An Open Letter To Studios & All Blu-ray Distributors... (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

2) I don't care how long they've been putting ads on discs. I don't buy discs that I know have ads on them. I usually rent discs to find out if they do have ads or not. If they do, then a rent is all I'm going to do. If they don't care, then so be it.

I've read some amazing things on the internet but this is way up near the top.

 

[revgen]

I've read some amazing things on the internet but this is way up near the top.

What's so amazing about it?

If you're already subscribed to Netflix, then I don't see why somebody wouldn't rent a disc before buying.

 

[TravisR]

I don't like trailers on the front of discs either but it's amazing to me that anyone would let that stop them from buying a movie. To each their own...

 

[revgen]

I don't like trailers on the front of discs either but it's amazing to me that anyone would let that stop them from buying a movie. To each their own...

I can always rent the movie from Netflix if I want to watch it again. The sky isn't going to fall if I don't buy it.

But I do agree to your last point, to each his own.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I guess a digital copy counts as the 2D version, or else Disney would be in violation of that specification with the upcoming Oz the Great and Powerful 3D Blu-ray.

Unless the 3D disc contains the 2D version as well, like the Dial M for Murder disc. Their offer of an additional 2D disc could be just that, an additional disc, but as you say we'll know when it comes out, but that is part of the spec.

 

[Persianimmortal]

1) Let me get this straight. They show ads on blu-rays because it's serves their interests instead of the consumers' interests? Ads are designed to be seen by consumers. Not the studios. Your logic doesn't compute.

2) I don't care how long they've been putting ads on discs. I don't buy discs that I know have ads on them. I usually rent discs to find out if they do have ads or not. If they do, then a rent is all I'm going to do. If they don't care, then so be it.

3) Last I checked, it's not the job of the copyright holder to inform a citizen that they are breaking laws. I don't see any substance for this argument.

4) I never said anything about having multiple discs.

5) No. There is another way. Sell more product. Listening to the consumers will help to achieve this goal. Especially if the consumers are devout movie buffs who read every single review about a movie before they buy it. If they hear that the movie wasn't done the way it should be, then it's potentially lost sales.

6) Supposing that is true, marginal profit is still profit. Unlike some of the summer movies that flop and leave the studios losing millions, a studio can turn that marginal profit into modest profit by following the advice that consumers of catalog titles lay out in these forums.

7) And some of those 3rd parties, like Twilight Time and Criterion do exactly what the OP suggested. Which makes him and others like myself wonder why the studios can't do the same thing.

8) I sincerely doubt that removing FBI ads and other ads before a movie starts will cost them too much money. And I've already commented on the "legal liability" argument in section #3. If they want to advertise, then don't charge the consumer money for the blu-ray. Advertising is fine if the medium is free. Not if there is money being paid.

9) Physical media will only be phased out when the consumers say it will be phased out. Not because a studio tells them it will be. Don't believe me? Ask Microsoft.

I'm really not sure where to start with the amount of confused and nonsensical things you've posted, but briefly:


1. Since when do ads serve consumer interest? Has there ever been an instance when consumers have wanted ads on any product? Your logic does not compute!

2. That is your choice, and it's perfectly fine for you, but does not extend to every other person. I'm not going to stop buying BDs because of a minor inconvenience, and once again, you ignore the fact that enthusiasts make up a tiny portion of the overall market.

3. Copyright holders often make the terms and conditions of the usage of their product clear as both a visible deterrent, and a service to consumers who would otherwise carry out infringing activity due to ignorance (or claimed ignorance). Granted, most people knowingly break copyright laws, but I can't imagine studios place copyright and FBI notices on their products just to annoy us. It has nothing to do with cost, it is an issue of minimizing legal liability.

4. You may not, the OP did. In asking for more extras to be included in a package, this often necessitates extra discs. Frankly, I couldn't care less about extras, I'm only concerned with the main feature. So at the very least, there's one consumer who would not want to pay more for these "extras".

The rest of your points seem to entirely miss the facts of the situation. I suggest you acquaint yourself with:

- The declining state of physical media sales. See for example the Wall Street Journal article linked in the post I made earlier. It has a nice little graph showing the drop in physical sales on both DVD and BD, from around $8 billion in 2004 to around $5 billion in 2012. As noted earlier, around 75-80% of these are on DVD by the way.

