BDs That Are Out of Print (OOP)

[neo_reloaded]

Home Alone 4K UHD seems to be on the way from Disney too:

https://www.blowitoutahere.com/home-alone/786936875430

So can we please PLEASE stop with the "All Fox going oop!" stuff now?

[BluProofie]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

Home Alone 4K UHD seems to be on the way from Disney too:

https://www.blowitoutahere.com/home-alone/786936875430

So can we please PLEASE stop with the "All Fox going oop!" stuff now?

That doesn’t mean we are going to get new reissues of every single Fox title.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by BluProofie

That doesn’t mean we are going to get new reissues of every single Fox title.

No one EVER said that that was expected. Fox themselves wasn't keeping all titles in print in perpetuity - many Fox titles you can buy from Amazon today are still the original stock from close to a decade ago. This is true for almost every studio.

[noiradelic]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

Home Alone 4K UHD seems to be on the way from Disney too:

https://www.blowitoutahere.com/home-alone/786936875430

So can we please PLEASE stop with the "All Fox going oop!" stuff now?

Yeah, anyone who thought 100% of Fox titles would remain OOP doesn't have much common sense. But two popular titles getting rereleased doesn't mean that the lesser-known titles are. Theoretically, a good part of the catalog could still remain OOP.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by noiradelic

Yeah, anyone who thought 100% of Fox titles would remain OOP doesn't have much common sense. But two popular titles getting rereleased doesn't mean that the lesser-known titles are. Theoretically, a good part of the catalog could still remain OOP.

Sure, I don't disagree with that. But that is not some new reality as a result of Disney buying Fox. Fox already let older, unpopular titles go out of print before the Disney deal, as every studio does.

[noiradelic]

It's been three months since the merger. How many titles does one studio normally put OOP in that length of time? Not that many.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by noiradelic

It's been three months since the merger. How many titles does one studio normally put OOP in that length of time? Not that many.

That gets to the heart of my disagreement with the "OOP" philosophy of so much of the discussion.

Small labels who don't own any titles and instead license them from major studios have contractual dates past which they can no longer sell the title. When a small label announces that something is going OOP, it has a very tangible meaning - we will not/can not renew the contract, so we cannot produce any more copies.

For a major studio that outright owns films, they never lose the rights. So any "OOP" is just when a title is selling so slow that they don't have any interest in spending the money to produce another pressing. There are tons and tons of Blu-ray titles from major studios that just have not sold well relative to the amount of discs that was pressed. If they FINALLY run out of stock 10 years after the initial release, that isn't the major studio deciding to "put them OOP"; their slow sales doomed them to that fate a long time ago, and it's just a matter of when the stock finally runs out. It's not like Fox was making a new printing of all these titles every 6 months or so, and now Disney will stop that practice - many of these older titles have likely had literally one pressing ever that hasn't sold out yet.

Take the Fox studio classic line from late 2013 (Call of the Wild, Blood and Sand, Desk Set, Ghost and Mrs. Muir, etc.). Call of the Wild and Blood and Sand sold out before the Disney deal, and Fox did not reprint them. Desk Set is still in stock. Did Fox "keep Desk Set in print"? Or did Desk Set just sell less than Call of the Wild? And if Desk Set sells out within the next year, is that "Disney putting Desk Set OOP"? Or just a function of its 2013-era stock selling out at a later date than Call of the Wild's 2013-era stock? I think A LOT of titles are in this limbo, and none of the speculation about what Disney will/won't "let go OOP" really takes this reality into account, in my opinion.

Even for many of the "reissues" we see (like when WB started handling Paramount titles, and then Paramount later took back control), the "reissues" are, for some titles, the same discs with a new UPC sticker. I've purchased "2017" Paramount BDs that are all beat up because they are actually 2010 discs that were opened/stickered/resealed once in 2014 with the WB UPC and then opened/stickered/resealed again in 2017 with a new Paramount UPC. You think when these FINALLY sell out, Paramount is going to rush to press another batch?

