Potentially Good News Regarding Paramount's Future DVD Output (1 Viewer)

[Patrick McCart]

although i like the sound of warners strategy even better for new releases to be priced at $10.

Well, I'd call $14 pretty cheap. Their loaded SE of North By Northwest is 13.99 on some sites and their Chuck Jones: Extremes and In-Betweens disc is around 10.

But they have their own production facility (which is one big reason to why Warner titles are usually pretty cheap), unlike Paramount. I think they use Technicolor, which is one of the more expensive pressing plants.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

I agree. Paramount's pricing structure has prevented me from buying many of their releases. Out of my collection of 149 titles, 9 are Paramount. Compare this to 23 Fox and 26 Warner.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I think the relative nature of things hurts Paramount too. I'm surprised no ones brought up a point about Criterion's pricing, but I'm more than happy to defend them though.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Over the years on this forum, I've heard many a complaint about Paramount's price structure. Actually, I wasn't too happy with it myself, but I noticed that over the last couple of years they have reduced prices. However, some of us are still not happy with their prices nor with the content they supply on their dvds which is fine and dandy. Some have stated that their collections don't have many Paramount titles due to those concerns. Again, nothing wrong with any consumer exercising purchasing constraint, but remember one thing that Martin Blythe mentioned which might not make some of you happy nor address your concerns.

Furthermore, if a major corporation is achieving their goals and views their business model as successful than I seriously doubt they're going to tinker much with the structure that made them profits. I'm sure that's not what you wanted to hear and that perhaps Paramount is missing out of selling more product to you. However, it sounds like Paramount has taken that in consideration by crunching the financial numbers and are willing to sacrifice additional sales at lower prices to maintain the current marketing strategy that maximizes their profit margin.

That scenario might be frustrating to some of you, but it looks like that's how it's going to be for now.





Crawdaddy

 

[Tony Whalen]

I didn't build a dedicated home theater in order to watch extras.

Sorry if I got defensive... but that just set the tone of Charlie's message. And that DID make it sound elitist to me.
It's all good. We're all in this for our little silver discs...damn them. Some of us enjoy the extras... others don't.

 

[Tony Whalen]

Almost forgot... thanks for your input Mr. Blythe. One way or another... whether it's what we want to hear or not.... it's good to get 'official' word. I hope you'll continue to visit these forums under your new prez. (Just PLEASE no snappers... )

 

[Damin J Toell]

But, contextually, it's not a rude comment at all. Walt said that if you're not interested in extras, then go with VHS, as if high-quality home theaters are to be used only by those whose main interest lies in extras. Charlie refuted Walt's position by saying that his interest in high-quality home theater isn't for extras. I don't see that at all as Charlie passing judgment on those who like extras, he just described how he enjoys DVDs.

DJ

 

[Mark Bendiksen]

The release to DVD of Titanic was unarguably one of the most mis-handled and idiotic episodes in the brief history of this format.
I doubt I need to explain this to anyone who 'was there.'

I "was there", and I agree wholeheatedly. Titanic's release was a huge mess...for many reasons.
In regards to transfers, Paramount has nearly consistently produced fantastic-looking 16x9 discs. However, there have been some definite bad apples. Look at the non-anamorphic transfers on The Ghost and the Darkness or The Rainmaker (especially The Rainmaker). Yuck!

 

[Will K]

If Paramount is satisfied with their bottom line, I would find it doubtful the new guy is going to make much difference in how their product is presented. No matter what room there might be for improvement, I'm sure the consensus at Paramount is "nothing broken, nothing to fix" and none are our rantings are going to change that.

But as long as everyone else is chipping in their .02...

The good, not in any order...

1) Release of older films and great restoration work of classics such as Sunset Boulevard.

2) A stunning stream of season box sets of an entire television series in one year. That's impressive.

3) Consistent OAR.

The beefs...

1) Yes, Paramount is generally excellent in the A/V department and I do buy in confidence. However great their transfers are, occasionally their source material isn't up to snuff. A prime example is the pretty unattractive-looking Top Secret DVD. Okay, so I don't work for the studio and I don't know what's in the vaults, but couldn't a better materials have been used for this one? Why not mint a new print from the original negatives?

2) No "unrated" releases. Yep, you know what titles I am referring to. Funny how Don't Look Now slipped out with the uncut European version intact(but with the R rating on the box). I don't recall reading about picket lines at Paramount when this DVD came out and I don't think the word "unrated" on the jacket would have caused a "ruckus." The same goes for the horror titles. It's a ridiculous policy and particularly hypocritical when one considers that Viacom's Blockbuster chain stocks unrated films from other studios and various direct-to-video softcore smut releases.

3) No DTS.

 

[Chuck L]

While I could easily repeat many of things that have already been mentioned about what has been wrong with Paramount since the birth of DVD, I also agree with the one point that has been pointed out over and over. More often than not, they provide reference quality transfers. That has, and I am sure will remain, one of their strong suits.

