Twilight Time Discussion Thread

[Blu-Velvet]

Originally Posted by AgentOrange

But to be fair, these masters were all prepared by Sony and Fox. So I'm not really sure how much Twilight Time has to do with the picture quality either. Maybe nothing at all.

It seems to me that Twilight Time's connection to the picture quality of their releases is the fact that they have only decided to release transfers that meet their high standards, even though they have not made the transfers themselves. As noted in other responses and TT threads, that accounts for some of the perhaps odd and eclectic selection of titles that they actually release. The fact that they also release films with strong, if sometimes eccentric or limited appeal to specific niches, combined with the guarantee of a high-quality image, makes blind buys that much more attractive even when one has never heard of the title before or has heard it dismissed as a minor film by various major critics.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by AgentOrange

With Twilight Time, we are not paying a premium for the skill and care of the transfer. As you have previously established, these masters are already "lying around" through the studios normal course of business - continuously preserving and restoring many of their own films. The quality of the release has absolutely nothing to do with Twilight Time, and in fact they have made plenty of mistakes (chapter stops at 10 minute intervals, zero extra features whatsoever, lack of subtitles, etc).

And those masters would still be "lying around" Fox and Sony without someone willing to stick their neck out to author, manufacture, assure quality, market, and support the release. Yes, it's true, Twilight Time isn't producing these transfers - anymore than Criterion was responsible for the quality of Anatomy of a Murder. Their innovative role in all this is that their own passion for these MIA titles has motivated them to discover a way to forge licensing deals which represent no financial risk to the skittish studios, while micro-targeting and serving an eager collector market directly via mail order, trusting word of mouth, such as these forums to build awareness. A tried and true American business ideal, resurrected brilliantly in the 'Net age.

Originally Posted by AgentOrange

Honestly, if Sony has basically given up on catalogue releases. Do we REALLY think these archivists' jobs are safe with Sony? Are they going to keep delving deeper into their catalogue and preparing 4K remasters if the market couldn't even support blu-ray?

Sure they will. Those catalogues represent the studios' core corporate 'assets', which collectively have earned them billions and continue to do so with every new entertainment stream introduced. So they most certainly have a vested interest in preserving those assets through restoration...at least until they max-out what is actually in those old OCNs and IPs, and have finally captured the film definitively in digital form. At that point, the last celluloid negs and prints can crumble to dust, but they've protected and preserved those movies for good.

Of course not all movies will get treated that well - some are already beyond rescue for SD much less HD - but anything that can be rescued - that still has any kind of fanbase - is no doubt in their corporate cross-hairs for upgrade. We can see that in these TT Blu-rays...or what KINO has been doing with those archival Eastman House prints. Film restoration and digitization might even become a minor growth industry over the next few years.

Originally Posted by AgentOrange

The prospects of that seem incredibly sketchy - even with Netflix and the prospects of 3rd party licensing I don't think from a business perspective that makes enough $$$ compared to traditional home video.

Traditional home video - manufacturing in volume on hard media, warehousing it, and distributing it via retail, then accepting returns or blowing it out under cost when it doesn't sell - is the problem. Mass marketing of catalogue titles never worked particularly well for anything other than the best-selling classics. With DVD, the studios had a long run of steadily increasing profits to indulge their release of a wider variety of titles. But with traditional home video sales down in general, coupled with Blu-ray's market share still stalled in the 25% range, catalogue releases have become a retail nightmare. If it was profitable, don't you think they'd be releasing more than a handful of cherry-picked catalogue titles each year? But it isn't, so they aren't. The traditional home video model has become a yoke around the Studio's necks - they want to become just the content provider, and let others do the heavy lifting for distribution on hard media or delivery via cable or unbox-style streaming.

Originally Posted by AgentOrange

It could easily be that the ability of Twilight Time to acquire such high quality HD transfers is a short lived phenomenon. In the future they might begin taking lesser transfers by default, as it seems clear they don't have resources to actually do any work themselves.

Not all catalogue titles are being reworked for HD, nor will they be, but enough will get done, and become available....especially if studios like SPHE aren't releasing those titles themselves.

