The Criterion Collection

[bergman864]

Originally Posted by Shane Rollins

The questions I'd like answered, if possible, is why the hell does Disney spend tens of thousands per title (at least) to restore films they have no intention of ever releasing, why they refuse to release so much of their content (not just Song Of The South and other controversial stuff, but tons of their content in general), and what do they gain from withholding it?

Disney is more than just a film production company, like many other studios. They have their theme parks, and various TV networks that make their own money. Plus, restoring films and putting them on Disney+ may entice viewers to subscribe.

If Disney needed to sell discs to make a profit we'd get more discs but they don't.

[sherlockjr]

Originally Posted by Shane Rollins

The questions I'd like answered, if possible, is why the hell does Disney spend tens of thousands per title (at least) to restore films they have no intention of ever releasing, why they refuse to release so much of their content (not just Song Of The South and other controversial stuff, but tons of their content in general), and what do they gain from withholding it?

All the major studios have asset protection programs that have been ongoing for over over a decade. That's to make sure their assets don't physically deteriorate, get lost, burn up in a wildfire, etc so that they're available to potentially create revenue in later years, even if there's no current or immediately planned use for them.

Those involve high res scans of the best available film elements and perhaps restorations from those scans if there's thought there might be a release on some medium (DCP, streaming, cable, etc).

Restorations, color grading, digital format output, etc can be done anytime after those scans are created, even years after, once the assets are protected. It seems that some studios do a lot of that expensive and time consuming work soon after scans are done, at least on some titles, others just save the scans for later potential use.

WAC takes advantage of the asset protection work Warner Motion Picture Imaging (MPI) is already doing for WB asset protection. Don't know how the restoration, color grading, etc is divided up between them, though certainly WAC does the final digital work to create a releasable BD master. DCP, streaming, cable etc versions are likely left to other groups.

There's a lot--many, many years--of critical digital work left to do. I saw a talk on this a year ago: out of roughly 10,000 classic 1930-1949 Hollywood titles at only 330 titles were currently available on theatrical DCP rentals prepared for public exhibition.

[CRASHLANDING]

Originally Posted by sherlockjr

All the major studios have asset protection programs that have been ongoing for over over a decade. That's to make sure their assets don't physically deteriorate, get lost, burn up in a wildfire, etc so that they're available to potentially create revenue in later years, even if there's no current or immediately planned use for them.

[...]

There's a lot--many, many years--of critical digital work left to do. I saw a talk on this a year ago: out of roughly 10,000 classic 1930-1949 Hollywood titles at only 330 titles were currently available on theatrical DCP rentals prepared for public exhibition.

True, but the market for theatrical DCPs of vintage films is miniscule even just measured against the demand for physical media. They're never going to create DCPs for anything but the most well-known films, because the minor ones are unlikely to draw more than a handful of people at a theatrical exhibition.

We're much better off hoping that the studios continue to focus on preservation and mastering for home media, which is the best pathway to maintain wider public access to these older properties. There's a lot of work to do there as well, but I'm encouraged by the progress even if (like everyone else on these forums) I wish it was moving faster.

[sherlockjr]

Originally Posted by CRASHLANDING

True, but the market for theatrical DCPs of vintage films is miniscule even just measured against the demand for physical media.

Times have changed. Reports from independent, repertory, and other theaters around the country show a major upsurge in audience for classic films. Such and upsurge that some of those theaters have had to hire dedicated programmers to book those older films. And a significant problem they're having is a lack of available DCPs for many of the major titles they want to book.

Often there are film prints still available, but the infrastructure, both hardware and human, is often lacking now. And the cost of booking and shipping a film print--if the distributor trusts the theater to run it without damage--is often 2-3 times more than the same title on DCP, which makes that financially untenable.

Most of that surging audience for classic cinema--including movies on 35mm film--is actually under 35. The younger audience--at least those who go to independent theaters--seems to be looking for something different than the multiplex superhero fare. Especially on film, which has taken on a retro flavor similar to vinyl records--which now are the by far the largest dollar amount of physical music sales.

They're never going to create DCPs for anything but the most well-known films, because the minor ones are unlikely to draw more than a handful of people at a theatrical exhibition.

Well, they are drawing people now! Take a look at the far less known titles available on theatrical DCPs from Janus and Kino Lorber, for example. Which doesn't even count the DCPs of even older and more obscure titles coming from various archives like LoC, UCLA, BFI, Austrian Film Archive, etc. Once you have a high res, restored digital version of a title turning it in to a theatrical DCP isn't that much extra work, but then it makes it accessible for a theatrical audience. The way those films were always intended to be seen.

