Warner Bros. Catalog Blu-ray releases...? (1 Viewer)

[Keith Cobby]

My thoughts are that the studios want to move away from packaged media to a streaming format where they have greater control and greater cost efficiencies. The economics of distribution are closely guarded perhaps with the exception of Twilight Time because we know how many are pressed and what their revenues are.

 

[Robert Crawford]

My thoughts are that the studios want to move away from packaged media to a streaming format where they have greater control and greater cost efficiencies. The economics of distribution are closely guarded perhaps with the exception of Twilight Time because we know how many are pressed and what their revenues are.

I think most of us have come to that realization a while back. Furthermore, lets remember that the retailing part of the business has changed a lot since 2000. The number of retail stores has been greatly reduced over the years so less packaged media is being sold by that part of the retail business. Internet sales can only makeup a portion of those lost unit sales as more and more people are downloading/streaming their video entertainment.

 

[jcroy]

So for the rest of us, tough luck?

Of course, there are those who respond, "Some people will have problems in this regard, but the majority of folks will not." In other words, tough luck pal!

That's about it as there is nothing I can do to change your situation for the better. At times, life just isn't fair to any of us.

Hopefully this will not become this generation's version of a "rural purge".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_purge

 

[bruceames]

I accept the glum prognosis on catalogue releases but a few things confuse me if this is the case, and perhaps someone can enlighten me.

If catalogue sells so badly, how can Olive be making any kind of profit, given their release schedule and price point?

Why does WB not licence its movies to other distributors? Is some money not better than none?

How do the studios choose the few catalogue titles they do release? Why release the likes of ON THE RIVIERA or GRAND HOTEL yet sit on better-known titles from the 70s onwards? Not complaining that they do but surely logic would dictate that the older the film, the less likely it is to sell (with obvious exceptions like OZ, KONG, KANE etc). Is it simply about available materials?

How does WB decide which films get an Archive release and which get a retail release?

Your knowledge and opinions would be appreciated.

I believe Olive is making a profit on Paramount releases because they bought the licensing rights for a healthy batch of Paramount titles at a good price. So the per title fee a relatively small compared to that of Twilight Time, which buys them individually. So either Olive got "too" good a deal, or Twilight Time is paying too much and are simply passing the costs on to us (which is working largely because of the limited "3000" marketing gimmick).

Warner BD Archive are pressed discs just like the retail releases, so the only difference I see is that they are not sold in B&M stores, but rather mainly through Amazon and the WB Shop. They probably press similar amounts, which would be the minimum (perhaps 2000 or so).

Warner BD Archive would be far more productive were they to use BD-R discs (just like they use DVD-R for DVDs), but since BD-Rs don't work in some players (I wonder what percentage that may be, and if they're mainly older models), they are not using them at this time. So instead of getting 20 titles a month on BD, we are getting only 1 or so.

 

[ahollis]

The last two posts consider that Olive is making bundles of money off their Paramount deal. I don't think that we know how much profit the deal is generating or what the deal actually is. What we do know is that they increased the cost of the Blu and DVD's this year and that they lost a couple of people, per Mr Lime. I have also noticed that the number of releases per month has declined so for this year. IMHO, these small items do not lead me to believe the deal is as profitable as thought. I keep thinking about the Legend deal with Paramount about five years ago. It was a one time deal. I'm sure if it was successful for Legend them they would have worked on another deal.

 

[Rick Thompson]

They are for me! And they will be even more so when I stop working and have lots of spare time.

If you don't live in a city or suburb, I quote our esteemed moderator: "There is nothing I can do to change your situation for the better. At times, life just isn't fair to any of us."

Or more simply: Tough luck, pal!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Life is tough!

 

[Keith Cobby]

I have just bought a Panasonic code-free player to play the Olive blu-rays (and a few others) that I bought before the price increases (and after they zoned their releases to Region A). We don't know how many copies of titles Olive (and other distributors) have pressed and I suspect deep catalogue titles will begin to become unavailable. Buy while stocks last.

 

[Robert Crawford]

The last two posts consider that Olive is making bundles of money off their Paramount deal. I don't think that we know how much profit the deal is generating or what the deal actually is. What we do know is that they increased the cost of the Blu and DVD's this year and that they lost a couple of people, per Mr Lime. I have also noticed that the number of releases per month has declined so for this year. IMHO, these small items do not lead me to believe the deal is as profitable as thought. I keep thinking about the Legend deal with Paramount about five years ago. It was a one time deal. I'm sure if it was successful for Legend them they would have worked on another deal.

