Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Warner Archives Discussion


Recommended Posts

ARCHIVE RELEASES 4/5

 

STARRING ROBERT MONTGOMERY

 

YELLOW JACK

HAUNTED HONEYMOON

PICADILLY JIM

FIRST 100 YEARS

 

-------------------------------------------

 

BULLDOG DRUMMOND DOUBLE FEATURE...Ronald Coleman/Walter Pidgeon

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

ARCHIVE RELEASES 4/5

 

STARRING ROBERT MONTGOMERY

 

YELLOW JACK

HAUNTED HONEYMOON

PICADILLY JIM

FIRST 100 YEARS

 

-------------------------------------------

 

BULLDOG DRUMMOND DOUBLE FEATURE...Ronald Coleman/Walter Pidgeon

Let's be honest here. These are not classic films that are on the top of those "please release to DVD" lists where people vote. Nobody has ever asked Warners to release YELLOW JACK, unless they were severely intoxicated and did not know what they were saying.

 

These films are being put on home video because they are part of what was dumped into Warners' lap thanks to Turner's acquisition of the MGM/UA library in 1986. And even he didn't want to see these films. He bought the library for CITIZEN KANE and GONE WITH THE WIND and THE WIZARD OF OZ...not for YELLOW JACK, HAUNTED HONEYMOON, PICADILLY JIM and THE FIRST HUNDRED YEARS.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's nice to have all these films more readily available-- but nobody really wanted these particular titles. And again, if they did, it's because they were drinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be honest here. These are not classic films that are on the top of those "please release to DVD" lists where people vote. Nobody has ever asked Warners to release YELLOW JACK, unless they were severely intoxicated and did not know what they were saying.

 

These films are being put on home video because they are part of what was dumped into Warners' lap thanks to Turner's acquisition of the MGM/UA library in 1986. And even he didn't want to see these films. He bought the library for CITIZEN KANE and GONE WITH THE WIND and THE WIZARD OF OZ...not for YELLOW JACK, HAUNTED HONEYMOON, PICADILLY JIM and THE FIRST HUNDRED YEARS.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's nice to have all these films more readily available-- but nobody really wanted these particular titles. And again, if they did, it's because they were drinking.

I would guess someone who is a Montgomery fan.  There are also fanatics who have to have everything.  I am interested in the BULLDOG DRUMMOND double feature.  The Coleman version is fantastic and lots of fun.  Never saw the Pidgeon version..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess someone who is a Montgomery fan.  There are also fanatics who have to have everything.  I am interested in the BULLDOG DRUMMOND double feature.  The Coleman version is fantastic and lots of fun.  Never saw the Pidgeon version..

The Pidgeon version plays on TCM.

 

Let's discuss something like YELLOW JACK for a minute. I don't hate the film, but it's really not a great film and not one people associate with Robert Montgomery (they usually think Norma Shearer collaborations and THEY WERE EXPENDABLE and maybe LADY IN THE LAKE). 

 

But okay, YELLOW JACK. It is now available. How much money can the Warner Archives possibly make off this film that nobody really wants. Maybe $10,000 if they are lucky, right? And you factor in the material costs and advertising and labor-- are they really going to make much on this title? You said the Montgomery completists might be seeking it, but go stand on a street corner and see if you can find any Robert Montgomery completists in mid-2016. You could probably find a needle in a haystack more easily.

 

Of course, I am being facetious here-- but my point is that there are titles that are much more in demand than YELLOW JACK or the other three titles in your earlier post. And going back to Ted Turner for a minute, do you think he's even watched these films? He probably never heard of them. He got them in a package deal with the films he really wanted, and he didn't spend money restoring these four films. They meant nothing to him. It's like going to a garage sale, buying a box of stuff because there is maybe one or two things in it you want, and the rest is junk. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4/12 RELEASESSEVENTH SIN, Eleanor Parker, Bill TraversSUSPICION, Cary Grant, Joan Fontaine -- FIRST TIME IN BLU RAY4/19 RELEASEFORBIDDEN HOLLYWOOD VOL 10

THE SEVENTH SIN is a decent version of the Somerset Magham tale, filmed earlier with Greta Garbo, and a few years ago with Naomi Watts, both under the original title, THE PAINTED VEIL. Glad to see it's coming out. And with the release of VALLEY OF THE KINGS, that makes two new releases with one of my favorites, Eleanor Parker.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Hey, when the Warner Archives first went up,.I remember reading that among the releases would be some of the classic tv shows.the studio produced, like Hawaiian Eye and 77 Sunset Strip. Does anyone know what happened.with these?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

"Don't get me wrong, it's nice to have all these films more readily available-- but nobody really wanted these particular titles. And again, if they did, it's because they were drinking."

 

I'm a teetotaler and I'm absolutely thrilled by the Robert Montgomery releases.  I've been waiting for some of them for a long time -- and to have the full-length UK version of HAUNTED HONEYMOON?  Even better.

 

Montgomery has many fans in classic film fan circles, and the folks at the Warner Archive have told me that past sales success is one factor which informs future release decisions.  I infer from that that Montgomery's films have probably sold well in the past and they expect this latest round to do likewise.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Don't get me wrong, it's nice to have all these films more readily available-- but nobody really wanted these particular titles. And again, if they did, it's because they were drinking."

