I'm sure those, along with Blonde Crazy, are the same transfers that air on TCM presently as the WAC intents to remaster them in the future for home video. A recent Facebook response from one of their representatives stated that the existing video transfer for Blonde Crazy is over 25 years old. Run of the Arrow is also in serious need of remastering and I wouldn't doubt the current transfer is non-anamorphic.MLamarre said:
They're on iTunes too.
This is certainly true to a point but I've seen quite a few classic movies on the big screen over the past few years and it's about 50/50 on the young and old. I really do think TCM and DVD helped get some classic films into the hands of younger people. Fans of Tarantino have gone back and gotten involved with the films that he recommends and I think people like Scorsese has a strong following among young people and they will check out movies he talks about. What's hard is getting young people to drop $15-$20 on a DVD-R from a website they might not know about. I really do think streaming is yet another way to introduce these films to younger people. Like it or not, streaming is what younger people are doing. Be it on a Roku or their phone. I signed up and I hope to get an invite to try this out. If not, I'd gladly pay $15-$20 a month to stream some titles as long as they aren't just things that were given an official release on DVD. I would prefer a pay-per-view type thing with them just charging $2 or $3 a title. Either way, I'm certainly very happy that they've taken this step and hopefully the other studios would follow. I mentioned in the Columbia/Karloff thread that there are so many VERY SMALL titles that big stars did that just wouldn't really be big enough sellers for even a made on demand release. This would be a great way to put them out there for people to see. Incomplete films, outtakes, shorts and so on.mdnitoil said:
I partially agree. Streaming as a replacement of owning personal copies sucks. However, streaming as an option in the rental market is excellent. Between Netflix and Amazon I've been able to see plenty of films that have quality DVD or Blu-ray releases without hassle, and discovered ones I enjoyed enough to then purchase.
A lot of companies (including Something Weird, Sinister Cinema) are still selling DVD-Rs at $11-$15 while offering a cheaper stream for around $10. Sinister Cinema (through Amazon) even allows you to rent a movie (through streaming) at $2 or just buy it at $7. This is something that's really good because they deal with movies that most people aren't going to watch but it works because you can "try" a movie for $2 and if you then like it and want to own it you can have it for $7. Still under $10, which is a lot cheaper than taking a blind buy on a DVD-R. I'm not sure if this new site is just going to allow streaming or if down the road they will just make every movie available to buy as well. $15 DVD-R. $10 Stream $3 Rental I think everyone is taken care of and it seems like it would have more money going into Warner's pocket. .
In actuality, the circumstances are not exactly as you perceive. One of WB archives' earliest 'remastered' titles ( from the era of the red banded header on the packagng) was the Mnogram noir "Violence" ( Great little gem BTW) and that title is in their private beta in HD. Mexican Spitfire and the monogram set with "Texas Lawmen" were not marketed as remastered releases, and likely used newer SD sources. I would venture to guess that there will be many more of the WAC- initiated HD remasters as time goes on included in thie new service as it officialy launches. Eiher way, with such a stellar array of great films and unique rarities ( especially the cool and ultra-rare TV stuff they have which you can't see anywhere else), this service is a must for me, especially if is reasonably priced!JoHud said:
I agree with this. I am basically AGAINST streaming as far as OWNING is concerned. If there's a movie I like that I want to add to my own personal library, then I wish to have it physically on a commercially released disc -- and with packaging and artwork to compliment it (even if it's a MOD release, though of course I prefer PRESSED discs). Those who support streaming better start realizing that there is every likelihood that one day their viewing choices will be dictated by the studios, and they will decide what is available on their menu for you to watch, only for whatever length of time they decide it will be available to you. Streaming completely gives them the reigns with which to control you and your viewing options. But once you own a physical disc, it's yours to do with as you please forever -- as long as you are able to have the electronics to play them on (store a couple of extra players and HDTVs if you like). Having said that, RENTALS are another matter entirely. I am presently not hooked up for streaming because there are not many times I think of films I would like to sample before deciding whether or not they're worth owning. If I wanted to watch more first-time films, then I think streaming is preferable to going to a rental store like BLOCKBUSTER and having to borrow a disc and then go back and return it. For example, although I generally dislike modern remakes of older films, I am interested in seeing the redux of THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (I thought Wes Craven's original was a terrible movie). If I had streaming, then I could just press the button and have it delivered straight to my screen. That would be fine --- but if I decided I wanted to OWN the film, then I want a physical DVD or Blu-ray; not some cloud or link or file, or whatever the heck it is.Brandon Conway said:
