Streaming exclusive bonus features; commentary on Beauty and the Beast (1 Viewer)

[Jake Lipson]

My belief is that retailer exclusives weaken the integrity of the "regular" release. Bonus tracks on albums, bonus features on movie releases, etc. should be universal on all releases.

I agree with your thoughts on retailer exclusives totally, but to me there is a difference between a packaging based exclusive (i.e., steelbook) and a content-based one, because I mean, if you get the steelbook you're still getting the regular release and all the content inclusive, it just looks different on the shelf. Withholding something like a commentary as a retailer exclusive is wrong and demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for film fans who care about bonus features.

We KNOW for a fact that, per Disney's recent output deal with Netflix covering all of their theatrical titles, Beauty and the Beast will be appearing on their service in probably four months or so. We also know that, in general, DVD/Blu-ray sales are declining. I saw at least one post in the Roundup thread (I forget by who) saying that they don't buy Disney titles as often anymore because of the Netflix deal.

It would seem to me, and I have always felt this way, that the way for studios to combat streaming/rental habits and ensure that more people are interested in making a purchase is to make a product that is so good that it demands purchasing. Create great supplements that enhance appreciation of the film and celebrate its achievements. Put all that content in one place, and offer it for a reasonable price point, and all that added value has got to make a pretty compelling case for ownership.

Splitting up extra content among different retailers runs counter to that approach which I just described; I agree it creates bad blood and makes things very frustrating for the core consumer base/fans, which creates a disincentive to bother with the release at all. If Disney wants to take the short-term view that licensing the commentary to Vudu in exchange for (presumably) a payout by them to have the exclusive is worth it, that's fine. But it does damage to their reputation, and I think that this sort of thing will come back to bite all studios eventually as it seems bad for long-term relationships with the consumers who buy these products.

 

[ohiograd06]

+1. Add to that, you go to buy a brand new movie from a store, they cost an average of 25-30 dollars. For what you get for that money, I think people either get it on streaming later, or just wait until the prices go down. We intend to buy the beauty and the beast movie, but didn't have an extra 30 for just that, but my wife wanted to watch it, so we rented it on google play for 5.99. Will probably pick up the discs friday or saturday. But I think a lot of the movies aren't compelling enough for the $$ they charge. Maybe they'd have more takers at 15 dollars as opposed to say 25? Not sure.

 

[Alf S]

"It would seem to me, and I have always felt this way, that the way for studios to combat streaming/rental habits and ensure that more people are interested in making a purchase is to make a product that is so good that it demands purchasing. Create great supplements that enhance appreciation of the film and celebrate its achievements. Put all that content in one place, and offer it for a reasonable price point, and all that added value has got to make a pretty compelling case for ownership."

See this is where the disconnects seem to be.

Studios don't need to nor want to "combat" streaming, they are embracing it daily, they know this is the new world we live in. It's a great new way for them to gain big $$$. Also, people are tiring of "purchasing" discs that in many cases get watched once or twice and tossed on a shelf or in our case get piled up in an attic plastic container never to be watched again.

Yes, I was a collector at one time, but I bowed out of that money pit several years ago and don't regret it. Saves us a lot of money and space.

The days of collecting and "ownership" is almost behind us with this new generation of movie watchers. Only the smaller and smaller community of true diehard movie lovers/collectors are scrambling to grab what they can on physical disc but many know those days are numbered, as painful as it may be for some to accept.

 

[ohiograd06]

I do agree with this as well. Most of the time, if buy a dvd, it's at the local flea market for 2 bucks, or if a movie I want that's not on netflix etc catches my eye in the 5 dollar bin at wally world. I know my parents have a blu ray player dad bought mom for Christmas maybe 7-10 years back, and they say they've only used it a few times.

 

[Mike Frezon]

When I discuss retailer exclusives which involve content (not packaging as Jake points out above), I always use the example of--what if the Beatles (as part of their US marketing deals) had decided to release Sgt. Peppers with just 12 tracks...and gave Tower Records the right to an exclusive release which included a 13th track--A Day in the Life?

