3D Disney and 3D (1 Viewer)

Serious question here....and hoping for logical answers without the anger that sets in when we think about the topic.

Disney appears to have stopped releasing 3D titles here in the U.S. Does anyone have any thoughts as to a logical reason for ceasing the release of the titles? A couple of my thoughts are:
1, They will have a mass release at some future time promoting 3D.
2. They will loose vast amounts of money with the release in the U.S. and so it is not worth it. (I know nothing about the production of discs...but it seems to me that if the transfers already exist, loosing money is not possible.)

Logical or even informed thoughts would be appreciated. I so enjoy 3D and find it very disappointing that the titles are not available. I was able to import FROZEN...but more recent releases are region locked...ugh!
Thanks.

A couple of reasons I can think of are:

1) Reduce complaints about their high prices. Disney 3D SKUs skew the "perceived" price of their movies on disc. Eliminating the 3D SKU will correct this to a great extent.

2) Make 3D exclusive to digital in the U.S. so it can be used as a promotional tool, as Disney, like other studios, are fully on the digital bandwagon, for its advantages of content control and distribution.

3) Sales are too low to outweigh the above advantages. They did a test on Oz: The Great and Powerful, to see how 3D would stand on its own. It did less than 6% 3D Blu-ray sales and as a result was the last major 3D release by Disney proper (the Pixel and Marvel divisions make their own decisions on 3D, and so are not under Disney's influence regarding their new stance on 3D).

I too am very distressed at the way Disney is handling 3D blu-ray distribution in the US as well as their lack of communication to the consumer about their plans and reasoning in this matter. As noted by Bruceames above, the rumor has been going around that Disney wants to go to streaming media and is using 3D as part of this strategy due to its poor sales. This sounds reasonable from a corporate sense but not from a customer satisfaction point of view.

Regarding Bruce's feeling that the botched release of OZ The Great And Powerful was a test to see if 3D sales could stand on its own, I have a problem with that. It seems to me that if this was a test, then it was created by someone in marketing that wanted to prove low sales of 3D discs and set up this release to fail so as to prove their assumption that 3D doesn't sell. OZ was released as a single 3D blu-ray disc without extras and was sold at the price point of a past multidisc release. It also, in my area, didn't hit the stores on the release day and was in very limited supply. Is it any wonder Disney reported less than 6% sales of this disc. And those who did buy it complained so loudly that they went on to offer those who bought the single 3D disc a copy of the flat blu-ray version of the film for $5.99. If this was a test to see if a single 3D disc would do good sales it should have been priced, at least, at the same point as the regular blu-ray set. And the new release setup should have been promoted as a new way to enjoy "Disney 3D." There was no special promotion. Instead it appeared to have been a test to see how much you could overcharge those of us who enjoy and purchase blu-ray 3D discs. I guess we failed the test then by not wanting to be gouged on an amazingly overpriced disc. ( List price $44.99 for a single blu-ray 3D version with no special features.)

This is really sad to me because I felt OZ was one of the best 3D movies they have turned out and would have been a good test of 3D sales at a lower price point. Instead we get Frozen, a movie promoted in its trailers "see it in Disney 3D" not available for purchase on blu-ray 3D in the US. I believe some executive in Disney US marketing hates 3D for some reason (He doesn't like wearing the glasses, he gets a headache,ect.) and feels it is to much trouble serving the 10% of the market which wants 3D so he says kill it. And he has the proof of low sales from that brilliant marketing experiment he devised for the OZ release. Maybe they save a tiny bit on packaging or something but a tiny bit of savings might be just enough to make you look good for a bonus to your boss/corporate master.

We can make up any kind of scenario we want about this because in the classic corporate way they do not answer questions regarding anything important. Disney, Panasonic, Sony and others thought the 3D TV sales and 3D software sales were going to turn the TV industry around. However they, with the help of the retailers, gave the consumer a very poor roll out of their 3D products. The cross marketing was halfhearted to say the least. And with the middle class being hit hard by the economic turndown from which most have not or ever will recover made 3D TV not the savior of the industry they were hoping for. Rather than continue to promote 3D TV in the home, which I feel is still popular with those who have it, they have decided to move on to the "next big thing" 4K. Never mind that 3D in 4K is even better, now 3D is just a regular feature of a high end set that you can use if you want but you may have to read the fine print at the store to see if its included.

