Almost all catalogue titles are sub $20 when they are released.... Most being ~$15 which is a reasonable price in my opinion.

If you read my entire post you'd see that I said I'm willing to buy movies i really want at a premium price. In fact, I've bought Rapture from TT and I have Demetrious and the gladiators on pre-order..... So i do support the TT business model.

I was just trying to explain why there are a lot of people who are upset with these prices.

The fact that I'm fortunate enough to be in a position to pay $100 to go to a Yankees game and be able to buy a movie for $35 doesnt change the fact that there are a lot of people out there that are having a hard enough time keeping a roof over their heads and food on their tables. The lower price point on a lot of these releases allows people with minimum income to collect movies also. A lot of people can't do that at $35 a movie and i think thats where all the frustration comes from.

It's a little presumptuous to think that people can actually AFFORD the prices that TT is charging for these releases. :shrug: sure, the idea of studios charging more so they can make money and be able to put out more catalogue titles is good in theory, but its just not feasible to charge more than they currently are.

Honestly, if you want something bad enough you can AFFORD it. Lets face it, if you have a blu-ray player and buy 4 $10 movies a month, you can afford a TT release. Except for the month you buy a TT release, you just can't buy the 3 other movies. The question is whether or not a person can AFFORD the movie, the question is whether or not they are willing to trade 4 new movies instead of 1 new movie that month.

However, I could see people feeling like they cannot afford an additional $40 a month spent on blu-rays. But, that is just a matter of moving around discretionary income if they really want it. If they don't want the film enough to give up getting Bucky Larson, even though Bucky Larson will be around forever, they really didn't want the film.

The people that can't actually afford TT releases, can't afford blu-rays (or any physical media) in general.

That's kind of a faulty logic to go by. The fact of the matter is it's $40 for a single movie which is a lot of money. I mean, if your blu ray budget is $40 a month, then you're limiting yourself to 1 movie a month opposed to getting 4 movies at $10 each. Clearly you're getting more for your money in the latter case. It's difficult for me to justify spending that much on ONE movie. I'd imagine it's harder for someone who doesn't have a lot of disposable income.

I did read your post. Glad you got Rapture! What did you think of it?

You're right--not everyone can afford it. Not everyone can afford many things--a new Honda Accord, a good seat to see the Yankees, a new Apple computer, etc. Does that mean they should stop making these things? Obviously not. I know you know that. I'd just like you and others to see that studios aren't releasing many catalog titles because they lose money. A tiny little company comes along, and because of low overhead, higher prices, and limited pressings, they probably can make a go of it. I say good for them.

At $30 and up I hesitate too. I didn't get Swamp Water or Pal Joey, and I probably will skip others too that I might get if they were 12.99. But the reality is that they wouldn't even be released if they were 12.99. So, let's just enjoy the movies and each of us get what we like (or think we'll like) and can afford. Obviously we can't solve the economic problems of a world where people can't afford all sorts of things on a blu-ray discussion board. So I think we should just move on and talk about the movies.

Here's an idea: what about a master list of all of the suggestions for catalog titles from Fox and Columbia that we think might be worthy of consideration? Many of them won't get released, I know, since TT can only do so many titles. I wouldn't know where to put such a list or how to compile it, but perhaps some other people here have some thoughts....?

I didn't want to come off sounding like a complainer :p because I do understand the concept of TT business model. I was just just pointing out that I can understand where people's frustrations are coming from. That's all :)

I havnt actually had a chance to watch Rapture yet but I did pop it in to see the PQ and I thought it looked phenomenal (from what I can see). I love moody, atmospheric, slow burn movies so I can't wait to actually watch it :p

I'll chime in with why I think it's a bad idea to release something like As Good as It Gets under the Twilight Time model. It's limited to 3000 copies (never mind the price), so that basically eliminates like 99% percent of all blu-ray consumers. Granted, nobody here has any idea how many copies it might sell if given a regular release--but the majority of consumers aren't even being offered a realistic chance (never a good strategy for a popular movie).

