"Why isn't ____ on Blu-ray?"

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

PHArchivist

Master Member
With all the experience on the RPF, I'm sure someone here knows the ins and outs of Blu-Ray publishing.

So why is it that some completely craptastic films are released, and other great films are not?

And what can Joe Public do about it?
 
Last edited:

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

CJS

Well-Known Member
Re: "Why isn't ____ on Blu-ray"

Maybe some cool older films would look crappy due to the detail in BR. Its a valid question you have.
 

dbuck

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Re: "Why isn't ____ on Blu-ray"

Sometimes when they DO finally release them, they screw it up.
One of my favorite movies is American Graffiti. The blu ray is so heavily dnr'd that the regular DVD is a superior experience.
 

PHArchivist

Master Member
Re: "Why isn't ____ on Blu-ray"

Maybe some cool older films would look crappy due to the detail in BR. Its a valid question you have.
And it does come up from time to time, but I'm not sure if we've had a full-on thread about it...
 

dbuck

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Does anybody know if the Amazon 'notify me when' button is actually tracks demand? And would the studios pay attention to that? I will start using it on things i want released on blu-ray using it if it does.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

wannab

Sr Member
Re: "Why isn't ____ on Blu-ray"

Maybe some cool older films would look crappy due to the detail in BR. Its a valid question you have.
It all comes down to the original source as far as remastering (and the company that does the transfer. The age of the movie has nothing to do with it. I have some Buster Keaton silents that look great, Casablanca looks great, Cool Hand Luke looks amazing and so does Ben Hur. On the flip side, I have a couple newer film transfers that look hideous. I always check reviews on bluray.com to see if the transfer is up to snuff before I buy any blus now.

As far as what gets the blu treatment first, I can speculate, but I really don't have the absolute answer. Example "Lawrence of Arabia" isn't out, but "The Toy" is, I mean WTF? I imagine it comes down to cost vs. return vs. the need to do a certain film right. That and not dumping all your library on the market at once.

Just some of what I'd really like to have...

The Commitments
The Great Waldo Pepper
The Right Stuff
Stalag 17
The Bad News Bears and BNB Breaking Training (two pack like Arthur would be good)
Capricorn One
The Last Detail
Iron Giant
Used Cars
Waking Ned Devine
War of the Worlds (original)
The Sting
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA


There are much more, but that gives a bit of a cross section.



Doug
 

feek61

Sr Member
I'll second "The Right Stuff" and the original "War of the Worlds" and I'll add the great western "One-Eyed Jacks" to the list of movies that should be on Blu-Ray
 

CB2001

Master Member
Another issue that comes to mind is who is holding the film distribution rights. Director Steve De Jarnatt, who written and directed the movie Miracle Mile, has stated that he wants to do a Blu-Ray release of the film that features it in the original aspect ratio that he shot it in (as the MGM DVD release cropped the film into the 4:3 aspect ratio for the DVD release). But the issue that is keeping him from doing the release of the film on Blu-Ray is that he is waiting for someone to buy the MGM Film Library that his movie is a part of (as the original studio that held the film's distribution rights was Hemdale Film Corporation, and after they closed their doors, it was picked up by MGM's film library. Now that MGM has gone into bankruptcy, there's a good chance that the MGM film library may be sold off), so he can talk to them about doing a Blu-Ray release.

It could be possible that the reason why a lot of crappy films make it to Blu-Ray while great films haven't yet is probably due to film distribution rights, which film distributers are probably negotiating with the rights holders. Sometimes, it's not quick and easy as many people think.
 

d_jedi1

Sr Member
There is one film that while not great, has some degree of personal connection (was filmed in the area where I grew up and I can recognize all of the locations in the film).
Stingray (1978) - IMDb
1978's "Stingray"
This sucker isn't even available on DVD. I bought a VHS-DVD transfer from Amazon years ago and haven't seen it on there since.
edit:
I found the trailer (actually, the whole film is there) on youtube.
Stingray (1978) Trailer
 
Last edited:

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

SSgt Burton

Sr Member
Here's my Bluray wish list:

Jaws

Star Trek: TMP Director's Cut

Red Dawn

The Right Stuff

The real Indiana Jones films ;)

Revenge of the Ninja (probably never gonna happen and the transfer probably wouldn't be much better than my upscaled dvd... but hey; it's my wish list! :lol)


Kevin
 

GotWookiee

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Lawrence of Arabia is one that keeps coming up. It's hard to understand why it hasn't been released yet. It's easily one of the best movies ever made and its in great shape since it was extensively restored for both the laserdisc and DVD releases.

