Am I the only one getting fed-up with hearing the studios whine about profits and withholding diverse content? I levy this complaint at both SD and HD releasing strategies.

I recently just bought a second-volume boxed-set of experimental filmmaker Kenneth Anger's work lovingly restored ($29), A terrific 3-disk anthology of rare nitrate-film obscurities from 1900-1942 called SAVED FROM THE FLAMES ($49.96), and killer restoration of the 1922 NOSFERATU with tons of extras and a eighty-page book ($39). While at the same time I heard Warner Brothers was “disappointed in the sales” of a box-set of POPEYE ($64.98) cartoons the released summer, and it may hinder the release of a second set.

What does any of this have to do with anything? My point is that I frankly getting pretty weary of studios crying about sales on this sort of venture, when there are many smaller labels dealing in very obscure material that must be seeing a profit or they couldn't hang in there. I loved the Popeye box, and I'll venture it sold fifty-fold what some Kino silent, or Criterion Collection DVD of experimental shorts, yet to hear the studios tell it, you'd swear it was putting them in the poorhouse to put this stuff out.

It kind of makes me wonder when I hear all the major studio's whine about how they are disappointed with sales on vintage titles on SD and HD, and threaten us with only offering it in no-frills downloads, yet, here there is still specialized content, released by dinky labels, with no where near the infrastructure to deliver it that the major's enjoy springing up all over the place.


You can argue that they have to go through the task of restoration an HD mastering, but it was my understanding they are doing so for TV syndication packages anyway, and the DVDs an HDM are yet another way to earn some revenue.

McDonald's can't sell the same small number of burgers and still make a profit like Joe's burger shack can.

Before this gets locked, I will say good luck getting the studios to release vintage catalogs on HDM before the market gets to tens of millions of players (not talking about worlwide PS3, either).

Honestly, the studios are likely more concerned with the writers' strike than they are about HDM right now.

Am I the only one getting fed-up with hearing the studios whine about profits and withholding diverse content? I levy this complaint at both SD and HD releasing strategies.

I recently just bought a second-volume boxed-set of experimental filmmaker Kenneth Anger's work lovingly restored ($29), A terrific 3-disk anthology of rare nitrate-film obscurities from 1900-1942 called SAVED FROM THE FLAMES ($49.96), and killer restoration of the 1922 NOSFERATU with tons of extras and a eighty-page book ($39). While at the same time I heard Warner Brothers was “disappointed in the sales” of a box-set of POPEYE ($64.98) cartoons the released summer, and it may hinder the release of a second set.

What does any of this have to do with anything? My point is that I frankly getting pretty weary of studios crying about sales on this sort of venture, when there are many smaller labels dealing in very obscure material that must be seeing a profit or they couldn't hang in there. I loved the Popeye box, and I'll venture it sold fifty-fold what some Kino silent, or Criterion Collection DVD of experimental shorts, yet to hear the studios tell it, you'd swear it was putting them in the poorhouse to put this stuff out.

It kind of makes me wonder when I hear all the major studio's whine about how they are disappointed with sales on vintage titles on SD and HD, and threaten us with only offering it in no-frills downloads, yet, here there is still specialized content, released by dinky labels, with no where near the infrastructure to deliver it that the major's enjoy springing up all over the place.


You can argue that they have to go through the task of restoration an HD mastering, but it was my understanding they are doing so for TV syndication packages anyway, and the DVDs an HDM are yet another way to earn some revenue.
Well, since they are a business, they probably need to make a minimum amount of profit on their investment.
I'm sure restoring and digging up extras aren't cheap(labor) and then they need to recoup all manufacturing costs as well.

It's odd though that just about every TV show from the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's have made it on DVD and some are reasonably priced.
I got the Complete Buck Rogers series(70/80s) for $19.
(I know, not the best of shows but was one of my favs when I was a kid.)

I don't feel bad for any business.

I'm very selfish when it comes to these matters; I try to rip off Studios and CE companies as much as possible in any way that I can.
Why? Because why not? It's fun, I can can get something out of it and also it's fun to be rebellious!

I don't feel bad for any business.

I'm very selfish when it comes to these matters; I try to rip off Studios and CE companies as much as possible in any way that I can.
Why? Because why not? It's fun, I can can get something out of it and also it's fun to be rebellious!

lol guess so.

I see no point in getting angry or upset about what studios do or do not release. I sometimes vote in polls of what I'd like to see released, but that's about it. There are more productive uses for my emotional energy.

Well, since they are a business, they probably need to make a minimum amount of profit on their investment.
I'm sure restoring and digging up extras aren't cheap(labor) and then they need to recoup all manufacturing costs as well.

Well, I agree that they appear too not want to mess with small profit items even though they are still profit items, but I don't fully understand the reasoning behind that stance. I think their "disappointment" would be an independent labels thrill.

Are they really such a bloated inefficient mess that they can't make a profit where others do? Again, I'll quibble about the restoration part, because they have been doing this right along for syndication, and should they want to offer this content for download, they still have to fix it up.

Before this gets locked

I'm not sure this is worthy of locking, I presume those who make these decisions don't haunt tech and collector's forums, I'd guess they're far too bureaucratic in operation to bother.

I do notice on AVS more that some general movie-collecting forums an unusual amount of "apologist" sentiment for the studios, even though I feel their policy could surely warrant criticism. The fact is that they make and sell movies new and old, and I honestly don't see how they can risk only making money on the handful of box-office performers they release. I would think a year or two full of box-office duds coupled with having juiced all the popular titles they own could leave them teetering on the brink.

If they seriously want to sell catalog on HD, they gotta stick out their neck and attract catalog buyers.

Well the point of doing good buisness is that you gotta give the product the customers want.

If they gives bones to its smaller group of customers. they are in a better position to grow.

If you always try and maximize your profits you will in the long term loose customers.

Feel sorry for the studios, after this BS they've pulled on us this past 2 years? Yeah right!

Do I feel sorry for the studios? Nah. In the HD realm... they have already had a chance to make money from myself, many supporters, and the J6P crowd, but they insisted on taking sides in a war in which the consumer had no say in the matter.

I *will* have my HD movies, but I won't support anti-consumer behavior. It comes down to loss in revenues for them due to this.

It will only get worse for the studios.

I don't feel bad for any business.

I'm very selfish when it comes to these matters; I try to rip off Studios and CE companies as much as possible in any way that I can.
Why? Because why not? It's fun, I can can get something out of it and also it's fun to be rebellious!It's a mystery to me why the studios want to have BD+ for their Blu-ray discs.:):)

Am I the only one getting fed-up with hearing the studios whine about profits and withholding diverse content? I levy this complaint at both SD and HD releasing strategies.

I recently just bought a second-volume boxed-set of experimental filmmaker Kenneth Anger's work lovingly restored ($29), A terrific 3-disk anthology of rare nitrate-film obscurities from 1900-1942 called SAVED FROM THE FLAMES ($49.96), and killer restoration of the 1922 NOSFERATU with tons of extras and a eighty-page book ($39). While at the same time I heard Warner Brothers was “disappointed in the sales” of a box-set of POPEYE ($64.98) cartoons the released summer, and it may hinder the release of a second set.

What does any of this have to do with anything? My point is that I frankly getting pretty weary of studios crying about sales on this sort of venture, when there are many smaller labels dealing in very obscure material that must be seeing a profit or they couldn't hang in there. I loved the Popeye box, and I'll venture it sold fifty-fold what some Kino silent, or Criterion Collection DVD of experimental shorts, yet to hear the studios tell it, you'd swear it was putting them in the poorhouse to put this stuff out.

It kind of makes me wonder when I hear all the major studio's whine about how they are disappointed with sales on vintage titles on SD and HD, and threaten us with only offering it in no-frills downloads, yet, here there is still specialized content, released by dinky labels, with no where near the infrastructure to deliver it that the major's enjoy springing up all over the place.


You can argue that they have to go through the task of restoration an HD mastering, but it was my understanding they are doing so for TV syndication packages anyway, and the DVDs an HDM are yet another way to earn some revenue.Dude, re-mortgage your home, borrow money from your relatives, cash in your retirement accounts, sell your HD-DVDs and go into the business of restoring and putting obscure movies on disc for sale. I won't get tired of hearing you whine about lack of sales/profits. And don't worry about your situation when you get old; there's always welfare and the kindness of strangers. Of course if you're not willing to do this you probably don't have a lot of ground to stand on when you complain about others not willing to invest THEIR funds in doing it.