 

[ohiograd06]

And that's another thing you run into as well. The studio trying to further monetize things by saying oh you want extra features? More $$ please. I think people get tired of those things.

 

[Wayne_j]

A stereo Dolby Digital track would have a very small file size. That likely isn't the reason why it wasn't included.

 

[Dick]

It probably boils down to as well, with a blu ray or dvd, you are limited to a certain amount of data that physically fits on the discs. With all the audio and video effects they code into movies these days, they may not have much room left on the disc for the commentary. Since not everyone will watch or care about the commentary, that's more than likely why they just toss it on vudu.

Audio commentaries, which are generally not 5.1 or dts but rather 2.0, take up very little little additional space on a Blu-ray.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Alf, perhaps I was not clear enough in my post above: I wasn't trying to suggest that the studios are interested in circumventing streaming altogether, I was suggesting that they would prefer you to buy their content as opposed to streaming it on a subscription-based service which thy do not own.

Therefore, everything that I said in my earlier post is also applicable if they include the same set of bonus material from the physical disc with the digital/streaming purchase. And of course Disney would rather you pay them money directly (whether you choose to do so via disc or a digital retailer) than you just watching the film via Netflix. They'll happily license it out to Netflix as well in order to create a different/additional revenue stream for themselves, but obviously they want to get as many purchases as they can.

And the way to encourage that is to produce high-class supplements, and put them all in one place so that it is easy for the viewer to access them. Whether you choose to do that on a physical disc or a streaming provider such as Vudu shouldn't matter; all supplements for a given film should be available across all platforms and versions of that particular film.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

When I discuss retailer exclusives which involve content (not packaging as Jake points out above), I always use the example of--what if the Beatles (as part of their US marketing deals) had decided to release Sgt. Peppers with just 12 tracks...and gave Tower Records the right to an exclusive release which included a 13th track--A Day in the Life?

I don't necessarily think that's a fair example, because A Day In The Life is part of the album proper. No matter which retailer you buy Beauty And The Beast from, you get the entire length of the film. (I'd argue that since the U.S. version is being released as 2D-only, we're all being cheated out of 50% of the picture, but that's another argument for another thread.)

And that's another thing you run into as well. The studio trying to further monetize things by saying oh you want extra features? More $$ please. I think people get tired of those things.

I think that's definitely true, but I'm not sure if it's people getting tired of paying extra money so much as it is people being happy to take the cheapest route.

I remember when the DVD format began, and each product would generally have one SKU that included everything - at most, there might be a separate widescreen and fullscreen edition, but that was about it. Around 2005, Warner started experimenting with releasing movie-only and deluxe DVD editions side-by-side. Whereas in the past, all of the bonus content was included, Warner was getting feedback that not everyone was actually watching or using that bonus content. I remember clearly that the initial DVDs for Harry Potter 1-3 were each two disc sets. When Harry Potter 4 came out on DVD, you had the option to buy a single-disc movie-only version or the two-disc version that was comparable to the previous releases. Warner followed that release trend with major titles like Batman Begins, Superman Returns, The Departed, etc. The sales numbers generally favored the cheaper, single disc editions. It turned out that while customers liked bonus features, they liked them as a bonus - they didn't want to pay for them, and given the choice, would be willing to pay less not to have them.

