Why exactly do Blu-ray releases of mega classic movies take so long to release?

[I KEEL YOU]

Can someone explain this to me? Like for example why Star Wars was released 5 years after the birth of Blu Ray, why Finding Nemo doesn't have a release date and why so many obvious monster classics aren't released yet. What exactly is the motive of film studios, from a business perspective?

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Can someone explain this to me? Like for example why Star Wars was released 5 years after the birth of Blu Ray, why Finding Nemo doesn't have a release date and why so many obvious monster classics aren't released yet. What exactly is their motive, from a business perspective?

simple, wait till you have a large established release base. most of a movies profit when it is released is during the first few weeks. if the consumer base is too small they don't maximize their profits. the studios have to run a fine line between releasing just enough to keep us wanting more and not too much so that they lose all their potential profits from waiting

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Can someone explain this to me? Like for example why Star Wars was released 5 years after the birth of Blu Ray, why Finding Nemo doesn't have a release date and why so many obvious monster classics aren't released yet. What exactly is the motive of film studios, from a business perspective?

1) Star Wars was intentionally held back by Lucas until BD had a large enough market that he could line his pockets again.

2) A lot of older releases cost a lot... A LOT to remaster at the level they deserve to look good on BD. If you don't spend money then you get crap like the first releases of Gangs of New York or Gladiator, or heaven forbid Patton.

[in2video2]

Good question. Sometimes it baffles us as Blu-Ray supporters why the long wait. Sometimes it comes down to what shape the original movie is in - does it need extensive restoration work and the relevant costs involved, or it may have a lot to do with marketing strategies by the studio which controls its distribution rights. Usually you may notice that if a classic movie is scheduled to be released with a remake a lot of times the original movie will be short-listed for a Blu-Ray release as a marketing tie-in. What we most enjoy are the efforts by studios which respect the original source material and go the extra mile to ensure a quality restoration is released. In most cases these classic catalogue releases only get one chance to be restored in preparation for High Definition for future HDTV broadcasting and Blu-Ray. Technology is improving digitally and the results look and sound fantastic for catalogue releases to Blu-Ray... most of the time making them look as fresh as contemporary movies. Only during 2011 have catalogue Blu-Ray releases become a popular choice for customers new to Blu-Ray which has increased the potential customer base for Blu-Ray. When Star Wars was released most people accepted the concept that Blu-Ray has come of age. Be patient. If we keep supporting the movie studios by purchasing their classic movies when brought to Blu-Ray then the movie studios will concentrate their efforts more into investing in their enormous legacy of films we all want to see preserved for all time. Blu-Ray is helping to achieve this.

Consider Lawrence of Arabia. Quality is of utmost importance. It takes time to prepare the very best transfer for Blu-Ray. FOX's The Sound of Music set the bar VERY high and the same attention to detail was applied. Taking a long time to reach Blu-Ray usually means a good thing for Blu-Ray... within reason, of course.

[blonde_devil]

all depends on who owns the film and if they want to do it. With Star Wars, I read somewhere that Lucas got burnt once with releasing the movies on a format that died out or something like that so he waits now until the format is fairly well accepted before he does anything. of course, this builds anticipation and they can charge a little extra too when it comes out. but for a lot, i am not sure. could be ownership issues, they may have done a dvd release not that long ago and are holding off on bluray, who knows. but chances are if it was a classic movie, it will hit bluray sooner or later. only question is will it be some collectors edition or some cheap quality release.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

all depends on who owns the film and if they want to do it. With Star Wars, I read somewhere that Lucas got burnt once with releasing the movies on a format that died out or something like that so he waits now until the format is fairly well accepted before he does anything. of course, this builds anticipation and they can charge a little extra too when it comes out. but for a lot, i am not sure. could be ownership issues, they may have done a dvd release not that long ago and are holding off on bluray, who knows. but chances are if it was a classic movie, it will hit bluray sooner or later. only question is will it be some collectors edition or some cheap quality release.

Yeah, this is part of the equation as well. Also, capital letters are your friend.

[AgentOrange]

It pretty much boils down to marketing reasons.