Seriously, you can contribute (your money) to a number of groups dedicated to saving old films. A quick GOOGLE search will help you find such worthy groups. That's a first step.

I don't feel bad for any business.

I'm very selfish when it comes to these matters; I try to rip off Studios and CE companies as much as possible in any way that I can.
Why? Because why not? It's fun, I can can get something out of it and also it's fun to be rebellious!

I guess when someone breaks into your home and robs you we can all consider it good fun and the thieves will get something out of it too.;)

I guess when someone breaks into your home and robs you we can all consider it good fun and the thieves will get something out of it too.;)I think (hope) he was kidding.

I think (hope) he was kidding.

Then he needs to add some type of Emotion. ;)

Feel sorry for the studios???

The friggin' studios is why this war is playing out as badly as it is. If they all went 100% neutral to begin with then this war probably would have been decided by now either way. Instead they have been plying their little games and collecting their little "bonuses" at the expense of the consumer. Blu ray lovers can't enjoy paramount films, HD DVD lovers can't enjoy Sony, Fox.... etc.

The studios are the bad boys here that have created nothing but havoc and confusion. They exist purely on their own agenda and don't give a crap about YOU, the customer. This is one of the reasons I keep saying this war is not over.... you can always count on "studio greed" to screw things up even further than they are now. Any one of those studios will jump any ship given enough money. The studios should have done everything in both formats and stayed the hell out of this.

Feel sorry for the studios?

Aren't they the ones who have given us Copy Protection for both audio and video and the promise of downrezzing unless you use the HDMI interface which is a connectivity nightmare?

I just wish they'd start releasing King of the Hill seasons again. If they are not going to release all the seasons, they shouldn't even start. And if they didn't get expected sales, too bad. Do better research on what people will buy, but don't screw the people who did start collecting something. Thanks for nothing Fox.

There are issues of sales numbers which scare me. The reason is that I think the market is so tiny for some of these titles,no most of these titles, that we are simply not going to have diverse viewing pleasure for years if ever on HDM.

I have not looked at studio profit numbers at all so I'm speaking from just general feeling but they have problems. There are no more cash cows for them and the DVD model will not be repeated.

In a capitalist society, I wonder how folks look at business as evil at times. If they aren't healthy we aren't going to see entertaining movies in our homes guys,this is just a fact.

I think we need to be talking about a business model that will result in lots of HDM titles in our hands, since that is what this forum is about.

Art

McDonald's can't sell the same small number of burgers and still make a profit like Joe's burger shack can.

That is because McDonald's made the serious error of too much growth and going puplic. Small privately held firms always make a lot more margin on sales.

My point is that I frankly getting pretty weary of studios crying about sales on this sort of venture, when there are many smaller labels dealing in very obscure material that must be seeing a profit or they couldn't hang in there.

Enjoy the releases of smaller labels while you can. This interview with Synapse Films' Don May should be enlightening about the economic realities such smaller labels face: http://www.varietyasiaonline.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,THE-OTHER-13-BILLION-Synapse.html/

keep in mind criterion charges more for some dvd's than hdm.

Well, I agree that they appear too not want to mess with small profit items even though they are still profit items, but I don't fully understand the reasoning behind that stance. I think their "disappointment" would be an independent labels thrill.

Are they really such a bloated inefficient mess that they can't make a profit where others do? Again, I'll quibble about the restoration part, because they have been doing this right along for syndication, and should they want to offer this content for download, they still have to fix it up.

Do you honestly think that Warner made money on the HD DVD version of "mutiny on the bounty". They showed stats that it had sold less than 1000 copies. I would think the majority of "catalog" titles do NOT make money.

Why would they push something that they can't make a profit on?

Do you honestly think that Warner made money on the HD DVD version of "mutiny on the bounty". They should stats that it had sold less than 1000 copies. I would think the majority of "catalog" titles do NOT make money.

Why would they push something that they can't make a profit on?

This is the most sobering side of HDM.We may well see tons of crap titles that are new and will sell as opposed to quality titles that may require restoration and would probably only sell a few hundred copies and thus will not see the light of day.

Art

This is the most sobering side of HDM.We may well see tons of crap titles that are new and will sell as opposed to quality titles that may require restoration and would probably only sell a few hundred copies and thus will not see the light of day.

Art

that is the current situation but that will change as number of players (market) grows. pretty much all the big titles will slowly become available at a premium price level (special editions).

however it is very likely that most independent content producers will move away from physical media into downloads in order to cut production costs.

Enjoy the releases of smaller labels while you can. This interview with Synapse Films' Don May should be enlightening about the economic realities such smaller labels face: http://www.varietyasiaonline.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,THE-OTHER-13-BILLION-Synapse.html/

That's a pretty accurate representation. Bear in mind that any large company--and that very much includes studios, distributors, and retail chains--is run by hordes of semi-competent people whose primary interest is keeping their jobs while expending as little effort and brainpower as possible to get through the day. After that, decisions tend to get made based on internal company politics, and only after that is the question of what really benefits the company as a whole likely to come into play.

Executives know that "Friday the 13th, part XXVIII, Jason vs. the Snow Buddies" is going to sell, so that's what's going to get greenlighted and that's what's going to get shelf space. A quirky, intelligent, interesting title might or might not take off--and even if the average return-on-investment for a product like that might be higher, the odds that it won't sell and will hurt your career are higher, and that's what's more important to whether it sees the light of day.

There's been a huge movement towards eliminating product diversity since the end of the 90's. Distributors and retail outlets have been saying that they want to avoid any risky titles: they want entire aisles of Spiderman, but no non-mainstream product. I used to sell video products to Mediaplay, for example, but when Best Buy bought them out, I was told that they were no longer going to deal with anybody but the major studios and labels. It didn't matter whether independent labels offered better terms and margins; they wanted no "risky" products in their stores.

Though as Don May, Jr., points out in that article, the stores don't have that much risk--they can return any and all video products for any reason. It doesn't matter whether it's unsold units, customer returns, or the shipping clerk slashed 25 DVD cases with a boxcutter--that's *your* problem, not the store's problem.

Despite all that, I don't think the smaller labels and producers are doomed by any means. The brick-and-mortar retail behemoths have become harder to deal with over the last ten years, but the advances in technology and the ability to reach people through the internet (instead of being limited to expensive conventional mass-market advertising) make it easier and more cost-effective to produce niche products than ever before and possible to let interested buyers know about it who you'd never be able to contact a few years ago.

This is the most sobering side of HDM.We may well see tons of crap titles that are new and will sell as opposed to quality titles that may require restoration and would probably only sell a few hundred copies and thus will not see the light of day.

Art

But do these crap titles actually sell better than classic catalog titles? I can't believe for instance that Daddy Day Camp sold more than Close Encounters. If it did sell more and the result is that we see more and more crap and no classic catalog at all, then HDM is dead as far as I'm concerned.

I think its retarded to not upscale on component . A lot of not that old
equipment has no hdmi ...
Studio greed did prolong the war . they should of test marketed both formats to see
what the winner would be . Bet they know what would of happed then .......
Bob

This is the most sobering side of HDM.We may well see tons of crap titles that are new and will sell as opposed to quality titles that may require restoration and would probably only sell a few hundred copies and thus will not see the light of day.

Art

I am not a huge "pre 1965" movie fan so this fact doesn't affect me that much. I can only name a handful of titles that I would like to own or do own on any format.

I do think with a bigger install base, the "catalog" titles can eventually be profitable in the HDM market. Having two competing formats has hurt catalog releases more than anything.

It kind of makes me wonder when I hear all the major studio's whine about how they are disappointed with sales on vintage titles on SD and HD, and threaten us with only offering it in no-frills downloads, yet, here there is still specialized content, released by dinky labels, with no where near the infrastructure to deliver it that the major's enjoy springing up all over the place.


You can argue that they have to go through the task of restoration an HD mastering, but it was my understanding they are doing so for TV syndication packages anyway, and the DVDs an HDM are yet another way to earn some revenue.

Hi Timothy,

I have to admit that I haven't been following the statements of the various studios regarding this subject. However, as a consumer who has switched from DVDs to HD DVDs I like to respond to the studios with my wallet.

I was pleasantly surprised to the point of shocked disbelief when I learned that Warner had restored and remastered Blade Runner in HD, including all versions in a multi-disc set for a street price of under $30! Judging from the Amazon rankings it is not surprising that this title has done extremely well. If Warner were to complain about the sales figures for this release, I would have to be extremely skeptical. Frankly, I think this particular collection should serve as the standard to all studios if they are interested in making money off of restored cataloged titles.