So without continued promotion of 3D by the TV manufacturers or the studios it’s a wonder that 3D is doing as well as it is. The blockbuster films are still in 3D at most theaters and you can still get most of these for home viewing when they come out on blu-ray but you would thinkthe industry would put a little more into promotion for sales of 3D now and in the future, as I don't think 3D is going completely away.

Someone in the Disney home video division seems to think 3D is going away and does not want to spend another penny on it even if it makes some consumers unhappy. This wasn't the classic Disney business model but I guess it is now. They don't care what we think if making us happy doesn't create X amount of profit, so we can import Disney 3D from Europe or Asia if they release it region free.

Bob, you requested "Logical or even informed thoughts" about Disney's position on not releasing blu-ray 3D in the US and I hope my rant somewhat fills the bill. I do feel this is a serious problem for those of us who enjoy 3D at home on ROM media. It's hard for us to be informed about this issue as we get no information from Disney as to their corporate plans for blu-ray in the future and "logic" isn't something that is highly prized in the corporate world of today...only profit. It's to bad customer satisfaction is no more than a marketing catch phrase anymore.

Good point about there possibly being some strong anti-3D bias among one of the decision makers at Disney. There's probably some truth in that.

Also good point about them seemingly mucking up the Oz 3D experiment so as to set it up to fail. Although there does appear to be signs of internal disagreements about how to proceed with it, the end result (low sales) probably was a strong factor in any decision they may have made about abandoning physical 3D in the U.S.

Also I think the extremely strong domestic sales of Frozen only confirmed that they don't need 3D in the mix anymore.

Funnily enough though these titles are turning up on Starz where I watched Oz, Frozen and Brave. I probably would have bought Oz as I really wanted to see it in theaters but didn't have the time. However on demand is not full 1080 resolution. I'm waiting to see if they'll show Need for Speed 3d before I break down and rent/buy it. If Disney was really serious they would have commercially released the demo disc from 2010 that had "Working for Peanuts".

phillyrobt said:

However on demand is not full 1080 resolution.

Click to expand...

Similar to passive 3D Tv's.

Maleficent should be coming to Starz 3D on demand months after its Blu-ray release. I can wait.

The "Oz the Great and Powerful" Blu-ray 3D release was pretty terrible in terms of pricing and value, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't even meet the Blu-ray spec -- I'm not sure how they were allowed to put it out in the first place. The spec requires that all Blu-ray 3D discs are backwards compatible, in other words playable in 2D for people who don't have 3D equipment. Some studios put the 2D and 3D versions on the same disc so it's not an issue, but others include a 2D disc in the package when the movie is put on a separate 3D disc, which technically allows them to say that they're meeting the Blu-ray spec. But "Oz the Great and Powerful" did not include an option to view in 2D, and does not include a 2D disc, so that would seem to me to be a violation of the specs for the format. I've mentioned this before a couple times but I've never seen anyone else mention it, so perhaps there was a change in the specs that allow for this. I'm surprised it was never more of a big deal than it was.

In addition, the 3D OZ was NOT available at many retail outlets, further sabotaging prospective sales.

Josh Steinberg said:

The "Oz the Great and Powerful" Blu-ray 3D release was pretty terrible in terms of pricing and value, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't even meet the Blu-ray spec -- I'm not sure how they were allowed to put it out in the first place. The spec requires that all Blu-ray 3D discs are backwards compatible, in other words playable in 2D for people who don't have 3D equipment. Some studios put the 2D and 3D versions on the same disc so it's not an issue, but others include a 2D disc in the package when the movie is put on a separate 3D disc, which technically allows them to say that they're meeting the Blu-ray spec. But "Oz the Great and Powerful" did not include an option to view in 2D, and does not include a 2D disc, so that would seem to me to be a violation of the specs for the format. I've mentioned this before a couple times but I've never seen anyone else mention it, so perhaps there was a change in the specs that allow for this. I'm surprised it was never more of a big deal than it was.

Click to expand...

I haven't heard of that restriction and it certainly doesn't make any sense. 3D Blu-ray is a separate format and should be allowed to stand on its own if a studio desires. It would be like requiring all Blu-ray releases to carry DVDs because some people may still have DVD-only players in other parts of the house. Besides, I don't think Disney would have circumvented such a rule.