The wake-up call here is As Good As It Gets...a hit movie...an award winner...from the year 1997.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by benbess

What Twilight Time is doing overall with many of its releases is letting films that wouldn't ordinarily get a release on blu a chance to be seen in HD. The prices are a bit high, but the quality is high too.

Looking at Demetrius and the Gladiators, we can perhaps try to imagine where some of the money is going. It lists at 29.95, and so the total revenue for this title if it sells all of its 3000 copies is a shade less than $90,000. A good chunk of that goes to Fox. And Fox surely spent a good deal of money creating this restored HD master a few years ago, but this release probably pays for a good bit of that. Something must go Screen Archives for distributing. A little something to Julie Kirgo for her wonderful essays written especially for TT. The rest goes to help keep this little micro company TT afloat and pay the bills. Their model is to pay everything for a title all in advance to the studio. That's why they are getting such great titles. But this also means that as soon as they earn money on one title, they are turning around with the revenue for it and writing a check for the next one.

I see buying a title on blu-ray from Twilight Time as fairly directly supporting the production of HD masters at the studios. The home video departments of Fox and Columbia can say to their bosses--here's some cold, hard cash we've earned on these HD masters from our library. Doesn't it makes sense to make some more? We all love movies, but here's the economic justification for saving more of them and introducing them to audiences today so that they can live on...

Very well stated benbess...because it's the truth.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by AgentOrange

I agree with you to some extent, but Mysterious Island is a bit more understandable than Fright Night or As Good as it Gets. The latter just seems incredible to me, I have no real interest in getting this film again anyway, but it's just crazy that this is where Sony is going even with major 1990s titles.

You just answered your own question why SPHE is licensing this title to TT AgentOrange! Those who love this movie and must have it in high-def, will gladly buy it from TT, and not blink twice at a $29.95 or $34.95 pricetag for the best possible quality Blu-ray of one of their fave movies. You wouldn't have bought it anyway, so how exactly is that "crazy"? Wouldn't it be "crazier" for SPHE to manufacture many thousands more and watch most of them go almost straight into the big box blow out bins?

My biggest disappointment with this As Good As It Gets release, is it means TT will be releasing one less deep catalogue title in June. But if their marketing needs that goose periodically from more pop-appeal titles like Fright Night and As Good As It Gets, then so be it. In Nick Redman's HTF interview, he said it would be a mixed-bag and mash-up...

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by Blu-Velvet

It seems to me that Twilight Time's connection to the picture quality of their releases is the fact that they have only decided to release transfers that meet their high standards, even though they have not made the transfers themselves. As noted in other responses and TT threads, that accounts for some of the perhaps odd and eclectic selection of titles that they actually release. The fact that they also release films with strong, if sometimes eccentric or limited appeal to specific niches, combined with the guarantee of a high-quality image, makes blind buys that much more attractive even when one has never heard of the title before or has heard it dismissed as a minor film by various major critics.

Bingo! For many of these titles - if not most - this might be the only hard media release it ever receives, so delivering the highest possible quality is paramount to this label's image and ultimate success.

[AgentOrange]

Originally Posted by ROclockCK

You just answered your own question why SPHE is licensing this title to TT AgentOrange! Those who love this movie and must have it in high-def, will gladly buy it from TT, and not blink twice at $29.95 or $34.95 for the best possible quality Blu-ray of one of their fave movies. You wouldn't have bought it anyway, so how exactly is that "crazy"? Wouldn't it be "crazier" for SPHE to manufacture many thousands more and watch most of them go almost straight into the big box blow out bins?

My biggest disappointment with this As Good As It Gets release, is it means TT will be releasing one less deep catalogue title in June. But if their marketing needs that goose periodically from more pop titles like Fright Night and As Good As It Gets, then so be it. In Nick Redman's HTF interview, he said it would be a mixed-bag and mash-up...

My biggest disappointment is that it's a complete waste for something that consistently airs on TBS's "movie and a makeover" to be marketed as a 3000 unit limited release. It truly does spell doom for the blu-ray format if THIS can no longer be marketed.

Yet you seem almost giddy about it.

