Warner Archive Announcements Thread (13 Viewers)

[PMF]

Define "classic". The latest batch of announcements has at least two "classics" by my definition.

1930's, 40's, 50's and 60's.
Legendary directors, writers, cinematographers, actors and actresses.
Also, Oscar winners and nominees of great merit;
such as 12 nominations for "Johnny Belinda".
Remaining entries from the AFI Top 100 series;
such as The Marx Brothers "A Night at the Opera" (1935)
or "Wuthering Heights" (1939).
But the definition of a "classic" will certainly vary for many;
and I do not represent that definitive;
although I bet that I'm somewhat in the ball-park.
As for "Wild Rovers" and "Summer Stock"?
Respectable offerings of interest and future purchases;
but far down the road from being urgent, commanding or of a Day-One nature.

 

[Arthur Powell]

Please do not interpret my words as being harsh or cynical, but I've come to accept that the WAC blu-ray line is not likely to ever make a significant dent upon my list of WB/MGM/RKO classics (mostly pre-1950) that I want to see upgraded to blu. We are quickly coming upon the fifth anniversary of the first WAC blu, and in all that time we've only had one 1930s title. Actions speak louder than words, and what that tells me is that WAC doesn't see much of its older library as being viable on blu-ray. I don't believe that this is a matter of indifference but more of economics. The cost of bringing these titles to blu and the revenue achieved from them may not be worth the time for WB/WAC. Also, you have to factor in the very high HD standards that the company has. I think these standards are unrealistic and unnecessarily exclude many titles, but that's a topic for another discussion.

With that said, I do not mean that we're never going to see any of the older titles on blu. We may not see them in the numbers we want, but we'll see at least a small number trickle out from time to time. Feltenstein has said that a highly-requested 1930s title is currently being prepared for blu-ray, and I'm excited to see what WB and Criterion have done with The Cameraman. While we're on the subject, Summer Stock, The Sea Hawk, and the Popeye cartoons are hardly chopped liver. Still, I understand and feel the angst that has been expressed - I could definitely do with a lot more blu-ray releases with the likes of Clark Gable, William Powell, Myrna Loy, Errol Flynn, Marx Bros, etc. I also hope that WB will show a greater willingness to license to the likes of Criterion and Kino. However, I am reconciled that I am going to have to make due with good old DVDs and perhaps streaming/downloads for most of my wish list. There are far worse fates than that so, on the whole, I think that we're all pretty lucky.

 

[Thomas T]

Please do not interpret my words as being harsh or cynical, but I've come to accept that the WAC blu-ray line is not likely to ever make a significant dent upon my list of WB/MGM/RKO classics (mostly pre-1950) that I want to see upgraded to blu. We are quickly coming upon the fifth anniversary of the first WAC blu, and in all that time we've only had one 1930s title. Actions speak louder than words, and what that tells me is that WAC doesn't see much of its older library as being viable on blu-ray. I don't believe that this is a matter of indifference but more of economics. The cost of bringing these titles to blu and the revenue achieved from them may not be worth the time for WB/WAC. Also, you have to factor in the very high HD standards that the company has. I think these standards are unrealistic and unnecessarily exclude many titles, but that's a topic for another discussion.

With that said, I do not mean that we're never going to see any of the older titles on blu. We may not see them in the numbers we want, but we'll see at least a small number trickle out from time to time. Feltenstein has said that a highly-requested 1930s title is currently being prepared for blu-ray, and I'm excited to see what WB and Criterion have done with The Cameraman. While we're on the subject, Summer Stock, The Sea Hawk, and the Popeye cartoons are hardly chopped liver. Still, I understand and feel the angst that has been expressed - I could definitely do with a lot more blu-ray releases with the likes of Clark Gable, William Powell, Myrna Loy, Errol Flynn, Marx Bros, etc. I also hope that WB will show a greater willingness to license to the likes of Criterion and Kino. However, I am reconciled that I am going to have to make due with good old DVDs and perhaps streaming/downloads for most of my wish list. There are far worse fates than that so, on the whole, I think that we're all pretty lucky.

