Twilight Time thread - Page 5

I get what you're saying, but that merely assumes 3000 is all they will sell. That's just what TT has set, not the studios or the industry in general. Just because TT can't sell more than that, it doesn't mean they couldn't sell 10 times that number through traditional means at potentially less expense in the chain.

Please understand that.

Evey disc is sold well below MSRP. Have you ever payed MSRP for any movie? Disney prices their discs at well over $30, but I've paid less than $25 for every single one I've bought.

Further, buy using their much larger purchasing and distribution layers already in place, they can do it more cheaply without creating a frenzy through limited quantities.

Plus they have a better ability to better promote themselves, even if they merely sell it in house just because Sony has far more "Google Juice" than Twilight Time. They could easily seed in titles to make them rank higher when people search for them.

Well the sales of other catalog titles is telling them it is not reasonable to expect 10 times that number of sales. 30,000 is a lot of discs.

If they truly could sell 30,000 discs, they'd presumably be leaving a lot of money on the table by not doing so. What is their motivation for this? At some point you just have to accept that when Sony / WB / whoever home video department heads say catalog sales are in the toilet, they aren't lying. If you truly believe they are hiding the truth for some ulterior motive, then I guess we really have nothing more to say to each other.

..... I don't know where to begin. Didn't you just say you understood my point in your last post?

No, I don't pay MSRP at general retail. The market, for whatever reason, has basically relegated MSRP as irrelevant in this context. But the titles that do well at retail sell in such volume that it is acceptable to be selling below MSRP. Once titles truly hit bargain prices (that many people wait for and prey on...) there is probably no profit left in them (they are loss leaders for the store at this point), but they already made plenty of profit on that title during the first months of its release due to the high volume of sales. Volume is the key word in all of this. For titles that don't sell in that volume, that early profit (or even a break even point) does not happen.


Um, yes? In the very post of mine that you're quoting, that is my point. If the studio wants to do direct sales itself, perhaps that would result in somewhat lower prices. They aren't going to sell them for $10 or $15 though was my point here - maybe $25 instead of $35. Would I appreciate that decrease in price? Yes. Would it satiate a subset of the community that wants $10 Wal-Mart discs? No.

Simple: it lacks risk.

Sony gets theirs no matter how many sell. They weighed the odds that the money they collect from Twilight Time might balance between titles that tank and titles that would have sold gangbusters.

I'm not saying it isn't a strategy without merit, I'm saying it eliminates the potential for a hot seller. 3000 is the limit, so that's all that gets licensed. It's a fixed price for Sony and it's up to TT to make back their bank.

The problem comes in when you see a title that with a little more mainstream exposure, could could climb the ranks at places like Amazon.

The thing is, this is how the movie industry works. Some movies bomb at the box office while others make gobs of money. When they bomb, they cost millions. When they become a blockbuster, they can make billions.

The studios could do a fixed price where movies get sent to a limited number of theaters with a limited number of showings in return for a reasonable profit over the production costs. The theaters would then be responsible for the marketing and setting the ticket prices. The studios would have a guaranteed profit margin while the theaters would have to find a way to sell it and make back what they paid to license the film.

While that eliminates the risk that a bomb would lose money for the studio, it means a blockbuster doesn't make those record profits. It's capped at a fixed level due to the limits on the number of people that can see it.

As far as sales of media as a whole, the industry is simply showing lack of patience. The economy is down and people are all psyched over streaming and other avenues of movie watching. That will change.

The economy will get better and people will get tired of watching movies on their I-Phones or via bit-starved Netflix and will get back to buying movies to watch at home. Even if they don't get tired of it, their internet connections will likely make the choice for them.

I think the studios are outsourcing their futures here.

Did you fail to read my post where I linked to the other sources of outsourcing you cited?

Why aren't they selling titles for far above retail with limited quantities too? Are their operations magic in some way that creates profit from loss?

There's not necessarily anything I outright disagree with here (except some stuff at the end), but I don't really see how any of this proves TT/Sony/Fox wrong. It's a risk averse strategy, yes. But in many ways that is smart business. We've gone from "they're leaving money on the table!" to "well they MIGHT be leaving money on the table for a FEW of these releases, but it probably averages out over the others that won't sell much at all." And this is arguably just one arm of Sony's large home video strategy - they are still releasing things through traditional means as well (though they've always been a bit slow, from far before they ever hooked up with TT). In Fox's case, they are still releasing a boatload of catalog through traditional means.

