Warner Brothers is making a mistake (1 Viewer)

[whyme?]

Other than house of wax and Kiss me Kate,they have not digitally restored and preserve all the rest of the MGM and R.K.O. 3D legacy. If not for home video Blu ray 3D,why not for DCP,3D theatrical showings,offering them for limited theatrical showings? Now I know that R.K.O has been a tire company for years and they would occasionally has gone back to picture making,releasing it through other studios. I suspect that they still owe the rights to the R.K.O films. So it might be the fact that they haven't yet had any interest in restoring and preserving their 3D legacy. If Time Warner would change their mind and Persuade radio to allow the restoration and preservation of their 3D legacy ,they could make profits,long term profit that is. For example, The French line. Like the Rocky horror picture show it is campy.Not in the same way as rocky ,but in the 1950's way.2D or 3D it looks like it was made in hurry.The songs look like it was written in a hurry. Makes the film silly,but ,in a positive way. Jane's original dance number ,high camp. Well r.k.o. could get this film digitally restored and preserved in it's 3D glory .They could offer a licence to fathom events and show it all over the country for three days at the mausoleums .Better yet offer it as a midnight showing ,in 3D, it would make money. Those with no 3D set up could finally see this. Alas ,the reason why they don't do this because since the late 70's the big corporate have been deregulated. So they can be greedy and selfish to consumers and workers any time the CEO's want to. Only classic films that proved to attract a big quick audience they will put out on things like fantom events. Putting out a 3D classic would out for limit theaters would slow down time Warner's greedy profit. I'm surprised that Bwana Island has been restored in 3D and it's going to be put out in on Blu ray 3D .Unless it's public domain, I'm surprised that M.G.M UA gave the go ahead. Maybe Furmanek persuaded them.The 3D archives did restored it.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I don't think it's viable in today's economy. At least not here in the States.

 

[marcco00]

i would LOVE to see THE FRENCH LINE restored, that's a holy grail for me

 

[Thomas T]

Alas ,the reason why they don't do this because since the late 70's the big corporate have been deregulated. So they can be greedy and selfish to consumers and workers any time the CEO's want to.

Since when did corporate America have a responsibility to consumers rather than their stockholders? I assure you that if Warners thought they could have made a profit by releasing a restored 3D The French Line they would have done so by now. Kiss Me Kate is a classic Cole Porter musical and House Of Wax an acknowledge horror classic so going the extra mile to release them in 3D is understandable. The French Line is a mediocre Jane Russell musical and the market for "camp" extremely limited (mostly to gay audiences).

As a Jane Russell fan, I'd buy a French Line blu ray in a minute but I know it's a mediocre (I'm being generous) musical. The question is ..... does Ms. Russell have a big enough fan base for Warners to break even much less turn a profit. With physical media slowly but surely shrinking (how long before it's a niche market or has it already reached that phase), the market for 3D is even smaller.

 

[Dick]

Purely from the standpoint of preservation, if not any physical disc release, it would be wise for WB to restore and preserve its 3D holdings across all studios whose films it owns. This would, of course, also go for all as-yet unrestored 2D films from RKO, MGM, etc. There is an awful lot of work to do, granted, but I am hoping the current owners of the studio and any future ones would at least have a cursory interest in its film catalog. Disney has kept its library pristine since forever, but, of course, it has a much smaller filmography to protect, and an appreciable portion of its annual earnings come from its film and video releases. This is much less so for companies like Viacom or Comcast.

Oh, how the studios must have come to wish they had preserved all of their silent films rather than let them dissolve into vinegar or warehouse fires or simple misplacement. And what about all the cutting room floor stuff that was simply destroyed...bet they all wish they'd saved that stuff, too!

Obviously, collectors like the members here would like to see all such films emerging on Blu-ray or DVD, resurrected from the ashes, so to speak. But, as that isn't ever going to happen, we can only hope the studios or current owners will redouble their efforts to make sure no further films, whether 3D or 2D or silent or CinemaScope or 3-strip Technicolor or IMAX or whatever, suffer the fate so many thousands of films in our great movie-making history have.

 

[Matt Hough]

Yes, I'm enormously grateful for the few Golden Age 3D films that we continue to get, but I've pretty much given up hope that we'll ever see these Warner 3D holdings.

 

[Robert Harris]

I almost don’t want to go here again, but regardless, a few notes, as WB, as well as other studios are doing continual work to save their libraries. The problem is that the libraries are huge.

Virtually all safety based prime motion picture elements owned and in the hands of the studios are sitting in proper vaults.

Nitrate based elements ditto, but always with the possibility of an accident.

Early safety based and all tri-acetate image and tracks (opt & mag) can suffer VS.

The overriding problem remains funding. Films are being preserved, and if necessary, restored on a continuing basis. You just don’t hear about it.

As to 3D films - they have minimal market appeal, and there are only a small percentage that are quality productions that would bring in the cost of their preservation/restoration, which is 2x+ that of a normal film.

This is where 3DFA is helpful, especially dealing with PD and indie product, as they can provide access to collectors via public funding, at a lower price point than full-on studio level work.

House of Wax was derived from masters, which means that the equivalent of six films had to be funded. Probably half a million or more for an 88 minute film.

A great percentage of silent cinema was not lost. It was destroyed by the owners as there was no value to retain elements.

As to retaining trims, outs, B neg for safety based films, it generally was not done - outside of some specific productions - because of storage. Each production amounted to hundreds of cartons. Where do they go?

And lastly, as to Disney, why would they receive a pass as to how their library was / is preserved? Perception vs Reality?

 

[moviebuff75]

I hope WB can go back and fix their digital mistakes with some of their tv product. Because some shows have been released in both original full frame and cropped widescreen, the technicians have made zooming errors on the originals.

 

[whyme?]

