Warner Catalog Titles on BD/UHD

[MichaelB]

But Peerpee is right if by "their" he means the producer.

Of course I don't expect the technical guys to get it right - it's not their job. But it's the producer's job to spot issues like this.

[EddieLarkin]

Especially when the DVD did not have this issue.

[peerpee]

I'd wager the people who were in charge of doing so had no idea there was a variation.

It's their job to get it right.

These are technicians, not film scholars. The expectation is that they compile the cataloged files onto a home video release, not become experts on every nuanced variation of a film they are being tasked to prep for release.

Nobody "pulled an audio element" for the UK Blu-ray. It's a straight port of the US edition.

I was referring to Warner Bros and the WB producer of the UK disc. Warners own this film, and the people at Warners UK who selected to port the US version simply haven't done their job in researching the history of this iconic British film. It's clear they've done no work there, and just opted for the easy port, assuming it would all be okay – like all the American-made things they port. It's their job to research everything so that things like this don't happen (and they happen A LOT, it's just that most things get caught by diligent producers and you don't hear about it).

The audio issue is even mentioned on the film's imdb page.

99.9999% of titles they'll pull elements/files for have a singular English audio track. Why would they expect there to be two versions for one title as opposed to another?

Because they're the stupid company that made two separate English audio tracks in the first place, against the director's wishes, and it's that stupid decision that has caused this balls-up in 2014. If, as you surmise, this audio track was pulled off the shelf incorrectly for the UK edition (it wasn't, because it was simply ported) then surely it's the technician's job to say to the producer: "erm, there's two here. American and UK."? That's the least I'd expect. But that didn't even happen because it was ported.

People outside the home video industry expect that those who work in it are all super enthusiasts and have minutia about every film and its quirks memorized. For most people it's a job and unless what is sitting in front of them is incorrect on its face they won't know it's different from what's intended. Hundreds of films have bad ADR dubbing as the only English audio track, so why would this one be different to a techguy?

I worked in the industry for 9 years and produced over 150 titles, I know exactly what goes on. In my experience, a far greater number of people at independent labels are "super enthusiasts" than at major labels such as Warners. Why try and excuse such sloppy shit? This error has cost them money. Warners have a poor set-up and need to refine their workflow.

Sometimes these quirkier things get caught because things align and the worker has more familiarity with it specifically, but that's more of a stroke of luck than anything that can be planned for.

Nah, it's a pretty simple failure on the producer's part, and it's a schoolboy error.

[captveg]

Of course I don't expect the technical guys to get it right - it's not their job. But it's the producer's job to spot issues like this.

You're assuming that the producer/manager of a catalog title is familiar with and even watches the disc when finished. It doesn't work like that. They are often juggling dozens of titles at the same time.

[swo17]

What exactly are they juggling though if they aren't even doing something as basic as "being familiar with" the discs they produce?

Also, both MichaelB and peerpee are industry insiders. I would assume they know what they're talking about.

[captveg]

Nobody "pulled an audio element" for the UK Blu-ray. It's a straight port of the US edition.

I'm not disputing that they created one disc image for every territory. This is a common practice.

I worked in the industry for 9 years and produced over 150 titles, I know exactly what goes on. In my experience, a far greater number of people at independent labels are "super enthusiasts" than at major labels such as Warners. Why try and excuse such sloppy shit? This error has cost them money. Warners have a poor set-up and need to refine their workflow.

And I've worked in home video QC for over a decade, and have personally made huge saves at the final stages simply because I was randomly familiar with the specific film. I'm not excusing it, but rather explaining how its not hard to see how it occurred. And of course independent labels who a run by enthusiasts are better at it, because they have a familiarity with every title they release. That's a far cry from a corporation deciding to release titles 1-50 and dishing them out to a dozen producers who have never seen the films their being assigned.

[captveg]

What exactly are they juggling though if they aren't even doing something as basic as "being familiar with" the discs they produce?

Also, both MichaelB and peerpee are industry insiders. I would assume they know what they're talking about.

Never done that specific job myself, but my impression is its a lot of tracking and phone calls. If, say, you have 3 BD features, 16 blu-ray TV discs for four versions of a TV season set, plus 10 DVD features and 30 DVD TV discs of those same titles for different territories at the same time, well.....

[MichaelB]

At the moment, I'm juggling dozens of titles (five Borowczyk features, nearly twenty shorts, L'Assassino, upcoming Arrow titles as yet unannounced, associated extras for all of them), and I consider it possibly the single most important part of my job to be intimately familiar with exactly what's being released - and a personal failing if anything goes wrong, or at least anything that was within my power to fix.