The parts I disagree with at the end - yes, the economy is down, and it hopefully will recover. But I'm not sure packaged media will ever resume the sales it once had. There are bigger issues than the economy here. People are becoming accustomed to just finding music and movies online, and generations are arguably growing up with that being the main way they experience multimedia at home. This is a disruptive technology that has likely permanently changed the market. And these movies ain't getting any younger - while there will hopefully always be some market for classic films, there are arguably more and more "old" films in studio vaults every year just due to the virtue of time advancing ever onwards.

And as far as outsourcing their future - I'd argue it is TT that is in the precarious position. If the market changes back, Sony can adapt. TT doesn't have long-term contracts on these - 3 years max - and they have a very small subset of what the studio has in its vaults. If Sony ever decides they want to take over the direct sale of their titles, it's just a matter of no longer licensing any new ones to TT and waiting for the previous licenses to expire. And they have plenty they can release in the meantime.

Thanks for that acknowledgement. I wish the studios paid attention to the mostly knowledgeable folks who reside on this forum. Even those who may tend to go off on tangents can still have a root idea that should be considered when vendors try to shrink their marketing footprint. Finding quality catalog titles on Blu-ray should not need to be a treasure hunt.

SAE's in-house production of their soundtrack CDs has produced fine results for their niche demand. But sole-sourcing mainstream movies like AS GOOD AS IT GETS or even older fare that was extremely popular in its day (and at very unpopular prices) just seems a slow way to kill the golden goose.

Exactly. I don't know why so many people fail to include this point.

The housing market is down too... but that doesn't mean people have decided they no longer want to live indoors does it? It just means people can't afford all the things they want right now, and are making choices and prioritizing... and some things we want go unpurchased in favor of things we need.

Companies tend to operate as if the status quo will remain forever... There is merit in that, since it reduces risk, but it also prevents them from cashing in too. There are all kinds of cliches I could quote.. but the main point is that there's no reason to assume that every business makes good decisions all the time. There's too much historical evidence of companies making bad decisions, often short-sighted decisions.

As an aside... I would like to see some sales numbers that prove catalog titles "regularly" sell less than 3000 copies.

I honestly can't find any sales figures on these kinds of titles anywhere.

We know Twilight Time's figures only because they limit to 3000, so if they have any left to order then they sold less than 3000... but that is as much an indictment of their business model as it is of the movie itself.

I would love to see sales figures of titles that are below 3000 "routinely"...

I have seen sales figures on some pretty bad movies selling 20-30,000 titles in a single week on some sales charts... so I am conjecturing a bit, but find it hard to believe any movie would sell less than that on the traditional retain chain if some really bad movies are pulling that in a single week.

When you say 20-30,000 copies in a single week for some bad movie - you MUST be talking a new release (i.e. produced this year, fresh off a theatrical run, etc.).

That really ignores the elephant in the room that Neo refers to below. The MBAs in charge of the business decisions at the large studios all believe the physical media market is never going to recover, as they call it there has been a secular change by consumers that has shifted demand from owning movies to renting/streaming. The market for physical media is shrinking and is never going to attain the halcyon revenues of the DVD era.

The large studios are simply preparing for that eventuality and don't see the need to push out catalog titles that are going to end up in the bargain bin anyway. It's the correct move in a quarterly profit-driven business, but probably a little shortsighted and accelerating the pace of the decline in the long run. But those executives are not being evaluated on long-term performance and every project is viewed through the lens of its immediate ROI.

a) how is what I write any more insulting than what I'm responding to? It's not.

b) I have seen sales figures, therefore I'm a step up from those who haven't. That's not too hard to understand. Obviously I will not be printing or even talking about those things here, I am just telling you what I've seen and that what I've seen is shocking. It would shock even those who keep going on and on about these things. You can choose to believe what I'm telling you or not, but I have been in this side of the business for many years and know all the major players.

c) the bottom line, which I and others keep reiterating in response after response because not one of the three or four that keep posting the same thing over and over again seem to want to understand and probably never will - and it's really simple to get - if the studios thought there were ANY upside to doing this themselves they would - wait for it - do it. I am here to tell you that they have all taken rather large baths on way too many titles specifically because even at bargain basement prices NO ONE is buying in sufficient numbers. There is no refuting this. There is no way around it. If the studios were making money with these catalog titles they would release these themselves. They are not. The End.