I really don't even think it's correct to say that people who love this movie will go out and buy it for $29.99 or $34.99. Willingness to spend on a barebones plastic disc is not a sign of loving the underlying film. I can also pretty much guarantee you there are THOUSANDS of people who love this movie, that have NEVER EVEN HEARD OF SCREEN-ARCHIVES.COM and because of that lack of public awareness, will never know a blu-ray release exists. How many of their sales are probably being driven just through this site? Does the entire world population of film lovers reside and frequent blu-ray.com?

I'm not so sure this is a signal of blu-ray's doom so much as it is "Sony being Sony". There are still plenty of catalogue titles coming from other studios...

[Clark Kent]

What people don't realize is that Sony's current home video department couldn't manage a large volume of catalog releases right now, even if the catalog market miraculously got hot overnight. When the size of the DVD market started its decline, the studios all greatly downsized their home video departments. They simply do not have enough personnel at all levels (marketing, accounting, etc.) to support the number of catalog releases people here want from them.

That is why good masters are being licensed out to independent companies. It's much easier for an independent distributor with little overhead to turn a profit on a catalog release than it is for a large Hollywood studio.

I've seen the numbers for what it costs Warner Bros. to turn out one regular catalog Blu-ray and the costs are ridiculous. The studios have all these insane union contracts that inflate their costs beyond profitability for niche movies that may only sell 5000 units.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by AgentOrange

My biggest disappointment is that it's a complete waste for something that consistently airs on TBS's "movie and a makeover" to be marketed as a 3000 unit limited release.

It's not a waste if you love that movie and want to own it on Blu to watch it anytime you feel so inclined. I'm not that person. You're not that person. But those fans certainly exist.

Originally Posted by AgentOrange

It truly does spell doom for the blu-ray format if THIS can no longer be marketed.

As a mass market format for catalogue titles? No doubt. But there's been such a dribble of them so far via traditional retail, that this is hardly news, or worth lamenting. Actually, the overwhelming majority of catalogue titles I've purchased in the past year were from cottage labels anyway: Criterion, KINO, Olive, Legend, Severin, and now Twilight Time. The Blu-ray format is not dying, but the traditional sales model for it thankfully is...because it's done next to squat for us catalogue fans and collectors.

Originally Posted by AgentOrange

Yet you seem almost giddy about it.

About what? You're reading between lines I certainly didn't write. The only thing I'm excited about these days is that f-i-n-a-l-l-y 6 years after the Blu-ray format was introduced, one little 'David' label has found a way to crack the vaults of two of the industry's 'Goliaths' and is not only delivering many of the lost treasures I want to see, but doing so with impeccable quality. If "giddy" is your word for that renewed enthusiasm for this format, then so be it, "giddy" I am.

Originally Posted by AgentOrange

I really don't even think it's correct to say that people who love this movie will go out and buy it for $29.99 or $34.99. Willingness to spend on a barebones plastic disc is not a sign of loving the underlying film. I can also pretty much guarantee you there are THOUSANDS of people who love this movie, that have NEVER EVEN HEARD OF SCREEN-ARCHIVES.COM and because of that lack of public awareness, will never know a blu-ray release exists. How many of their sales are probably being driven just through this site? Does the entire world population of film lovers reside and frequent blu-ray.com?

Nope. But it would be in their best interests to start doing so. I mean, that's why I'm here. I never routinely visited or posted on Blu-ray.com until last fall, but quickly made it a regular stop just to stay on top of what is out there and what is coming down the pipes. Because sure as hellzapoppin it wasn't happening for me at the retail level anymore. Anyone who goes only by what they see on most of those big box shelves, is missing a whack of great stuff.

Originally Posted by AgentOrange

I'm not so sure this is a signal of blu-ray's doom so much as it is "Sony being Sony". There are still plenty of catalogue titles coming from other studios...

If so, where are they?

For 4 straight weeks now, I've walked into all of our big boxes on street date, and come away with zip, zero, zilch - in store after store, all that was on their shelves were new/recent movies and TV shows. During that same period, my online sales of Blu-rays have totalled over $400.00...almost exclusively catalogue titles from the 'minors'.

[Seymour]

Originally Posted by AgentOrange

My biggest disappointment is that it's a complete waste for something that consistently airs on TBS's "movie and a makeover" to be marketed as a 3000 unit limited release. It truly does spell doom for the blu-ray format if THIS can no longer be marketed.

