Home video is gone? (1 Viewer)

[Brian Kidd]

I will not forgive them for refusing to provide Blu-rays of MUDBOUND and OKJA.

I would have bought OKJA in a heartbeat. I know that I can watch it for now on Netflix, but should there ever be a time when they remove it, I'd like to have a personal copy. I know that those of us who buy physical releases are in a rapidly-shrinking minority, though.

 

[tempest21]

I think what everyone seems to be forgetting is that Sony's movie division has been a source of problems for Sony and from what I've heard, they've been trying to sell off its movie and television division for some time. I know their entertainment division seems to always be struggling from financial losses and they've been trying to find a way out of the mess that division has been in. Microsoft seems to be in the same boat with its xBox gaming division. Thing is, consumer behavior has changed and everyone is just tired of the same games always getting made not to mention movie and television reboots, remakes, reimaginations, cinematic universes, sequels and what not.

I can't remember the last time a media entertainment company has produced something original and that also wasn't bogged down with online access requirements, DRM, lootboxes and everything else that's used to frustrate their own consumers.

It reminds me of the tech bubble, the stock market and the mortgage bubble that grew to such outrageous proportions that the industry just couldn't sustain itself. It was bound to happen to the entertainment industry, although, it hasn't hit disastrous proportions yet. But, I think the industry is getting pretty close to that.

Once in a great while, along comes a surprise movie hit like The Meg, that literally becomes a sleeper hit for a movie studio. I just think that the entertainment industry needs to go back to producing original content if it wants to save itself. But, movie studios bypassing Blu-ray formats is nothing new. That has been an ongoing problem ever since the Blu-ray format was introduced.

Take a look at Universal Studios Home Video Blu-ray releases of Magnum P.I., A-Team, Knight Rider, Incredible Hulk, etc. While these were released in the U.K., Universal Home Video has not seen fit to release these titles here in the United States. Yet, movie studios wonder why consumers aren't buying home video releases like they used to.

 

[Thomas T]

Once in a great while, along comes a surprise movie hit like The Meg, that literally becomes a sleeper hit for a movie studio.

With a budget of at least $130 million dollars, can The Meg really be called a sleeper? With a budget like that, clearly Warners had high expectations of a summer box office hit. No, a sleeper is something like A Quiet Place filmed on a modest $17 million budget but goes on to gross $188 million dollars at the U.S. box office alone.

 

[TJPC]

I record just about every classic film I want on TCM from my PVR and make my own DVDs. We also watch some shows on Netflix through my PS3. If I switched cables and routed the PS3 through my recordable DVD player, is it possible to record Netflix shows?

 

[tempest21]

Thomas, a movie's budget has nothing to do with whether a movie will be a sleeper hit. According to the official definition, a sleeper movie is something that becomes successful over time. The Meg has been in theaters for almost a month, which is a miracle, to say the least. I didn't give the odds of this movie lasting for more than a week or two. But, it's managed to even surpass 'Solo: A Star Wars Story'. Blair Witch Project,

Sure, there are low budget movies that have been surprise sleep hits but also movies with budget around the $100 million range that nobody would expect to have been successful. Juno, Open Water, Clerks were also more movies that weren't expected to generate a profit for the movie studios either and yet they generated a lot of money for the studio. Take a look at the firefly movie 'Serenity', while that movie bombed at the box office, it set sales records when it hit home video. I seem to recall that when Serenity hit video, it generated more revenue in home video sales than it did at the theaters and became a hit for Universal Studios. Same thing happened with the firefly TV series, where ti did better in home video sales than it did when it was first broadcast.

 

[Thomas T]

Thomas, a movie's budget has nothing to do with whether a movie will be a sleeper hit. According to the official definition, a sleeper movie is something that becomes successful over time. The Meg has been in theaters for almost a month, which is a miracle, to say the least. I didn't give the odds of this movie lasting for more than a week or two. But, it's managed to even surpass 'Solo: A Star Wars Story'. Blair Witch Project,

Sure, there are low budget movies that have been surprise sleep hits but also movies with budget around the $100 million range that nobody would expect to have been successful. Juno, Open Water, Clerks were also more movies that weren't expected to generate a profit for the movie studios either and yet they generated a lot of money for the studio. Take a look at the firefly movie 'Serenity', while that movie bombed at the box office, it set sales records when it hit home video. I seem to recall that when Serenity hit video, it generated more revenue in home video sales than it did at the theaters and became a hit for Universal Studios. Same thing happened with the firefly TV series, where ti did better in home video sales than it did when it was first broadcast.