 

I'm a teetotaler and I'm absolutely thrilled by the Robert Montgomery releases.  I've been waiting for some of them for a long time -- and to have the full-length UK version of HAUNTED HONEYMOON?  Even better.

 

Montgomery has many fans in classic film fan circles, and the folks at the Warner Archive have told me that past sales success is one factor which informs future release decisions.  I infer from that that Montgomery's films have probably sold well in the past and they expect this latest round to do likewise.

I'm glad you're a Robert Montgomery fan. In a way, so am I (even if my earlier post seemed to the contrary). But I think what they're doing is just going through everything Ted Turner acquired and making it all available. It's not because an actor's films are necessarily selling well-- it's so that they can make a few dollars on everything they own. And I am sure that they probably are not making more than ten grand on some of these. If it was a Humphrey Bogart or Cary Grant title, it would sell more-- and that's why those films in the TCM/Turner library were released earlier. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"But I think what they're doing is just going through everything Ted Turner acquired and making it all available."

 

Well, that's absolutely true, and it was the Archive's stated goal when it debuted in 2009.  For instance, you will find relevant quotes on that topic in my initial blog post on the Archive way back when: http://laurasmiscmusings.blogspot.com/2009/03/warner-dvd-archive.html  George Feltenstein said " Our goal is to eventually open up our entire vault." 

 

Isn't that what we all want, access to whatever title we'd like to see?  Especially as everyone's taste and favorites varies?

 

That said, though the goal is for everything eventually to be available, I'm told by Archive employees that the order of the releases are also guided, in part, by past sales popularity -- which of course helps keep the Archive viable to reach that long-term goal.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"But I think what they're doing is just going through everything Ted Turner acquired and making it all available."

 

Well, that's absolutely true, and it was the Archive's stated goal when it debuted in 2009.  For instance, you will find relevant quotes on that topic in my initial blog post on the Archive way back when: http://laurasmiscmusings.blogspot.com/2009/03/warner-dvd-archive.html  George Feltenstein said " Our goal is to eventually open up our entire vault." 

 

Isn't that what we all want, access to whatever title we'd like to see?  Especially as everyone's taste and favorites varies?

 

That said, though the goal is for everything eventually to be available, I'm told by Archive employees that the order of the releases are also guided, in part, by past sales popularity -- which of course helps keep the Archive viable to reach that long-term goal.

I am all for every title being made available. But I also enjoy looking at the idea that this is like going through a box of stuff Ted Turner bought at a yard sale. Ted wasn't interested in a lot of the stuff on the bottom of the box. He wanted GONE WITH THE WIND, THE WIZARD OF OZ and CITIZEN KANE. And those are probably the top sellers. I also don't see the value in congratulating anyone on a business model built around discs. That is kind of outdated to some extent now-- more and more people want to purchase files of films online instead of discs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although streaming is increasingly popular, many collectors, myself included, still prefer ownership of hard discs.  The Archive is not going to rake in the same money as hugely popular titles, but isn't it great that there is a financially viable model which can make so many people happy?  How terrific it is that we're not limited to owning only the "big name" movies and that the Archive found a way to make this work.  Many people, myself included, are thrilled to finally own the movies that would have never come out on regular retail DVDs.  I'm not sure why there's not "value" in that and they shouldn't be "congratulated"?

 

I don't get the seeming negativity.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Although streaming is increasingly popular, many collectors, myself included, still prefer ownership of hard discs.  The Archive is not going to rake in the same money as hugely popular titles, but isn't it great that there is a financially viable model which can make so many people happy?  How terrific it is that we're not limited to owning only the "big name" movies and that the Archive found a way to make this work.  Many people, myself included, are thrilled to finally own the movies that would have never come out on regular retail DVDs.  I'm not sure why there's not "value" in that and they shouldn't be "congratulated"?

 

I don't get the seeming negativity.

I just don't see it the way you do, and that's fine. Part of the problem I have with the Archive is that they took too long to get to the titles at the bottom of Ted's box (titles that have less demand), and the technology has moved away from them.

 

Overstating the importance of discs seems silly. People can collect movies by buying the titles electronically instead of as discs-- so collectors will go right on collecting. But the Archive itself and its business model has become somewhat outdated. And I am not even getting to the point about how many consumers are deceased now that could have purchased discs of Robert Montgomery films years ago. 2016 is kind of late in the game to be getting to some of this.

 

I think they're just trying to squeeze the last few drops out of a dying business model. Sugar-coating is not going to help, and besides TCM's business departments can handle the constructive criticism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, the technology did not exist years ago to put out these "lower end" movies.  They were able to start doing it seven years ago, and they couldn't flood the market with hundreds of titles at once for myriad reasons, technological and financial.

 

I have been told by folks at WB that while streaming and downloading is growing in popularity, especially on "the coasts," the continued popularity of DVDs is much stronger than many people assume.  Eventually that may change, but they aren't seeing a negative impact on the DVD market now, again in large part because collectors aren't so interested in downloading or renting to stream.  I don't think the Archive would exist if it didn't make financial sense, as WB isn't a charity.  And if they are making money in the last years of this business model...well, so what?

