Business Models: Twilight Time vs. Other Boutique Labels

[MichaelB]

Do you have a horse in this race? Are you acquainted with the TT owners? Maybe I have overlooked an answer to these questions elsewhere; if so, I apologize. I'm only kindasorta challenging you; I actually think it's commendable that you're the most vigorous defender among folks who clearly dislike this company, even if I'm a little puzzled by your tenacity and warmth. I was just curious and thought I would ask.

It's a perfectly fair question. Round these parts there's a tradition that, if you're an industry insider or have the ear of a particular company, you admit to such connections and potential biases upfront - Peerpee, Bikey, myself and many others have always been completely open about our various industry links and the releases that we directly contributed to.

Conversely, people who claim to have "insider info" but who prefer to remain anonymous... well, there's nothing wrong with that in principle, unless they also start badmouthing other companies with what could be read as pretty serious accusations (although I suspect the 'Ponzi' claim was a badly-chosen expression rather than an actual accusation of attempted criminal fraud). You're more likely to be taken seriously if you sign your real name to such things - and of course more likely to be accurate, given the possibility that you might be called to account later.

[Moe Dickstein]

Do you have a horse in this race? Are you acquainted with the TT owners? Maybe I have overlooked an answer to these questions elsewhere; if so, I apologize. I'm only kindasorta challenging you; I actually think it's commendable that you're the most vigorous defender among folks who clearly dislike this company, even if I'm a little puzzled by your tenacity and warmth. I was just curious and thought I would ask.

It's a perfectly fair question. Round these parts there's a tradition that, if you're an industry insider or have the ear of a particular company, you admit to such connections and potential biases upfront - Peerpee, Bikey, myself and many others have always been completely open about our various industry links and the releases that we directly contributed to.

Conversely, people who claim to have "insider info" but who prefer to remain anonymous... well, there's nothing wrong with that in principle, unless they also start badmouthing other companies with what could be read as pretty serious accusations (although I suspect the 'Ponzi' claim was a badly-chosen expression rather than an actual accusation of attempted criminal fraud). You're more likely to be taken seriously if you sign your real name to such things - and of course more likely to be accurate, given the possibility that you might be called to account later.

Apologies for the poorly chosen metaphor. It was not meant to have any criminal connotations, but merely to indicate the aspect of new releases covering shortfalls of the old ones, but of course that is too hard to separate and I was in error.

I have no official connection with any company at the moment, but through my work in LA I've been acquainted with people at several studios and also the gentlemen who run TT. I've had the chance to sit down with them over a drink and ask many of the questions you all have expressed about their business model and I got answers that satisfied me about the things that bothered me personally. As I noted above I've only just purchased my first TT disc, so I'm hardly a fanboy, but I do think there is a place for what they do and things in here just seemed awfully one sided. I have stated that before that I know Nick, but perhaps not in this thread.

I didn't see the place to post your real name here, but I use the same user name on other forums where my real name is posted and I just put up a few links to films I've directed in the share your work thread which also have my real name. In my creative work I go by the name T R Wilkinson. If any of you have the 1776 DVD, you can find my name in the booklet if you have a magnifying glass xxx. With friends, I go by Ted.

I hope you'll all call me that.

[gcgiles1dollarbin]

Ted!

[Moe Dickstein]

Now is the time on Sprockets when we hug =)

[Taketori Washizu]

Anyway this all comes back to TT and their exorbitant prices. I do not have a problem buying a bare bones disc, but I'm not going to pay $30.00 for it. There is no justification for it. It's similar to the resurgence of vinyl in the last few years and record companies charging obscene prices for a lot of reissues. If TT can't lower their prices and make a profit/ stay afloat, then these "hobbyists" should get out of this particular business. They haven't earned the reputation yet of someone like the Criterion Collection to justify these prices. If they want to continue with these set prices, they better add a lot more to the discs then. If the studios holding onto these titles don't want to release them on their own via DVD/BLU/MOD, then have a streaming service as the last resort.

Bottom line TT/Olive Films have a lot of revamping to do if they want longevity.

[Moe Dickstein]

One thought to that, I believe every TT disc has included one extra - the isolated score.

Some have also included featurettes and commentaries when they were pre-existing, though not always, so I think it's fair to say that while a great number of the releases are bare bones aside from the score track, not all of them are.