Arthur, I congratulate you on a very realistic and sensible look at the so called "classics" situation with regards to the Warners Archives blu ray releases. I agree with you that "we're all pretty lucky". We all can dream about getting titles that we want but it's unrealistic to chastise Warners for releasing Frankenstein 1970 when such "classics" like Nancy Goes To Rio or Hedy Lamarr masterpieces like Lady Of The Tropics and White Cargo gather dust in their vaults. I'm sure Jean Harlow, Myrna Loy and Joan Crawford fans want their darlings on blu ray but the sad fact is that there is no blu ray market for them. When a photo of Jean Harlow is shown to three intelligent and learned people on Jeopardy! and no one can identify her, what does that tell you? You say you could do with more Clark Gable on blu ray but Warners has already released Gone With The Wind and Mutiny On The Bounty (and Criterion has It Happened One Night on blu). So what Gable title is essential enough to be on blu ray? Frankly, outside of San Francisco and possibly Red Dust and its remake Mogambo, I can't see any of Gable's catalog films clamoring to be on blu. He was a great movie star but very few great films on his resume. And no, I don't consider Test Pilot, Boom Town or Manhattan Melodrama great or essential films. I don't consider Frankenstein 1970 great or essential either but there is a market for horror films.

 

[PMF]

I fully agree that we are more than lucky; so lucky that WAC keeps us coming back (or wishing) for more.
Just for the record, and despite our many wanted titles, I'd like to take this moment to accentuate the positive.

WAC and all its good people; regardless of the classics in contention; have been consistent within their excellence.
Their pricing is incredibly fair and accessible.
No doubt, when one of our own personal favorites do pop up for purchase, we're in pig heaven.
Anyway, once in a while, we must not forget to applaud and encourage the efforts of their daily work-force.
The people of WAC; many faceless and, perhaps, nameless; have provided many a great pleasure, over these past few years.

Thank you, WAC.

 

[Ken_Martinez]

We're feeling the limits of A). Warner's reluctance to license and B). Them not having a program for scanning their holdings into 4K like Disney or other studios and having everything tied to home video.

The AT&T buyout is unknown, potentially scary territory. But if they are seriously gung-ho about having a all-encompassing streaming service and with former intra-company fiefdoms completely dissolved, I hope that gives them incentive to really dig deep into their catalog.

 

[Arthur Powell]

Arthur, I congratulate you on a very realistic and sensible look at the so called "classics" situation with regards to the Warners Archives blu ray releases. I agree with you that "we're all pretty lucky". We all can dream about getting titles that we want but it's unrealistic to chastise Warners for releasing Frankenstein 1970 when such "classics" like Nancy Goes To Rio or Hedy Lamarr masterpieces like Lady Of The Tropics and White Cargo gather dust in their vaults. I'm sure Jean Harlow, Myrna Loy and Joan Crawford fans want their darlings on blu ray but the sad fact is that there is no blu ray market for them. When a photo of Jean Harlow is shown to three intelligent and learned people on Jeopardy! and no one can identify her, what does that tell you? You say you could do with more Clark Gable on blu ray but Warners has already released Gone With The Wind and Mutiny On The Bounty (and Criterion has It Happened One Night on blu). So what Gable title is essential enough to be on blu ray? Frankly, outside of San Francisco and possibly Red Dust and its remake Mogambo, I can't see any of Gable's catalog films clamoring to be on blu. He was a great movie star but very few great films on his resume. And no, I don't consider Test Pilot, Boom Town or Manhattan Melodrama great or essential films. I don't consider Frankenstein 1970 great or essential either but there is a market for horror films.

Thanks for the comments. I used to be something of a Don Quixote figure battling against the windmills, but a few months back while in my home office I started looking at my three large bookcases. The biggest of them has nothing but books, and the other two have mixtures of books, DVDs, and blu-rays. It struck me that classic movie fans, in spite of all the market concerns, are truly in a golden age. Yes, the situation may not be perfect. It would certainly be nice, for instance, to see Universal open up its vault of thirties and forties era Universal and Paramount films. Yet, there is no shortage of films for us to watch and enjoy. I have a full backlog of films to watch on DVD, blu-ray, my DVR, and even 8mm (there is a certain irony that my 70 year old 8mm projector will likely outlive my blu-ray players). So why am I complaining?

