Warner Brothers Archive Collection (DVDs only)

[HarryLong]

Wisht my Veeblefetzer 500 only cost 20 bucks ...
But it's been worth what I did pay for it.

[Gregory]

I just came across this Feltenstein interview from last month. It's filled with the usual promises of all the classic titles to come on DVD and Blu-Ray (many of these will come to fruition and many won't if past experience is any guide).

He argues against the idea that Warner Archive has in any way replaced pressed DVDs of classic films, even though Warner's proper releases of this kind of film have now slowed to a slow trickle.

He again repeats the pitch that Archive discs are "of the highest quality, from excellent masters, and are indistinguishable from a disc you would buy at the store." I don't think any of that is really true. I could distinguish them in several ways and have had problems with Archive DVD-Rs that were never an issue with pressed WHV DVDs. Moreover, the quality of the masters varies quite a bit, and many of these films have not been digitally remastered for their Archive releases to any notable effect.

He makes the interesting claim that "everybody" thinks a burn-on-demand disc is "like a disc they burn in their home computer. It's not." But then he doesn't bother to explain what makes these Archive discs so much better than a disc I could burn at home using a reasonably high-quality DVD-R.

He fails to explain, when prompted by the interviewer, why they passed up the chance to do a second Garbo set when the first one did "wonderfully well." A little later in the piece, he says that they kept doing Esther Williams sets because the films are so popular. So I still don't see why Garbo doesn't warrant the same second-choice roundup of titles that Esther Williams and Doris Day did after the first sets paid off so well.

Finally, I've read a few other statements and interviews from him and I'm amazed at how much contempt for the majority of his customer base this man will openly express. He says that 98 percent of people are totally happy with Warner Archive (source?) and yet he's full of all these totally negative statements about "these people," "most people," etc. He says that "people" don't go on the Internet to say something positive about a Warner release; they're determined to find fault. So why does he think that 98 percent of people are happy with the Archive releases? That's funny, I recall WHV getting generally ecstatic praise on every single film-discussion sites I read from about 2003 through 2008.
(Edited for typos)

[Westwood]

Today I received my first Warner Archive dvd, 1951's Payment On Demand starring Bette Davis.
I found the quality to be really good, but of course the first thing I did when I opened the box was flip over the disc, and while the tracks are fainter than home-burnt dvd-r's, I can still see them and what appears to be a half-full disc.
When I found out that I could use up all the disc space with the FR function on my Pana dvd recorder instead of SP I never recorded with a fixed speed again, under the assumption that for example, for a 90 min movie like this one, if recorded in FR using up all of the disc space, the quality would be higher: Am I correct? If yes, why are WB only using SP and leaving so much space unused? The rate is an average of 5 Mbps.

All things considered, if the quality was like this all the time and the prices were lower I might buy a couple of more titles but I'm sure they won't lower them, and I can afford this, and I don't want them to think their plan is working

[Mark Metcalf]

I also don't want to buy any of these. I subscribed to Classicflix so I could rent some, but I have trouble playing the discs. Like yesterday, I received Tiger Shark in the mail, but it won't play in either of my DVD players, or my computer.

[Westwood]

I don't do rent, I think if one is so interested in movies, especially to the level of caring about quality of the image etc, he/she's bound to be wanting to own a copy. At least that is my opinion

Thanks for reminding me that I need to play the movie soon to make sure it plays all the way until the end!

Also, I've seen many posts here regarding the lack of info about the pressing of these etc. Could this be because they are pressed by more than one company? I mean, mine ordered from amazon.com has a small print over the barcode on the back sleeve saying it was printed by amazon.com.
Maybe questions relating to that issue should be answered by them?

I don't get why the sleeves of these dvd-r's is so cheap, the front is what it is, but the back is not that different from normal WB dvd's. Does it take that much more to find any vintage poster from that movie and make it bigger? I don't think so.

[HarryLong]

Today I received my first Warner Archive dvd, 1951's Payment On Demand starring Bette Davis.
I found the quality to be really good, but of course the first thing I did when I opened the box was flip over the disc, and while the tracks are fainter than home-burnt dvd-r's, I can still see them and what appears to be a half-full disc.
When I found out that I could use up all the disc space with the FR function on my Pana dvd recorder instead of SP I never recorded with a fixed speed again, under the assumption that for example, for a 90 min movie like this one, if recorded in FR using up all of the disc space, the quality would be higher: Am I correct? If yes, why are WB only using SP and leaving so much space unused? The rate is an average of 5 Mbps.

