Echo Bridge- The problem and the solution... (1 Viewer)

[Vincent_P]

Originally Posted by David Wilkins

I'll gladly boycott them, because they're all crap titles. What they're choosing to release, and where and who their target market is...says a lot about what they are as a company; the quality issue only confirms it. Besides, there have been a lot of crap DVD releases, and that didn't kill DVD.

I'd argue that a lot of the titles listed in this post: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/311611/echo-bridge-the-problem-and-the-solution#post_3814666 ... are far from "crap titles".


Vincent

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by FanboyZ

Echo Bridge works with The Asylum- they are certainly in the business of fraud.

What does that have to do with the specific assertion that they are intentionally downgrading 5.1 tracks to 2.0 for Blu-ray release, a claim for which you have yet to produce even a modicum of evidence?

 

[Lord Dalek]

Seems like this guy has an axe to grind.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Originally Posted by Vincent_P

I'd argue that a lot of the titles listed in this post: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/311611/echo-bridge-the-problem-and-the-solution#post_3814666 ... are far from "crap titles".

Vincent

I would agree. The two Hugh Grant titles I mentioned may not be for everyone, but they are both solid, entertaining films deserving of a decent transfer. I hardly see Sirens as Walmart fare, unless they are doing a hell of a lot of editing as well.

 

[FanboyZ]

Here's some spin from an obvious EB sock puppet at Blu-Ray.com: "I'm not an EB symathizer. A good friend of mine happens to work there and I expressed the backlash against their blu-ray titles. The response was that they're new to blu-ray and they haven't really invested in the technology, to keep their costs down. Remember that after only a few years of DVD's existence, studios started using "HD masters" at 1080p. Their blu-ray catalogue is likely comprised of 1080p DVD transfers encoded at native resolution, rather than compressing it down to 720 x 480. On top of that they likely have encoding software that can't touch the major studios, which will result in loss of sharpness and higher compression noise. As far as the elements - prints with incorrect aspect ratio or instances where they used 2.0 instead of 5.1 is like the result of limiting the amount of time they allow their employees to dedicate to tracking down quality elements. With all of this in mind, it's easy to see why their titles are on the level of quality that they are. Think of them as independents. Think of them as LoFi blu-ray. Once again, I'm not defending them; I'm just telling it like it is. I'm not happy about their product either, but it's better than nothing. Please excuse any typos, as this was written on my phone." --- TeresofBlood This means two things. The first is that we the consumers are starting to get to them, secondly that they are trying to appeal to our supposed sympathy for independent studios. This is a good sign. My actions have forced them off of facebook, and started rant threads at every Blu-Ray and film related forum of note. This is all good but we have to hit them harder.

 

[Mark-P]

Fanboy Z, of all the injustices in the world, this is the crusade you choose to fight.

 

[FanboyZ]

I can't really do anything stop Bear baiting in Pakistan.

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

Those poor Jackie Chan films were cut to ribbons by old Harvey Scissorhands, so any release of them would be worthless, no matter how good they looked or sounded. MiramAxe, I tell ya.


'Tis a real pity about the Frears and Cronenberg titles though...

 

[cliff mac]

Not true.... we never even spoke about materials. Echo Bridge out bid us with money.

Originally Posted by ahollis

I would go as far to say the Echo Bridge is releasing what transfers or materials Miramax is providing. I feel both companies are to blame for the poor transfers and sound. The main purpose behind the investment group for Miramax was to make money off the library, be that most of what they think are the prestigious films going to Lionsgate and the "B" film going to Echo Bridge or mining the library with remakes and sequels. Echo Bridge is cheap DVD/Blu-ray and they are not going to pony up money for new transfers, that just is not their thing. I am sure that while Miramax is making some coin off the deal, they are not going to do a new transfer that would cause them to spend any of the money they receive. They will just supply what they already have. I understand this was one of the points that caused Miramax to pick Echo Bridge and not Shout! Shout! wanted better materials and Miramax did not want to provide them.