The same is true for the "movie cash" re-releases and various tie-ins (Deadpool photo bomb covers, etc.). They pull unsold stock, open it, add a new UPC sticker and the appropriate movie cash, and reshrinkwrap it. They certainly DO truly repress popular titles that sell well when necessary, but stock moves slower than these different promotional versions might imply.

[zw94]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

Home Alone 4K UHD seems to be on the way from Disney too:

https://www.blowitoutahere.com/home-alone/786936875430

This means there is still hope for Aliens. <3

[KManX89]

Scream is now out-of-print seeing how the only new copies are sold on Amazon for $70 and eBay for $40.

[noiradelic]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

That gets to the heart of my disagreement with the "OOP" philosophy of so much of this thread.

...studios have contractual dates past which they can no longer sell the title. When a small label announces that something is going OOP, it has a very tangible meaning - we will not/can not renew the contract, so we cannot produce any more copies.

For a major studio that outright owns films, they never lose the rights. So any "OOP" is just when a title is selling so slow that they don't have any interest in spending the money to produce another pressing. There are tons and tons of Blu-ray titles from major studios that just have not sold well relative to the amount of discs that was pressed. If they FINALLY run out of stock 10 years after the initial release, that isn't the major studio deciding to "put them OOP"; their slow sales doomed them to that fate a long time ago, and it's just a matter of when the stock finally runs out.

...none of the speculation about what Disney will/won't "let go OOP" really takes this reality into account, in my opinion.

Your thrust and the scare quotes imply that the term "OOP" can't be applied to studio titles. "OOP" is the consensus term the industry and savvy consumers have agreed upon as a community to be used when studio titles are no longer available to buy. If a studio decides not to re-"print" a title, then it's no longer in "print;" ergo it is out of "print." Consumers don't know how many copies the studios have pressed, how many they've sold and when they reprint (infrequently we might be able to guess or an employee makes an announcement); we only know when the title's no longer available to purchase first-party, so from the consumers' point of view (in other words, all of us here), one day a title's no longer available to buy. The term "OOP" comes from the publishing industry and likely pre-dates terms like "boutique label" and "independent company."

So your argument basically is that an unusually high number of Fox titles have gone OOP in the last three months because an unusually high number sold out their print runs due to the lockdowns? Though sales probably have increased due the lockdowns, I think that may be a little overrated because many people have less money, or no money, to spend, and some might've been a little more reluctant to buy some BDs because of erratic shipping.

I think too many titles have become unavailable for it to be completely explained by increased pandemic sales causing print runs to sell out during the last three months (Disney also has the option of liquidating or destroying). But even if it is, the ultimate reality is it doesn't matter whether it's all just titles that Fox wouldn't have pressed more of anyway (seems unlikely to me), or Disney's made or will make the decision not to press more of many of the titles if ultimately they're OOP. If they're OOP they're OOP. Members should have the information about whether titles are currently unavailable, so they can make their own decisions about whether to buy them now or take the chance that Disney reprints them. In the end, "philosophy" or how members express things doesn't matter.

Ultimately, none of us really know what Disney will do exactly -- though it does appear that the best-selling titles will get rereleased or repackaged -- so I agree overall speculation is less useful than announcements that specific titles are no longer available.

Agree that practically all of the Fox Studio Classics titles would be going OOP regardless. But that's a special case in which an entire line sells less per title than Fox's more popular recent films.

Not important points, but I believe boutique labels do sometimes let titles go OOP due to poor sales -- we know Criterion doesn't, but I don't think the Kino's licenses of most of the MGM titles in that "While Supplies Last" sale have or are about to expire. Conversely, studios do sometimes license films from other license holders and they can expire.

[clortho]

Originally Posted by KManX89

Scream is now out-of-print seeing how the only new copies are sold on Amazon for $70 and eBay for $40.

All Lionsgate Miramax titles are effectively OOP. Anything left is old stock at this point. They should probably all be added to the main page.