- The fact that companies like Twilight Time charge sometimes 2-3 times the regular retail price for a BD, hence making it profitable for them. Or they have barebones releases. And/or they still include warnings and disclaimers at the start of their discs. So your point was?

- The fact that there are different amounts of profit to be made from different products. Profit maximization, which as the OP stated is an important consideration, is not the same as just "generating a profit". I have no idea what profits studios generate from each product, but by their actions we can tell that catalog BDs are not their most profitable products.


Look, if you guys just want to post a wish list of wonderful things you would love on BD, I can disengage my brain and join in on the fantasy. The reality is entirely different. If we want studios to change what they're doing, we have to make logical and plausible arguments, not pie-in-the-sky lists and then angrily demand that they do what we say if they want to make money. What leverage do we as a niche-within-a-niche (classic film enthusiasts on BD) have on studios, I mean really?

The best I can see is that by making informed commentary regarding the accuracy and overall quality of films on BD (i.e. correct color timing, aspect ratios, and so forth), studio execs will be better informed and at least not put out blatantly inaccurate copies of films. Like what happened with the Universal Hitchcock set, or more recently with Shane.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

Some people have stated that they are starting to prefer streaming movies rather than watching them on disc specificially because they usually start right with the movie instead of previews and what-not to skip through. I've never understood why discs can't just start with the movie and allow you to access previews manually, but it's very irritating when they do start with them and make it as hard as possible to skip through them. When they're shoved in your face like this, it makes one less enthusiastic about the movies being promoted. It's also silly to put dated info up-front like this. I looked at a disc recently that had a promo for Warner Movie Rewards, which has since been discontinued, but I'm forced to skip past it every time I watch the movie on that disc. I'm sure the lawyers have something to do with the forced copyright warnings, but those just make me feel like doing what they're telling me not to do, just to spite them. I totally get the vibe "You did the right thing and bought this from us, but don't you DARE even think of copying it!"

Again, *my* main concerns are how media is looking less attractive at a time when it needs to look more attractive than ever. Packaging should not be as half-hearted as it has been lately, and there should be no quality issues with the movies themselves. Make us GLAD that we're continuing to buy actual media.

 

[revgen]

I'm really not sure where to start with the amount of confused and nonsensical things you've posted, but briefly:


1. Since when do ads serve consumer interest? Has there ever been an instance when consumers have wanted ads on any product? Your logic does not compute!

2. That is your choice, and it's perfectly fine for you, but does not extend to every other person. I'm not going to stop buying BDs because of a minor inconvenience, and once again, you ignore the fact that enthusiasts make up a tiny portion of the overall market.

3. Copyright holders often make the terms and conditions of the usage of their product clear as both a visible deterrent, and a service to consumers who would otherwise carry out infringing activity due to ignorance (or claimed ignorance). Granted, most people knowingly break copyright laws, but I can't imagine studios place copyright and FBI notices on their products just to annoy us. It has nothing to do with cost, it is an issue of minimizing legal liability.

4. You may not, the OP did. In asking for more extras to be included in a package, this often necessitates extra discs. Frankly, I couldn't care less about extras, I'm only concerned with the main feature. So at the very least, there's one consumer who would not want to pay more for these "extras".

The rest of your points seem to entirely miss the facts of the situation. I suggest you acquaint yourself with:

- The declining state of physical media sales. See for example the Wall Street Journal article linked in the post I made earlier. It has a nice little graph showing the drop in physical sales on both DVD and BD, from around $8 billion in 2004 to around $5 billion in 2012. As noted earlier, around 75-80% of these are on DVD by the way.

- The fact that companies like Twilight Time charge sometimes 2-3 times the regular retail price for a BD, hence making it profitable for them. Or they have barebones releases. And/or they still include warnings and disclaimers at the start of their discs. So your point was?

- The fact that there are different amounts of profit to be made from different products. Profit maximization, which as the OP stated is an important consideration, is not the same as just "generating a profit". I have no idea what profits studios generate from each product, but by their actions we can tell that catalog BDs are not their most profitable products.