The main culprit in all this is Miramax. Echo Bridge is just doing business as usual for them.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

It is very unfortunate that Shout didn't get these titles (or at least the ones I want ) as what I have seen from them has been done very well. Now that Echo Bridge is aware of the response their releases are getting, they have two choices: either continue to release shoddy versions and find that they are not selling well due to a bad reputation, or buck up and try to change their image by delivering the quality consumers expect. Subpar releases are also going to sully the Miramax brand if people start seeing a lot of crappy titles with their name on it. I can't see this situation being good for either company if there isn't a major course correction soon.

 

[AnthonyP]

Originally Posted by Jeff Ulmer

It is very unfortunate that Shout didn't get these titles (or at least the ones I want ) as what I have seen from them has been done very well. Now that Echo Bridge is aware of the response their releases are getting, they have two choices: either continue to release shoddy versions and find that they are not selling well due to a bad reputation, or buck up and try to change their image by delivering the quality consumers expect. Subpar releases are also going to sully the Miramax brand if people start seeing a lot of crappy titles with their name on it. I can't see this situation being good for either company if there isn't a major course correction soon.

Anyone have any thoughts on how one might go about lobbying on this behalf? The vast majority of people don't bother with attempting to articulate concerns directly to Miramax and/or Echo Bridge and random reviews and forum threads never seem to accomplish much action beyond the contained venting. Neither company is going to know X amount of people didn't buy a release due to the lack of quality versus something just not selling more.


Other than an interested party within Echo Bridge or Miramax taking some meetings and having conversations about the possibility of higher quality masters existing or creating new one, what can a third party possibly do or say to inspire that re-evaluation?

 

[TonyD]

Did somebody update the title, I seem to remember a more over the top header.

 

[Pete T C]

Originally Posted by AnthonyP



Anyone have any thoughts on how one might go about lobbying on this behalf? The vast majority of people don't bother with attempting to articulate concerns directly to Miramax and/or Echo Bridge and random reviews and forum threads never seem to accomplish much action beyond the contained venting. Neither company is going to know X amount of people didn't buy a release due to the lack of quality versus something just not selling more.


Other than an interested party within Echo Bridge or Miramax taking some meetings and having conversations about the possibility of higher quality masters existing or creating new one, what can a third party possibly do or say to inspire that re-evaluation?

From what I understand Miramax doesn't really exist anymore. Its just IP owned by a group of investors looking to make the most money auctioning off the IP. Therefore, I'm not sure said group cares much about Miramax's "reputation." If they did, they would have accepted a bit lower bit from Shout! or any other competent label instead of going with the higher bid of this grade Z movie distributor echo bridge.


Bottom line, avoid the Echo Bridge releases and look for import alternatives. Money talks, Echo Bridge/Miramax can walk.

 

[FanboyZ]

DTS told me they would look into how EB is abusing their DTS-HD Master Audio codec by releasing stereo tracks. That's kind of nice. Secondly we should all try to contact Miramax's public relations firm as well as Lionsgate. Also how does one contact the BDA?

 

[Tom M]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FanboyZ

DTS told me they would look into how EB is abusing their DTS-HD Master Audio codec by releasing stereo tracks.
That's kind of nice.
Secondly we should all try to contact Miramax's public relations firm as well as Lionsgate. Also how does one contact the BDA?

MGM has also released several titles with DTS-HD MA 2.0 audio tracks. I guess they are "abusing" the codec, too? Just sayin'.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Originally Posted by AnthonyP



Anyone have any thoughts on how one might go about lobbying on this behalf? The vast majority of people don't bother with attempting to articulate concerns directly to Miramax and/or Echo Bridge and random reviews and forum threads never seem to accomplish much action beyond the contained venting. Neither company is going to know X amount of people didn't buy a release due to the lack of quality versus something just not selling more.


