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

[Dick]

Let me just ask a very elementary question: Do you actually care about the consumers who buy your product -- who stuff your coffers and in many cases make you very wealthy -- or are we truly just the grass that needs to be cut so you can have a pretty lawn? When you (and I assume most studios do) read the remarks made in this and other forums, do you actually make an effort to help resolve our issues?

Yes, some of you do. There have been recalls of bad product and superior replacements released. Thank you. We all appreciate it, because we know it takes time and costs you money to send us improved editions. What you do in that regard is not forgotten by us; we hold you to be among the few studios willing to take a bit of a temporary loss in order to cement yourselves as companies that actually treat their customers as intelligent beings, ones who are going to spread the word about your efforts and keep coming back to you, because we know you are doing your best to give us exceptional product.

Then, there are the rest of you (and you know who you are). Time and time again posts are left here expressing frustration and disappointment with aspects of your product, yet nothing changes. Why is this? Are you contemptuous of us? Do you think we do not know whereof we speak? Are you aware of the number of professional studio insiders who frequent this and other sites, and of the thousands of dedicated (if not professional) film enthusiasts who devote a massive chunk of their lives and earnings to collecting (i.e. spending money for your product) films and gathering in forums to talk about them? You seem deaf to us.

But let me give you a few examples, and hopefully more will be added by others. Blu-ray is a stunning format that some studios treat with dignity and others just chuck out there with no respect to the art, the fan or the consumer at all:

1. Timelines. Okay, the idea is acceptable. When a movie is "paused," a timeline appears. This is sort of cool, actually. UNLESS I CAN'T GET RID OF IT IF I WANT TO. I love to just look at still frames. That's what the pause on CAV lasers permitted us, what DVD's have always allowed, and, until recently, what all Blu-rays allowed as well. Now, however, some of you have decided that we should never be able to study a still frame without that Timeline covering up to 30% of the picture frame. What are you afraid will happen if you allow us free access? That we're all going to capture and sell frames of movies to each other? My eyes are rolling in disbelief. A truly unfortunate supporter of this forced Timeline is Twilight Time, and I gotta tell ya, when I'm on the borderline of buying a movie they have released, for premium bucks, I will pass on it for that reason alone. Even Disney allows you to move the stupid thing out of the way, in order to take in the beauty of those animated frames. PLEASE discontinue this insidious practice. I paid for this movie. Let me watch it as I choose!

2. Forced trailers. If you check this forum regularly, you have seen complaints about this hundreds of times. Why don't you listen to us? Why can't you offer these trailers - which we may actually enjoy watching at our leisure - as a menu choice? The thing is, when we fire up a Blu-ray, we want to get to the main menu, as we were permitted to do with early DVD's. Having to sit through a ton of extraneous material, or having to skip over trailer after trailer, is bothersome, annoying, and unnecessary. And unfair to us! I like trailers. I would watch ones that are offered as optional choices via the menu. When they come before I can even reach the menu, I get annoyed and skip them, so what's the point? You ain't selling me stuff you shove in my face. Again, I paid for the movie, not all this promo crap. Even Disney is now allowing me to skip over this stuff and get right to the menu.

3. FBI and Homeland Security Warnings. How can any of you imagine that this is helpful to you? The people for whom such warnings are intended do not care a whit about them, and those who have no intention of ever copying such material are only incredibly annoyed to have to sit through these screens. But, worse: many of you are now placing these useless warnings AFTER one presses "play." Do any of you have any idea how your Blu-rays are frequently used? They are used as presentations for an audience in a home theater environment. Why do we have to subject our audiences to this FBI crap when we hit "play?" We like to be able to cue up the movie and make the experience as theatrical as possible. There isn't a soul in our audiences who is going to give a damn about your warnings, and it takes them right out of the mood to have to see them. You people need to review this whole business, If you really think that one person in a hundred thousand might curtail his or her illegal copying activity because you included these things, at least put them on the disc startup. So far, Criterion has avoided this ridiculous pitfall. How about the rest of you?