You can go on and on with every possible scenario in the world, but at the end of the day the answer is always going to be the same: They are at this point in time not interested in doing this themselves, save for some very specific titles. Will they be in the future? Doubtful, because despite the wonderful rosy-eyed figures that are always touted for Blu-ray, the ONLY Blu-rays that sell are new films, and even for those, they have to be BIG new films. The ONLY catalog titles to do unbelievably well are things like Star Wars and a handful (and I mean handful) of others, although none of the others have in any way approached Star Wars - perhaps ET and Jaws will join the rarefied company of Star Wars.

The hard facts and the hard truth - of the numbers I've seen, very few catalog titles delivered via the studios, have cracked the 1000 mark, let alone the 3000 mark. Why is it, do you think, that there are, on these very boards, so many complaints about not being able to find catalog titles released by the studios at the Targets, Best Buys, etc.? Why? Because those stores are ordering less than three copies, and never more than a dozen. Again, you can choose to believe or not believe, but that's the way it is and that's why things are the way they are.

I'm truly sorry if you find any of this insulting because it is most certainly not meant to be so. I could, I suppose, find your and others' comments to me insulting, but I kind of don't take these things on message boards personally - nor should anyone. Life is much more pleasant that way because on message boards you are basically dealing with anonymous people who think they can post and say anything they like.

Well, we certainly know he's not talking about ANY catalog title. And while it's easy for a studio to ship 30,000 copies of a bad movie new release, that does not mean they've sold. That means they've shipped and ultimately if no one is buying, then 28,000 of them can come back as returns for a full credit. Or, they end up, like catalog titles, in the five-dollar been and anything you see in the five-dollar bin is a complete loss leader for the studio - they have just LOST a lot of money.

As to the people who tout amazon as something meaningful - I don't believe they have any idea what the studios actually get when a disc is sold on amazon - it ain't pretty. And yes, I know exactly what they get because for years I amazon has sold my product and I know exactly what I get from them. And it ain't pretty, which is why I've stopped giving them my product and why I'm opening an amazon store, like SAE has - that way you only give away 5% or whatever. That's much better.

Also, to whomever said SAE puts out a lot of limited edition CDs - no, they don't. They distribute limited edition CDs just as they distribute Twilight Time's Blu-rays. They get a nice big discount from the labels who they sell, but they do sufficient volume where that's worthwhile, and their discount is NOTHING and I mean NOTHING like amazon. And yes, I know exactly how SAE works because they sell my product, too.

So... you have access to these secret sales numbers, but the rest of us must provide proof of our counter-arguments while you say you are sitting on incontrovertible proof that you will never share.

Convenient.

Very convenient.

Forgive me if I find it questionable whenever anyone says "I have proof, but I will never show it to you... you just have to trust me because I know."

Regarding the "3 copies per store" thing... Do you realize how many copies that would be?

How many Target, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, etc. stores there are? Even 3 copies per store would be more than 50,000 copies I expect... and we aren't even talking about worldwide distribution for things that are released as region-free or all-region discs.

I know all movies aren't created equal... some studios have to deal with returns... but you do know that Twilight Time had to deal with returns too, right? I saw people with lost orders that had to be replaced OR damaged cases that had to be replaced.. and on top of that Twilight Time sometimes gives away extras (like those signed Fright Night copies) with orders... so it isn't like Twilight Time has eliminated the need to handle lost, damaged, return orders either.

And... even if the studios don't want to go to retail... all of the studios we are talking about already have the same overhead as Twilight Time in terms of Sony, FOX, Universal, WB, etc. ALL have their own direct-to-consumer stores online where they sell direct to customers...

ALL of these movie studios already spent the money on the transfer... and spend money every day on their infrastructure to maintain Web sites to deal directly with consumers... so the drop-in-the-bucket to press several thousand copies of a Blu-ray is nothing to them compared to what Twilight Time has to pay for those same disc pressings.

And as already noted, a LOT more people know about Sony, FOX, Universal, WB, etc. Web sites than know about Twilight Time or how to buy their releases... so there is no way those movie studios couldn't sell more copies of any given title on their own than Twilight Time can... and if Twilight Time can pay a licensing fee and still make a profit (debatable, since we don't actually know if Twilight Time IS in fact making a profit)... then the movie studio should be able to do this too, and at a lower price point to a larger consumer audience.


This is highly ironic, given your own anonymity and statement that you are posting anything you like without backing up with the supposed data you have access to...

NOT what returns are.

