Digital Bits interviews Buena Vista's Senior VP of Worldwide DVD Production (1 Viewer)

[george kaplan]

Two things. One, I hope there's a way we can contribute by check.

Two, I think the ad should somehow make the point that the cost of the ad is made possible by the money we've saved not having to purchase p&s titles such as Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Grumpy Old Men, etc.

You know, if just 1% of our membership contributed the cost of one dvd they couldn't buy cause it was p&s ($20), that would be $5191.20 (as of right now). I certainly think getting 300 people to contribute 20 bucks each is doable.

 

[David Lambert]

Ron:
1) Definately get Parker's agreement first!
2) I agree that this is obtainable. George Kaplan's math demonstrates that.
3) I had forgotten about the changes to PayPal policy (I heard that something changed that made it less desirable to use; I don't know the details). Also, some don't like to pay by PayPal. Let's think about checks: they bounce all the time. Maybe we should limit mail-in donations to money orders. I can see some idiot playing a "joke" and mailing in a bad personal check - maybe not one of their own, so its untracable - for a large amount, and screwing us over good. On the other hand, we don't want to wait a long time to collect mail-in payments and wait for checks to clear. We need to act as soon as possible, for obvious reasons.
4) I agree that everyone who donates should realize that this is non-refundable, but will go toward the best possible ad the money can purchase. I have no doubt we'll drum up enough money to cover the 1-time, 1/7th page ad at the least ($1260...we can do THAT much, I'm sure). Oh, be aware that there are other charges involved as "premium" services (like 4-color ads for an extra $5260!), "bleed" (I don't know what that is, but it's an extra 10%), premium position (around 25% more added to the subtotal of space plus other premium charges), etc. THIS **CAN** GET PRETTY EXPENSIVE, but it's worth it to do as much as we can.
5) Because of the extra money involved, as well as legal issues, let's NOT go with a demonstrative picture. Maybe use outlines to make our point, but nothing expensive or that requires time-taking legal clearances. Let's use a simple message that everyone understands, and move quickly on this.
6) For the price reasons mentioned in #4, I think we should work out the exact ad we want to run first, and THEN ask for donations. Mike Knapp is utterly correct that this is not to be designed by committee. After an ad is worked out, we ask for the donations to specifically cover THAT ad, in whatever space we can run it in. People should know what they are "paying" for.
7) I don't know what our best choice is, frankly, publication-wise. Variety gets us lots of exposure in "the industry", meaning the studios (as you pointed out). But also to the directors, cinematographers, actors, etc. It can be a great jumping-off point for media attention as well. But NOT much to the retailers, or to J6P for that matter, unless they hear about it via coverage from other media (like ET and EW and Ebert...good idea, Nick, by-the-way!). Perhaps, if HTF response is good enough money-wise, and we seem to make headway and all, perhaps we can follow it up with an ad aimed at retailers in VSM or somesuch. Perhaps if that then goes well, we can hit USA today and educate the masses...go for the triple-play as it were.
8) Ron, I am sure that the VSM article will be read and forgotten by the target people, honestly. First, unless you've seen a proof of the article copy, we don't even know if we're well-represented in the article. Probably, but who knows for sure? Second, will the reasons to support OAR be the FOCUS of the article, or is the article's focus the debate itself, and we're just one side of the story? Third, however we stand out and are represented in the article, won't the decision-makers just still be dismissing us as a small group of die-hard nuts? Finally, we can better represent ourselves with an ad that says EXACTLY what we want to say, than in a hundred interviews where someone else has the final edit. But, we can hold off on all of this until the article runs, and see what happens. On the other hand, my gut says "the sooner we do this the better".
9) "Please be aware that we can't be idiotic about our cause. This must be done professionally. Whatever we say on this forum must not look like newsgroup drivel." Well spoken! We must be aware that, after this ad runs, the HTF will get a LOT of hits from curious people who want to check us out. We may get new members, in fact. A good side-question is: Can the servers handle the load? It would be awful if we crashed after drawing attention to ourselves this way! Mainly, though, assuming the servers stay up (I'm confident Packy will make sure that they do), then we must represent ourselves well to all outsiders who will be lurking and seeing how we act. I'm not saying we shouldn't have any fun, and our normal debates. I just hope some of the petty bickering and name-calling can be put aside for a little while.
10) We should enlist to our cause every forum who is willing to participate. We can all sign our "names" (URLs) to the bottom of the ad, if that's a requirement to enlist help. But, as Håkan put it, "We want to send a clear message to the decision makers that we are a group people with a serious interest in film...we all come from different backgrounds and...range from high school students to CEOs... We can not come off as a bunch of crazy, internet zealots". So I'm not sure HOW it should be "signed". How about - just to throw something absurd out there - the "Coalition for Artistic Integrity in Home Theater Aspect Ratios"? (CAIHTAR? Nah; it'll never fly! )
11) I missed the Divx fight; by the time I got into DVD the whole thing was almost over, and by the time I got to even LURKING at HTF (long before I joined), it was long past. Was there anything special done then, any tactic which can be repeated to use in THIS particular fight? Anything will help...
Thank you, everyone! Keep your thoughts coming.

