. Now I have a huge collection, thanks largely to being in the business myself, but I recall the days when I obsessively videotaped movies from cable TV just to have them. Those options are still open. There is TCM and Fox Movies (I recorded "Fear and Desire" and William Desmond Taylor's "Huckleberry Finn" earlier this month). There is OnDemand and Netflix. Even libraries carry huge collections of DVDs and even some Blu-rays (largely educational programs but also classics and TV shows and anime and all sorts of things). And in a city like Seattle, we have Scarecrow Video, with rarities and imports in addition to most every new DVD and Blu-ray release of import. There is more access to more movies than ever before. I have to remind myself that the ability to own a film in a superior format is still a luxury, not a right. Especially if there is access to it via rental or streaming options. Clearly, if there was still money to be made in DVD and Blu-ray sales of catalogue and classic titles, the studios would be making it. They are driven by profit. It's not a conspiracy, it's a matter of economics and saturation and the high cost of mastering, packaging and releasing a DVD or Blu-ray. That's why MOD has come about, making well over a thousand titles available that the studios would otherwise not release on DVD, and it is has improved greatly in just the two years its been around. That's why labels like Twlight Time have been created, to find new ways to make films available in models that are on a smaller scale than the studios deem worth their time. That's why Blue Underground and Synapse and Cinema Libre and Microcrocinema plug away in their own bailiwicks. Like Criterion and Kino and New Yorker and Olive and Milestone many others, they are in it for more than just money. They believe in movies and they believe in us. We can and should hold them to a standard of quality when it comes to releasing their titles, and we can argue price, but the fact is they put out films that won't sell huge numbers, and thus smaller scale means higher prices. The best we can do is support what we value, for their sake and ours. Sorry if this got too preachy. I got carried away in end of the year musings. A happy new year to all and I hope 2012 brings your favorite film to DVD / Blu-ray in the best edition possible!

Very well said, Sean. Thanks.

 

[David Weicker]

First of all, I should mention that I did purchase both Fright Night, and Mysterious Island. I think they are good releases - not perfect, but good. The picture quality is excellent, but I was one of the people bothered by the lack of meaningful chapter stops and the high price. The chapter stop issue I find to be amateurish, but I gather it is being addressed. The high prices - well, I have no control over that. I, personally, think that charging more than the MOD prices, and more than Criterion retail prices is wrong. Plus, to charge almost double for shipping than elsewhere (media rate via USPS is about $2.50) is also wrong to me. The fact that we have all overpaid for things in the past doesn't justify overpaying for things now. BUT, what really gets me is the concept of Limited Run/Collector's Edition. Movies are for the masses. To be shared by all. If the makers of these movies (producers/directors/writers/crew/performers) knew that in the future only a small handful of people would be able to view these in the best possible way, they would be shocked and probably quite upset. Calling something a Collector's Edition is not a positive, but a negative (IMHO). David

 

[Bryan^H]

Very good interview. I agree with Mr. Redman on nearly everything he said. I fear with the wildly popular streaming option of viewing movies(through multiple services), physical media will soon wither, and die. I hate to think about it, but I'm now expecting it.

 

[SeanAx]

Originally Posted by David Weicker
... If the makers of these movies (producers/directors/writers/crew/performers) knew that in the future only a small handful of people would be able to view these in the best possible way, they would be shocked and probably quite upset. Calling something a Collector's Edition is not a positive, but a negative (IMHO).

In fact, the makers of movies in the silent era and the classic age of moviemaking (pre-1955) assumed that almost no one would see their films after their initial theatrical runs. Apart from a few regularly revivied classics and occassional revivals, films were ephemeral, disposable things. TV changed that a little, as studios discovered a new way to wring more profits out of their libraries, but essentially it was the advent of consumer VHS in the early 1980s that made movies available to be owned and seen at anyone's leisure. That's only the last thirty years of an industry/artform that was born in 1895, over 115 years ago.


Please, don't get me wrong. I'm not attacking the ideal you represent. It would be wonderful if all movies were made available to everyone. But it never has been that way. As I wrote above, there are now more movies available to consumers than every before, to own or to rent/stream/pay-per-view. And the idea of owning a film is a modern concept. It wasn't that long ago when film collectors actually had to purchase film prints and show them on projectors.


It is a shame that the limited edition model means that "Fright Night" won't be available again on Blu-ray again at least for another three years. But it is on DVD and available to rent or purchase via digital download, and it would not have been on Blu-ray at all if not for Twilight Time. Sony chose not to release that film themselves and offered it to Twilight Time on the limited edition terms, and the company had their first genuine success.


So while it would have been nice if Sony had chosen to do a wide release, Sony had already made the call not to release it. The real issue here is this: is it better for Twilight Time to release it on Blu-ray in a limited edition, or no one to release it on Blu-ray at this time at all? Unless you know of another company that was willing to step up and license the title for a wide release, everything else is merely a "what if."