Your whole thing about 3 copies for every Target, Best Buy, etc. means 50,000 discs? Yeah, proving our point exactly. They have to pay to manufacture and ship ALL those discs to get the trivial amounts into each store. And then if the title sells merely a couple thousand (the sad state of catalog according to statements made by Sony, WB, etc.), guess what happens to ALL those other discs? The STORES (not a tiny fraction of individual purchasers - the STORES) return all the unsold discs and either get a refund, or just never pay anything for them because they didn't pay upfront for the discs in the first place! And then the studio has to spend further to either store or destroy all those discs!

Twilight Time having to replace a negligible amount of lost / damaged orders is not in the same ballpark. Retail titles have those negligible consumer returns as well. The stores returning unsold stock is what hurts.

And I notice you conveniently ignored the part of my and other posts that said Sony, FOX, etc. all already have their own direct-to-consumer online Web stores and instead of selling to retail could make their own and sell directly to the public... just like SAE... and with a better business model.

Sony, and the Sony retail Web site could make the same 3000 copies of a movie cheaper than Twilight Time can... and could sell them to more people.

And on a related note... One Blu-ray replication place I checked... quoted prices of ~$3.90 per disc for 2500 copies of a disc, that includes packaging as well... and ~$2.90 per disc at 10000 copies. So, if you are concerned that 10000 copies is too much, you only save $1 per disc anyway... so Sony could just take pre-orders and orders and make replication batches in groups of 2500...

I also suspect Sony could get a better deal on replication than I can. I can get those prices by walking in off the street and having money and a master to replicate without giving the replicator any other business... I'm sure Sony gives enough business to a replication place that they can get some better "one-off" rates than I can or Twilight Time can.

IF your whole argument is the Twilight Time model is better than retail... then why would you argue that Sony's own Web site model wouldn't be better than Twilight Time's? Sony has everything Twilight Time has (w/ SAE) plus Sony has deeper pockets, more presence on the Web, etc.

I did not ignore that Sony / studios in general could do this online direct-order model cheaper than TT if they chose to (though they choose not to at this time presumably because they're feeling risk-averse). I've said that multiple times over the past two pages, I'm sorry if you chose to ignore all MY posts. In the quoted post, I was discussing the portions of your post that were misguided in regards to retail sales.

Of course your posts are being ignored, just as mine are. And that will continue to be the way it is.

There is no irony in my post about anonymity because it's really not hard to figure out who I am - in fact, it's no secret at all. Whereas...

It wouldn't even matter if I could post the proof, because they would then discredit it or ignore it - however, anyone who knows anything will know that some things are not "on the record" - however, those who have been in this business see the figures. He can dodge that fact all he likes and will.

Yes, of course Sony and Fox could do the limited edition thing themselves on their own sites. However, as of this point in time, they are not. Hence, licensing to Twilight Time for that model. Whether that will change is anyone's guess. It's too bad Olive doesn't post its sales figures for their Paramount Blu-rays - released through normal distribution channels. That would be an eye-opener for some, I should think.

A typical post and one which proves every point in the post too which you were responding. Again, I refer you to its most pertinent point, point c:


c) the bottom line, which I and others keep reiterating in response after response because not one of the three or four that keep posting the same thing over and over again seem to want to understand and probably never will - and it's really simple to get - if the studios thought there were ANY upside to doing this themselves they would - wait for it - do it. I am here to tell you that they have all taken rather large baths on way too many titles specifically because even at bargain basement prices NO ONE is buying in sufficient numbers. There is no refuting this. There is no way around it. If the studios were making money with these catalog titles they would release these themselves. They are not. The End.

There is no response you can make to this point because this point is so clearly in your face true. All else is meaningless. The bottom line is the bottom line. Given that, it's more than a little curious why you and the other two or three keep posting various scenarios that a) are not happening, b) have no bearing on reality, studio-wise, and c) refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that THIS is the path that two studios have chosen for the time being.

Acknowledge those simple truths and the discussion is over.

Or not, as we know it will not be.

About 800 Best Buy stores, about 1200 Target, about 1500 Walmart that might take a catalog title. 3500 locations @ 3 per store is 10,500 units shipped. Returns on deep catalog average around 70%. You do realize that the studios PAY to be on those shelves. 3 units per Walmart will cost the studio $2250 per week to service 1500 stores. Per week. And that's for regular rack placement. Want it on an endcap or New Release rack? Double that number. Similar terms for Target. Best Buy more flexible, but any placement other than regular rack costs the studio a rebate to BB per unit sold.

All of this assumes the store buyers want to bring the title in. They have limited space and will dedicate it to faster moving titles. And they have 100% return privileges. And the studio pays shipping...both ways. And waits 120 days for payment. And all those charges above are deducted from payment.