The Indiana Jones Trilogy should be on Blu Ray. That's a no brainer.

There's also a certain trilogy that many here would like to see released on BR.
 

Too Much Garlic

Master Member
It's all down to cost people. Crappy films cost less to secure the rights to and to produce and you usually don't have to worry about demanding fans wanting extra features (or quality extra features). Everything costs money from picture to sound to features.
 

joker-scar

Well-Known Member
Re: "Why isn't ____ on Blu-ray?"
Lawrence of Arabia is one that keeps coming up. It's hard to understand why it hasn't been released yet. It's easily one of the best movies ever made and its in great shape since it was extensively restored for both the laserdisc and DVD releases.
Well sometimes like Lawrence..they wait to have a 50th, 40th, 25th etc. anniversary. I'm sure they will release that title this year. why release a classic film on it's 28th anniversary...people love round numbers. it's a marketing thing sometimes.

I want a version of THE LOST HORIZON with and WITHOUT the added scenes that have still photographs in place of the missing footage.

I agree that sometimes the DVD version of a film is the same or better than some Blu-ray versions. i always check dvdbeaver.com to see if the blu-ray is better to justify whether trading up that title.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Solo4114

Master Member
Re: "Why isn't ____ on Blu-ray"

Maybe some cool older films would look crappy due to the detail in BR. Its a valid question you have.
Hang on a second.

I think that's a myth. These were things that were shot on film, which -- as I understand it -- generally has a MUCH higher resolution than digital transfers.

My bet is that it'd be entirely possible to take, say, [INSERT CLASSIC OLDER FILM HERE] and make a fantastic looking Blu-Ray of it. The problem is that they can't do it on the cheap. They can't just take the DVD rips and copy them over and the source material may not be better than that as far as resolution goes -- without doing a full restoration and transfer of a film print. Depending on the film you're talking about, that may not be cost-effective. Sure, huge classics like Casablanca make sense to transfer, but what about lesser-known films?

Is it really worth it to do a gorgeous transfer of something like, I dunno, The Vikings? Sure the film's got fans, but...does it have enough fans to justify doing a serious transfer of the film? Probably not, or at least not right now.


My hazy recollection is that this is exactly what happened with DVD, too, by the way. Initially, you got either crappy transfers (IE: the old cardboard case versions of Blade Runner and The Road Warrior) that had no extras, a low bitrate, etc. and were little more than slightly better-looking laserdiscs (if not straight-up laserdisc rips). Over time, though, it got cheaper to transfer stuff and to code it for blu-ray, so you saw more older stuff popping up.

There's also the issue that it may be the industry looks at blu-ray as a middle point. Better than LD as a format, but not long for this earth as they shift to streaming content, which makes FAR more sense for them anyway. Why give YOU a copy of the film (which lets you rip it, pirate it, etc.) when they can simply say "Watch it from our huge archive of films on WB's new WBConnect streaming service!" or whatever?

So, they may only be releasing some stuff on blu-ray on the theory of "Why bother converting everything when BR players can upconvert, and we'd rather get this stuff switched over for streaming anyway?"
 

Timmythekid

Sr Member
Re: "Why isn't ____ on Blu-ray"

Maybe some cool older films would look crappy due to the detail in BR. Its a valid question you have.
That's a weird misconception, and I can't quite pin down where it started. If 'Manos' looks as good as it does (and, boy, does it!) in it's new HD transfer there is not a film in the world that wouldn't benefit from the extra colour depth, and lower compression before you even start talking about the benefits of resolution resolution. DVD was a pretty crappy stopgap format, with lousy compression algorythms and a stunted colour pallette.

EDIT
Aw crap, Solo beat me to it...
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Top