---

I think another factor here, overall, is that historically, most people weren't movie owners. Renting was far more popular than purchasing, overall, in the VHS era, with the exception of kid-friendly titles. Most people who had VCRs owned a small handful of pre-recorded movies, often family friendly films, and relied on their video store for rentals for regular watching. When DVD came out, buying a movie became a lot cheaper (most brand new VHS titles were $100 and not available immediately for purchase, they were rental only; most DVDs were $20 and were immediately available for purchase), and for a lot of people, it was easier to spend $10, $15 or $20 to purchase a movie and never have to return it than bother with going out to the video store, hoping they had the title you were looking for, and then having to drive back with it a day or two later. Streaming made it even easier. Most people aren't as hung up on seeing a specific title at a specific time as we are. "The movies" are just something to do for a couple hours, but there's a wide range of what's acceptable for that purpose - a lot of people are happy with an $8 Netflix subscription or a $99 Amazon Prime subscription that offers a rotating selection of new releases and catalog titles. For people who aren't satisfied with a curated package of films, services like Vudu and iTunes allow people to rent movies for as little as $1 (usually $4 or $5 for most titles, a little less than what video stores were charging at the end). Just think about that - about ten years ago, if you wanted to watch a movie, you had to physically leave your home, go to a store, hope the title you wanted was in stock, bring it home, watch it, and then go back to return it. You were limited to whatever selection your local store carried. Now, for about $4 and a touch of a button, you can stream almost anything at anytime.

The general audience watches movies in whatever the cheapest and most convenient method of doing so is. In the 1980s, that was VHS rentals. In the late 90s/early 2000s, that was DVD purchases. In 2017, it's streaming.

If it were up to the studios, no one would ever own a physical or digital copy of a movie. They'd prefer to charge you for each viewing, the way you buy a ticket at a movie theater. The studios, at the highest levels, never loved the idea of their customers being able to pay a single price and own the movie forever. But, if people are still going to purchase movies, digital is easier for them. With a physical product, there are costs associated with designing and manufacturing, storing and shipping that product. You have to deal with returns of unused product from stores and a whole range of other things. There are costs with storing a digital file too, but there's less physical hassle overall for the studios.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I don't necessarily think that's a fair example, because A Day In The Life is part of the album proper. No matter which retailer you buy Beauty And The Beast from, you get the entire length of the film.

Moreso than just Beauty and the Beast as an individual case, I think Mike is also referring with his analogy tto the disturbing habit of CD album releases having exclusive tracks at specific retailers. Target has done that a lot lately. We've discussed that at length in the music forum also.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Moreso than just Beauty and the Beast as an individual case, I think Mike is also referring with his analogy tto the disturbing habit of CD album releases having exclusive tracks at specific retailers. Target has done that a lot lately. We've discussed that at length in the music forum also.

I agree that that's problematic.

But at the same token, when I was a kid, I remember going to record stores and looking around for the best versions. The extra tracks on the exclusive editions drive me nuts, but are they really so different than, say, looking for the Japanese pressing of a 45" single because that specific version includes an extra b-side unavailable anywhere else in the world? I hate to admit it, but it's usually easier finding the Target version than it was trying to find a Japanese 45 in a used record shop twenty years ago.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I don't necessarily think that's a fair example, because A Day In The Life is part of the album proper. No matter which retailer you buy Beauty And The Beast from, you get the entire length of the film. (I'd argue that since the U.S. version is being released as 2D-only, we're all being cheated out of 50% of the picture, but that's another argument for another thread.)

It's a fine example, Josh. Next Tuesday, Katy Perry will release her new album. Target's copies will have two EXCLUSIVE tracks. That's just one example and this week, Josh. Target also has three exclusive tracks on a Hey Violet CD (whoever they are) this week. And on and on and on.

Sometimes its Best Buy. Sometimes its Barnes & Noble. Sometimes its Amazon.

In this day and age, I really don't think there is such a thing as an "album proper." Give them enough cash and many artists and their labels seem all too willing to screw their fans by providing bonus content to various (sometimes numerous) retailers.

I'll give you that it's a little different in terms of bonus features on a home video release of a film. But it would make it a lot easier on the consumer who is a fan of a specific film to be able to be sure that he is getting a complete release (in terms of bonus features) no matter where he buys his copy of that film.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I hate to admit it, but it's usually easier finding the Target version than it was trying to find a Japanese 45 in a used record shop twenty years ago.

They've got this thing now called the internet, Josh. Check out amazon.jp!