Is not using the optimal speed for these discs true in every case? I'm told that there's really very little difference between recording speeds on DVDR (unlike VHS), but still, that's another strike against the Archive if true.

[Westwood]

I don't know, I remember the first movie I recorded on my HDD DVD Recorded was Exodus or anther 120+ minute movie and I was unaware of the flerible recording mode, so I had to record it in LP to make it fit on a DVD-R. It was also a widescreen movie and I remember it looked bad.
I don't have access now to a batch of cheap discs to experiment speeds, maybe hopefully someone knows about this and can contribute?

[Wittsdream]

Today I received my first Warner Archive dvd, 1951's Payment On Demand starring Bette Davis.
I found the quality to be really good, but of course the first thing I did when I opened the box was flip over the disc, and while the tracks are fainter than home-burnt dvd-r's, I can still see them and what appears to be a half-full disc.
When I found out that I could use up all the disc space with the FR function on my Pana dvd recorder instead of SP I never recorded with a fixed speed again, under the assumption that for example, for a 90 min movie like this one, if recorded in FR using up all of the disc space, the quality would be higher: Am I correct? If yes, why are WB only using SP and leaving so much space unused? The rate is an average of 5 Mbps.

This is exactly what I was getting at in my above post. I also have a Panasonic DVD Recorder that allows for Flexible Recording of programs. This is a huge advantage in resolution capability over other stand-alone machines that only offer recording options in 30 minute increments (60/90/120/150/180). The difference in completely filling out a 92 minute film with the full 4.7 GB of space on a single-layer DVD versus resorting to recording of the next-best allotted block of space (120 minutes) is substantial (4.0 MBps vs. 6.0 MBps, or a 50% increase in data). Furthermore, just imagine recording that same 92 minute film on a dual-layer DVD? That will garner you the full 8.0+ MBps of data for the film, exactly double the resolution of a non-Flexible Record capable machine for a 92 minute film.

The fact that Warner Bros. is not willing to spend an additional .25 cents to upgrade from a DVD-5 to a DVD-9 for its legacy films, yet justifies charging consumers $18 + shipping + tax (which adds up to almost $25 per title if you live in Illinois, like I do) tells me all I need to know about their intention$.

[Westwood]

Sorry Wittsdream I thought I had read this thread in its entirety but it must have been another Archive thread here.
Anyway, you are totally right and thanks for shedding even more light on this matter.

So if I understand what you say, with your comparison you found that if WB were to use flexible recording or even dual-layer discs, then their Archive discs would be better than homemade discs off TCM (If the master used is the same of course)?

For home use, I have never seen dual-layer discs in stores and I think they would be a bit too expensive for someone like me who records an average of 1-2 movies a day. Also haven't I read that dual-layered discs are supposed to last less longer in time than single-layered ones?

The TCM I am getting is from France and they started to air some movies in 16/9 since September, some movies even pre-date cinemascope&co era. In the region I live there are tech problems with the cable company and I get those movie squeezed. However they are not "copy-protected" but I have recorded some programs on other channels that were. You can see a small logo in the thumbnail version of the program once you've recorded it hinting that it won't be able to record this to a disc. Hopefully the moment this will happen in general is far far far away, hopefully never.

TCM France actually aired Party Girl (discussed in previous page) the other night and it was in anaphormic widescreen I assume (being it advertised as 16/9 when it started) and arriving squeezed at my home.
Their TCM logo is present during the whole movies.

[Westwood]

I have never heard of DLs having a lower shelf life than DVD 4.7s.

I'm pretty sure I read it here. At least one disagrees on the matter then, good to know.

[Frankinho007]

More titles added today. Thanks to GregoryMesh over at the HomeTheaterForum for compiling these lists:

American Romance, An (1944)
Awakening Land, The (1978) (3 discs)
Blood & Orchids (1986)
Cry 'Havoc' (1943)
Death in California, A (1985) (2 discs)
Dying Room Only (1973)
Fifth Avenue Girl (1939)
I Know My First Name Is Steven (1989) (2 discs)
It's a Wonderful World (1939)
Kismet (1944)
Lace (1984) (2 discs) - coming on Thursday
Lace 2 (1985) (2 discs)
Lady of the Night (1925)
Pagan, The (1929)
Possessed, The (1977)
Scruples (1980) (2 discs)
Special Bulletin (1983)
They Met In Bombay (1941)
White Cliffs of Dover, The (1944)
Without Warning (1994)

[HarryLong]

There is a disparity between blank disc prices here. The US is obviosuly the cheapest with blank DLs at 70 cents to 1 dollar.