The other thing to remember about the price point is that it's no different from any other companies prices in the sense of MSRP. The difference is that other companies have a wider range of people selling them and offering discounts. If we didn't have discounts on Criterion they'd mostly all be $40. Most new studio films have a pricepoint around $30 list, but we forget that because I doubt anyone actually pays that for them.

One of the arguments I've heard from a TT founder is that the studios basically destroyed the percieved value of Blu Ray by selling them cheaper than DVDs, rather than as a premium product. This can work if you know you're going to sell a million copies of a major release, but it destroys the ability of more minor titles to pay their own way in the market place. That is the reasoning behind their pricepoint - that is what it takes for them to make thse titles pay their own way.

As I've said before, if you don't feel the value is there for you then simply don't purchase that title.

[swo17]

Anyway this all comes back to TT and their exorbitant prices. I do not have a problem buying a bare bones disc, but I'm not going to pay $30.00 for it. There is no justification for it.

The economic justification is that you are paying for a product that only exists in limited quantities. You and many others may not feel that this is justification enough to give them your business, but they don't need wide appeal to sustain this business model, just a small niche of rabid collectors. I don't know if 3,000 units at $30 per unit is the "sweet spot" to match limited supply with the according demand, but it doesn't sound too far fetched to me. My bigger concern at this point is the fallout from their neglectful/potentially shady customer service.

[vsski]

If the studios holding onto these titles don't want to release them on their own via DVD/BLU/MOD, then have a streaming service as the last resort.

If I understand correctly what you are saying here, TT is not an option for you because it is too expensive for what it offers. Therefore if a Studio doesn't want to release a title instead of giving the title to a TT type outfit, offer a streaming service instead.

This is exactly what the studios love to hear and have been working on (some for over a decade now), trying to find the next big cash cow now that physical home media is shrinking and one of the reasons why several years ago the number of new BD releases started decreasing. The studios in the heyday of DVD had created a price point that was so low that only a large volume of sales enabled them to make money on many titles. When sales started to decline in parts because of the recession, suddenly the numbers didn't add up anymore. BD didn't fill the hole, so rather than continuing to dump product into the market place, studios decided to focus on blockbusters, MOD services and streaming.

TT came along and said we believe there is a market for catalog titles, but they have to be sold differently. We take all the upfront risk, let's see if it works. And for better or worse they chose the Soundtrack limited edition model to go about it (for all of the reasons described in this thread) and it turns out that the model appears to be somewhat successful.

While I can understand that due to price expectations set by studios as well as individuals' financial situations a $30 price point for a BD with little to no new extras will be too high, it is one way to continue producing physical product rather than having streaming as the only alternative - and yes we all would love to have Criterion and MoC and Arrow bring all of these releases to market, but that is not realistic.

So while I don't like the limited approach of TT and the secondary market it produces, I am happy to see physical product to be released and I do fully expect that as streaming gains more and more traction and physical sales continue to decline, consumers still wanting discs will have to pay more and more and it will become more of a collector's type market with or without limited editions.

I for one hope that discs will be around for a long time and if it means having to pay more for them, so be it (and yes it will mean I will buy less since money does matter), but at least the option still exists.

[knives]

One thought to that, I believe every TT disc has included one extra - the isolated score.

That's not an extra for everyone. Some film fans suffer from some degree of deafness.

[repeat]

My bigger concern at this point is the fallout from their neglectful/potentially shady customer service.

And their image in general - I mean I don't even know what or who "Screen Archives Entertainment" is, but I've been under the impression that TT are a subsidiary or side label of some huge business venture. They have more of my sympathies now that, thanks to this discussion, I know it's a sort of a shoestring operation (though I still think they should try to adjust their business model). It's a shame they can't find the time to post here to increase transparency and confidence (although they do communicate a bit through their Facebook page, but only with their fans - there's not much criticism going on there).

They do seem to have a lot of happy fans so I don't think the price point is a problem to them, only to the few of us who feel it's somewhat high for barebones discs... Not to sound like a steelbook collector, but personally I'd be less reluctant to pay that price if they would even have limited edition worthy packaging instead of the normal crummy BD cases. I don't know if this is facetious or not and I don't want to make too much of an issue of it, but to me their presentation just doesn't communicate that sort of care and dedication as, say, MoC's - if you're saying "you're paying this much because it's a limited edition", I should feel I'm getting something that looks like one.

