Marketing Old Movies

[Phillyrich]

It's certainly true that movie buffs have come a long way since those 79.95 Magnetics tapes in the 1980's. And how many of us bought a whole collection of fuzzy vhs movies for $ 29.95 each, and thought it a bargain?

But still, I have a hard time understanding why Mr. Ed: Season Three, is a priority, and "Five Graves To Cairo" or "The Miracle Woman" can't manage a dvd release. As Ed would say, it's more whinny, than whiney.

[Jim Reid]

But still, I have a hard time understanding why Mr. Ed: Season Three, is a priority, and "Five Graves To Cairo" or "The Miracle Woman" can't manage a dvd release. As Ed would say, it's more whinny, than whiney.

That's easy. There's a lot more people out there who have fond memories of watching Mr. Ed reruns than there are people who have even seen either one of the features you named.

[Phillyrich]

I think after season one and two of Mr. Ed, they'd have had their fill of a talking horse, which is really a one-trick pony.

Decent marketing would easily find an audience for "Graves" and "Miracle Woman," just to name two. Too many studios fail to understand that there is a sizeable, sophisticated audience they could cultivate.

TheL&H cheap public domain reissues didn't sell very well over the years--but look what happened when a high quality set was put together. Yesterday the L&H set was selling for $225 on amazon! Demand well-exceded supply.

[Richard M Roberts]

I think after season one and two of Mr. Ed, they'd have had their fill of a talking horse, which is really a one-trick pony.

Decent marketing would easily find an audience for "Graves" and "Miracle Woman," just to name two. Too many studios fail to understand that there is a sizeable, sophisticated audience they could cultivate.

I'm afraid you're wrong on both these scores. There is indeed a large fan base who grew up on MR ED, both in first and re-runs (including my significant other, a former LOC archivist and perfectly sophisticated thank-you who still has her Mr Ed hand puppet from childhood and a complete run of the series, which I also actually enjoy and remember well from television in my youth. It's actually not a bad show, Alan Young is good, and it had a oddball POV running through it that kept it afloat for quite a while).

Secondly, the so-called "sizeable, sophisticated cultivatable audience" for any black and white, pre 1950 movie is actually somewhere in the 1,500-3,000 range, which is the average sales number on anything in that category that isn't a CASABLANCA/WIZARD OF OZ -type title, and that was in a good economy, "decent marketing" included. This truly is becoming a niche' interest and one that is dying off as the ones who grew up with it dissapear and they are not really being so replaced. If you refuse to believe it, I suggest you pony up the money and license either of the two titles you mention from their respective studios and put out those DVD's, also shelling out for the "decent marketing" campaign. I know you obviously haven't ever tried it just because of the ludicrous statements you make.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

[Mike Gebert]

Okay, this took a turn into needless namecalling and I cut it off where it last had useful information. I really don't want to lock a perfectly good Laurel and Hardy thread because of a discussion of The Miracle Woman (!) so let's steer it back to valid discussion, not abuse.

[Phillyrich]

Here's my point, restated.

Intelligence in the human race appears not to change from generation to generation. People today are not stupid; but they often are very ignorant and apathetic, due to our education system, the broken family, political correctness, and the often unintended consequences of our hi tech society. BUT they can be reached.

The film studios and stars have a great opportunity to do some outreach, and help educate the audience. No, it doesn't cost a lot of money. Often, you can get a lot of publicity for free. A little support for old movies-- from high schools to nostalgia fairs, to senior citizens centers, might help.

I speak on the subject of classic popular music. Its no different here. People today can't even understand Frank Sinatra, let alone Billie Holiday, Lee Wiley or the Boswell Sisters. But tell them a good story with historical perspective-- with some visual and audio aids, and you can reach a lot of people. Unfortunately, the music "owners" have no interest in giving me some help to promote their very own self-interest. I'd gladly do the same for old movies, too.

With the L&H set, I would have contacted all the "tents" in the USA, sent them a dvd-r with highlights from the set, and asked them to talk about it with local media. I'd ask that they invite media and local college film students to their next tent meeting for the showing of the dvd. Real cheap way to promote.