In contrast, I was dismayed to learn that the remastered first season of Star Trek was listed for the incredibly inflated price of $200! If Paramount were to complain about the sales of this title I surely would lack any sympathy.

In summary, I think the studios' approaches to restored and remastered titles is so varied, both from title to title within a studio, as well as between studios, that it is probably inappropriate to characterize them under one umbrella.

Regardless, it really is their responsibilty to ensure that the quality of their products and their price points are handled with care and intelligence. If they do so they certainly will make a profit.

Larry

As far as P&L statements from movie\TV studios, don't expect anything resembling reality. They are masters at "proving" 99% of their content loses money.

It's a mystery to me why the studios want to have BD+ for their Blu-ray discs.:):)

They are more than welcome to do that, and I'll nicely return the favor :)

I guess when someone breaks into your home and robs you we can all consider it good fun and the thieves will get something out of it too.;)

I don't use analogies like that to make myself feel bad. I'll just enjoy the fun. As I said, I'm very selfish. I actually like it when they add more DRM; Makes the whole process even more enjoyable.

Oh, and I wasn't kidding.


As for catalog titles, so far Warner is my favourite. They have done an incredible job with Blade Runner. Sony seems solid as well.

how do i put this....

umm...

hell no.

Dude, re-mortgage your home, borrow money from your relatives, cash in your retirement accounts, sell your HD-DVDs and go into the business of restoring and putting obscure movies on disc for sale. I won't get tired of hearing you whine about lack of sales/profits. And don't worry about your situation when you get old; there's always welfare and the kindness of strangers. Of course if you're not willing to do this you probably don't have a lot of ground to stand on when you complain about others not willing to invest THEIR funds in doing it.

Seriously, you can contribute (your money) to a number of groups dedicated to saving old films. A quick GOOGLE search will help you find such worthy groups. That's a first step.

Ah, I found me a studio apologist. Is your characterization of he labels that put obscure content accurate? What first hand Info to you base the notion that that they are all run by loonies in hock up to their eyeballs?

Do you honestly think that Warner made money on the HD DVD version of "mutiny on the bounty". They showed stats that it had sold less than 1000 copies. I would think the majority of "catalog" titles do NOT make money.

Why would they push something that they can't make a profit on?

I know Mutiny On The Bounty is the poster-child for bad sales of classics on HD, but how do you get customers without enough content to lure that demographic, and how do you do that without risking a loss in the beginning?

If I were a buyer of classic films, and the number of available tiles reached the point where I could no longer resist HD, I'd buy Mutiny On The Bounty, when I bought in among the others that lured me in.

Not to bring up laserdisc for the millionth time, but a large part of lasers appeal was no just PQ and AQ, but some very select content done well. IMO they aren't pushing the "definitive version" snob appeal aspect of HD as much as they could.

I am not a huge "pre 1965" movie fan so this fact doesn't affect me that much. I can only name a handful of titles that I would like to own or do own on any format.

That's good for you, but I think there should be enough room at the table for the first sixty years of cinema as well as the last 40.

Some places do make money with pre-65 content, and do a good job as well.

Here's a novel idea for the studios. If they have content they cannot hope to make money on... release it to the public domain. Not sure how that would work with whatever masters they own, but what would the harm be?

HDM also has an issue. There continues to be a perception that HDM only benefits certain titles; a movie like Casablanca won't benefit from being released in an HD format but a movie such as Star Wars would. This isn't helped when studios do mediocre transfer jobs on so many catalog titles- Bladerunner shows what the studios are capable of but then you get releases like Animal House (as if Animal House doesn't have enough trouble selling itself on High Def).

Here's a novel idea for the studios. If they have content they cannot hope to make money on... release it to the public domain. Not sure how that would work with whatever masters they own, but what would the harm be?

HDM also has an issue. There continues to be a perception that HDM only benefits certain titles; a movie like Casablanca won't benefit from being released in an HD format but a movie such as Star Wars would. This isn't helped when studios do mediocre transfer jobs on so many catalog titles- Bladerunner shows what the studios are capable of but then you get releases like Animal House (as if Animal House doesn't have enough trouble selling itself on High Def).

Or, more reasonably, license films for DVD or HDM editions to smaller distributors such as Criterion and keep the remaining rights. No studio will release movies into the public domain.

* * *

I'm not sure it increases the quality of discussion to immediately label anyone with differing views a "studio apologist."

maybe when we can burn the distributed downloadable content they can release these obscure titles for a profit. mass distributing these titles at retail will no doubt just mostly eat up shelf space. what they could do is sell these in a on-line only format for allow burnable downloads so both the studios and customers get what they want.

maybe when we can burn the distributed downloadable content they can release these obscure titles for a profit. mass distributing these titles at retail will no doubt just mostly eat up shelf space. what they could do is sell these in a on-line only format for allow burnable downloads so both the studios and customers get what they want.

Burned copies wont give me what I want, and quite frankly I don't see the studios offering it in this form as anything but a way to get us to shoulder all the overhead of delivering movies. If there are dozens of entities with a fraction of the infrastructure, who don't even own the wares they sell, but still making a profit, so can the studios. Downloads are just a way for them to write off taking catalog seriously and getting you to be your own little media factory so they can enjoy a much greater profit.

IMO it's a suckers game.

Or, more reasonably, license films for DVD or HDM editions to smaller distributors such as Criterion and keep the remaining rights. No studio will release movies into the public domain.


Excellent idea, I wish it were more popular.

Ah, I found me a studio apologist. Is your characterization of he labels that put obscure content accurate? What first hand Info to you base the notion that that they are all run by loonies in hock up to their eyeballs?What first hand Info to you base the notion that that they are all run by loonies in hock up to their eyeballs?Sorry Dude, you are absolutely delusional -- show me where I said that.

You come on here and bitch and moan about how studios spend their stockholders' and partners investment capital. If I'm an "apologist" for anything, it's free enterprise and capitalism. If you think there's an area that needs to have investment money spent, invest YOUR own money in that area and spend less time bitching because other folks aren't investing THEIR money in the area. Start a corporation and get some venture capital to fund it.

You come on here and bitch and moan about how studios spend their stockholders' and partners investment capital. If I'm an "apologist" for anything, it's free enterprise and capitalism. If you think there's an area that needs to have investment money spent, invest YOUR own money in that area and spend less time bitching because other folks aren't investing THEIR money in the area. Start a corporation and get some venture capital to fund it.

Hey, and how does bitching about bitching put you ahead in vast the scheme? ;)

i'm too young for the classic movie angle (1980s movie/tv fan). Yes, it is unfortunate the scope of the catalogs, the only reason i remotely cared about the potential of HDM, is limited.

Does anyone know if they are restoring/archiving these films in 4K, or whatever, anyway? That seems to be the hard part and if they are doing it anyway, why not try to defray cost by releasing on HDM or (my favorite concept) licensing content to third parties who should skip the B&M channels and sell on-line only (especially AMZN, much more efficient distribution scheme). With some content, like Star Wars, it makes sense to delay release unitil at least 5 million stand-alones are in the wild. Really, what would the harm be in giving a third party exclusive rights to distibute certain titles for two or so years if a company isn't going to release it themselves in that period (the studio could then release it later if they were so inclined). If i had the money (30+ million excess of my own money, i know that is a big dream), i would be all over that concept (if cheap enough replication, probably HD DVD side only - seem to have better rates on lower production runs). There is definitely a potential market for this (releasing studio properties they are not willing to) and it could be mutually beneficial (small, but growing market for this anyway, especially going forward). Prices may not be that attractive though. What prices would movie enthusiasts be willing to pay for short production run HDM "classic" movies and would they be willing to accept bare-bones, no bonus features?

Really, what would the harm be in giving a third party exclusive rights to distibute certain titles for two or so years if a company isn't going to release it themselves in that period (the studio could then release it later if they were so inclined). If i had the money (30+ million excess of my own money, i know that is a big dream), i would be all over that concept (if cheap enough replication, probably HD DVD side only - seem to have better rates on lower production runs). There is definitely a potential market for this (releasing studio properties they are not willing to) and it could be mutually beneficial (small, but growing market for this anyway, especially going forward). Prices may not be that attractive though. What prices would movie enthusiasts be willing to pay for short production run HDM "classic" movies and would they be willing to accept bare-bones, no bonus features?

HD-DVD runs are cheap. That mastering costs aren't that bad either; the cost of bonus features can be minimal to huge depending on your goals. Advertising is not exactly cheap, but even full-color ads in the industry trade publications aren't as bad as you'd think, especially if you wheel and deal a little.