4. Leaving Trailers Off the Disc. As I said above, I like trailers. Some, I even love. During the peak of the DVD years, it was unusual for a disc to be released without a trailer. Again, this harkens back to the fact that many of us collect movies in order to share them in a home theater environment -- you make a ton of money from us, because we have home theaters and love to entertain our friends. We also like to produce as close to a true theatrical experience as possible. We will go to great lengths to achieve this, including queueing-up multiple Blu-ray players so that we can present a trailer or two, a cartoon, and then the feature. When you don't include the trailer, a major part of the theater experience is lost. Trailers are fun. But nowadays, most of you are dropping these in favor of putting the trailer for a specific film only on another movie's disc as a promo, and we do not wish to have to buy every damn disc you put out just to have those trailers. C'mon, people -- it just can't require that much effort to give us the trailer for the movie we just bought on that disc!

5. Digital Copies Instead of DVD's, 2-D Blu-rays with 3-D. Well, for the sake of full disclosure: I see no need for digital copies, and always give them away. I do like having a DVD copy of a Blu-ray title, because I can then share a disc with someone who is not (for whatever bizarre reason) Blu-ray capable. Digital copies are coasters, and a huge environmental waste, my opinion. Then there is the recent announcement that Disney is going to offer a 2-D Blu-ray as a special order to go with their 3-D release, for $5.99 plus shipping. What? That's right, they are putting out OZ, THE GREAT AND POWERFUL as a 3-D edition with Digital Copy (but no 2-D Blu-ray) for a whopping $44.99 list price. Add $5.99 and shipping charges to that, and you'll pay at least $45.00 street price! Thanks, Disney! What are you thinking? Some way to promote the 3-D format, eh? With any 3-D release, it should be mandatory to include -- at a reasonable street price -- a 2-D Blu-ray. If you want this format to succeed, support it!!

6. Cases and Inserts. Okay, I'm not terribly anal about this, but it would seem prudent of you all to stop putting discs in cases that have clips for booklets when you so clearly have to intention of including them. Fliers for new Disney releases just don't count. Also, I spent an hour recently at the local Wal*Mart looking at cover art, and I was close to gagging. The whole art of cover art and poster art business has died. Only a few (independent) distributors actually bother to use the original poster art from movies for their Blu-rays. Otherwise, what we see is "art" that nearly all of us can glance at and know: "I can do better than that with Adobe or Paintshop if you give me about fifteen minutes." Not a biggie, really, since we can all find the original poster art on the net and create our own sleeves.... but, I have to ask, why do we need to?

Those are the peeves that come to mind right at the moment, and I know there are others.

The point is, studios, that you seem not to be really wanting to maximize your profits. Some of us on this forum refuse to purchase your product due to some of what I have described here. Is that your goal? To not sell as much as you can were you to make all of your consumers happy? That seems weird to me, but I can't reconcile your refusal to work with us any other way.

We are out here with our money in hand, waving it in your direction. Why are you so reluctant to see that we know what we are talking about, know what we want, produce the product we wish for?

 

[Jesse Skeen]

Excellent points. I'll add that with the press saying a lot lately (whether or not it's true) that Netflix and other streaming services are replacing physical media for some people, as long as studios want to keep selling media they need to keep obsessive collectors in mind, as we are the ones who will continue to buy and support their products! Warner, Paramount and even Disney seem to be phasing out full-color printed disc labels in favor of minimal, monochrome printing. This makes their media look cheap and gives me the impression that they're thinking "We don't really care about this anymore."

Cases do look empty when there's no insert of any kind. The Eco-Cases, with HOLES cut in them, have also got to go. I'm not going to throw out or recycle my cases! Then there's the cardboard slipcovers- while most of them look nice, it's absolutely counter-productive for studios to ship them with NO shrinkwrap on them, as many stores will then stick their price tags right on them and you usually can't remove them without damaging the cover! I don't buy used discs because I want my stuff to be in the best possible condition, and shipping new product like this defeats my reason to do this. If I pick up a disc and the store has stuck a price tag on the unsealed cover, I don't buy it- plain and simple. Bottom line- SEAL ALL YOUR COVERS!

I read other comments saying that studios sometimes aren't so eager to put out older movies on Blu-Ray as it seems older titles haven't been selling well lately- well, one reason for that is because many have had alterations to the movie! Warner has changed the opening studio logos on many of their older movies to their current logo, and to me that's unacceptable. It ruins the original context of the movie when this is done. Another problem is edge-enhancement (NOBODY likes this!), changing of the color scheme, and re-mixing of the sound track- one of the biggest offenders is "The Terminator" being available ONLY with a re-mixed 5.1 track, when it was originally done in mono for a number of reasons.