 

[Jon Hertzberg]

In fact, the makers of movies in the silent era and the classic age of moviemaking (pre-1955) assumed that almost no one would see their films after their initial theatrical runs. Apart from a few regularly revivied classics and occassional revivals, films were ephemeral, disposable things. TV changed that a little, as studios discovered a new way to wring more profits out of their libraries, but essentially it was the advent of consumer VHS in the early 1980s that made movies available to be owned and seen at anyone's leisure. That's only the last thirty years of an industry/artform that was born in 1895, over 115 years ago. Please, don't get me wrong. I'm not attacking the ideal you represent. It would be wonderful if all movies were made available to everyone. But it never has been that way. As I wrote above, there are now more movies available to consumers than every before, to own or to rent/stream/pay-per-view. And the idea of owning a film is a modern concept. It wasn't that long ago when film collectors actually had to purchase film prints and show them on projectors. It is a shame that the limited edition model means that "Fright Night" won't be available again on Blu-ray again at least for another three years. But it is on DVD and available to rent or purchase via digital download, and it would not have been on Blu-ray at all if not for Twilight Time. Sony chose not to release that film themselves and offered it to Twilight Time on the limited edition terms, and the company had their first genuine success. So while it would have been nice if Sony had chosen to do a wide release, Sony had already made the call not to release it. The real issue here is this: is it better for Twilight Time to release it on Blu-ray in a limited edition, or no one to release it on Blu-ray at this time at all? Unless you know of another company that was willing to step up and license the title for a wide release, everything else is merely a "what if."

Agreed, again, Sean. Again, it should be added that a Blu-ray may appear via one of Sony's foreign off-shoots. May is, of course, the key word there. Twilight Time's arrangement only applies to the U.S. Sony operation.

 

[Brandon Conway]

At least the Sony films are titles I can rent on DVD from Netflix before they get released by Twilight Time to see if I like them enough to purchase on Blu. The Fox films are new to DVD from Twilight as well so a rental pre-viewing is impossible for me, and though I would like to see them I can't justify the cost of blind-buying from Twilight.


Same goes for a lot of the Warner MOD titles. At least those will never go OOP as long as the service is available.

 

[rsmithjr]

Those of us who want quality, collectable media are going to have to recalibrate to the economic realities of the marketplace. I myself come from a time when, if you wanted to see an old film, you had to find a 16mm or 35mm print and sit up in the middle of the night in a theatre (which I have done many times), so Blu-ray is heaven-sent and so is Twilight Time. It is clear that older films are going to continue to be remastered for HD for a multiplicity of channels. It is very likely that we will have access to BD copies of many of these. We are just going to have to be flexible about the pricing and terms, and diligent about learning about the opportunities since they will not be advertised by Wal-Mart or even Best Buy or Amazon. Twilight Time is trying a model that is very interesting, as is Warner Archive in the MOD space. Sony is also the most committed company in the world to the success of Blu-ray. While it is conceivable that they made a mistake with Fright Night, I doubt it. This is going to work for us.

 

[dpippel]

Interesting interview and thread. While I don't agree with some of Mr. Redman's opinions I found them enlightening. It's great to have the opportunity to hear directly from industry insiders and it's one of the reasons I value HTF so much. I'm always learning something new here. Amongst all of the film business discussion in this interview, one thing I found odd was Mr. Redman comparing Twilight Time with the Criterion Collection to help justify the prices they're charging for their products. While both companies sell films on disc, their operations seem to be very different. Besides their home video sales, CC is also in the film archiving and restoration business. They spend a lot of time, effort, money, and care in preparing their titles for release in the best presentation possible. In the majority of cases they also produce extensive, exclusive supplemental material - documentaries, interviews, commentary tracks, etc. Twilight Time, at least so far as their Sony titles go, is only pressing, packaging, and selling bare-bones releases that have already been prepped by the studio for Blu-ray distribution. I'm not saying that TT doesn't have valid reasons for their pricing structure and I'm certainly appreciative of their efforts, but it seems to me that they're not really in the same league as the CC. One other thing - I'm really getting tired of the "I remember when I used pay $100+ for a laserdisc" argument being used to paint a $40 Blu-ray without extra features as a good deal that no one should be complaining about. While I feel there is some crossover, the Blu-ray market is very different form Laserdisc, which was a niche product. Comparing its pricing sturcture to a mass-marketed consumer delivery system like Blu-ray is disingenuous. The fact of the matter is that sub-$20 prices have been the norm for Blu-ray releases for quite some time. It's what the consumer has come to expect. Collectors and HT enthusiasts such as ourselves are willing to pay more than that for specialty products, but don't tell me that I should feel blessed to "only" be paying $35 for a release like Fright Night. I paid it because I wanted to own the film and that was the going price. Given their business model and studio agreements, TT was fair in charging that price as far as I'm concerned. However, if I were forced to spend that much for a typical release I'd be buying less than HALF of the titles that I am now. Just thinking out loud here.

