Travis McClain

Holy damn! How bad is Steel? It's so bad that it actually kept Batman & Robin from being the worst comic book movie of 1997. It's never been issued on DVD, and I just got my Warner Archive e-newsletter...and Steel is one of April's releases!

I saw this once during its theatrical run and haven't seen it since. List price is $19.95, and I think I've just got to add this to my library. Now, if Universal would just roll out Cool as Ice...

Boba Fett

Yeah, I saw it. I'll be reviewing it this week.

stingermck

Sum bitch. Sigh. Yeah, prolly going to get it.

Rypro 525

not that it really matters or anything, but are Warner Archives discs anamorphic when appropriate.

rw2516

Yes.

JerryKILL

Man, I was hoping this was the 1979 Lee Majors flick.

dkedvd

LAME! I have this on VHS and would love to have seen a DVD or even Blu release of this title. DEATH TO DVD-R RELEASES! I'm sick of all these $20.00 + shipping DVD-R releases that if given a proper DVD release would probably have only cost us $5.00 at Walmart on release day.

Spottedfeather

Steel was the worst Superman movie ever made. They didn't even mention Superman. Nor was the S symbol on the suit. Nor did he have a cape. It was nothing like the comic.

Hendersonfan

I might buy this just for the fact I was staying at a hotel on Wilshile Boulevard when it was being filmed. We were walking around when they were doing some bank scene and they blew the windows out of some other buildings. I wasn't part of the movie or anything like that, just close when they were on the set.

Silverscreenvid

It never ceases to amuse me that whenever a cult title like this or Doc Savage or If Looks Could Kill gets released on the Warner Archive, people complain to high heaven about the cost, but then a bunch of them wind up talking themselves into buying them.

As long as people keep paying $20 for these titles, that's what the price will stay. If and when sales go in the toilet, then you'lll be seeing a lot more sales, coupons, and specials.

MTRodaba2468

Exactly. I'd love to get Angus, but I'm not knowingly paying $20+ for a DVD-R. When the price drops, that's when I'll bite.

JohnnyDaBull

This movie is bad and good at the same time, but that price is ridiculous.

Travis McClain

When the overall sales tank, that's when you'll stop seeing even DVD-R releases. Unlike what a lot of us are accustomed to paying, it's important to remember that those $5.00 titles at Walmart weren't released as $5.00 titles; those are overstock (read: leftovers). Fans can't refuse to buy new releases until they find their way into overstock/clearance bins and then gripe that the studios don't do enough with catalog titles. It's one or the other, people.

No. It's just bad. And sadly, the price isn't even the most ridiculous part about this title.

Alan Smithee

This movie is hardly an "Archive" title- it actually came out AFTER DVD was on the market, and although Warner was the format's biggest supporter it somehow didn't get released, but it did make it to laserdisc with AC-3 sound.

Silverscreenvid

Unless the entire concept is so bad that people stop buying any of these titles, even at $5 apiece, they'll keep doing it because there is virtually no overhead They don't have to press a minimum number of these titles (much of what you see at bargain bins at Walmart and Big Lots are the remnants of pressings originally intended to be sold at much higher prices); they don't ship them to middlemen who ship them to retailers (they are using a couple of outlets like DD and Amazon who apparently are doing the shipping for Warner and selling the titles themselves for a higher price than Warner). Other than some rather minimal setup and promotion costs, they have no expenses involved besides maintaining their shopping cart on their website.

If public domain outfits can make money by putting 50 titles in a set that sells for $10 or less at Walmart then Warner can make money selling a single title at the same price that they don't have to ship to Walmart.

Travis McClain

I suppose the question this raises is, "How do you define 'catalog title'?' This argument seems to suggest that, because the DVD format pre-dates the movie's home video release, it's not a catalog title. I tend to think of a catalog title as being one whose advertising window and new release status has waned--or outright been entirely forgotten by nearly everyone altogether.

Yes, but everyone complains about how they want major studio quality whenever they buy those PD releases. When we find things like Escape from New York in the $5.00 assortment, Paramount spent some coin to make sure that it was a worthy DVD release. They were right to set the list price higher than $5.00. Then, nobody bought it at that price, waited for its appearance in the $5.00 assortment and considered it a "great find." You might have learned to be patient with releases, but what Paramount learned was that there isn't enough interest in catalog titles to justify the cost of re-mastering/restoration.

Realize that Warner isn't doing any re-mastering or restoration of their Warner Archive titles. They've had their own Escape from New Yorks over the years that they restored/remastered, only to see their vendors either return the overstock supply directly to them (as Walmart does). Like it or not, we bargain-hunters are largely responsible for the paltry quantity and quality of catalog releases.