As for Mr. Gable, I wouldn't mind seeing WAC issue blu-rays for San Francisco, Comrade X, Across the Wide Missouri, and Band of Angels (all off of the top of my head - there may be a few others that I'm overlooking). I would hesitate to call any of them great films. In fact, at least two of them have significant flaws, but I still enjoy them for what they are. Actually, I'm not the most discriminating of film viewers. Rarely do I see a film that I consider a complete waste of time. Even if I may not like the film, I normally find some aspect of the film that I find redeeming. In some cases, it's a matter that I find interesting how a now past generation was portrayed. Very often, being an antique car enthusiast, it's seeing some great cars shown. "Love Is News" is not a great film by any metric, but I would never want to part with my DVD of it because of that great sequence of Tyrone Power in a Cord 810 pursuing Loretta Young who is driving an Auburn Boattail Speedster. I also want to publicly forgive Bette Davis for crashing that lovely Packard at the end of "Dangerous."

Concerning the Jeopardy scholars, I don't want to be tough on them. Why? It is because I recognize that if I had been asked to identify images of Jussie Smollett, Felicity Huffman, and Lori Loughlin a month ago, I would have scored 0/3. I'm not going to criticize those who are ignorant of the past when I can be very ignorant about certain areas of modern media. I also won't criticize WAC for releasing what could be called schlock films. If they sell well, why shouldn't they put them out? I haven't picked them up yet, but at some point I'll probably pick up Queen of Outer Space and The Cyclops. Frankenstein 1970 I thought was sort of dull when I watched it about a year ago, but I might give it another chance the next time it plays on TCM.

 

[Harold Chasen]

We're feeling the limits of A). Warner's reluctance to license and B). Them not having a program for scanning their holdings into 4K like Disney or other studios and having everything tied to home video.

I'd add C) the fact that many of these older titles don't exist in good quality pre-print materials, so some of them won't look that much better on Blu-Ray than they already do on DVD, at least without tons of very expensive work.

When the Jean Harlow DVD box set came out, people were upset that it wasn't also on Blu-Ray. Robert Harris explained that it was hard enough (and expensive enough) for Warners to make them watchable on DVD, and there was no economically feasible way to make them look better on Blu-Ray.

The serendipity of Warners finding an older interpositive in good condition meant we could have Seven Brides For Seven Brothers on Blu. And good materials for King Kong were found overseas - after a long search. These kinds of finds are simply not going to happen for every title. Alas.

 

[Joel Arndt]

If the profits for every The Giant Behemoth, Horror of Dracula, The Satanic Rites of Dracula, The Cyclops, etc. lead to eventual releases of Seven Brides For Seven Brothers, Summer Stock, The Sea Hawk and films of that ilk, then I'm all for it.

 

[Ken_Martinez]

I'd add C) the fact that many of these older titles don't exist in good quality pre-print materials, so some of them won't look that much better on Blu-Ray than they already do on DVD, at least without tons of very expensive work.

When the Jean Harlow DVD box set came out, people were upset that it wasn't also on Blu-Ray. Robert Harris explained that it was hard enough (and expensive enough) for Warners to make them watchable on DVD, and there was no economically feasible way to make them look better on Blu-Ray.

The serendipity of Warners finding an older interpositive in good condition meant we could have Seven Brides For Seven Brothers on Blu. And good materials for King Kong were found overseas - after a long search. These kinds of finds are simply not going to happen for every title. Alas.

That's implying that every single film made by three completely different studios over a period of over 20 years is in that boat. Do you seriously think that they don't have a decent interpositive on any 1930's film they own? That Warner is the only studio that does not own a single 1930's film that could be put out relatively cheaply?

1950 has been pretty much the hard cut-off date for Warner Archive this whole time. That can't all be because of elements, unless a film being released in 1949 instead of 1950 instantly makes it unprofitable.

