Applying simple economics to widescreen/director's "intent" debates (1 Viewer)

[Damin J Toell]

Did you actually read what I wrote? It's not in secret code, I swear.

I sure read this, and I have no interest in continuing having a conversation in this thread with you if you are unable to do so without being hostile and insulting.

Thanks,
Damin

 

[cafink]

Thanks

No need to thank me; I'm relieved, actually. I was worried for a minute that someone might try putting words into my mouth again.

 

[Damin J Toell]

No need to thank me; I'm relieved, actually. I was worried for a minute that someone might try putting words into my mouth again.

That sound you hear is a point being proven. It's kind of sad seeing an interesting thread lead to a bunch of insults.

The next sound will be you wanting to get the last word, I would imagine.

DJ

 

[cafink]

I have no interest in continuing having a conversation in this thread with you if you are unable to do so without being hostile and insulting.

Then please, just drop it already! You don't need to continue arguing; no one will think any less of you, I promise.

 

[Dave Barth]

They played about a minute of Scorcese talking about this campaign on the CBS local news here in Chicago ... must have been about a year ago, since I saw it in the last place I lived. While I agree it hasn't been particularly successful from the standpoint of visibility, I'm not sure it's fair to think it is from lack of effort.

 

[Sam R. Aucoin]

Do any of you who don't think my analysis could lead to something positive REALLY believe that the average consumer would just as soon let a movie they love SIT on the counter (if it was ONLY in widescreen), rather than buy it and bitch about the "black bars" later?

If you REALLY believe that, how do you explain the fact that The Matrix, released ONLY in widescreen, remained the number one seller of DVDs for several years?

My point is this: If you sell ONLY widescreen movies, both the home theater enthusiast AND the average consumer WILL buy the movie. One may not be as happy as the other, but if widescreen is ALL that you give him, what else can he do?

It's analogous to public service commissions, but in a reverse sort of way - they were created to regular public commodoties such as electricity because consumers very, very seldom have an opportunity to say: "Hey, my electricity bill was too high last year, so I am switching." Without regulation of such a necessary commodity, energy companies could essentially name their price and get away with it, because almost everyone these days needs electricity. Well, apply that same psychology to the supply of DVD's, except instead of creating a "commission" that demands that DVD's be sold at a certain price, form a "commission" of directors that demands that DVD's NOT be released except in OAR only.

I just don't understand why this is so hard to fathom happening . . .

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

While a noble thought, I don't see such a thing happening on the studio side of things, certainly not in a legally-binding manner, anyway. Yes, there are exceptions where a widescreen-only release has been a huge seller, but there are always exceptions. The studio might go along with the OAR-only plan it until such time that Best Buy, Blockbuster and WalMart collectively decide to cut back (or pass) their orders on a big title because there is no fullframe version.

Example - When I was working in video wholesale, there was a fairly large children's title from Warner coming out (I can't remember which, but it would have been in 1994 or 1995). It had been announced to the trades, advertising had run, and the public had been informed (in-store posters at West Coast, BlockBuster, Suncoast, et al). Our largest account - Toys R Us - called up our sales manager and said that if we couldn't get Warner to push the street date back by two weeks, they would cut their order by 2/3 (they would have bought about 300,000 copies of this VHS release and siad they now would only take 100,000). Why did they want the date moved? They had another promotion (NOT video-related!) scheduled to start the week of the release of the movie and wanted no conflict. We called Warner and relayed the message. The next morning, Warner announced that the street date had been pushed back 2 weeks. This cost Warner well over $100,000 to do, since they had to cancel and re-run all of their ads, print up all-new signage, and sweet-talk the OTHER big retailers who didn't want the date moved. Moral to the story - the studios will ALWAYS cave in to the big retailer's demands.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

Do any of you who don't think my analysis could lead to something positive REALLY believe that the average consumer would just as soon let a movie they love SIT on the counter (if it was ONLY in widescreen), rather than buy it and bitch about the "black bars" later?

Yes. People here do it all the time for P&S releases, so why shouldn't the converse be true.

Again, what it comes down to is that rarely are directors operating from a position of power on this issue, and I would guess that it's a battle many of them aren't willing to fight, not to the detriment of their careers.

What would they fight for? If given the choice between final cut or OAR home video presentation, which do you think they would choose?

 

[Sam R. Aucoin]

But Mark, do you seriously contend that those on the HTF are comparable (in terms of demand for at least OAR) to the average consumer?

I just don't think that the average consumer would allow "Pearl Harbor" to sit on the store shelves, simply because it was only available in widescreen. On the other hand, I can easily foresee a goodly portion of the HTF not buying a DVD because it is released only in Pan&Scan.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

If the "Joe Six Pack stories" regularly posted here are to be believed, yes, I think people will let it sit or return it with a complaint. There has to be something to it if stores are demanding P&S because their customers say so, right? What does Wal-mart care if something is widescreen or P&S as long as it's selling?

 

[Sam R. Aucoin]

Mark (and others):
Then why did DVD itself, succeed?
Virtually EVERYONE had a VHS player. Yet, without a populace like the HTF, DVD would have never taken off. Was there a hue and cry for "better video and sound resolution, no degradation, etc."? If there was, I certainly did not hear it.
WE (that is, the HTF crowd) made DVD an initial success. Only after people became EDUCATED about how DVD was much better than VHS (despite the very, very important option that was not initially available for DVD - recordability), the mainstream jumped aboard, and now, there is no end in sight (except an end to VHS ) Let's face it - do you really think that the average consumer would have made DVD what it is today, WITHOUT a beginning force like the membership of the HTF?
I certainly don't.
Well, that's how I feel about OAR vs. P&S. Sooner or later, the average consumer will HAVE to buy widescreen movies, IF that is all that is available. What else can he do - ignore purchasing/renting movies for the remainder of his life?
I think not.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I just don't understand why this is so hard to fathom happening . . .

The question isn't whether this would be effective as to consumers, the question is whether directors realistically have the power to enact your plan. And the answer to that question is "no."

DJ