The costs of licensing content that's collecting dust in studio vaults (including titles that have never been released on DVD) is prohibitive, at least that was the case when I was involved in trying to put together a deal like that a year ago.

Note, also, when you contemplate pricing that the retailers take the lion's share. Amazon normally takes 55%--or, rather, they pass on 45% of srp to you are are free to sell the title for whatever they like unless you've included a MAP (Minimum Advertised Price) clause. Shipping, returns, etc., come out of your share, too. The disk itself is the cheap part.

Again, in terms of re-mastering expenses, the studios kind of have to do HD masters of most viable titles anyway. I was under the impression that most SD DVD presentations are from down-scaled high-rez masters anyway.

Really, a third party might just need to option use of the pre-existing HD master. That's pretty-much how LD worked.

McDonald's can't sell the same small number of burgers and still make a profit like Joe's burger shack can.

They make squat on the food but they make a KILLING on the soft drinks.

Executives know that "Friday the 13th, part XXVIII, Jason vs. the Snow Buddies" is going to sell, so that's what's going to get greenlighted and that's what's going to get shelf space. A quirky, intelligent, interesting title might or might not take off--and even if the average return-on-investment for a product like that might be higher, the odds that it won't sell and will hurt your career are higher, and that's what's more important to whether it sees the light of day.


See this is the reason why we need more VOD (either downloadable or streaming) and less optical media. Even though HD DVD has lost its charm in my eyes, the war is still on and so the retailers are still going to boycott good movies like the Bourne series, Matrix series, Hot Fuzz, The Thing, Transformers, Casablanca etc simply because it's not on blu-ray.

If people want only the content, then they have DVD already. But, if they want the best in HD, they are still going to have 2 HD players due to the ongoing war. Personally, I don't want a retailer drone to decide which movies I should watch, so that's why I'm happy to hear every new business that's starting up for deliverance of movie content online.

that is the current situation but that will change as number of players (market) grows. pretty much all the big titles will slowly become available at a premium price level (special editions).



I don't think so , unfortunately. We are closing in on two years for HDM. I don't believe that we are going to see anything like ten thousand HDM titles.

Art

Again, in terms of re-mastering expenses, the studios kind of have to do HD masters of most viable titles anyway. I was under the impression that most SD DVD presentations are from down-scaled high-rez masters anyway.

Really, a third party might just need to option use of the pre-existing HD master. That's pretty-much how LD worked.

How much did you pay for special editions etc 15 years ago on LD adjusted for inflation. My guess is that it is several times what we pay for HDM now.


Art

$119 for the Abyss SE... $250 for the Star Wars teilogy LD...

yes, by today's standard BD AND HD DVD are value priced.. If it's too much, go 'upscaled':D

Feel sorry for the studios?

Aren't they the ones who have given us Copy Protection for both audio and video and the promise of downrezzing unless you use the HDMI interface which is a connectivity nightmare?

As someone who still uses component, I agree with this wholeheartedly!!

How much did you pay for special editions etc 15 years ago on LD adjusted for inflation. My guess is that it is several times what we pay for HDM now.


Art

HALLOWEEN on LD = $125, HALLOWEEN on HD = $24.95

Sure, lasers were pricey, but they were also a hugely inefficient medium, DVD s were cheaper on their first day than no-frills LD. My understanding is that the dud-rate of LD was monstrous during pressing, and you could obviously get at least a half-dozen HDM disks out of the petroleum and metals of one LD. Add to that the restriction of 120 minutes per disk the weight, space and packaging of LD and my guess is your still ahead on HD.

The $19.98 average I pay for a HD disk is livable to me, knock a couple bucks off with sales here and there, and the pricing structure is already more in line with DVD than it was with LD.

HALLOWEEN on LD = $125, HALLOWEEN on HD = $24.95

Sure, lasers were pricey, but they were also a hugely inefficient medium, DVD s were cheaper on their first day than no-frills LD. My understanding is that the dud-rate of LD was monstrous during pressing, and you could obviously get at least a half-dozen HDM disks out of the petroleum and metals of one LD. Add to that the restriction of 120 minutes per disk the weight, space and packaging of LD and my guess is your still ahead on HD.

The $19.98 average I pay for a HD disk is livable to me, knock a couple bucks off with sales here and there, and the pricing structure is already more in line with DVD than it was with LD.

You are missing my point. Your idea that we are going to see large numbers of great films as special editions is based on an antiquated model of consumer perceptiuon of the value of these things. If it takes that kind of model to get thousands of films in HDM in our hands then IMO we aren't going to see them.

The entire HDM thing is going down the Wal Mart path instead and this simply is not going to provide enough incentive for the studios.

I see instead a model where the studios continue to play it safe releasing increasing numbers of poor sequals,and films that appeal to teen girls etc. They will be content to get those out for home consumption quickly to make a few dollars each with huge numbers of sales.

The relative numbers of sales of films like Casablanca,Forbidden Planet and Mutiny on the Bounty bares this out.

Art

I see instead a model where the studios continue to play it safe releasing increasing numbers of poor sequals,and films that appeal to teen girls etc. They will be content to get those out for home consumption quickly to make a few dollars each with huge numbers of sales.

I'm terribly frustated about the crap that gets released on HDM but I doubt that the above scenario is what the studios are aiming for. They want to re-sell their catalog one more time after all. And if they want to do that they have to give it to us.

The relative numbers of sales of films like Casablanca,Forbidden Planet and Mutiny on the Bounty bares this out.


Does anybody actually know how many HDM discs Warner has to sell of say Casablanca to make a profit on it? The master and extras were already available from the SD release (same for all the other classics btw) so the cost of those can be ignored.

I'd like to see "Metropolis) restored so bad its not funny ....
A lot of great movies are from 30's and 40's !!!
not to mention Hitchcock , they need to be released !!

I'd like to see "Metropolis) restored so bad its not funny ....
A lot of great movies are from 30's and 40's !!!
not to mention Hitchcock , they need to be released !!

Metropolis was already restored several years ago and a 2K digital master is available. The same goes for the Hitchcock movies and hundreds of other classic movies. It's not a question of restoring them (because that's already been done) but of releasing them.

If they pushed the movies down to 14$ it would be a real joy purchasing titles.

I sometimes think the studio greed is their own worst enemy.

When they charge over 40$ I get much more selective what I buy.

I'd like to see "Metropolis) restored so bad its not funny ....
A lot of great movies are from 30's and 40's !!!
not to mention Hitchcock , they need to be released !!

The orignal Metroplis has been restored. I saw it right after in Ann Arbor with live organ. There were around a thousand folks in attendence,it looked spectacular. They then trashed it with edge enhancement when it came to DVD.

Art

I would think that the distributers and retailers have a share of blame as well. Move 10,000 units at $15 per unit or 1000 units at $65 per unit with 2% per unit profit, $3000 or $1300. For that matter there's a long line of entities along the way that get their taste. NOT A POLITICAL STATEMENT OR POSITION JUST AN EXAMPLE (don't flame)...some of the basis for the Writer's Strike.

This is sort of off-topic, for the classics and contemporary classics does having them on HD over a "nice" remastered SD version (if it exists) make that move that much better? Kinda loaded query I guess. As for me, I haven't run out and replace my remastered SD version of Full Metal Jacket or Clockwork Orange. Not that I've seen the HD versions yet, but with those movies, it is the movie as a whole that makes it enjoyable to watch. It's their story and characters that have me drawn into watching not just scene to scene. I don't think I explained that well. Transformers on the other hand is what I call a Flash/Bang movie that is a must on HD over SD to show off the HD componets wow factor. Dialog/facial expression type movies, is what I would call the other type. With or course a combination thereof, but usually intertwine as the Narative/storyteller type. I should have probably erased the dribble I just typed, oh well.

I'm terribly frustated about the crap that gets released on HDM but I doubt that the above scenario is what the studios are aiming for. They want to re-sell their catalog one more time after all. And if they want to do that they have to give it to us.



Perhaps they aren't aiming but that is what they are doing none the less. This simply isn't going to retrace the SD DVD path,it isn't.I see this for several reasons :

1)People will only watch films so many times.
2)SD is good enough for the overwhelming majority of even HD display owners
3)Those buying into HDM (largely gamers based on BD numbers) aren't interested in the "cardboard" titles (black and white)
4)The Wal Mart model will preclude the mindset that special editions of classic films are worth the extra dollars required to offset restoration for the relatively small number sold.
5)The feel of getting something very special in your hands like we did in early to mid LD days will never again be a factor since DVD numbers and relative pricing completely negated that.