 

[Jeff_HR]

I'm not sure what problems your referring too. But you are correct. Its NOT owning a movie, and thats exactly the way the studios want it. Doug

I, for one, will NEVER be a part of watching movies via streaming. IMO it will be a Pay per View business model. I don't rent now & have not rented a Video since 1989. I purchase because I wish to be able to watch a film at any time 24/7 without having to pay repeatedly for rental windows or streaming. I buy catalog titles almost exclusively. I buy VERY few recent Theatrical Releases, as I dislike the "Modern" editing practices & I basically think almost all new recent Theatrical Releases are HORSE MANURE! So companies like Twilight Time & Olive are right up my alley! Post Scriptum: Regarding Streaming & "other" viewing devices. I personally can't understand why people would want to watch a film on a Cell Phone or a small tablet device. The viewing "Screen" is just TOO SMALL!

 

[Towergrove]

Originally Posted by Bryan^H

Very good interview. I agree with Mr. Redman on nearly everything he said. I fear with the wildly popular streaming option of viewing movies(through multiple services), physical media will soon wither, and die. I hate to think about it, but I'm now expecting it.

We should remember though that however popular streaming is right now Those shiny discs are still being used by more people for home video viewing, even today. It will still be at least a 7billion dollar business this year. This total does not include disc rentals. A business that makes that much money is not to be ignored.


Like Twilight Time, Places like the Warner Archive had indicated a successful business model and they have made no mention of slowing down. Also why did you not bring up Downloads? Download to own will become more popular as an option for the ownership model in the future with programs like UV.


Streaming services are popular, yes but consumers want choices, right now we have cable, Ota, satellite, DVD, streaming, downloads and Bluray for home viewing. Having just streaming and downloads would limit consumer choice, not a good thing.


Streaming right now is very cheap to jump on board yet many many are still not streaming or never have any desire to do so.


All this and I haven't even brought up data caps and limits!


just my 2 cents.

Sarah

 

[Towergrove]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce

Interestingly it was announced a few weeks ago that most major retailers will stop carrying CDs in 2012. I suspect that DVDs are just a few years behind them.

Doug

This by the way was a rumour. It was struck down as not being correct. Someone on another forum mentioned that the studios would stop manufacturing CDs in 2012, incorrect. Still too big a business to get rid of so easily, sorry.

 

[Towergrove]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce

Originally Posted by Michael Allred [url=/t/317186/interview-with-twilight-time-nick-redman-on-who-they-are-their-business-model-and-more#post_3881860]

People keep talking about streaming like it's viable. It's not. There are so many issues/problems/variables involved with that whole way of thinking that it will take so much time to iron out and even then, there will be people like myself who don't consider it "owning" a movie via some cloud streaming service.
Anyway, it was indeed an insightful interview that gave me a new perspective on the whole thing. I don't agree with everything the gentleman said but it is what it is.

I'm not sure what problems your referring too. But you are correct. Its NOT owning a movie, and thats exactly the way the studios want it.

Doug

If the studios do not want you to own movies hasn't that Genie been removed from the bottle many years ago? They sell multi Billions of $$ in home video every year and I see them hardly complaining about making these sales. Studios will continue with their plans for rental AND sell thru in the future weather it be physical or digital media.


Also for example why would Warner Create the Warner Archive to sell you a movie if the didn't want you to buy their movies? That just doesn't make since.

 

[Richard--W]

Personally, I hope Nick Redman is wrong about the demise of physical media. I can't own everything -- I learned that when I started buying 1st editions (I own some books over 150 years old signed by people like Mark Twain etc) -- but I'll buy as much as I can. Where there is a wall in my house, there is a bookcase, and in at least one room the walls are lined with DVDs and Blu-rays. no need to upgrade technology again or stream movies over the phone lines etc. I'm content with Blu-ray, and I want Blu-rays to last forever. Unless my company gets funded and I'll be so busy I'll give up on this collecting thing altogether.

