Quadruple dipping ahead/ (1 Viewer)

[Paul.S]

William:


For whatever my opinion may be worth, I most definitely would not start aggressively buying SD DVD right now.

On the one hand, we're at the precipice of HD content on home media and--after a multi-year standards battle--we are closer to the end than the beginning of this interstitial, SD-to-HD transitional period before product launch. One could therefore argue that one shouldn't buy any SD DVD.

On the other hand, the notion that "it may be years before [we] see these same extraordinary packages in high def form" may have some merit. We just don't know yet. Per what I mentioned in the third para in my post above, I think there is a lot of market motivation for the studios to more aggressively manage the product cycle for BD than was done for SD. It may be longer--relatively speaking--before some studios are willing to loose their crown jewels in HD. But having said that, there are some industry analysts arguing that the longer the studios wait to do so, the louder the death knell gets for packaged consumer media as the delivery mechanism for movies and music (as opposed to VOD and the iTunes model).

Perhaps you can post the names of some of the titles you're most interested in so one can get a sense of where your interests lie and thereby better offer some informed comments on what you might do?

I think the happy, practical medium between the two poles of opinion is to take the movies about which you are most keenly interested in acquiring on a title-by-title basis in terms of deciding whether to buy it now or not, as opposed to approaching the issue on a format vs. format basis. What studio owns it and how is their SD DVD reputation in terms of quality, timely SE releases, etc.? How long did it take for the title to hit SD SVD?

It's largely speculation at this point. What has the potential to be very revealing is, again, the first BD release slate announcement. Once that happens, we can see which studios are coming outta the gate with what titles. What's the ratio of boffo grossers to niche pics? What percentage are catalog titles versus recent releases?

Frankly, at this point I would just wait until next summer before buying a buncha SD DVDs. If you insist on buying now, get it as inexpensively as possible. Amazon Marketplace and Wherehouse.com are terrif places to get great deals on pre-owned product. That would be one of the IMO few strong items under the "pro" column on buying SD DVD now: the market is so saturated and the format so commodified that prices are so cheap that it almost makes not buying them a silly stance. Costco's got the 3-disc Titanic for $18.99.

I also highly recommend Netflix.

-p

 

[Glenn Overholt]

I'm sure everybody sees how complicated this can get.

IMO, the studios are nearly done with SD, that is, they just don't have very many more movies to put out.

Having said that, they went all the way through their marketable items in under a decade. Who knows if they will do that again!

However, if I were starting now, I'd aim for the older movies - some just won't benefit changing from SD-HD. Also, the ones that you sort of like but aren't a huge fan of. If they are out and you can get them cheap, go for it. If you halfway liked it, that is probably how it sold, and the studio might put it out on HD many years from now.

Glenn

 

[rich_d]

The numbers don't support that. The NY Times reported Sunday that over 1,000 titles will be release until the end of March (2006). Add to that the fact that just under 500 films get released in theatre (in the U.S.) every year.

The last point is important as besides the back catalog new releases will be coming out on DVD. The key point being that no studio is walking away from that money. The installed based of DVD consumers is huge. Flat out, DVDs generate more revenue for the studios than the theatre does. DVDs are the mega cruise ship leaving the huge wake and HD-DVDs ... at this point nothing more than a flock of seagulls.

 

[FrancisP]

The studios still have a large number of titles that they could put out. Then you add tv shows, tv movies, and miniseries there are still a huge reservoir out there the studios could draw upon. If they have issues with older titles then they could license them to third parties or take lessons in marketing from TCM. If Night of the Lepus can make it on dvd then there should be a number of titles that can make it.

SD is far from finished. It represents the biggest challenge for hidef dvds. The average person can buy a SD dvd player for under $100 and the majority of movie dvds are $20 or less. Why should the average person upgrade? Why should the average person shell out another $50+ for hidef versions of Star Wars? The average person is not a videophile. They don't fret over stereo or mono. They don't fret over whether the picture is perfect. They want a disc that looks and sounds decent. This could keep hi-def dvds as a niche product for a decade.

 

[Dave Mack]

DVHS films are for the most part, film only, yes? I never sprang for it so I'm not sure. But I wouldn't be surprised if early Hd release were relatively bare bones. That way they will give people a reason to buy a 2nd version.
One thing, (slight tangent ahead) that ALWAYS annoys me is when they release a newer, SE type DVD but always leave off one or two things, (like lack of trailers on the R1 Titanic set!) That way, people hang onto their earlier copies in order to have say, a trailer or a doc. piece or a commentary and there is less of a chance of people selling or handing the older version to friend/family.