The model works for titles like Rapture and Pal Joey, because so few people want these titles. Fright Night was a bit of a stretch, since it's slightly above cult status and a bit more recent, but As Good as It Gets makes absolutely no sense.

Don't get me wrong, the TT model isn't going to stop me from getting a movie like As Good as It Gets, but it seems quite obvious that this film is getting the short shrift.

I get what you are saying. I tend to agree with you, it is a sacrifice to buy one of these movies. A person on a limited entertainment budget has to give up other entertainment in order to be able to buy it. However, that doesn't mean they can't afford it.

I know it sounds like semantics but when it comes to luxury items, there is a huge difference between the words "afford" and "I would rather spend that money on other things". For example, I have to be able to buy fruits, vegetables and cheese every month to get a balanced diet. Fresh fruit, vegetables, meat and cheese are not luxuries to me. They are necessities for life. I can only afford luxuries (blu-rays, nights out drinking, etc) after I have paid for my necessities (rent, food, electric, internet, water, heat). The only time I cannot afford my luxuries is when my necessities cost too much (like when my car insurance comes due). I prioritize my necessities over my luxuries. (And most people do - therefore we are not talking about people who cannot afford luxuries. We are talking about people with discretionary income).

When you are talking about two sets of luxuries, the question is not whether you can afford both of them, the question is what you value more. For some people, buying a movie they really like, Swamp Water, for example, is worth more to them than buying 4 $10 movies that month. The ability to get Swamp Water with the best picture possible is worth sacrificing different entertainment.

You make these choices everyday. Most people could go out drinking every night or go snowboarding every winter or go to a ton of sporting events. However, some do not choose to do these things, they spend their discretionary income on other things. They can afford those things, they just choose to spend their money on something else.

Sidetrack: I knew a lot of people in college who have traveled around the world. I, myself, have been overseas a few times. How did these people afford those trips? They gave up other things in order to save. A trip to India was more important to them than going to the movies, buying blu-rays (VHS or DVD at the time), drinking, or going out to eat. When you have limited resources you have to make these decisions and while it sucks, it isn't really going to change anytime soon.

So, I see where they are coming from, but I don't really have any sympathy for them. It isn't like TT is gouging anyone, they are just trying to make a small profit on other people's "junk".


I totally get what you are saying, but you are making a mistake in your analysis. I think what is most telling is that you say that the film is getting the "short shrift". I don't disagree with you, it is a shame that a popular movie is getting a limited release. However, you are injecting emotion into something that is a business decision. Then again, maybe someone at Sony hates the film. You really never know why they make these decisions.

We don't really know what their break even point might be. That's just speculation...And since they pay the royalties for all 3000 copies in advance, what if they release a title (Swamp Water??) that just sells 1000 or so (which I realize is also speculation)? If so, then they are deep in the red on that title for a while. Maybe it'll sell out over the 3 years, and maybe it won't. In any case, their titles that sell out or come closer to it "carry" the titles that don't sell as well. Again, it's just speculation, but my guess is that they are closer to break-even overall than your guess might indicate. But we're all just guessing at this point. And it's not really our business when you come down to it. Our job is just to enjoy the movies!:):ohnoes:

I don't really understand what there is to debate here.

Twilight Time's strategy is one they've found to be viable for these sort of niche classic releases. They've said that even at $35 a pop, they have to sell around 2,000 copies of the 3,000 unit run just to break even. They note that some titles never sell that much, so the ones that do well make up for the ones that sell short and leave them out of pocket. They pay upfront for everything, so they're taking a major risk with almost every release.

Should anyone be happy about paying $35 or more for a blu-ray? Of course not. But if it's the only way we'll get some of these classics on blu, and done with the best possible image quality, then TT should be applauded for taking on all the risk to do this. That's why they're getting support.