While I've liked the idea of low-priced releases put out by companies like Mill Creek, their quality control has proven to be sub-par. Some movies on these labels are cropped from 2.35 to 1.78 (the modern equivalent of pan and scan), some don't include the 5.1 sound mixes when they originally had them, compression on some discs is excessive (if I didn't care about compression artifacts, I'd just use an online service), and some titles (like Camp Nowhere and Hudson Hawk) have gone out with MONO sound! Mistakes like these are unacceptable, no matter how low the price.

I want to continue to buy physical media, but I sometimes get the impression that studios don't want me to anymore.

 

[Ray H]

I agree with many of your points. Especially the one about including theatrical trailers. I love trailers and if a trailer isn't included, I'll go out of my way to download them from Apple or Youtube. I think the only studios nowadays that regularly include trailers for new releases are Fox and possibly Lionsgate (I don't own too many of their titles). Exceptions seem to be filmmaker specific (Christopher Nolan, David Fincher, Paul Thomas Anderson, Pixar, etc). Here's my trailer report, broken down by studio:

[*]Warner only allows trailers on new releases for Nolan movies and expensive double dips (The Town UCE, Harry Potter Ultimate Editions). They're pretty good about porting over trailers that appeared on DVDs for older catalog titles, but never bother to remaster them.
[*]Fox, MGM, Paramount, and Criterion usually include trailers. I've noticed Paramount dropping them for new releases in the past 1-2 years though. In a nice touch, when these guys do include trailers for older films, they're often remastered in HD!
[*]Universal doesn't include trailers on new releases, and are hit or miss when it comes to porting them over from DVDs.
[*]Disney usually forgoes including trailers. I think Pixar releases usually bother to include them. Disney sometimes includes them for their older classics, ported over from DVDs.
[*]Sony is probably the worst. They include a ton of previews for other movies but rarely for the film on the disc, even when they were included on the DVD. I've noticed only a handful of titles that include them. Big exception: the Sony Pictures Classics division usually includes trailers!
[*]I believe Lionsgate usually includes trailers for new releases, and ports them over from old DVDs for the Miramax releases.
[*]The Anchor Bay/The Weinstein Company new releases do not usually include trailers. Outside of TWC titles, I think Anchor Bay okay about trailers (don't own that many).
[/list]
Another point I want to mention is for studios to please stop dropping extras from DVD releases! When I upgrade to a BD, I really would rather not have to hold onto DVDs for commentaries, trailers, featurettes. Including everything from previous releases usually won't take up much space (they're SD) and would mean a lot to fans.

 

[Persianimmortal]

The point is, studios, that you seem not to be really wanting to maximize your profits. Some of us on this forum refuse to purchase your product due to some of what I have described here. Is that your goal?

While I can certainly appreciate all the points you've raised, it all seems to ignore the fact that studios are making most of their profits from online sales such streaming, as well physical sales of DVDs, not Blu-rays. We discussed this recently in this thread for example, noting that 80% of catalog sales are on DVD, not BD.

Sadly, by virtue of their actions and the known facts, if studios are interested only in maximizing profits, they would not actually expend much effort or money on BD. To be honest, much of what you wrote in your open letter would actually serve to cement the notion that BD buyers are a troublesome and overly demanding niche group worth avoiding!

In any case, we as consumers can certainly request certain things, and decline to purchase inferior products, but I really don't think we're in any position to be asking for special treatment with regards to BD. It's a niche in the ever-decreasing physical media market, and I don't say that with any pleasure.

 

[Robert Crawford]

While I can certainly appreciate all the points you've raised, it all seems to ignore the fact that studios are making most of their profits from online sales such streaming, as well physical sales of DVDs, not Blu-rays. We discussed this recently in this thread for example, noting that 80% of catalog sales are on DVD, not BD.

Sadly, by virtue of their actions and the known facts, if studios are interested only in maximizing profits, they would not actually expend much effort or money on BD. To be honest, much of what you wrote in your open letter would actually serve to cement the notion that BD buyers are a troublesome and overly demanding niche group worth avoiding!

In any case, we as consumers can certainly request certain things, and decline to purchase inferior products, but I really don't think we're in any position to be asking for special treatment with regards to BD. It's a niche in the ever-decreasing physical media market, and I don't say that with any pleasure.

Not everyone agrees with that point though as I think the ratio of profits is more complicated than just stating that 80% figure.

 

[revgen]

To be honest, much of what you wrote in your open letter would actually serve to cement the notion that BD buyers are a troublesome and overly demanding niche group worth avoiding!