Price points on the other hand…I often find myself having to do research before I shop for a Paramount title in order to get the best deal. Granted I am the one that chooses to do this, but when I can easily instantly purchase another companies title verses a Paramount for which I have to work on in order to purchase, which one would you do?

My biggest gripe about Paramount and their output of DVD’s? I will not even mention my token Friday The 13th series here for that is beating the dead horse. Nor will I go into detail about how one particular series is the only one they seem concerned about doing right. What I will talk about is how they treat the consumer in relation to what the consumer wants.

2002 was a banner year for the Peanuts series. Charles M. Schulz, even in death managed to make almost One Hundred Million Dollars for his estate. How much of this went to Paramount who now owns all the Peanut titles? Very little, since there were no Peanut’s releases in the year of 2002. Despite the fact that the fans of the series have asked over and over and since the dawn of DVD for the feature films to be released, nothing. Slowly, in 2003, we are getting a disc here and there. They are great disc and look better than ever. But what about the lost money that could have been added to the decreasing revenue of 2002 (if you look at the Box Office for 2002, it wasn’t that banner of a year for Paramount Studios.)

Grease. This is a huge stone in the Paramount crown and what do they do? Release a not even near standard transfer. As much as I love the movie, I have yet to even make it through one sitting of the DVD simply because of the way that it looks. There are lesser studios that have lesser titles that look wonderful compared to this one. Granted, there was a lot of demand for this title, but I am very sure that I am not speaking for myself when I say that we could have waited till you were going to do it right. Even the laser disc release from several years ago had a deleted scene…the DVD…nada.

The DVD hadn’t even streeted yet and word got out about a Special Edition for 2004. That is great and I will there for that release without a doubt. But there still isn’t any reason why this could not have been done at the start. During the time that the film was in court over the money matters with Olivia (which it is nice that she finally got paid for her part!) a true SE could have been in the works at that point. Instead, many of us will again be giving money when the correct version of the film is released.

The Brady projects. Many request have come and gone about not only the series but the movies as well…nothing more than a token, ‘sorry they aren’t on the plan.’ Why not? This series is basically the mainstream equal to the Star Trek series, and a cult title and family title to boot. Yet nothing.

While I will still go to Blockbuster Video maybe once a month to rent a film or two, it does truly amaze me at the amount of unrated releases that they are carrying these days, not only as sales, but rental as well, yet not a single Paramount title has yet to receive that same treatment. Granted, they are all connected under the same parent company, but it seems a lot like they want it both ways. While they will not offer an unrated version of a film, they are more than happy to get the money for a studio that will present their films uncensored by the powerful hands of the MPAA. This has a direct effect on the bottom line of what they are making. (I have talked with many a Friday fan that would have purchased the DVD releases of the Friday series if both versions of the film had been offered. Nonetheless, many a sale was missed because they don’t want the MPAA version. By doing both, you would have seen sales.)(It still also makes no sense when Paramount has said that they wouldn't release a unrated Friday film, yet when Friday one came out, we got the extended Annie death, but a cut Betsy Palmer beheading. And as Will K pointed out, while it was great to see Don't Look Now presented in it's true form, why not do that for other films as well?)

Major inconsistencies abound on many of their releases in regard to extra's, trailers, sound, many other things come into mind. It is almost as if there is no quality control.

Clearance issues. I don’t think that I can name a studio with more clearance issues than Paramount. Even to the point to where trailers are not featured on a DVD. Come on. With as many people that there have been requesting Happy Days on DVD, with the clearance issues that I am sure that television property would have alone would keep the DVD’s arriving all the way till the next three home theater formats. In order to make money, you have to spend money. Heaven knows that when a DVD comes out at a $24.99 MSP or higher, and you get is a movie and a trailer, than a hefty profit is being made to have enough funds to clear up the cost of problems regarding highly sought after titles.

Personally, I believe that getting new blood for Paramount Home Entertainment is a great move. I am very sure that Eric Doctorow will have no problem finding work else where should he choose, more than likely, he could have already. I have never understood the reasoning why companies would want the same people in charge for over a decade or more. Things change. People change. Society changes as whole. When those changes in society are not reflected in a company’s product, who is the victim? The consumer is.

 

[Walt Riarson]

First off, my apologies for starting the whole elitist/non-elitist thing. I had no intentions of sounding elitist, but I suppose my comments were such.

Secondly, I'm glad Mr. Blythe chimed in somewhat. I had started to worry that the thread would scare him away from the forum, but it's good that as a PR guy, he has tough skin. I hope he's reading our concerns and taking a few notes, regardless of what the bottom line says. They could be making a great deal more money if they'd change a thing or two around.

They may have met "their" goals, but what if their goals weren't that high to begin with? Other studios are probably making two and three times the sales that Paramount is making. If they'd just look outside their own studio doors, they may find a wealth of money they didn't previously know existed.