And I most certainly do watch everything all the way through. Although I'm blessed to be working with some of the best people currently in this business, I'd never simply take their word for it unless this is truly unavoidable. Indeed, I spent much of today making a 120-mile round trip to London just so I could personally intercept and examine a BFI National Archive transfer between its creation and its FedExing to David Mackenzie, because I was paranoid about them inadvertently transferring the wrong thing. (It's rushes of an unbroadcast 1985 interview with Walerian Borowczyk, identified in the catalogue purely as ANNECY ANIMATION NO.9 (PRODUCTION MATERIAL)).

And I've worked in home video QC for over a decade, and have personally made huge saves at the final stages simply because I was randomly familiar with the specific film. I'm not excusing it, but rather explaining how its not hard to see how it occurred. And of course independent labels who a run by enthusiasts are better at it, because they have a familiarity with every title they release. That's a far cry from a corporation deciding to release titles 1-50 and dishing them out to a dozen producers who have never seen the films their being assigned.

I hadn't seen The Killers or L'Assassino before being assigned them, and I haven't seen many of the Borowczyk titles for nearly thirty years. In fact, I still haven't seen most of the restorations, although they'll be examined with the proverbial fine-tooth comb over the next fortnight or so.

Also, more pertinently, I haven't seen The Burbs, and I'm creating a last-minute extra for it over the next few days. So naturally it's jumped to the top of my current viewing list.

[captveg]

You are more enthusiastic about it than most, I'm afraid.

[domino harvey]

Any Given Sunday somehow now popular enough for a double-dip

[captveg]

That was another early era Blu that has lossy audio, right?

[FrauBlucher]

Any Given Sunday somehow now popular enough for a double-dip

Splendid, a special 15 year anniversary for this landmark film.

Warner. Nice going with another money grab. You're so good at this.

[Gregory]

Do they have staff parties at Warner Home Video where all the employees are called to leave their cubicles to eat a piece of crappy sheet cake to celebrate anniversaries that no one else in the world notices?

[domino harvey]

Dreamcatcher coming in September

[FrauBlucher]

Dreamcatcher coming in September

In honor of it's 11 year anniversary it's getting a blu release. Nice.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[criterion10]

I fucking hate Warner Brothers: Gone with the Wind 75th Anniversary UCE

[FrauBlucher]

They do suck!

Here is my theory on WB.... When it comes to their catalogue prior to 1970, they are very fast to upgrade color films and they let the B&Ws languish. Casablanca, the gangster films and a handul of other B&Ws are the only films they've released on blu. When I get some time I will do the numbers to see if this proves correct.

[criterion10]

The sad truth is that they are still one of the better studios, in terms of simply getting their catalog out there (whether its on DVD or Blu-Ray) for consumers. They simply have a history of dirty tricks, most evident through how many great films have been relegated to the Warner Archive.

[domino harvey]

Why would anyone need more than that huge red velvet boxed set?

[FrauBlucher]

The sad truth is that they are still one of the better studios, in terms of simply getting their catalog out there (whether its on DVD or Blu-Ray) for consumers. They simply have a history of dirty tricks, most evident through how many great films have been relegated to the Warner Archive.

Their ratio is poor. They have the biggest catalogue, combined with the MGM, and now the Samuel Goldwynn catalogues and it's huge. Their release ratio is not. They rather release GWTW for the umpteenth time than upgrade many of the 1930 and 1940 black and white films.

[javi82]

Their ratio is poor. They have the biggest catalogue, combined with the MGM, and now the Samuel Goldwynn catalogues and it's huge. Their release ratio is not. They rather release GWTW for the umpteenth time than upgrade many of the 1930 and 1940 black and white films.

Yeah, can't believe none of the Astaire/Rogers musicals haven't been issued on blu. Not to mention the films from the various Film Noir DVD box sets.

[aox]

Why don't they just make a new Gone with the Wind film instead of just re-releasing the 1939 version repeatedly? Everyone's happy.

[captveg]

I don't begrudge WB for a release that costs them little more than a repackaging. Their target audience for this release are the crazy super fans of the film that went from DVD to Blu-ray in the last five years. No one here is part of that demographic as far as I know so of course we'll scoff and ignore the release.

[Gregory]

The problem isn't this new release per se; it's releases like this in the context of their entire model and all the sought-after titles they're hoarding, refusing to release them on Blu-ray, or even keep many of the pressed DVDs in print, or license out to a company who would actually do something with some of their vast holdings. It's indefensible.

[captveg]

It's quite defensible if the marketing department sees this repackage as selling 10-15x more than another catalog release. Sure, it sucks for us, the more eclectic collector minority, but we're talking business choices.

The truth of the matter is Warner released so much product on DVD that went unsold 2004-2007 that they have been overly market conscious ever since.