Since when did corporate America have a responsibility to consumers rather than their stockholders? I assure you that if Warners thought they could have made a profit by releasing a restored 3D The French Line they would have done so by now. Kiss Me Kate is a classic Cole Porter musical and House Of Wax an acknowledge horror classic so going the extra mile to release them in 3D is understandable. The French Line is a mediocre Jane Russell musical and the market for "camp" extremely limited (mostly to gay audiences).

As a Jane Russell fan, I'd buy a French Line blu ray in a minute but I know it's a mediocre (I'm being generous) musical. The question is ..... does Ms. Russell have a big enough fan base for Warners to break even much less turn a profit. With physical media slowly but surely shrinking (how long before it's a niche market or has it already reached that phase), the market for 3D is even smaller.

Thanks for the viewpoint. ever hear of 3D folders, or files, that could be backed up by a separate hard drive for storage, like collecting videos on physical media? Nope, Warners would not break even if they had a dual 3D version of the french line, including folder versions, they make a lot of money , but not big,like over exposing citizen Kane and gone with the wind,Wizards of oz. I'll say I again .they need to restore and preserve that 3 d classic for the sake of history. Befor one of th eye print shrink. Even the flat version of the french line needs to be remastered. I'll say it again Hollywood is not different than Wall street, greedy and selfish, thanks to deregulation. The only fans of entertainment it serves are those who are willing to serve them. The fans of what big corporate art have to give them, not choices or variety. Thank goodness I the jury and robot monster, which will be out soon are not controlled by big corporations or did you know pre-order was available at Lorber? and Soon as bob gets the perfect left and right prints .copy on a hard drive from the international archive, he will finsh the restoration and put it out.

 

[whyme?]

I don't think it's viable in today's economy. At least not here in the States.

by who's the definition? It would make as much money as hardcore pornography does

 

[whyme?]

I almost don’t want to go here again, but regardless, a few notes, as WB, as well as other studios are doing continual work to save their libraries. The problem is that the libraries are huge.

Virtually all safety based prime motion picture elements owned and in the hands of the studios are sitting in proper vaults.

Nitrate based elements ditto, but always with the possibility of an accident.

Early safety based and all tri-acetate image and tracks (opt & mag) can suffer VS.

The overriding problem remains funding. Films are being preserved, and if necessary, restored on a continuing basis. You just don’t hear about it.

As to 3D films - they have minimal market appeal, and there are only a small percentage that are quality productions that would bring in the cost of their preservation/restoration, which is 2x+ that of a normal film.

This is where 3DFA is helpful, especially dealing with PD and indie product, as they can provide access to collectors via public funding, at a lower price point than full-on studio level work.

House of Wax was derived from masters, which means that the equivalent of six films had to be funded. Probably half a million or more for an 88 minute film.

A great percentage of silent cinema was not lost. It was destroyed by the owners as there was no value to retain elements.

As to retaining trims, outs, B neg for safety based films, it generally was not done - outside of some specific productions - because of storage. Each production amounted to hundreds of cartons. Where do they go?

And lastly, as to Disney, why would they receive a pass as to how their library was / is preserved? Perception vs Reality?

by greedy corporate standards that is. Profit, in the long run, is a legitimate and more honest way of making money any how including ,film

 

[whyme?]

Yes, I'm enormously grateful for the few Golden Age 3D films that we continue to get, but I've pretty much given up hope that we'll ever see these Warner 3D holdings.

don't give up. Big corporate art what you too.

 

[Robert Crawford]

by who's the definition? It would make as much money as hardcore pornography does

Yeah, keep thinking that.

 

[TravisR]

Yeah, keep thinking that.

More than that, pornography on home video is hardly the big business it was 40 years ago. The internet has largely driven the adult industry back to the early 70's where the focus is on getting people to pay a little bit of money to see short clips ("loops" to use the 70's industry jargon) and not on selling movies on video.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Yeah, keep thinking that.

Well technically he's not wrong....

...in that 99% of porn watchers just pirate the stuff anyway these days so there's no real money to be made.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well technically he's not wrong....

...in that 99% of porn watchers just pirate the stuff anyway these days so there's no real money to be made.

Also, the internet.

 

[Robin9]

Warners would not break even if they had a dual 3D version of the french line, including folder versions, they make a lot of money ,

Warners would only make a lot of money by releasing The French Line if large numbers of people buy the product. Why do you believe large numbers of people in this day and age would spend their money on a semi-forgotten movie presented in a 3D format abandoned long ago by most people?

I would because I like Jane Russell and I have a 3D set-up, but my guess is that very few people under the age of forty have ever heard of Jane Russell.

 

[Robert Harris]

Probably $500k+ to make the first Blu-ray.

Not a good investment.

And then there are the wonderful reviews:

The French Line

Except for a four-minute, censorably costumed dance by Jane Russell, this is a rather mild, gabby, fashion parade in 3-D.

variety.com

I’ll ask the big question.

If WB offered to sell the IP for $250k, who here would buy it?

 

[Ross Gowland]

Hollywood is not different than Wall street, greedy and selfish, thanks to deregulation.

Hollywood was never a charity but surely there are way more restorations being done post-deregulation than pre-. Warners release new Blu-rays each month and mostly they’re brand new restorations.

A few years ago, we thought they wouldn’t touch Brothers Grimm with a barge pole, but look what happened.

And it’s hardly surprising that a costly-to-restore dud wouldn’t be high on their to do list. But maybe one day…

 

[RolandL]

A few years ago, we thought they wouldn’t touch Brothers Grimm with a barge pole, but look what happened.

And it’s hardly surprising that a costly-to-restore dud wouldn’t be high on their to do list. But maybe one day…

That's an exception as Dave Strohmaier and Tom March did the restoration for a very low cost.