Warner and Universal merging?

[Antoine Doinel]

If all goes according to plan.

The evils of conglomerates aside, this could have a dire effect on classic films on DVD and more importantly BluRay. Universal has never been the best classic DVD house and if everyone merges under one happy umbrella, the worsening economy and cost cutting measures will pretty ensure that classic film rollouts slow to a crawl.

[domino harvey]

I'd say Warner Bros is the best studio (maybe tied with Fox) in getting out classic films packaged with the supplements they deserve. Anything that rescues films from Universal's "Hey here's a barebones DVD" system of release is a good move.

[miless]

or maybe it would be good because WB are the best major to put out DVD's. With WB in control of Universal's catalog, they could release some really nice editions.

[Antoine Doinel]

Right, but with studios folding their specialty divisions like it's going out of style (Paramount just killed/absorbed Paramount Vantage today) I think will look better for their collective shareholders to invest in things that will make for easy turnaround (ie. current stuff/repacking sure things) than invest in restoring films that a niche market is interested in.

[domino harvey]

I think you are grossly underestimating the sales of the Warner Bros style-grouped boxed sets

[Gigi M.]

I'd say Warner Bros is the best studio (maybe tied with Fox) in getting out classic films packaged with the supplements they deserve. Anything that rescues films from Universal's "Hey here's a barebones DVD" system of release is a good move.

I'd say they're head to head; Warner has better movies as a hole.

On the other hand, hope this deal seals pronto!!!

[Antoine Doinel]

No, I understand that Warner's classic stuff sells well (and they are great at what they do), but there is also a good cost to produce it (restoration, production of extras etc etc). In the grand scheme of a Universal/Warner potential bottom line, it's a drop in the water. Accountants looking to cut costs look at those kinds of "extraneous" things first.

Also, given that Universal couldn't be bothered to protect their assets in a properly fire retardant/controlled storage facility, I don't hold out hope that Universal will merge with Warner's common sense.

But then again, I may just be a pessimist

[domino harvey]

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but what are you basing this on? It seems that accountants wishing to not risk much would welcome releases with built-in, proven audiences.

[Antoine Doinel]

No worries domino. I just going by the rash of speciality division, arthouse closings. Couple that with my reflexive cynicism and there you go

[justeleblanc]

Am I the only one who's happy with this? Doesn't this mean we'll get Warner's attention to classic films applied to Universal's huge backlog of films?

[filmnoir1]

If this is going to happen, then it will have to be completed quickly because if we get Barack Obama as our president, I believe he will put an end to all these massive mergers/conglomerations that have manifested as a result of laissez faire policies implemented by Clinton and Bush.
On the surface this idea sounds good. However, beneath all these mergers and folding of divisions lies a harsh reality that the days of pseudo small studio film made to address more relevant and adult thematics may be at an end. It just serves as a reminder that the 1970s was still the greatest decade for American filmmaking.
In regards to classic dvd releases I am not sure if the merger would be a good thing. Even though Universal has not been a good steward of their classic catalogue i am not sure if the merger would improve this situation.

[Jeff]

Am I the only one who's happy with this? Doesn't this mean we'll get Warner's attention to classic films applied to Universal's huge backlog of films?

That probably would depend on how the new home video organization is structured, how the libraries are combined, who is in charge, etc. The amazing quality and attention to detail at Warner is largely due to one man, George Feltenstein. I hope that if the two companies merge and their film libraries are combined, Feltenstein is appointed Grand Czar of Home Video.

[justeleblanc]

Am I the only one who's happy with this? Doesn't this mean we'll get Warner's attention to classic films applied to Universal's huge backlog of films?

That probably would depend on how the new home video organization is structured, how the libraries are combined, who is in charge, etc. The amazing quality and attention to detail at Warner is largely due to one man, George Feltenstein. I hope that if the two companies merge and their film libraries are combined, Feltenstein is appointed Grand Czar of Home Video.

One can only hope.

I've actually always wanted this to happen. Universal's Paramount library is just too incredible to be left with a studio that doesn't think it descended from heaven. A Warner merger is kind of a dream come true on this front. Of course, Fox would have been nice as well, but to picture Hannity and Olberman under the same roof would be a little too much.

[Cronenfly]

But does this spell the end of Criterion-licensed Universal titles?

