Warner comments about classic films on Blu-ray

[bboisvert]

The NY Post has an (interesting) interview that is largely about Warner's (DVD-R) Archive Collection:
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies...uNwN1iTZDbMuGI

But it does touch upon blu-ray challenges.

You've been reissuing some retail evergreens with fresh DVD covers -- "Auntie Mame" and "The Great Ziegfeld,'' for instance. Would the present climate support Blu-ray releases?


Maybe 2013 for "Auntie Mame.'' Consumer acceptance of classics on Blu-ray is painfully limited. That breaks my heart. We've put out a lot of great titles that have not performed particularly well. Nobody wants to hear the scenario is tough within the retail marketplace. All of our releases have been profitable but it takes a lot longer to get there. One of the biggest retailers just cut their space for catalogue titles by 30 percent. The fact is, we have to be accountable for profitability, so the challenges in the marketplace make this a difficult area in which to succeed. Nevertheless, our commitment to do so remains strong and we have a very robust schedule for classics. We thought we'd have some Marx Brothers titles [on Blu-ray] by now, but they still need work.

[Variable_Star]

Thanks for posting this, it's a good read. I have a list as long as my arm of just WB owned classic films I'd love to see on Blu. I have the greatest respect for WB, however, because even the transfers on their DVDs are extremely good. I just rewatched the Casablanca DVD on my 47" and was struck by how great the film looked even in SD. Not only that, their supplements are out of this world, particularly on the titles that have the Leonard Maltin Hosts Warner Night at the Movies 19XX, which replicate the theatrical experience of its first run as best as possible with a newsreel, classic cartoon, classic short, and a theatrical trailer or two.

[johndoyle123]

you can tell they have a serious passion for the classics

and a clear statement that they have of"packed schedule " of blu-ray releases heading are way ...


god damn i admire warner brothers

[Strevlac]

"Maybe 2013 for "Auntie Mame.'' Consumer acceptance of classics on Blu-ray is painfully limited. That breaks my heart. We've put out a lot of great titles that have not performed particularly well."

That saddens me as well. In my view, well-done blurays of classic film is the best thing since.....well, ever. I wish more people felt the same way.

[johndoyle123]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

"Maybe 2013 for "Auntie Mame.'' Consumer acceptance of classics on Blu-ray is painfully limited. That breaks my heart. We've put out a lot of great titles that have not performed particularly well."

That saddens me as well. In my view, well-done blurays of classic film is the best thing since.....well, ever. I wish more people felt the same way.

" All of our releases have been profitable" thats the key point to take away as well as robust schedule i think

[DetroitSportsFan]

We've put out a lot of great titles that have not performed particularly well

I'd like to know the titles that this person is referring to.

[johndoyle123]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

I'd like to know the titles that this person is referring to.

personally i cant imagine the big titles "gone with the wind" not selling , considering most of the forum member own them ,,,

i blame mutiny on the bounty

[Variable_Star]

Originally Posted by johndoyle123

i blame mutiny on the bounty

I think that's definitely a plausible candidate for an underperforming title, which might have something to do with the fact that it was a digibook release. I'm not decrying the format (a tiresome topic if ever there was one), I simply feel many consumers are turned off by the higher prices the digibooks often command. For more ardent film fans, the Blu-Ray release of Mutiny was an instant buy, I myself own the release. Others, such as my father, opted to buy the DVD for $5 instead - despite owning an HDTV and Blu-Ray player. He's happy with it.

All we can do is speculate, so it'd be nice to see some actual sales numbers.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by johndoyle123

you can tell they have a serious passion for the classics

and a clear statement that they have of"packed schedule " of blu-ray releases heading are way ...


god damn i admire warner brothers

Well, they own the largest film library of any studio, so it's good that they don't neglect the golden age, when (IMO) films were 100x better than they are today. They get overzealous with DNR at times, but otherwise, since ditching their compressed audio tracks, they have been getting better.

[bboisvert]

Originally Posted by johndoyle123

personally i cant imagine the big titles "gone with the wind" not selling , considering most of the forum member own them ,,,

i blame mutiny on the bounty

Yeah, I don't get the sense he was talking about big releases (like GWTW). Nor do I think he was singling out any specific release (like Mutiny).