Good taste is something no one is born with; you acquire it. Today most people need some help in developing taste and judgement. There is no reason great movies and music of the past can't co-exist besides today's work. With all the bucks being made by Hollywood and by the pop music biz--they can't invest 1% to promote their own history?

[gjohnson]

This is Pie-in-the-Sky pontificating. Corporations do not lose sleep at night wondering how they can 'educate the masses' or give back to their Industry. They never have before and they're not about to start now. Any good that has ever come out of the film industry at preserving their past has always been from individuals stepping forward, not from the studios themselves initiating it.

[Phillyrich]

I don't think this is pie in the sky pontificating. There is still money to be made from the back catalogue. It's in the studios own self-interest to help educate the audience. Especially when there are film buffs who wish to help.

Just tonight I saw the ABC Network news do a feature on "The Artist," a black and white film with no dialogue. Who would think a movie like that could attract an audience today? I think many people are crying out for popular art that has feeling and beauty. They need a little guidance.

[Richard M Roberts]

Here's my point, restated.

Intelligence in the human race appears not to change from generation to generation. People today are not stupid; but they often are very ignorant and apathetic, due to our education system, the broken family, political correctness, and the often unintended consequences of our hi tech society. BUT they can be reached.

The film studios and stars have a great opportunity to do some outreach, and help educate the audience. No, it doesn't cost a lot of money. Often, you can get a lot of publicity for free. A little support for old movies-- from high schools to nostalgia fairs, to senior citizens centers, might help.

I speak on the subject of classic popular music. Its no different here. People today can't even understand Frank Sinatra, let alone Billie Holiday, Lee Wiley or the Boswell Sisters. But tell them a good story with historical perspective-- with some visual and audio aids, and you can reach a lot of people. Unfortunately, the music "owners" have no interest in giving me some help to promote their very own self-interest. I'd gladly do the same for old movies, too.

With the L&H set, I would have contacted all the "tents" in the USA, sent them a dvd-r with highlights from the set, and asked them to talk about it with local media. I'd ask that they invite media and local college film students to their next tent meeting for the showing of the dvd. Real cheap way to promote.

Good taste is something no one is born with; you acquire it. Today most people need some help in developing taste and judgement. There is no reason great movies and music of the past can't co-exist besides today's work. With all the bucks being made by Hollywood and by the pop music biz--they can't invest 1% to promote their own history?

Okay, back to reality. Most studios can lose what small if actual profit they can glean from releasing their old product just paying their legal departments to research whether they actually own the product and are able to release it. And this is to a General Public for whom nostalgia reaches back about as far as what they had for breakfast, so sure they are going to be fascinated by a little "historical perspective", well, perhaps if a murder or some sexual titillation can be found in that "historical perspective" you might get someone to listen to 20 seconds of a sound bite cause thats even long for a modern average person's attention span. Otherwise, in a society that has trouble remembering who their last President or Senator was (and a number more who can't tell you who their current President or Senator is), "historical perspective" gets tuned out faster than Lawrence Welk music.

Oh sure, you can get the volunteer fan groups to go out and do their publicity for them, when doing media publicity is something volunteer fan groups have difficulty doing for their own events because it's basically a fulltime working job thats not easy or fun to do (would anyone ever talk to the media for the "fun" of it or if they didn't have to?).

This is not only Pie-in-the-Sky Pollyannaing, it is uninformed Pie-in-the-Sky Pollyannaing said by someone whose experience in what thay are blathering about extends no farther than their keyboard and the part of their body that they are sitting on and pulling facts from. Realize that you're coming onto a newsgroup populated by a lot of folk who have been actually doing the work to get this stuff out to the General Undeserving Populace for years and decades and know exactly the difficulties and problems with doing it, and the reason a lot of it is not out there and why the consumers and general whiners who invade this newsgroup from time to time are so damn lucky to be getting the riches they indeed receive. Once again Sunny JIm, you thinks it so easy, get off your ass and put your time and money where your mouth is, and come back when you actually know something. At least you might have discovered that most of the movie studios are run as loss-leaders and tax write offs for some foreign conglomerate and the music biz's "great profits" these days have brought it to the state of near collapse.


