Warner Catalog Titles on BD/UHD

[Gregory]

That's not what I was saying was indefensible. Their model as a whole is, which was my whole point. Their business choices make no sense because they sit on major catalog titles, and other proven sellers that would easily sell in the thousands, while turning up their nose at licensing income. Much smaller companies are running rings around them. Look at what Warner did with Magnificent Ambersons: they sat on it for virtually the whole DVD era, and then wasted the opportunity to get some sales with an impressive release. It's preposterous. If they can't be bothered, they should license things out. From a business standpoint, that would make more money for their shareholders than sitting on so much stuff and reinforcing the widespread opinion that physical media releases are run as a scam to coax people into buying the same handful of titles over and over.

Part of my point is that the issue isn't whether a Gone with the Wind repackage will sell (arbitrary number) times more than some other release, because it's not an either/or scenario. If GWTW is a simple repackage, as you say, then they could do that and release more of their catalog titles, and if they don't want to release x, y, and z, then license them. Titles that sell a lot less than GWTW still bring in money for the company and justify a smaller-scale pressing. It's absurd that anyone even has to point that out in the face of their clueless business model.

I don't think we know how much stock they sold and didn't sell from 2004-2007, and how exactly that influences what and how they choose to release things now. All that is proprietary/insider info. We do know that they sold tons of catalog titles on DVD in those years, which were the peak of the DVD boom.

Another example, a few years ago they wasted real sales potential for a blu-ray of Mildred Pierce, while the miniseries was easily foreseeable as a major event, and a film like MP doesn't even need a special reason to be released on the new format. The miniseries went on to rack up Emmy Awards, and Warner sat on their hands and did nothing. For years now many have noted an extreme bias at Warner against black-and-white Academy films, despite major interest in film noir, which they've squandered year after year.

[felipe]

Part of my point is that the issue isn't whether a Gone with the Wind repackage will sell (arbitrary number) times more than some other release, because it's not an either/or scenario. If GWTW is a simple repackage, as you say, then they could do that and release more of their catalog titles.

But who can say they'd be releasing more titles if it wasn't for the GWTW re-release? I don't think they would. Warner's output has been lower than we expected, but still more than we could say for other studios. We're even getting some not-so-obvious choices like Sorcerer and The Women, and also the WAC blu-rays. I don't think scrapping the GWTW re-release would suddenly make them release more catalogue titles.

[captveg]

The Warner Archive is their equivalent to licensing to 3rd Party, though.The Warner Archive is their equivalent to licensing to 3rd Party, though.

The Warner Archive is their equivalent to licensing to 3rd Party, though.

[Gregory]

Part of my point is that the issue isn't whether a Gone with the Wind repackage will sell (arbitrary number) times more than some other release, because it's not an either/or scenario. If GWTW is a simple repackage, as you say, then they could do that and release more of their catalog titles.

But who can say they'd be releasing more titles if it wasn't for the GWTW re-release? I don't think they would. Warner's output has been lower than we expected, but still more than we could say for other studios. We're even getting some not-so-obvious choices like Sorcerer and The Women, and also the WAC blu-rays. I don't think scrapping the GWTW re-release would suddenly make them release more catalogue titles.

I didn't say they would. Again, it's not necessarily one or the other, though with any business model there are choices about focus and emphasis and allocation of limited company resources. If this kind of release of the same few titles brings in funds for them and doesn't distract from the work of keeping their catalog up to date, fine; if they're resting on their laurels with these endless variations of tentpole titles and trickling out other films out of their vast holdings (and paying alarmingly little attention to things like audio in the process), then I think that's a problem.
And yes, they certainly deserve some credit for interrupting their usual pattern by releasing The Women on Blu-ray.

The Warner Archive is their equivalent to licensing to 3rd Party, though.

That's nowhere even close to an equivalent.
EDIT: wrong form of "there"; what is wrong with me? (don't answer that)

[captveg]

The Warner Archive is their equivalent to licensing to 3rd Party, though.

