"Eco-Friendly" Packaging Here To Stay (1 Viewer)

[Rusty_R]

everything was okay no of damage of any kind thankfully.

Goldfinger and Moonraker have slip covers that protects them some.
Never Say Never Again dosen't have slip cover but luckily no damge.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

How effing wrongheaded is this? They use these "things" to be environmentally friendly, then throw an O-ring around the package. Skip the O-ring and give me a REAL box!

 

[Chris S]

This stinks to me of cost cutting with the veil of environmental contiousness (a topic that really gets me going, btw).

I'm all for going "green"er but Criterion is already way out doing them in the eco-friendly space. I mean their packing is made of cardboard which is easily recyclable and naturally biodegradable. Much better than cutting holes in plastic which if ever thrown out will last for much much longer in any landfill.

If Sony was really interested in helping the environment, and not in simply reducing their cost with respect to packing materials and shipping weight, they could do much better.

*note: this isn't a commentary on which I think is overall "better" just which is more "eco-friendly".

 

[PaulDA]

For that matter, the "snapper cases" WB used to use for SD DVD that are so frequently reviled (though I never cared about them either way--I've not had any problems with them) would be "greener". I still think if "greener" was a serious issue, DVDs from the outset would have been packaged in CD cases.

 

[ATimson]

At some point, "greener" has to take a back seat to "making it obvious to idiots that they can't buy the disc and expect it to play in their Discman".

 

[PaulDA]

Sure, but the packaging did not need to be nearly as big as it is for SD DVDs--something like DVD-A cases would have been sufficient. And I don't think there would have been too many cases of people complaining a movie would play in their Discman. People may have been confused with non-hybrid SACDs (it's on a disc and it's supposed to be music, not video) but I should think that only a very tiny minority would think a movie in their Discman with no screen would be expected to work.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

If they truly wanted to be eco-friendly then all discs should come in a cardboard sleeve and the cases are for display purposes only. You take a tag for the movie (like furniture in Office Depot/Max) and they give it to you from a case behind the register. Similar scenario to renting a movie where the box is for display and the disc taken home in a CD sized case. Collectors would have to buy their own cases and print out the artwork, which is can be downloaded from the studio's website. The number of collectors that would do this are very small compared to the total consumers so only those who want the packaging pay for it and they get to choose their preferred sized case with nothing going to the landfill. That should save about half the cost of the product between reduced theft, shipping weight, and packaging costs so movies will all be $10-$15, right?

I am curious about rental stores. Do they get a separate case for every disc or do they get a pack of discs on a spindle to really save space and shipping?

 

[Paul Arnette]

When I first saw the 'eco-friendly' packaging on my Silence of the Lambs BD, I was in a tizzy. While I can say that I'm getting used to them, I can't say that I like them or think they are a valid solution for helping the environment. The cynic in me still can't get past the idea that they aren't somehow a cost-saving measure, line somebody's pocket with royalties, or just a PR stunt though.

I'll have my first real issue with them the first time one of those damn black, square security stickers gets stuck to the inside of the slip cover. The holes in the cases haven't made it harder to use them for the most part. My cases generally travel to the vicinity of my display and back to their shelf, so I don't forsee a whole lot more wear and tear to be subjected to them because of these cases. That said, getting rid of the slipcover for these BDs and DVDs that add nothing, in my opinion, would seem like the most logical place to start.

Finally, that ecofont is the stupidest thing I've seen in a long time.

 

[Powell&Pressburger]

Main issue I have with them is the cover art insert quality... adn both releases I bought Moonraker and Silence of the Lambs - both releases had security stickers attached and went through to the cover art and there is no way to pull it off with out destroying the art insert... so for those who think the artwork won't be damaged, they can be from time to time and you don't know it till you open it.

 

[Hamilton72]

Grrreeeat.

Well Amazon is going to get a LOT of returns for exchange is all I'm going to say!

 

[troy evans]

Well, there's always custom covers. Sorry, that's the only bright side I can see to this. And that won't be nearly enough for many who don't have access to a printer or sites to print from. It is an option should this crap get to a point where all cover art gets torn or damaged in some way. Please don't take this as me condoning this new case design because, I do not. This is a case of that "new and improved" bullshit companies feed consumers all the time. They always say somethings "new and improved" rather than "hey we cut costs and pass the screwings on to you". Fuckin cheap asses! Sorry to rant.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

For what it's worth:

I work in home video and DVD; though most of my work is more on the technical content of the discs rather than artwork and design, I still do sit in on packaging meetings and have a hand in choosing what packaging each release gets. We recently (within the past 6 months or so) got samples of this same "eco-friendly" box that's being discussed here and will probably incorporate it to some future releases. I'm not trying to impress anyone or anything, but I wanted to give a little background so my next statement doesn't come across as a guess, because it's not.

