Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Jeff Kleist]

It appears that Largo is consolidating all its properties under WB. Timecop made the move from Universal, now Point Break, and I'm sure GI Jane and White Squall will make the jump whenever their contract expires depending on how much of the movies Disney actually owns.

Much as I'm ecstatic BARRY LYNDON and LOLITA are being released - and I'll be buying the box set because there's no way I'll be able to wait until 2012 - I'm really finding it hard to believe that there's no supplemental material on the films.

Very likely the same reason they're exclusives. Because they're by a large margin the least popular of his films

[Drewza89]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

It appears that Largo is consolidating all its properties under WB. Timecop made the move from Universal, now Point Break, and I'm sure GI Jane and White Squall will make the jump whenever their contract expires depending on how much of the movies Disney actually owns.

Interesting. Does this mean we can expect to see WB release John Carpenter's Vampires on blu-ray before Halloween this year?

[Jeff Kleist]

That WB will be the one to eventually release it? Judging by the companies that financed it, likely. That it'll come out this year? Dunno

[captveg]

Hey Jeff, could you check with a Warner rep re: aspect ratio of Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker's upcoming Blu? Supposedly a WB rep told toonzone that it'll be "1.33:1 matted 4x3 letterbox", which I know for a fact is wrong (the terminology makes no sense in regards to 1080p HD).

People online are concerned that it'll be windowboxed (black matting on top/bottom/left/right). I know as 100% fact this will not be the case - it's definitely going to be 1.33:1 16x9 Pillarboxed (black matting on left and right only, similar to Justice League S1 Blu) - but of course no one is listening to me.

It would end a ton of ridiculous arguing in that thread on this forum.

[duggie walker]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Very likely the same reason they're exclusives. Because they're by a large margin the least popular of his films

Thanks for replying, Jeff. But whilst I get that - and I'm not even that down on the "exclusives" situation for that very reason - what's depressing is that it shows a marked change in the WB philosophy.

Popular or not, anything by Kubrick is important historically and some form of documentation of its making would be valuable for fans and students alike. During what now seems to be the Golden Age of DVD releases from WB, they went the extra mile to present classic films in some kind of context. It didn't appear that simple economics was the be-all and end-all - or rather, that certain releases paid for materials on others.

WB is not a poor studio, relatively speaking. Their coffers are overflowing from Nolan and Potter. Given their repeated statements of pride in the relationship with Kubrick - and their repeated milking of the cashcow - would it really have broken the bank to record a commentary at least?

I guess what I'm asking is - is this truly all down to economics? Or has there been a change in management at the top that has lessened their commitment? They're turning out product, great; but - and THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING is another example - it seems like they just don't care as much anymore.

[madmojo]

I know that Spielberg's Hook isn't exactly considered a crown jewel, but with Sony only holding the rights to a few of his movies (and with Close Encounters being out for almost 4 years now), I wonder if it's very possible we'll get that on blu in the next year or two? Maybe since Spielberg has a pretty high profile movie coming out later this year... The old DVD has no special features and was one of the earlier DVD releases if I remember correctly.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by madmojo

I know that Spielberg's Hook isn't exactly considered a crown jewel, but with Sony only holding the rights to a few of his movies (and with Close Encounters being out for almost 4 years now), I wonder if it's very possible we'll get that on blu in the next year or two? Maybe since Spielberg has a pretty high profile movie coming out later this year... The old DVD has no special features and was one of the earlier DVD releases if I remember correctly.

I, too, would LOVE to have this on bluray. It was one of my favorites as a kid.

[Sweetmeats]

The 20th Anniversary is this year so just maybe.

[Jeff Kleist]

I guess what I'm asking is - is this truly all down to economics? Or has there been a change in management at the top that has lessened their commitment? They're turning out product, great; but - and THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING is another example - it seems like they just don't care as much anymore.

Yes, it's money. Unit sales are way down due to the economy and the fact that people don't feel the need to buy stuff they already have as much. DVD was the first time most people built a movie collection, and you could release a title 2-3 times and catch entirely new groups of people that hadn't bought it yet. Now everyone's got it, and they're not going to replace that entire collection.

I believe that to be the single biggest factor behind the economy for thecurrent downturn of home video sales. Pretty much everyone has exhausted their really profitable titles, and often twice over. Combine that with letting stores go nuts with those $5 bins and the average selling price of a DVD has been devalued greatly

The overloaded money train has left the industry (and parked itself over at Image on loan from Sony ), and so the money for indulgences like putting lots of extras on low sellers is also gone. Isn't there a bunch of really good long form Kubrick documentaries out there anyway?

[abintra]

Perhaps this is just a naive question, so apologies if so, but is there enough profit to be made by just releasing titles again on Blu-ray with, at least, the same DVD extras?

It seems that studios are going to have create the HD masters anyway (if they don't have future proof ones already), and that even accepting a lower pricing structure they may have desired originally, that seeing optical media continue to sell, even if to a smaller audience then in the boom years, would be in their best interest.

Or does a sort of pricing enforcement have greater long term benefit so that titles that might not sell a certain amount are best held off until such time that online delivery tier systems become more common?