Other than an interested party within Echo Bridge or Miramax taking some meetings and having conversations about the possibility of higher quality masters existing or creating new one, what can a third party possibly do or say to inspire that re-evaluation?

Anthony, I think you're spot on. A company won't know that people have issues with a title if those issues aren't brought to their attention. In my experience, the best way to register a comment or complaint is to send a politely worded snail mail letter to the head of the company (usually the CEO or president of the company and mailing address can be found online) and make your point as articulately as possible. If you can cite specific reasons why you didn't buy the title and the failings of the title as you see them, that will have a greater impact than posting on a forum, sending an email and making phone calls combined - whether or not it's fair, old fashioned postal mail still is given more attention and weight at businesses. By simply not purchasing a title, the only message that gets sent is that people aren't interested in that title. But if, every time there's a title you would have been interested in (or if there's an existing list you have) were it not for quality concerns, you send them a letter, that's the best way to get their attention. And in my experience, especially with smaller companies, if you politely explain your complaints (polite being the key word - if you sound angry/unreasonable, etc., you're likely to be dismissed as just one of the crazies, even if you had perfectly legitimate points), you'll probably get a response of some kind. Studios and small distributors can't afford to redo every release, and often they're working with the best of what's available to them and either for rights issues or legal issues, are unable to access other materials - but at the least, they can tell you that they're listening.


It's been mentioned here that other distributors in other territories have 5.1 mixes for some titles that have been 2.0 only here. Though I have no firsthand knowledge of the situation, it's not uncommon for distributors from different territories to not play nicely with each other - in other words, one company often isn't willing to simply "give" their 5.1 mix to another company elsewhere. I imagine this could happen more often with certain Miramax titles, as Miramax was often the distributing company in the U.S. as opposed to the company that actually financed or produced the film originally - if Echo Bridge made a deal directly with Miramax, Miramax can only provide what they have in their archives, not what another company elsewhere has in theirs. I know that's a frustrating answer especially if its known that a better master does exist somewhere, but the best way to encourage companies to do better in the future is to explain why you chose not to purchase something. One letter in and of itself won't make a huge difference, but if every person who had an issue and posted about it on a forum also took a few minutes to put those same thoughts into a letter, studios and distributors would begin to notice a trend and that might be something that begins to tip the scales.


I think, as long as you're in the process of writing one letter to Echo Bridge, it's worth making different versions of that letter or CC'ing them to all other interested parties - for instance, Miramax, who provided the license, as well as the studio that originally financed and produced the title (if other than Miramax). I always suggest writing to the head of the company as opposed to the customer service department (or both, if you feel so inclined) - customer service departments are often limited in what information they're given on titles and limited in what they're allowed to say. In my experience, writing to the top people has always gotten me a better response. In the end, these companies are in the business of making money - so if you can tell them that you want to give them your money and would gladly have done so if the release was better, that does count for something. The rule of thumb generally is, if there's something you're willing to pay for, there's someone willing to sell it to you.

 

[FanboyZ]

 

     Quote:

MGM has also released several titles with DTS-HD MA 2.0 audio tracks. I guess they are "abusing" the codec, too? Just sayin'.
 

 

 

 

No- the abuse comes from the downgrade. Something like "Last House on the Left" is a mono movie so a 2.0 DTS-HD Master audio track is true to the source and IMO better than a 5.1 remix. Something like "The Crow: City of Angels" which Miramax's own dvd had in both Dolby and DTS 5.1 tracks is downgraded to 2.0 for Blu Ray. They are abusing DTS's name because DTS HD-Master Audio should be a lossless representation of the film's soundtrack in it's true configuration. Something downmixed to stereo is LOOSING SOMETHING. I can state this to A MORAL CERTAINTY that Echo Bridge had access to 5.1 tracks (as did Alliance in Canada) and upon authoring downmixed them to stereo. I can't prove that- but I shouldn't have to.

