The Warner Problem: Not So Surprising (1 Viewer)

[Michael Reuben]

HalS --

And if anyone thinks Zemeckis is going to allow Harry Potter to be P&S only, I will bet them money right now for charity that there will be a widescreen version.

Sorry for the digression, but why would Zemeckis have anything to say about Harry Potter?
M.

 

[Jacob_St]

MGM is not experimenting with separate P&S releases on titles it's now policy. The reason Hannibal is being released widescreen only is because Ridley Scott insisted on it. Otherwise, it would be released just as SOTL is.
If more big name directors refused to allow full frame versions of their movies we'd be in good shape. Goonies is another example of a director standing up to the marketing stooges at the studio.

 

[HalS]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if anyone thinks Zemeckis is going to allow Harry Potter to be P&S only, I will bet them money right now for charity that there will be a widescreen version.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry for the digression, but why would Zemeckis have anything to say about Harry Potter?

LOL. Sorry, brain malfunction there. Good catch. Of course, I meant Columbus. Jeez, too much work lately.
Anyway, I stick by that. On Warner event films, the SE have been great.
And Harry Potter is not a family film in same manner that Cats and Dogs is. Unless it sucks (and I don't think it will), Potter will have it's own base among adults. A lot of adults have read the books, myself included.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Well, here are some things that did not happen which I think eveyone did not think was going to happen anytime soon (But it did)

uh...what?
DJ

 

[Rain]

MGM is not experimenting with separate P&S releases on titles it's now policy.

I don't think that's quite right. MGM did announce that all future titles would be released OAR and Full Frame, but I think on the same disc. The Silence of the Lambs, which was announced as 2 separate discs well before MGMs new stance on including Full Frame, is the only upcoming title I know of that is being released as separate discs.
It is rather obvious to me that they are doing this to see which sells more. They could not even have picked a better title, since that movie appeals equally to buffs and J6P.
Jack Briggs has now been sedated and is resting comfortably.

------------------

"People always clap for the wrong things." - J.D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye
Anyone in the Vancouver, BC area interested in meeting up? If so, click here.
Please sign the online petition against Warner Brothers' recent non-OAR releases. Click here.

 

[Andy_MT]

full market pan & scan ... never going to happen. aren't you forgetting 'widescreen tvs'? the european market is way ahead of the americas and widescreen is becoming the de facto standard. even a large proporation of tv broadcasting is now widescreen.
if the american market turns the same way as the european market (i.e. widescreen tvs become more the standard), whose going to want to watch pan & scan on a widescreen set? (even j6p)
personally, i think this is all temporary and nothing to get worried about. even if pan & scan does penetrate further into the market, even to the extent of replacing potential widescreen titles, it's very unlikely europe will go down this path. so just buy dvds from region 2.
or am i over simplifying the situation ?
[Edited last by Andy_MT on August 18, 2001 at 12:57 PM]

 

[Joseph Bolus]

The thing to get really concerned about here is that Cats and Dogs will become the first new movie (as opposed to a catalog title) to come to DVD as Pan and Scan only (with the exception of Eyes Wide Shut which was a "special case") with no alernative Widescreen version being offered or even announced.
With a brand new movie it should cost Warner next to nothing to provide Widescreen on the same disc or on a seperate release.
This format demands anamorphic encoding of Widescreen movies in order to live up to its full potential. What Warner is doing here is tantamount to releasing a new audio CD in the late 80's by first restricting the dynamic range and then providing the presentation in mono only. To say that this is a step back is more than an understatement.
However, I really don't think that we're about to lose Widescreen as the primary form of presentation on DVD due to this really stupid decision by Warner. Over the past four years I've been witness to friends and family gradually getting use to Widescreen; and, now, demanding it for movie releases. Many of these friends would have initially been considered J6P's. Now, most of them either have projectors, 16:9 HDTV's, or 4:3 sets with a 16:9 mode. After investing all this money (mainly driven by Widescreen DVD's) they are not about to even think about purchasing a P&S version of a Widescreen movie on DVD.
In spite of Warner's research, the fact of the matter is that mainstream consumers are aware that 16:9 enhanced DVD's are optimized for Widescreen monitors. Almost all consumers are also aware now that DVD means Widescreen. If they want to stay with P&S then they can stay with analog VHS as well. They don't need DVD.
Warner is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. I hope they figure this out sooner rather than later.
Joseph
[Edited last by Joseph Bolus on August 18, 2001 at 01:32 PM]

 

[James David Walley]

quote: Ron's thread pertains specifically to family films. [/quote]
quote: The thing to get really concerned about here is that Cats and Dogs will become the first new movie (as opposed to a catalog title) to come to DVD as Pan and Scan only (with the exception of Eyes Wide Shut which was a "special case") with no alernative Widescreen version being offered or even announced.[/quote]
As I said before, the thing I'm concerned about is that Cats & Dogs was not released or promoted as a "family film" (in the way that Space Jam or even Willy Wonka, in its original theatrical release, was). It was presented as a action-film parody with spectacular special effects, and its target market seemed to be viewers who were familiar with the action genre (everything from the Bond films to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) -- a group that most decidely does not include the little kids who might be confused by "those black bars on the TV."
As someone else said, this is an "A-list" major summer movie release, and one that was a lot more profitable than many others. To have this presented as P&S-only suggests that Warner's definition of "family film" is a pretty broad one, and may well include everything rated below R, or maybe PG-13. If this is the case, then we're in for a lot of general-appeal films, and not just kiddie fodder, getting the chop job from AOLTimeWarner.
[Edited last by James David Walley on August 19, 2001 at 03:38 AM]

 