Clearly, we have different dictionaries when it comes to "sleeper". Obviously a film with a budget over $100 million dollars has expectations to be hugely successful or the studio wouldn't have greenlighted such a large budget. The Meg was a hit right out of the gate and opened at number one. Just what Warners was hoping for. By your definition of a sleeper, Titanic (1997) was a sleeper since it played in theaters for months. Mamma Mia Here We Go Again is still in theaters. Do you consider that a sleeper too? A sleeper is a film with modest expectations that exceed those expectations when it becomes unexpected box office gold. Again, A Quiet Place is a perfect example of a small film that no one thought would be a box office monster but it was. Titanic, Mamma Mia Here We Go Again and The Meg are not box office sleepers. They were intended and anticipated to be big box office and were.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

Take a look at Universal Studios Home Video Blu-ray releases of Magnum P.I., A-Team, Knight Rider, Incredible Hulk, etc. While these were released in the U.K., Universal Home Video has not seen fit to release these titles here in the United States. Yet, movie studios wonder why consumers aren't buying home video releases like they used to.

Mill Creek has been licensing a lot of stuff that the major studios won't put out themselves- I got the complete series of Knight Rider on Blu-Ray from them.

 

[AshJW]

I don't know if home video is really (or already) gone. But it's not a good sign when it comes to a brand new show like The Orville if it is being released only on DVD and not on Blu-ray.
That is the case at least here in Europe.

 

[tempest21]

Thomas, only thing I said was that a "sleeper", whether it's a movie, television series or novel, is not determined by its budget. It doesn't have anything to do with whether someone has a different definition of what a "sleeper" hit actually is. According to Wikipedia; In the entertainment industry, a sleeper hit is a title (such as a book, film, song or game) that becomes successful, gradually, often with little promotion. While most sleeper hits have had a low budget before becoming major box office hits (The Blair Witch Project). Movie studios often employ this strategy in some marketing in their biggest budget movies, such as Forest Gump, My Best Friend's Wedding, Sleepless in Seattle.

Far as The Meg goes, the movie was produced as a B-movie. It wasn't noted among critics that it would become a surprise hit. I don't think anyone expected The Meg to become the surprise sleeper hit movie of the summer that it did, the film's success shocked many in the entertainment industry. I'm not saying you're wrong either. But to say that a sleep hit movie has to have a certain budget in order to be declared a sleeper hit is just disingenuous, at best.

I went back to dig up some of the articles that were predicting the box office take for The Meg opening weekend and it blew expectations out of the water. Prior to the opening weekend, the movie was tracking between $18 million and $25 million on opening weekend. But, the movie took in a whopping $44 million during its first weekend. It's also managed to stay in theaters for a lot longer than most films is proof that the movie was a surprise sleeper hit of the summer. Even Deadpool was a surprise hit for Fox Studios, which was deemed a sleeper hit for how it performed (analysts had predicted a $60-80 million opening weekend when it blew expectations and brought in $135 million during its opening weekend).

It may be that 'sleeper hits" may have originally been delegated to low budget films but it's clearly evolved in its definition. I have yet to find a single definition of a "sleeper hit" that has defined such a movie by terms of its budget. Clearly, that's not the case anymore.

 

[jcroy]

Thomas, only thing I said was that a "sleeper", whether it's a movie, television series or novel, is not determined by its budget. It doesn't have anything to do with whether someone has a different definition of what a "sleeper" hit actually is. According to Wikipedia; In the entertainment industry, a sleeper hit is a title (such as a book, film, song or game) that becomes successful, gradually, often with little promotion. While most sleeper hits have had a low budget before becoming major box office hits (The Blair Witch Project). Movie studios often employ this strategy in some marketing in their biggest budget movies, such as Forest Gump, My Best Friend's Wedding, Sleepless in Seattle.