In terms of affordability, well really, if you've got an HDTV and a blu-ray player, but are struggling to keep a roof over your head and pay for food, then I don't think it's a choice between a $15 BD or a $35 BD, it should be a choice between no BDs and buying food instead. After all, there's plenty of free entertainment in the form of free-to-air TV. It's a bit silly to argue that everyone should be able to afford a luxury item like a BD of classic movies. I suppose it's a part of this "everything should be cheap" mentality which was mentioned in the interview.

And frankly, it seems comical that people balk at $35 for a well-presented classic movie on blu, but think nothing of paying extra money for useless gimmickery like steelbooks, slip cases, double or triple-dipping on various releases of the same movie just to get some inconsequential "special features", and so on. All completely superfluous to the quality of the actual movie itself, yet somehow worth wasting money on.

I think it's time to get BD back on track as a premium medium for the highest quality films, which can often come at a premium price. For everyone else, there's streamed movies and of course the mass market releases which are always guaranteed to be cheap due simply due to massive production runs and minimal risk to the studio.

Back to movies!

Today on the TT FB page I suggested the 1994 Columbia production of Little Women, starring Susan Sarandon, Winona Ryder, Claire Danes, Kirsten Dunst, Christian Bale, Gabriel Byrne, and others. It was directed by Gillian Armstrong, and has a fine score by Thomas Newsman. They said on fb that they liked the film a lot too and might try for it.

This is one of those amazingly perfect adaptation of a novel that's in fact better than the original novel! This one always makes me laugh and even cry a little.

This is one of many titles I've been looking for since I got my blu-ray player 3 years ago. If it ever does come out, it'll probably be due to them--and would be well worth $35 to me...:ohnoes:

Actually, I wasn't even sure what short shrift meant--and I had to look it up after it popped in my head. The first definition I saw was: careless treatment, scant attention. That seems like it fits the bill, without any emotional injection whatsoever. Trust me, it's not an emotional dilemma for me, because I've already made the decision to buy the BD when it's available. It just seems like bad business, for a popular, award-winning movie. :shrug2:

There is also something else for the price to remember, how many of these releases will you actually be buying? Sure some people buy every Criterion release every month but I sure don't and I am sure the majority of people are the same as me. So how many TT releases would you actually buy in one year?If I would have to pick between four movies at $10 that left me :shrug: and one movie at $35 that make's me go :rock: I think it's easy to make a choice.

Of course that would mean making a choice and I suspect that for some it's not that easy to make a choice since they feel they get more out of four movies then buying a single one. It's a matter of perception and what you really want.

But the vast majority of blu-ray enthusiasts who'd be likely to want this film in a blu-ray version are arguably better informed than the rest of the population. Looking at the mass market, there's just a lot of people who don't think a comedy or dramedy necessarily has to be in high-definition - or they can just be happy watching whichever version runs on their cable system. They can also buy it on demand from amazon, or rent it there, even. The movie, imho, has been ridiculously over-exposed over the years. So the people who aren't likely to hear about this being offered by TT are likely the ones who'd only buy it if they saw it in a bargain bin at the local Wal-Mart or Target. And that's clearly not the strategy the studio wants to pursue, it seems to me (rightly or wrongly).

The example of steelbooks, slip cases or special collector's editions is a great one, because this generally is only a difference in the packaging, rather than in what people are actually going to watch/listen to. And some of those become collector's items not because the movie itself is rare, but just because the packaging is.

Isn't there a special steelbook of "Sucker Punch" that was only available from Comic-Con? I believe that sells for over $100 now. So a TT release doesn't seem anywhere near the same ballpark, in terms of price, but it is definitely something that will appeal to collectors - and not because the packaging is "special".

Amen to that. I'm thinking over some classic films to suggest on the TT Facebook page, but it can be a bit confusing and I'll need to do a bit more research.