Originally Posted by ROclockCK

It's not a waste if you love that movie and want to own it on Blu to watch it anytime you feel so inclined. I'm not that person. You're not that person. But those fans certainly exist.

I get what AgentOrange is saying about As Good as It Gets being a waste, as a limited release available thru very few avenues. It's the kind of film almost everybody has heard of, and is popular enough to still get shown on cable constantly. But Sony doesn't see making any money off of it, beyond the limited edition Twilight Time model. If an Oscar winning movie from just 15 years ago can't get a spot on Best Buy's shelves--blu-ray surely doesn't have the life expectancy we want and hope for...

[octagon]

Originally Posted by ROclockCK

If so, where are they?

For 4 straight weeks now, I've walked into all of our big boxes on street date, and come away with zip, zero, zilch - in store after store, all that was on their shelves were new/recent movies and TV shows. During that same period, my online sales of Blu-rays have totalled over $400.00...almost exclusively catalogue titles from the 'minors'.

Rebecca, Spellbound, Notorious, Annie Hall, Manhattan, The Apartment, To Kill A Mockingbird, All Quiet on the Western Front are all pretty high profile catalog releases over the past month or two and really do undercut the notion that only available choices are either 3,000 barebones copies or nothing when it comes to catalog titles.

I don't know if MGM is going to make any money releasing something like Spellbound at $24 SRP but they seem to think it's worth doing so...

Now, do releases like this say anything about whether the likes of The Egyptian could support a wide release? No, of course not.

But then, people aren't scratching their heads over titles like The Egyptian.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by Seymour

I get what AgentOrange is saying about As Good as It Gets being a waste, as a limited release available thru very few avenues. It's the kind of film almost everybody has heard of, and is popular enough to still get shown on cable constantly. But Sony doesn't see making any money off of it, beyond the limited edition Twilight Time model. If an Oscar winning movie from just 15 years ago can't get a spot on Best Buy's shelves--blu-ray surely doesn't have the life expectancy we want and hope for...

Unfortunately, we don't have a parallel universe handy to test this theory Seymour, but I suspect that if SPHE had released As Good As It Gets - a title everyone concedes is widely and cheaply available via many other sources, including cheap DVDs - it would have gone out with minimal fanfare (if any)...and just sat there.

Three or four weeks later, Amazon would have slashed it to $9.49, and soon thereafter it would have been pulled from retail shelves and dumped into the blowout bins. The few thousand fans who really wanted to own this title on Blu-ray would have gotten a great bargain, pretty much everyone else would have ignored it, and SPHE would have taken another retail bloodbath.

This is such a typical retail timeline for catalogue titles, you can practically set your watch by it.

[hootowls]

I don't know enough about how the business works to comment on TT's limited edition approach and pricing strategy. I'm supporting them with selected purchases but do wish for a little more extra content for the asking price.

One publisher that does impress me with their overall approach is EUREKA! and their Masters of Cinema series. They lost most of their inventory in last year's London riots and have since decided to simplify their catalog by offering most titles with both a Blu and a DVD in the package. Lots of extras on the disc and a booklet too for usually less than $25, shipped. One downside is region B locking on some titles.

Is it fair to compare the business cases of these two publishers?

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by octagon

Rebecca, Spellbound, Notorious, Annie Hall, Manhattan, The Apartment, To Kill A Mockingbird, All Quiet on the Western Front are all pretty high profile catalog releases over the past month or two...

Okay, then one. I bought To Kill a Mockingbird.

Originally Posted by octagon

...and really do undercut the notion that only available choices are either 3,000 barebones copies or nothing when it comes to catalog titles.