 

[AnthonyP]

@ Josh Steinberg.


Thank you kindly for those thoughts and input. I will take them to heart and work on sending off a letter to Miramax and Echo Bridge (any idea if hand written might be necessary?).


There are dozens, emphasis on the s, of films that Echo Bridge already lists on their Miramax page I think I would have interest in buying if only the quality was of the typical variety (not expecting the world but not wasting time and money on things that might contain a number of serious deficiencies/issues, even compared to previous DVD editions, when there is so much else to spend money on).

Though, like you stated, I'm not expecting things to change but I'll hold out hope that there might be a number of other people interested enough to send a couple of letters also. Other than not buying these films on Blu-ray at all, or hoping to import countless of titles, it is certainly worth my time to convey to the parties involved that I want to purchase these titles from them but the excessively poor quality is losing my sales specifically for that reason rather than the titles not being appealing.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Originally Posted by AnthonyP

@ Josh Steinberg.


Thank you kindly for those thoughts and input. I will take them to heart and work on sending off a letter to Miramax and Echo Bridge (any idea if hand written might be necessary?).

AnthonyP - I think typed is just fine - that's how I do it. There's something about a professional looking letter, with a well-reasoned argument respectfully laid out, neatly typed and presented that's much harder to ignore than internet chatter and phone calls. The more professional it looks, the more weight it gets - at least, that's been my experience.


FanboyZ - Regarding the use of the DTS-MA codec - the only thing that the "lossless" there is meant to guarantee is that the encoding of the sound is transparent - in other words, free of the compression and distortion that's introduced by using a lossy format. While I agree that it sucks that 2.0 mixes are being provided for films originally released in 5.1, the mere presence of a DTS-MA 2.0 mix doesn't strike me as a violation of the licensing agreement. DTS doesn't guarantee that the lossless format on their disc is representative of the sound mix that might have been created for theatrical use or past releases, only that the sound quality should be identical to whatever uncompressed master was used to make the DTS-MA mix. The use of the term "lossless" means that the track on the disc should sound identical to whatever source it was mastered from - therefore, if the DTS-MA 2.0 mix is made from a downmixed but uncompressed 2.0 stereo track, I don't see how there's anything DTS could or would do. The only way DTS could do something, I think, is if Echo Bridge was stating that they were using DTS-MA lossless but instead putting on a standard DTS (lossy) track in its place - in which case, the most they could probably do is insist on the packaging being changed.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Originally Posted by Josh Steinberg

It's been mentioned here that other distributors in other territories have 5.1 mixes for some titles that have been 2.0 only here. Though I have no firsthand knowledge of the situation, it's not uncommon for distributors from different territories to not play nicely with each other - in other words, one company often isn't willing to simply "give" their 5.1 mix to another company elsewhere. I imagine this could happen more often with certain Miramax titles, as Miramax was often the distributing company in the U.S. as opposed to the company that actually financed or produced the film originally - if Echo Bridge made a deal directly with Miramax, Miramax can only provide what they have in their archives, not what another company elsewhere has in theirs. I know that's a frustrating answer especially if its known that a better master does exist somewhere, but the best way to encourage companies to do better in the future is to explain why you chose not to purchase something. One letter in and of itself won't make a huge difference, but if every person who had an issue and posted about it on a forum also took a few minutes to put those same thoughts into a letter, studios and distributors would begin to notice a trend and that might be something that begins to tip the scales.

Still, a lot of those titles were originally released by Miramax with their 5.1 tracks intact. How much could it cost to take an already-prepared 5.1 mix that Miramax already had the rights to, and slap it on there?


As for the ones that are cropped, it's possible that some of them are HD broadcast masters (as has been mentioned, some of them are apparently 1080i).


At any rate; not sure who's to blame here, Echo Bridge, Miramax, or both. It is kind of funny, though, that both do seem to be going out of their way to deliver a substandard product.