That's nowhere even close to an equivalent.

Why? Because it's mostly DVD? Because a select few collector's believe DVD-R to be the devil's spawn? WHV handles the releases they feel are more mainstream and profitable, and WA handles everything else. Seems pretty much the 3rd party role to me.

[FrauBlucher]

The Warner Archive is their equivalent to licensing to 3rd Party, though.

This is ridiculous. It's like saying the Eclispe series is not Criterion.
Warner Archive is a cheap way for WB to put out movies.

We're even getting some not-so-obvious choices like Sorcerer and The Women, and also the WAC blu-rays. I don't think scrapping the GWTW re-release would suddenly make them release more catalogue titles.

The Sorcerer is a no brainer and not a surprise for WB. A thriller from the 70s, with Roy Schieder, by the director of the French Connection. This is certainly a WB cup of tea. As for The Women, I believe the only reason it got released is because it has a technicolor sequence in it as lame as it is. WB has a hard on for getting out anything technicolor because their marketing department, probably all 20 year olds I bet, don't like or understand B&W films.

[Gregory]

The Warner Archive is their equivalent to licensing to 3rd Party, though.

That's nowhere even close to an equivalent.

Why? Because it's mostly DVD? Because a select few collector's believe DVD-R to be the devil's spawn? WHV handles the releases they feel are more mainstream and profitable, and WA handles everything else. Seems pretty much the 3rd party role to me.

Because the two have very little in common and are very different ways of releasing catalog titles out of a huge body of accumulated holdings—one of these ways which Warner stands virtually alone in shunning. And they remain in total control of which titles get re-re-released and which never see the light of day on disc. It keeps us from seeing the avalanche of the studio's HD masters that have come out from the others.
The way you describe it, everything is covered: the profitable and everything else. Except that it really isn't, and there are still huge gaps that are off limits to interested parties. Some of these gaps are so big and reveal such cluelessness that it shows that Warner Home Video doesn't really know its business, and it's helped kill off the burgeoning interest in Blu-ray as a format that could keep physical media alive as DVD sales decline. There's so much that Warner is indifferent to or hostile to the idea of releasing even via the Archive, which they could have made money from via licensing agreements a decade ago. They've chosen not to as a matter of stubborn corporate policy.

I don't believe DVD-R to be the devil's spawn, but I ordered a few early on which plain didn't work, and more recently I've had one that had an authoring error apparent when looking at the disc, which made it stop playing partway through, so I decided the things were generally not worth the trouble or high price relative to the erratic quality, which is generally inferior to pressed DVD (a technology going on 20 years old that's has long since been surpassed). They announced early on that they would be releasing the best available masters they had for each film and that the quality would be uniformly excellent, then released some transfers that would be barely fit for TV broadcast, and then rereleased some remastered versions after people had already bought the first terrible-looking WAC discs. Plus the things are really overpriced for what is essentially about reducing Warner's overhead and inventory liability. They're fiscally viable because most of the hardcore movie buffs and collectors will buy anything and consider themselves lucky no matter what. That attitude lets the self-imposed gatekeepers of a lot of film history get away with a lot of laziness.

[Drucker]

The Warner Archive is their equivalent to licensing to 3rd Party, though.

This is ridiculous. It's like saying the Eclispe series is not Criterion.
Warner Archive is a cheap way for WB to put out movies.

I feel like you kind of hit the nail on the head. If Criterion sits on an acclaimed film for years and relegates it to to Eclipse or Hulu, that's disappointing.

If Warner puts out The Crowd on Archive...that'll be disappointing.

However, if Criterion puts out Eclipses that there are no HD Masters for, and won't make sense any other way (Kobayashi's early films, for example), that's fine!

And if Warner puts out, for example, some lesser-known King Vidor films on the Archive, that's a great way to release it, too.