All this could change but I'm betting that this will be the truth long enough for HDM to fade first.

Perhaps they aren't aiming but that is what they are doing none the less.

I think this is in large part due to the format war which has kept a lot of potential buyers, who fall outside of the gamer's demographic, on the sidelines and it has put a lot of emphasis on numbers of disc sold. It wouldn't surprise me that studios are as obsessed with the weekly Nielsen numbers as some of the forum members are. After all it gives them the chance to boast that their format outsold the other one with 2:1. Quick sales are important at the moment. Once the format war is over I think this will change. At least I hope so because your scenario is truly frightening for me ;).

4)The Wal Mart model will preclude the mindset that special editions of classic films are worth the extra dollars required to offset restoration for the relatively small number sold..

Again, a lot of classics that get a release on DVD have been restored and 2K or 4K masters are available. The studios don't need HDM to recoup their restoration costs.

This is sort of off-topic, for the classics and contemporary classics does having them on HD over a "nice" remastered SD version (if it exists) make that move that much better? Kinda loaded query I guess. As for me, I haven't run out and replace my remastered SD version of Full Metal Jacket or Clockwork Orange. Not that I've seen the HD versions yet, but with those movies, it is the movie as a whole that makes it enjoyable to watch. It's their story and characters that have me drawn into watching not just scene to scene. I don't think I explained that well. Transformers on the other hand is what I call a Flash/Bang movie that is a must on HD over SD to show off the HD componets wow factor. Dialog/facial expression type movies, is what I would call the other type. With or course a combination thereof, but usually intertwine as the Narative/storyteller type. I should have probably erased the dribble I just typed, oh well.

If the source was good the jump to HD is dramatic. Some films as they were filmed do not lend themselves to the HD leap in appearance ( A Clockwork Oranger is an exampole just not a big difference).Forbidden Planet looks incredible and is simply no comparison to the DVD (a film over fifty years old).

Art

Again, a lot of classics that get a release on DVD have been restored and 2K or 4K masters are available. The studios don't need HDM to recoup their restoration costs.

Just asking ,can you tell us the number of these even as a percentage ? As an example Singin in the Rain (for example) with the computer registration of the three color process was recent.

Art

The orignal Metroplis has been restored. I saw it right after in Ann Arbor with live organ. There were around a thousand folks in attendence,it looked spectacular. They then trashed it with edge enhancement when it came to DVD.

Art

The EUREKA! import is a lot better than the Kino (as is their FAUST, LAST LAUGH, & NOSFERATU).

This is sort of off-topic, for the classics and contemporary classics does having them on HD over a "nice" remastered SD version (if it exists) make that move that much better?

I have no doubt, and as long a the medium resolution falls below that of 35mm (which it does), HD will be a noticeable boost. Don't forget it's not just what you gain in HD, it's what you gain in DVD that's undesirable (artifacts, decreased tonal range, and the like).

People are moving to bigger and bigger displays, I have a front-projector, and the difference between an HD and SD (upscailed) from the same HD master can be profound.

Just asking ,can you tell us the number of these even as a percentage ? As an example Singin in the Rain (for example) with the computer registration of the three color process was recent.

Art

The Singin' In The Rain SE DVD that was made using that process is already five years old. Time moves fast.
As to your question, no I don't know a percentage. I do know that 2K and 4K scanning has been available since the mid 1990s. And studios have been using it to create their masters for their DVD releases for years now. Just look at the back of your DVDs and I'll bet you that a lot of them will say "re-mastered in high-definition".
To illustrate, Criterion's Lee Kline said this about their output in Sound And Vision of December 2007: "We're ready to go," says Lee. "We've mastered in high-definition for years now. We just have to take the tapes and compress them in an HD codec. We did a Blu-ray test of one of our titles, and we're really happy with the results."
Full article here: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/installations/2595/installations-meeting-the-criterion-the-screening-room-page2.html

The EUREKA! import is a lot better than the Kino (as is their FAUST, LAST LAUGH, & NOSFERATU).

Linky ?

Art

Just asking ,can you tell us the number of these even as a percentage ? As an example Singin in the Rain (for example) with the computer registration of the three color process was recent.

Art

Those three-strip restorations are more recent, but they aren't the only HD restorations. It seems like for the last 4 years that I've been double-dipping on SD titles they say "remastered in HD" on the box pretty regularly. Even before I bough HD I presumed these new SD editions are windfall in prep for HD syndication and potential HD media. The one thing is that those restorations do continue, and they aren't just doing them out of a sense of obligation. The recent JAZZ SINGER DVD box was a marvel, I don't know which was more amazing to me, that they restored feature that painstakingly or the Viataphone shorts they included with it. Though sadly I'll admit the churn at Warner puts continuation of these projects in check.

Art, I can understand your frustration with the growth of classic content on HD, but I do think your overly pessimistic. I can see HD growing to the point that Criterion and others fly a few up the flagpole and eventually we at least see stuff like Wizard Of Oz, Giant, and Vertigo from the studios. I'm just doubting we will see a lot of 30's and 40's B/W from any major for a few more years (if ever :().

Linky ?

Art

Here, though the improvement appears to be the greatest in terms of the ghosting and artifacts on Kino's sloppy PAL conversion. Eureka! Masters of Cinema disks usually trump all others.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare7/metropolis2.htm

If the source was good the jump to HD is dramatic. Some films as they were filmed do not lend themselves to the HD leap in appearance ( A Clockwork Oranger is an exampole just not a big difference).Forbidden Planet looks incredible and is simply no comparison to the DVD (a film over fifty years old).

Art

I think we are both saying the same thing. I was meaning the difference of just a transfer to SD-DVD compared with a remaster (cleanup et al) to SD-DVD, transfer of the remaster to HD or a remaster to HD. Ultimately, if there is a remaster, it is the interpetation of the one(s) performing the remaster.

This is based upon something I think I remember Amirm said. If I remember it wrong then the rest may not make a lot of sense.

I believe Amirm said that when the studios needed new DVD buring equipment the updated equipment burns both DVD's and HD DVD's. If that's true, the cost of studio's maintaining both Bluray and HD DVD would seem to be pretty minimal.

It seems studios all going neutral would "neutralize" the battle and convince folks that investing in either format has a reasonable future. I don't think many people think any format is "forever", but will last long enough to justify their investment.

We have three major gaming formats, and there are a number of formats for storing video on CD's and DVD's. Perhaps the two formats, given a more healthy environment would morph into specialize formats that would make sence for different audiences. Just as an example, if HD DVD costs less to produce, perhaps it could become a niche format for those releases.

In any case, if studios got over "picking sides", it seems to me they would get beyond the minimal sales for at least one if not both formats.

Has Warner's decision created a despiration sale...on both sides?

As a cnsumer having had projection systems for 20+ years, having winners and loosers isn't important. More HDM is what's important.

Here, though the improvement appears to be the greatest in terms of the ghosting and artifacts on Kino's sloppy PAL conversion. Eureka! Masters of Cinema disks usually trump all others.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare7/metropolis2.htm


So it is only in PAL ?

Art

So it is only in PAL ?

Art

Yes, all Masters Of Cinema disks are all PAL (OPPO's do a pretty-nice job with them). More often than not, silents and vintage foreign titles are PAL-to-NTSC converted masters on US releases, and sadly, more often than not the conversion is done so poorly, that your better of with the PAL version. Kino also has a knack for single-layer, interlaced disks of their progressive-scan, dual-layer Euro counterparts.

I can see HD growing to the point that Criterion and others fly a few up the flagpole and eventually we at least see stuff like Wizard Of Oz, Giant, and Vertigo from the studios. I'm just doubting we will see a lot of 30's and 40's B/W from any major for a few more years (if ever :().


Pretty grim IMO.

Art

I don't feel bad for any business.

I'm very selfish when it comes to these matters; I try to rip off Studios and CE companies as much as possible in any way that I can.
Why? Because why not? It's fun, I can can get something out of it and also it's fun to be rebellious!
Truly stealing things is illegal, but getting "freebies" or any extras/advantages you can, including by "gray area" methods, is entirely acceptable to me as well. Why? Because nearly every business has as its goal not just to make money, but to make the maximum possible amount of money they can, by any method they can legally get away with. In fact, with stock-issuing companies, it is basically their duty to maximize sales/profits in that way. Mail-in rebates, calling products "new and improved" when they have changed very little, and many other actions are examples of businesses doing things that are legal but are very anti-consumer at best. I have no problems with customers maximizing their value from for-profit businesses, either.

