Physical Media might not be dead, but Physical Media in Retail Stores are accelerating the death (1 Viewer)

[TJPC]

Don’t you find, you see a movie in a theatre, then buy the 3D blu ray and watch it at home, then watch the flat version with commentary and extras and then you really don’t ever care to see the movie again.

In another example, I bought the big box set of “Alien” movies on Blu ray. I now know far more about these movies than I really want to know and can’t see ever wanting to see them again. I could probably recite them from memory.

I have seen a lot of repeats now as I replaced my DVDs with Blu rays. This is another reason why I am not going 4K yet. I just don’t want to face seeing everything again with such a modest “improvement” only detectable on a 200” screen.

 

[BobO'Link]

I have my concerns.

Ultimately, and I'd love to be proven wrong on this, I think the general audience is less willing to pay for entertainment than they used to be. The golden years for us were probably those few years where purchasing a DVD was both cheaper and more convenient than other options for the average consumer. When other options came along that were cheaper and more convenient, that charged everything.

By the types of movies now being released in theaters and the increasing pressure to have as big an opening weekend as possible, we as an audience are being trained to see a movie right away in theaters or not at all. And high prices and declining presentation quality is starting to make "not at all" the preferred option for many former theatergoers.

By shrinking home video windows from a year to six months to three months (or less!), we're being trained to wait to see most things at home.

By releasing digital versions weeks in advance of the disc versions, we're being trained to pursue digital.

By putting movies on inexpensive services like Netflix, we're being trained to wait an extra few weeks to watch it for "free".

So, in this environment, I don't know how to convince the consumer to start paying again for something they're out of the habit of paying for.

To give a small example: my wife and I tried to see all 9 Best Picture nominees in theaters this year, and we saw most. We missed Call Me By Your Name. It had been playing last weekend, we couldn't make the timing work. If we had seen it in theaters, in NYC, two tickets would be $34 in total. The nationwide average is $10 a ticket, so for the sake of conversation, let's say it would have cost two people $20 to see it in theaters.

I checked iTunes. Though the disc isn't out yet, it was available on digital to purchase for $15. So, for less than the price of two average tickets or one NYC-priced ticket, I could own the digital copy and watch it as many times as I want.

If I could be even more patient, iTunes says it will be available to rent digitally in about a week, and that'll be only $5. (On the same date, it'll come out on disc for $20 or $25.) And, about a month after that, it'll be on Netflix where I can see it for free.

Look how dramatically that pricing drops. $34 to see it in a theater now or $25 to buy a disc in a week. $15 to buy a digital copy now. $5 to rent it digitally in a week. Unlimited free viewing on Netflix in a month.

The takeaway for the average customer is that anything in theaters today can be watched for home for free in maybe three months. And I genuinely think that most people aren't interested in owning most movies or even that picky about what to watch. Most people just want to watch a movie they haven't seen that they'll be able to enjoy, and there are plenty of good options for doing that now besides buying a movie ticket or buying a disc.

And I haven't the foggiest idea of how to swing that pendulum back, other than making internet access so expensive that the disc goes back to being the cheaper option.

A couple of years ago my wife got the brilliant idea to give our oldest grandson, then 11, "Movies with a friend" for his birthday. I was thinking 2 - she said "3, and that includes drinks and popcorn." And an adult with them... It was $40 per movie, far more than I'd anticipated when I said "A couple of movies with a buddy sounds good." 6 months later I purchased the 3 movies I took him and his buddy to for $5 each! Even now I have trouble paying the $7.50 "Sr. discount" rate as I know whatever I see will be available for purchase in 6-12 months for that price or less. Add the "refillable" popcorn/drink combo and you're now at ~$20, typically the price of the movie on release date. And I can watch it at home with fewer distractions and no hassle with traffic, crowds, etc.

 

[BobO'Link]

She's certainly welcome to make and be of that choice, although as I've said before, why insist on seeing something with commercials (and some of the most awful nowadays, I might add), when you can in many cases enjoy the same things uncut and without the commercials?!

