Warner Brothers Archive Collection Blu-rays

[Graham]

Thanks. I thought I read that somewhere. Why can't they do the same with the DVDs?

[warren oates]

From the Warner Archive's POV it's more like: Dang, why can't we m.o.d. cheaper crappier Blu-rays that we then -- this has always been a key point -- won't have to inventory anywhere. As much as studios are trying to force everyone to transition away from physical media, the on-demand fantasy has equally to do with obscure U.S. tax laws for writing off unsold inventory from decades old Supreme Court precedents that at first chiefly impacted things like remaindered books. (See: Thor Power Tool Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1979)

[captveg]

Thanks. I thought I read that somewhere. Why can't they do the same with the DVDs?

Several key players cannot player BD-Rs when a disc has AACS copy protection (notably the PS3, PS4 and XBOX1, but also many set top blu-ray players).

[fdm]

Presumably also early on BD-Rs didn't have much in the way of longevity. Perhaps that situation hasn't changed much.

[captveg]

BD-Rs don't have the pressed disc's hard coating, which makes them extremely sensitive to damage via scratches, even moreso than DVD-Rs because the data is recorded closer to the disc surface by comparison.

[criterion10]

I'm very glad to see Performance receiving a Blu-Ray upgrade, though at the same time, I'm rather disappointed that Criterion didn't go after it, especially considering their relationship with Nicolas Roeg. (For argument's sake, assuming that Criterion didn't go after it, what this occurrence would demonstrate is WB's ongoing reluctance to license out their titles.)

[MichaelB]

I know for a fact that WB isn't prepared to sub-license Performance in the UK, so it's a very safe bet that the same is true for the US.

[hearthesilence]

I didn't realize BD-R's were that susceptible to damage. The difficulty of damaging a regular BD gave me the impression that BD-R's were more resilient to DVD-R's - had no idea it all had to do with that coating. Since it's applied to the "playing" surface, I guess it would be difficult to add it to BD-R's as well, since any burning they do would presumably focus a laser through that surface.

[jindianajonz]

The reason BDs are so resilient is because before the coating, they were extremely susceptible to damage due to the fact that thier data lies closer to the surface of the disc, so Sony put a lot of money and effort towards developing a protective layer.

[cdnchris]

That was a huge issue with HD DVD: the slightest blemish would turn the disc into a coaster. Getting anything from Netflix later in the game, close to the format's demise, was a gamble at best as to whether the disc would play or not.

[hearthesilence]

How bad of a scratch would you need to make a BD-R skip? I don't want to be THIS guy every time I pull something off the shelf.

[fdm]

See, my interpretation of early BD-R longevity issues, was more gleaned from amazon reports (when I was in the market for some). I ass-umed that the longevity had more to do with the dyes (or whatever they use) being more prone to failure, my recollection being within several months or a year. I suppose it could have been wear and tear but don't recall anything like that being mentioned at the time.

(I've from time to time with regular BDs had an issue or two -- one with a teeny pit on the playing side (had to replace the disc for it to play on one of my players), another with a few particles of dust (just had to remove the dust) -- each causing playback issues.)

[captveg]

Dust and fingerprints will interrupt regular BD playback, but are easily fixed by wiping the disc clean with a cloth.

There have been improvements in BD-R tech in regards to reliability and some better protection to scratches, but nowhere near the level a major studio would need to rely upon it. And small runs of BDs at replication centers is now rather common from what I understand since the market dictates that necessity.

[Cronenfly]

Would have much preferred Performance from BFI/Criterion/Arrow, but am still happy just to get the film on Blu with corrected audio. Boggles the mind that The Devils was okay'd for licensing in the UK but not this; even if it was just on DVD like The Devils, I would have loved to see the supplements the BFI would have come up with (what a perfect title for/complement to the Flipside!) Thanks for trying/inquiring MichaelB.

[criterion10]

I assume that part of the reasons WB eventually acquiesced and licensed The Devils was due to their reluctance to do anything with the film and their loathing of it. WB clearly had plans for Performance and saw the opportunity to release it on Blu-Ray through the Warner Archive; thus, they chose to handle it on their own.

[Cronenfly]

I can see that line of reasoning being the case (given Warner's overall pigheaded approach to licensing), but I remained hopeful that, after Badlands and The Devils, there was a more fundamental shift in thinking underway over there. I find it hard to believe Warner would not do better with a title as high-profile (within a certain niche of the buying public) as this one by handing over the reins to a more motivated third party, rather than relegate it to the Archive. Blu is nice, coming from any source, but this title deserves much more than a half-hour featurette and a five-minute on-set piece.

[Lowry_Sam]

For over a decade I've been surprised that no directors (particularly Ken Russell) have sued Warner Brothers for sitting on their films. Perhaps the Warner Archives DVD-R thing allows them to circumvent any legal claim (ie. "we offered it, but no one bought it"). Anyone privvy to how the William Friedkin/Sorceror suit traspired?

Given that Congress & the FCC have allowed monopolies to control broadband in the US, I don't see manufactured discs being eaten up by streaming any time soon.

[Max von Mayerling]

I'm not sure what basis a director would have for bringing such a suit. It's probably pretty unusual (to put it lightly) for a director's contract to include a right to insist that the studio distribute the film on home video. Note that the Friedkin suit was not about that - he was seeking a declaration regarding who had what rights with respect to Sorcerer. Nothing about that implies he had any right to insist that the rights holder (whoever that turned out to be) put the film out on dvd. The absence of such rights is likely the reason no directors have brought such suits.

[Lowry_Sam]

It's true there might not be a precedent, I would have thought someone would have found an exceptional & creative lawyer to make the case that a studio's sitting on a property (or even a stronger case for multiple properties by a single director), would constitute withholding profits in order to make the case that the studio has to penny up or the rights revert back to the director (ie. for Ken Russell & The Devils). It's not just an issue of a contract between director & studio and a fight over money, there's also the issue that corporations have been able to push the definition of copyright well beyond what the creation of copyright law was originally intended to do.

[whaleallright]

But if the director didn't have "points" on the film to begin with, and just took a salary, then withholding the film from home video doesn't cost her anything—except perhaps a reduced legacy.

[Max von Mayerling]

Ok, I'm not going to belabor this, and I'll concede that I don't know all that much about this area of the law, but I am fairly confident that when it comes to the copyrights held with respect to motion pictures under US law, it generally is, in fact, just an issue of contracts. Look up "work for hire" on the internet.

[captveg]

Amazon.com is listing Performance with a 3/25 date now, so it should be available to order from warnerarchive.com Tuesday.

[ThorC1138]

I just want to warn everyone, the Performance Blu Ray from Warner Archive appears to be using the dubbed vocal track for Johnny Shannon's character Harry Flowers, it is not the same one as the US DVD release.

Warner Archive is denying this is the case, saying on their Facebook page that it is the same audio as the DVD in a reply to my questioning this, but that is clearly not correct. Check the 15:00 minute mark, and 21:00 minute mark on the blue ray vs the DVD, and it's obvious that it's two different recordings.

Maybe they will believe me after a few more reviewers bring this up...

[PfR73]

Warner Archive has posted an updated reply that they are investigating.

[Ashirg]

Blu-rays for The Wind and the Lion (1975) and Hit the Deck (1955) are up for pre-order at Amazon, but no release dates are set yet.