Originally Posted by noiradelic

Yeah, anyone who thought 100% of Fox titles would remain OOP doesn't have much common sense. But two popular titles getting rereleased doesn't mean that the lesser-known titles are. Theoretically, a good part of the catalog could still remain OOP.

This has been the consensus all along. Not sure what the other poster was referring to.

Of course the Fox A-list titles won’t stay OOP. It’s all the oddball ones and lesser known titles - which arguably is the worst scenario since once they’re OOP you’ll have to hope it’s on Hulu or Disney+.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by noiradelic

Your thrust and the scare quotes imply that the term "OOP" can't be applied to studio titles. "OOP" is the consensus term the industry and savvy consumers have agreed upon as a community to be used when studio titles are no longer available to buy. If a studio decides not to re-"print" a title, then it's no longer in "print;" ergo it is out of "print." Consumers don't know how many copies the studios have pressed, how many they've sold and when they reprint (infrequently we might be able to guess or an employee makes an announcement); we only know when the title's no longer available to purchase first-party, so from the consumers' point of view (in other words, all of us here), one day a title's no longer available to buy. The term "OOP" comes from the publishing industry and likely pre-dates terms like "boutique label" and "independent company."

I use scare-quotes not to imply that studio titles can't be out of print but because the in-print/out-of-print status is harder to verify from our non-insider perspective. I completely agree with you that we as consumers are not privy to a studio's sale charts or decision-making process, so we add them to an OOP list like this when they are no longer on sale; no argument from me on the validity of that process.

But my point is that, when we ARE discussing the studio thought process, as we inherently are doing when we're discussing whether Disney will "let Fox titles go OOP," we MUST then factor in what is going on behind the scenes, even if we don't have all the details. A title finally running out of stock in 2020 is NOT equivalent to Disney deciding, in 2020, to switch from reprinting a title to not reprinting a title. That title's fate was sealed long ago, i.e., in the ten-year period required to sell out its one and only print run.

So your argument basically is that an unusually high number of Fox titles have gone OOP in the last three months because an unusually high number sold out their print runs due to the lockdowns? Though sales probably have increased due the lockdowns, I think that may be a little overrated because many people have less money, or no money, to spend, and some might've been a little more reluctant to buy some BDs because of erratic shipping.

It is difficult to fully analyze the situation because everything is running at limited capacity, from Amazon to upchain distributors, to the replication plants, to the studios themselves. So some of these titles may still have stock available at some distributor, but Amazon is not prioritizing reordering those titles, or the distributor might be busy with other shipments. Others might truly be repressed when the studios get a chance to look at the numbers and the replicators are running at full-speed again.

But yes, I do also think that Fox titles are selling faster than they previously were for two reasons. One is that physical media sales ARE up during the pandemic - multiple sales charts have shown that. And two, people are shouting all over this forum, and other forums, that "OMG all Fox titles are going OOP!", so people are reacting to that and buying up titles they've maybe had an interest in but never pulled the trigger on before.

Both of those factors seem eminently reasonable to me.

And even without evidence of those two factors, what is the alternative? Like I said, studios are not constantly reprinting titles every 6 months or anything like that. It takes years and years for print runs of less popular titles to sell. I have purchased some of the older Fox titles myself recently, and many of the discs have IFPI numbers for replication plants that have been closed for years, so I know for a fact that these were not manufactured anytime even remotely recently.

So what is the explanation for titles disappearing in the last couple months besides people buying them? Well you do suggest the following:

I think too many titles have become unavailable for it to be completely explained by increased pandemic sales causing print runs to sell out during the last three months (Disney also has the option of liquidating or destroying).

Bu why on earth would Disney destroy stock? Disney is NOT anti-physical media in any way shape or form, and there is no reason to destroy stock.

But even if it is, the ultimate reality is it doesn't matter whether it's all just titles that Fox wouldn't have pressed more of anyway (seems unlikely to me), or Disney's made or will make the decision not to press more of many of the titles if ultimately they're OOP. If they're OOP they're OOP. Members should have the information about whether titles are currently unavailable, so they can make their own decisions about whether to buy them now or take the chance that Disney reprints them. In the end, "philosophy" or how members express things doesn't matter.