 

[Kami]

If we do go into Variety, then short but sweet and to the point ads probably are the best. I don't think it'll work if it's just an "educate J6P about OAR," it's more like "let the industry know what we want"...they sure as hell won't see any J6P taking out ads in major magazines whining about black bars
WHat about examples though? A simple demonstration of the butchery of pan & scan (maybe a 2.35:1 image, then have scissors cutting off the sides or make it look like someone just scribbled out the sides of the picture. Something like that. Or is this literally not possible for ANY movie picture without going through a complicated and potentially expensive process?
Should the ad have any visual aids at all? Or just text?
If you guys have any suggestions for text or the look of the ad, throw them up and I could start making examples for us to work from unless any of you object to this.
Adam

 

[Ike]

If you do take out an ad, I'd make the phrasing open-ended, so as to include open frame transfers. You aren't really losing image most of the time, but you are messing up framing, and that is really what we are fighting against, not Scope Films being hacked up.

I'd suggest something talking about director's intent, and appeal to the problems caused by the artistic side of fullframe transfers, as opposed to a "More Image" ad.

 

[MatthewA]

That rodent will be getting very few of my dollars now that I've read the Chris Carey interview. This P&S debacle and the heavily expurgated Pete's Dragon soundtrack CD are the one-two punch that killed my respect for the Disney company.

And I DID make my call.

 

[Scott D S]

How does Paypal work exactly? I am unfamiliar with it since I have never contributed before to the Forum financially. (What can I say? I am but a poor college student with a DVD habit. )

 

[Cynthia]

That rodent will be getting very few of my dollars now that I've read the Chris Carey interview. This P&S debacle and the heavily expurgated Pete's Dragon soundtrack CD are the one-two punch that killed my respect for the Disney company.

Sorry to be further off-topic, but, I'm curious, what was removed from the Pete's Dragon CD? I hadn't heard anything about this.

 

[DustinDavis]

I'm in for a donation as well.

Ron, perhaps one other thing you can do is turn this OAR thing into a sort of "Webring" style campaign. We need a graphic that represents the ring, and then buy-in from as many DVD sites as we can get. If those sites are willing to give prominent placement for this graphic, we can spread the word. The graphic can lead to a site or forum that is the "master" for this cause, giving information about our status, donations, and the cause overall. You could just open up a new forum on HTF and have it be the master if that works, or a new site could be built.

I'm not the best buy for the graphics, and I'm sure you know the people to talk to at forums to get rolling, so I'll bow out of that process--but my money is behind this cause.

 

[MatthewA]

I'll try to donate some cash to the cause, but I can't do it through PayPal. Can I write you a check and snail mail it to you?

 

[Heinz W]

This is a good idea, but in the end the studios will do what is best for their bottom line. Unfortunately, "J6Ps" outnumber us what, something like 10,000 to 1? We will NEVER get them to stop P&S/open matte versions. Period.
But we can concievably stop P&S only versions. The simple solution is BOTH versions on every release. One SKU. Everyone's happy, and down the road studios (and TV manufacturers) won't have to hear all the complaints about how J6P's new 16:9 TV has bars on the sides! No confusion from multiple versions of the same film. If this is too costly then add $.50 or a dollar to the price of the DVD. I would gladly pay slightly more for my DVDs if I don't have to check whether or not it is OAR, or MAR, or both.
It seems to me that this is the only practical solution to this problem.
And who knows, with access to the OAR version, J6P may one day see the light and convert (like us internet OAR zealots! )!
If we reasonably and politely argue the merits of both versions on one release we may get somewhere. I really feel that this is the only way to go because I know they will continue to, and probably increase, the number of MAR only releases as time goes on.
RE paying: No personal checks; money orders or certified checks would speed up processing, and no bad checks.
Count me in for twenty.

 

[MichaelAW]

Håkan: I'm in Stockholm, too, and have a PayPal account. If and when it's time for donations, I can accept your Kronors and spend them in Dollars for you.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

The only thing these people understand is money.

If you want to get their attention, buy the product you wish to support, or go with another idea I read here to buy the full-frame version of a movie and return it complaining that it does not have the black bars. Do that on a national scale, and the stores will notice. And since the stores will have to return the discs to the home video companies, the home video companies will also notice.

I think spending $$$$ in advertising is an absolute waste of our money. Count me out. But if you want to fight a grassroots guerilla campaign against another DIVX in the making, I'm in.

- Steve

 

[streeter]

I think all these technical reasons given in the interview are BS. It is all about money. By selling a pan&scan release of a major movie (i.e. The Grinch, Spy Game, A.I., Mummy Returns, etc.) the revenue is not limited to the $20 made on the sale. The studios have already calculated in the possible revenue of a letterbox replacement in a few years.

Let's say there's a 50/50 chance that widescreen television sets will saturate the marketplace in the next five years. I think it's a 50% chance because even though a lot of television programming is already taped in the widescreen aspect ratio, and even though 4:3 televisions are all but out of production in Western Europe, the American consumers are stubborn and will stick to their regular sets.