We're much better off hoping that the studios continue to focus on preservation and mastering for home media, which is the best pathway to maintain wider public access to these older properties. There's a lot of work to do there as well, but I'm encouraged by the progress even if (like everyone else on these forums) I wish it was moving faster.

Preservation, absolutely. But home media formats are not preservation formats. Once the preservation formats are created, and then restorations, color grading, etc are done, the home media formats are derived from those higher quality, archival versions. Home media releases are just a (shrinking) by product of those preservation efforts.

As mentioned above, it seems that for younger people, the theatrical experience is becoming the way they're being exposed to and enjoying older properties, whether DCP or film. I attend an annual nitrate film festival in a small city, and the audience last year was the largest it has been since it started in 2016. This year they introduced premium assigned seating and at the higher price those sold out in less than a week. Meanwhile the older/classic films I've gone to see theatrically near also tend to be very full. Last night I attended a screening (sadly on DCP) of MULHOLLAND DRIVE that was sold out in a 430 seat venue. On a Tuesday night with BD, 4K, and streaming options all readily available now and for the past several years. The theatrical audience for older films is real.

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by Shane Rollins

The questions I'd like answered, if possible, is why the hell does Disney spend tens of thousands per title (at least) to restore films they have no intention of ever releasing, why they refuse to release so much of their content (not just Song Of The South and other controversial stuff, but tons of their content in general), and what do they gain from withholding it?

Disney will probably be the first major studio to completely abandon physical media in the US. Give them 1-2 years tops.

[ophone]

Originally Posted by sherlockjr

Most of that surging audience for classic cinema--including movies on 35mm film--is actually under 35. The younger audience--at least those who go to independent theaters--seems to be looking for something different than the multiplex superhero fare. Especially on film, which has taken on a retro flavor similar to vinyl records--which now are the by far the largest dollar amount of physical music sales.

It's also a thing about the location. When I see where you're from I believe you on the spot. The nerd and film enthusiasts percentage is way higher among university students.

[concolt]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

Disney will probably be the first major studio to completely abandon physical media in the US. Give them 1-2 years tops.

That seems too soon. Physical media still brings in around $40 billion a year.

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by concolt

That seems too soon. Physical media still brings in around $40 billion a year.

No. They actually dipped BELOW 1 billion in 2023. It was like 10 billion ten years, which even then was not even close to 40.

[concolt]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

No. They actually dipped BELOW 1 billion in 2023. It was like 10 billion ten years, which even then was not even close to 40.

lol I have no clue what I was recalling then. But yeah I was way off.

[apricissimus]

I'd like to think that if you just showed someone under 35 (or under 65!), say, The Lady Eve, they would be delighted and their eyes would be opened and they would realize that there's a whole world of movies they're missing out on.

But really, I think 999 out of 1000 would say, "What the hell is this. Give me more Barbenheimer."

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by concolt

lol I have no clue what I was recalling then. But yeah I was way off.

Yeah, it's not what it once was. Disney has left other markets and have even stopped producing some shows on Blu-ray and 4K only. They seem to slowly be distancing themselves form physical media. With two out of three of the big boys no longer carrying physical media, I could see Disney bowing out soon enough.

[WillieMLF]

Originally Posted by Jope

has there been any mention of criterion releasing albert brooks’ modern romance?

Man I love Modern Romance. That Indicator disk looks good to me and it was cheap. My only gripe is that this movie really deserves more extras on that disk.

I would really love to see The Spook Who Sat By The Door.

[sherlockjr]

Originally Posted by ophone

It's also a thing about the location. When I see where you're from I believe you on the spot. The nerd and film enthusiasts percentage is way higher among university students.

Definitely, but those reports of strong theatrical attendance from sub-35 audiences are from all over the country, not just in "coastal elite" cities.

Could well be that even those "heartland" locations are located near colleges and universities, since those tend to have a major concentration of people 18-35 even when no longer students. But university areas have long been the locations of major audiences for revival theaters, and there are more than 3,000 colleges and universities around the country. There's hundreds of independent theaters around the country, and they have to build an audience for films that aren't just the usual multiplex titles, since it's pretty hard for them to book those titles over the chain cinemas.

[sherlockjr]

Originally Posted by concolt

That seems too soon. Physical media still brings in around $40 billion a year.

US physical media revenue was $980 million last year. US streaming revenue was $56.2 billion. That's a hell of a difference.

In 2013 physical and streaming media were both about $7 billion in the US. It doesn't take a business genius to see where the trend lines are and to decide not to make any further effort in physical, even if they can still do it profitably.

