Napoleon discussion > piracy/DVD market

[missdupont]

The DVD market for silent films is much worse than it use to be, since both Paramount lost money on its beautifully restored WINGS that no one bought, and Time Warner's beautiful restoration of THE BIG PARADE that few bought. Most would rather watch a ripped version on the internet than pay, and then wonder why so little silent material is getting released.

[Nick_M]

Right, because piracy sure is making Kino, Criterion, and Eureka stop releasing silents...

[Brent]

I'm not sure whether your post is intended to be serious or not, Nick. If it isn't, I'm afraid your sarcasm hasn't come over very well at all. If it is meant to be serious, I suggest you educate yourself to avoid making such uninformed comments in future.

The bottom line is that piracy is driving niche video labels out of business and killing the market for new releases, with an inevitable knock-on effect on silent/early film preservation and restoration.

[Mitch Farish]

The DVD market for silent films is much worse than it use to be, since both Paramount lost money on its beautifully restored WINGS that no one bought, and Time Warner's beautiful restoration of THE BIG PARADE that few bought. Most would rather watch a ripped version on the internet than pay, and then wonder why so little silent material is getting released.

Exactly. And the constant criticism of silent releases from their prime market doesn't help either. I never expect perfection from transfers of films no matter how well restored. But to hear many silent fans complaining that this or that film is tinted wrong, or moves too fast (Metropolis), or too slow (The Big Parade), or that its motion is not perfect (The Black Pirate) doesn't encourage others to rush out and buy. The mere fact that Cohen owns the Rohauer Collection doesn't mean they are itching to release all the Fairbanks films Kino has discontinued. There are sound films they may consider, but why meticulously restore then re-release films that Kino didn't make anything from? We have already heard, from those who should know, that poor sales of The Big Parade - the quality of which has been attacked on this board - has led Warners to not even consider a release of The Wind and possibly other silents that need remastering. To encourage more silent releases, we who understand best the difficulties of restoring silents, should embrace these releases when they come out, not in spite of their imperfections but because of them. It's time to give companies willing to risk money on these releases a vote of confidence.

[oldposterho]

My quibble is that if these companies are not going to release these films - and I certainly am not arguing with the economics, they do have to answer to their owners and stockholders - why must they stand in the way of those that would release them as a labor of love, with little or no expectation of profit?

It strikes me that if the economics of these films do not make sense today, what will change in a couple of decades that will suddenly make them profitable? Some technological improvement I suppose that will finally make these a financial windfall to release? That seems unlikely but stranger things have happened, I guess. Still, you have to wonder about the economics of sitting on a vast collection like the Rohauer with nothing but expenses to do it. To me that's a recipe for disaster as those prints aren't getting any younger or stable.

[Brent]

Nice one Mitch – I concur wholeheartedly. Jeez, when you think of what we had to put with just a few short years ago: knackered, incomplete prints with drop-needle scores on public domain VHS tapes and DVDs, etc. I can't say this enough: there's never been a better time to be a film fan, especially of silents.

Sometimes the sniping and nitpicking is unbelievable. Sure, we all have a right to be a little disappointed when we think certain releases, with just a tiny bit more effort and quality control, could have been so much better, but c'mon! It's also very telling that consistently the most ardent critics are the ones who have the least idea what they're talking about.

We are endlessly spoiled these days and some would do well to be more thankful for it.

[WaverBoy]

Sure, we all have a right to be a little disappointed when we think certain releases, with just a tiny bit more effort and quality control, could have been so much better...

And there lies the problem with THE BIG PARADE Blu. The image quality is astoundingly beautiful, but since they decided to slow the film down a bit, they should have released it in 1080i and avoided the motion artifacts. A little more quality control and a glance from people who know what they're looking for and silent Blu releases would be much better across the board. The Blu of WINGS, however, is absolute perfection, and should have been purchased by anyone who calls themselves a silent film fan. One of the finest discs I own.

[mwalls]

It has been mentioned that very few people bought Wings or The Big Parade. I am curious if anyone has any idea as to what a few sales are in terms of numbers. The reason I am curious is that a financial success for Paramount or the like would be much different than a success for a smaller operation like Flicker Alley and Criterion. I also note that Flicker Alley and Criterion use a higher price point than most DVD/Blu Rays.

Even if silent movie fans bought in reasonable numbers, maybe that still would not be considered a success for a studio like Paramount. In the end, they are used to selling thousands and thousands of prints of a title. We can never achieve that for silent titles.

[SilentsPlease]

Right, because piracy sure is making Kino, Criterion, and Eureka stop releasing silents...

But those companies are primarily into SELLING DISCS, not film preservation and restoration. Without film preservationists and restorers, there would be no Criterion, Eureka, etc. You need to understand how the "food chain" works here.