RICHARD M ROBERTS (killing time here in Los Angeles before going to dinner with a number of folk who actually do this and are way more interesting than this guppie)

[augustinius]

Other thing to remember too is that for those 30 and under, they consider Star Wars to be an old movie. Black and white films barely exist for them. For the modern generation, Sherlock Holmes had to become an action hero with explosions, fighting et al in order to be "reinterpreted" enough for the modern generation to care. Do you really think that this generation - which didn't grow up watching Laurel and Hardy on TV since they had cable and had more than 5 channels to pick from - is going to want to pay $60 to see their films in mass? How many people under 30 are going to buy this? And as time goes on it will get worse. Our passion is more and more becoming a museum piece. Best thing that can happen is stuff like Hugo and the Artist to try and educate people but I really doubt it will have much impact.

[Derek Gee]

At least you might have discovered that most of the movie studios are run as loss-leaders and tax write offs for some foreign conglomerate and the music biz's "great profits" these days have brought it to the state of near collapse.

While not disagreeing with anything else you wrote, the above statement regarding movie studios is FALSE. The studios are VERY profitable and do everything they can with accounting tricks to hang on to as much money as they can.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201111 ... -act.shtml" target="_blank" target="_blank

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/m ... ble-166988" target="_blank" target="_blank

http://www.deadline.com/2011/02/he-rede ... 8-million/" target="_blank" target="_blank

http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00045706.html" target="_blank" target="_blank

Derek

[Richard M Roberts]

At least you might have discovered that most of the movie studios are run as loss-leaders and tax write offs for some foreign conglomerate and the music biz's "great profits" these days have brought it to the state of near collapse.

While not disagreeing with anything else you wrote, the above statement regarding movie studios is FALSE. The studios are VERY profitable and do everything they can with accounting tricks to hang on to as much money as they can.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201111 ... -act.shtml" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/m ... ble-166988" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

http://www.deadline.com/2011/02/he-rede ... 8-million/" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00045706.html" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

Derek

Well, they've always said the most creative thing in Hollywood is the bookeeping.

However, even the articles you quote show that the most successful movie companies are making most of their profits by having other divisions that are doing better than their theatrical movie-making arm.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

[momsne]

Until about four years ago, the major U.S. movie companies depended on income from DVD sales to make a profit on operations. Then DVD sales fell off the cliff. For Black Friday, I bought some blu-ray discs from Target for $8.00 each, cheaper than the DVD sales prices for these hit movies not so long ago. Warner Archive's Black Friday sale had their DVD-R movies going for 5 for $50, including 1926's Don Juan, with free shipping. And many people have more important concerns than cultivating a taste for Laurel & Hardy movies.

Just like that, Time Warner pretty much shut down most of New Line Cinema, merging it into Warner Bros. in 2008 and laying off most of that movie division's staff. The vastly profitable Lord of the Rings trilogy that New Line produced was of no importance to Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes, although he probably is a little upset over all the lawsuits against New Line for shortchanging investors, actors and sundry other people who thought they had a share in the Lord of the Rings box office and merchandising bonanza. I doubt Bewkes is interested in any social engineering projects to get American consumers interested in buying DVDs of old movies. Warner Bros. has a tough enough time filling up theater seats for the movies that studio has in release now. The most recent box office numbers show movie theater attendance last week also fell off a cliff, with low attendance numbers not seen in over ten years, since the two weekends following 9/11. Apparently, even "Hugo" in 3D cannot get moviegoers, mostly in their teens or twenties, to buy movie tickets in sufficient numbers. ["It's unbelievable how bad it is," said Hollywood.com analyst Paul Dergarabedian.]