I'm sure there's some legitimate "allocation of resources" questions, I mean they can't have all titles full restored and ready to release on blu-ray right away (ala Lawrence of Arabia's 8K scan probably legitimately has taken time). To some extent the same thing applies to something like Indiana Jones. However even if assuming everything could have been "ready" by now for HD release in terms of pure workflow, I'm sure the bulk of the reasoning still relates to them wanting to "space out" their own releases for marketing purposes. If everything gets released in too close of a release window the studios would have to worry about more titles getting "lost in the shuffle" - which for them means lost revenue on first week sales.

[KubrickFan]

There's also the fact that a lot of older titles don't sell as well as newer titles. So the studios want to spread out the ones that are guaranteed to make a lot of money, instead of bringing everything out all at once.

[Jennifer Lawrence Fan]

I'm still waiting for Bad Boys II yet.

[Falconer]

Not to mention that it takes a lot of man hours to do quality control on these old releases while still producing the new films. If any problem occurs, that is even more time needed to fix the problem, and the QC process goes back a step.

[Clippins]

Originally Posted by Michael Bay Fan

I'm still waiting for Bad Boys II yet.

Haha! I'm waiting on the Blade Trilogy to get a release here in the US. Gotta believe Blade would be perfect on Bluray.

[Jennifer Lawrence Fan]

Originally Posted by Clippins

Haha! I'm waiting on the Blade Trilogy to get a release here in the US. Gotta believe Blade would be perfect on Bluray.

Yeah, its weird how there are so many popular movies that aren't on blu ray yet. But still we have all the Sci-Fi movies of the week on Blu Ray. Go Figure right?

[kemcha]

*sighs *

This debate again?

The reason that george Lucas held back Star Wars is the same reason why franchise movie series are always held back, to generate buzz and demand for its eventual release. When DVD was introduced, George Lucas held back the release for Star Wars until such demand was at a high fevered pitch that Lucas ended up making millions, possibly billions of dollars in additional profits.

Star Wars also went through several DVD releases throughout the DVD format. Lucas is a brilliant genius and he realizes that fans will buy multiple releases of the Star Wars filsm, no matter how many times it's released to Blu-ray. I suspect that we'll see the Blu-ray retired around March or April and simply rescheduled for a new release around September or October of 2012 with possibly the addition of the theatrical versions of the movie to Blu-ray. Lucas knows that there is a high demand for the theatrical versions of the original trilogy on Blu-ray and you can bet he'll milk a new release for all its worth.

With blockbuster franchises like Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, Jaws, Back to the Future and so forth, there is already a built in core audience who will be rabid for their Blu-ray releases and they are often held back to generate higher demand when they are eventually released. This is why catalog releases of stand alone films are always delayed because the studios don't want to waste time on older films. It's also why there are literally thousands of movies that have never been released to DVD and why that problem will exist with the Blu-ray format as well.

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

1) Star Wars was intentionally held back by Lucas until BD had a large enough market that he could line his pockets again.

2) A lot of older releases cost a lot... A LOT to remaster at the level they deserve to look good on BD. If you don't spend money then you get crap like the first releases of Gangs of New York or Gladiator, or heaven forbid Patton.

You forgot: Star Wars, Jurassic Park

[retablo]

Remember, too, something no one has mentioned: the rights to release on blu-ray might need to be re-negotiated. When movie contracts were made for films pre-VHS, there were no home video rights included. When VHS became prominent, new deals had to be written (for actors, etc, in regards to percentage points) for a new medium. Same when laserdisc came along, and presumable DVD. I don't know all the logistics, but many times, with each new format, new contracts have to be negotiated with all parties who own percentages of the films. This was the brunt of the writers strike a few years ago - they were fighting for their percentage when it came to Internet distribution. So in at least SOME cases, this could very well be the holdup.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by kemcha

*sighs *

This debate again?

The reason that george Lucas held back Star Wars is the same reason why franchise movie series are always held back, to generate buzz and demand for its eventual release. When DVD was introduced, George Lucas held back the release for Star Wars until such demand was at a high fevered pitch that Lucas ended up making millions, possibly billions of dollars in additional profits.

