Twilight Time Discussion Thread

[Paul.R.S]

Originally Posted by deepred

I wasn't avoiding them but I don't see how it changes that it was TT's choice to go down this route. TT set up shop the way they wanted to. Or maybe they didn't, maybe Sony knocked on these guys' doors and told them that they were setting up TT for the titles they didn't want released. If they've given Sony all this leverage and control, that is on them. I just don't get people who look at the link that you provided at digitalbits and say oh, TT has no control over any of those things. If Sony is calling all the shots for TT and it's out of their control then it's not a very effective business on its own and it's really just an offshoot of Sony. I agree with the article that you posted that it is lame that they snatch up these mainstream titles where mainstream buyers wouldn't even know to go on the SAE website and they are also snatching up cult films that are in high demand and are wishy washy with how they set up their buying limits. I think they even pinned that on SAE - saying it was up to that website to put purchase limits on products. What exactly does TT even do? Take the transfers from Sony, press them and give them to SAE. If the transfer is screwed up, that's Sony's fault because they gave them a bad transfer and the release will not be rectified and people will have to wait at least 3 years for another transfer. If the SAE website screws up, it's on SAE because it is not their website.

It just seems TT has no accountability at all. So yeah, maybe they don't have really much choice in anything and I would hate to be a company that is that powerless. I think there is something screwy about having some titles where the supply does not meet the demand or the supply exceeds the demand and maybe everything will wash out for them in the end but some consumers are pretty much screwed over in the process. On some titles people can't even wait to see a review before they decide because it's such a popular title.

Has there ever been another company that releases popular movies like this? I have heard of limited special editions but then the consumer always had access to at least a standard edition. Oh yeah, this is Twilight Time. The end of physical media. Even the business title is bleak and I guess they decided to be the first to deny access to certain popular movies that sell out in limited runs.

Anyway, you made good points, Paul R.S. and I am sorry if I was dismissive of them.

Thank you for the refreshing apology of your last sentence. As for the balance of your comments, I will simply again try to leave it alone at this point by saying we share frustrations about some of the results of the Sony-TT relationship but not necessarily business perspectives/understandings of what leads to those results.

[Paul.R.S]

Originally Posted by SpartanIre

Not to mention that TT does not do a thing with the transfers. The transfer in this case would actually come from Sony...

Exactly.

Originally Posted by whiteberry

The caps are comparing the extras. The extras on the Sony blu ray are 480i 29.970 4:3 while the extras on the TT blu ray are 1080p 23.976 16:9. It's a huge difference in quality and the Sony blu ray doesn't have all the extras on the TT blu ray.

Originally Posted by Sporkies

That's true, but that doesn't mean that Sony couldn't have used and older transfer for one release and a newer transfer for another.

This is very significant to me as someone interested in good supplements. This apparently means that Sony struck new elements for the supplements to provide to TT, yes?

[chriszilla]

Originally Posted by deepred

TT came up with the model so it is in their control.

I'm a little late in responding to this, but this is what the article in question says:

"Some of these issues are out of Twilight Time’s control. Their licensing deal with the studios restricts them to 3,000 units. The number of titles that have sold out and gone out of print is relatively low and there’s no way of predicting how quickly that will happen. And the sad truth is that if Twilight Time releases a title, that’s because the studio that owns it has no intention of producing a Blu-ray themselves. Virtually all of the studios have lost interest in upgrading their catalog titles to Blu-ray. The format has simply not proven itself to be the cash cow that DVD was in its prime."

The issues Digital Bits complains about:

1) That the buyer of mainstream titles like SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE and AS GOOD AS IT GETS buy their blu-rays at Target and Costco, and don't know about SAE.

2) "Of course, frustration over Twilight Time’s policies and pricing would be a lot less if they put a little more effort into the discs themselves. This isn’t an A/V quality issue. Every disc I’ve seen from them has offered a superior presentation of the film itself. But Twilight Time is the first company I’ve seen that seems singularly uninterested in producing extra features. Apart from new booklets and isolated music scores, the company rarely offers up anything new for your buck."

3) "Rather than resurrecting forgotten films from the past, they’re now simply taking advantage of studio indifference toward their own libraries. I think it’s a shame that Sony doesn’t see any profit in releasing Body Double on Blu-ray themselves. Since they don’t want it, am I glad that someone else is? Sure. But do I think that someone else like Shout! Factory could do a better job with it than Twilight Time? Probably."


That is why I stated that these issues are basically out of TT's control. If you agree with the author of the article that TT should spend money to produce their own supplements for these discs, fine. As a film fan, I always love it when extras are included. At the end of the day, how many buyers of a TT title are going to say to themselves, "yeah, I really want [SWAMP WATER, for example] on blu-ray, but since there isn't a "making of" documentary, I'm going to have to pass"?!?

And why is studio indifference to their own libraries TT's fault?

Here's the BOTTOM LINE: if a certain film wasn't being released by TT, it wouldn't be released on blu-ray, PERIOD!

