Sony Pictures continues to drop existing widescreen transfers - Page 4

You forgot about a large part of the DVD market: me, and the consumers like me.

I have 400 DVDs. I am absolutely an OAR advocate. I have no money to spend on nice WS TV. It simply isn't a priority. I very much doubt that I'll be getting one in the next 4-5 years. I have a 27" 4x3 TV and a $300 Sony surround system. This is essentially the extent of my purchasing ability without neglecting the rent for my apartment or going into consumer debt, which I refuse to do. I love films; I love DVDs. I will not be buying the next format for quite some time because I can't afford it.

If studios stop issuing OAR DVDs, I get screwed.

No doubt about it. Several of the HD networks (HBO-HD, INHD) crop most 2.35:1 movies to 1.78:1 so that the image fills the 16:9 screen. I'd be surprised if we don't see this same abuse on optical discs when they become a reality. Maybe not at first, but eventually. Sony is probably a prime candidate for it.

*weeps for the future*

Since Sony has done such a bang-up job in the marketing of proprietary technology in the past (Beta anyone? Or, more recently, SACD), you just have to wonder what runs through the heads of the Sony brain-trust sometimes... How incredibly stupid, and short-sighted!

There are currently nearly 90 million DVD players and close to 50,000 different titles available in the U.S. alone. To effectively forsake this marketplace for a new, untested hi-rez market is simply idiotic... and BAD BUSINESS! Period.

Personally, I am not so sure that the masses are going to leap on the HD-DVD bandwagon (whatever it may be.) For close to a decade, one hi-rez audio format after another has been rolled out in an effort to get a foothold and replace the traditional CD, and one by one, each has failed.

Joe six-pack has now been successfully programmed to pick up $5-$15 traditional DVD's and is more than satisfied with their quality. I think it is going be a tough sell for Sony to get that same person to invest in new hardware and then shell out $25-$30 each for an HD-DVD disc. Just like with the failed hi-rez audio formats, when all is said and done, the average consumer will either not recognize the difference, or it will not be significant enough for then to invest in a new format.

There are some assumptions being made in this thread that I don't necessarily think are correct. We need to hold off about assuming that what was posted here about Sony abandoning the dvd market is really what they're doing.





Crawdaddy

All right, I agree with that, guardedly, because we haven't seen the HD-DVD output yet.

But I do think it's fair (and balanced) to say that Sony is forsaking the film buff with these moves. Especially by snarkily releasing these transfers under the original UPC--which ought to be against some law

Glenn, I've noticed that as well, the cable channels cropping HD already. The King and I ran on INHD, and the overture was 2:35:1 (so close) and the rest of the film went into 1:85:1. I have also seen pan and scan HD movies on there, and many of the so-called HD movies simply are not HD. This is scary, the idea of HDTV is the wider image, and they're already cropping.

This is something that seems to escape all sorts of people. Notice how popular MP3 music (which is inferior to CD audio) is -- people are buying convenience over sound quality. The average person is not going to care much about A/V quality improvements over DVD. They're not going to pay for that anytime soon.

I don't disagree, Robert, and did not mean to suggest that I think that is what Sony is doing. I was trying to say that deliberately marketing away from the mass-market (if indeed, that is their intent) does not make much business sense to me.

Aaron, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. Thanks!

Potential Sony Widescreen Drops?

Since SONY seems to be tearing through their catalogue titles and dropping the Widescreen half, I thought I would start a thread to list POTENTIAL titles that could be in danger. There is no word of any of these dropping the WS side (YET). Please add any others you may think to be in danger.

TOOTSIE (Ouch! If this happens, even though I think a 25th Aniv. SE could be in the works for 2007)
SHAMPOO
TO DIE FOR
DEVIL IN A BLUE DRESS
MURPHY'S ROMANCE
JAGGED EDGE
SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER ME
RUNAWAY
THE CABLE GUY
ONLY YOU
GUARDING TESS
IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU
OWL & THE PUSSYCAT
CALIFORNIA SUITE
FOR PETE'S SAKE
MURDER BY DEATH
A SOLDIER'S STORY
DESPERATE MEASURES
STIR CRAZY
BLIND DATE
SEEMS LIKE OLD TIMES
HANKY PANKY

...To start. If you ever considered buying any of these I would just in case.

Strange while at the same time Sony pushes things like their Super-bit mastering on choice titles. Bizzare.

Regarding OAR, the problem is that there are two predominant mindsets:

1. Those who focus on the original program. They want to see the program as it was originally produced, and realize that their monitor is simply a means to view it, and that this invariably requires compromises on size with hardware that has a fixed aspect ratio (The OAR crowd, i.e., us.)

2. Those who focus on their own hardware. They think that filling the screen is of paramount importance, whether that involves cropping, stretching, open-matte, whatever. If they see black bars of any kind they feel they are being cheated somehow. They are unmoved by the fact that they are actually losing image information.