[FrauBlucher]

The way you describe it, everything is covered: the profitable and everything else. Except that it really isn't, and there are still huge gaps that are off limits to interested parties. Some of these gaps are so big and reveal such cluelessness that it shows that Warner Home Video doesn't really know its business, and it's helped kill off the burgeoning interest in Blu-ray as a format that could keep physical media alive as DVD sales decline. There's so much that Warner is indifferent to or hostile to the idea of releasing even via the Archive, which they could have made money from via licensing agreements a decade ago. They've chosen not to as a matter of stubborn corporate policy.

This really is an excellent point. Warner with it's huge vault has hindered the blu ray market and helped turn into a niche format, when it really could've forged blu ray into something much bigger and better than it is. Their marketing of the format, along with the other studios have been abysmal.

[movielocke]

Part of the reason for the Warner Archive getting almost everything is to keep supply tightly constrained. The DVD market glutted, which deflated the retail value of releases down to $1 or less brand new (at Big Lots, for example). WB is avoiding the same mistake in bluray, and is using the Warner Archive to try to reinflate the retail value of their catalog titles on DVD. They're also pretty spectacularly productive, having released 1800 not-on-dvd films to DVD over the last five years, and that's not counting their 3-6 Television seasons they release per month. That is a lot of assets newly monetized.

They've also mentioned that the haphazard nature of their releases has to do with WBs separate Asset management system which makes new masters and performs preservation work independent of any release considerations, it's purely about keeping their catalog alive. WB archive capitalizes on a lot of these new masters if WHV is not interested in releasing them. WB also puts pretty much every new master they release online for streaming in 1080, but it is a shame that they don't release more on bluray. I've never used the streaming service and don't plan to.

I'm not trying to be a booster at all, I only have two of their titles, and am not a fan of DVD R in general. But from a business perspective, they're still trying to recover from the staggering catalog devaluation of the DVD boom years.

[Gregory]

Yes, things used to be better with the major studios during the DVD boom, but let's not make the story out to be that Warner used to release practically everything willy-nilly and weren't cautious enough, and now they have to be far more careful to make up for that.
The Astaire and Rogers films are one of their most prestigious and consistently in-demand runs of films of their vintage. Warner dragged their feet for years with these, with people who aren't even like us forum members—like, regular people—crying out for Warner to stop stalling and release all of these important films. They finally did, in two separate sets and then an impressive single set, after much of the DVD boom had passed. Now they've let that set fall out of print and apparently have no plans to upgrade it to Blu-ray.
It took them years to being releasing film noir in earnest, while they have bigger holdings of those films than anyone else.
Another example: the Warner chats were a valuable opportunity for them to learn about what catalog titles people wanted to see (many companies pay a lot of money to poll potential customers to figure out who their customers are and what they want; Warner had this input for free and largely ignored it, and most of the claims they made about what they were working on or were planning to release never materialized). So in the Warner chats a looong time ago, people asked about a Show Boat release with the original versions, and if memory serves Warner said they were working on it. Show Boat was a watershed Broadway musical, a pinnacle, revived again and again, and the 1936 version is a long sought-after classic. So what do they do with it? Wait until 2014, for fuck's sake, and release it on a burned DVD, long after almost anyone stopped caring about adding it to their "DVD library" (a fading concept), or obtained it via non-legitimate channels, buying dodgy discs from Brazil etc. They wasted their chance. The Warner Archive has serious advantages, but it wasn't made for thing like Show Boat, and it's no substitute for real releases of their well-known catalog titles.
DVD Savant said this about the Show Boat DVD-R: "We're all hoping that the movie will resurface in Blu-ray in few years along with the 1929 part-talkie version (which I have not seen)."
Good luck!

[domino harvey]

One small correction: Despite being a Warner Archives release, Show Boat, at least in its initial pressing, isn't a DVD-R, it's pressed. Still a barebones, unceremonious dump and all

One of the problems of Warner (though it makes sense) is that they held onto lots of big titles to drive future star and other themed sets and so lots of boxed sets got minor titles mixed in and then when the DVD market went bust, lots of great, A-list/line movies went to DVD-R instead of boxed sets, which is just a crime.