I don't know, someone brought up the resurgence of vinyls upthread, and part of that phenomenon is exactly their physical desirability as opposed to the disposable coasters that are CD's. With the continuing decline of physical media sales in the face of downloading most independent record companies have paid serious attention to the design aspect. I'm opposed to downloading for various reasons but if I put myself in the shoes of someone who wasn't, I'd have to ask myself what incentive would there be to burn 30-40 dollars on TT product instead of getting another Criterion or three MoC's.

[Moe Dickstein]

To the best of my knowledge, SAE is a long time distributor of film scores. That is their chief product, as you can see when you visit the website.

The reason that TT got hooked up with them as distributors is through Nick Redman's decades as a soundtrack producer (which is a key reason the releases have isolated scores as well). So basically SAE added on the DVD/Blu product into their traditional CD pipeline, and were willing to support this new experimental venture due to their history with Nick. Aside from this familiarity and past interaction, SAE and TT have no ownership or partnership in common.

Nick, Brian and Julie all have full time jobs in addition to their work with TT so I doubt they have a lot of time to visit around to the various forums. I do also think that the level of hostility shown towards them here would make them less inclined to come around and shoot the breeze. There are absolutely valid criticisms to be made but sometimes they're made in a less than constructive manner. I feel like if I was working at any of these labels (TT, Olive, etc) that I'd want at least a certain level of respect and civil discussion going on if I was going to get involved on a board - no matter your feelings for or against something. I feel like they wouldn't receive the same level of respect that for example Nick Wrigley deservedly receives (for the most part).

I know that they are working to add value to the discs they release in a way that makes sense and doesn't compromise their ability to break even. If you look at several recent titles there are quite a few extras. Look at Blue Lagoon: Two commentaries, a documentary, trailer and isolated score. Hardly bare bones. In the past the studios simply refused to allow the material to be carried over (That's why As Good As It Gets lost its commentary on TT) but as the relationship grows over time, they have loosened up on those restrictions. I also think some of the recent artwork has been pretty great - Drums Along The Mohawk and Alamo Bay in particular. So I think if people take a closer second look they'll see many of these assumptions aren't always the case (such as all releases are bare bones).

[repeat]

Nick Redman's decades as a soundtrack producer (which is a key reason the releases have isolated scores as well)

Ha, I figured there was a connection - at one point I actually thought they were singling out films for release based on the scores, as many of them would certainly merit that approach!

I think you're right that at this point they might be disinclined to show up here, but I was wondering if it would be so had they done it at an earlier stage. A lot of the grumpiness and hostility seems to stem from the fact that people have had to conjecture about their motives and intentions. I don't know if I'm severely overstating the importance or relevance of this board but if I were to start a label, among the first things I would do pr-wise would be to come here and say hi, here's a new label, have a look.

(I do agree that the actual cover art has improved recently, I just personally loathe the plastic cases - just as much with MoC and Criterion, but at least they use the less offensive transparent ones)

[Moe Dickstein]

You're on the money with your thought - some of the films were chosen as much for an important score as for any other reason.

The original idea was to release films that had never had a DVD release, and 20 titles were licensed from Fox. Soon they realized that Blus would be what people wanted. They learned the lessons about non anamorphic letterbox titles, and I think there hasn't been much complaint that their titles over the last 2 years have looked as good as is possible - when the transfers didn't meet that standard, some titles have been rejected. Pony Soldier for example is a victim of past Fox management junking original elements and the current Fox team led by Schawn Belston has done heroic work with what they have. When Sony came in, they stipulated that only films already released by them on DVD could be licensed for Blu, so that meant they wouldn't be putting out as many "discoveries" from Sony, and I think you can see how the Fox releases have in general been more "deep catalog" type films.

I'm excited to see things like The Disappearance which is the first non-studio license and the new deal with MGM for a great deal of titles. Already I know they've had to reject some of the MGM titles they wanted because the transfers available weren't up to their standard - and I think this is the reason that on other boards people prefer TT to Olive, because Olive will in most cases put out whatever they can get their hands on (though to their credit they have cancelled some planned releases more recently due to poor elements), and when TT releases something that looks rough, you can bet that it's likely the best it will ever look.

As to PR, I know Nick does post from time to time on HTF, so if you are also a member there you could post on one of the TT threads there, and as you've mentioned their Facebook page. Perhaps by continuing an open dialogue here we can encourage them to someday stop in here for participation. I'd also like to see the people behind Olive lay out some of their thoughts behind their decisions. There is one person on HTF who seems to have inside connections with Olive but isn't with them officially.