Am I saying Twilight Time is the perfect company, and as a movie collector I wouldn't change a single thing about them? No, but I appreciate the fact that titles I really want in the blu-ray format are being offered by them, as the alternative would be to not have it AT ALL!

[Paul.R.S]

Did a quick search and was not able to find an answer so would appreciate someone who has the Australian and US Philadelphia (or who could otherwise speak to this question with certainty) chiming in: Are the supplements the same on both releases?

[Kristian Idol]

Originally Posted by chriszilla

here's the bottom line: If a certain film wasn't being released by tt, it wouldn't be released on blu-ray, period!

Am i saying twilight time is the perfect company, and as a movie collector i wouldn't change a single thing about them? No, but i appreciate the fact that titles i really want in the blu-ray format are being offered by them, as the alternative would be to not have it at all!

q.e.d.

[Kristian Idol]

Originally Posted by jetthead

Yes indeed!

Was that Jane Seymour?? Holy crap, no wonder I like petite women with long hair!

[jetthead]

Originally Posted by Kristian Idol

Was that Jane Seymour?? Holy crap, no wonder I like petite women with long hair!

[Paul.R.S]

Originally Posted by Lonely and Blu

To add to what chriszilla said above me...

Read THIS interview with Nick Redman, producer and co-founder of Twilight Time. He explains TT's business model (including how they settled on the magic number of 3,000) and a lot more that many of you need to understand. Hopefully it will clear up some of the things that many of you boldly assume. Plus, it's a great interview. I learned quite a bit from it.

For the lazies (who are curious about the 3,000 limit): [snip]

The site thanks him for his "candor" at the end of the interview. Indeed. That was hilarious and sobering. "AIG of soundtracks." "Message board people." LOL. Thanks VERY much for that linkage. Bedtime now but in the morning tomorrow I'll resolve being torn between wanting to read the Julie Kirgo interview next or more with Nick R. and Adam Gregorich and/or Jeffrey Kauffman.

[BarnDoor]

I know it's been mentioned before on this thread, but has there been any word on Twilight Time releasing Emperor of the North in 2014? Obviously it's a Fox title and it'd be a great fit for the line, especially with them releasing the not entirely dissimilar Hard Times.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by Lonely and Blu

To add to what chriszilla said above me...

Read THIS interview with Nick Redman, producer and co-founder of Twilight Time. He explains TT's business model (including how they settled on the magic number of 3,000) and a lot more that many of you need to understand. Hopefully it will clear up some of the things that many of you boldly assume. Plus, it's a great interview. I learned quite a bit from it.

For the lazies (who are curious about the 3,000 limit):

Thanks for that. If I'm reading this correctly, the thing with royalties is simply that it's a single payment for the royalties with everything on one quarterly statement instead of constant royalty payments spread out over several statements. So all that vitriol a few pages back from posters about TT being slimy by avoiding royalty payments all together was total bogus.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by chriszilla

I'm a little late in responding to this, but this is what the article in question says:

The issues Digital Bits complains about:

1) That the buyer of mainstream titles like SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE and AS GOOD AS IT GETS buy their blu-rays at Target and Costco, and don't know about SAE.

Just about this point, a lot of people wonder why titles like Sleepless in Seattle, Philadelphia and As Good As It Gets are being farmed out to TT to begin with seeing as they were big hit films and Oscar winners to boot. Firstly, obviously, Sony must be at a point where they have looked at sales of those titles on DVD and realized they don't sell well. I mean, I have seen dozens of copies of those films in the $5 discount bin at Wal-Mart. Likely, any soccer mom who wants to own Sleepless in Seattle has purchased it years ago on DVD and is fine with what they have. With so many ordinary folks going the Netflix/streaming route, blu ray is far more of a market for hardcore genre fans and/or tech geeks. A movie like Philadelphia is not the kind of movie a lot of people are going to pop into the blu ray player and watch with a few beers, nor is it the type of movie like Lawrence of Arabia that is going to dazzle the senses.

[klauswhereareyou]

Has Sony even released a catalog title themselves this year in North America other then the warehoused for years Ishtar???

[Thomas Veil]

I read the article but there is a lot of holes in it as well as stuff that makes sense. I don't buy the notion if Twilight Time didn't release them they would never get released thing, especially the larger titles...at least that TT was the only option. Sony isn't exactly a great example of a well run media empire, others seem to be doing well it's just that they are rather lazy about what they have and want to bother with. Blu-ray sales have slowly been going up it's just taken a while.

I also believe there should be more felxibility as to the 3k limit....obviously they don't know their titles well if they think 3K was going to cover Fright Night, Christine and a couple others. I understand the way it works but it would be nice if they could be a little more flexible about how they go about it. I mean if Sony wanted to create a scalpers market where people make much more off their titles...congrats! you did it.lol

[Cbeck]

Big studios are focused on new releases, that is where the money is. They could not care less if Fright Night sells a few thousand copies. I would expect Twilight Time will just renew their license when it expires on a lot of these titles, and do a second run if needed.

