Re: TDB: Fox/MGM prepping several catalog titles
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paul_Scott
the main point I wanted to get across was the desperate need for moritoriums and generous windows that favor the more expensive Bd release. To my mind these aren't points I've been harping on though the tone may seem similar.
On the subject of upgrading- I, like a lot of other people, was thrilled when Fox finally got around to remastering all the POTA films in 16:9. And they look terrific! Why would I resist upgraading a set that yields HUGE benefits on a native 16:9 display...especially when my retail cost, on sale, was HALF what the original non-anamorphic set cost me? I'm curious if people here think Joe Six wouldn't already be impressed enough with upgrading a non-anamorphic disc to a 16:9 version after he gets his new HDTV. I want more catalog from Fox and others...but for that to happen sales need to occur and for that to happen stronger motivators need to be put in place from pricing to moritoriums. Robert likes to harp on (Fox's) pricing and he's right. Without changes in that pricing, in a bad economy they are going to lose the early adopters let alone not expand beyond that. But I think they are other aspects as well that need severe attitude shifts from the studios. And yeah, I think all THESE things are what people need to "rally behind" now- rather than simply rah-rahing behind Bd as it is.
|
I agree w/ most of what you said there, except I suspect you might've overlooked something in your comparisons between say non-16x9 vs 16x9 DVDs vs BDs (at least for the large majority of consumers). Display size (and the trend of going bigger) is a factor here.
During the early days of DVD, a much smaller percentage of consumers owned large displays -- probably most were still watching on 20-to-27" 4x3 TVs and some on 32" (like me) w/ just a tiny, specific segment of enthusiasts running larger displays. On those smaller 4x3 TVs, non-16x9 DVDs looked quite good upto stunning (and was practically indistinguishable from LDs in most cases). And 16x9 DVDs (downconverted for 4x3 display) were not quite that much better in many instances -- and in some cases, like The Rock, the non-16x9 DVD could actually beat quite a few actual 16x9 DVDs for PQ.
The 16x9 DVD really doesn't have a lot of impact until the viewer actually moves to a 16x9 display. But by the time one upgrades to that, he/she's typically moving upto a substantially larger display, particularly for widescreen viewing purposes. The larger display itself really *requires* higher resolution to maintain similar apparent PQ. And in fact, depending on how large one goes, the increase resolution from non-16x9 to 16x9 really is *not* nearly enough to make up for the size increase, if one wants to maintain the same apparent PQ. Most folks making that switch are only settling for the lower apparent PQ and would want better -- we saw this all the time on HTF from posters who upgraded from small-ish 4x3 TVs to large-ish 16x9 displays.
And really, most consumers had been sticking w/ their smaller 4x3 TVs up until the last couple years. Well, now w/ the all-around push to go wide and HD (and bigger, yet more space efficient because it's flatter) -- rather than merely an upgrade to BD/HDM -- as consumers upgrade to those larger 16x9 displays, they will notice that DVDs just don't look as good as they were used to. Sure, upconversion will help. But it's not really the same though. And if any of them were willing to upgrade from non-16x9 DVDs to 16x9 DVDs before now, well, they surely would want to upgrade to BD too provided the price is right for them of course -- but it's really no different than any double-dipping that they did on DVD before, except they do need to have a BD player.
The only ones who might not be so willing to upgrade to BD given similar type pricing structure, despite having double/triple-dipped already so far, are actually probably the film fans/enthusiasts who happen to have no plans to upgrade their displays (and maybe a smaller segment who are fine w/ settling for the lower apparent PQ on larger 16x9 displays).
But this does again beg the question (to which I alluded previously), how exactly are the studios making $$$ from those rereleases on DVD?? Are they really selling *that* many copies to non-enthusiasts?? OR has that actually not mattered very much? Well, I'm sure they'd love to have more average consumers double-dip so they make even more $$$, but I really don't know w/out seeing actual figures. Maybe the Fox chiefs are actually correct in pointing out that (many) enthusiasts are willing to pay the premium, and that's why they're charging so much even for catalog titles. And then, after they've milked those enthusiasts, they'll cut prices to get others to buy (like they seem to be doing now w/ certain titles). This same thing is done on DVD too although the starting price point is lower (at least nowadays) -- and actually, Fox is not the only one that does this on DVD.
OR perhaps, more likely, rereleases benefit from new marketing (of various kinds) to help sell to folks who never bought the previous versions before -- some of the studios, including Warner, have pointed this out in the past (and perhaps, portions of those huge Sony payouts are tied to this as well). Well, there's probably actually a wide mix there. Some buy them as actual double-dips. Some just never got around to buying the previous versions for whatever reasons. And some buy them for the first time because they're relatively new to DVD -- and the new marketing makes them aware of those titles (and maybe even present greater lure in many instances) though this probably also applies to some extent to the 2nd group. This could explain why some studios (like Fox/MGM) have been releasing barebones BDs (though in good picture-and-audio quality). They are expecting *both* some actual double-dips as well as a larger BD market in the future. And like w/ a lot of different other things they've tried (that might not make sense if considered out of context), I think they are still experimenting w/ what works for them in the long run though they probably decided to start out w/ what worked on DVD first. This could also explain things like the rather wide mix of releases various studios put out -- not just the latest blockbuster action flick as one would've assumed though there are definitely a disproportionately larger percentage of those on BD right now.
Anyway, like I said a couple times elsewhere, if we really want to help push for change, especially for something faster and bigger, I don't think it's productive at all to constantly complain like this on thread topics that are not really intended for it. As you can see already, people are basically either tuning this stuff out now or even responding against it. It's all really rather counterproductive and even destructive in some instances.
We probably need to find better ways to channel our demands to the studios and CE companies themselves. I'm not sure what ways those are, but the constant complaining I see here just isn't it, IMHO. Like I said before, you can at minimum start up a petition or two, if you feel up to it. I'm no good w/ that or I'd probably do it myself. But I'd certainly sign whatever petitions that are done well and clearly communicate the issues at hand...
_Man_