 

And for those who prefer to stream movies, the Archive also has Warner Archive Instant.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you'll allow me to butt in to this discussion for a moment, after reading your previous posts, I was curious what the markets were like for DVD/Blu Ray vs digital DL/streaming. I've read for the last several years about how the former is shrinking while the latter explodes in growth. My research backs that info up, but with the caveat that the shrinking/exploding has leveled off a bit in the last couple of years.

 

The market for physical DVD's and Blu Rays is still a multi-billion dollar industry, and there are no plans on discontinuing either format in the foreseeable future. As Laura pointed out, many film collectors much prefer the physical items for their shelves. There's a certain (perhaps irrational) feeling to having a physical copy that a digital copy can't give the owner. A lot of people don't have that need (mainly the under-40 crowd and the casual movie viewer), but a lot of older fans and serious collectors and movie buffs like having the discs (maybe it's part of why they're collectors to begin with).

 

Now obviously, TopBilled, I'm not calling you a casual viewer or someone who isn't a serious movie buff! There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. But you don't have a problem having a digital library and/or streaming as a primary source for movie watching, which means you are more in tune with the ultimate way things are headed in the future. But until that day, there is still a very large market for physical copies to us older stick-in-the-muds who prefer to hold the items in our hands. And as long as it's profitable, they'll keep doing it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

However, the technology did not exist years ago to put out these "lower end" movies.  They were able to start doing it seven years ago, and they couldn't flood the market with hundreds of titles at once for myriad reasons, technological and financial.

 

I have been told by folks at WB that while streaming and downloading is growing in popularity, especially on "the coasts," the continued popularity of DVDs is much stronger than many people assume.  Eventually that may change, but they aren't seeing a negative impact on the DVD market now, again in large part because collectors aren't so interested in downloading or renting to stream.  I don't think the Archive would exist if it didn't make financial sense, as WB isn't a charity.  And if they are making money in the last years of this business model...well, so what?

 

And for those who prefer to stream movies, the Archive also has Warner Archive Instant.  

From my understanding, the Warner Archive Instant is where the consumer pays a monthly fee to look at the titles that are already in a queue that was set up by the Archive. The consumer is limited by what someone else thinks they want to see. Also, I believe that the consumer can only watch the titles-- the films cannot be purchased, stored online and rewatched later (streaming). 

 

On Amazon Prime, consumers have both options-- to just watch queued up titles that are already available; and also to purchase them and own them forever (which is what a collector would do). 

 

The reason the Warner Archive Instant site does not allow purchasing of titles is because they know that will cut into their already wobbly DVD business, and also it would stop people from looking at the same titles on Watch TCM or on-demand with cable carriers.

 

But people who just want to stream are going to bypass anything that has to do with discs. And people who want to make their own choices, in a more unlimited way, are not going to use the Archive Instant site. I feel this is where TCM is not really keeping up. It continues to rely on the older models, to squeeze as much out of them, until it is forced to revamp.

 

And the Shop TCM page on this website is a perfect example of where they're behind the times. In addition to selling discs and books, they should also have a place for people to make streaming purchases. I can't believe they haven't even started to do that yet. Watch TCM should be a component under Shop TCM, where people pay for titles they want to stream, independent of what is being broadcast on TCM during a given month.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you'll allow me to butt in to this discussion for a moment, after reading your previous posts, I was curious what the markets were like for DVD/Blu Ray vs digital DL/streaming. I've read for the last several years about how the former is shrinking while the latter explodes in growth. My research backs that info up, but with the caveat that the shrinking/exploding has leveled off a bit in the last couple of years.

 

The market for physical DVD's and Blu Rays is still a multi-billion dollar industry, and there are no plans on discontinuing either format in the foreseeable future. As Laura pointed out, many film collectors much prefer the physical items for their shelves. There's a certain (perhaps irrational) feeling to having a physical copy that a digital copy can't give the owner. A lot of people don't have that need (mainly the under-40 crowd and the casual movie viewer), but a lot of older fans and serious collectors and movie buffs like having the discs (maybe it's part of why they're collectors to begin with).

 

Now obviously, TopBilled, I'm not calling you a casual viewer or someone who isn't a serious movie buff! There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. But you don't have a problem having a digital library and/or streaming as a primary source for movie watching, which means you are more in tune with the ultimate way things are headed in the future. But until that day, there is still a very large market for physical copies to us older stick-in-the-muds who prefer to hold the items in our hands. And as long as it's profitable, they'll keep doing it.

Yeah-- the reason I don't have a problem with a digital library and streaming as a primary source, is because it helps me be more mobile. I can move from city to city and not have to box up discs and ship them. And I don't have to buy things like DVD players anymore. Nor do I have to worry about discs getting damaged because of temperatures or moisture or scratches from human handling. 

 

I really don't think it has to do with age or the generation of a consumer. In theory any 85 year-old can adapt to streaming and prefer it. It's easy to use.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be surprised if this indicates they are going to do a Child Stars theme on TCM in September to promote these releases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...