Thank you for posting this, yet more information that will be ignored or pointlessly argued with. It's even more amazing than studios licensing their titles out

I don't see any point in trying to counter arguments that begin and end with "I have proof of the truth but I will never post it so why aren't you blindly accepting what I say."

If there is proof, post it, and I wouldn't mind eating some (or all) of my words.

However... it bears repeating that not ALL studios are foregoing release of catalog titles. A lot of catalog titles are being released by the major studios. So painting them with a "catalog titles don't sell because of proof I can't/won't post" brush doesn't even make sense.

WB is even doing a press-on-demand model... so I'm guessing WB must think it is worthwhile to release these catalog titles themselves. So much for "all studios know it isn't worth it so none of them release catalog" statements.

I haven't actually seen any statements presented as "fact" backed up up with any actual facts. At least all my posts have been clearly labeled as questioning the "facts" and conjecture/speculation on my part as to why the major studios can't do this instead of farming it out.

First of all, thank you... for not just saying "I know a secret but I won't tell you"... Thank you for actually posting something to backup your position.

Given those figures, and I'll take you at your word for the moment because while I know it does cost something I don't know what it costs... I see how stocking small quantities doesn't work well at the retail level. Retail stores themselves have the same issues and that is why stores like Best Buy and Wal-Mart and Target have lots more things available for order on their Web site than they carry in the actual store.

So... how does the cost to the studio compare for a title that would be stocked by Best Buy, Target, and Wal-Mart for online sales only compare? What I mean by that is... I assume it surely costs the studio less for those retail outlets to carry an item on their Web site rather than in stores and on shelves, right? That would be one option to have greater "retail" presence but not actually in retail stores.

Of course the second thought is still... IF it proves too costly to sell low production runs in 3rd party stores... ALL of the major studios already staff their own direct-to-consumer stores and already handle the costs of inventory and stuff... so the only delta cost to Sony or FOX or whomever to sell their movies at their own Web site would be the replication costs + some one-time fee to update the fulfillment system with the new SKUs.

Exactly.

My issue is mainly with the model, not the price. It shouldn't, be an Easter egg hunt for titles that were successful theatrical releases and/or have a remake coming out at the same time. These should be "fish in a barrel" type releases that should sell either on nostalgia or by hyper over the new movie.

While limited appeal releases like Demetrius and the Gladiators might be tailor made for a limited run outfit like TT, I worry that this will become a trend where everything gets pawned off on these companies and it becomes overly expensive and onerous to buy anything at all. This will surely kill the market for buying physical media more completely than any future means of watching media could ever do.

Having said that, $25 on amazon including shipping is one thing, $30-$35 plus shipping is another. Like many people, I'm going to pass on the physical disc at that price. I have other expenses, as do many, so I can't lay out that much for one title if it's not a must have movie. I'd love to have Bell, Book and Candle, but not at $35 plus shipping. There are plenty of movies I want to own, and I can't justify that kind of expense with one title. I'm not saying it has to be $10, but $22 to $25 is more than fair if it's not an extra-filled box set. I only pay more than $30 for goo-gaa filled box sets featuring extensive restoration work like that of the Sound of Music collectors edition.

Finally, though, I don't blame TT on this. While they could certainly do a better job of promoting themselves - namely getting a proper website presence that actually reflects their name - they're merely doing what seems to work business-wise for them.

I lay the blame on Sony, who seems to wash their hands of the whole thing once TT takes over. I say they have a responsibility to promote these titles as their own property, not because they'll make more money (under this model they won't), but in order to make the whole operation viable and customer friendly and ensure they can continue to sell titles this way.

Sony needs to use their reach to get these guys a better presence on Amazon than they have now and make sure the Sony site promotes and directs customers to these titles. Finally, they have to stop treating mainstream titles like throwaways that they charge collector prices for.

Until that happens, this is a terrible way to do things.

The TT type model has been around for a long time for recorded music. Mosaic Records has been licensing recordings and selling direct to the public limited releases of jazz for almost 30 years. Their product sells at a premium price and there is no discounting, just like TT. The fact that this has worked since 1983 indicates to me that this is a successful way to sell material which is of limited interest to a specific audience.

If that's all it were, then that would be fine. It's a way of getting stuff into the hands of collectors that might not normally be released. I thank goodness there are plenty of small outfits offering stuff with very limited appeal so guys like me can get those obscure titles I might not normally ever get a chance to own.

The problem is, the studios are starting to see this model as a replacement for releasing any catalog titles themselves.