[felipe]

Yes, things used to be better with the major studios during the DVD boom, but let's not make the story out to be that Warner used to release practically everything willy-nilly and weren't cautious enough, and now they have to be far more careful to make up for that.
The Astaire and Rogers films are one of their most prestigious and consistently in-demand runs of films of their vintage. Warner dragged their feet for years with these, with people who aren't even like us forum members—like, regular people—crying out for Warner to stop stalling and release all of these important films. They finally did, in two separate sets and then an impressive single set, after much of the DVD boom had passed. Now they've let that set fall out of print and apparently have no plans to upgrade it to Blu-ray.
It took them years to being releasing film noir in earnest, while they have bigger holdings of those films than anyone else.
Another example: the Warner chats were a valuable opportunity for them to learn about what catalog titles people wanted to see (many companies pay a lot of money to poll potential customers to figure out who their customers are and what they want; Warner had this input for free and largely ignored it, and most of the claims they made about what they were working on or were planning to release never materialized). So in the Warner chats a looong time ago, people asked about a Show Boat release with the original versions, and if memory serves Warner said they were working on it. Show Boat was a watershed Broadway musical, a pinnacle, revived again and again, and the 1936 version is a long sought-after classic. So what do they do with it? Wait until 2014, for fuck's sake, and release it on a burned DVD, long after almost anyone stopped caring about adding it to their "DVD library" (a fading concept), or obtained it via non-legitimate channels, buying dodgy discs from Brazil etc. They wasted their chance. The Warner Archive has serious advantages, but it wasn't made for thing like Show Boat, and it's no substitute for real releases of their well-known catalog titles.
DVD Savant said this about the Show Boat DVD-R: "We're all hoping that the movie will resurface in Blu-ray in few years along with the 1929 part-talkie version (which I have not seen)."
Good luck!

Well, I guess there's the possibility that when they said they were working on Show Boat they were actually working on Show Boat. It could have been delayed for a number of reasons, we know it happens sometimes, even with Criterion. The fact that it didn't come sooner to the Archive is probably an indication that there was still work to be done.

[manicsounds]

Warner took a line from "The World's End":

"Every year's the anniversary of a year!"

[John Doe]

Once Upon a Time in America: Extended Director's Cut - 9/30

[dogmeat]

That's not what I was saying was indefensible. Their model as a whole is, which was my whole point. Their business choices make no sense because they sit on major catalog titles, and other proven sellers that would easily sell in the thousands, while turning up their nose at licensing income. Much smaller companies are running rings around them. Look at what Warner did with Magnificent Ambersons: they sat on it for virtually the whole DVD era, and then wasted the opportunity to get some sales with an impressive release. It's preposterous. If they can't be bothered, they should license things out. From a business standpoint, that would make more money for their shareholders than sitting on so much stuff and reinforcing the widespread opinion that physical media releases are run as a scam to coax people into buying the same handful of titles over and over.

Part of my point is that the issue isn't whether a Gone with the Wind repackage will sell (arbitrary number) times more than some other release, because it's not an either/or scenario. If GWTW is a simple repackage, as you say, then they could do that and release more of their catalog titles, and if they don't want to release x, y, and z, then license them. Titles that sell a lot less than GWTW still bring in money for the company and justify a smaller-scale pressing. It's absurd that anyone even has to point that out in the face of their clueless business model.

I don't think we know how much stock they sold and didn't sell from 2004-2007, and how exactly that influences what and how they choose to release things now. All that is proprietary/insider info. We do know that they sold tons of catalog titles on DVD in those years, which were the peak of the DVD boom.

Another example, a few years ago they wasted real sales potential for a blu-ray of Mildred Pierce, while the miniseries was easily foreseeable as a major event, and a film like MP doesn't even need a special reason to be released on the new format. The miniseries went on to rack up Emmy Awards, and Warner sat on their hands and did nothing. For years now many have noted an extreme bias at Warner against black-and-white Academy films, despite major interest in film noir, which they've squandered year after year.