[OliverB]

My dream of a Ford-At-Fox style packaging of ALL of Universal's 30's/40's/50's franchise monster movies in the newest complete, restored prints transferred with remastered audio, commentaries and every supplement from every release ever produced collected in one comprehensive package with a classy hardbound book full of production art and info and indidivual slimcases with original poster art may be one step closer to reality:

* The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)
* The Phantom of the Opera (1925)
* The Phantom of the Opera (1929)
* Dracula (1931/Spanish Vers.)
* Dracula's Daughter (1936)
* Son of Dracula (1943)
* House of Dracula (1945)
* Frankenstein (1931)
* Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
* Son of Frankenstein (1939)
* The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942)
* House of Frankenstein (1944)
* Werewolf of London (1935)
* The Wolf Man (1941)
* Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943)
* She-Wolf of London (1946)
* The Mummy (1932)
* The Mummy's Hand (1940)
* The Mummy's Tomb (1942)
* The Mummy's Ghost (1944)
* The Mummy's Curse (1944)
* The Invisible Man (1933)
* The Invisible Man Returns (1940)
* The Invisible Woman (1940)
* Invisible Agent (1942)
* The Invisible Man's Revenge (1944)
* The Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)
* Revenge of the Creature (1955)
* The Creature Walks Among Us (1956)

How would that not be Uni/WHVs seller of the year?

[ianungstad]

But does this spell the end of Criterion-licensed Universal titles?

Doubtful. The various divisions at Warners seem to be ran fairly independantly of each other. I think this is why there are Fine Line titles in the collection. I don't really see that changing, with Universal having it's own staff for it's home video department if a merger happens.

I think that a potential negative would be that we would actually see less product hitting retail shelves. Each company probably has their own research about how many DVDs they can put out in a month without oversaturating the market. With both libraries under Warner's control they may restrict the amount of product that they release each month in order to avoid reaching the point in which dvds canabalize each others sales. This would create an even bigger backlog and take longer for key titles to be released. If that makes sense...

[Cinephrenic]

My dream of a Ford-At-Fox style packaging of ALL of Universal's 30's/40's/50's franchise monster movies in the newest complete, restored prints transferred with remastered audio, commentaries and every supplement from every release ever produced collected in one comprehensive package with a classy hardbound book full of production art and info and indidivual slimcases with original poster art may be one step closer to reality:
...

How would that not be Uni/WHVs seller of the year?

Would be possible on Blu-ray in regards to amount of films per disc. On DVD it would be massive, as well as expensive. They already released several films in special editions and the upcoming The Mummy.

[OliverB]

Well just look at what Fox had done with their huge Ford promotion last year!

I think it would be quite accessible given the popularity and viability of these titles. Better and truer source elements have since been found for a number of features and new restorations have rendered previous releases outdated. A definitive collection of Universal monster movies would be a humongous cash grab for the studio if done right a la Ford-At-Fox!

They could obviously split the set into smaller collections for the cost-conscious consumer, as Fox had done with their ultimate John Ford package as well. I'd love to see it happen.

[Cinephrenic]

But that's the whole problem, they are not 20th Century Fox.

[OliverB]

But that's the whole problem, they are not 20th Century Fox.

But the subject of this thread is the potential merger between Universal and Warner Home Video, who are perhaps the most adept studio at bringing classics to DVD in competent packages.

[Via_Chicago]

I must say this: on both the DVD and the theatrical (repertory) side of things, Fox is beating all the major studios out of the water (credit though to MGM, who have really been doing fabulous work lately). It's not even close. As for Warners: What have you done for me lately? The answer? Nothing. (Where are those silents? The Mortal Storm? The Strawberry Blonde? Ambersons?)

[jaredsap]

I must say this: on both the DVD and the theatrical (repertory) side of things, Fox is beating all the major studios out of the water (credit though to MGM, who have really been doing fabulous work lately).

Granted I'm bias, but how on Earth is Fox beating all the major studios out of the water on the "theatrical (repertory) side of things"? That's absurd.

[Via_Chicago]

I must say this: on both the DVD and the theatrical (repertory) side of things, Fox is beating all the major studios out of the water (credit though to MGM, who have really been doing fabulous work lately).

Granted I'm bias, but how on Earth is Fox beating all the major studios out of the water on the "theatrical (repertory) side of things"? That's absurd.

A little hyperbole for the sake of my argument, but working with Warner Bros. ain't fun. Universal have been wonderful collaborators (and thus I'm doubly sad that their archive burned down), but are now without the majority of their repertory catalog. MGM/UA and Paramount are generally fine-competent, and working with Sony/Columbia has ranged from awful to tremendous. Fox sucked until recently, but, like their DVD line, they've really turned things around with good hires and smart decisions.

[Jeff]

Granted I'm bias, but how on Earth is Fox beating all the major studios out of the water on the "theatrical (repertory) side of things"? That's absurd.

working with Sony/Columbia has ranged from awful to tremendous (and back to awful).

Allow me to introduce you two. Jared, this is Tim from Doc Films in Chicago. Tim, this is Jared from Sony Repertory.

Let the uncomfortable silence begin!

[jaredsap]

Allow me to introduce you two. Jared, this is Tim from Doc Films in Chicago. Tim, this is Jared from Sony Repertory.

Let the uncomfortable silence begin!

I've worked with Doc Films many times but have never dealt with anyone named Tim there. I can't speak for past regimes, but I'm betting Tim's Doc Films colleagues would have nothing but praise for the current state of our Rep department.