This particular model of eco-friendly packaging costs more than standard amarays. All of the different environmentally friendly options are more costly than a standard amaray. It's still not "standard" packaging, and we get charged a premium for it. They are less expensive than some of the cardboard packaging (like "An Inconvenient Truth" or "There Will Be Blood") or even some of the more quirky packaging (the case for the series "Eureka" is actually made out of potatoes, believe it or not). The reason that the plastic eco-boxes are less expensive and preferable to some studios as an option than other environmentally friendly packaging is because these cases can still be packaged manually. Most digipaks, thinpaks, and paper cases all need to be stuffed by hand, which drives the cost up further.

All I'm trying to say here is, when you see studios using these eco-cases, they're not saving any money on them - at best, they're breaking even, but they're probably spending a tiny bit more on them. They're not doing it to be cheap or to try to upset the customer; it's one of those little things that they can do try to be a little better to the environment. Certainly it's worth discussing if this is the best packaging design or anything else, but I hope we can at least put to bed the notion that the studios are paying less for this in an attempt to be deceptive or sneaky with us. They genuinely are trying to do the right thing here.

(I'm not surprised that Quantum of Solace had this packaging, as the film had some environmental themes running through it. When we talk about what packaging to use for titles, we try to use environmentally friendly packaging especially with titles that have those kinds of themes. It probably wasn't an accident that they're using these cases in QoS.)

 

[Pete T C]

We will see how Eco Friendly these cases are when I have to get 10 copies of the product from Amazon in order to get one thats not damaged, and then buy a real Blu-ray blank case to transfer the artwork/disc into anyway.

Bad move, Sony, and it is going to cost you and other companies that try it with the people that buy your product the most!

 

[troy evans]

I'd really like to find out how more is spent on these cases then? Aside from the paper and potato made case expense you discribed, you never touched on what makes these new plastic cases more expensive. If they can use the same production lines and such. These cases are made from molds which plastic is poured into. Now the've re-designed the case and with it the molds so less plastic has to be poured in to fill the molds. How does that equal more cost?

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Put me down as another who hates this idea for the simple reason that it will make it much easier to damage the artwork if it isn't already destroyed when bought new. If these discs were selling for under $5 each, fine - package them in whatever you like, but cheap packaging (and that goes for Criterion's Blu packaging as well) does not belong on >$20 product.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I doubt the $ cost savings on the plastic material itself is of any real significance compared to everything else that goes into making (and packaging) these things. I suspect the fact that they will need to run a separate assembly line (or do some kind of runtime change to it) will probably add enough cost to offset any savings in the reduced amount of raw materials used.

Perhaps, if the BD market starts to surpass the DVD market and/or nearly all BDs started using a standard "eco-friendly" case so that the economy of scales catch up, then *maybe* it'll eventually cost less, but I really doubt it'll *ever* cost signficantly less to make. The fact that this requires a more complicated mold/cut than the plain case will probably yield more QC issues and reduce good yields, etc. and end up adding cost in that respect.

So yeah, I don't doubt the studios are *trying* to be more eco-friendly w/ this -- or at least give the *appearance* of doing so (for PR purposes). But of course, trying is not the same as actually succeeding though, which was more or less Josh's point me thinks.

Honestly, if "eco-friendly" is indeed a huge issue here, then we should be moving away from (pre)packaged media altogether and going w/ download/VOD -- now, *THAT* would indeed save some significant $$$ for the studios while probably also yielding truly eco-friendly results. But yeah, most of us here don't want to go that route either (at least not w/ all the negatives that come w/ it under the forseeable circumstances)...

_Man_

 

[Josh Steinberg]

One reason is they're not being as widely manufactured or used yet, so as any specialty product they do command a premium. It's not a *huge* difference, unlike some of the more unique designs... the point I was trying to make wasn't so much that these things are ridiculously expensive, but just that they're not saving any money. I don't know offhand what the difference in cost of unit is - likely it varied depending on quantity ordered, and I don't think it was something that was being regular stocked at the plants just yet so it took an advance special order. My honest opinion about these is that they're just an in-between measure until they come up with something better long-term, but who knows what packaging will be like 5 years from now?

 

[ATimson]

Well, I just picked up TWINE, and it was a Case In Name Only. On the other hand, the artwork hadn't stuck to the security sticker inside the front, and so it was easier to remove the sticker with the extra handhold than it normally is.

There's another problem with this case design that I just realized; it prevents anything from being printed on the back of the liner, like Disney likes to do with their DVDs. Too bad; it was convenient to have the chapters printed there, without the inserts that companies stopped paying for years ago, so of course they had to go.

 

[CraigF]

To me, as the purchaser/customer, it's very simple: the case is to protect the product. The only question then is: does the "new" do it better or equal to the "old"? If not, then it's a definite step backward...

 

[ATimson]

It's only a step backward if it protects less; if it protects just as well, it's a step... absolutely nowhere.