Wonder how many PRjedi are deliberately rigging this angle, for propaganda and/or hype type of purposes.

ie. A way of keeping the film (or show) in the adhd news cycle.

Nowadays it seems like the hardest part for advertising anything, is being able to stick out from all the "background noise" for more than 2 minutes.

 

[TJPC]

I don't know if home video is really (or already) gone. But it's not a good sign when it comes to a brand new show like The Orville if it is being released only on DVD and not on Blu-ray.
That is the case at least here in Europe.

I’m still waiting for the Blu rays, but then again I’m still waiting for GALAVANT.

 

[bujaki]

I’m still waiting for the Blu rays, but then again I’m still waiting for GALAVANT.

I'm also waiting for Galavant.

 

[tempest21]

I don't believe for one minute that physical home video will ever truly be gone. While I don't know how it is with everyone else, I just think that most consumers like to have the physical product in their hands, the actual DVD or Blu-ray. Studios have always been reluctant to release their content and there is a lot of content that studios have not been willing to release for public consumption. I can think of one movie, The Evil (1977), that starred Richard Crenna (a horror movie classic), that has yet to be released to DVD yet along Blu-ray). It was released one time as a double feature on a DVD and never issued again. There are many other shows, as well; not to mention movies. But, for a lot of entertainment fans, not everyone has access to the internet and that will never change unless the internet is offered for free to every person on the planet.

For me, if I'm going to plop down money for a DVD release or a Blu-ray release, I want the physical product in my hands. This is why so many movie and television fans resort to file sharing because of the studios unwillingness to provide their own content that fans ask for. These studios should provide their entire catalog of movies and television shows so that fans of that content can watch them, either online, order them from the studio (through a DVD or Blu-ray format), similar to how Warner Brothers used to offer their archived titles or just make their content available for fans in some format.

If a studio decided to offer up one of my favorite TV shows, such as Scooby-Doo, Where Are you, on home video to where I could order the Blu-ray version from them and it would be produced or manufactured on order or manufactured on demand, that is something I would greatly support. Unfortunately, most studios aren't interested in MOD services.

 

[Sam Favate]

Judging by this year alone, home media is anything but gone. I have bought more new DVD/blu-ray/UHD titles in 2018 than in any of the last 10 years. (Nothing matches the DVD onslaught of 2002-2004 when I'd buy new titles every week.)

 

[Worth]

I don't believe for one minute that physical home video will ever truly be gone. While I don't know how it is with everyone else, I just think that most consumers like to have the physical product in their hands, the actual DVD or Blu-ray...

I think it's just the opposite, actually. The only people who seem to prefer physical media are those that want to own titles, but most people are perfectly happy with subscription services and/or renting. Why spend $20 a pop when that'll get you two months of Netflix and more content than you could possibly watch? And the younger generation isn't even interested in buying TVs, let alone discs. They're fine with watching everything on their laptops, iPads and phones.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

There’s a huge sea change going on currently with younger generations, and ownership is definitely part of it.

I’m 35 right now, married, and sharing a one bedroom apartment with my wife. Space is at a premium. It’s not unworkable and I’m not complaining but it’s very different from how I grew up. When my dad was 35, he was married with three kids, and one salary was enough to pay for all of that, and the salary came with job security and retirement savings. It’s just such a different environment today. Kids are coming out of college with massive debt loads and they’re not able to buy homes or rent large dwellings. They’re sharing apartments or small houses with friends or roommates, or moving home. They’re being offered jobs that are more freelance or contract type situations rather than careers. In that kind of environment, how do you spend money on a big TV or home theater setup when you don’t even have the cash on hand, or know how long you’ll have your current job and/or place to live? How do you commit to owning dozens or hundreds of small physical objects when you don’t have the space and may have to box it all up and move every year? Maybe you make due with a laptop that has a screen larger than my first TV. Maybe you have a lower priced flatscreen and just use the built in apps, or splurge on an Apple TV or Roku. Maybe you subscribe to a service, maybe you rent a title a la carte, maybe you download or stream pirated content.

Services like Netflix and MoviePass and Spotify are continuing to set an expectation among younger people that recorded media has very little if any value. People in my peer group don’t understand why I’d spend $20+ to buy a disc when they can watch the same content in similar or identical quality virtually for free without the hassle of being committed to a physical object.

