Controversy: Is the DVD format bad for movies? (1 Viewer)

[Bill Burns]

Combing through the hair of this thread, I've found a small nit I can't resist picking (nor, obviously, could I resist the extended metaphor ):

James wrote:

But... DVD did not enter the scene until 1998.

It's actually a year older than that. I bought my first player the month they debuted in 1997 -- March, I believe. I still have that, though I wouldn't play a DVD on it if you paid me (well, maybe if you paid me). The discs themselves were only in test markets for a while, though, but DVD Express was quickly up and running, allowing copies of Batman and a few others into my budding library. My first disc was actually one of the few early titles to make its way onto the shelves of Best Buy -- In the Line of Fire (movie only edition). I believe the MAR edition of Fly Away Home was another of the early titles (though I didn't buy it, because, hey, it was MAR) -- Columbia/TriStar was one of the first major studios to get product onto store shelves outside of the official test markets (MGM wasn't very far behind, if memory serves), and their widescreen titles were not only anamorphic, but reportedly from high def downconversions at that. They were ahead of the game at that point, MAR releases notwithstanding.

An historical note peripheral to the thread, sorry -- as you were.

 

[Dave F]

It's bad for movies in the same way the printing press was for books.

Well said!

-Dave

 

[SteveP]

I do think that the DVD market has compelled studios to start paying more attention to their libraries and do genuine restoration work ON FILM to protect many classic titles in the long term.

 

[Thomas Smailus]

Yeah, Hollywood is too stupid for their own good.

Everything is bad for the film industry at first because the suits are to dumb to breath.

TV was the death of movies in its day - so they went to wide screen from 4:3. Then Video Tape was the death of films, but they eventually realized they make more on the rentals and sales than the theatrical releases. Then DVD is the death of films. Right; Sure.

Who buys films on hype ? Some folks buy any piece of film they ever liked. I have a stricter criteria - I buy a film I'm likely to want to watch more than twice in 5 years and also might watch in a whim one saturday morning over breakfast. A lot of great films I really loved will never by in my video/dvd collection as I just cannot see myself watching them that often.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

DVD may have come out in 1997, but it wasn't a major market force until 2000 or so. Since (most) movies take a couple years to produce, DVD hasn't been a big influence on movies for long.

I agree with other posters here. The relatively low cost and high quality of the DVD format mean that I've seen hundreds of movies I probably wouldn't otherwise have seen and definitely wouldn't have owned otherwise.

Ignoring that, special features have taught me more about filmmaking than I ever thought I would learn. This doesn't just go for me, but most everybody, thanks to tricked-out mainstream titles like Lord of the Rings and Termiantor 2.

 

[Dave F]

Besides, we all know the real evil is text-messaging.

-Dave

 

[Adam Horak]

I think DVD has helped to expose people to more films than they would have been otherwise. I live in a small market where I am not able to see many independent or art house films. I am able to rent these on DVD. I would never have been exposed to Requiem for a Dream or seen a classic film like Rear Window.

Big action films may be the thing that sells well on DVD, but they also tend to sell well in the theaters. I have absolutely NO problem with the studios making big-budget action films. There are still a LOT of other types of films being made, they just don't get the marketing or wide releases. Now with DVD, thats fine, because I can rent or buy the movie in a high quality presentation if I can't catch it in theaters.