 

[Dick]

Arthur, I congratulate you on a very realistic and sensible look at the so called "classics" situation with regards to the Warners Archives blu ray releases. I agree with you that "we're all pretty lucky". We all can dream about getting titles that we want but it's unrealistic to chastise Warners for releasing Frankenstein 1970 when such "classics" like Nancy Goes To Rio or Hedy Lamarr masterpieces like Lady Of The Tropics and White Cargo gather dust in their vaults. I'm sure Jean Harlow, Myrna Loy and Joan Crawford fans want their darlings on blu ray but the sad fact is that there is no blu ray market for them. When a photo of Jean Harlow is shown to three intelligent and learned people on Jeopardy! and no one can identify her, what does that tell you? You say you could do with more Clark Gable on blu ray but Warners has already released Gone With The Wind and Mutiny On The Bounty (and Criterion has It Happened One Night on blu). So what Gable title is essential enough to be on blu ray? Frankly, outside of San Francisco and possibly Red Dust and its remake Mogambo, I can't see any of Gable's catalog films clamoring to be on blu. He was a great movie star but very few great films on his resume. And no, I don't consider Test Pilot, Boom Town or Manhattan Melodrama great or essential films. I don't consider Frankenstein 1970 great or essential either but there is a market for horror films.

Astute argument, Thomas. As more years pass as a member of this forum, I begin to realize that the majority of us -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is in my age range (late 60's and older). Our taste for movies is rather rapidly being submerged in a market aimed at youth who have always, after all, had "marketing potential" decades longer than ours. This is an unhappy truth for us aging classic film collectors, as streaming draws more and more viewers, while physical media slowly but surely loses ground.

I have collected movies since I was a teen, buying Castle Films and other 8mm silent digest prints, graduating then to Super 8mm sound features, VHS, laser discs, CED's, etc. I am now (finally) quite satisfied that I am enjoying a format (Blu-ray) that more than satisfies my lifelong desire to have theater-quality reproduction of my favorite films in a home theater environment.

And, I am ecstatic when classics I never thought I'd be able to own in high def are announced. Obviously I laud Kino and Shout! and Criterion and other companies for carrying the torch for us fogies who still crave owning these marvelous films. I'm old enough that I expect that these companies will outlive me. Good for me, I guess. But I feel less optimistic for true movie lovers younger than I. Perhaps this means I have simply been living in the perfect era for classic film lovers, but probably also, sadly, in the last.

 

[Robin9]

1950 has been pretty much the hard cut-off date for Warner Archive this whole time. That can't all be because of elements, unless a film being released in 1949 instead of 1950 instantly makes it unprofitable.

Warner Archive have released on Blu-ray disc several films from the 1940s. There is no 1950 cut-off date.

 

[Garysb]

I'd add C) the fact that many of these older titles don't exist in good quality pre-print materials, so some of them won't look that much better on Blu-Ray than they already do on DVD, at least without tons of very expensive work.

The serendipity of Warners finding an older interpositive in good condition meant we could have Seven Brides For Seven Brothers on Blu. And good materials for King Kong were found overseas - after a long search. These kinds of finds are simply not going to happen for every title. Alas.

Also the reason we got the 1935 "Mutiny On The Bounty" on blu was because Warner Bros found superior elements that had not previously been available.

From the blu ray press release in 2010:
"MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY has been especially remastered in honor of its 75th anniversary, having undergone a full photochemical restoration sourced from the film long-thought-lost, and recently rediscovered original nitrate camera negative. "

As for Clark Gable unreleased on blu films, I think the three he made with Spencer Tracy, "San Francisco", Test Pilot", and Boom Town deserve to be released. I don't think his films with Joan Crawford hold up very well with the exception of maybe 'Possessed", their later comedies are not funny and their last, "Strange Cargo" is just strange . "Red Dust" is the probably the best of his unreleased films but available elements are a problem. Not sure how much better it would look from the current MOD DVD.The other Gable/Harlow films I don't believe there is a need for a blu release "China Seas" which is too similar to "Red Dust", "Hold Your Man" starts out well but then becomes sappy as though the production code came in the middle of filming and said we have to change this, Wife Vs. Secretary is a nothing film with a great cast including early James Stewart, and Saratoga might have been an OK film if Harlow hadn't died while filming it not great but OK. The Gable/Harlow team suffered after the enforcement of the production code in 1934.