Unfortunately, the #2 mindset still exists even with 16:9 TVs, and will no doubt continue to be an issue. On the one hand, at least with 16:9 TVs a lot of 1.85 movies will not be modified. On the other hand a lot of academy ratio material will start to be (e.g., Kung Fu Season 1). The problem changes somewhat, but it doesn't go away.

This is precisely why I'm buying as many Academy Ratio classics as I can afford.

Come on--who doesn't want Citizen Kane matted?

You should post a after that!

Mindset number 2 from post 103 is the one that's always been our enemy in countless OAR vs P&S discussions. Those people who won't give in to reason should have been taught how to use the stretch function right from the start.

I can't believe more people aren't upset.


Because most people have other things to worry about...kids, house payments, lawn work ect...

I live in a small community since I moved from Greeley. We have one video store. I was told that the only REASON
they carry widescreen at all is because I complained about them not carrying widescreen movies! I would not rent a movie when all they had was a full screen. Most people don't have time to complain about stuff like that. To them, a movie is just entertainment, and most people don't have widescreen HD TV's with multi-thousand dollar surround sound systems like most of us here. Not to sound like I'm all for what Sony is doing, beleive me I'm not, but most people are what you call "joe six packs." Movies are just something they watch when they aren't working their 10 hour days just to pay bills, or taking care of their children, or trying to get their lawn to look good. Being in a small community, I realized these are not stupid, ignorant people who don't understand widescreen versus fullscreen, they just are too busy with other things to really care. It offends me when people start attacking them. I wish Sony would just continue offering both to appeal the masses.

Nobody wants to attack anybody. But if what you say is true then they wouldn't really have time to care if all movies were just in OAR to begin with.

I blame the studios primarily, for providing the butchered product in the first place. If they all banded together and agreed to respect OAR and respect their own properties by not releasing movies in P&S then there would be no problem at all. The few people who would have complained about black bars would have long ago learned to accept OAR, and (*gasp*) maybe even appreciate it.

Those are admirable reasons that I myself am influenced by, and I agree that they are enough to keep most consumers from even reading an online forum let alone post in it.

That said, like Crawdaddy, I too am surprised by many of the assumptions being made and rumors being spread on events that they do not appear to have enough data to support those assumptions and rumors.

As many know, I have been quite vocal in my displeasure regarding several of Sony's strategies both from a corporate level as well as from a consumer level, but I believe there is something else going on here and I suggest everyone take a deep breath and be patient.

While I do not have any first hand insight as to what is really going on here, I did have an interesting conversation with an exec at a competing studio regarding Sony's recent activity. Even he agreed that it is highly unlikely that Sony is discontinuing these titles to influence Blu-ray sales. After all, Blu-ray is about a year away from being released, and if there is a unified format then the release of that format will probably be delayed until 2007, maybe even later. Also these titles sell so few copies that these are hardly going to impact overall sales of Blu-ray products.

The most important thing though is that even if Blu-ray were available today, very few consumers are expected to buy any HiDef DVD player and as such the standard DVD market will continue to be the main focus for all studios and will have the greatest influence on what titles and editions will get released.

For those who still think Sony is permanently phasing out the OAR editions of all the previously listed titles on standard DVD may want to hold off judgment for now. I believe there are issues going on at Sony that are causing some titles and editions that simply are no longer profitable to get temporarily "ignored" so that interest builds. This is not an uncommon business strategy. It often results in boosting interest in a product simply because it appears to be unavailable (a basic principle of ‘Supply & Demand’). What happens is that old inventory is quickly sought after by weary consumers and when demand exceeds the supply, then the company will either quietly re-release the product, or they might even repackage it as a “new edition”. In the world of home video this has happened so many times over the years that it is now common practice, especially for less popular titles – like those listed in this thread.

At the end of the day, Sony is a for-profit company, like all major studios, and if there is profit to be made with any OAR edition, then it will be made available.


I agree however, that contacting various Sony reps is still a superb idea as it never hurts to remind all studios, including Sony how important it is to consumers that when at all possible OAR editions should be made available.

Of course, the most effective way you can encourage studios to support OAR is to educate as many consumers as possible. The more aware the general public is to the value of OAR the more studios will bend over backwards to supply that need.

I am not a fan of "Widescreen Advocates" as it simply confuses consumers who will then demand OAR 1.33 and 1.6 films to be in "widescreen". This will be even more of an issue, as pointed out in this thread, when the majority of consumers have 16x9 displays.

The other problem with using the label "Widescreen Advocate" is that it also does nothing to remind casual viewers that the only thing that is important is "OAR". Again, as pointed out in this thread many "widescreen" films are already being cropped down to a 1.78 aspect ratio for broadcast.

While it is true that the "Widescreen Advocate" website does make it a point to talk about and even emphasize OAR, unfortunately for that to be effective the general consumer would have to have enough interest to go to the website and actually read that article. In the end they are left with a tag line of "Widescreen Advocate" which if it becomes popular will most certainly leave general consumers demanding only widescreen releases with no regard to a film's OAR.