Truly stealing things is illegal, but getting "freebies" or any extras/advantages you can, including by "gray area" methods, is entirely acceptable to me as well. Why? Because nearly every business has as its goal not just to make money, but to make the maximum possible amount of money they can, by any method they can legally get away with. In fact, with stock-issuing companies, it is basically their duty to maximize sales/profits in that way. Mail-in rebates, calling products "new and improved" when they have changed very little, and many other actions are examples of businesses doing things that are legal but are very anti-consumer at best. I have no problems with customers maximizing their value from for-profit businesses, either.

Very revealing ! :(

Art

Very revealing ! :(

Art

It's strange how people can justify their immoral and illegal actions. It's also strange that they keep going and stealing tools from the neighbors shed and then they are the first to stand up and complain when he puts a lock (DMR) on the door.

Strangest of all is they don't realize or can't seem to understand that they are 100% responsible for DMR in the first place.

The world is not what you can get out of it but what you make it.

It's strange how people can justify their immoral and illegal actions. It's also strange that they keep going and stealing tools from the neighbors shed and then they are the first to stand up and complain when he puts a lock (DMR) on the door.

Strangest of all is they don't realize or can't seem to understand that they are 100% responsible for DMR in the first place.

The world is not what you can get out of it but what you make it.

I want my 2500 euro back from Warner. Most likely my HD collection will be unplayable in about 4..6 years.

Warner is going to pay me back one way or the other.

They made a bad/immoral decision for HVM in general. Going blu means higher cost for low volume items like classics and indies.
The brick and mortar distribution model was expensive enough for low volume releases but the added cost for br replication is probably too much.

Until recently Warner always did stuff like Robin Hood and Mutiny on the Bounty, and other classics for the love off the game. The earlier DVD releases where very low sellers but they did the HD version anyway.
That has all changed. Faced with a decline (The HVM is saturated.) in the HVM revenues the bean counters are now in control.

The sales from the few classics in the pipeline will give the bean counters the upper hand over the people in the business who care about the art.

I fear no more classics on physical media. We might see a revival for classics with the VOD distribution model. But it will take some time before we get HD quality from that.

I fear no more classics on physical media. We might see a revival for classics with the VOD distribution model. But it will take some time before we get HD quality from that.Wow, tin-foil hat much? "Passage to India" was just announced a couple of days ago. In recent weeks, we've seen the following classics announced on Blu-ray alone:

The Battle of Britain
Bonnie and Clyde
A Bridge Too Far
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Ghandi
The Longest Day
A Passage to India
Patton
The Sand Pebbles

Looking at my list, that's relatively a pretty big percentage of upcoming films that are considered classics. I'd even say that's huge for a 2-year-old format, and that doesn't even cover the "modern classics" such as the Dirty Harry films or "Wall Street"

Wow, tin-foil hat much? "Passage to India" was just announced a couple of days ago. In recent weeks, we've seen the following classics announced on Blu-ray alone:

The Battle of Britain
Bonnie and Clyde
A Bridge Too Far
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Ghandi
The Longest Day
A Passage to India
Patton
The Sand Pebbles

Looking at my list, that's relatively a pretty big percentage of upcoming films that are considered classics. I'd even say that's huge for a 2-year-old format, and that doesn't even cover the "modern classics" such as the Dirty Harry films or "Wall Street"

Wow, damage control much?
Lets assume those titles really do come out, since titles have never been pulled or postponed before. :rolleyes:
That's still a rather small percentage of BD titles out or coming out. Even less if you take away the war movies (not my cup of tea).
I'm curious as to whether or not Warner will release some of the older titles out on HD DVD on BD.
We'll have to see how things go down the road.
J

Perhaps they aren't aiming but that is what they are doing none the less. This simply isn't going to retrace the SD DVD path,it isn't.I see this for several reasons :

1)People will only watch films so many times.
2)SD is good enough for the overwhelming majority of even HD display owners
3)Those buying into HDM (largely gamers based on BD numbers) aren't interested in the "cardboard" titles (black and white)
4)The Wal Mart model will preclude the mindset that special editions of classic films are worth the extra dollars required to offset restoration for the relatively small number sold.
5)The feel of getting something very special in your hands like we did in early to mid LD days will never again be a factor since DVD numbers and relative pricing completely negated that.

All this could change but I'm betting that this will be the truth long enough for HDM to fade first.

I'm afraid you may be correct here. That is unfortunate.
J

The problem with highdef titles is not the per unit variable costs, but the fixed one time startup costs. Apparently authoring, AACS, glass-master all of these things adds up to a chunk of cash that is still higher than DVDs. If a title sells only 1500 disks, all that fixed overhead has to be amortized over that 1500 disks. Since they can't just add $30 to each disk, it means there's no realistic way that a highdef release of a low volume title can be profitable.

But even for DVDs, selling 1500 disks is not enough to justify a DVD release either, since there are still some hefty startup costs that makes it difficult to turn a profit there.

If it can't even break even, the studios releasing a disk is more out of good-will, or because they were paid to release them.

The real answer to get classics released is that installed base has to grow by at least 10x. Then the 1500 can easily become 10k, and at that point, it's easier to break even, meaning studios will release relatively low volume sellers then, because even relatively low volume is a substantial number.

Wow, damage control much?Based on the fact that the poster said the problem is "no more classics", no.
Lets assume those titles really do come out, since titles have never been pulled or postponed before. :rolleyes:
That's still a rather small percentage of BD titles out or coming out. Even less if you take away the war movies (not my cup of tea).Since personal opinion means nothing, we'll keep the war movies in. That's still about 10 films out of a planned 70 or so. Having 15% of your release slate made up of films considered classic is not a small percentage, especially when you consider that both formats are aimed at big new releases.

Wow, tin-foil hat much? "Passage to India" was just announced a couple of days ago. In recent weeks, we've seen the following classics announced on Blu-ray alone:

The Battle of Britain
Bonnie and Clyde
A Bridge Too Far
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Ghandi
The Longest Day
A Passage to India
Patton
The Sand Pebbles

Looking at my list, that's relatively a pretty big percentage of upcoming films that are considered classics. I'd even say that's huge for a 2-year-old format, and that doesn't even cover the "modern classics" such as the Dirty Harry films or "Wall Street"

Those 'classics' will sell low numbers. These are all in the pipeline. After these I fear we will get even less.
With Warner we see a future trend for less classics.
The other br studio's are putting out these titles to satisfy early adopters and win a format war by spitting out some classics for a broader retail presence.

After br is established as the surviving HD format the list will shorten considerably.

Apart from a yearly re-run of the longest day most TV stations won't touch the other 'classics' with a ten foot pole these days. There is hardly any interrest in them anymore.

PS if you think Dirty Harry is a modern classic, several classics in your list are younger.

I want my 2500 euro back from Warner. Most likely my HD collection will be unplayable in about 4..6 years...

Have you got your money back on your 8-track's and Atari games yet? How about MS-DOS 1.1 and LP's? Have you applied to get your money back on your analog TV's? Have you asked Toshiba for the player refund?:confused:

reopened

please stay On Topic

Thanks

With Warner we see a future trend for less classics.


You mean Time Warner ? The Time Warner who owns Turner Classic Movies ?

The problem with highdef titles is not the per unit variable costs, but the fixed one time startup costs. Apparently authoring, AACS, glass-master all of these things adds up to a chunk of cash that is still higher than DVDs. If a title sells only 1500 disks, all that fixed overhead has to be amortized over that 1500 disks. Since they can't just add $30 to each disk, it means there's no realistic way that a highdef release of a low volume title can be profitable.

But even for DVDs, selling 1500 disks is not enough to justify a DVD release either, since there are still some hefty startup costs that makes it difficult to turn a profit there.

If it can't even break even, the studios releasing a disk is more out of good-will, or because they were paid to release them.

The real answer to get classics released is that installed base has to grow by at least 10x. Then the 1500 can easily become 10k, and at that point, it's easier to break even, meaning studios will release relatively low volume sellers then, because even relatively low volume is a substantial number.

Great post ! I just hope that we get that kind of install base ,who want classics.

Art

But even for DVDs, selling 1500 disks is not enough to justify a DVD release either, since there are still some hefty startup costs that makes it difficult to turn a profit there.

So your telling me Kino is selling over 1500 copies of a DVD of some third-tier silent comedian's shorts, or a collection of silent Avant Garde films from the 20's? Somehow I doubt this.