Completely agree with this. I can't figure why they wouldn't release Mildred Pierce on BD on its own merits, and hadn't even thought of marketing angle with miniseries.

Sometimes I think we overestimate the size of market for film noir titles in general, but I think there's a substantial market for certain titles, like MP and Out of the Past. Look at the success of The Night of the Hunter from Criterion.

Warner certainly prioitizes titles for release on BD, but their perspective is not like other studios' or boutiques' due to their size.
What might seem insignificant to Warner might seem huge to CC, TT, Kino or Olive. Good point re shareholder value. Title sitting on shelf earns zero cash flow and deprives consumers. I've seen quotes from Warner employees re OOTP to the effect that they will probably get around to it someday. If Warner decides to put a title on the back burner, it doesn't even seem to consider present value and opportunity loss. BD has been around for 6-7 years, and it's past time to release classics like MP or OOTP one way or another. Licensing would be a win for all parties - Warner shareholders, licensee and consumer.

[manicsounds]

Once Upon a Time in America: Extended Director's Cut - 9/30

Like the Italian disc the 251 minute cut will be on one disc. The Italian disc had compression issues, so I wonder if the US disc will be any better. (Both Warner Brothers)

[felipe]

Licensing would be a win for all parties - Warner shareholders, licensee and consumer.

But why would Warner license a film like Mildred Pierce when they could release it on the Archive? WAC has been releasing even "smaller" movies like Kismet and Lion and the Wind so I bet they'd be thrilled to release MP or Out of the Past. I guess WHV wants to release these titles themselves though.

[dogmeat]

Licensing would be a win for all parties - Warner shareholders, licensee and consumer.

But why would Warner license a film like Mildred Pierce when they could release it on the Archive? WAC has been releasing even "smaller" movies like Kismet and Lion and the Wind so I bet they'd be thrilled to release MP or Out of the Past. I guess WHV wants to release these titles themselves though.

The point is that Warner won't release it themselves through wither channel - WHV or WAC. Warner should have licensed these two films a long time ago.

[Altair]

According to Blu-ray.com,

a 2-disc Extended Director's Cut Collector's Edition, which contains the Extended Director's Cut, the 1984 theatrical edition

What do they mean by "1984 theatrical edition"? Is this merely the old 229 min version that was previously released on Blu by Warner or does that mean the very rare original US release which ran 139 min?

[mistakaninja]

From the way they're saying it's available as a package and as a stand alone with just the new cut, I'd say it was the already available cut (i.e. the stand alone is for people who already own that).

[Gregory]

Licensing would be a win for all parties - Warner shareholders, licensee and consumer.

But why would Warner license a film like Mildred Pierce when they could release it on the Archive? WAC has been releasing even "smaller" movies like Kismet and Lion and the Wind so I bet they'd be thrilled to release MP or Out of the Past. I guess WHV wants to release these titles themselves though.

The point is that Warner won't release it themselves through either channel - WHV or WAC. Warner should have licensed these two films a long time ago.

Exactly. There are major films they own the rights to but do nothing with for years. To name another example, they've let Blow-up languish out of print for about five years now. They missed the 40th and 45th anniversaries!

[FrauBlucher]

Once again, felipe you're talking apples and oranges when talking about what WB releases. Kismet (color, musical) and Wind and the Lion (action, adventure and color). Mildred Pierce and Out of the Past are two B&W film noirs from 40's. These 2 films may never be seen on blu ray, unless WB licenses them out or there is a upper management change at Warner.

[knives]

Warners has released B&W film noirs from 40's on Blu before with The Postman Always Rings Twice coming out fairly recently for instance.

[Gregory]

I don't think anyone was suggesting that they never release any film noir, but they do so few that they're not keeping up with demand or doing much with even their major noirs. Where are The Big Sleep and To Have and Have Not, The Narrow Margin, Crossfire, Gun Crazy, Border Incident, On Dangerous Ground...?