The financial concerns raised by others are all too real: if owners of films can't afford to restore and preserve them, then Criterion and Eureka would have no discs to release, and WE ALL LOSE. These people get money from, you guessed it, disc sales, TV showings, digital downloads, and the occasional theatrical showings and film festivals.

As an aside, Criterion has been on the record in saying that if a film's picture quality is not good enough, it won't release it; also, if no supplements are available or given (such as films by Woody Allen, who always refuses to make supplements), it won't release the film. Kind of an arrogant attitude, if you ask me. But Criterion is in the business of selling discs, and it has a right to sell whatever it wants, and not sell what it doesn't want. That is why Criterion has released so few silent films, because we know silent films almost always have print blemishes and other picture quality issues.

[SilentsPlease]

I'm not sure whether your post is intended to be serious or not, Nick. If it isn't, I'm afraid your sarcasm hasn't come over very well at all. If it is meant to be serious, I suggest you educate yourself to avoid making such uninformed comments in future.

The bottom line is that piracy is driving niche video labels out of business and killing the market for new releases, with an inevitable knock-on effect on silent/early film preservation and restoration.

Piracy is a big concern, of course, because it's so pervasive and prevalent. Even an obscure straight-to-video, low-budget movie could be illegally downloaded TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TIMES if it were pirated. I guess we can thank Google for making searching for anything so easy. Piracy may merely inconvenience the big studios, but it can CRUSH the smaller outfits. This is all common knowledge so we don't need to keep repeating it, and it would be foolish for anyone to deny it.

[SilentsPlease]

The DVD market for silent films is much worse than it use to be, since both Paramount lost money on its beautifully restored WINGS that no one bought, and Time Warner's beautiful restoration of THE BIG PARADE that few bought. Most would rather watch a ripped version on the internet than pay, and then wonder why so little silent material is getting released.

Exactly. And the constant criticism of silent releases from their prime market doesn't help either. I never expect perfection from transfers of films no matter how well restored. But to hear many silent fans complaining that this or that film is tinted wrong, or moves too fast (Metropolis), or too slow (The Big Parade), or that its motion is not perfect (The Black Pirate) doesn't encourage others to rush out and buy. The mere fact that Cohen owns the Rohauer Collection doesn't mean they are itching to release all the Fairbanks films Kino has discontinued. There are sound films they may consider, but why meticulously restore then re-release films that Kino didn't make anything from? We have already heard, from those who should know, that poor sales of The Big Parade - the quality of which has been attacked on this board - has led Warners to not even consider a release of The Wind and possibly other silents that need remastering. To encourage more silent releases, we who understand best the difficulties of restoring silents, should embrace these releases when they come out, not in spite of their imperfections but because of them. It's time to give companies willing to risk money on these releases a vote of confidence.

I don't think we should blame it on those who complains about the products. They have a right to give such opinions, and it shows they are interested in the products. And their opinions may generate interest from other people about the products. If someone rejects a silent film because of minor issues, then he or she is not a true silent film fan anyway.

Silents are not successful because the public at large is not interested in them. The Oscar-winning "The Artist" generated a few upticks in the interest of silents a few years ago, but the interest has all but died down, expectedly.

[Nick_M]

Brent, I was responding to the comment about unauthorized downloading, which does not necessarily result in lost sales, not buying bootlegs, which are literally lost sales. I recently got the Maude DVD set as a gift, and was not happy to find that it was a (convincing-looking) bootleg, yet surprised that it must sell well enough to be pirated.

The 1080p issue is the single reason why I've basically stopped buying silents on BD. Audiophiles wouldn't put up with similar treatment to music, yet it's apparently okay to mangle silents.

We can get an idea of sales figures by looking at Twilight Time releases, which are all limited editions of 3,000. Most of their titles are still available, and they're not all niche titles, either, containing some big hits. It's telling when Best-Picture winners like Oliver! and All the King's Men fail to sell even 3,000 copies. If the demand were such that they were downloaded "TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TIMES," then you'd expect that at least 3,000 units could sell, especially if you give weight to studies that say online piracy is either beneficial or negligible. That's outright collapse of the market.

[SilentsPlease]

We can get an idea of sales figures by looking at Twilight Time releases, which are all limited editions of 3,000. Most of their titles are still available, and they're not all niche titles, either, containing some big hits. It's telling when Best-Picture winners like Oliver! and All the King's Men fail to sell even 3,000 copies. If the demand were such that they were downloaded "TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TIMES," then you'd expect that at least 3,000 units could sell, especially if you give weight to studies that say online piracy is either beneficial or negligible. That's outright collapse of the market.

The interest to download doesn't always mean the interest to buy. Plus, the Internet age has created a generation of people who think a lot of things should be had for nothing (or very little).

Btw, I did not make up that bit about "10K illegal downloads". Here is the director of a 2007 straight-to-video film called "Shanghai Kiss" asking the public for support after his film was illegally downloaded 10K times.