I've heard some things about their profit margins and it leaves me to believe that it's something the larger studios can't live with.

 

[bruceames]

The last two posts consider that Olive is making bundles of money off their Paramount deal. I don't think that we know how much profit the deal is generating or what the deal actually is. What we do know is that they increased the cost of the Blu and DVD's this year and that they lost a couple of people, per Mr Lime. I have also noticed that the number of releases per month has declined so for this year. IMHO, these small items do not lead me to believe the deal is as profitable as thought. I keep thinking about the Legend deal with Paramount about five years ago. It was a one time deal. I'm sure if it was successful for Legend them they would have worked on another deal.

I never considered that they are making bundles of money, only that they are able to sell them at a lower price than TT because they are not paying as much per title for licensing costs.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I never considered that they are making bundles of money, only that they are able to sell them cheaper then TT because they are not paying as much per title for licensing costs.

Their MSRP is the same as TT.

 

[bruceames]

Their MSRP is the same as TT.

I don't put much stock in MSRP but rather the prevailing street price. That's what they actually sell for.

For Olive it's around $20 and you can actually get free shipping.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I don't put much stock in MSRP but rather the prevailing street price. That's what they actually sell for.

On Amazon, Men in War from Olive is selling for $26.96 without any extras. Not much different than TT's pricing with TT having a more restrictive retail distribution network.

 

[bruceames]

Men in War from Olive is selling for $26.96 without any extras. Not much different than TT's pricing with TT having a more restrictive retail distribution network.

On average across all it's Blu-ray releases, it's around $20. Of course, the titles that have been out longer are more likely to be under $20 than preorders or recent releases.

Obviously TT's restrictive distribution network is making all the difference here. AFAIK, they are the only titles in which anyone actually pays MSRP.

 

[Worth]

Frankly, if that over-the-river-and-through-the-woods process is the only "solution," then I'd just stop buying movies (it's not like they're a necessity of life). I doubt I'm the only one. In fact, I'd bet the "forget it" group would be pretty large -- enough to make for a lot of coin left on the table. I just don't see the studios leaving that much coin on the table.

I don't think the studios actually want anyone to own anything. Their Holy Grail - which they effectively had from the beginning of cinema until about the mid-1970s - is a system in which everyone pays each time they watch a movie. I suspect the end game of digital distribution is a return to that model.

 

[cineMANIAC]

You can charge $27 for a barebones Blu-ray, doesn't mean anyone will buy it. Unless, of course, you enjoy spending more than you should.

 

[lukejosephchung]

You can charge $27 for a barebones Blu-ray, doesn't mean anyone will buy it. Unless, of course, you enjoy spending more than you should.

This is precisely the consumer mentality that discourages the major players in the home theater market from releasing more catalog titles...way to play into it, my friend!!!

 

[Ed Lachmann]

I've seen a few of my friend's "hi-def" downloads from Netflix and they don't look as sharp as a standard DVD played through an Oppo. Another person I know went for the Warners streaming program and claims that these aren't great quality-wise either. So, I guess streaming is kind of a picture version of lo-fi iTunes, better seen over some small hand held device but not at all for those looking for a "theater quality" experience at home. Life is tough, indeed, and also sadly sub-standard and a bit idiotic. Maybe someday when they stream 4K (which will probably then look like 1080) and lightening speed internet becomes even remotely affordable, I'll give it a whirl. If not, I'll most probably join Rick in the "forget it" group.

 

[ahollis]

You can charge $27 for a barebones Blu-ray, doesn't mean anyone will buy it. Unless, of course, you enjoy spending more than you should.

Unless it's a title you really really want.

 

[cineMANIAC]

This is precisely the consumer mentality that discourages the major players in the home theater market from releasing more catalog titles...way to play into it, my friend!!!

Most of us here are die hard film fans and wouldn't think twice about throwing down good money on our favorite films. But if you're a label, large or small, trying to encourage people to blind buy less mainstream titles, to introduce them to films they wouldn't otherwise see (and, make some money in the process), you're not doing yourself any favors by allowing your product to be sold at inflated prices. Olive may not be able to control what Amazon charges for their discs, but they can certainly try to do something about it. I would start by selling direct. I stopped buying Olive BDs because I can't afford $27 for every title I want. I don't buy Olive titles from Importcds.com anymore because their prices have increased, plus it always took 2 weeks to receive orders. So until something changes, Olive titles will be out of reach for me. Knock off $10 and I'll stock up like there's no tomorrow.