My point is that Retailer Exclusives require the consumer research (or have some knowledge about) the existence of alternative releases...let alone go through the grief of finding them. And there are also those instances in the world of music where artists will release bonus tracks to more than one retailer--requiring the purchase of more than one release in order to get all the content.

Most people don't frequent internet discussion forums to learn about upcoming releases and what's available and for how much. WE might. But big fans of Beauty and the Beast should not have to fear that they might have as complete a copy of a home video release as someone who brought their copy from a different retailer.

But we ARE getting a bit afield from the facts in this case. From how I understand it, ALL retails copies in the B&tB case have the same content...just that you HAVE to go to VUDU to access the commentary.

 

[Jake Lipson]

But we ARE getting a bit afield from the facts in this case. From how I understand it, ALL retails copies in the B&tB case have the same content...just that you HAVE to go to VUDU to access the commentary.

Correct. Best Buy and Target's exclusives were packaging-based.

Whenever Disney gets around to releasing the 3D version here, which I assume will come on a double dip at some point down the line, I would not be surprised if they added the commentary to the physical copies of that release, as was the case when J.J. Abrams' commentary on Force Awakens was held for the 3D version. But that was a different case because it was not made available as a digital bonus with the first release. If they want to add additional bonus to encourage double dips, that's their business, but I think it's wrong to withhold anything on a particular release to a specific retailer.

Now, the question is: how much did Vudu have to pay Disney to get this exclusive?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

It's a fine example, Josh. Next Tuesday, Katy Perry will release her new album. Target's copies will have two EXCLUSIVE tracks. That's just one example and this week, Josh. Target also has three exclusive tracks on a Hey Violet CD (whoever they are) this week. And on and on and on.

Sometimes its Best Buy. Sometimes its Barnes & Noble. Sometimes its Amazon.

In this day and age, I really don't think there is such a thing as an "album proper." Give them enough cash and many artists and their labels seem all too willing to screw their fans by providing bonus content to various (sometimes numerous) retailers.

I'll give you that it's a little different in terms of bonus features on a home video release of a film. But it would make it a lot easier on the consumer who is a fan of a specific film to be able to be sure that he is getting a complete release (in terms of bonus features) no matter where he buys his copy of that film.

I agree completely that this stuff is getting too complicated, and that the fans are the ones who are getting screwed here. You'll get no argument from that point with me.

But I just don't think it's fair to say that Beauty And The Beast having a Vudu-exclusive commentary (which is available for free to any costumer buying any version of the disc) is the same as not getting A Day In The Life if you bought Sgt. Pepper in the wrong place. The analogy of the Katy Perry CD with bonus tracks is a much better example in my view.

As to whether or not there's such a thing as an "album proper" anymore... I hope there is. I'm not a big fan of listening to random tracks or things in shuffle; every now and then, sure, but I recognize that an album is a complete work. Fortunately, the artists that I listen to are still making music that's intended to be listened to as an album.

My point is that Retailer Exclusives require the consumer research (or have some knowledge about) the existence of alternative releases...let alone go through the grief of finding them. And there are also those instances in the world of music where artists will release bonus tracks to more than one retailer--requiring the purchase of more than one release in order to get all the content.

Most people don't frequent internet discussion forums to learn about upcoming releases and what's available and for how much. WE might. But big fans of Beauty and the Beast should not have to fear that they might have as complete a copy of a home video release as someone who brought their copy from a different retailer.

And I completely agree that's problematic. But ultimately, these things wouldn't happen if there was a continual giant outcry. Social media is a powerful force these days and companies do have to adjust what products they offer and how they market them if they rub the audience the wrong way. Clearly, the average consumer isn't bothered by this. Whether or not they should be is another question, but sadly, most consumers don't care that much about the bonus features.

But that was a different case because it was not made available as a digital bonus with the first release. If they want to add additional bonus to encourage double dips, that's their business, but I think it's wrong to withhold anything on a particular release to a specific retailer.