I think part of the problem here is that "catalogue" means different things to different people. What you point to as a decent flow of catalogue product in the past month, to me is a pathetic dribble...mostly 'the usual suspects' done many times before...now in Blu-ray editions barely upgraded from past DVDs (except for All Quiet On the Western Front, which is a fine movie, just not one of my short list faves). And of course, when studios think of catalogue, they mostly think of the crunched numbers, investment in restoration and/or remastering vs. potential profit. In the end, that's what really what matters, because that's the only way they seem to know how to make money off retail home video...by redoing...and redoing...and redoing the same short list of 'safe' titles. What's different now, is that they don't even want to redo a lot of that stuff anymore. The traditional home video model has been broken by too many dips from the same well. It just hits closer to home when a relatively recent seemingly sure-thing mainstream title like As Good As It Gets is no longer valued by the studio, who consider it 'played out' - something people might still want to see, but not necessarily own. This is what deep catalogue fans have been dealing with in every home video format to date, waiting for releases of vault faves that never came. At least TT has found a way to get this orphaned stuff out there.

Originally Posted by octagon

Now, do releases like this say anything about whether the likes of The Egyptian could support a wide release? No, of course not.

But then, people aren't scratching their heads over titles like The Egyptian.

I'm not scratching my head at all! I believed Fox and SPHE last year when they announced they were done releasing their catalogues on Blu-ray, instead leaving that job to select licensees.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

What people don't realize is that Sony's current home video department couldn't manage a large volume of catalog releases right now, even if the catalog market miraculously got hot overnight. When the size of the DVD market started its decline, the studios all greatly downsized their home video departments. They simply do not have enough personnel at all levels (marketing, accounting, etc.) to support the number of catalog releases people here want from them.

That is why good masters are being licensed out to independent companies. It's much easier for an independent distributor with little overhead to turn a profit on a catalog release than it is for a large Hollywood studio.

I've seen the numbers for what it costs Warner Bros. to turn out one regular catalog Blu-ray and the costs are ridiculous. The studios have all these insane union contracts that inflate their costs beyond profitability for niche movies that may only sell 5000 units.

In a nutshell Clark Kent. Agree totally.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by ROclockCK

This is such a typical retail timeline for catalogue titles, you can practically set your watch by it.

Where is this 'retail bloodbath' information coming from? It seems to be an article of faith that (for example) MGM took a beating on The Manchurian Candidate and The Taking of Pelham One Two Three but does anybody outside of MGM have any idea whether or not that was actually the case?

Originally Posted by ROclockCK

Okay, then one. I bought To Kill a Mockingbird.

No, not one. AgentOrange said other studios are releasing catalog titles and he's right. They're out there whether you buy them or not. Fort Apache, Shakespeare in Love, She's All That, Serendipity...these are all mainstream releases.

Now maybe those titles are all going to lose tons of money. Maybe Sony knows something that Lionsgate and MGM and Paramount and Universal don't. That's certainly possible.

Or maybe catalog releases aren't the black pits of doom people are trying to make them out to be.

And just to be clear, I'm not claiming to know what's true here. Catalog releases could very well be money pits.

I just don't see how anybody can set their watch based on the scant information publicly available.

Originally Posted by ROclockCK

I'm not scratching my head at all! I believed Fox and SPHE last year when they announced they were done releasing their catalogues on Blu-ray, instead leaving that job to select licensees.

I'd love to read these announcements if you can point me in the right direction.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by octagon

Where is this 'retail bloodbath' information coming from? It seems to be an article of faith that (for example) MGM took a beating on The Manchurian Candidate and The Taking of Pelham One Two Three but does anybody outside of MGM have any idea whether or not that was actually the case?

Research. It's out there. Some of it was reposted via the Fright Night thread, if you dare wade through that...

Originally Posted by octagon

I'd love to read these announcements if you can point me in the right direction.

Ditto.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by morriscroy

Found a Nick Redman interview which explains this in more detail.

http://www.kqek.com/exclusives/Exclu...ightTime_1.htm

(On page 3).

Thanks indeed for that link morriscroy! Initially, I thought it was just another reprint of Nick Redman's HTF interview, but after a few paragraphs realized it was a separate piece with some fascinating observations of its own. Very interesting...

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by ROclockCK

In June though, it gets plain weird. As Good as It Gets really stood out (I had to re-read it twice and check the IMDb, just in case an earlier movie had the same name, and someone got the date wrong). But no, that's the one. So I guess this means that SPHE has drawn a much closer line in the sand over how much of their catalogue they're willing to take to Blu. I mean, if such a recent, award-winning, commercially successful movie as this is now off their radar for SPHE Blu-ray release, then all bets are on for the rest of their catalogue...