For example, I'd love some of the 50's classic space invasion movies to come to blu, like the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Thing from Another World, Invaders from Mars, Them! and This Island Earth. Especially if they were released as some sort of boxed set. Then just when you think these types of movies will never be given the BD treatment, out of the blue (pardon the pun) Sony releases Earth vs. the Flying Saucers on BD, and gives it a great treatment (original B&W + colorized version on one disc) which seems quite confusing.

What would be great for TT would be if they presented a full downloadable list of potential candidates for their licensing, then ran a regular poll on the shortlist of most popular titles. This would raise interest and also give people some idea of what to expect in the near future from TT.

I hope they make a nice "melange" of scifi/fantasy and other style of movies. There are tons of movies that could be added to their release schedule

+1 Nice list. Would enjoy seeing these 50s sci fi classics...

I can see this thread will simply go round and round as the many Harvard Business School graduates on this forum conduct their in-depth back-of-the-envelope analyses of just why TT is wrong.

Except that you failed to read the part where they explain quite clearly that some movies will never sell even 2,000 units, and hence the successful "profits" you point out from the best case scenarios often go to make up for the major shortfalls (losses) from less popular releases.

Neither you nor I know precisely how much money they actually make in a given year, that is, what their overall revenue and cost structure is, hence what their total profit is for a year.

You also neglect the fact that they are taking significant risks because they pay up-front and hence if they release several titles in a row which bomb, they actually lose money in the short term which affects their operating capital.

Finally, we are talking about a free market here. If TT is actually "overcharging" as some people are suggesting, then it should really be no problem for more competitors to appear and snap up these titles from studios and release them under a different pricing/unit no. structure. Of course this means they need to have the guts to take on such a risk (given the upfront costs), in a particularly unstable market where even TT admits that the general move is away from BD and towards home streaming services.

Here's some Sony pictures I wouldn't mind seeing get the Twilight Time treatment:

Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone (1983)
Krull (1983)
Christine (1983)
Body Double (1984)
The Last Dragon (1985)
The Blob (1988)
Single White Female (1992)
Multiplicity (1996)
8MM (1999)

They've already said that for some titles they've released, they may never sell enough copies to recoup their cost. They provided one example:

I think it's an incredibly bold assumption that every release they have will sell out given the relative obscurity of some titles. Furthermore, even if it sells out over 3 years, that's still a major upfront cost which is only recouped after several years. Hardly the road to making massive profits.

TT has already said that discounting titles is not a consideration, as it will completely undermine their model. Once buyers get a whiff that a title will be discounted at some point, they will not buy at the time of release. Furthermore, it also ruins the collectability, and hence future sales of upcoming TT releases.

So your assumptions are extremely flawed in arriving at a 50% profit per title. But whatever profit they're making, if it's extravagant then it will attract competitors which will drive down prices. I personally doubt this will happen for niche classics.

They provided that insight precisely so people wouldn't spend endless hours second-guessing and trashing their model based on completely wild assumptions. Obviously it's backfired in a way, because now people are still going to spend endless hours explaining why TT is doing it wrong based on half-assumptions. It's one of those wonderful aspects of the Internet - everyone is seemingly an expert at the theory, but no-one actually knows anything about the practice.

Once again, the market is wide open if anyone else wants to take the substantial risk of paying upfront to studios to license and product quality BDs of classic films, some of which may never do particularly well. For now, I'm glad TT has taken on the task and turned some of my favorites into quality BD form :)

Well, aside from the fact that they're using a different business model, there already are some other distributors that just license films from the studios. The idea is as old as Criterion, at least.

The fact that TT already has the lead in the limited-edition model means that anyone who tries to repeat this strategy will be trying to play catch-up, possibly without having as good a relationship with the studios as TT already does.

In the end, I don't think that it will matter terribly much which company does it, because the business model is likely going to be largely unchanged, and the level of success they enjoy will continue to depend on the demand being there.


Exactly what I was trying to say - thank you for saying it better. I am also glad that TT has taken on the task! :)