In the big world outside NitrateVille, I saw a short news story on CNN International on Friday, Martin Savidge reporting from Iraq's Camp Adder, a giant U.S. Army base that is almost emptied out. There is not much to show for the probably billion dollar plus cost to build and operate this air and army base in the desert. The base's 30 square kilometers include the site of the ancient Babylonian city of Ur. A city similar to Ur was the subject of Warner Bros. 1926 epic, Noah's Ark (which I also bought for $10 plus tax two weeks ago). On Thursday's BackStory, a CNN International news show, presenter Isha Sesay filed a live report from the front gate to Atlanta's Ft. McPherson, closed down in September 2011, it 6,000+ military and civilian employees (with a payroll of over $500 million) shipped out. Somehow, after seeing this and other grim news on TV, the idea that the American public does not appreciate the antics of Laurel and Hardy enough to buy their new DVD box set seems not so important to me.

[Mike Gebert]

There are companies out there who are run on the basis you suggest... but they're the small specialist ones. One of the reasons NitrateVille exists at all was because, after alt.movies.silent suffered the fate of all other Usenet groups having resisted it longer than any, I felt there should still be a place where people who cared could get together to talk about releases from Kino, Milestone, and more recently Flicker Alley, etc. As well as appreciate the better things the big studios occasionally, against the logic of the marketplace, do.

The bad thing about the present day is that it's so expensive to mass market such things that no one does. The good thing is that alternative channels like us do exist. In my experience, if you can make a reasonable case to a label that a few hundred or a thousand people will see what you'll do, they'll participate in getting the word out by providing a little product for prizes, say. But they don't have the resources to spend hours and hours to land maybe 50 sales.

The only time there was ever market logic to spend a lot of effort on Five Graves to Cairo was 1943, when it was in theaters. But I'll bet this got it some attention. In the end, if you want to see it be popular on any level, make it happen yourself. Show it to your friends, or your kids' friends. Write about it online. Organize a festival. The opportunities exist and are no more improbable than starting a film society to show Soviet films and old slapstick comedies in 1952, say.

[Phillyrich]

Mr Roberts, what is you problem with me? Twice on this thread, in the midst of a good intelligent discussion, you have not just expressed you opinion, but hurled the most rude personal insults at me. I would love to have you say these things directly to my face. But you wouldn't. A coward insults from a safe distance.

What do you do in life, Dick? Do you presume know my life. Then shut up about it.

And please moderator, stop censoring me. If you do that-- I ask you to remove Roberts' posts as well.

Your rudeness Dick Roberts, is only exceeded by your Wellsian ego.

[Jim Roots]

Once again Sunny JIm, you thinks it so easy, get off your ass and put your time and money where your mouth is, and come back when you actually know something.

Uh, I hope you meant "Sunny Jim" as a generic term. Don't confuse me with Phillyrich. I'm not the one who wrote the posting you're shredding.


Gloomy Jim

[Richard M Roberts]

Mr Roberts, what is you problem with me? Twice on this thread, in the midst of a good intelligent discussion, you have not just expressed you opinion, but hurled the most rude personal insults at me. I would love to have you say these things directly to my face. But you wouldn't. A coward insults from a safe distance.

What do you do in life, Dick? Do you presume know my life. Then shut up about it.

And please moderator, stop censoring me. If you do that-- I ask you to remove Roberts' posts as well.

Your rudeness Dick Roberts, is only exceeded by your Wellsian ego.

You know, in my book a coward is someone who comes on a newsgroup and gives an opinion and/or hurls insults at someone without putting his or her own name to those opinions. "And how are you Mr.Phillyrich"?

The fact that you ask what I do in life shows not only your own ignorance of the subject you are attempting and failing to pontificate on here, but also shows how little you have even perused the past posting on this board.

I know nothing of you apart from some rather silly opinions you have expressed here, which I have disagreed with and commented upon. My words apparently got under your rather thin skin, and your arguements and backups to your opinions were so weak that you immediately resorted to insult me on a personal level, of which you apparently know nothing about. If you would like to hear my opinions in person, feel free to approach me at a film festival some time, introduce yourself, and your moniker, and you will get your wish. The fact that you think it will not happen or will be a safe, pleasant experience also shows how little you know about this community you join or the community of film preservation at large.

I suggest you broaden your education before the next time you open your mouth a bit wider.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

[Mike Gebert]

I peeled off all the non-Laurel and Hardy material from that thread. This thread is now locked.