Unforgiven 4K UHD (1992)

[Paul.R.S]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

No, when 4K was being discussed speculation was that would be the last.

It's not super important--especially for someone such as myself who is typing this sitting next to a 1,500-title CD collection that I've been "curating" for almost 35 years and add to monthly (point being that there are many who would argue the CD format is "dead")--but there's evidence to counter this (IMO problematic) parsing of 1080 BD vis-a-vis UHD in terms of which was the purported Final Format.

You seem to be saying that 1080 was not discussed as being the 'FF.' One need not look further than Nick Redman to counter that. He has spoken repeatedly about the reason he named his company Twilight Time being that it was a tongue in cheek reference to his feeling--several years ago, before 4k UHD was being broadly discussed much less introduced--that 1080 BD was the last packaged media format we'd see.

[Geoff D]

What are we arguing about here? That 4K isn't really the last format because it's just an extension of Blu-ray? Okay, fine, whatever. But in relation to my obviously poorly worded post about the resale value of UHD in years to come, it will retain its value just like 3D has done so I'm happy to cannibalise my UHD sets going forward.

[redxrebellion]

lol I just got an email from WBshop saying they have a sale on this and other Eastwood films, all are 25% of with a code. Well I click on the ad in the email which takes me to the site and this movie is absolutely nowhere on the site, even if you search. Incompetent morons

[Paul.R.S]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

What are we arguing about here? That 4K isn't really the last format because it's just an extension of Blu-ray? Okay, fine, whatever. But in relation to my obviously poorly worded post about the resale value of UHD in years to come, it will retain its value just like 3D has done so I'm happy to cannibalise my UHD sets going forward.

I for one wasn't "arguing" about anything. In my second-to-last post I was seeking clarification about precisely what you're now saying "fine, whatever" about (even though you didn't answer the question ). I'm still not clear about whether you were making a distinction between 1080 and 4k UHD as the final format. (PeterTHX then made his own assertion in that regard with which I disagree, but I didn't assume his comments were necessarily reflective of your thoughts on the matter.)

In any event, the broader point I was/am making is that I don't understand (and thank you for saying it was poorly worded) the relationship you're positing between whichever format being the 'final" and its legs on the resale market. FWIW and for the reasons I mentioned about my experiences on Marketplace, I don't think a format's purportedly 'final' status is as big of a factor in its resale value as its niche status.

To beat the horse further, IF one were to argue that 1080 BD was indeed the final (and 4k UHD isn't a format as much as an extension), the notion that finality plays a role in resale value further falls apart. Again, mainstream title used BD pricing has fallen through the floor (one of my fave examples is Green Zone: If someone told me, say, eight years ago that a Matt Damon movie directed by Paul Greengrass at the height of those guys' Jason Bourne powers would be 50 cents on HD media, I wouldn't have believed it. LOL.).

[Geoff D]

Wish I'd never said anything now, you make things such hard work.

[Paul.R.S]

Really? Wasn't hard for me to type up my question to better understand what you were saying at all. Forgive me for trying to take your contribution seriously enough to expect precision (or at least the willingness to elaborate without being dismissive)?

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Paul.R.S

You seem to be saying that 1080 was not discussed as being the 'FF.' One need not look further than Nick Redman to counter that. He has spoken repeatedly about the reason he named his company Twilight Time being that it was a tongue in cheek reference to his feeling--several years ago, before 4k UHD was being broadly discussed much less introduced--that 1080 BD was the last packaged media format we'd see.

To be fair to Redman, for the movies TT tend to release BD really is the final format. No one's going to be release Boxcar Bertha on UHD, be it studio or label, and I doubt streaming for it ever looks better than the BD either.

[Paul.R.S]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

To be fair to Redman, for the movies TT tend to release BD really is the final format. No one's going to be release Boxcar Bertha on UHD, be it studio or label, and I doubt streaming for it ever looks better than the BD either.

I understand your point, but if we're really gonna be "fair" I'd mention that Redman et al. gave the company its name years ago. As you likely well know, earlier releases were more from the 50s and 60s and earlier. Khartoum and Demetrius and the Gladiators. Since then, they've pushed into the 70s and later--we've seen TT release more mainstream titles like Sleepless In Seattle, 9 To 5 and As Good As It Gets. In other words, when they started the company I doubt they had a sense of exactly what would stick and what would slide. They have been successful so far in a very tough catalog market and the studios are licensing more stuff to them now than in years past.

My point in this regard is that I'm still holding out hope that TT will be releasing 4k UHD BD in the future. Redman has not completely extinguished that hope. Comments on his Facebook page in response to queries are to the effect that 'discussions are underway.'

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Paul.R.S

They have been successful so far in a very tough catalog market and the studios are licensing more stuff to them now than in years past.

My point in this regard is that I'm still holding out hope that TT will be releasing 4k UHD BD in the future. Redman has not completely extinguished that hope. Comments on his Facebook page in response to queries are to the effect that 'discussions are underway.'

These comments are at odds with recent Twilight Time comments about their sales being slow and them figuring they will close shop in 2-3 years. I think that's more their movie choices and market strategy than the death of discs, but either way it is what it is. The idea of Sleepless in Seattle (which took years to sell out) being an example of a more mainstream title they could do, UHD or otherwise, is kind of silly.

[Paul.R.S]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

These comments are at odds with recent Twilight Time comments about their sales being slow and them figuring they will close shop in 2-3 years. I think that's more their movie choices and market strategy than the death of discs, but either way it is what it is. The idea of Sleepless in Seattle (which took years to sell out) being an example of a more mainstream title they could do, UHD or otherwise, is kind of silly.