I bought four Paramount discs last year. Two, because they were finally on sale at a reasonable barebones price of $11.99 and two horror releases (one of which was Don't Look Now, after I heard it was the Uncut version...the other, April Fool's Day, which Paramount didn't include the original trailer...one of the greatest trailers ever!). In comparison, I made well over 20 MGM purchases last year.

From the sound of it, I'm not the only one who buys in this kind of ratio. Paramount may be meeting their goals, but you've got to wonder how much more money the other studios out there are making, if everyone else out there is buying 5 times less Paramount titles than ones of other studios.

I like Paramount. I really do. I definitely don't want them to go out of business. They have some of the greatest films, of all genres, in their catalog. I'd love to support them further, if they'd just give a little back to the consumer. They could make so much more money if they'd just change a thing here and there. Yes, getting some people to do commentary, etc. for suppliments costs money, but sometimes people DO manage to do it out of the love of said movie that they were involved with. Heck, with everything in their own vaults, etc. they should at least be able to provide a still gallery of poster art and publicity stills for each movie. And many times collectors will let you use posters for free, as long as they recieve credit somewhere.

 

[Brook K]

I just hope Paramount continues their commitment to excellence. Columbia and Universal have seemed to go downhill in this regard, but Paramount did some exceptional work in 2002.
There is no American film I'll be more excited to own on DVD in 2003 than Paramount's upcoming SE of The Miracle Of Morgan's Creek.

 

[David Lambert]

Paramount probably met their financial goals with Star Trek alone. :wink:

 

[Will K]

Paramount probably met their financial goals with Star Trek alone. [/i]

Unless you're referring to Nemesis!

 

[Andy_MT]

something else i'd like to see paramount (and other studios) do in the near future. start supporting these forums. surely a few ads promoting your new releases every now and then is a very small price to pay for what you get in return :

- quality control feedback
- suggestions for product improvement
- an idea of how well your films/DVDs are accepted by "film enthusiasts" (and an indicator for "J6P")
- additional sales
- (and i'm sure many other things i haven't thought of)

i'm sure one of your "goals" is to create a quality product that can be enjoyed by both "J6P" and "HT enthusiasts". These forums provide an ideal interface between consumer and studio that makes it all the more easy to assist you in acheiving this. i know these forums currently exist without your financial support, but things sound a little strained these days (particularly at this one) given the current economic climate. the dvd industry is booming these days, so perhaps it's time to give a little back. afterall, it's the suggestions from the people on these boards that helped (however small) to make DVD what it is today. just an opinion.

 

[Dave Mack]

Quick example rant on what frustrates me about Paramount... "The Odd Couple". Decent transfer but with only a trailer for an extra STILL lists for $29.99!!!
One of my favorites but I will NOT pay that or even $24.95 on principle! Cheapest I've seen it used is $22.50.
Get with it, Paramount! I am often picking up 2-disc special editions for $19.99 or even LESS! Spiderman, Clones... $14.99. Cluephone ringing... It's for YOU Paramount!!!
:frowning: D

 

[Damin J Toell]

Quick example rant on what frustrates me about Paramount... "The Odd Couple". Decent transfer but with only a trailer for an extra STILL lists for $29.99!!!
One of my favorites but I will NOT pay that or even $24.95 on principle! Cheapest I've seen it used is $22.50.

DeepDiscountDVD has it for $21.77 with free shipping.

DJ

 

[Dave Mack]

Thanx DJ, That's a good deal.
I'm still miffed though!

 

[David Lambert]

Dave, I agree. I paid $24.99 for Odd Couple back on 2/14/01; I must have considered it an extra "Valentines Day Present" for my wife (this film is a fave of hers).

If that is what it STILL goes for almost two years later, for what's a good transfer but still a barebones disc, then you're right...I wouldn't pay it, either.

A while back (at least a year, I guess) I had a discussion right here at HTF with Martin about a list of titles I *wanted* to buy, but hadn't for this exact type of reason. Within a few months most of that list had been marked down, and since then most of those titles have found their way into my library.

I own 205 Paramount DVDs out of over 1800 discs in my collection (only Fox and WB come in higher). Half of that is Star Trek stuff (every Trek DVD they've put out, I guess). Of the rest, most of it I paid $15-$20 for, just because I did - with few exceptions, mostly out of love for my wife (Romeo & Juliet is another example I can think of) - wait until I could find the disc cheaper than $20.

 

[Doug Bull]

I just pray that Tom Lesinski enjoys Musicals and seriously considers there is a place for them on DVD.

I hope that,"Li'l Abner","Half a Sixpence",
and"The Little Prince"
are on his favourites list.

I agree with others that Paramount can be very inconsistant with the quality of their DVDs.
When they're good, they are very,very good, but when they're not, they can be pretty ordinary.

They gave the ever popular "White Christmas" a lousy
transfer.
It may have been Anamorphic, but the poor sound, the bad grey scale and those ugly muddy skin tones! Yuck!
3 Strip Technicolor never looked this bad.

On the other hand "Paint your Wagon" looks and sounds great.