I know... I just don't get it and she just doesn't care so I don't comment about it any longer, at least to her. I just teach my grandkids the joy of commercial free disc based viewing. They'll pick a disc over "live" TV every time.

 

[Blimpoy06]

why insist on seeing something with commercials (and some of the most awful nowadays, I might add), when you can in many cases enjoy the same things uncut and without the commercials?!

I have a cousin that is two years older than I am. He is a huge James Bond fan and owns all the films and many others on blu-ray. He watches all the Bond films when they are on commercial television even with them sitting ten feet away commercial free and in a better presentation. It just doesn't bother him. He never watches the bonus features other than the trailers. Watching cable TV with all the imperfections is fine with him.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

Well, I just got back from Best Buy and for some reason they have really loaded up with TV-on-DVD titles, including many vintage series. I don't think I've ever seen them stock such a big selection... maybe my purchases are influencing their buying decisions.

They also had something close to what I've been asking for for years... actual reproductions of full broadcast days. Mill Creek has a couple of sets called "Watch Around the Clock" which are 24 hours long and reproduce a broadcast day from olden times. Cartoons, game shows, sitcoms and dramas. It's all 50's and 60's shows, all black and white, and I suspect all public domain. It's got episodes from shows that didn't air at the same time (e.g., the Burns and Allen Show and the Beverly Hillbillies), and of course networks didn't broadcast for 24 hours back then, so it's not what I really wanted (an actual show-by-show, commercial-by-commercial reconstruction of an actual broadcast day), but it's probably the closest I'll get and for $18 it won't break me if I'm disappointed.

 

[bmasters9]

I have a cousin that is two years older than I am. He is a huge James Bond fan and owns all the films and many others on blu-ray. He watches all the Bond films when they are on commercial television even with them sitting ten feet away commercial free and in a better presentation. It just doesn't bother him. He never watches the bonus features other than the trailers. Watching cable TV with all the imperfections is fine with him.

If he likes Bond with the commercials, it's his choice, just like with Bob O'Link's wife with other things-- different strokes for different folks (much different from me desiring to see Hart to Hart only through its DVD releases from Sony and Shout!, and not on FETV with all the ads).

 

[Bobby Henderson]

By the types of movies now being released in theaters and the increasing pressure to have as big an opening weekend as possible, we as an audience are being trained to see a movie right away in theaters or not at all. And high prices and declining presentation quality is starting to make "not at all" the preferred option for many former theatergoers.

It's as if the people now running the movie industry all have ADHD. 20 years ago a movie production's bragging rights centered around the final box office tally. The entertainment media used to give those numbers a lot of publicity, like when the domestic gross of Jurassic Park crossed the $300 million mark or when Titanic passed the $600 million mark. Back then blockbuster movies had "legs" and could stay in theaters for several months.

Today if you want to look up a hit movie's final box office gross (domestic or global) you have to search for it. The movie studios are all about getting a movie in and out of theaters as fast as possible and onto home video as fast as possible. It's all about accounting, cash flow and reducing interest payments on borrowed production money.

With theater ticket prices being what they are box office gross numbers mean very little anymore. I've always thought the industry should count actual number of tickets sold to determine if a movie is truly a hit. It takes between 5 and 10 million tickets sold for a movie to cross the $100 million mark.

Then there's the movies themselves. So many are cobbled together with the Save the Cat! clip art style beat sheet template. Plot lines are painfully predictable. Overall the viewer ends up feeling like he's seen that movie a thousand times before. Meanwhile TV programming at home has gone through a kind of renaissance. Although they lack a major feature film budget the shows tend to be more creative, less predictable and even more edgy. These TV shows can even include content that would give a Hollywood feature a NC-17 rating. While Hollywood movies can pile on big budget spectacle they can't escape being really kind of bland.

Owning TV shows and movies in physical media is in a sense a library. Just as it is fashionable for people to display their books. I enjoy displaying my collection for myself and others. It's a timely and costly endeavor that I take pride in. What I collect expresses my interest and tastes the same as if I had art on the wall. Some people appreciate it on that level. Others will never understand.