You're of course strawmanning regarding Sleepless. My point in that regard was about how their releases have become more mainstream. Period. If you're reading in an intimation of something more, it's exactly that--your reading. But I'd disagree that it's "kind of silly" that that title couldn't be on the table for a Valentine's Day promotion UHD release with an anniversary tie-in and perhaps cross promotion with other titles starring that guy no one has heard of, Mr. Hanks. (You both acknowledge what you perhaps are saying is a problematic marketing strategy [availability largely through their own branded Websites?] but also mention how long it took for Sleepless to sell out. Ironic. I would argue that that title could/would have sold more briskly--and could/might do so on 4k UHD--if Sony marketed it themselves or at least promoted their licensed titles through all their marketing avenues.)

Nick has responded to some of my queries commenting on their slow sales lately. But you're again overreaching. That is not "at odds" with my comments which again were about how their titles have become more mainstream since they started their licensing. I'm interested in any links you may have to Facebook posts about closing shop. That I have not seen.

[Dubliner1]

Not my favorite western even tho Clint Eastwood is one of my favorite actors- the guy's a Legend!!...but still probably getting this if it gets top marks for video quality...and great too see another older title being released in 4K
Now if they could just release every single Clint Eastwood film in a nice 4K boxset please...

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Paul.R.S

You're of course strawmanning regarding Sleepless. My point in that regard was about how their releases have become more mainstream. Period. If you're reading in an intimation of something more, it's exactly that--your reading. But I'd disagree that it's "kind of silly" that that title couldn't be on the table for a Valentine's Day promotion UHD release with an anniversary tie-in and perhaps cross promotion with other titles starring that guy no one has heard of, Mr. Hanks. (You both acknowledge what you perhaps are saying is a problematic marketing strategy [availability largely through their own branded Websites?] but also mention how long it took for Sleepless to sell out. Ironic. I would argue that that title could/would have sold more briskly--and could/might do so on 4k UHD--if Sony marketed it themselves or at least promoted their licensed titles through all their marketing avenues.)

At the end of the day I just think you overestimate the market. The labels doing well are the ones selling particular types of films. Genre stuff from the post-New Hollywood era, particularly the late 70s through the early 90s. The audience for Sleepless in Seattle is not really an audience buying UHDs, and it's not a movie to show off UHD anyway. We need to be realistic in my opinion, and realistic means UHDs bread and butter being modern films and new releases while labels handle catalog movies that actually sell.

Nick has responded to some of my queries commenting on their slow sales lately. But you're again overreaching. That is not "at odds" with my comments which again were about how their titles have become more mainstream since they started their licensing. I'm interested in any links you may have to Facebook posts about closing shop. That I have not seen.

I got that from quotes in the Twilight Time thread, I believe from a podcast interview and Facebook replies. They said the market is flooded, studios want too much for licenses and discs are about to die. Looking at Arrow, Shout, Kino and the rest I don't think this is necessarily accurate, but it's TT's view of things at the moment. TT has a very odd business model though and focuses on older movies more in the drama realm that don't sell as well. I think their challenges are often theirs alone.

[trippledx3]

I have sleepless in seatle as a top 20 i want on uhd, but I'm weird and i know it.

[bruceames]

TT may be about to die, but certainly not disc. I'm sure I'll die before disc ever does. Disc can survive and even thrive in a niche market, but it doesn't even need that as new releases sell far more than catalogs do. Discs will be mainstream until consumer decide they prefer to buy digital new releases over disc, and I don't think that's ever going to happen.

[mzupeman]

Discs are certainly not what they once were, and I do think we've lost a lot of people to the likes of Netflix and other streaming services. I can see it in how catalog titles are being treated, and I can also see it in hits in reviews I write. Interest just seems to have waned, generally.

But catalog titles are still important to a format like this. Sleepless in Seattle probably won't get a ton of sales, sure, but Unforgiven is something else.

Thing is, if studios really want this format to do well at all, they do have to appease each possible section of the market. They can't only release new films and expect to get as much a draw. That's why early on, they sold what they KNEW would sell as catalog titles... Ghostbusters. It's a hot property, especially with the newer film to tie that in with. And now they're pushing other titles later this year that they know will sell... Gladiator, Braveheart... etc. Staples. Now, it'll depend on how these sell on the format. If they're all selling like duds, we can expect catalog titles to probably disappear over time (for the most part). But I have a feeling they'll sell just fine. It's all about easing from the more proven titles to the obscure over the course of any format.

Twilight Time is a great release group and all, but most of their catalog is really, really obscure for the average consumer. They can't expect to live off that alone as interest in streaming continues to grow.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

But catalog titles are still important to a format like this. Sleepless in Seattle probably won't get a ton of sales, sure, but Unforgiven is something else.

Eastwood sells, this was a common sense choice for Warner. I think last year pretty much all the catalog titles Warner put out themselves and not through their Archive brand were Eastwood movies.

There will be catalog UHDs, but they will be carefully chosen movies that sold a lot of BDs.

[mzupeman]

Yeah, and Blu-ray was pretty much the same way. Too bad we're missing so many on that format though. Cary Grant films, as you are aware... so many missing.

[bruceames]

We're already getting a lot more catalog on UHD that I'd ever thought we'd see so soon. So something must be going right.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by bruceames

We're already getting a lot more catalog on UHD that I'd ever thought we'd see so soon. So something must be going right.

It's definitely nice to see, I'm just saying they're going to be selective. As mzupeman just said they were already kind of selective with BD, and with UHD they're going to be even more so.

[HeavyHitter]

Yep, surely the sales numbers from the BD are going to be the main decision maker with UHD BD. With Warner it's easy to know which are coming as you just have to look at those titles which were countlessly re-released on BD.