Anyways, after the SPIDERMAN 2 transfer being SO bad compared to the SB, (to justify SB having some real advantage A/V wise when there was NO reason that the 2 disc, non SB couldn't have looked better what with all the docs. on the 2nd disc...) nothing will surprise me.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Rich - Titles? Yeah, right! Special interest, opera, documentaries, music, instructional, educational all count with their total. Oh, tv series' too. Not that I don't like any of these catagories, but movies is the main reason I have anything on DVD. Show me the figures that just as many, if not more, movies have been released this year.

New releases - if you have a choice, would be better bought on an HD format, so wait on those. Don't buy anything anywhere near the retail price. Hit up the bargin bins first.

Glenn

 

[FrancisP]

My point is that the studios are still sitting on a rich pile of unreleased films. For some reason they have chosen not to release them. Part of the problem may be that they would make money but not enough to satisfy the studios. It's bad enough that they're sitting on these films, but they refuse to license them. That would allow them to make money with no risk.

Just go through the TCM schedule each month and see how many titles are on dvd. You'll find a large number that are not. The trouble is that the studios have no idea how to market classic films. The marketing departments have grown lazy and don't know how to market classics unless there's a remake.

There are several reasons why growth in dvd movie sales are down from halcyonic levels. One is that the guaranteed hits such as the Star wars series have been released. The second is that the public refuses to purchase version #99 of a movie on dvd.

My feeling is that the public is not going to fork over more money to buy a hi-def version of a movie they already have. So I don't believe hi-def is going to be the bonanza the studios believe it is.

 

[Paul.S]

Francis:

There's a lot to take issue with in your last two posts, most of it better addressed in (an)other thread(s).

One objective issue that deserves comment is the titles you're saying the studios are "sitting on," supposedly refusing to license and thereby not making money at "no risk."

If there are rights clearance issues with a title--for instance, the music publisher is asking for significant royalties or refusing to grant permisission for the music's use on DVD (a format that of course did not exist at the time some of the TCM movies I assume you're referring to were made)--then licensing the movie to a smaller distributor does not somehow obviate this problem or eliminate risk. It complicates the matter further.

I also would argue that the prominence of other forms of entertainment and the format fetishism bloom being off the SD DVD rose are more significant factors in the slow down of DVD sales than the public supposedly refusing to buy the latest iteration of a movie on DVD.

This is the same public that you've argued here and in another thread won't be interested in HD Star Wars if they already have it on SD. Although I may agree with you regarding people who are not enthusiasts, I think the "enthusiast community" is enough to support HD the same way it supported LD. Frankly, I'd be happy with a quality niche, characterized by later HD release dates to facilitate better transfers and supplements and a general absence of the 'dumbing down' of the format that we saw with SD.

But more to counter your earlier point re slowing sales, I don't think most of the general public you're referring to knows that the recent 12 Monkeys is a re-release. Just like they don't know it was listed on Universal's first HD DVD release slate. A lot of those kinds of re-releases were/are gravy for the studio: people who were unaware of the title even existing buy it when they see it in the 'new release' section. They probably weren't aware of the 1998 release. But STILL sales are slowing. It's not just because people supposedly aren't double and triple dipping.

We can speculate ad nauseum. A lot will hinge on how quickly the price points of discs and players drop. But I think the installed base of HDTVs is going to drive the hi def DVD market to be more than a tiny niche, but smaller than a "bonanza." But then there's that HDMI issue . . .

-p

 

[Thomas T]

The classics film market on DVD is far from being exhausted. I mean we don't even have Welles' Magnificent Ambersons yet on DVD. Those who think the DVD market has been tapped out are usually of the post 1975 Jaws/Star Wars Hollywood blockbuster mentality generation.

There are massive amounts of classic titles still sitting in studio vaults, not to mention the foreign film and indie market. I'm still sitting on my Star Wars/Indiana Jones laser discs, never having bought them on DVD, preferring to spend my money on titles I don't already own. Why would I buy them on HD?

What about those of us who have no interest in Spiderman 2 or Batman Begins rattling our woofer and ceilings. Sure, they may look spectacular in HD but to those of us who prefer, say, Cassavetes' Woman Under The Influence or DeSica's Shoeshine, to the Hollywood blockbusters, what's our incentive to early adopt the HD format?