[MichaelB]

when TT releases something that looks rough, you can bet that it's likely the best it will ever look.

You won't always win your bet, though - by all accounts the TT transfer of The Fury is below par, while Arrow's upcoming release is scanned directly from the original camera negative. Obviously, I haven't seen it myself and nobody outside Deluxe in London has been able to do a direct comparison just yet, but it would be surprising if TT came out on top here.

(And of course the Arrow disc is half the price and with far more extras!)

[kingofthejungle]

and I think this is the reason that on other boards people prefer TT to Olive, because Olive will in most cases put out whatever they can get their hands on (though to their credit they have cancelled some planned releases more recently due to poor elements), and when TT releases something that looks rough, you can bet that it's likely the best it will ever look.

I don't buy this at all. The reaction against Olive that I've read has been entirely due to their decision to not perform digital clean up on many of the titles they release. I have dozens of Olive releases, and I've yet to see one that made me think - "You know what? This just really doesn't merit a Blu-Ray".

However, that's exactly what I thought after viewing Pony Soldier - the condition of the elements was so bad that the high definition format just doesn't add any value. I appreciate that it's a rare title, but Fox has lots of other rare westerns and rare Tyrone Power films more deserving of the format. I'm not blaming them for the poor elements, only for choosing to release them.

There is one thing TT could do to easily one-up Olive, and I suspect make a lot of fans in these parts: commission a Tag Gallagher video essay on any future John Ford releases. That would be well worth the price of admission.

[Drucker]

I don't really have a foot in this race, and I keep starting comments and then not finishing them, but I just want to emphasize one point I do feel strongly about: the difficulty required to attain Twilight Time titles is frustrating enough to have a legitimate problem with their business model.
As is stressed elsewhere in threads, Criterion releases have an audience beyond hardcore cinemaphiles and Criterion collectors. While I do see that many people on this forum are willing to go to extreme lengths to save a few bucks to get a purchase, I'm much more passive about what I purchase. If it's on sale and in a store I like to frequent (Barnes and Noble, Kim's, Princeton Record Exchange), I will more likely buy it. Why did I buy Champion? Because I had a coupon and it had just come out and looked like a great film, so I just bought it at B&N. I cannot just casually buy any TT title and that is annoying. And considering the wealth of films on blu ray that I can pick up with great ease (and if I'm buying something I can only get online, it'll likely be the dozens of releases I'd still like from MOC), why would I get a TT title?
I know that ordering something online is not "difficult" by any stretch of the imagination. But it is enough of a deterrent to buy a title for me, on occasion. (For full disclosure: I only own The Big Heat, though I am probably going to buy Drums Along the Mohawk and Alfredo Garcia.)

[repeat]

As to PR, I know Nick does post from time to time on HTF

Never been there, but I stumbled upon this two-year old interview with Mr. Redman in which many questions regarding their business model are addressed. It's probably been linked to over the years already but might be relevant, seeing as this discussion is still/again active.

[EddieLarkin]

I don't really have a foot in this race, and I keep starting comments and then not finishing them, but I just want to emphasize one point I do feel strongly about: the difficulty required to attain Twilight Time titles is frustrating enough to have a legitimate problem with their business model.
As is stressed elsewhere in threads, Criterion releases have an audience beyond hardcore cinemaphiles and Criterion collectors. While I do see that many people on this forum are willing to go to extreme lengths to save a few bucks to get a purchase, I'm much more passive about what I purchase. If it's on sale and in a store I like to frequent (Barnes and Noble, Kim's, Princeton Record Exchange), I will more likely buy it. Why did I buy Champion? Because I had a coupon and it had just come out and looked like a great film, so I just bought it at B&N. I cannot just casually buy any TT title and that is annoying. And considering the wealth of films on blu ray that I can pick up with great ease (and if I'm buying something I can only get online, it'll likely be the dozens of releases I'd still like from MOC), why would I get a TT title?
I know that ordering something online is not "difficult" by any stretch of the imagination. But it is enough of a deterrent to buy a title for me, on occasion. (For full disclosure: I only own The Big Heat, though I am probably going to buy Drums Along the Mohawk and Alfredo Garcia.)