Again, there are two, equally important, ways of looking at this situation. I completely agree that ONE way of looking at it that has value is just a clear listing of what titles are no longer in stock at retailers. Yes, that is a valuable practice, no argument from me.

But people saying that "All Fox titles are going OOP!" are not providing valuable information in that regard. And to analyze what IS really going on with Disney/Fox, you have to consider the other way of looking at it, the way that acknowledges that a lot of what is "in stock" at retailers (for ALL studios) is leftover stock for older titles that will almost surely never receive another pressing.

If we agree, as we seem to, that Fox studio classics titles were never going to be reprinted by even Fox as an independent company because of their low sales, then those titles "going out of print" (by way of finally running out of stock) has no relevance to Disney and is not a data point that agrees with the statement of "Disney will let Fox Blu-rays go OOP."

Ultimately, none of us really know what Disney will do exactly -- though it does appear that the best-selling titles will get rereleased or repackaged -- so I agree overall speculation is less useful than announcements that specific titles are no longer available.

Agreed.

Not important points, but I believe boutique labels do sometimes let titles go OOP due to poor sales -- we know Criterion doesn't, but I don't think the Kino's licenses of most of the MGM titles in that "While Supplies Last" sale have or are about to expire. Conversely, studios do sometimes license films from other license holders and they can expire.

The reason for a boutique label letting a license lapse can certainly vary (license-holder no longer wants to work with them, the sales haven't been high enough to justify renewing the license and/or paying for another pressing, etc.), but the fact that there is a yes/no decision to renew/not-renew means that there is a specific date at which "X titles are going out-of-print" can be announced. Major studios never announce that, because there is no such definitive yes/no decision on a fixed date, so we as consumers don't have the same insight into the process.

Shout/Kino's recent announcements of titles they aren't renewing were so large in number that they didn't all sell out at once - the scalpers weren't going to spend that kind of money on stuff that might not flip, and regular consumers bought a few of the titles but not all of the titles, so plenty of stock remains. Those still-in-stock-but-categorically-OOP titles are now in the same limbo as a lot of major studio titles - they will remain in stock for as long as the current pressing lasts.

[Mister_Kidd]

Wall-of-text

[neo_reloaded]

I'm sorry that complicated situations require complicated explanations.

[KManX89]

Originally Posted by clortho

All Lionsgate Miramax titles are effectively OOP. Anything left is old stock at this point. They should probably all be added to the main page.

Viacom/Paramount would have to reissue/rerelease them since buying them out, which I wasn’t aware of until literally just now.

[noiradelic]

I broadly agree with what you said in your last post, There are smaller points I don't completely agree with, but I don't want to drag this out any more.

[Nightman04]

Thanks for the heads up on Scream. I recently checked my 3 movie set I got used last year and the first one has a scratch on it! I scanned through it and luckily it played fine. Definitely had me wigging out for a second. That's the first horror movie I got to see in the theater and its still one of my favorites.

[noiradelic]

Normally, I'd say Scream's a safe bet to get a rerelease -- popular horror movie. Have to admit I found the news about Viacom/Paramount buying Miramax puzzling, because Paramount seems to care less about physical media than any of the other studios (not counting Disney/Buena Vista). They kept most of their catalog OOP for two years -- from 2010-2012 -- when DVD sales were still pretty healthy. So I have to assume Viacom wanted Miramax to provide more content for all of their cable/broadcast channels and streaming. Still think Scream will probably get a new release, but Paramount's physical media strategy has been head-scratching, unless you consider that it's almost an afterthought to them.

EDIT

[OrlandoEastwood]

Originally Posted by noiradelic

Normally, I'd say Scream's a safe bet to get a rerelease -- popular horror movie. Have to admit I found the news about Viacom/Paramount buying Lionsgate puzzling...

You mean Miramax?

[noiradelic]

See, I really do have a hard time wrapping my head around the acquisition!