 

[rich_d]

Glenn:


If studios expectations were for HD to track LD performance they would never support the format.

I don't understand the "dumbing down" comment. If that refers to TV shows it doesn't make sense. The better the format that you support is adopted the better it goes for everyone. It's been reported that if LD had supported porn better, adoption would have been far greater. VHS and DVDs didn't make that same mistake.

 

[Paul.S]

I for one am not arguing that the market for classic film on DVD is exhausted. Amongst other things, I'm saying that there are significant macro/market forces at work that are bigger than any one genre of film. It is a fact that we are closer to the end than the beginning of the most robust phase of the SD DVD product cycle. That doesn't mean that the format may not very well continue to be a viable economic force--it depends upon a variety of hi def DVD factors, some of which we don't have hard information on yet like unit price and copy protection matters. But having said that, the product cycle issue has implications for any film--regardless of genre--not yet released on SD DVD.

And say what you will about the Spielberg/Lucas generation, or the post-Spielberg Bruckheimer generation, those guys and their auds fundamentally changed Hollywood and it economics (for the worse, I'm sure many would argue). It's problematic to dichotomize classic film from the popular: I'm not the only guy out there who enjoys both Fassbinder and Michael Bay. But I also understand that the latter, not the former, is largely responsible for driving the home video industry. The release or absence of Wild Strawberries on DVD is not a watershed event for the format, regardless of whatever feelings I may have about the movie.


Um, because they will look and sound better.

And even--some would argue, especially--older pictures' home video presentation can benefit from higher resolution.

-p

 

[Deepak Shenoy]

I started out with a collection that consisted mostly of movies with loud explosions and tons of special effects but thanks to the DVD format and forums such as these my taste in movies has evolved over the last 7-8 years. Less than 5% of the movies I now own would be worth upgrading to HD. The rest (mostly older B&W classics, foreign films, etc) look just fine even on my front projector set up and I have no incentive whatsoever to buy them all over again in the HD format.

I have a feeling that HD will be a niche format at least for the first 5-6 years and that studios will continue supporting regular DVD for a majority of their releases.

-D

 

[rich_d]

Paul,

I'm curious, what is that argument/logic?

 

[WilliamMc]

OK, My first thoughts on buiding a collection is to start with all the Christmas classics, A Christmas Carol, (1951 and 1938), Wonderful life etc. I want the Cosmos dvds by Carl Sagan. I'd like 2001, the original Planet of the apes. Perhaps the new War of the worlds SE, and many simular titles. I'm also very interested in full concerts from the 80's. Now these seem tough. There's not much out there and people are still waiting for dvd releases of stuff that had been on VHS. This group worries me the most as i'm not sure how much will ever be released again. I'm talking about concerts by Def leppard, Journey, Priest, and simular stuff. I've aready started these purchases out of fear. It seems one must be content to have these concerts in what ever form you can get your hands on!

Thoughts?

 

[Glenn Overholt]

That's a 'mad' argument that may be truer than anyone can imagine. I think that whatever is out on SD now will eventually make it to HD, but not in the next ten years. I can easily see the studios stretching this out over 20 years, unless they find out that their new super-dooper copy protection has been compromised.

The argument over the quantity of titles is that SD won't be around for as long as some people think it will be. Bragging that 'we put out 1,000 titles last year' doesn't mean squat to me. 99% of those could be educational.

If I had a studio with 3000 movies that haven't come out yet I'd be getting as many out as I could - if I could. That is not what I am seeing, though. Titles that I wanted 7 years ago still aren't out. With most of them, I know that I am not the only person that wants them. The studios won't put them out if they will cost too much and/or won't sell that well. If that is the case then the only thing we can look forward to is whatever 'new' movies come out on DVD.

I purchased 4 movies that came out this year. If they want more of my money, they are going to have to come out with more catalog titles.

The OP is another story, though. He can get their double-dips because the orignal DVD is no longer on the shelves, and he wasn't around when the original DVD did come out. This market is where the studios are going to have to make their money from in the future.

The market of graduates that get out on their own and start their own home, with their own new TV (HDMI compliant). You see where this is going, I hope.

Glenn

 

[FrancisP]

There are a lot of titles that the studios have chosen not to release on dvd. Most of these titles do not have rights issues and have not been released due to the studios' decision not to release them. At the same time many of these studios have a policy against licensing. Why let a title sit on the shelf gathering dust? If Warner doesn't want to release the Dark Shadows movies maybe MPI might be interested since they have had success with the series. The number of movies on dvd pale in comparison to the number of movies on videocassette. So there are many titles that could be released.

