Quadruple dipping ahead/

Yes, that's what was discussed at the meeting. Don't tell anyone, OK?

Correct. Marketing 101 will be continued to be followed.

Memo note: Monday is blue shirt day.

Well, we only have ourselves to blame. If everyone had just said no and not bought every "new" version that came out, the studios might have taken the hint and released everything that had in a SE the first time. They know suckers when they see them.

yeah, good idea for a thread.

How dare the studios double-dip! They should have gotten Ben-Hur right the first time when it came out on CED!

I'm rather amused at the whole "double/triple/quadruple" dipping weeping scenarios. I suppose it's because I'm basically a movie only kind of guy so the subsequent bells and whistles special editions don't hold much interest for me.

Still, business wise, it DOES make sense, doesn't it. Get as much cash flow out of one product as you can and then gussy it up a bit with a little dressing and release it again and make some more money out of it. C'mon, guys! We're consumers. We're supposed to have money squeezed out of us. Businesses = make a profit, consumers = provide the profits for the businesses. Or did you think home video companies are here merely to build up our movie libraries on demand?

I'm actually more perplexed that with the veritable smorgasbord of diverse titles out in the DVD marketplace at the consumers who seem to keep buying the same set of titles over and over again or seem to keep wanting not only "special" editions of titles already out there but special editions of titles that already have a ton of extras on them.

No doubt there are those still unsatisfied with the 3 disc Titanic because there aren't enough extras and they won't be satisfied until there's a audio commentary by the caterer describing what he fed Cameron, DiCaprio and Winslet.

If people desire to hand over their money then they have the right. There are only 2 films that I have ever done that on. I also have no intention of rebuying my entire collection of dvds on high def. The shame is that the effort required to create these new versions could be used to put out films that are not currently out on dvd.

Was there news to this effect?

I'd like to read about how the new products are taking shape (even if I have no intention of buying them).

Also wondering what's in store for packaging.

I'm rather amused that people are dismissing this rather unethical practice and labeling it as a 'business tactic'. Just because it's a business tactic does not make it right. Maybe some of you have all the money in the world to buy 8 versions of some movie, but most of us do not. And I'm not referring to revisiting titles that have been OOP or one of the format's earlier titles. I'm talking about releasing a new title, and then re-releasing it a few months or more down the line in a full blown SE, a'la Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind without notice.


I really like the very slim packaging (slimline?), like what is used to hold discs for TV box sets. Or at least a packaging that is half the spinal width of current DVD cases.

he didnt say that.

his complete question was.

"I'm I wrong in assuming that all releases in the new High Def will be bare bones so that the studio can release SE packages a few years later?"

this is why i think a bad idea or a usless topic.

internet rumors always spread from nonsense like this.

next thing you'll see is people taking this and saying that they read on the internet that all hd dvds will be movie only.

Not so useless a thread for you to post twice in?

Well, its entirely possible that the studios will figure we'll be so excited to have movies in HD that we'll purchase barebones titles, then they'll put out the SE, which we'll also buy. But let's wait and see.

It's a real issue/concern AFAIC. Re-releasing a SD SE after it's less-endowed predecessor, for instance, sees great sales is one thing. But the issue William is addressing is a horse of a different color in that we're looking at a shift to a new format. Criterion SE LDs notwithstanding, we didn't know a lot of the supplemental content we've grown used to even existed when DVD first arrived. Of course some of this content is newly-created for new films.

So the question of whether the studios will product position Blu-ray's high definition film presentation--period--as the premium content worthy of, say, a $35 price tag, and purposefully withhold for future release at a higher price point an HD SE with the supps we know to exist now is a legitimate one.

We know from various quotes in trade stories from studio reps and analysts that the studios are going to handle HD differently than SD. Not only because it's probably going to be a niche for a while, but also because there's palpable desire to manage its product cycle better than was done with SD. Much effort is going to be expended to prevent the rapid commodification and "rush to the bottom" that we've seen with SD. Just yesterday at Costco, I saw new copies of The Natural and the SuperBit Panic Room for $7.49. The destruction of SD DVD's margins is part of raison d'etre of HD on DVD.

I'm also concerned about the equivalent of what we saw during the LD-to-SD DVD transition as far as transfers are concerned: probably not Sony, but I'm concerned about, say, Paramount releasing SD transfers on Blu-ray and labeling them "HD" just because the format is capable of that, even though the content of a particular release is not 1080i.

So to put it another way, is Par going to release Braveheart--which they announced as one of their first HD DVDs--on Blu-ray using the existing transfer and without Mel Gibson's (serviceable) commentary, only to release a true HD transfer with the existing (and maybe some new?) supplements later down the road?

It's a legitimate, vexing issue/possibility and only time will tell. It's yet another reason I wish we could get a BD release slate and spec announcement already.

-p

I hadn't even thought about this, but considering that HD home video will probably be a niche product for a while, I'm sure that those with good HT setups will not tolerate rehashed SD transfers.

Personally, I think we will see something similar to what happened during the LD to DVD transition: mostly decent 1080i transfers (which will probably look fabulous next to their 480p counterparts--just as DVD versions generally looked much better next to their laserdisc counterparts), and fewer extras initially, except maybe on high-profile titles like "Batman Begins" (early DVD releases of catalog titles such as "Wizard of Oz," "Gone With the Wind" and "The Frighteners" were barebones and did not have their LD extras ported over until much later--even "Psycho" was and still is missing the isolated score from the old Signature Collection LD).

so if i think this topic is a bad idea, were am i supposed to say that if not here in this very topic.

the whole, such a bad thread but you still posted here is a ridiculous rebuttal.

I'm not sure I understood your last post. Anyway, it just seems your putting more effort into pointing out how bad you think this topic is instead of helping to make it better. No topic is bad; only bad replies.

By the way, that makes three times for you now.

I can really see this happening. The studios will say something like "We've improved the quality of this movie, but we really didn't have enough space to put any extras on the same disk. We decided not to make this a 2-disk SE, because the costs would go up. In the future, when double-layer disks are out, we'll reissue this again with the extras added."

Ok, maybe they won't really say that, but that is what I'll be thinking when I see the 1st single-layer disks come out - bareboned!

Glenn

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

Glenn:


Bit of bait and switch. Now you want me to show you that the studios are releasing the same number or more movies on DVD as in the past ... I don't know that they are ... but you are changing your argument mid-stream.


The NY Times also discussed that DVD sales growth has gone down. They discussed that those that buy to build their libraries have already done so where newer adopters are more likely to rent titles. Makes sense to me.


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.