So asking for invasive ads to be removed is too troublesome to do?

Asking for FBI warnings to be removed is troublesome too?

Asking for trailers that are included as promos on other discs to be included on the disc that has the actual movie is too much to ask?

I didn't find anything the OP asked for to be too troublesome or overdemanding. As the OP mentioned, Criterion never does any of those things to their discs. If studios think it is too demanding, then I have to question whether they actually care about the customer.

I'm not going to say that "the customer is always right", but if the customer asks for something that can be done at a reasonable cost or no cost at all, then they should consider it.

 

[Cinescott]

IIRC, the FBI warnings were recently mandated on Blu-ray by the Recording Industry Association or similar body, so there might not be much room for change there. Criterion is outside the archetypal studio system, so may not feel obligated to include them. For the record, I don't like them either.

I totally agree about the timelines. Annoying. I like the feature, but do give the option to switch off.
Packaging decisions. Ditto.
Forced trailers. Yup.
Absent trailers. Just a way to cut expenses, iMO. Particularly remastering them. If I could only count the number of times I have read on other forums, "Just give me the movie; I don't care about any supplementary cr**."

I'll add one of my own: Looping Ability! I know this can be done cheaply through the disc's encoding, since I have an older Panasonic player that can override the disc's default settings and do this. I hate waking up to a repeating menu if I happen to fall asleep. This was a standard feature on DVD, and yes, I know DVD's file structure may have been "simpler," but this can be done without much hassle or cost, so why not do it? Since the Blu-ray spec doesn't require this feature in players (why I have no idea), why don't the studios step up to the plate and offer a small customer convenience that makes their product better?????

I've never been much of a complainer, but this stuff is so simple, cheap, and (to me) obvious.

 

[Everett S.]

Excellent points. I'll add that with the press saying a lot lately (whether or not it's true) that Netflix and other streaming services are replacing physical media for some people, as long as studios want to keep selling media they need to keep obsessive collectors in mind, as we are the ones who will continue to buy and support their products! Warner, Paramount and even Disney seem to be phasing out full-color printed disc labels in favor of minimal, monochrome printing. This makes their media look cheap and gives me the impression that they're thinking "We don't really care about this anymore."

Cases do look empty when there's no insert of any kind. The Eco-Cases, with HOLES cut in them, have also got to go. I'm not going to throw out or recycle my cases! Then there's the cardboard slipcovers- while most of them look nice, it's absolutely counter-productive for studios to ship them with NO shrinkwrap on them, as many stores will then stick their price tags right on them and you usually can't remove them without damaging the cover! I don't buy used discs because I want my stuff to be in the best possible condition, and shipping new product like this defeats my reason to do this. If I pick up a disc and the store has stuck a price tag on the unsealed cover, I don't buy it- plain and simple. Bottom line- SEAL ALL YOUR COVERS!

I read other comments saying that studios sometimes aren't so eager to put out older movies on Blu-Ray as it seems older titles haven't been selling well lately- well, one reason for that is because many have had alterations to the movie! Warner has changed the opening studio logos on many of their older movies to their current logo, and to me that's unacceptable. It ruins the original context of the movie when this is done. Another problem is edge-enhancement (NOBODY likes this!), changing of the color scheme, and re-mixing of the sound track- one of the biggest offenders is "The Terminator" being available ONLY with a re-mixed 5.1 track, when it was originally done in mono for a number of reasons.

While I've liked the idea of low-priced releases put out by companies like Mill Creek, their quality control has proven to be sub-par. Some movies on these labels are cropped from 2.35 to 1.78 (the modern equivalent of pan and scan), some don't include the 5.1 sound mixes when they originally had them, compression on some discs is excessive (if I didn't care about compression artifacts, I'd just use an online service), and some titles (like Camp Nowhere and Hudson Hawk) have gone out with MONO sound! Mistakes like these are unacceptable, no matter how low the price.

I want to continue to buy physical media, but I sometimes get the impression that studios don't want me to anymore.

I would like to add when I buy a Blu-Ray I don't won't a digital copy in standard 720p or lower rez.! I would like it in 1080p!!! also 3D if that's what I paid for.

 

[DVDvision]

This thread reminds me of this great montage:

 

[Ray H]

In regards to other points in this thread:

FBI warnings: I'd prefer these to not be included, but I accept them as a necessary evil. Still, I think unskippable warnings is stupid and it seems odd for the government to punish us and lecture us for buying movies. Maybe if these were only viewable to people playing BDs on a computer?