[HalS]

quote: As someone else said, this is an "A-list" major summer movie release, and one that was a lot more profitable than many others. To have this presented as P&S-only suggests that Warner's definition of "family film" is a pretty broad one[/quote]
Cats and Dogs had a primary audience of children. Variety's review said "this comically intended battle of the species is family entertainment for families that will buy anything. Premise alone has drawing power, and emphasis on electronic gear won't hurt with the "Spy Kids" crowd". The Variety review then used such films as Stuart Little, Dr. Dolittle, and Disney's Dalmations to compare it to...all family films. Other reviews also mentioned it as a family film. In fact, I don't know anyone who thought it was anything but a family film.
The film got absolutely decimated by just about every major film critic. And as far as profitability, Cats and Dogs topped out at $90 million, certainly very respectable. I'd have to look up the budget, but I know it was costly as an effects driven film and $90 million is hardly a blockbuster take. I didn't see the film and I'm certainly not judging anyone who liked it but certainly their main target audience was not action film fans and appropriately that is not the audience they got. While I think the film should be released OAR, I think it is fairly safe to say Warner doesn't expect this disc to be bought by the same people who snapped up The Matrix. Again, while I don't agree with the use of P&S for family films, this film does seem to perfectly fit the definition of what just about any studio is going to consider a family film.
[Edited last by HalS on August 19, 2001 at 04:13 AM]

 

[Cees Alons]

It seems rather safe to state that 16x9 has become the de facto standard for TV-sets in western Europe.
I think, therefore, your efforts should also be directed at getting more widescreen TV broadcasts as well and the availabilty of the sets themselves.
That will, in the long term, not totally solve our problems perhaps (how about films with an OAR of 2.35:1), but certainly help a lot!
Changing the way studios want to listen to the thoughts of public is one thing, changing the way the big public thinks is certainly another solution.
Cees
PS And I agree with Rain: I wonder who actually bought more DVDs: J6Ps or OAR-lovers.
C.

 

[Tom Ryan]

Silence Of The Lambs SE (widescreen) current Amazon sales rank: 15
Silence Of The Lambs SE (fullscreen) current Amazon sales rank: 213

Too bad these numbers aren't as indicative of overall sales as one might think.
-Tom
[Edited last by Tom Ryan on August 19, 2001 at 04:43 AM]

 

[Kenny Goldin]

What ever happened to digital VHS? Can/could/will D-VHS machines play "standard" VHS tapes as well? Why not "give" this format to J6P, and let us keep DVD? Or just release P&S to D-VHS only? Sorry I am not up with the technology, just remember reading about it some time ago...
Hate to sound blasphemous here, but maybe DIVX COULD have been a good thing...it could have been J6P's format, DVD could have been ours.
Sorry I have to go puke now after saying that.

------------------

Jay and Silent Bob in
CLERKS

 

[Cees Alons]

Rental will always be J6P's format. Perhaps we should applaud a rental scheme... (I'm not going to say the W-word!).
Cees

 

[Glenn Overholt]

I am really glad that I purchased WW when the first edition came out. Phew!
I sort of have a feeling that this whole mess is not really Warner's fault. Okay, now that I have your attention. I think it has something to do with the AOL merger. When it went through I suddenly imagined putting a new Warner disk in, and getting a forced five minute commercial on AOL.
"Yeah, just pop this puppy in your PC and sign right up!"
Ouch! If this 'dumbing down' has anything to do with the merger, I think Warner almost deserves an apology. For any doubters out there, find the thread on the CNN Headline News. - - - You see?
Glenn

 

[Jacob_St]

DVD sales have to take into account purchases by video stores like Blockbuster and Hollywood. I'm sure many of those places will be buying full frame for their renting customers. My guess is the P&S version will outsell the widescreen.
Rain:
My comments about separate MGM widescreen/fullscreen versions were kind of off the mark. I should have said that MGM will release separate DVD versions when the two won't fit on the same disc. Hannibal would have been two separate versions if Ridley Scott had let the studio have their way. At least that's what videobusiness.com said when they announced the press release for these two dvd's. (Hannibal and Silence)
[Edited last by Jacob_St on August 19, 2001 at 11:08 AM]
[Edited last by Jacob_St on August 19, 2001 at 11:23 AM]
[Edited last by Jacob_St on August 19, 2001 at 11:24 AM]

 

[Travis Hedger]

Jack....we have overcome hurdles on DVD before.
Just because DVD is now mainstream does NOT mean that we have to roll over and take it up the tailpipe from any studio.
All we have to do is make the studios realize that their bottom line is going to be affected by these P&S only releases.
Give it time. Things WILL get better. They certainly wont if we dont at least try to make a stand!

 

[Steve Christou]

I have to be selfish here and say, if P&S is relegated only to childrens films such as 'Willy Wonka' and 'Cats & Dogs' than I'm not that bothered about it, as long as movies such as 'El Cid','Time after Time' or 'The Wind and the Lion' get released in Widescreen than I'm more than happy.
I'm pretty sure most of this years biggest movies will be released in widescreen, the directors themselves would insist on this wouldn't they?
I can't imagine AI or Planet of the Apes being released P&S only, that will never happen.
If they want to release Pokemon 3000 in P&S only, who cares?
As long as the greatest and most important movies are released in OAR than thats fine with me.
Selfish Mode Off.

 

[Jacob_St]

That's how I felt too Steve, until I thought about it. Who's to say that Warner won't think that one of those classic titles you like is a family title? I think all movies regardless of whether I will ever buy them should be offered in the OAR. Even if you don't want to buy the DVD it's better to speak up, that way the pro widescreen voice is louder. I know that sounds corny but we are in the minority, or soon will be once 70 million American homes have DVD players.