I have a pretty big collection of DVDs and Blu-ray discs, but 99% of it is just gathering dust. I have discs I haven't taken out of the packaging in over a decade. They're just taking up space. My movie disc buying habits have nose-dived over the past few years. I'm down to maybe buying one or two movie discs per year. So many of the movies made these days aren't worth viewing more than once or twice.

If someone wants to build a big movie collection he needs space for it. A lot of young adults, particularly those living in big cities, don't have room for all that. It's really tough if multiple roommates are crammed into one apartment. I think the whole trend of down-sizing is influencing this shift to streaming movies & music versus buying that content. It's easier to move to new digs if you're not weighed down by a bunch of "stuff" to box up and move.

 

[BobO'Link]

They also had something close to what I've been asking for for years... actual reproductions of full broadcast days. Mill Creek has a couple of sets called "Watch Around the Clock" which are 24 hours long and reproduce a broadcast day from olden times.

Those are at Amazon both in disc form and streaming - "free" for Prime members. One BW and the other Color programs. They have some truly odd selections of material. I have Prime so I may watch one to see just how closely they come to what I watched back then...

 

[SeanSKA]

Last week I went to Barnes & Nobles in Union Square in NYC hoping to get "Tom Jones" on blu-ray. Their website had it for 30% off , and I had an additional 20% off coupon. It wasn't marked down in the store, and I pointed out to the clerk the on-line listing showed the discount. He refused to honor the website price, so I walked. I can wait until July when all Criterions will be 50% off...

 

[Jeremy Lancaster]

She's a "I've seen it, why would I want to watch it again?"

For the same reason why we read the classic books again. Or, watch the classic films many times over.

 

[Jeremy Lancaster]

This is another reason why I am not going 4K yet. I just don’t want to face seeing everything again with such a modest “improvement” only detectable on a 200” screen.

I'm with you on this. I have thousands of Blu-rays in my library, and am seeing that many of them now look exceptionally better on an LG 65" Oled TV versus my previous LED tv. Absolute gold has been found in my collection. As for buying 4K disks, I own two (2), both produced in Native 4k and not an Upscaled 4k edition. Buying 4K requires to make a study of the online reviews to determine if the money deserves to be spent and if the gain is worth the purchase.

 

[Jeremy Lancaster]

I know... I just don't get it and she just doesn't care so I don't comment about it any longer, at least to her. I just teach my grandkids the joy of commercial free disc based viewing. They'll pick a disc over "live" TV every time.

Kids are great when tested about commercials . . . Ask them to start a conversation about something they love. Then every 15 seconds - blurt in with a high volume a commercial, such as "THAT REMINDS ME, I love John's new Ford Mustang, I'm going to ask him about it." Then let the kid continue with his story. Repeat the interruption about the same Ford Mustang. When you see the kid start to frown, tell him that's the way you feel when you sit down to enjoy an epic movie and you get some car dealership interrupting trying to sell you his car (typically with his dog named Spot).

 

[Jeremy Lancaster]

I have a cousin that is two years older than I am. He is a huge James Bond fan and owns all the films and many others on blu-ray. He watches all the Bond films when they are on commercial television even with them sitting ten feet away commercial free and in a better presentation. It just doesn't bother him. He never watches the bonus features other than the trailers. Watching cable TV with all the imperfections is fine with him.

For those who wear eye glasses, it can be the same experience when going without good vision (cable) to eye glasses and the resulting comment, "I can SEE so much better".

 

[Jeremy Lancaster]

Plot lines are painfully predictable.

Depending on the source, there are typically only nine (9) plots. Why do we not get bored with our best literature and films?

But a painfully predictable plot may not be the plot, but the overall story-telling. Imagine a remake where we loved the original actor and were left disappointed because of the novice presentation of both a poor director, poor set design, and poor acting.