Alan Smithee

I've only bought a ton of cheap catalog titles because they were there. If they didn't blow them out for $3 I would have paid list price for them eventually, just not as fast. The problem seems to be they think if they don't sell a billion copies the first month that it's out, then nobody wants it. The truth is I only have so much time and money, and as much as I'd love to buy everything on release day, that just isn't practical.

And I think the best example of pressed discs is the $1 public-domain stuff- if they can make a profit selling a disc for ONE dollar, I don't know why companies like Warner can't make money on the stuff they sell.

man*machine

The difference is the major studios make gazillions of dollars on their new titles. The huge slow-down in sales on catalog titles these days just makes spending time, money, and man-power on releasing these older titles restored and pressed by the major studios almost pointless. They probably feel it's like throwing pennies into their profit trough, when they can easily make millions instead focusing on their big new blockbusters. Thankfully, Warners and now other studios have set up small divisions within their companies to do something with their catalog titles. I doubt we'd even be seeing these Archive-type programs if it wasn't for some passionate fans who work within these companies that fought to create such a program.

Comparing these discs to PD companies like Alpha is like apples and oranges. Alpha owns NOTHING. Therefore, they HAVE TO sell pressed discs at a low price - otherwise there's a million other companies selling the same crap they're putting out. Even independant DVD labels who have to PAY to license a film and then pay more to restore it for a pressed release HAVE to do that to compete. Otherwise, they own nothing and can't release a thing. The studios have huge money and make most of it from their recent blockbuster films - Alpha and independant labels have no AVATAR or THE HANGOVER to rake in mega-millions. The paltry hundreds or maybe thousands of dollars that Warner Archives brings in in any given month is easily 1,000 times less than one minute of sales at the boxoffice for CLASH OF THE TITANS this weekend. Studios go for the big money, and they own these blockbusters, and those films make huge profits. Maybe 1,000 people in the US still care enough about STEEL and IF LOOKS COULD KILL these days, but will they buy a $20 disc, even if a DVD-R is the only way it will ever get released? Apparently not from some comments here. I'm thankful that somebody out there is even willing to bother with programs like this. Especially for stuff that may sell 50 units at most (and there are some WA titles that probably have sold much less than that). Don't like it, go buy some PD Alpha releases. I hear they've put out a version of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. At least it's pressed!

Travis McClain

Also, even if they do find a few hundred or even a thousand or so of us to buy a $20 DVD-R, there's just no way they could justify something like a special edition, producing new features and a Blu-ray Disc is entirely out of the question. Which brings me back to my point: the masses at large don't care about these catalog titles, and too many of those who do care balk at the kinds of prices studios put on them to justify their investment in the product.

JJE-187

I think there is a recordable blu-ray technology, maybe WB and other studios could offer up a Blu-Ray option for these

man*machine

It's refreshing to hear from someone who completely gets the reality of these niche catalog titles and their limited appeal. Thanks for your posts. You are spot-on! We should be thankful the studios are even giving us access to these titles at this point. Don't want 'em - don't buy 'em. But for those of us who have waited years, and even decades, to once again see some of these rare films, many of them never even came out on VHS, this whole program is a complete godsend.

Toddarino

I'm already not really that interested in paying 20 bucks for these let alone paying 5 to 10 dollars more for an archive collection blu.

Travis McClain

Remember, these DVD-R projects aren't being re-mastered or restored in any way; you'd be putting a Standard Definition title on a Hi-Def disc. The only advantage that Blu-ray offers would be for a mini-series or possibly a TV season, where they'd be able to fit more episodes onto a singular disc. Otherwise, every benefit of Blu-ray would be wasted on a release such as these Warner Archive titles.

It's refreshing to hear from someone who completely gets the reality of how I'm always right about everything. Thanks your response. You are spot-on!

Silverscreenvid

People who comment here are NOT representative of the public at large, either the public who frequencts Redbox or the public who may be buying some of these Archive titles. Warner isn't about to tell us how well these titles are selling, but from the way that they are releasing titles at an accelerating rate (and publicizing them more) and the way the other studios look to be joining in on the DVD-R bandwagon, I'd guess that Warner is reasonably happy with their sales.

Travis McClain

For once, actually, I think this community is very representative of the target buying group for these titles. Trust me, no one is lining up outside a Redbox wondering whether they'll ever stock Steel or If Looks Could Kill. The only people who even remember or care about such catalog fare are the people who frequent forums like this--they're not the soccer mom renting on impulse after buying a McFlurry.

A fair assumption, to be sure. I read that their new directive from on high has been to celebrate their decades of releases (hence the Warner Archive in the first place). I suspect someone in the accounting department made sure that the expectations for sales were kept modest, however.