Look, if you guys just want to post a wish list of wonderful things you would love on BD, I can disengage my brain and join in on the fantasy. The reality is entirely different. If we want studios to change what they're doing, we have to make logical and plausible arguments, not pie-in-the-sky lists and then angrily demand that they do what we say if they want to make money. What leverage do we as a niche-within-a-niche (classic film enthusiasts on BD) have on studios, I mean really?

The best I can see is that by making informed commentary regarding the accuracy and overall quality of films on BD (i.e. correct color timing, aspect ratios, and so forth), studio execs will be better informed and at least not put out blatantly inaccurate copies of films. Like what happened with the Universal Hitchcock set, or more recently with Shane.

1) Actually it does, because logically, the whole point of issuing an advertisement is to gain the consumer's interest. If they are angry or irritated with having to see an advertisement on a product they bought with their own money, they aren't going to be receptive to the advertisement.

2) Actually, catalog sales make up a huge chunk.
Here's a table from a recent Wall Street Journal article.

3) How are the victims of a crime (studios) legally liable for the criminal actions of another? You still haven't been able to explain this.

4)

The declining state of physical media doesn't change the fact that catalog titles make up a huge chunk of those sales. Whether they are on DVD or blu-ray doesn't matter.

Wings (1927) has an MSRP of $20. TT titles are $30 to $35. They cost more, but not 2x or 3x more.

I was talking about ads in relation to TT and Criterion. Not FBI warnings. Although I wish they'd get rid of those too.

It's not just catalog blu-rays. Bluray has been slow to be adopted by consumers compared to DVD's quick adoption over VHS. Hence why there are more DVD's than blu-rays overall. Hence why it would be in the studios best interest to listen to customers who do buy.

So removing annoying ads and FBI warnings is "pie in the sky"? It's not that hard to do. Pie in the sky would be asking for a 1 hour documentary on the making of the movie.

 

[Dick]

In my original post I was not suggesting the FBI warnings be dropped completely (although that would be great), but that the discs be authbored so that these warnings appear PRIOR to the "play" function." But while we're at it, hasn't Homeland Security better things to do with our Federal Income Tax than track down people who copy movies? The word "terrorism" comes to mind.

 

[Keith Cobby]

I agree with the general points being made here, I particularly dislike 'timelines' which seem to occur most frequently on Paramount and Twilight Time discs.

I frequently only want to play a section of a film and I find that the chapter stops/scene selections are often either at say 10 minute intervals or at arbitrary points. On musical films I often want to play the songs/dances etc and would like to see scene selections at these points.

 

[cineMANIAC]

I also hate being forced to go through an ad/disclaimer gauntlet before I can enjoy the movie I paid to watch - SONY is the worst offender with their endless Interpol/FBI/Homeland Security screens in English AND French - but many of these "pet peeves" can be easily remedied by providing alternate means of delivery:

Government/studio warnings and disclaimers should be viewable as a menu option. A viewer would click on an anti-piracy logo and a video comes on, sort of like those "You wouldn't steal a car" promos we've all seen recently - this should be sufficient.. If they really want to drive the message home, offer the FBI Warning as a menu option. We click on it and a likeable character would appear and "talk" to us about why copying movies isn't cool. In other words, don't force these messages on us.

Offer a reversible cover. The crappy photoshop job on one side and original theatrical poster art on the other.

Security stickers. Sell the discs and cases separately. The discs would be kept behind the counter either in jewel cases or plastic sleeves. End of theft issues.

Packaging. Same as above. Sell the discs separately - offer different packaging types and let people choose which one to buy.

Trailers. Just include them. They don't need to be remastered. It would be nice, but unnecessary.

 

[haineshisway]

You know why they insist on the FBI warnings to not be an option? Because some smart ass twit would figure out a way to subvert the legal system by saying "I didn't know - I didn't see anything that told me that I couldn't share this with the planet." You can want the world, but you are not the producer nor the studio that releases the product, and they do what they need to do. If you don't like what they do, pass on the product. I don't like forced trailers either - who would. If I really can't get around them, I go do other things until they're done. FBI warnings don't bother me in the least, nor do trailers I can skip. But you know what I REALLY hate? Every film today having multiple company logos at the top of the film, followed by the exact same number of titles for every one of those logo people - redundant, pathetic, but no one complains about having to sit through that crap before a movie actually begins.