 

[bmasters9]

Kids are great when tested about commercials . . . Ask them to start a conversation about something they love. Then every 15 seconds - blurt in with a high volume a commercial, such as "THAT REMINDS ME, I love John's new Ford Mustang, I'm going to ask him about it." Then let the kid continue with his story. Repeat the interruption about the same Ford Mustang. When you see the kid start to frown, tell him that's the way you feel when you sit down to enjoy an epic movie and you get some car dealership interrupting trying to sell you his car (typically with his dog named Spot).

That's pretty much the way it is with television nowadays!

 

[TJPC]

I can never understand why people watch TV just as it spills in the room. I don’t think I have watched a commercial since I bought my first Beta machine in 1988!

 

[BobO'Link]

It's been mentioned several times about how quickly a theatrical release can now be purchased for home viewing. I grew up in the days of it taking a year, or longer, before a movie *might* show up on TV. I know the studios are trying to get those sales while the movie is still fresh in people's minds, that whole "That was a good movie. I'll buy it." mentality. Based on today's offerings I can't say that's a bad thing as most are pretty forgettable and after a year just don't seem to look as good. I also think that practice is hurting theatrical attendance.

The movies that just left the theater appear to mostly be what's keeping physical alive as people just don't seem to care for catalog titles, especially anything made before they were born (ask a later gen Millennial if they've seen a pre-1990 movie and the answer will likely be along the lines of "No - there were no good movies back then"). Even then, the younger demographic is often purchasing digital over physical. They don't see, or just don't care about, the pitfalls many of us who've "been around a while" see in that delivery method.

It's not much different than when VHS/Beta came out. A few people purchased a personal copy but most would just rather rent. They're content to see a movie, or TV show, whenever a network or cable channel decides to air it, or just rent a copy at the local video store for a one-off viewing. Streaming is taking the place of that local video store. People like streaming because it's cheap and convenient (no more driving to the video store or Redbox kiosk) and there are no late fees.

Most of this group absolutely do not care about quality and are generally not true movie lovers. Sure they love to watch a movie, and may see lots of them, but they don't dissect a movie to see what makes it work, or watch to see a classic performance, or seek out catalog titles to get a historical slant or just watch an old master (actor, director, or other participant) for a better perspective of current movies. These are often people who will not watch a BW movie *because* it's BW as that makes it old and/or not as good. I know people my age who feel this way and we grew up in the era of BW TV, seeing most movies, color and BW, on those BW sets.

When DVDs finally made ownership rather affordable, with a far more sturdy product, they purchased a few favorites, got a few more for the kids (good, inexpensive, keeps 'em occupied) and realized they didn't rewatch those favorites after all. Now that attitude has changed to "They're available for streaming somewhere, so why keep buying?" They've likely not experienced that favorite disappearing... yet... People are returning to a rental model but now it's streaming instead of going to the video store. The video stores were partially responsible for keeping physical sales higher. After all, they, too, had to purchase a physical copy, multiples for new titles, for you to rent. With streaming, they're gone and along with them those extra sales.

In the long run, it seems that the studios want streaming to better control access to their content. But they also seem to realize that the current streaming model is costing them revenue in sales. Digital "ownership" seems to be the answer they've been looking for as you can't pass along any part of your collection which opens the door for sales they feel they'd have otherwise lost. It also provides them with the system to fully control distribution, eliminating the middle-man and giving them maximum profits.

My grandson said it quite well just yesterday, although about video games rather than movies. He was telling me about a friend who wouldn't purchase a physical copy of a game because he "prefers digital." The physical copy, with bonus material, was on sale for $15. The stipped down digital version was $60. My grandson said his friend was rather dumb for making that purchase. I can understand why his friend would prefer digital for gaming (after all, there's no disc to lose or damage and kids just don't know how to properly treat media), but not at that price difference. I see the same thing with physical over digital purchases of movies with the physical copy often being much less than the digital, yet people purchase that digital copy instead thinking it's better. I think that group is in for a rather rude awakening one of these days.

 

[Blimpoy06]

Watching basketball today I saw an ad for the new Jumanji movie. The selling point was that the film was available on digital while still in the theaters. This seems to be a bold step for the studios. I wonder how the theater owners are reacting?