[Jeff Kleist]

Certainly everything that came out on DVD isn't coming out on Blu-ray. There is also certainly plenty of money in it to make it worthwhile. The sky is not falling, Blu-ray is doing fine

I think there's a lot of people who are in love with the idea of subscription systems and eliminating physical inventory. I don't think anyone who's been in this business any length of time seriously thinks it's going to happen at any time in the near future.

The real nasty surprise everyone is getting real soon now is the ISPs refusing to carry the bandwidth, and the studios doubling and tripling what Netflix and others were paying for content, and the cable operators and online streamers fighting tooth and nail. It's going to be a really bumpy next 10 years where the direction of evolution of pay TV is decided

[abintra]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Certainly everything that came out on DVD isn't coming out on Blu-ray. There is also certainly plenty of money in it to make it worthwhile. The sky is not falling, Blu-ray is doing fine

Good (great) to hear.

Every once in awhile it seems that there is some thing or another that sort of seems to suggests studios aren't happy with the way things are selling on Blu-ray (not new releases and top catalog titles). Seeing that with things like the amount of releases being dramatically behind the same point in DVDs life, some titles seemingly being out of print already, Sony selling some decent catalog titles to Image rather than release them directly, retail stores diminishing, etc., it is nice to be reassured that Blu-ray continues to have a bright future with a ton left to come.

There are so many quality catalog titles from all the studios that I just hope they find a way to get a release and not get shuffled to burn to own or download only offerings.

[duggie walker]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Yes, it's money. Unit sales are way down due to the economy and the fact that people don't feel the need to buy stuff they already have as much. DVD was the first time most people built a movie collection, and you could release a title 2-3 times and catch entirely new groups of people that hadn't bought it yet. Now everyone's got it, and they're not going to replace that entire collection.

I believe that to be the single biggest factor behind the economy for thecurrent downturn of home video sales. Pretty much everyone has exhausted their really profitable titles, and often twice over. Combine that with letting stores go nuts with those $5 bins and the average selling price of a DVD has been devalued greatly

The overloaded money train has left the industry (and parked itself over at Image on loan from Sony ), and so the money for indulgences like putting lots of extras on low sellers is also gone. Isn't there a bunch of really good long form Kubrick documentaries out there anyway?

Well, there are a couple but LYNDON and LOLITA are the least documented productions.

I take your points absolutely but what about a studio doing something just because they should? The people who made these films aren't getting any younger. If we blow the chance to record their recollections now, we'll lose them for all time.

I'm not saying they need to commission a long-form documentary but it's hardly going to break the bank to record a commentary, is it? I mean, what do we get for buying the box set and all those Blus again? What costs is it they're covering?

It's a matter, ultimately, of film history, which Warners used to care about. Like I said, they are not a poor studio and - what, 50, a hundred k, for some commentaries? That's not going to break the bank. Does everything in this world have to be just about the bottom line?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

The overloaded money train has left the industry (and parked itself over at Image on loan from Sony ), and so the money for indulgences like putting lots of extras on low sellers is also gone.

Rather a self-fulfilling prophecy, though. Gotta spend money to make money and all.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by duggie walker

I mean, what do we get for buying the box set and all those Blus again? What costs is it they're covering?

Exactly. When the problem in the marketplace is that people already have the movies and don't see the incentive to upgrade, you have to give them more reasons to buy again, if you want to get them to jump off the fence. Discs with the movie only and no extras almost invite customers to pass.

[Mr. Cinema]

I wouldn't be pointing the finger at WB about catalog. They're actually RELEASING catalog titles. Sony, Disney, and Paramount didn't release much at all in the last half of 2010 and don't have much going on so far this year. That could change of course, but what happened to their catalog support?

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

I wouldn't be pointing the finger at WB about catalog. They're actually RELEASING catalog titles. Sony, Disney, and Paramount didn't release much at all in the last half of 2010 and don't have much going on so far this year. That could change of course, but what happened to their catalog support?

It's call ROI (Return on Investment)...if it isn't there, then they won't release titles.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by DenonCI

if it isn't there, then they won't release titles.

... but if they don't release titles, it can't be there.

[Jeff Kleist]

Well, there are a couple but LYNDON and LOLITA are the least documented productions.

I take your points absolutely but what about a studio doing something just because they should? The people who made these films aren't getting any younger. If we blow the chance to record their recollections now, we'll lose them for all time.

When does a multinational conglomerate ever do something just because they should? The boom days where a passionate person can push something through on a "vanity project" are pretty much gone.

It's call ROI (Return on Investment)...if it isn't there, then they won't release titles.

The good news is that catalog did better than expected over Christmas, the drought should be easing, but it takes 6-9 months to see the effect of anything appear on shelves, closer to the latter

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

When does a multinational conglomerate ever do something just because they should? The boom days where a passionate person can push something through on a "vanity project" are pretty much gone.



The good news is that catalog did better than expected over Christmas, the drought should be easing, but it takes 6-9 months to see the effect of anything appear on shelves, closer to the latter

that is good news. thanks for sharing. bring on Real Genius!!!