Unskippable previews: as I've mentioned before, I generally like trailers, but it can be annoying having to fast forward or skip through them, especially everytime you load a disc. Luckily I haven't come across too many unskippable trailers. The smart thing would be to do as Disney does and give the option to skip to the main menu.

Timelines: I find these annoying as well. Notably, some recent Disney discs actually start playing special features when you hit pause! What is the point of this? I pressed pause to stop the movie either because I want to look at something or because I needed a break. If I want to watch special features, I'll play them myself.

One point that I don't see is the lack of a resume option after you stop or remove the disc from the player. Some discs have a Java enabled feature that remembers where you left off and asks you "Would you like to resume playback?" when you play the disc again. These also help with forced trailers and FBI warnings. I think the only studios that consistently use this feature are Sony, Fox, Criterion, and Lionsgate.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I think everyone knows by now that most all the studios don't look at film as the artform it is, but merely as a product to market.I say most all the studios because there are actually at least 2 studios I can immediately think of that put their heart and soul into their classic library. I would name those two studios, but in doing so, I would probably be labeled as showing favoritism or become the subject of anger from those that don't agree.I remember one executive who left a major studio a few years back telling me that he/she was doing so because corporate would no longer allow them to play in their sandbox. Knowing this studios's Home Entertainment division was responsible for the most innovative DVD releases of its time, I knew that corporate was tying their hands and that the days of cutting-edge special editions were coming to a close.We all have seen in the past few years how less classics are being released through mainstream channels and "vanilla editions" end up being released through companies like Twilight Time.I think the days of catering to the "collector" are far gone. Today, most Blu-ray releases contain minimal extras. Excellent points have been brought up from HTF members as to how DVD extras aren’t even ported over, forcing you to keep both copies on your shelves just to ensure that one has all the bonus materials.I have always said that studios have a responsibility to preserve their films. Unfortunately, most of the people that run the studios don't feel the same way.I also get quite pissed off when original studio logos are substituted for modern ones. I can give Warner a slight break on some of the late 60s and early 70s releases that, contractually, they were obliged to change. However, when I learn that a movie like The Great Escape has a shiny new logo in front of it, I just have to sit and let out a long sigh.With the exception of a few fine people that still remain in the business (and you know their names), most of the people making the decisions on these releases are so far removed from knowing or caring about their product.

 

[Matt Hough]

Timelines: I find these annoying as well. Notably, some recent Disney discs actually start playing special features when you hit pause! What is the point of this? I pressed pause to stop the movie either because I want to look at something or because I needed a break. If I want to watch special features, I'll play them myself.

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.

 

[TonyD]

Forced trailers and FBI warnings don't bother me.Things like missing trailers for the movie on the disc does.One thing the op mentioned was that the forced timeline is " That's what the pause on CAV lasers permitted us, what DVD's have always allowed, and, until recently, what all Blu-rays allowed as well"Not exactly true. The forced timeline has always been there but not as much as it is now.I started one of these open letters about five years ago specifically on the forced timeline.Didn't help.My two issues are the timeline and Blu-ray Discs that don't allow for starting a movie back up at the point when you had to turn off the player.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

One thing to note,the Blu 3-D spec requires that a 2D copy be included in the package, either on the same or a separate disc.

 

[Mark-P]

One thing to note,the Blu 3-D spec requires that a 2D copy be included in the package, either on the same or a separate disc.

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.

 

[Persianimmortal]

So asking for invasive ads to be removed is too troublesome to do?

Asking for FBI warnings to be removed is troublesome too?

Asking for trailers that are included as promos on other discs to be included on the disc that has the actual movie is too much to ask?

I didn't find anything the OP asked for to be too troublesome or overdemanding. As the OP mentioned, Criterion never does any of those things to their discs. If studios think it is too demanding, then I have to question whether they actually care about the customer.

I'm not going to say that "the customer is always right", but if the customer asks for something that can be done at a reasonable cost or no cost at all, then they should consider it.

Asking studios to remove ads is obviously too much to do, as they clearly don't place ads on BDs for consumers, it's to serve their own needs. I don't like ads/trailers/incessant studio logos/promos at the start of movies, but the studios have been putting them for many years. I doubt they've ever received any feedback from customers saying that it is a beloved aspect of DVDs or Blu-rays, yet they keep doing it, clearly because it serves their purpose, not ours.