Star Wars also went through several DVD releases throughout the DVD format. Lucas is a brilliant genius and he realizes that fans will buy multiple releases of the Star Wars filsm, no matter how many times it's released to Blu-ray. I suspect that we'll see the Blu-ray retired around March or April and simply rescheduled for a new release around September or October of 2012 with possibly the addition of the theatrical versions of the movie to Blu-ray. Lucas knows that there is a high demand for the theatrical versions of the original trilogy on Blu-ray and you can bet he'll milk a new release for all its worth.

With blockbuster franchises like Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, Jaws, Back to the Future and so forth, there is already a built in core audience who will be rabid for their Blu-ray releases and they are often held back to generate higher demand when they are eventually released. This is why catalog releases of stand alone films are always delayed because the studios don't want to waste time on older films. It's also why there are literally thousands of movies that have never been released to DVD and why that problem will exist with the Blu-ray format as well.

Which makes little sense, since whoever wanted to buy Star Wars would've bought it years earlier were it released then. Holding something back doesn't create anticipation - it just causes people to ask where it is. How exactly will the demand change by holding a title back? If you have 1 million people who want a blu-ray in 2011, you'll still have 1 million people who want it when it's finally released in 2013.

[ry35an]

"Lucas is a brilliant genius and he realizes that fans will buy multiple releases of the Star Wars filsm"

On brother, sorry to burst your man love for Lucas, but, it doesn't take a "brilliant genius" to know that people buy multiple copies of the same movie.

All he would have to do is look at some pf the people on this forum.
Multiple copies of the same movie because of different packaging, people who own 500+ movies and let's not even attempt to understand the whole slipcover obsession.

[kemcha]

It all comes down just how much demand there is for a movie or a movie franchise. Star Wars has one of the biggest cult foillowings ever and George Lucas may not be the brightest director ever ... and I don't harbor no good or bad ill for the man ... but the one thing he knows how to do very well, is to market the Star Wars films.

Say what you want about how many times he has released the Star Wars to home video, and criticize him all you want (and I would agree with you) but the man is a marketing genius. The Star Wars films has always been highly marketable to the fans because they will continue to purchase them.

Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Back to the Future, Indiana Jones ... they're all hot home video properties and fans will continue to purchase every release they make.

The thing is that if a studio has one blockbuster film along with nine mediocre films that might sell over the long run, the studio is going to release that one film because they stand to sell more in short term. When you have a film like Mortal Kombat compared to films like James Bond and Harry Potter, there is no contest as to which the studio would release first (and yes I know the movies are from different studios, I'm just illustrating a point).

Studios wilol eventually get around to releasing older titles, they just place a priority on movies that they know will be quick sellers.

[toddly6666]

It financially benefits companies to release crap movies every week on bluray and release a good movie once a month on bluray.

[RBBrittain]

Originally Posted by retablo

Remember, too, something no one has mentioned: the rights to release on blu-ray might need to be re-negotiated. When movie contracts were made for films pre-VHS, there were no home video rights included. When VHS became prominent, new deals had to be written (for actors, etc, in regards to percentage points) for a new medium. Same when laserdisc came along, and presumable DVD. I don't know all the logistics, but many times, with each new format, new contracts have to be negotiated with all parties who own percentages of the films. This was the brunt of the writers strike a few years ago - they were fighting for their percentage when it came to Internet distribution. So in at least SOME cases, this could very well be the holdup.

May have been true for the dawn of VHS, DVD and even Internet distribution, but *not* BD. Though to most of us here "DVD" doesn't include BD, industry contracts that say "DVD" are usually interpreted to include BD. Very few films have hit BD from a different distributor than the DVD distributor; most of the exceptions involved changes to the DVD rights as well. For example, though WB handled My Fair Lady for most of its life on DVD, the DVD rights reverted to CBS and its present video partner Paramount before they issued the BD; that was different than VHS-to-DVD, as its VHS rights went from Fox to Paramount about the same time WB launched it on DVD.

The more likely scenario for classic rights is Rebecca, which despite its being owned by Disney (ABC bought it from David O. Selznick's estate long ago) was a vagabond on DVD--first Criterion, then Anchor Bay, and most recently MGM (released with other Hitchcock films)--but MGM is holding onto it on BD for the upgrade of its Hitchcock bundle. (Strangely, Disney has never been the U.S. home-video distributor of the only non-Miramax Best Picture winner it has ever owned--which makes its sale of Miramax and its four Best Pictures even more ironic. )