I’ve said it before but it beats repeating: mass ownerships of films has historically never been the cultural norm. For a brief period before streaming was up and running but after DVD became widespread, it was often most convenient and inexpensive to purchase a disc, and that’s what people did. But streaming is more convenient and cheaper, and that matters more to the masses. Most people, when they want to watch a movie, just want to watch a movie. We here are a unique breed because when we want to watch a movie, we usually have something much more specific in mind.

I think discs will continue to shrink to a niche market that sticks around for some time, but discs will never again be the most popular way to watch a film. Those times are never coming back. Just like people aren’t going back to listening to the radio for an hour hoping to hear a song they like, when they can instead open Spotify and listen to that song right away.

 

[Robert Crawford]

There’s a huge sea change going on currently with younger generations, and ownership is definitely part of it.

I’m 35 right now, married, and sharing a one bedroom apartment with my wife. Space is at a premium. It’s not unworkable and I’m not complaining but it’s very different from how I grew up. When my dad was 35, he was married with three kids, and one salary was enough to pay for all of that, and the salary came with job security and retirement savings. It’s just such a different environment today. Kids are coming out of college with massive debt loads and they’re not able to buy homes or rent large dwellings. They’re sharing apartments or small houses with friends or roommates, or moving home. They’re being offered jobs that are more freelance or contract type situations rather than careers. In that kind of environment, how do you spend money on a big TV or home theater setup when you don’t even have the cash on hand, or know how long you’ll have your current job and/or place to live? How do you commit to owning dozens or hundreds of small physical objects when you don’t have the space and may have to box it all up and move every year? Maybe you make due with a laptop that has a screen larger than my first TV. Maybe you have a lower priced flatscreen and just use the built in apps, or splurge on an Apple TV or Roku. Maybe you subscribe to a service, maybe you rent a title a la carte, maybe you download or stream pirated content.

Services like Netflix and MoviePass and Spotify are continuing to set an expectation among younger people that recorded media has very little if any value. People in my peer group don’t understand why I’d spend $20+ to buy a disc when they can watch the same content in similar or identical quality virtually for free without the hassle of being committed to a physical object.

I’ve said it before but it beats repeating: mass ownerships of films has historically never been the cultural norm. For a brief period before streaming was up and running but after DVD became widespread, it was often most convenient and inexpensive to purchase a disc, and that’s what people did. But streaming is more convenient and cheaper, and that matters more to the masses. Most people, when they want to watch a movie, just want to watch a movie. We here are a unique breed because when we want to watch a movie, we usually have something much more specific in mind.

I think discs will continue to shrink to a niche market that sticks around for some time, but discs will never again be the most popular way to watch a film. Those times are never coming back. Just like people aren’t going back to listening to the radio for an hour hoping to hear a song they like, when they can instead open Spotify and listen to that song right away.

Nailed it!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

High praise, thank you Robert!

Someone should hire me as a media analyst!

 

[TJPC]

I really believe that you can make a very good case for saying that the internet has ruined our cultures. First the audio recording/selling industry went kaput, then most newspapers, now home video, to say nothing about election meddling by other countries. I hate conspiracies, but I sometimes feel we are playing out a Rod Serling script. Why are aliens doing this to us?

 

[John Dirk]

I’m 35 right now, married, and sharing a one bedroom apartment with my wife. Space is at a premium.

Great point, Josh. We all tend to get tunnel vision concerning our particular situations. Space is not a problem for me so I don't mind owning physical media. Most people probably do have space limitations and are more concerned about that than absolute ownership of their content or best playback quality. As always, the masses will and must dictate the future as far as large corporate entities are concerned.

I think discs will continue to shrink to a niche market that sticks around for some time, but discs will never again be the most popular way to watch a film. Those times are never coming back. Just like people aren’t going back to listening to the radio for an hour hoping to hear a song they like, when they can instead open Spotify and listen to that song right away.

I'm 52. I remember when banks started introducing ATM machines. Many people I knew at the time hated the concept and I said to them basically what you are saying above. Now I find myself on the other side of progress. Times change.