Great post ! I just hope that we get that kind of install base ,who want classics.

Art

I'm not so optimistic about this install base improving sales for classics on HD.
I assume that the early HDM adopters are the most likely candidates for these releases but sales where low regardless.

The same classic releases on DVD didn't sell that well either with an install base over a 1000 times greater than the HD formats.
Most sales for these classics are from discount bins. Not a very good prospect for HD releases with a far more expensive workflow.

The same classic releases on DVD didn't sell that well either with an install base over a 1000 times greater than the HD formats.


So how many copies did these classics sell on SD? Warner must be satisfied with the sales of classics on SD because they keep releasing them. So is Fox.

I'm sure that Warner will release more classics on HDM this year as well. They're celebrating their 85th birthday this year and promised "a number of branded collections throughout 2008 -- new-to-DVD, High Definition debuts and Ultimate Collector’s Editions". The upcoming Bonnie And Clyde is the first of these Ultimate Collector's Editions.

Wow, tin-foil hat much? "Passage to India" was just announced a couple of days ago. In recent weeks, we've seen the following classics announced on Blu-ray alone:

The Battle of Britain
Bonnie and Clyde
A Bridge Too Far
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Ghandi
The Longest Day
A Passage to India
Patton
The Sand Pebbles

Looking at my list, that's relatively a pretty big percentage of upcoming films that are considered classics. I'd even say that's huge for a 2-year-old format, and that doesn't even cover the "modern classics" such as the Dirty Harry films or "Wall Street"

Now these are some titles to get excited about! Studios already make decent coin on day/date DVD releases. They stand to make good money on HDM by re-selling their back catalogue stuff. Hopefully we will see all the Best Picture winners and a lot more of the AFI top 100 and top 400 on HDM sooner than later.

Hopefully 2008 will see more clarification on the future of HDM (if BLu-Ray is going to be "THE" format then we need to see what Universal and Paramount are going to do). More 2.0 players and sub $300 and $400 price points will help too.

At any rate I certainly don't feel sorry for the studios. They still have the DVD cash cow going, options for HDM to reach a new audience, PPV, downloads via X-Box, Apple etc.

I just hope that we will see more "good" movies. 2007 actually had many which I think will be considered "classic" in the future. It sure seems like there is a lot more crap being released than there used to be.

I'm not so optimistic about this install base improving sales for classics on HD.
I assume that the early HDM adopters are the most likely candidates for these releases but sales where low regardless.

The same classic releases on DVD didn't sell that well either with an install base over a 1000 times greater than the HD formats.
Most sales for these classics are from discount bins. Not a very good prospect for HD releases with a far more expensive workflow.

Lets see some stats on that, it sounds to me like your presuming they don't make a profit rather than having actual data.

I have 648 DVDs of films made prior to 1965 which I've purchased over the last 9 years. That averages to about my buying about 7-8 such titles every month. I have yet to see a slowdown in their release, if anything more have come out in the last 4 years than the first five as studios have over-released newer content. At what point during this time did they stop selling well? If they don't sell, why are they still coming out, and why didn't they stop releasing them long ago?

So how many copies did these classics sell on SD? Warner must be satisfied with the sales of classics on SD because they keep releasing them. So is Fox.

No doubt, FOX which was very tight with their classics have released those massive FORD AT FOX boxed sets featuring even John Ford's silent films, not to mention their Will Rogers boxed sets of 30's comedies.

The problem with highdef titles is not the per unit variable costs, but the fixed one time startup costs. Apparently authoring, AACS, glass-master all of these things adds up to a chunk of cash that is still higher than DVDs. If a title sells only 1500 disks, all that fixed overhead has to be amortized over that 1500 disks. Since they can't just add $30 to each disk, it means there's no realistic way that a highdef release of a low volume title can be profitable.

It'd be more like $1-$2 per disk for HD-DVD in that kind of quantity and no more than twice that for Blu-Ray--so your initial costs would about double your per-disk cost for an initial run of retail-ready disks. That's not in itself a killer for a product with a retail price of $20-$30 or more.


But even for DVDs, selling 1500 disks is not enough to justify a DVD release either, since there are still some hefty startup costs that makes it difficult to turn a profit there.


The authoring and mastering costs for DVDs don't have to be that large; they're actually pretty cheap these days.

The much harder problem is that a 1500-unit release doesn't fit the business model of any of the major players. Studios and mainstream distributors don't want to deal with a product like that, the usual distribution channels don't either, and retail chains absolutely don't.

That doesn't mean that you can't release a title with 1500 units and even make a profit doing so. You could do that with DVDs and HDM right now yourself, if you had the urge, it's just not how Sony and Walmart do things.

That doesn't mean that you can't release a title with 1500 units and even make a profit doing so. You could do that with DVDs and HDM right now yourself, if you had the urge, it's just not how Sony and Walmart do things.

You'd think the net alone could get those more specialized titles out there, I'm guessing maybe 5% of my 1400+ DVDs came from B&M.

You'd think the net alone could get those more specialized titles out there, I'm guessing maybe 5% of my 1400+ DVDs came from B&M.

It does. B&M distribution is difficult, but you can enjoy some success marketing to "mom and pop" video stores, independent stores that pride themselves on stocking harder to find or esoteric titles, and specialty stores (not necessarily video or big box stores--but ones that relate to the subject rather than stores that sell video products in general).

The net, on the other hand, is wide open. Amazon is very committed to "the long tail" and there are plenty of sites that cater to just about any flavor of film fandom.

Magazines that cover particular genres and styles of film may also stock and sell specialty titles that appeal to their readers. That's something worth making note of when you're making a list of whom to send review copies to.

And, of course, anyone can set up a site for their particular movie or video product and sell it directly to buyers. Before the net was in everyone's home, there wasn't an easy way to connect the buyers and sellers of specialty video product, but now it's not only possible, but practical.

Lets see some stats on that, it sounds to me like your presuming they don't make a profit rather than having actual data.

I have 648 DVDs of films made prior to 1965 which I've purchased over the last 9 years. That averages to about my buying about 7-8 such titles every month. I have yet to see a slowdown in their release, if anything more have come out in the last 4 years than the first five as studios have over-released newer content. At what point during this time did they stop selling well? If they don't sell, why are they still coming out, and why didn't they stop releasing them long ago?


I have read this in a mag several years ago some sales numbers where given for a couple of classics.
RH sold less than a few thousend.

I can't recal the article as it went in the bin long ago.

Here is an older articale I found about releasing the classics on DVD.
http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s393want.html#foot%204

My point is that stuffing the retail bins with many titles was the business model that made DVD sales booming. They can release a 1000 classic titles but only a small percentage of that will be profitable. The dud's are subsidized by the block busters. (I shop for my classics mostly from the discount bins.)

Now with HVM facing a decline now that the market is saturated, facing higher production cost for HDM and a less costly distribution model on the horizon (downloads, VOD) do you really think we can expect that many classic HD releases the coming years ?

Feel sorry for the studios?

Aren't they the ones who have given us Copy Protection for both audio and video and the promise of downrezzing unless you use the HDMI interface which is a connectivity nightmare?

QFT
Excellent summary! My thoughts exactly...:cool:

Seriously, you can contribute (your money) to a number of groups dedicated to saving old films. A quick GOOGLE search will help you find such worthy groups. That's a first step.

The vast majority of movies have not fallen into the public domain and are not available for restoration. For the most part the movie catalogs are held firmly by the studios even if that means they sit on 100s or 1000s of movies for years or decades. If they opened up access to catalog titles for licensing, perhaps in auction then the scenario you suggest could actually work. However that is not the case.

The vast majority of movies have not fallen into the public domain and are not available for restoration. For the most part the movie catalogs are held firmly by the studios even if that means they sit on 100s or 1000s of movies for years or decades. If they opened up access to catalog titles for licensing, perhaps in auction then the scenario you suggest could actually work. However that is not the case.

Agreed, I'm not really getting the scorn some people have for older films, it as if they want to see them languish just because they are uninterested or unwilling to partake of anything that's outside of their realm.

The vast majority of movies have not fallen into the public domain and are not available for restoration. For the most part the movie catalogs are held firmly by the studios even if that means they sit on 100s or 1000s of movies for years or decades. If they opened up access to catalog titles for licensing, perhaps in auction then the scenario you suggest could actually work. However that is not the case.