The studios, and places like WALMART, are keeping this 50% chance in mind. If widescreen doesn't take off, there is no loss. If it does, then a lot of folks will be re-buying their favorite movies on the same format! There are millions of dollars at stake here. I think it really is this simple. Do you know how much retail stores (and not to mention customers) hate having two versions of new DVD releases to choose from? And why do you think catalogue releases DO have both widescreen and pan&scan on the same disc, but hot new releases don't? Because for the catalogue releases, it would be almost impossible for retailers to carry both versions of so many different titles. For hot new releases, where there are hundreds on display, this is a nuissance, but it is definitely feasible compared to doing it with old DVDs.

It is so easy to put both versions on the same disc. Yet the studios are releasing separate versions for hot new releases... but they do use this method for catalogue DVDs.

I think it's ALL about possible re-buying, and obviously, the studios won't admit to this, because it is a sneaky tactic. It's even worse than re-releasing the Star Wars trilogy on video every few years.

I have mentioned my 'theory' on the HTF several times, but it is usually ignored by a lot of people. I hope someone will comment on it this time. Please agree, disagree, or better yet, tell me this can't be true...

 

[Cynthia]

If you want to get their attention, buy the product you wish to support, or go with another idea I read here to buy the full-frame version of a movie and return it complaining that it does not have the black bars. Do that on a national scale, and the stores will notice. And since the stores will have to return the discs to the home video companies, the home video companies will also notice.

Don't do this. Not all stores report a reason other than "defective."

 

[Steve Tannehill]

I think if enough "defective" pan&scan discs get returned to the home video companies, they will get the message...especially if they are told through other sources.

- Steve

 

[streeter]

2) I *like* the idea of using the space to ask for help from the rest of the Hollywood community. Then it can snowball. We just have to figure out the right way to word it.

I think this is a good idea, but don't forget that a lot of people in Hollywood 1) don't have as much power as you think they do or 2) are hypocrites.

There is an ad on Turner Classic Movies that has famous directors talking about the wonders of widescreen. Directors included are Martin Scorsese (who is very outspoken about preservation, and consistent) and Ron Howard (whose last two films have been released separately... with The Grinch actually being unavailable in many stores in its widescreen format).

And then there is Steven Spielberg. He used to be so adament about his films being released in widescreen (Empire of the Sun) on video, but then A.I. is released separately as well. For Ron and Steven, do you think having their films be released solely in their OARs was 1) beyond their reach, or 2) ... I won't even dare make such accusations, but it might be something to think about.

 

[David Lambert]

Directors included are Martin Scorsese (who is very outspoken about preservation, and consistent)

Actually, I've seen evidence that the new re-release DVD of Goodfellas will be a 2-SKU-1-for-each-AR release as well! :frowning:

 

[Hakan Powers]

Atleast that's better than only giving us a butchered P&S version..

But, I must confess, I expected more from Scorsese

 

[Malcolm R]

Paypal changed their policies last fall regarding the receipt of credit card payments. If you were a personal user, with limited CC payments incoming, as long as you stayed under their limit these CC payments were processed for free. Paypal no longer processes ANY credit card payments for free. You can still have a free personal account, but you are only allowed to receive payments directly from another person's bank account via electronic funds transfer (EFT), not by credit card.

If you want to receive credit card payments, you must register for a Premier/Business account. However, this account charges a fee for the receipt of ALL PAYMENTS, EFT's as well as CC's. Fees are 2.9% + 30¢ , so for a $100 payment, a fee of $3.20 would be charged, leaving you with a net $96.80 for every $100 received. There is an additional 1% fee for payments received from another country.

Definitely not as good as the free limited processing they were doing previously, and also that they charge these fees on ALL transactions within the Premier/Business account, but it still may be worthwhile for the ease of processing and collecting payments.

 

[GlennH]

Just some thoughts:

1. I like the idea of an ad that gets noticed by creative people in Hollywood. It should appeal to the fact that their art is being ill-treated.

2. The ad should be simple, eye-catching, and easily understood. Perhaps it should name offenders (Disney, Columbia?) -- not sure about that. I think it would be nice to see the URLs of several pro-OAR forums and websites at the bottom. Could serve to bring a lot more traffic to these places where further "education" could be provided.

3. It doesn't bother me that retailers like Wal-Mart won't see the ad. I continue to think that the studios are our best bet in the short term. They decide what product to put out there and I like our chances of influencing them more than our chances of influencing retailers to care at all.

4. My first thought when reading about donating to this was that I suppose I could take the money I would have spent on WHITE FANG or MUPPET TREASURE ISLAND and chip in.

5. Isn't it a shame that all this is necessary? Just so we can get what we should be getting all along.

6. I shudder to think that DIVX, with its cheap fullframe limited-play transfers, may have just been a product ahead of its time. Now that a critical mass of J6P has arrived to DVD it seems that DIVX may be a lot more successful if it were launched today. Perish the thought.