OK... Let me get off this soapbox, as it only reminds me how frustrating it has been to get people thinking “OAR” and not “widescreen”.

This is an interesting idea, and along the same lines of the Disney Classics business model, i.e. release something for a short period of time then let it go out of print for several years while demand builds before re-releasing a new and improved version to a whole new generation of consumers. The question I have is why would Sony go to the trouble of pulling a (pretty much no matter how you cut it) superior version of the film containg both the widescreen and fullscreen version, and replace it with a single fullscreen transfer? There is certainly a cost associated with the remanufacturing of this newer version, and if as you suggest, these titles are already poor sellers, aren't you throwing good money to bad by going to the trouble of re-releasing these things in fullscreen rather than pulling it from the market all together? I'd be curious to know how much more it costs to stamp out a "flipper" these days versus a single-sided disc, since that must be entering into Sony's financial equation.

FYI, DVD EMPIRE is having a SONY 2 for $15.00 sale. I ordered about 4 titles that I think may be headed for the same fate.

That would make more sense if they were simply deleting these titles, but the fact they're still available in P&S-only form doesn't really fit that model.

Maybe its a Wal-Mart SE?

Sorry about that, but I think that might be it. Sony distributed everything and ran out, and WM asked for more, so they ran some more off.

As for this strategy bothering people, and putting us and them(into 2 groups)this is only going to bother those that want OAR - - - AND - - - got into buying DVD's a few years after 1997 - - - AND - - - are on a budget. After all, if you got into buing DVD's late and had a lot of disposable income, you'd probably have it.

The real question here is - what titles are next?

Glenn

Actually, it fits perfectly in that model... as a form of evidence look at all the posts saying they are right now actively seeking out and buying the WS editions of titles listed in this thread. Had these WS editions remained in production, those DVDs would still be sitting on the store shelves instead of in the hands of interested consumers ...

Supply & Demand is a powerful sales tool, but you have to know what motivates your target audience.

The industry profile of the average consumer that purchases P&S DVDs is quite different from the profile of the average consumer that purchases OAR when given the choice. Generally speaking P&S buyers are typically not "film buffs" who would follow a forum such as this and who would be influenced by these rumors such that they would rush out to WAL-MART and buy remaining P&S editions before they go "OOP". Thus, limiting supply of P&S editions has almost no effect on increasing demand.


As stated before, to increase demand in order to sell the remaining stock very quickly and create interest and demand for when it is either re-released, or a new edition is made.

Actually it can cost less than $0.50 per disc for a re-release, and even a "new" edition can be made quite cheaply depending on the amount of added material not yet produced.

For independents and for short runs, the cost can be as much as $.50 per disc more, but for the majors the cost difference between stamping a SS and DS disc is typically less than a penny.

Nope. Online stores have these P&S only titles. I checked around right away for "Sweet and Lowdown" and all have P&S....

I didn't mean that only WM would get them, only that the re-release was due to WM's request. They then filled all orders that they had.

Glenn

Hello Everybody,

I've often enjoyed reading the intelligent discussions taking place here on this forum, but it was this simple yet totally true statement that finally got me to join in.

Basically there are movie lovers and TV watchers. And these TV watchers don't care about a theatrical type experience in the home. Being TV watchers they want a TV experience, and that means the whole TV. I know people who played mono cd's loudly, proclaiming the glory of their stereo system, and never once complained about it being the same signal in both speakers. Yet give them more image buy using less TV and they scream like banshees.

Here is an example of how "anti black bar" they can be. A friend who works at a local TV retailer tells me of a couple who come in looking for a wide screen HD TV set, which will be used for some HDTV viewing and lots of DVD viewing. When they find out that some movies will still have black bars (my friend explained to them that current films are shot "wide" and "very wide", and that "wide" will fit perfectly on the new TV, and "very wide" will still have bars, but much smaller than on a regular TV)they went ballistic and bought a standard TV instead, even when told that the vast majority of films are in the "wide" category and will fit perfectly. I can't explain this behavior, especially since by angrily buying a standard TV they are now stuck with the dreaded bars for ALL modern films.

This irrational need to have every square inch of TV operating at all time is unfortunately going to continue into the HDTV era. Ladies and gentlemen we complain about the destruction of classic wide screen films on pan and scan TV broadcast and DVD, but get ready. The classic 1.37:1 image is going to get raped in the coming years.

Steve

I come back to the same (supremely logical) argument every time: had the studios not offered pan and scan on DVD in the first place, this would never have become an issue, and I doubt there would have been a fraction of the lost sales to "full screen only" people (who'd have ended up buying the letterbox versions if they wanted to own a given title)as there have been to the OAR aficionados who refuse to buy the Sony and Disney crap that masquerades as "decent" transfers. TAKE GUN, AIM SQUARELY AT FOOT, FIRE.