Playing devil's advocate here, but I think what TT would say is that their releases are not for casual purchasers, but for the top 3000 fans of any given title. I think that's probably how they justify the model, that there is likely 3000 mega-fans out there that are happy to pay the cash and happy to deal with SAE, whilst the more casual ones are happy to wait the 3 years anyway and see if the studios are going to do anything on a more traditional basis.

That's obviously not how it really is of course, because we have this big forum culture where everyone wants everything, regardless of how much of a fan they are. I'm guilty of precisely that. I've enjoyed nearly all of my TT purchases, but I wasn't a "fan" of any of them beforehand.

Never been there, but I stumbled upon this two-year old interview with Mr. Redman in which many questions regarding their business model are addressed. It's probably been linked to over the years already but might be relevant, seeing as this discussion is still/again active.

There is an another interview here that basically covers the same ground, but Redman does speak somewhat about the reason why the limited edition/soundtrack style model was the only option for them financially. He also mentions about how much work goes into some of the ISTs (they may not be appreciated by most, including myself, but I imagine it's more work than filming a new 10 minute interview with a surviving star from the film, which would be considered a "legit" supplement), and how they end up with the titles like Fright Night, which they themselves have little interest in.

when TT releases something that looks rough, you can bet that it's likely the best it will ever look.

You won't always win your bet, though - by all accounts the TT transfer of The Fury is below par, while Arrow's upcoming release is scanned directly from the original camera negative. Obviously, I haven't seen it myself and nobody outside Deluxe in London has been able to do a direct comparison just yet, but it would be surprising if TT came out on top here.

(And of course the Arrow disc is half the price and with far more extras!)

I think this says more about how brilliant Arrow are rather than anything negative about TT. Barring maybe Criterion, it is very rare for any boutique label to be doing their own scans/transfers. And I think it'll remain rare for TT titles to be bettered image wise. Though I'm all for more instances of Arrow, or any other Region B label to look at the studio masters available and say "Nope, we'll spend some serious cash on our own transfer thanks".

[Moe Dickstein]

when TT releases something that looks rough, you can bet that it's likely the best it will ever look.

You won't always win your bet, though - by all accounts the TT transfer of The Fury is below par, while Arrow's upcoming release is scanned directly from the original camera negative. Obviously, I haven't seen it myself and nobody outside Deluxe in London has been able to do a direct comparison just yet, but it would be surprising if TT came out on top here.

(And of course the Arrow disc is half the price and with far more extras!)

It's absolutely true that TT is at the mercy of what's available from the studio. Do anyone outside Criterion and Arrow do their own scans? We know Olive don't do any cleanup generally, and I thought I'd heard of MoC doing their own work on things cleanup wise from time to time, but I'm not expert in this area so I leave it to others to answer.

[MichaelB]

It's absolutely true that TT is at the mercy of what's available from the studio. Do anyone outside Criterion and Arrow do their own scans?

The BFI does, more often than not - although they have the advantage of an archival remit as well as a commercial one, so it's easier for them to justify the expense. And MoC very occasionally does its own scans - The Passion of Joan of Arc being the most recent. (Arrow's original creations are Zombie Flesh Eaters, Time Bandits, The Fury and White of the Eye, the last two of which aren't out yet.)

[Orlac]

when TT releases something that looks rough, you can bet that it's likely the best it will ever look.

You won't always win your bet, though - by all accounts the TT transfer of The Fury is below par, while Arrow's upcoming release is scanned directly from the original camera negative. Obviously, I haven't seen it myself and nobody outside Deluxe in London has been able to do a direct comparison just yet, but it would be surprising if TT came out on top here.

(And of course the Arrow disc is half the price and with far more extras!)

Night of the Living Dead is definetly not the best it could look - the transfer is badly timed. The dvd is much better.

[Moe Dickstein]

Night of the Living Dead is definetly not the best it could look - the transfer is badly timed. The dvd is much better.

No, the Blu is accurate to the wishes of the creative team behind the film.

[Orlac]

Night of the Living Dead is definetly not the best it could look - the transfer is badly timed. The dvd is much better.

No, the Blu is accurate to the wishes of the creative team behind the film.

In my opinion, retrospective wishes or misinterpreted ones. It's far, far too dark, to the point where the daylight opening looks like night!

[Moe Dickstein]

I think this has been well covered elsewhere. Personally I always side with the creators of the film no matter what they decide to do to their own work. Yes, even George Lucas.

[dwk]

The DoP of Night of the Living Dead wasn't happy with the Blu-ray transfer, but I think that Savini was.