 

[OliverK]

That's implying that every single film made by three completely different studios over a period of over 20 years is in that boat. Do you seriously think that they don't have a decent interpositive on any 1930's film they own? That Warner is the only studio that does not own a single 1930's film that could be put out relatively cheaply?

1950 has been pretty much the hard cut-off date for Warner Archive this whole time. That can't all be because of elements, unless a film being released in 1949 instead of 1950 instantly makes it unprofitable.

I would think that apart from the question of there being a big enough demand for certain titles or not it is a combination of a number of technical factors that affect how much of an improvement over the DVD can be achieved on a given budget or even in a best case scenario.

With many of these older movies what Warner has might be more removed form the negative than what would be needed to allow for much of an improvement over a DVD version or if higher resolution materials remain their condition might be so bad that accessing them might be cost-prohibitive. and even if you compare like for like you will most of the time find a negative in better shape if itis a movie from the 60s as compared to a movie from the 30s.

As this has not been brought up I would think that it should be mentioned that nitrate has been used for film negatives up into the 50ies so I would assume that is one of the reasons while movies are either difficult to access or in relatively bad shape due to the nitrate negatives having been transferred to safety film at some point or the negatives were lost in a fire or in some other way and now work would have to be done from available prints.

It is also a fact that even in a best case scenario a good DVD of a 30ies black and white movie will look better compared to its Blu-ray version when compared with a DVD of a color widescreen movie in the same scenario.

This is because
a) the 720 pixels of the DVD only have to cover about 75% of the screen width so there is a higher pixel density available for the DVD and
b) the very low chroma resolution of DVD (360 x 240 pixels) is not a factor for a black and white movie.

It is a shame really but I am sure Warner Archive would love to release a lot more movies if money was no object, sadly that isn't the case.

 

[OliverK]

Warner Archive have released on Blu-ray disc several films from the 1940s. There is no 1950 cut-off date.

Agreed, I have a number of Archive titles from the 40ies.

If one was to look at total release numbers one could probably see a drop in the number of movies released from every decade relative to the decade that precedes it going back to at least the 1910s for all Blu-ray releases. So it is the nature of the beast that what is newer will be released preferentially.

As for Warner Archive there probably is a steeper drop from the 50s to the 40s compared to the drop from the 60s to the 50s but I think there are a number of good reasons for that which can be explained on a movie by movie basis.

Still it may almost look like a hard cut-off looking at the last year or two of releases, I have not kept track.

 

[Kevin Hovis]

Define "classic". The latest batch of announcements has at least two "classics" by my definition.

Yes, the Cukor film with Constance Bennett, Our Betters and the original Mysterious Island with Lionel Barrymore, directed mostly by Maurice Tourneur + Mary Pickford's Best Actress win for Coquette and The Star Witness with Walter Huston.

 

[Astairefan]

I agree that WAC does seem to have a cutoff point (for the last two years more so than before), but I would sooner say that it is 1954, not 1950. Yes, I know we are getting some releases made before then, but they have been few and far between. In 2017, we only got two from before from WAC: Battleground and The Sea Wolf. Last year was a slight improvement, with Gun Crazy, The Thing From Another World and The Sea Hawk (and the Popeye set, too, if you want to count that). But still, we had AT LEAST that many releases from before 1954 in 2016 ALONE. I am extremely thrilled with their upcoming release of Summer Stock, because, whether you want to call the cutoff point 1954 or 1950, WAC (not WHV) has NOT released ANY pre-1954 MGM musicals on Blu-ray before (I'm not counting their re-release of Meet Me In St. Louis, since they didn't do any work on that), and it is also their first pre-1954 musical to come out on Blu-ray since their release of Thank Your Lucky Stars back in May 2015, nearly FOUR years ago! So, I have every reason to want to support their upcoming release of Summer Stock! All the pre-1954 stuff that comes out at this point are the releases we need to support with day 1, full-price purchases, ESPECIALLY any 30s films we get at this point, if we want them to keep giving us more. The horror stuff that they release is good, and probably does help pay for the restorations of some of the "classics" that a lot of us want, but they can only do just so much if we aren't supporting those releases (otherwise, why would George Feltenstein be telling us that The Sea Hawk needed to sell for us to get any more Errol Flynn)!