Say a loud and resounding 'thanks' to your corrupt lawmakers - American copyright laws are BEYOND RIDICULOUS. It's never intended to be this extremely excessive, let alone this long lasting 'protection' - it's purely the end result of the studios' money (a.k.a. parasites).
FYI: US Congress has extended the term of existing copyrights 11 times in the past 40 years. Last time it was extended by another 20 years (a.k.a. Mickey Mouse Protection Act of 1998) and you bet in 2018 they will get ANOTHER extension (well, if they will be around at all - hopefully they will be long gone by then, no need for middleman, as most studios are mostly giant parasitic corporations with zero creative role.)
In other words don't expect any of those catalog movies to move into the public domain anytime soon...
PS: a shocking and still relevant 2001 article about the surreal world of US copyright laws: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/30/opinion/30LESS.html?ex=1202446800&en=ee3126b984b26f5f&ei=5070

Looks like the "classics won't come to HDM!" argument, especially for Warner, was once again shut down. Last night Warner announced "Gone With the Wind", "North by Northwest", "The Wizard of Oz", and "Woodstock" for Blu-ray, as well as a modern classic in the form of a Dirty Harry Box Set that includes "Dirty Harry", "Magnum Force", "The Enforcer", "Sudden Impact", and "Dead Pool".

Linky? :)

Linky? :)


http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

Announced at the 85th Warner anniversay party last night.

Check The Digital Bits' most recent post from the Warner 85th Anniversary press event that went on last night:
The Dirty Harry promotion will include the Dirty Harry: 2-Disc Special Edition, the Magnum Force: Deluxe Edition, The Enforcer: Deluxe Edition, the Sudden Impact: Deluxe Edition and the Dead Pool: Deluxe Edition. All five films will also be included in a Dirty Harry: Ultimate Collector's Edition box set (available in DVD, Blu-ray and HD-DVD), which will also feature the Clint Eastwood: Out of the Shadows bonus disc.
Finally, studio reps revealed that 4 major catalog titles (The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, Woodstock and North by Northwest) are all soon going on moratorium. The good news is, each will reappear in 2009 in day-and-date DVD and Blu-ray Disc releases, complete with stunning new high-definition restorations to celebrate their own individual anniversaries.

each will reappear in 2009
Well, I'm not going to get too excited about announcements for 2009 releases just yet. I'm more interested in whether or not Warner is going to put Casablanca, Forbidden Planet etc. out on BD.
J

Oh boy, it did not take long :mad:

several posts deleted

Feel sorry for the studios?

Aren't they the ones who have given us Copy Protection for both audio and video and the promise of downrezzing unless you use the HDMI interface which is a connectivity nightmare?

Is there a studio who is enforcing "downrezzing" unless you use the HDMI interface?

Is there a studio who is enforcing "downrezzing" unless you use the HDMI interface?

Well, all of them if you count the unpublished but widely known rules of going straight to HDMI-only on PC's. And there the audio is downrezzed also, always. And in 2010 (2011?) all new players must do HDMI video only. I think that date is also the end of the current informal moratorium on ICT but I never seem to remember those dates.

Not to mention the restriction that the studios claim you cannot even legally upscale DVD above 480p without using HDMI.

- Tom

Well, all of them if you count the unpublished but widely known rules of going straight to HDMI-only on PC's. And there the audio is downrezzed also, always. And in 2010 (2011?) all new players must do HDMI video only. I think that date is also the end of the current informal moratorium on ICT but I never seem to remember those dates.

Not to mention the restriction that the studios claim you cannot even legally upscale DVD above 480p without using HDMI.

- Tom

Tom, for clarification I was referring specifically to Blu-ray and HD DVD. As far as I know, you can use component and still feed the display 1080i (at least), correct? And analog audio connections would still get you lossless sound (assuming an LPCM track), correct?

Looks like the "classics won't come to HDM!" argument, especially for Warner, was once again shut down. Last night Warner announced "Gone With the Wind", "North by Northwest", "The Wizard of Oz", and "Woodstock" for Blu-ray, as well as a modern classic in the form of a Dirty Harry Box Set that includes "Dirty Harry", "Magnum Force", "The Enforcer", "Sudden Impact", and "Dead Pool".

This is excellent news. And that's just one studio. Even with modest penetration numbers, it looks like we'll see some of the true gems of the Warner catalog.

Tom, for clarification I was referring specifically to Blu-ray and HD DVD. As far as I know, you can use component and still feed the display 1080i (at least), correct? And analog audio connections would still get you lossless sound (assuming an LPCM track), correct?

With the ict flag enabled on a disc the video output is downrezzed if there is no hdmi connected or if there is a hdmi device connected that is not hdcp compliant.

Studio's have stated that they intend not to use the ICT flag.
But once the analog hole is exploited by pirates that could change.

So your telling me Kino is selling over 1500 copies of a DVD of some third-tier silent comedian's shorts, or a collection of silent Avant Garde films from the 20's? Somehow I doubt this.

Your taste is even more eclectic. I did say some releases are done out of goodwill and may not turn a profit. :)

Some authors pay to get their books published and don't break even. Some bands create CDs and don't break even. Such gestures of goodwill are rare. Studios do release the occasional Battle of the Bulge, and presumably noone there likely have any illusion of breaking even there, but they do it for strategic reasons (my guess).

Studio's have stated that they intend not to use the ICT flag.


And that was the direct answer to my question. :)

And that was the direct answer to my question. :)

I think the more complete answer is studios have stated they will not use the ICT flag before 2010 or perhaps 2012, after the analog sunset on new players.

- Tom

Your taste is even more eclectic. I did say some releases are done out of goodwill and may not turn a profit. :)

Some authors pay to get their books published and don't break even. Some bands create CDs and don't break even. Such gestures of goodwill are rare. Studios do release the occasional Battle of the Bulge, and presumably noone there likely have any illusion of breaking even there, but they do it for strategic reasons (my guess).


Sorry, but I think because this content doesn't interest you, your unaware that there are whole labels which specialize in it, they aren't vanity presses, charities, or eccentric philanthropists. They are literally labels that have learned to make a profit of of vintage and "art-house releases.

Here are but a few (with links)
KINO (http://www.kino.com/)
BFI (http://filmstore.bfi.org.uk/)
Eureka! / Masters of Cinema (http://www.eurekavideo.co.uk/moc-series/)
Criterion (http://www.criterion.com/asp/)
Flicker Alley (http://www.flickeralley.com/)
VCI (http://vcihomevideo.com/)
Facets (http://www.facets.org/asticat)
Synapse (http://www.synapse-films.com/)
Milestone (http://www.milestonefilms.com/)
BCI Eclipse
Hen's Tooth (http://www.henstoothvideo.com/)
Dark Sky (http://www.darkskyfilms.com/)
Image (http://www.image-entertainment.com/)
Blue Underground (http://www.blue-underground.com/)
Media Blasters (http://www.media-blasters.com/)
First Run Features
(http://www.firstrunfeatures.com/)Mondo Maccabro (http://www.mondomacabrodvd.com/)
zeitgeist films (http://www.zeitgeistfilms.com/homevideo.php)

Sorry, but I think because this content doesn't interest you, your unaware that there are whole labels which specialize in it, they aren't vanity presses, charities, or eccentric philanthropists. They are literally labels that have learned to make a profit of of vintage and "art-house releases.

Here are but a few (with links)
KINO (http://www.kino.com/)
BFI (http://filmstore.bfi.org.uk/)
Eureka! / Masters of Cinema (http://www.eurekavideo.co.uk/moc-series/)
Criterion (http://www.criterion.com/asp/)
Flicker Alley (http://www.flickeralley.com/)
VCI (http://vcihomevideo.com/)
Facets (http://www.facets.org/asticat)
Synapse (http://www.synapse-films.com/)
Milestone (http://www.milestonefilms.com/)
BCI Eclipse
Hen's Tooth (http://www.henstoothvideo.com/)
Dark Sky (http://www.darkskyfilms.com/)
Image (http://www.image-entertainment.com/)
Blue Underground (http://www.blue-underground.com/)
Media Blasters (http://www.media-blasters.com/)
First Run Features
(http://www.firstrunfeatures.com/)Mondo Maccabro (http://www.mondomacabrodvd.com/)
zeitgeist films (http://www.zeitgeistfilms.com/homevideo.php)

It will be great when (if?) these companies start releasing on Blu-ray, especially Criterion.

It will be great when (if?) these companies start releasing on Blu-ray, especially Criterion.

One can only hope :)

One can only hope :)

Yep. But I'm afraid the best case scenario is a couple more years. :(