If you looked at TCM every month, you would see a large number of classic titles not on dvd. I suspect very few, if any have rights issues. Rather they suffer from studio indifference. Obviously TCM has done a very good job of marketing older films that many studios seem to lack or are to lazy. When Island In the Sky and High and the Mighty were released, a radio spot ran constantly for several weeks on Rush Limbaugh's show.

I do think that double dipping is a problem for dvd sales.
If somebody bought The Mummy when it first came out, I
don't believe they are going to buy the SE, the Gold edition, platinum edition, etc. There are too many marketing departments that want to play what they see as a safe bet rather than going out on a limb and releasing something new.

 

[Paul.S]

Francis, unless you're a rights clearance lawyer for the distributor and thereby have first-hand knowledge of the chain of title issues for particular pictures, I don't see how you can possibly have any basis for this overbroad, overly-declarative, speculative statement.

The studios want to make money. If their market analysis showed a sufficient number of units selling to justify the restoration that may be necessary to release halfway decent product -and- the chain of title is clear such that they can avoid litigation that might cost more than preparing the title for DVD release, they'd more than likely be moving towards releasing it.

I'm more critical than most on this Forum of the studios. I've worked for almost all of them. But the profit motive puts the burden of proof on you to factually support your assertion, which seems to be that the studios capriciously and stubbornly refuse to release many titles for simply no reason whatsoever. :rolleyes

-p

 

[Paul.S]

This is just nuts, Glenn. You're saying that nothing but yet-to-be-released new movies and catalog titles not yet on SD DVD are all that we'll see on Blu-ray until 10 years pass? That's absurd.

First of all, in 10 years optical media may not even be the dominant format for viewing movies outside of the theater.

Second, if you think that Sony has spent all that money on archiving their films to hi def and paying Grover Crisp, so they can now sit on those masters for 10 years and not use them to leverage market penetration of their BD format and fledgling television biz, I think you're grossly mistaken.

Go grip that list of Warner, Par and U titles announced for HD DVD last January one more time. Goddess willing, I'd say at least 25% of these--and the list is a strinking blend of catalog and new titles--will be on the list of the first BDs, hopefully announced next summer, and in some of our hands by next Christmas.

-p

 

[Ryan-G]

This is probably true, but that's more a function of the pricing of HDTV's than the format.

People will replace older material, DVD showed that, as people quickly leapt at the chance to replace VHS. Anyone who's seen a properly calibrated High Definition broadcast knows there's a massive difference between SD and High Defintion material.

But the problem is the price of the TVs. With the smallest of models sitting firmly between 750-1000$, and models equivalent in size to what is currently in most living rooms sitting beteen 1000-1500$ or more depending on technology, High Defintion TV isn't a frequent purchase.

Since TVs generally tend to be a Peer driven market, meaning that people generally tend to buy new TVs after being exposed to a neighbor/friend/family members new TV, there's a problem. If it's sitting outside of the range of the average person, the average person isn't going to come into contact with a properly calibrated High Defintion TV.

As such, it's hard to convince people to buy something new at a price several times what they're used to paying, for a benefit they've never actually seen properly. "Who's going to spend 1000$ to replace a perfectly working TV with a smaller TV?"

Pricing is going to have to drop dramatically. At this point, it may very well be LCD technology that starts pushing High Defintion TV into homes. LCD technology is dropping fast enough that more people will be willing to justify it's expense for a non-centerpiece TV. As it stands now, you can get LCD's in the 20s" range for about 1000$, 19" range is around 400-500$ and the LCD market is being flooded with surplus of high end panels. At it's current rate, I'd expect to see 20s" range models at sub-1000$ price points by Christmas next year.

If that doesn't happen, Blu-ray will remain a niche product until around 2010 when High Def displays are near-mandatory.

 

[Paul.S]

Ryan:

Thanks for your comments. But HDTV prices--especially DLP--have come down dramatically in recent years. An even more technologically advanced version of the 30" 16x9 that made me droll some 5 years ago with a $10,000 price tag can now be had for under $1,000 . . . at Costco.

I think the possibly $1,000 expenditure that could prove more vexing for many potential hi def DVD buyers is the cost of players. Luckily, player prices have the potential to come down quickly also . . . but again, it depends on some factors that we just don't know how the studios and manufacturers are going to handle yet.

-p