Bell Book and Candle is not a rare movie. As Good As it Gets is not a rare movie. Even Fright Night is not a rare movie.

The problem is, this model is overly expensive and inconvenient for the consumer who can't afford to build a library and can't find the titles in a single, easy to browse location. The price structure and availability does nothing to serve the consumer who isn't afraid to seek other means of viewing content anymore. Customers will abandon the big business in a heartbeat if they think of them as "greedy bastards". Right now, the market isn't there for high priced media when you can get so much more than that with a monthly provider of all sorts of internet goodness.

In a sense, the studios are doing to catalog releases what they are trying to do with streaming: they're putting stuff into niche services rather than embracing larger partners that already exist with a huge market share. In a sense, the studios are de-Amazoning physical media the way they intend to de-Netflix streaming.

They're undercutting the largest markets with the greatest reach in order to save pennies per unit, which may cost them dollars in the long run when people simply don't buy.

"Even Fright Night"???

Virtually any film from the late '50s is going to be a tough sell on Blu-Ray. I couldn't possibly imagine Bell Book and Candle doing well at retail at all. And in this day and age, I'd argue far more people know what "Fright Night" is than "Bell Book & Candle".


Once again, TT titles aren't being aimed at Walmart consumers used to routinely spending $5-$10 on catalog dump bin titles. They're not being sold for mainstream consumers in the first place! (This has been said over and over). They're being aimed at the hard-core HD loving fan of a particular film who wants to see it in the best possible quality and doesn't mind spending $30 to do so. They're only pressing 3000 copies of these titles, they don't need to engage the Walmart/Target crowd to make the model successful. And how this is so different than the $20 DVD-R model that all the studios have used for several years now is something you and any other contrarian here has totally ignored when the subject comes up. The pricing is commensurate....and believe it or not, people buy the $20 DVD-Rs or else they wouldn't be making them!

The simple fact that you also bring up this "single, easy to browse location" where the discs should be bought says it all. Like HDMe2 you seem to have the same tunnelvision that most people buy discs these days at a retail location. It's 2012. People buy discs -- and especially of catalog content -- online. They even search for these titles (as stunned as HDMe2 was to this alien concept), and buy them, on Amazon. I think the days of people going into a store hoping to find anything OTHER than "Avatar" and similar new-release titles are pretty much over myself. What you expect and what the reality is for physical media are two different things. Or, don't mind me, simply go and read this article from Deadlinehollywood which notes many studios have been devalued at half their worth since 2007 primarily because the home video market has bottomed out:

http://www.deadline.com/2012/04/netf...rofits-report/

That's a fact. As it says, DVD sales are dropping faster than Blu-Ray sales (of all content, not just catalog) are growing. Continuing to feed retail chains with cheap product (at a loss) as they have all tried to do over the last few years hasn't turned things around either...so now you are seeing the result, which are catalog titles that most mainstream consumers aren't going to be interested in at ANY price, moving to a limited-edition or manufactured-on-demand model. Again, I don't understand why you continuously argue against this well-known fact that most people all understand.


And yet, as the decline of the home video industry shows, people haven't been buying catalog content no matter what the price is.

They're "undercutting the largest markets" because they're losing money going that route with catalog product that doesn't sell. You guys may never believe it until the books are opened to your perusal, but the writing is on the wall. You can keep going around in circles trying to ignore it or arguing it, but it's not going to change -- yes, it sucks you will have to pay more to get catalog content, but them's the breaks, and that's the reality of the marketplace in 2012.

You're absolutely correct - there is no point. It wouldn't matter what I posted. As I have said in every single post, you can choose to believe what you wish and you will. I'm not the only one taking the position I am - there are a few other very knowledgable posters here posting the same information over and over. Read their posts and skip mine, because you're still going to get the same exact information that I'm posting. The discussion goes in circles because no one wants to understand what is really happening. And that's fine, I suppose. Because in the end you will surely know because it will be impossible not to know. Twilight Time is doing this right. I believe that they are doing it so right that others will look at the model and eventually copy it. That is what happened in the soundtrack limited edition market.

I'm happy to get it back on track. They have some absolutely amazing stuff coming, especially from Sony. Makes my mouth water to think about it.



I'm really looking forward to The Big Heat and Bell, Book, and Candle. Grover Crisp, who does the transfers at Sony is the only person I completely trust in transferville. I DID completely trust Ron Smith at Paramount, but he's no longer there, which is a crying shame. But Grover is the real deal and I think we can always count on a stellar transfer from Sony.