 

[Ron1973]

Watching basketball today I saw an ad for the new Jumanji movie. The selling point was that the film was available on digital while still in the theaters. This seems to be a bold step for the studios. I wonder how the theater owners are reacting?

It probably helps curb bootlegging the same way legal mp3 files did. That should make them happy I'd guess.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Most of this group absolutely do not care about quality and are generally not true movie lovers. Sure they love to watch a movie, and may see lots of them, but they don't dissect a movie to see what makes it work, or watch to see a classic performance, or seek out catalog titles to get a historical slant or just watch an old master (actor, director, or other participant) for a better perspective of current movies.

I think that's generally been true for most people for most of movie history, though. I think, like you pointed out, that for a brief period, buying a DVD was cheaper than renting a movie, so for a short while, people went that route for convenience. The side effect was that they wound up with a pile of movies that they weren't likely to watch again, and as soon as streaming became cheaper and more convenient, they were happy to go to that. I think streaming is actually quite wonderful, particularly as a rental medium. I'd prefer to purchase a physical hard copy for anything I want to own, but it can be great to open up Vudu or iTunes or Netflix and try something on a whim, rather than having to put on my shoes, leave the house, and hope that the video store has what I'm looking for. But the film industry needs fans who simply want to watch things in order to keep going, so I'm not sure it's such a bad thing that there are so many casual viewers who love the practice of watching a movie but aren't as into the level of detail and history that we are.

Watching basketball today I saw an ad for the new Jumanji movie. The selling point was that the film was available on digital while still in the theaters. This seems to be a bold step for the studios. I wonder how the theater owners are reacting?

I think Jumanji is an unusual case in that it's lasting in theaters far longer than anything else has stuck around for a while. The home video release was probably scheduled right when the movie opened, with the anticipation that it would have finished its run by now. And the digital releases these days typically come out 2-3 weeks before the physical disc, so I think that's just the normal timetable for that.

But it makes for a compelling argument, and I was kinda talking about the same in an earlier post here. Jumanji is onsale now on iTunes and Vudu for $15 to own it digitally forever. (Or at least, as long as one can own a digital asset.) In my neighborhood, a movie theater ticket for a standard 2D digital presentation is $16.50. In the suburbs where my parents live, it's about $12.50. So, for basically the cost of one movie ticket to watch it one time, I can buy that movie at home and have it forever, right now. No hassle, no leaving the house, just press the button and it's mine. Or, I can wait a few weeks for a disc which may cost than that, and which may require me to either leave the house, or pay a shipping and handling fee if I don't have something like Amazon Prime. That's how digital will win over physical for the average consumer.

The flipside to that, as Howie pointed out with his grandson and the digital downloads for video games, is that the price for the digital download usually stays pretty firmly in place, while physical media starts getting discounted as soon as the retailers want to get rid of inventory. So while it'll be cheaper right now for me to buy Jumanji on iTunes than to go to see it in the movies or to preorder a disc, six months or a year from now, the disc will likely be the cheaper option.

It probably helps curb bootlegging the same way legal mp3 files did. That should make them happy I'd guess.

I think there's a lot more bootlegging going on than people realize. Once something gets released to the streaming services, the bootleggers can make a copy of that stream and spread it on illegal download sites pretty quickly - but I think the truth is, that's inevitable whether it's from a disc or a stream. What's concerning to me is that it's so easy to get a device like a Kodi box or a hacked FireStick, that can be bought at a legal retailer like Amazon, where the customer genuinely does not believe that they are doing anything wrong by using it. Afterall, they bought it at Amazon, or Target, or Walmart or Best Buy - not from some shady pawn shop or some guy at a flea market. Every now and then, a friend or acquaintance might tell me that they've just purchased such a device, and how amazing it is that they can watch anything they want at the touch of a button, and they genuinely have no idea that they're doing something wrong. That's kind of piracy that I worry about, because it's effectively become just as easy to watch a perfect quality bootleg as it is to buy the real thing. Or maybe even easier, since you don't need to remember if you purchased that movie on your Ultraviolet account or Movies Anywhere account or what.