[Nick_M]

That was a screener leak prior to the official release (simple solution- don't make screeners!). There are comments in that thread from people who had never heard of the movie before the leak, but were now interested because of it. Almost every movie gets leaked nowadays, but only when one flops do the studios bring out the pirate boogeyman.

[WaverBoy]

The 1080p issue is the single reason why I've basically stopped buying silents on BD. Audiophiles wouldn't put up with similar treatment to music, yet it's apparently okay to mangle silents.

Exactly. And THE BIG PARADE and THE BLACK PIRATE are (unfortunately) only two of the mangled many.

[Mike Gebert]

Better silents through slamming the people who produce them!

Yeah, that should work. And don't support them till they're perfect.

[SilentsPlease]

That was a screener leak prior to the official release (simple solution- don't make screeners!). There are comments in that thread from people who had never heard of the movie before the leak, but were now interested because of it. Almost every movie gets leaked nowadays, but only when one flops do the studios bring out the pirate boogeyman.

It was, and still is, routine to make screener discs and send to reviewers before release. Without them, you wouldn't see reviews on DVDBeaver and Blu-ray.com, because those reviewers routinely get free screeners from publishers -- usually small publishers who can't do big advertising, and/or for small films that few people know. The point is, the screeners (and subsequent reviews) should be the things that get people's attention, NOT a pirated copy.

It's true that almost every movie gets leaked nowadays, but it doesn't change the fact that piracy hurts smaller outfits much more badly than it does big studios, which is the point of the last few posts.

[Brent]

Troll alert! And there's more than one of the little buggers.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see." Those who think they know it all aren't going to change their minds and will argue their baseless opinions until the cows come home. Mods: if it continues, will you please split this pointless digression off into a separate thread, where it can die a welcome death?

Now let's get back on topic please...

[R. Cat]

Now let's get back on topic please...

I'll second that motion. At one time this thread had discussions concerning the upcoming Napoleon DVD/BD restorations from Kevin Brownlow (BFI) and Francis F. Coppola's associates. Apparently Buster Keaton must've switched gears, got on the wrong track and the thread turned General.

[milefilms]

I've written far too much on this Forum to go into great detail, but silent films often sell in the hundreds with very few in the thousands and even a loss of a hundred sales can make a huge difference. Frankly, if I see that a silent film is bootlegged or there's too many sites with illegal downloads, then Milestone will just pass on distributing it. It's also one reason whey we don't do as many silent films as we used to. (Though we have two in the works right now.)

There's two comments I hate most in this world:

"I didn't know it was copyrighted. It's a silent film. Don't worry, I didn't make many sales."
and
"I just wanted to share it with everybody, can you please remove your strike against me on Youtube?"

What I would love if the Forum members refrain from pointing out that you can buy "that" DVD on "this" illegal site. There was just one recently. You can't imagine how much it hurts our business. (And my feelings!)

As for criticisms of my discs? I actually don't mind them if they're fair -- especially when they're correct. I'm the first and foremost who can't stand a technical error on a Milestone disc, even on a bonus feature.

[bigshot]

Wings and Big Parade were "prestige projects" for Paramount and Warner Bros. They never expected to make money on them.

Silent films on DVD aren't dying... DVD as a format is. It's being replaced by streaming. Bootlegging has nothing to do with it. The variety and quality of silent films available on home video today is the best it's ever been. It just isn't on DVD any more- it's on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Warner Archive Instant.

The cost of restoring silent films for blu-ray is considerably higher than it is for DVD, and consumer expectations are higher when it comes to image and sound quality and supplements. That means that there is a higher threshold to meet to turn a profit and some films just don't have the consumer base to justify that kind of first class treatment. However, even taking that into consideration, there are an awful lot of fantastic blu-rays of silent films out there.

I always laugh when I hear people complain about how old films aren't available on home video. They sure don't remember the VHS days when silent films were very hard to find and when you did, the transfers were dim and fuzzy and the sound didn't even match the picture.

[WaverBoy]

Better silents through slamming the people who produce them!

Yeah, that should work. And don't support them till they're perfect.

Nice try. I've bought tons of releases from all these companies. When they get it right, I praise them to high heaven. When there's an obvious QC issue, I point it out, hopefully for the betterment of future products. The motion issue is not a minor one, however much you may try to gloss over it.

[WaverBoy]

I've written far too much on this Forum to go into great detail, but silent films often sell in the hundreds with very few in the thousands and even a loss of a hundred sales can make a huge difference. Frankly, if I see that a silent film is bootlegged or there's too many sites with illegal downloads, then Milestone will just pass on distributing it. It's also one reason whey we don't do as many silent films as we used to. (Though we have two in the works right now.)