I agree - though it's worth noting that the first release of TFA did have some retailer exclusives. There was exclusive Target content - it was digital redemption, but if you bought your disc at Target, you got another fifteen or twenty minutes of bonus features that no one else did. They were later included on the 3D re-release. Digital redemptions at Disney Movies Anywhere included an extra deleted scene not available on the physical disc.

I'm not holding my breath for a 3D re-release of this title domestically. In the cases of both TFA and Jungle Book '16, the original press release for the 2D version said a 3D version would be coming later in the year. There wasn't any of that language with the BATB press release.

Bottom line for me: when Blu-ray came out, it was advertised as being the most premium version of the product, and those of us who embraced the format treated it as such. At some point along the way, the studios have stopped seeing it that way, but that doesn't change that we were given a certain set of expectations that they have stopped living up to.

 

[Tino]

To be clear, the person doesn't have to make an additional payment. Membership to Vudu is free. The disc includes a free code for digital redemption at Vudu.

I totally get, and agree, that it's inconvenient not to have it on the disc. And I agree that having it streaming-only doesn't seem as permanent as having it on a disc. But all people purchasing the disc will get a digital copy code which can be redeemed for no additional charge and can then view the commentary that way.

There's no additional charge to view the commentary, just additional hoops.

There is really not even a hoop. The commentary version popped in alongside the HDX version immediately. Just select and watch/listen.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

There is really not even a hoop. The commentary version popped in alongside the HDX version immediately. Just select and watch/listen.

I can understand it being less than ideal for some people. For instance, I usually watch movies in the living room, where I have internet and streaming access. When I watch bonus features, I tend to watch them in the bedroom, where I do not have wifi or streaming access. I am not willing to buy an additional device for streaming for the bedroom, nor am I willing to buy an extra wireless router, or run additional cable, to make the room wifi capable. (We get enough reception in there to check email or read text articles but the walls in the building interfere with the signal enough that I can't get a good enough signal to play video.) It's just not in any way a priority for me. Because it's not easily accessible on the disc, it means that I have to watch the commentary in one specific location in my house instead of any location with a disc player and TV. Ultimately, this just makes it less likely that I'll listen to the commentary at all. I realize that's not the same for everyone, and I am glad that it at least isn't an extra thing to purchase, but it's less than ideal in my book.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Clearly, the average consumer isn't bothered by this. Whether or not they should be is another question, but sadly, most consumers don't care that much about the bonus features.

I would suspect that the average consumer does not know about it. Whether they would care if they knew is, as you noted, another question. but we (home-theater/movie enthusiasts) are certainly not happy about it, and Disney does not seem to be listening to us, despite the fact that we likely buy more products from them in total than any individual Average Joe does.

I agree - though it's worth noting that the first release of TFA did have some retailer exclusives.

Thank you for bringing this up. I am fully aware of this, and I didn't like the practice any more then than I do now. I expect I probably made that view known around the Roundup thread for that week, but I'm not going to go digging it up. All the same, it was easier to shrug off 15 minutes of EPK featurettes rather than a commentary track. I'm not saying that it's right in either case, or that I was happy about not getting that content, but I will say that the commentary track is a much more lengthy, substantial and, at one time, basic bonus feature inclusion to withhold for digital than a brief featurette. So this bothers me even more than that did.

Bottom line for me: when Blu-ray came out, it was advertised as being the most premium version of the product, and those of us who embraced the format treated it as such. At some point along the way, the studios have stopped seeing it that way, but that doesn't change that we were given a certain set of expectations that they have stopped living up to.

I fully, 100% agree with this statement.

There is really not even a hoop.

I'm not sure why, but I can't get the forum to attribute this quote to Tino, it wants to say that Josh said it. Anyway, if you see this, Tino: The "hoop" is that you have to sign up for Vudu and redeem your digital copy there, or link your DMA account with it. What about someone like Mike who reasonably prefers not to redeem the digital copies? If he doesn't create an account with Vudu just for the purpose of accessing this commentary, he won't be able to listen to it. What about my friend who lives in Mexico, who is not a member of this forum, but he buys Region A discs and is unable to sign up for a Vudu account because his billing address is outside of the U.S.? He won't have access to the commentary either, even if he buys the Region A-coded edition of the film.