 

[Wade Sowers]

Consider this an early warning: a person on the CriterionForum posted DEMETRIUS AND THE GLADIATORS and BITE THE BULLET will be Blu-rays from Twilight Time on March 8th. Probably will not cause the sampede of a FRIGHT NIGHT, but, if interested, it does pay to preorder early. These are not yet listed at Screen Archives, but keep watching the skies.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Originally Posted by dpippel One other thing - I'm really getting tired of the "I remember when I used pay $100+ for a laserdisc" argument being used to paint a $40 Blu-ray without extra features as a good deal that no one should be complaining about. While I feel there is some crossover, the Blu-ray market is very different form Laserdisc, which was a niche product. Comparing its pricing sturcture to a mass-marketed consumer delivery system like Blu-ray is disingenuous. The fact of the matter is that sub-$20 prices have been the norm for Blu-ray releases for quite some time. It's what the consumer has come to expect. Collectors and HT enthusiasts such as ourselves are willing to pay more than that for specialty products, but don't tell me that I should feel blessed to "only" be paying $35 for a release like Fright Night. I paid it because I wanted to own the film and that was the going price. Given their business model and studio agreements, TT was fair in charging that price as far as I'm concerned. However, if I were forced to spend that much for a typical release I'd be buying less than HALF of the titles that I am now. Just thinking out loud here.

While Blu-ray has a whole has been growing, unfortunately for all of us as of now it looks like a lot of classic and deep catalog titles are niche products.

 

[Douglas Monce]

First of all, I should mention that I did purchase both Fright Night, and Mysterious Island. I think they are good releases - not perfect, but good. The picture quality is excellent, but I was one of the people bothered by the lack of meaningful chapter stops and the high price. The chapter stop issue I find to be amateurish, but I gather it is being addressed. The high prices - well, I have no control over that. I, personally, think that charging more than the MOD prices, and more than Criterion retail prices is wrong. Plus, to charge almost double for shipping than elsewhere (media rate via USPS is about $2.50) is also wrong to me. The fact that we have all overpaid for things in the past doesn't justify overpaying for things now. BUT, what really gets me is the concept of Limited Run/Collector's Edition. Movies are for the masses. To be shared by all. If the makers of these movies (producers/directors/writers/crew/performers) knew that in the future only a small handful of people would be able to view these in the best possible way, they would be shocked and probably quite upset. Calling something a Collector's Edition is not a positive, but a negative (IMHO). David

I think that with the marketing of DVD as a loss leader, we have actually become custom to under paying for movies. Big Box stores started using DVDs to get customers in the door, and everyone else had to follow suit. As long as everyone was buying DVDs that model worked fine, but the world is changing and people are no longer buying everything the studios put on disc. Why should they when for $7 a month they can watch it on Netflix or Hulu. The alternative to only a limited number of people seeing the movies is that NO ONE sees the movies. I don't think that is a very good option, particularly when there is likely only a limited audience for these films anyway. Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

I, for one, will NEVER be a part of watching movies via streaming. IMO it will be a Pay per View business model. I don't rent now & have not rented a Video since 1989. I purchase because I wish to be able to watch a film at any time 24/7 without having to pay repeatedly for rental windows or streaming. I buy catalog titles almost exclusively. I buy VERY few recent Theatrical Releases, as I dislike the "Modern" editing practices & I basically think almost all new recent Theatrical Releases are HORSE MANURE! So companies like Twilight Time & Olive are right up my alley! Post Scriptum: Regarding Streaming & "other" viewing devices. I personally can't understand why people would want to watch a film on a Cell Phone or a small tablet device. The viewing "Screen" is just TOO SMALL!

Then I suspect in the fairly near future you won't be watching many movies. As far as watching on a cell phone or an ipad, many people do that when they are traveling. Makes spending time in an airport waiting room go by faster. But more to the point netflix is an HD stream for many of its films (1080P if you are watching on a PS3) While the quality isn't quite blu-ray, its perfectly acceptable for casual viewing, and in most cases better than broadcast. Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

We should remember though that however popular streaming is right now Those shiny discs are still being used by more people for home video viewing, even today.  It will still be at least a 7billion dollar business this year. This total does not include disc rentals. A business that makes that much money is not to be ignored. Like Twilight Time, Places like the Warner Archive had indicated a successful business model and they have made no mention of slowing down.  Also why did you not bring up Downloads?   Download to own will become more popular as an option for the ownership model in the future with programs like UV. Streaming services are popular, yes but consumers want choices, right now we have cable, Ota, satellite, DVD, streaming, downloads and Bluray for home viewing.  Having just streaming and downloads would limit consumer choice, not a good thing. Streaming right now is very cheap to jump on board yet many many are still not streaming or never have any desire to do so. All this and I haven't even brought up data caps and limits! just my 2 cents. Sarah

I stream 2 or 3 movies or TV shows a night, and I've never gone past about half of my monthly data cap. Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

This by the way was a rumour. It was struck down as not being correct.  Someone on another forum mentioned that the studios would stop manufacturing CDs in 2012, incorrect.  Still too big a business to get rid of so easily, sorry.

I didn't say that the studios would stop making CD, but that stores such as Walmart and Target would stop carrying them. I believe I read it in USA today about 2 months ago, but I haven't heard anything about it being reported as not true. Doug