One can do even bettr than that here in the states. I usually get my blanks at a close-out store called Big Lots. I've been getting cake-boxes of 50 for $12 to $15, which comes out to 30 cents or less per disc. Hell, I never even got a blank VHS tape for under a buck...

[perkizitore]

In the UK a DVD9 costs about 1£, if you buy a package of ten.

[domino harvey]

Scruples (1980) (2 discs)

I'd buy this for my mother if I thought it'd actually play on her DVD player

[HerrSchreck]

There is a disparity between blank disc prices here. The US is obviosuly the cheapest with blank DLs at 70 cents to 1 dollar.

One can do even bettr than that here in the states. I usually get my blanks at a close-out store called Big Lots. I've been getting cake-boxes of 50 for $12 to $15, which comes out to 30 cents or less per disc. Hell, I never even got a blank VHS tape for under a buck...

You're getting DUAL LAYER DISCS at 30 cents per disc???!!??

What manufacturer(s), btw?

[Westwood]

Yeah, I mean you gotta buy good brands, otherwise they'll die on you after a week

[kaujot]

Yeah, are they DL discs? I never even thought to check Big Lots for such things.

[Tommaso]

And I've never seen cakeboxes with 50 DL discs in the first place.

[strangerinparadise]

Scruples (1980) (2 discs)

I'd buy this for my mother if I thought it'd actually play on her DVD player

I'm not sure if this Australian (pressed) disc-set might help your mom, but I thought I'd mention it anyhow.

[HarryLong]

You're getting DUAL LAYER DISCS at 30 cents per disc???!!??

Oops, sorry. No they are not DL (I missed that important designation when I firstr ead the post). Just blank DVDRs. My apologies...

[domino harvey]

I can't post screencaps but I did get a nice new HD-TV and dragged my Oppo out of storage, so I've been able to watch a few of the titles I procured in the earlier sale. Gabriel Over the White House looked better than I expected. Tons of grain, so much so that I can't tell if it's interlaced or not, but the sound was surprisingly clear and the print looked decent. Thousands Cheer, on the other hand, is another VHS recycler, and there's some atrocious color bleeding that put me in mind of PD copies of Nothing Sacred-- practically double vision at times. The film was pretty good though-- Why on earth they buried it here instead of releasing it a couple years ago in that silly Homefront box is beyond me, but who can say why Warners does anything anymore?

[Westwood]

Scruples (1980) (2 discs)

I'd buy this for my mother if I thought it'd actually play on her DVD player

I'm not sure if this Australian (pressed) disc-set might help your mom, but I thought I'd mention it anyhow.

I thought I had all of these Lindsay Wagner tv movies from novels but apparently I don't. Was it ever issued in the uk?
I find it really weird that one-disc movies from this Archive cost around 27USD, and this or others in 3-disc editions do not cost a cent more.

[domino harvey]

Eight new war titles for 2/2:

Breakthrough
Fighter Squadron
First to Fight
Force of Arms
God is My Co-Pilot
the Last Flight
Operation Secret
the Tanks Are Coming

And speaking of war, I recently watched Above and Beyond, which was another terrific film with a lousy transfer-- video-sourced! Just ridiculous. But as far as the film goes, it was nice to see producers realize how stiff Robert Taylor is and actually use it to their advantage. He's such a prick the whole time too, it's a real treat

[HypnoHelioStaticStasis]

Ensign Pulver, a 1964 sequel to Mister Roberts with a young Jack Nicholson in a bit part, has also been added.

I'd like to recommend William Dieterle's The Last Flight for anyone who hasn't already seen it. Top-notch in every department, a truly lovely grace note in the director's career, showing his masterful command of mood, switching from swooning romance to wry commentary to oppressively upsetting post-war drama.

A little disappointing it's coming out in this format, but hey, at least its out and about.

[myrnaloyisdope]

The Last Flight is truly marvelous. One of the best films of the 1930's.