The FBI warnings are also there for a reason, as are all the anti-piracy and various other warning/disclaimers. They're primarily there for legal reasons, not to make us happy as customers. I've raised this point before - how many ridiculous labels and warnings do we see on various products, precisely because in their absence people will pursue frivolous lawsuits, or claim not to have known any better when carrying on with infringing activity? To this day, some people still incorrectly argue on the Internet that ripping and redistributing a movie is legal, as long as it is not done for profit.

Asking for multiple discs increases the cost of production, which in turn reduces profits. Yet the OP claims that his points are designed to help studios maximize their profits.

The only way any of it would work is if the studios increased the retail price of BDs, and they're hardly going to do that given it's currently a race to the bottom when it comes to BD prices, especially as BD is in direct competition with DVD in the mainstream physical disc market.

The point is that most studios obviously view releases on BD, especially deep catalog releases on BD, as being something that provides them with marginal profit at best. For this reason, in many cases classic movies are being licensed out to third parties. Asking them to alter how they produce movies, which in turn increases their costs and effort, potentially increases their legal liability, and reduces their advertising, does not serve their needs, so it's unlikely to happen. What the OP has requested is certainly desirable for us as consumers, but doesn't seem particularly feasible in the current market, especially as physical media is being phased out, and the majority of sales are on cheap DVDs sold to people for whom quality is not the number one concern.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I'd like to ask them to be mindful of releasing films in the director-intended aspect ratio. Case in point: SASKATCHEWAN.
The DVD is full-frame.

That's just one example. There's a whole list of widescreen films being mastered/released on DVD and Blu-ray in 1.37:1. I've got a lot of documentation and will be glad to assist.

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

 

[Rick Thompson]

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

 

[JSul]

Agree with all of the above comments.It does make me wonder who makes these decisions.I know that many of us, if given the job to bring any film to bluray or dvd, especially a classic, would take pride in our work to make certain that the best film elements were used, the correct AR was used, that all scenes and dialog were intact, remastered as best as could be done, etc.Recall the debacles by Universal by their Classic Monster DVDs:Using a later reissue of Dracula, in which some if the audio was deleted....death scene of Mary Gordon in Mummy's Tomb (done on the VHS tape...fixed on the dvd)....use of poor darker transfers, the dreaded dvd 18/flipper discs that were defective.Color manipulation to such films as The Searchers on Warner Vista Vision....the horrible bluray of The Longest Day...Patton initial bluray...the list goes on.Sadly, am not very confident....but have a glimmer of hope, it will get better.

 

[revgen]

Asking studios to remove ads is obviously too much to do, as they clearly don't place ads on BDs for consumers, it's to serve their own needs. I don't like ads/trailers/incessant studio logos/promos at the start of movies, but the studios have been putting them for many years. I doubt they've ever received any feedback from customers saying that it is a beloved aspect of DVDs or Blu-rays, yet they keep doing it, clearly because it serves their purpose, not ours.

The FBI warnings are also there for a reason, as are all the anti-piracy and various other warning/disclaimers. They're primarily there for legal reasons, not to make us happy as customers. I've raised this point before - how many ridiculous labels and warnings do we see on various products, precisely because in their absence people will pursue frivolous lawsuits, or claim not to have known any better when carrying on with infringing activity? To this day, some people still incorrectly argue on the Internet that ripping and redistributing a movie is legal, as long as it is not done for profit.

Asking for multiple discs increases the cost of production, which in turn reduces profits. Yet the OP claims that his points are designed to help studios maximize their profits.

The only way any of it would work is if the studios increased the retail price of BDs, and they're hardly going to do that given it's currently a race to the bottom when it comes to BD prices, especially as BD is in direct competition with DVD in the mainstream physical disc market.

The point is that most studios obviously view releases on BD, especially deep catalog releases on BD, as being something that provides them with marginal profit at best. For this reason, in many cases classic movies are being licensed out to third parties. Asking them to alter how they produce movies, which in turn increases their costs and effort, potentially increases their legal liability, and reduces their advertising, does not serve their needs, so it's unlikely to happen. What the OP has requested is certainly desirable for us as consumers, but doesn't seem particularly feasible in the current market, especially as physical media is being phased out, and the majority of sales are on cheap DVDs sold to people for whom quality is not the number one concern.

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.