Perhaps you're confusing this with backwards compatibility requirements for players?

bruceames said:

I haven't heard of that restriction and it certainly doesn't make any sense. 3D Blu-ray is a separate format and should be allowed to stand on its own if a studio desires. It would be like requiring all Blu-ray releases to carry DVDs because some people may still have DVD-only players in other parts of the house. Besides, I don't think Disney would have circumvented such a rule.

Perhaps you're confusing this with backwards compatibility requirements for players?

Click to expand...

I don't believe so.

This came out during discussions for adding 3D to the existing Blu-ray spec. Because the BDA wanted to avoid consumer confusion, they mandated that any Blu-ray 3D disc be playable in 3D or 2D, that the discs themselves were backwards compatible to any player bearing the "Blu-ray" logo. Their point was, you wouldn't want a studio to put out a disc with the Blu-ray logo on it (like the "Oz: The Great and Powerful" disc) and then have someone try to put it in their 2D-only Blu-ray player and not have it work. As far as the BDA is concerned, Blu-ray 3D is not an entirely new and different technology but an option that can be included on Blu-ray discs.

It's totally possible that they quietly revised the spec more recently, but I don't recall reading anything about that.

If that's true then no wonder Disney is dumping 3D. With restrictions like that it's not worth it. Makes no sense to have that restriction in the first place, burdening a format to forever carry another one on it's back. And call it what they want, it is another format, otherwise you wouldn't need another player to play it. If true then the BDA shot itself in the foot with that one.

I respectfully disagree that it's an unnecessary restriction.

Pretty much all Blu-ray and DVD discs are meant to play back on lowest-common-denominator systems, but also on higher end ones. For example, most Blu-ray discs include lossless audio of surround sound tracks. But it's perfectly possible to play those lossless surround tracks through your TV speakers if you don't have a new receiver and 5.1 speaker setup. The people who have that extra equipment can get the most out of what the discs have to offer, but people who choose not to have surround sound can still enjoy the disc. Maybe you've gotten surround sound in your main viewing room, but maybe you also like watching movies in the bedroom where you don't have surround sound. Should you be forced to buy two different releases to accommodate that? We also don't get charged extra for a Blu-ray or DVD just because it features surround sound.

In my opinion, that's what they needed to do with 3D on Blu-ray. Include the 3D version at no additional charge to anyone purchasing the 2D version. That's what Lionsgate does, and the major labels will occasionally do that as well. The point of bringing back 3D shouldn't have been to charge audience members more -- the point was to keep them interested in going to the movies (or collecting packaged media). But they promoted it and sold it like it was a fad, so that's the level of attention most people paid to it, and now we're seeing the end results of that.

Josh Steinberg said:

I respectfully disagree that it's an unnecessary restriction.

Pretty much all Blu-ray and DVD discs are meant to play back on lowest-common-denominator systems, but also on higher end ones. For example, most Blu-ray discs include lossless audio of surround sound tracks. But it's perfectly possible to play those lossless surround tracks through your TV speakers if you don't have a new receiver and 5.1 speaker setup. The people who have that extra equipment can get the most out of what the discs have to offer, but people who choose not to have surround sound can still enjoy the disc. Maybe you've gotten surround sound in your main viewing room, but maybe you also like watching movies in the bedroom where you don't have surround sound. Should you be forced to buy two different releases to accommodate that? We also don't get charged extra for a Blu-ray or DVD just because it features surround sound.

In my opinion, that's what they needed to do with 3D on Blu-ray. Include the 3D version at no additional charge to anyone purchasing the 2D version. That's what Lionsgate does, and the major labels will occasionally do that as well. The point of bringing back 3D shouldn't have been to charge audience members more -- the point was to keep them interested in going to the movies (or collecting packaged media). But they promoted it and sold it like it was a fad, so that's the level of attention most people paid to it, and now we're seeing the end results of that.

Click to expand...

All 3D discs will play the 2D version on a 3D player. 3D players are pretty cheap too, about the same price as it costs to buy a mere three 3D movies. I can understand Disney wanting to split it up, as I'm sure they seen all the ebay threads where people are making money selling off either the 3D or 2D version. I've read lots of posts of people simply selling all the separate parts of a multi-format SKU and making a nice little profit.