I would also add that the commentary exclusive is not being advertised at all.

I redeemed my digital copy at Vudu as I always do. Then, I just happened to discover the commentary afterwards, almost by accident. I wouldn't have known about it otherwise, ether. So, that's another hoop.

What if someone redeems their digital copy at, say, iTunes or Google Play or whatever, and then finds out about the Vudu commentary? Yeah, they can link DMA accounts, but still....that's another hoop. For something that Vudu presumably paid to keep exclusive to their service, they sure haven't done very much to make it public knowledge that they have it, which seems odd. What do they intend to gain from it if no one knows it is even there? There's another hoop: you've got to know it's there, which, like Mike said earlier, requires research on the part of the consumer we shouldn't have to do.

Another question that is worth asking and which I doubt anyone will know the answer to yet, but if you do please enlighten us: will the region B version of Beauty and the Beast that streets in July have the commentary, or not? I personally would not go through the trouble of importing it just to get the commentary on a disc, but since Vudu does not serve Region B, their exclusivity might not extend to that part of the world/their release.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I don't know why Tino's quote came through with my name, but I agree wholeheartedly with you, there are hoops.

Most people don't care about these bonus features. I mentioned earlier that around 2005, Warner started testing putting out more bare bones side-by-side with deluxe editions, and that the bare bones ones sold better. Bonus features have been in decline since then.

For something that Vudu presumably paid to keep exclusive to their service, they sure haven't done very much to make it public knowledge that they have it, which seems odd. What do they intend to gain from it if no one knows it is even there?

We ask that question about other retailer exclusives all the time in other threads, because the same thing generally happens regardless of who the retailer is - it's vastly underpromoted. Worse, with the physical product, it's often barely stocked. I remember one Target retailer exclusive where no one in the store knew anything about it, where it couldn't be found anywhere in the movie section, and I only found it because I saw a customer with a copy of the item I was looking for and he told me that they were all on an endcap in the ladies underwear section. Seriously, how many "Star Trek Into Darkness" buyers were going to the undergarment section to look for it? The retailer exclusive items typically sell out within the first week if not the first day, and if they have unique bonus content and you miss it, it's gone forever. I'm trying to look at silver linings, and at least if it's on Vudu, the copies aren't limited. Anyone who wants it can get it. That seems better than a Target exclusive where they only make 1000 or 10,000 copies, and once those are gone, that content is lost.

---

For physical media lovers like us, this used to be easier. Blu-ray was the most advanced format, so you bought the Blu-ray, and you were done. Now, you've got physical media on the whole declining, studios putting out retailer exclusive versions of products with different features, streaming versions that have different features or different versions of the movie entirely. The upcoming Universal release "The Fate Of The Furious" is slated to included an extended version only on the streaming copies - all disc buyers will have access to this extended version through the included digital copy codes, but it's not on the disc. For all of the other F&F movies where extended versions had been created, those extended versions are included on the disc in addition to theatrical versions. I'm likely to be buying that movie, but I don't know which version I'd watch. On one hand, I would prefer to watch an extended version, but on the other hand, I notice a difference in picture quality between HDX streams from Vudu or HD streams from iTunes and an actual Blu-ray disc. I'm buying the BDs specifically because they look the best on my system. The HD streaming version would still look good, but not as good - so unless the extended version has some kind of earth-shattering new scenes (which I highly doubt), having it as a streaming-only item is kinda worthless.

But that's the future for people like us that really love movies. I think as physical media continues to shrink, as releases get more and more scattered, those of us left that still like discs are going to need to go region free to be able to collect discs from around the world, and we're still going to need to be streaming capable as well.

There's no longer a guarantee that simply buying the Blu-ray disc will get you the highest quality version with the most complete array of bonus features, and while it's a shame that that's happened, I think that's entirely by design and what the studios want.