I think he's just saying that -- unlike the glory days of DVD -- putting out a classic catalog title on BD usually results in a reaction of "meh" at retail... and it slowly limps its way to eventual profit, rather than selling like gangbusters right out of the gate on release week.

I think a pile of titles would fit that mold -- Treasure of Sierra Madre, Mutiny on the Bounty, THX-1138, The Maltese Falcon, Ocean's 11, Forbidden Planet. None of those seemed to make a huge splash on BD...


This may also be a chicken-and-egg thing too. Given the number of years they've been releasing and the breadth of their catalog, Warner has released VERY few older films. (Say 1965 and earlier.) It's possible that this lack of classics simply has many fans of those films (picture a stereotypical TCM viewer) still sitting on the sidelines, having not yet bought a BD player.

I don't blame them for being gun-shy, but if it's true that they're not losing money here and the BDs do eventually turn a profit, I'd like to see them open the floodgates a bit more.

[NOTLWolfie]

The problem is the average consumer's view of what Blu-ray is. Many people think old movies can't look good on Blu-ray because they weren't shot in hi-def. And others think that old movies should look better than they do on Blu-ray, because Blu-ray is advertised as "the look and sound of perfect."

So either way these people look at it, they don't have any particular desire to get a Marx Brothers film on BD.

That said, I was hoping to get a copy of Duck Soup for a while, preferably BD. At least a new DVD is coming out soon.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by bboisvert

I think a pile of titles would fit that mold -- Treasure of Sierra Madre, Mutiny on the Bounty, THX-1138, The Maltese Falcon, Ocean's 11, Forbidden Planet. None of those seemed to make a huge splash on BD...

Yeah, the relative quiet surrounding The Maltese Falcon and Treasure of the Sierra Madre in particular kind of surprised me. I know they're not Casablanca but they're not exactly late, late, late, late show material either.

[EricJ]

We were just discussing on another forum why Warner's production on the Cineramas came to a standstill after "How the West Was Won"--
The bigger a restoration is, the more they NEED to expect that it'll be the next mainstream Oz/GWTW super-seller to pay the bills, and not every classic is, even though it's not Archive obscurity either--HowWest was one of the more YMMV classics, and was done more for the statement of showing what could be done in film restoration, than for an audience clamoring for it...But it didn't help that most of Warner's classics came out back at the beginning of the industry, when there was barely any Blu-ray saturation at all, let alone classic fans.

You want to give Warner the benefit of the doubt, and think "They can't STILL be psychologically traumatized by Robin Hood and Casablanca's sales on HDDVD, and paranoically blaming the fans for it!", but....I dunno...

[HD Goofnut]

I am just happy that Warner is releasing Gettysburg and Gods and Generals as Digibooks. Also, at least we got Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz.

[VanDammage]

I wonder what the average number of BD's a single title must sell (depending on how long it took them to restore it) to break even? Treasure of Sierra Madre and Maltese Falcon weren't gangbusters but it's not like they sold only sold 500 copies. It makes me wish Blu-ray education was forced in high-schools like sex education

[Idioteque...]

Too bad their classic overpriced digibooks are ridiculous.

[Atreyu]

I'm not sure what the age range of blu ray owners are, but the younger generation is not going to buy the older releases. From a profit standpoint it'll cost them more to restore some of these older features to blu then the money they will make off of them. I for one would love to see the likes of The Marx Brothers, Laurel And Hardy and W.C. Fields on blu. Maybe after awhile the cost of getting an older film restored/remastered for blu ray will decrease. Only them will more older titles hit this great format.
Also I am one that did not buy Mutiny due to it's high prce tag.

[ImportFanatic]

Originally Posted by Atreyu

I'm not sure what the age range of blu ray owners are, but the younger generation is not going to buy the older releases.

I'm 24 and I love the classics.

[buffetfroid]

Come on, who needs classics when you can have Jumanji and Bad Boys 2?

[RBBrittain]

Instead of turning every classic BD into an overpriced digibook or UCE, why not do what Sony and (to a lesser extent) Fox are doing--put out quality BDs of classic films at more reasonable prices. Who at WB would have dreamed up Taxi Driver, fully restored with lots of swag, for only $12.99? Or Kwai in a THICK digibook, again fully restored with lots of swag, for $21 on initial release?