Quote:
Originally Posted by Trashforcash  Fair enough, Arrow are still very important in surfacing obscure titles that you wouldnt have seen otherwise. Edge of The Axe, for example, was great and I'd much rather watch that than a slasher I've seen 100 times. So, I think your point is totally valid.
But, genuine question, why do you think Arrow have stopped putting out the "obvious" cult gems as frequently (Hitcher, Blob, Four Flies etc). Is it:
A) Competition from other labels
B) Licencing costs (Arrow TV cost, and cost of Wolf of Wall St/Inglourious Basterds/The Game have soaked up their procurement budget)
C) Cannot find rights holders
D) Their brand has changed and they dont want to put them out.
E) Problems with quality control at Arrow towers.
F) Global distribution stitch ups by the likes of Shout Factory
I'd be interested to know your thoughts! Like I say, I love Arrow and they still put out some great stuff. But whereas once they were a band putting out a debut album loaded with great tracks, now they are six albums in, still coming up with good tracks, just mixing it with filler. |
Wow, great questions, and I'm probably not the person to answer them - calling Michael Brooke - I'll say what I think might be happening though.
A) Definitely competition from other labels has increased as time has gone on. Not just from new labels but from established labels like Eureka. They released very few cult films. But in recent years have made sure there are a few cult items on their slate every year. As I said, 88 churn out a lot of welcome product cheap and cheerfully and they have only been around a relatively few years compared to Arrow.
B) Margins have got to be a factor for any label. The best example of this seems to be Dawn of the Dead with the rumour that Rubinstein was holding out for a deal which just meant that any release wouldn't be profitable - who knows what Second Sight had to pay to get their hands on it? If more labels are in the market place it stands to reason that it might be driving up licensing costs. As far as costs in other areas eg Arrow TV soaking up budget, I don't have a clue.
C) I think its been mentioned in the past that both licensees and/or usable prints have been a factor in nixing some releases. Also there is also the problem of disputed rights. I think this might be a big problem where rightsholders are different across several territories. I'm betting there is no The Last Starfighter for the UK because of this exact reason. One thing that might be considered is that Arrow appear to have an over reliance on Universal as a source of product and perhaps need to snugle up to some of the other majors like Paramount, studiocanal, etc. There was high hopes for a Warner deal after the release of Cruising but that seems to have died a death.
D) The biggest shift I've seen in the brand is towards more modern movies. I don't think that this was done with the intention of it being detrimental to the release of older cult titles but to simply diversify their product to broaden the fanbase. However, as ever, with any change in a company's focus, however small, I can't help feeling it has to have some effect.
E) I don't think there is a problem with quality control. The final product hitting the market seems to be on par with past releases. However, all the other labels appear to have upped their game in this department as well. Which means that the label 'the Criterion of cult' which Arrow attained doesn't quite hold true anymore. I think this has the added perception with long time fans that Arrow product is just not that special anymore.
F) I don't have any insight into 'global stitch-ups'? I wasn't aware it was going on. I can't help thinking that licensees would be shooting themselves in the foot if they were entering into global exclusivity deals preventing them from exploiting other territories?
Like I said I'm not that hung up on whether or not Arrow have lost their mojo. As a consumer as long as the labels keep releasing good product as a whole I'm happy