Big studios are moving on to streaming. Discs will be new releases and proven cash cow catalog titles. Companies like Twilight Time will be there for collectors of catalog titles. Like their business model or not, that is what we will have.

[Truewitt]

Originally Posted by Cbeck

Big studios are focused on new releases, that is where the money is. They could not care less if Fright Night sells a few thousand copies. I would expect Twilight Time will just renew their license when it expires on a lot of these titles, and do a second run if needed.

Big studios are moving on to streaming. Discs will be new releases and proven cash cow catalog titles. Companies like Twilight Time will be there for collectors of catalog titles. Like their business model or not, that is what we will have.

I'm replying to you for ease. I agree with you that big studios are focusing on streaming, although they will come running back to disc when that does not have the impact they think it will. But the argument that these titles would not sell based on anything to do with TT is flawed. That's not to say they would based on past performance and such. I'm just stating that a release from TT amounts to a title not being released at all in the grand scheme of things. No one knows who TT is or what product they produce.

[deepred]

Originally Posted by Cbeck

Big studios are focused on new releases, that is where the money is. They could not care less if Fright Night sells a few thousand copies. I would expect Twilight Time will just renew their license when it expires on a lot of these titles, and do a second run if needed.

I sure hope not. They will then piss off all the people that said this was suppose to be limited to 3,000. Personally if I got a limited edition and they pressed more because the demand was greater than expected, that would not upset me. Yes, yes I understand it's not in their contract to produce over 3,000 but I have heard people on here saying if they could - that would be wrong.

I remember when Anchor Bay sold out on a limited edition of a 3-disc Suspiria and it sold so well, they decided to press more. However, I don't remember people going up in arms saying that's unfair! But I've seen on this site that many "fans" are more invested in the companies or that they got the limited copy than whether or not the consumer is happy. Like on the Friday board, people say it's not worthwhile to put part 3 in real 3-D as the movie is not popular enough to warrant the trouble. Or that the Nightmare transfers are ok as is since the price point is so good. I'd rather have new transfers at a higher price than settling with transfers that are barely an upgrade. It's funny how a company like Synpase can do beautiful new transfers for Curtains and Prom Night or how Scream can put Amityville 3-D in real 3-D yet somehow people argue that there is no money in giving the Nightmare/Friday franchises the same amount of care because they wouldn't make much profit. Last I checked those two franchises were hugely more succesful than those other titles and I'd imagine WB has more resources than Synapse or Scream.

Anyway, back to TT ... I understand that this model works for soundtracks or CDs but I always thought the movie market had a much wider audience and I feel people should have access to certain movies on blu-ray. Maybe that makes me entitled.

I haven't purchased Steel Magnolias because I just can't see paying $30 for that. I would have loved to seen a retrospective feature for that but because it's Sony/TT that obviously won't happen. I guess if these movies only had TT as an option than great but it seems everything has been done the way it's done to not have to deal with the "messy" stuff. Personally, I'm glad that other small companies are releasing titles without limits and willing to deal with the "messy" stuff so the consumer doesn't have to pay as much, can get special features and aren't pressured to buy ASAP. Now, that I see how clean they made it for themselves - I can see TT was smart in thinking for themselves and are being very strategic and in some cases the consumer wins if it's an obscure title, and other times they lose if it's not.

Anyway, not to

[Cbeck]

The studios may decide that a title like Fright Night ( as an example) is worth investing in and doing a special edition. I just doubt it. That isn't their interest or where the industry is heading. They are moving away from discs anyway. With Twilight Time they get their money up front and take no risk. I would expect they will just give Twilght Time the renewal option and it will be up to TT to take it or not.

[Cbeck]

As far as limited edition copies go, you just do a clearly marked second edition. I have seen that many times in various collectiables. Books have first printings which can be worth more. People who care about such things will always place higher value on an earlier edition.

[FatalSpiderbite]

Originally Posted by Cbeck

Big studios are focused on new releases, that is where the money is. They could not care less if Fright Night sells a few thousand copies. I would expect Twilight Time will just renew their license when it expires on a lot of these titles, and do a second run if needed.

Big studios are moving on to streaming. Discs will be new releases and proven cash cow catalog titles. Companies like Twilight Time will be there for collectors of catalog titles. Like their business model or not, that is what we will have.

I really hope they do this with Fright Night. I passed on it because I felt that a cheaper studio release would have for sure been released by now. I am regretting a little about passing on Christine as well but those are both big movies that should have gotten a studio release.

Wasn't surprised about Body Double but movies like Sleepless In Seattle and As Good As It Gets getting TT releases instead of studio release still stun me (even though I wouldn't own either one of them personally). But I would like the option to rent them (and other TT releases) on BD. That option is taken away in this release format.

[deepred]

Originally Posted by Cbeck

As far as limited edition copies go, you just do a clearly marked second edition. I have seen that many times in various collectiables. Books have first printings which can be worth more. People who care about such things will always place higher value on an earlier edition.

I wonder why TT chooses not to mark their limited editions.