You have to remember that Sony is seeing the sales data for the DVD edition over the past few years. It has been a Walmart bargain bin staple for many years.It is in a genre and has a target demographic that is not buying Blu-rays in any large number.

If Sony only has so many "open" slots to release movies on Blu-ray, is that movie a good pick? Probably not. I'm honestly surprised Twilight Time would take a shot on it, though it probably fits their customer base better than most other distributors.

[AgentOrange]

Originally Posted by ROclockCK

It's not a waste if you love that movie and want to own it on Blu to watch it anytime you feel so inclined. I'm not that person. You're not that person. But those fans certainly exist.


As a mass market format for catalogue titles? No doubt. But there's been such a dribble of them so far via traditional retail, that this is hardly news, or worth lamenting. Actually, the overwhelming majority of catalogue titles I've purchased in the past year were from cottage labels anyway: Criterion, KINO, Olive, Legend, Severin, and now Twilight Time. The Blu-ray format is not dying, but the traditional sales model for it thankfully is...because it's done next to squat for us catalogue fans and collectors.
About what? You're reading between lines I certainly didn't write. The only thing I'm excited about these days is that f-i-n-a-l-l-y 6 years after the Blu-ray format was introduced, one little 'David' label has found a way to crack the vaults of two of the industry's 'Goliaths' and is not only delivering many of the lost treasures I want to see, but doing so with impeccable quality. If "giddy" is your word for that renewed enthusiasm for this format, then so be it, "giddy" I am.


Nope. But it would be in their best interests to start doing so. I mean, that's why I'm here. I never routinely visited or posted on Blu-ray.com until last fall, but quickly made it a regular stop just to stay on top of what is out there and what is coming down the pipes. Because sure as hellzapoppin it wasn't happening for me at the retail level anymore. Anyone who goes only by what they see on most of those big box shelves, is missing a whack of great stuff.


If so, where are they?

For 4 straight weeks now, I've walked into all of our big boxes on street date, and come away with zip, zero, zilch - in store after store, all that was on their shelves were new/recent movies and TV shows. During that same period, my online sales of Blu-rays have totalled over $400.00...almost exclusively catalogue titles from the 'minors'.

I think the only difference of opinion we have, is that this particular release is meant for the "mass market". This hasn't been the norm, this release seems to be sliding the bar WAY towards the conservative side as far as what can be released at retail.

I also don't see how this can POSSIBLY be a good thing to consumers. Other than the prospect that Criterion gets their hands on more Columbia Pictures titles and loads them up with extras. The prospect of these Twilight Time bare-bones/limited releases is only truly interesting when it's something that nobody really expected a blu-ray for. My only thought at seeing this 90's oscar winner was surprise that it wasn't already on blu-ray 2 or 3 years ago, and yes, in a bargain bin...

[AgentOrange]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

You have to remember that Sony is seeing the sales data for the DVD edition over the past few years. It has been a Walmart bargain bin staple for many years.It is in a genre and has a target demographic that is not buying Blu-rays in any large number.

If Sony only has so many "open" slots to release movies on Blu-ray, is that movie a good pick? Probably not. I'm honestly surprised Twilight Time would take a shot on it, though it probably fits their customer base better than most other distributors.

On the surface it seems like a no-brainer for Twilight Time to take a 90's oscar winner if given the chance.

If I were to invent a theory to argue against it selling out quickly, it would be that customers of Twilight Time/Screenarchives might ignore it as a "boring" non-niche title. Basically it's too common to really be appealing to someone looking for "deep cut" catalogue titles that in a couple of examples were not even available on DVD. Are these film afficianados REALLY going to flock towards a title that routinely airs on cable and can probably still be found in every walleyworld in North America? Yet the people used to scooping it out of Wal-mart bargain bins might not have an awareness of the blu-ray's/Screenarchive's existance. In effect they are not even offering this title to the films original intended audience.

I really do believe this title would hit 10's of thousands of units quite easily at retail. I honestly don't understand why there isn't some middle ground between these "limited edition" 3000 releases and a 100% risk wide release. For some titles swinging 3000 seems like a stretch, for others 3000 seems absurdly low.