 

[PMF]

[...]1950 has been pretty much the hard cut-off date for Warner Archive this whole time.[...]

[...]and even if you compare like for like you will most of the time find a negative in better shape if its a movie from the 60s as compared to a movie from the 30s.

[...]As for Warner Archive there probably is a steeper drop from the 50s to the 40s compared to the drop from the 60s to the 50s [...]

I agree that WAC does seem to have a cutoff point (for the last two years more so than before), but I would sooner say that it is 1954, not 1950.[...]

And yet, despite these astute discussions, we still remain without a BD release of the Post-1954 film "Ryan's Daughter" (1970).
Meanwhile, with this one single bias aside;
I'll be purchasing "Summer Stock" and will continue to support any future WAC releases that are pre-1954 fares.

 

[Nick*Z]

When a photo of Jean Harlow is shown to three intelligent and learned people on Jeopardy! and no one can identify her, what does that tell you?

All it tells me is that our collective amnesia is growing at an alarming rate. It also says to me that Warner is not doing enough to promote nostalgia to the masses. I remember when I was growing up; the UHF channels were rife with classic movie programming; Saturday afternoon, Sunday morning, after the 11 o'clock news, in between afternoon and prime time viewing, just in time for the kiddies coming home from school to tune into reruns of Blondie and Dagwood, Abbott and Costello and The Three Stooges.

The point is, the proliferation of 'classics' on regular TV has all but dried up. If you want to watch a classic movie today, you pretty much have to subscribe to TCM. Out of sight. Out of mind for many. That doesn't mean the stars from yesteryear are irrelevant. It just means they're out of public view. If you don't know something is out there, how far do you think you'll get trying to sell a product based on it? Answer - not far.

The public didn't walk away from the classics. The classics have been taken off the radar by their current rights holders, and for most of today's naval-gazers, with their eyes permanently glued to their iphones, that's all that is needed for the amnesia to set in.

I have friends who have children between the ages of 9 and 13 who have never seen a Bugs Bunny or Tom & Jerry cartoon because where they live neither is a part of Saturday morning kiddie programming anymore. Does this mean the Looney Tunes and that beloved cat and mouse have no significance in the modern world of cartoon entertainment?!? I really don't think so. Neither should anyone else!

Finally, your point about 'intelligent' and 'learned' people not being able to I.D. Harlow is moot. My aunt holds a PhD in chemical engineering and a weighty position on several boards in addition to her high-profile job. She doesn't know who Jean Harlow is either. And, just so we're clear. Movies and movie stars do not appeal to everyone. You have to have an interest. I have about as much in chemical engineering as those three 'intellectuals' who could not identify Harlow from a mug shot.

So, ask me to answer some question on chemical engineering and you'll likely get a blank stare from me. That doesn't mean I'm an idiot or that chemical engineering is irrelevant and should be relegated to the dust bins of time. It just means my particular interests - nee, afflictions and obsessions - differ from the people who do care about chemical engineering. And God bless 'em too. We need chemical engineers. PS - some of us also need Jean Harlow. A lot of us, in fact!

 

[PMF]

All it tells me is that our collective amnesia is growing at an alarming rate.[...]PS - some of us also need Jean Harlow. A lot of us, in fact!

Agreed and spot on.
Wish I could stuff the ballot box with more than one "Likes".
Now, if I may be so bold as to attach an actual title to your piece. it would be "The Legend of Sleepy Harlow".

 

[Rob_Ray]

Yes, Nick is indeed spot on.

Forgetting about Harlow and classic films in general for just a minute, I cannot imagine why Warners isn't marketing their Looney Tunes cartoons to the hilt. As a group, they are a license to print money. With the exception of a few wartime cartoons and the very few with racial stereotypes, they don't age a bit. Most of the classics are in color and exist in a world that's timeless. They should be everywhere on commercial TV and streaming. In this age of digital prints, every theatrical film released from the Warner Bros. studio should automatically come with a Warner Bros. cartoon added onto the front of it. Get audiences of all ages exposed consistently to this high-quality animation and you can continue to market the characters and their likenesses in countless ways. By not exploiting this property at all, they are just losing out in so many ways.