Licensing out to boutique distributors is a way to still make money on physical media without a major investment in staff, effort and money. Very happy but surprised that Warner Bros, Paramount, Universal are still doing their own. My guess is that it's something of a prestige and nostalgia thing for the executives who still actually care about movies and movie theaters. As well as one additional revenue outlet for their asset protection programs that otherwise might not be bringing in any other funds. Disney being mostly in the theme park and tent pole business likely doesn't care at all about a measly $100 million or so they can make off physical when streaming and licensing are so much easier and have no up front investment in physical goods.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by WillieMLF

Man I love Modern Romance. That Indicator disk looks good to me and it was cheap. My only gripe is that this movie really deserves more extras on that disk.

I would really love to see The Spook Who Sat By The Door.

The Sony release in the US features the newer restoration of Modern Romance.

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by Shane Rollins

The questions I'd like answered, if possible, is why the hell does Disney spend tens of thousands per title (at least) to restore films they have no intention of ever releasing, why they refuse to release so much of their content (not just Song Of The South and other controversial stuff, but tons of their content in general), and what do they gain from withholding it?

I can't answer why they withhold it, but they genuinely are committed to their archival efforts. (And I imagine there are legal benefits to ongoing restoration efforts - no one can claim public domain for orphaned or abandoned works, theoretically.)

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by sherlockjr

US physical media revenue was $980 million last year. US streaming revenue was $56.2 billion. That's a hell of a difference.

Interestingly, 4k continues to be a growth format in physical media - 10 percent up year over year from 2023-2024. If anyone's wondering why Criterion is prioritizing that format, well, that's the first clue.

I suspect that 4k's prosperity is going to look a lot like vinyl in the long run. Enthusiasts will pay for the best possible quality and they'll pay for it in the long run. I think even the stubborn studios will realize this at some point.

[sherlockjr]

Originally Posted by DimitriL

I can't answer why they withhold it, but they genuinely are committed to their archival efforts. (And I imagine there are legal benefits to ongoing restoration efforts - no one can claim public domain for orphaned or abandoned works, theoretically.)

Restorations do not extend copyright, which for US films is assumed to be 95 years (there's some odd accidental exceptions, but if a film is more than 95 years old it's definitely public domain). Any new creative material added to a film--like a newly recorded music track for a silent film, or newly re-created intertitles for that same silent film--will have their own copyright. But once the original film is over 95 years old, it's PD.

It's like re-typesetting a book and correcting spelling errors--that doesn't give you a new copyright on the words. If you add, say, illustrations, annotations, introductions, all that new material has its own copyright. But not those original words.

Unfortunately there is nothing in US copyright law that exempts apparent orphaned or abandoned works from copyright. There ought to be such a rule, but there's not. The closest you can get is a film (or other work) that didn't have a copyright renewed after 28 years when that was still required. That renewal is no longer required for works created after 1963. But almost all major studio films were renewed. There's a small number of exceptions that got their paperwork overlooked--often because the property was sold by one studio to another and the new owner didn't enter it into their own copyright renewal system, or similar errors. The other example is from small poverty row studios or tiny production companies that went out of business and didn't have a successor to acquire those properties and then renew the copyrights. In most cases those are all films that nobody ever heard of or has much interest in seeing anyway!

[sherlockjr]

Originally Posted by DimitriL

Interestingly, 4k continues to be a growth format in physical media - 10 percent up year over year from 2023-2024. If anyone's wondering why Criterion is prioritizing that format, well, that's the first clue.

I suspect that 4k's prosperity is going to look a lot like vinyl in the long run. Enthusiasts will pay for the best possible quality and they'll pay for it in the long run. I think even the stubborn studios will realize this at some point.

4K is a larger percentage of the physical media market, but it's still shrinking along with the rest of the market. I saw the numbers a few weeks ago. In 2018 the 4K US revenue was over $700 million. In 2024 it was down to something like $290 million.

I sure hope it continues to be viable, cause that's what I want to buy. But DVDs are still around 50% of the physical market with the rest divided between BD and 4K.

[BaronBlud]

Originally Posted by Shane Rollins

The questions I'd like answered, if possible, is why the hell does Disney spend tens of thousands per title (at least) to restore films they have no intention of ever releasing, why they refuse to release so much of their content (not just Song Of The South and other controversial stuff, but tons of their content in general), and what do they gain from withholding it?

Presumably they withhold physical media because they are trying to push people to use their streaming service, that's been at least theorized if not said out loud by a Disney employee. Why they don't put many of their films on Disney+ is probably because they see little to no value in them, in music terms they concentrate on their greatest hits and don't care about the B-sides as they estimate that they would get so few eyeballs. But Disney still has ongoing preservation and restoration programs to prepare for a possible future scenario where those B-sides go up in value.