What if every movie were released on blu ray just once?

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I always see this sentiment expressed and it never makes sense to me. An amazing new remaster of a classic is even more exciting to me than an okay movie getting its first release. I would switch a generic action movie blu-ray to DVDs in exchange for a 4k remaster of The Untouchables, for example.

Apart from the fact that if every release was done "right" to begin with, there would be no need for a shiny new remaster, what most people take umbrage with is the constant repackaging and re-promotion of the same old discs. For example, how many repackages of the F&F series have there been with each new theatrical release? Even if the same discs are used, it's still using up at least some resources to repackage and advertise those releases and over time, who knows, that could eat up enough of the home video division's budget that could have been put towards something new.

[ElectricPeterTork]

"if every release were done right in the first place blah blah blah"

So, we're expecting the studios to predict 4K 20 years ago? The same studios that didn't even go HD/Widescreen with most TV shows until the early to mid 2000s?

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by ElectricPeterTork

"if every release were done right in the first place blah blah blah"

So, we're expecting the studios to predict 4K 20 years ago? The same studios that didn't even go HD/Widescreen with most TV shows until the early to mid 2000s?

Hold on there. TV and Film are two different animals.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by ElectricPeterTork

"if every release were done right in the first place blah blah blah"

So, we're expecting the studios to predict 4K 20 years ago? The same studios that didn't even go HD/Widescreen with most TV shows until the early to mid 2000s?

We're (or at least I) am talking about releases such as Patton. If that wasn't released in a DNR ridden mess in 2008, then the 2012 re-release would not have been necessary.

[ElectricPeterTork]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

We're (or at least I) am talking about releases such as Patton. If that wasn't released in a DNR ridden mess in 2008, then the 2012 re-release would not have been necessary.

Yeah, that's definitely a screw-up that didn't need to happen.

But how many rereleases are fixing screw-ups like that and not just new transfers that have been made as technology has progressed?

[Talal86]

Originally Posted by ElectricPeterTork

"if every release were done right in the first place blah blah blah"

So, we're expecting the studios to predict 4K 20 years ago? The same studios that didn't even go HD/Widescreen with most TV shows until the early to mid 2000s?

20 years ago? we're talking about blu rays. I'd happily wait for the definitive versions of the movies, best PQ/AQ, and all of the special features,

instead we get a rushed, half baked release, and then a remaster down the line, or worse, 2 remasters, like with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and soon The Thing

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by ElectricPeterTork

Yeah, that's definitely a screw-up that didn't need to happen.

But how many rereleases are fixing screw-ups like that and not just new transfers that have been made as technology has progressed?

I don't know, I'm not splitting hairs when it comes to this sort of thing. I'm talking about the totality of re-releases whatever the reason. Look at all of the titles that Criterion have released that have previously had blu-ray releases (e.g. Graduate, Straw Dogs, Being There, Brazil, Fear & Loathing, Dr. Strangelove). Now, if either Universal (or MGM, Sony, etc.) or Criterion had released one definitive version of those films to begin with, don't you think that resources and money could have been used by the other company to put out a blu-ray release of a different movie?

[ElectricPeterTork]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

I don't know, I'm not splitting hairs when it comes to this sort of thing. I'm talking about the totality of re-releases whatever the reason. Look at all of the titles that Criterion have released that have previously had blu-ray releases (e.g. Graduate, Straw Dogs, Being There, Brazil, Fear & Loathing, Dr. Strangelove). Now, if either Universal (or MGM, Sony, etc.) or Criterion had released one definitive version of those films to begin with, don't you think that resources and money could have been used by the other company to put out a blu-ray release of a different movie?

No.

The reason Criterion and Shout keep rereleasing these films?

People keep buying them. They're an almost guaranteed revenue stream that actually brings them money so they can release obscure films that have never been released.

I'd argue that without the latest rerelease of a major film from Criterion or Shout, you'd never see half the obscure films they release out on disc at all.

[OneWayFilms]

Then we would have to eliminate our WISH LIST threads.

[UncleBuckWild]

Originally Posted by James_Younger_Gang

I love certain collector's editions and blu ray re releases when they are worth it, but I wonder: If all movies just had a single blu ray release with no reissues or re releases, do you think that by now we would have every single movie and tv show on blu ray? Re releases are great , but sometimes I think that a lot of movies just stay in limbo and are never released on blu ray.

I think it's in the human nature to progress, enhance in one way or another.

If the studio folks think Casper the friendly ghost needs a 8K restoration, I'll betcha it'd happen.

Reissues can also be seen as reviving interest in certain films or perhaps just tryna mint some new $$$.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by James_Younger_Gang

If all movies just had a single blu ray release with no reissues or re releases, do you think that by now we would have every single movie and tv show on blu ray?

No. The resources devoted to reissues are a drop in the bucket compared to the resources required to release new titles. Even if we assume that appropriate source materials are available for all movies (and they're clearly not) and we shift all the time/money spent on reissues to bringing new titles to market I don't believe we would see a significant uptick in new catalog releases let alone a flood of new catalog releases let alone releases of every catalog title.

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

I'll never understand why people upgrade because of a change of packaging...

They like the packaging. Surely that can't be that hard to understand.

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

...and they'll only have themselves to blame for encouraging studios to take their money that way.

But they're not the ones *****ing about so-called cash grabs, are they?

I love Starbucks. So I guess you can say I have only myself to blame for the fact that there are so many Starbucks locations.