There's two comments I hate most in this world:

"I didn't know it was copyrighted. It's a silent film. Don't worry, I didn't make many sales."
and
"I just wanted to share it with everybody, can you please remove your strike against me on Youtube?"

What I would love if the Forum members refrain from pointing out that you can buy "that" DVD on "this" illegal site. There was just one recently. You can't imagine how much it hurts our business. (And my feelings!)

As for criticisms of my discs? I actually don't mind them if they're fair -- especially when they're correct. I'm the first and foremost who can't stand a technical error on a Milestone disc, even on a bonus feature.

Thank you for all of your above statement, Dennis. And the only issue I've ever had with any of the many wonderful Milestone releases I own is the strobing on PHANTOM, but that wasn't your fault.

[Great Hierophant]

Motion stuttering is one of those issues that you can blithely disregard and ignore as another perfectionist complaint until your brain starts to notice it. Then you cannot unsee it, especially when it is not present on other discs. With all these great, high definition discs and restored editions, it is so disappointing when you see such an avoidable failing. However, given the lack of additions to this list viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15501" target="_blank" target="_blank, one can hope that this will be a relic of the past soon.

I too keep my Milestone Phantom close at hand, the extras are unsurpassed by any release since then.

While the BFI Phantom used filters which appear too saturated, they did the best encoding for a 24p version, they obtained an effective 20fps by repeating every 5th frame. MoC did something similar with Nosferatu, 18fps by repeating every 3rd frame.

[Javier]

The DVD market for silent films is much worse than it use to be, since both Paramount lost money on its beautifully restored WINGS that no one bought, and Time Warner's beautiful restoration of THE BIG PARADE that few bought. Most would rather watch a ripped version on the internet than pay, and then wonder why so little silent material is getting released.

Having read Miss. Dupont's entry, and some of the Nitrateville members' replies I realised that no matter what is provided to us, be it transfer, tinting, speed, music, etcetera... it is never enough.
Perhaps I am naïve, but I have been looking at books about silent films since I was a little kid, came to America, and still there was hardly anything on video on silents, video yesteryear provided a limited window to silents warts and all and I was happy to explore it.
I do save to buy anything the major studios release, that I am interested in, such as Wings, The Big Parade, Josef Von Sternberg Silents, Harold Lloyd box set, Buster Keaton box set to name a few, which in my wildest dreams I never thought I would ever get to see.
They are in my collection along with so many silents including the Murnau, Borzage, Fox set.
The positive aspect of it is, I do get educated by all members here, and finally I will get the Napoleon blu-ray, which I am glad it is released during my lifetime.
The Crowd, The Wind, and Greed I own on laserdisc and VHS along with the Garbo collection (Laserdisc), but if Warner neglects to release them remastered, I will take them on an MOD format.

[earlytalkiebuffRob]

One problem (or rather the fact one cannot afford as many as one would like) seems to the sheer quantity of highly tempting stuff being brought out. Unless money is no problem, one has to decide between an upgrade of films already in the collection or the films coming out which one has never seen and perhaps previously feared lost. Also, it's whether they will play on one's machine. I have not only bought films with the same region codes, some of which play, others not, but there was a set (DR X and five others) in which some were ok and others refused to play.

Over here in England, there is a splendid outpouring of early movies (from Network, in particular), but one still has to pace oneself, as there are other calls on the old wallet... Clearly one would love to have the lot, though there will always be the irritant when they in turn get upgraded.

[Donald Binks]

I must admit to having a wry chuckle when I read through the complaints people make about the films they are able to purchase to view in their own homes - and own outright to look at whenever they wish.

Being a mature-age person I remember the days when it was nigh impossible to see old films - save for late night television (and when colour came in, they soon disappeared) - and an odd showing at some distant cinema or perhaps a film society screening. These screenings took whatever print was available - and some were absolutely atrocious - but, we nevertheless watched them in awesome fascination.

Skipping merrily to today - I cannot believe how lucky I am to have so many silents IN MY PERSONAL COLLECTION! Who would have thought it all those years ago?

I give a tremendously huge bouquet to all of those wonderful people who have made all this possible.

[Brent]

Bloody well said, Dennis and Donald – sadly you're wasting your breath on the pirate supporters though... They're the living embodiment of confirmation bias, not to mention cognitive dissonance. Perhaps we should pity them: it can't be easy, living with such an overbearing sense of entitlement and perfectionism.

"I want my films now – all of them – I don't care whose they are! And they'd better be perfect, or else... and I don't expect to pay anything for them!"

[Nick_M]

Who are you talking about? Nobody here is demanding perfection or instant gratification.

[Mike Gebert]

Skipping merrily to today - I cannot believe how lucky I am to have so many silents IN MY PERSONAL COLLECTION! Who would have thought it all those years ago?

Hear, hear. I feel the same way. Er, I mean, my dad felt that way about it and he told me. I'm not that old, no way.