This thread is fine as a place to vent, I suppose, but some of the suggestions really are a little too much.

 

[Dick]

But you know what I REALLY hate? Every film today having multiple company logos at the top of the film, followed by the exact same number of titles for every one of those logo people - redundant, pathetic, but no one complains about having to sit through that crap before a movie actually begins.

But all that stuff was in the theatrical presentation, and just gets carried over to the disc. I think I counted seven separate company logos on some movie last year, and as you say, they then each get a separate (usually black screen) card after that before you even get to the movie. Perhaps they think we're all memorizing each of these companies so that we can sit around praising them afterward. This is sort of like directors who have made maybe one film getting, not only the "Directed By" credit, but a separate card saying, "A Film By..." when that is so absolutely false. "A Film By..." should be followed by the names of everyone will show up in the eventual credit crawl.

Anyway, another rant.

 

[Ray H]

The most recent Disney discs I reviewed that offered pause entertainment (called "Disney Intermission" or something similar) did have a button in the menu to turn off the feature. I'm not sure if a lingering timeline pops up instead, but I do know that the entertainment breaks can be turned off.

Good to know! I usually leave the room after I pause a disc, so I guess I wasn't in the position to check.

 

[Douglas R]

My main complaint about Blu-ray is not so much the discs themselves but the clunkiness and slow loading of the players – certainly a backward step from more user-friendly DVD players. Be that as it may be, whilst I particularly dislike the fact that extras are not always carried over from the DVD and wish all discs had printed leaflets, what I think is unhelpful is the general tone of the “open letter”.

I have no idea if any studio executive will ever read the open letter but it is hardly conducive to expect sympathetic consideration to be given to the issues raised if they are couched in such insulting and contemptuous terms such as the opening paragraph; “Do you actually care about the consumers who buy your product -- who stuff your coffers and in many cases make you very wealthy..etc”, and which is more likely to make any executive dismiss it as the rantings of yet another obsessive collector with an inflated sense of entitlement. Raising these issues in a friendly and civil manner is surely more likely to achieve results.

 

[sidburyjr]

The trailers/ads don't bother me. Not being able to skip them by pressing the "menu" button on my remote DOES!

+1 ... what the heck +100000

Somewhere else in this thread someone commented about using original movie posters as cover art for the disks. I would love to see extras consisting of stills of posters (preferably with the ability to print them out from your computer in a size up to say 8.3 x 11.

Dick

 

[Persianimmortal]

You know why they insist on the FBI warnings to not be an option? Because some smart ass twit would figure out a way to subvert the legal system by saying "I didn't know - I didn't see anything that told me that I couldn't share this with the planet."

That's basically it. For a disclaimer or warning to be effective, it needs to be prominent. Otherwise someone can legally claim that they didn't see it as a potential defence against prosecution, or when taking action civil action against the studio. If you could skip all disclaimers and warnings simply by pressing the Menu button as soon as the disc loads, or they were moved to being an option on the main menu, which most people probably wouldn't click, then by definition they are not prominent.

In many cases, warnings and disclaimers on discs can be skipped - after they appear - by pressing the Chapter Forward button on your remote. This is a reasonable compromise, as you can only skip each one once it appears, hence you can't claim not to be aware of its presence. If you then make a deliberate choice not to read the warning, it becomes a clear case of negligence on your part. So a practical suggestion would be for more studios to adopt this model, making all warnings and disclaimers skippable in this manner. At the moment, some of them aren't.

Trailers are usually skippable in this manner already. I don't think I've ever run across a trailer that can't be skipped using Chapter Forward. It takes at most 10 seconds of my life to skip through the trailers on any disc that has them. Not a desirable state of affairs, but hardly so great an inconvenience that I (and most others) would refuse to purchase the movie.

This thread is fine as a place to vent, I suppose, but some of the suggestions really are a little too much.

Agreed, and this was my earlier point. It's fine to vent and come up with wish lists, but you may as well shake your fist at the ocean. It's pointless making impractical suggestions based on an incomplete understanding of why things are done the way they are.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I think the studios should send the stars of the film around to our residences to personally hand us the discs.

 

[TravisR]

I think the studios should send the stars of the film around to our residences to personally hand us the discs.

I'll still find something to complain about, dagnabbit!