Interesting bits include a four title per month minimum starting in 2014, and sometimes five per month. The MGM/UA deal stipulates two titles a month from them.FrauBlucher wrote:Interview with Nick Redman.
Which is basically an admission that they pulled this arbitrary so-called "break even" number of 3,000 out of their collective butts. Since when does the soundtrack collector market from 10-15 years ago graph onto to the present day DVD/Blu-ray collector market now in any kind of 1:1 ratio? They've done zero market research on that number. And hopefully they'll be open to rethinking it as they continue to get bigger, increase their access to more popular titles and their available capital.pointless wrote:The 3000 units per title has nothing to do with artist’s residuals but just a number chosen to match that the known safe target number for movie soundtrack releases.
Of course. But those still take resources and time for WB to author the discs. The WB catalog group took on the responsibility of 80+ titles, while Fox took on the responsibility of half of that. Fox was very heavy on 40s-60s releases this year, while Warner was heavier with 70s-80s, but this also disregards that in prior years Fox released very few 40s-60s titles while Warner did.Moe Dickstein wrote:I think the bigger difference is, are Par titles included in the WB count?
See, that's the kind of incorrect statement I'm trying to fight with the facts. Most of them were not re-issues (unless one considers titles going from DVD to Blu-ray as "reissues", which I don't, because if that was the case 99% of Fox's releases would be "reissues". Or if one considers repackaging of the same discs - such as the bringing back into print the OOP Paramount titles - which I don't).Moe Dickstein wrote:Most of those were reissues so no they didn't take the same resources to put together.
Well, that stuff is simply putting in the order to recreate the run of material (discs/packaging). All the studios do it all the time with little fanfare. It only becomes noticeable when the distributor changes, like Warner picking up Paramount or Miramax titles going from Disney to Lionsgate or Echo Bridge. That seems like a biased standard to me, and has little to nothing to do with the studio's catalog home video release efforts, so why count it?Moe Dickstein wrote:Yeah I was counting back from OOP stuff as retreads. It's been released.
Give me a little time on filmaf.com and I can put up the complete new-to-Blu WB US release history.Moe Dickstein wrote:What is the WB percentage of their own material from previous years to this year?
I think they figure the cost to license and sell Terms of Endearment and Shane is a nice supplement to their own remastering and marketing efforts on their own titles. Especially since as Joe Public is concerned Warner has exhausted their "evergreen" catalog titles on Blu-ray at this point (which is why they are re-issuing these evergreen titles like The Wizard of Oz and The Exorcist - they always sell, and they always will).Moe Dickstein wrote:Why license so much from Par when you let your own titles languish to do it. I would think if they wanted to add that material they should add staff and output to do it not replace their own product with it, that's more my concern.
Yes, but Warner is responsible for all programming of the disc, which inevitably takes up their manpower/resources for disc authoring. Plus, the Paramount license is for 3 years, so it makes sense that Warner would look to prioritize a good portion of Paramount titles.Moe Dickstein wrote:So that proves what I was talking about, if you take out Par and Goldwyn, that's 42 of their own titles, which is the lowest since 2007.
Yes, WB distributed Shane.Moe Dickstein wrote:You also talk about them doing big titles from Par, of course (and did WB distribute Shane? I thought Par held that one themselves to release) But the problem is at this point they should start going deeper into their catalog not stagnate on "big" releases. Thats why people are frustrated - especially since they are the only ones (with only one exception to date) who won't license out titles they don't want to do to third party companies.
Good call.Moe Dickstein wrote:Might I suggest that we amend the name of this thread to "Boutique Label Business Models" or something like that since we've grown out of just discussing TT and Olive here...
Having met Mr. Redman, I can tell you that is nothing LOL. IMHO, his partner is the class act in that partnership.FrauBlucher wrote:Dr. Adam Jahnke of The Digital Bits wrote a column about TT called The Trouble with Twilight Time.
Nick Redman's snarky response on a radio blog with a guy named Dick Dinman.
I like TT, but am disappointed that Mr. Redman needs to get defensive and childish.
The Bits column was posted when it came out last month and is in the Business Models thread, which is where this kind of discussion should get posted when there's anything new to say.FrauBlucher wrote:Dr. Adam Jahnke of The Digital Bits wrote a column about TT called The Trouble with Twilight Time.
Nick Redman's snarky response on a radio blog with a guy named Dick Dinman.
I like TT, but am disappointed that Mr. Redman needs to get defensive and childish.
And that's no doubt exactly why Mr. Redman consented to be interviewed by him.NABOB OF NOWHERE wrote:Before this thread gets split I just want to say that that host the sycophantic slime Dick Wad makes Fox News seem like Ed Murrow.
Jeffrey Kauffman wrote:To those who have posted here and sent me so many emails and PMs, here's what's going on in a nutshell: yes, Twilight Time has stopped sending screeners. Mr. Redman has had issues with the fact that (in his perception) so many people here (including some Mr. Redman felt were posting as "official" representatives of the site) post negative comments about his label.
Nope.tojoed wrote:Captveg = Nick Redman.