You must be speaking from the consumer's point of view, because "including the 3D version at no additional charge" means that the 3D version is essentially worthless. If they're going to charge the same whether they include or not, then what the point? Let's face it, including the 3D movie for only a few bucks more has seriously devalued the 3D format as a whole to where a major studio like Disney has decided it's not worth their while. I would love to support 3D-only releases if it means that the format can continue to thrive. I don't need that second BLu-ray disc anyway, and if I did, I would just buy a $90 player where it was needed (besides, how many rooms do I really need to have a 3D player in, and why would I want to watch a movie in 2D if I had it in 3D?)

Anyway I highly doubt that it's a restriction anyway. Like you said, you're the only one who's even mentioned it. If it were true then there would have been some discussion and further Disney would not have give a big F-U to the BDA by releasing a 3D only SKU (well maybe they would have, but then if they did, then that's some kind of statement about what they think of the BDA and their f'd up restrictions).

bruceames said:

You must be speaking from the consumer's point of view, because "including the 3D version at no additional charge" means that the 3D version is essentially worthless. If they're going to charge the same whether they include or not, then what the point?

Anyway I highly doubt that it's a restriction anyway. Like you said, you're the only one who's even mentioned it. If it were true then there would have been some discussion and further Disney would not have give a big F-U to the BDA by releasing a 3D only SKU (well maybe they would have, but then if they did, then that's some kind of statement about what they think of the BDA and their f'd up restrictions).

Click to expand...

I don't think not charging extra doesn't mean it's worthless. Are surround sound tracks worthless because we're not charged more for them? The point, in my opinion, is to present the home customer with a disc that replicates the theatrical experience as closely as possible, and then it's up to the customer to decide whether or not they want to spend the money to get the equipment to match all of the disc's possibilities. That's what the standard is for sound. Until recently, I didn't have surround sound, but all of the discs that I owned that included surround sound tracks played just fine on my television's speakers. Now that I do have surround sound, I don't have to go back and re-purchase all of my titles, I can simply take advantage of those capabilities for which I previously could not.

In my opinion, as a customer, if you buy a disc that's called a "Blu-ray" disc, you should be able to play it back on any Blu-ray player. Period. And that's what the BDA wanted. And while I can't swear on a stack of bibles and my grandmother's eternal soul than it's 100% a rule about BDA, it does seem worth noting that "Oz The Great And Powerful" is the only Blu-ray 3D title released by a major studio that does not play in 2D. Every other Disney 3D title, and every other 3D title by all the other studios, either have a 2D version on the same disc as the 3D, or include a 2D-only disc if the 3D disc only plays in 3D. I don't think that's a coincidence. Whether it's because they're mandated to do so, or if it's just to avoid consumer confusion, or if it's because it simply makes the most sense to provide the viewer buying the most expensive disc with the most options, all other 3D releases include a 2D version.

bruceames said:

All 3D discs will play the 2D version on a 3D player. 3D players are pretty cheap too, about the same price as it costs to buy a mere three 3D movies. I can understand Disney wanting to split it up, as I'm sure they seen all the ebay threads where people are making money selling off either the 3D or 2D version. I've read lots of posts of people simply selling all the separate parts of a multi-format SKU and making a nice little profit.

Click to expand...

Not quite. The 3D Blu-ray player must be connected to a 3D capable display, otherwise your 3D player will not play back the disc and throw up a message that it cannot detect a 3D-capable display. If you do have a 3D display, then you can watch the 3D content in 2D, but this is a function of the display, not the Blu-ray player.

Mark-P said:

Not quite. The 3D Blu-ray player must be connected to a 3D capable display, otherwise your 3D player will not play back the disc and throw up a message that it cannot detect a 3D-capable display. If you do have a 3D display, then you can watch the 3D content in 2D, but this is a function of the display, not the Blu-ray player.

Click to expand...

Yes of course. Thanks for the correction.

This will probably kill this thread; but has discussion wandered a bit off topic?

bob kaplan said:

This will probably kill this thread; but has discussion wandered a bit off topic?

Click to expand...

Not at all. All threads that grow inevitably branch out into related areas in order to bring perspective and understanding. I thought the discussion on possible restrictions on 3D-only SKUs was very relevant because it could have an effect on Disney's 3D stance.

Of course this discussion of 3D bluray disc delivery is a moot point if the studios deny the US consumer of bluray versions of 3D films. i.e. Maleficent, Frozen, Need for Speed, Noah, Tarzan (2014) ect.