Warner Archive upcoming Blu-ray release announcements from Comic Con (1 Viewer)

[Ronald Epstein]

The Green Slime (1968), The Hidden (1987), and Innocent Blood (1992).

 

[Robert Crawford]

I will be upgrading my DVD for The HIdden.

 

[dvdclon]

I will be upgrading my DVD for The HIdden.

Me too, but I'll have to keep my DVD since it also has The Hidden II on it.

 

[Richard V]

Will be picking up The Hidden, and ESPECIALLY Innocent Blood!!! Excellent news, been waiting for this little gem for a long time.

 

[TheSteig]

all three will be mine ..

 

[skylark68]

The Green Slime! Awesome. I haven't seen that one in years.

 

[Dick]

The Green Slime! Awesome. I haven't seen that one in years.

Much as I think this is a terrible movie, it qualifies as a so-bad-it's-good, unintentional comedy, and will probably buy it. I've always felt regret that, when I saw this in White Plains, I chose it over FAHRENHEIT 451. What was I thinking?

 

[Konstantinos]

I don't understand what's happening with Warner.
They JUST released a WAC DVD of They Died with their boots on (along with other Error Flynn films), when there is already a beautiful HD version.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

That really sucks.....

 

[battlebeast]

I don't understand what's happening with Warner.
They JUST released a WAC DVD of They Died with their boots on (along with other Error Flynn films), when there is already a beautiful HD version.

So what about it? Is it being cancelled?

 

[ahollis]

I was really disappointed with their announcements. I thought there would be several more titles announced. Four titles is just a months worth.

 

[battlebeast]

I'm disappointed about WA lately... a ton of obscure movies when there are plenty of fantastic films that could be released on blu ray. Not that I'm against Obscure, but so many...

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I'm disappointed about WA lately... a ton of obscure movies when there are plenty of fantastic films that could be released on blu ray. Not that I'm against Obscure, but so many...

Warren,

I understand that opinion and to a great extent agree with it.

However, two things that are good to keep in mind:

1. You don't want to blow out all your big titles at once. I always tell the story of speaking to a Paramount executive a few years back who told me that the studio always paces itself over a vast amount of years so they don't run out of their finest titles all at once.

2. Releasing obscure titles is important. Some of these titles would never have seen the light of day if Warner didn't go deeper into their catalog and pull them out.

A recent example is Shout Factory. They released "The Gong Show Movie" on Blu-ray last year. Now, for all intents and purposes, that is a shit movie. It should never see the light of day. But know what? I love The Gong Show, and for me, that release was something that made me VERY happy. Who would have thought, with all the great Universal titles still to be released, that someone would reach that far down into the bowels and pull that title out for release? Certainly, it helped defeat bootlegging as that was a title that was being bootlegged quite a bit.

Sorry for the long reply, but this is usually the example I give when people ask "Why this movie when there is so much better out there?" Quite frankly, I would hate this format if all we got were the most popular releases and someone's personal treasure (that is most other people's trash) did not see the light of day.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Another thing to add to Ron's excellent post:

Warner Archive is on a limited budget, and the studio has an internal policy not to put out any BDs that look less than perfect. Keep in mind one of the key factors in what condition an older film is in is how popular it was. The most popular titles can cost more to fix up for BD release because they've gotten so much wear and tear over the years. Meanwhile, a less popular title might be in physically better condition because of that, and therefore easier and cheaper to bring to disc in Warner's required pristine level of quality. So they could spend an entire year's budget on one popular title, or spend small amounts on more titles and give us about 48 different titles a year. I think that's a big factor in what gets picked for release too.

If your favorite titles are with another studio, you may get them sooner, in quality ranging from poor to acceptable to outstanding. If it's from Warner, you'll wait longer but the results are almost always worth the wait.

 

[John Hermes]

Warren,

I understand that opinion and to a great extent agree with it.
However, two things that are good to keep in mind:
1. You don't want to blow out all your big titles at once. I always tell the story of speaking to a Paramount executive a few years back who told me that the studio always paces itself over a vast amount of years so they don't run out of their finest titles all at once.

2. Releasing obscure titles is important. Some of these titles would never have seen the light of day if Warner didn't go deeper into their catalog and pull them out.

A recent example is Shout Factory. They released "The Gong Show Movie" on Blu-ray last year. Now, for all intents and purposes, that is a shit movie. It should never see the light of day. But know what? I love The Gong Show, and for me, that release was something that made me VERY happy. Who would have thought, with all the great Universal titles still to be released, that someone would reach that far down into the bowels and pull that title out for release? Certainly, it helped defeat bootlegging as that was a title that was being bootlegged quite a bit.

Sorry for the long reply, but this is usually the example I give when people ask "Why this movie when there is so much better out there?" Quite frankly, I would hate this format if all we got were the most popular releases and someone's personal treasure (that is most other people's trash) did not see the light of day.

Paramount is pacing themselves pretty well these days.

 

[Robin9]

. . . I would hate this format if all we got were the most popular releases and someone's personal treasure (that is most other people's trash) did not see the light of day.

Much of my personal treasure has not seen the light of day! I don't do lists but I could do a long one.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Paramount is pacing themselves pretty well these days.

Hahaha. Best comment of the week!

 

[Konstantinos]

Quite frankly, I would hate this format if all we got were the most popular releases and someone's personal treasure (that is most other people's trash) did not see the light of day.

I understand that, and I myself may be longing for a movie (even bad one) that noone else wants.
But, i am talking from the point of view of the company.
Won't a classic, critically acclaimed and universally known title sell more than some obscure movie that i see everyone says how bad it is?

I wonder if every company stopped releasing DVDs, if more people got into bluray.
Because it's a pity to see DVDRs of great classic films being released today, when there are HD ready versions.

 

[ScottHM]

However, two things that are good to keep in mind:

You forgot a third--there is only so much money in (most of) our home video budgets, and these lulls in "interesting" output help some of us to not go broke.

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

 

[Randy Korstick]

I understand that, and I myself may be longing for a movie (even bad one) that noone else wants.
But, i am talking from the point of view of the company.
Won't a classic, critically acclaimed and universally known title sell more than some obscure movie that i see everyone says how bad it is?

I wonder if every company stopped releasing DVDs, if more people got into bluray.
Because it's a pity to see DVDRs of great classic films being released today, when there are HD ready versions.

I think Joss answered this very well above. Basically a lot of well used classics may cost 5-6 times as much to release as some of the less worn obscure movies. When you add in declining disc sales that means many of these classics may make less money than the obscure ones just because of the higher cost of restoring and re-mastering them. Also keep in mind that highly compressed 1080i streaming does not equal blu ray ready uncompressed 1080p. So streaming masters do not mean they have something acceptable for blu ray. I see this a lot on horror boards with people requesting hammer and other horror films that warner has available for streaming. They assume this means its ready for a blu release.