I gotta say though, I don't feel too terribly bad about that. From where I'm sitting it's worked out pretty well.

I can't imagine it's too different for people who like steelbooks or digis or Criterions or whatever.

[DeadEyesSmiling]

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

Apart from the fact that if every release was done "right" to begin with, there would be no need for a shiny new remaster, what most people take umbrage with is the constant repackaging and re-promotion of the same old discs. For example, how many repackages of the F&F series have there been with each new theatrical release? Even if the same discs are used, it's still using up at least some resources to repackage and advertise those releases and over time, who knows, that could eat up enough of the home video division's budget that could have been put towards something new.

Well they do that because it sells. I don't buy the same discs twice, but there's a reason they do it. I agree it would be nice if every disc was a modern remaster every time, but there's financial reasons they're not. I know the customer is always right philosophy and all, but at the end of the day the studios are a business. I try to be realistic about such things.

Shout gets a lot of flack for the re-releases and gets a lot of begging for random b-movies like Scarecrows. Then what happens though? Mad Max is their best seller, a disc WORSE than the previous BD, and movies like Scarecrows sell a few hundred copies and lose them money. Sometimes the screams of fans on the internet meet the cold hard light of day and evaporate under the business sun.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by ElectricPeterTork

No.

The reason Criterion and Shout keep rereleasing these films?

People keep buying them. They're an almost guaranteed revenue stream that actually brings them money so they can release obscure films that have never been released.

I'd argue that without the latest rerelease of a major film from Criterion or Shout, you'd never see half the obscure films they release out on disc at all.

People keep buying them because the Criterion and Shout versions are significantly BETTER than the studio releases. The point being made is that IF Universal had released a fully loaded special edition version with top-notch picture quality of Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas to begin with, there would be no need for a Criterion version. Then Criterion could turn their attention to releasing something else just as profitable.

Originally Posted by octagon

No. The resources devoted to reissues are a drop in the bucket compared to the resources required to release new titles. Even if we assume that appropriate source materials are available for all movies (and they're clearly not) and we shift all the time/money spent on reissues to bringing new titles to market I don't believe we would see a significant uptick in new catalog releases let alone a flood of new catalog releases let alone releases of every catalog title.

Obviously a repackage is going to be much cheaper to produce than a debut release but there's still SOME cost involved. And if a studio keeps spending money and resources on enough of these re-releases at some point the costs involved will mount up and reach the point where that amount of money could have financed something new.

There are a lot of consumers who are as much to blame as the companies. If people didn't feel like they've "gotta have 'em all" then maybe labels would be discouraged from re-releasing stuff so often.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

Obviously a repackage is going to be much cheaper to produce than a debut release but there's still SOME cost involved. And if a studio keeps spending money and resources on enough of these re-releases at some point the costs involved will mount up and reach the point where that amount of money could have financed something new.

What are we really talking about, though? How many rereleases would we have to pile together before we're talking about enough money to actually care about?

Lockers are bad anyway after a while, people get the combination. I must have had twenty bucks taken out of there in the past six years, ya know. Don't sound like much, but it adds up, ya know. Doesn't matter, who cares?

— Rocky Balboa

Originally Posted by baheidstu

There are a lot of consumers who are as much to blame as the companies. If people didn't feel like they've "gotta have 'em all" then maybe labels would be discouraged from re-releasing stuff so often.

Is blame really an appropriate word here? Don't get me wrong. I'm hardly in the camp that thinks the customer is always right.

But I'm not in the camp that 'blames' other consumers for liking the shit they like more than they like the shit I like either.

Nor am I in the camp that 'blames' companies for trying to make money off the stuff they own. When books get made into movies publishers routinely rerelease that book with a cover that ties into the movie. That's all they do. They slap a new cover on it. And why wouldn't they? That only makes sense.

Same with anniversary rereleases on BD. If you could make a few bucks slapping a new slipcover or an anniversary banner on an existing disc why wouldn't you?

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by octagon

What are we really talking about, though? How many rereleases would we have to pile together before we're talking about enough money to actually care about?

I don't know, you're the one who said that the resources required for reissues are a drop in the bucket compared to the resources required to release new titles. You tell me, what are the comparative costs?

Even if you utilize the same disc content, does it not cost money to press new discs often with new disc artwork, design and print new cover artwork, package and seal them up, distribute them to stores, market them, etc.? So I guess the X factor is how much it costs to create the content for a new disc versus something that's been released before.

If the costs of ten or even twenty needless re-issues add up to the cost of just one title that could have been released but otherwise won't, then yeah I see that as a loss to all fans.

Originally Posted by octagon

Is blame really an appropriate word here? Don't get me wrong. I'm hardly in the camp that thinks the customer is always right.

But I'm not in the camp that 'blames' other consumers for liking the shit they like more than they like the shit I like either.

Nor am I in the camp that 'blames' companies for trying to make money off the stuff they own. When books get made into movies publishers routinely rerelease that book with a cover that ties into the movie. That's all they do. They slap a new cover on it. And why wouldn't they? That only makes sense.

Same with anniversary rereleases on BD. If you could make a few bucks slapping a new slipcover or an anniversary banner on an existing disc why wouldn't you?

I don't blame companies for taking the path of least resistance in order to make money in an ever-shrinking market. Consumers? Well, it depends on the situation. I can't fault someone for upgrading to a better quality product (eg Patton) but when it comes to something like re-buying the Fast & Furious set that contains all 8 movies, even though they already have a set that contains 1-7, because they "need" a set with everything together is just silly.