Why does MGM feel 2nd best is good enough? (1 Viewer)

[DanR]

And that is exactly why I truly hope HD-DVD (in whatever incarnation we get) will be the niche product Laserdsic once was. I don't long for the Laserdisc days, and DVD is much better, but this treating DVD as if it were VHS was inevitable.

Regards,
Dan

 

[Garrett Lundy]

Genital piercings. :wink:

 

[Paul Arnette]

I would agree with you here, if I didn't think that that would necessitate a product that is both expensive and not backwards-compatible.

 

[Larry P]

I think MGM has a bigger problem as a whole than just DVD. They are really lacking behind the other major studios as far as putting out big theatrical hits, as far as I can see. When they hype up Legally Blonde 2, and Barbershop 2 as their marquee titles, then you know they're having troubles.

The bright spot, I think, is that they are putting out as many 80's and early 90's titles as they are in OAR. As pointed out many times here, many of these titles Warners would never get to. I understand why people are dissapointed, I am too, but I don't see how you can say they are treating this as VHS when at least they are putting a great many titles out in OAR, at a reasonable price, and sometimes even with a few special features.

It's obvious that their business now is putting out these older movies, many which were smaller hits to begin with, at a reasonable price. They don't deal with the big Lord of the Rings size hits. They don't even deal with the Wizard of Oz size hits anymore. Maybe if they did, they'd take the time to spruce up their older films.

I don't know how many copies they could sell of It's A Mad,
Mad, Mad, Mad World. Obviously, they didn't feel it was important enough to go all out for. I'm sorry for those of you who felt you were ripped off not getting a "gold standard" release, but I can't say I really blame MGM. :frowning:

 

[Joshua_W]

I don't know that HD is going to be any bastion of hope for better treatment of older films. If, as has been brought up here, it's a niche market, that means they're going to be selling less titles (at a presumably higher price, though) so I don't see a lot of incentive to cater to the niche who wants older films.

Watch the emphasis on HD go to the big, loud action movies. The studios are probably going to the audio/video capactiy of HD and think that it would be wasted on anything more than twenty years old.

That said, I'm mostly satisfied with MGM's output, at least in regard to the kind of movies I favor. They've put out nice editions of Return of the Living Dead, Flesh + Blood, The Howling, 1984, and many other genre films that probably would've been ignored by most other studios. The occasional pan and scan/fullframe transfer sucks (like on Miracle Mile) but I can't complain too much. I'm just pleased to see that a lot of these cult films aren't forgotten.

I'm much more frustrated with companies like Columbia, who deliver pan and scan only titles at high prices, like "Party Girl." That $25 disc seemingly has the same transfer as the Canadian one I got for $5.00.

Paramount and Fox, though they were among the last studios to support DVD, do put out high quality product. (I'm still shocked that Paramount bothered to release Captain Kronos and Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell with such nice transfers. A lot of other studios probably wouldn't have bothered to release them at all.)

 

[DeeAnn]

I'm glad also that they are putting out older catalog titles and was very happy with ROLD.

From what I've read 4:3 actually is the OAR for Miracle Mile. The original destination was to be straight to HBO and it was shot for that, then when they decided to release theatrically first, it was matted to widescreen.

 

[JonZ]

"So what are they buying them for? Size? People -even those who only occasionally watch movies- can see and hear a difference in PQ and sound."

Most people do see and hear the difference, but still "dont care" the way enthusiasts do.

I recently went TV shopping and almost everyone I know thought I was crazy to spend $1300 on a TV.Ask anyone on the street what progressive scan is or the difference betweeen Composite, svideo and components and how they affect picture quality and theyd be clueless.

People definitely have a VHS attitude towards DVD.

As for MGM, theyre in alot of trouble now and still ask for the lowest prices on their DVDs.Sometimes they really do a great job on their discs- like the mentioned Flesh & Blood($8.99 at CC). I was shocked how good it looked.

Other companies (Paramount!!) have recently slashed their prices on older titles but MGM has been asking for $9 for barebones DVDs for a long time, while Paramount was asking for $20-25.

So Ive never really complained about MGM.My least favoite studios were always Disney ("$27 for non16x9 barebones Dead Presidents -are they on crack?")and Paramount.

 

[Steve Armbrust]

I think most people have more of a "CD attitude" about DVD. That is, although they appreciate the enhanced quality that a DVD provides, they're really buying them because they believe DVDs will last forever, unlike VHS tapes, which break or degrade. Even those $27 Disney DVDs probably made sense to parents who went through five tapes a year because their kids played them every day.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Uh, thanks. I think I'll stick with DVD for now.

 

[Matt_H]

I think Paramount is much worse. they have put out alot of overpriced barebones discs. This might be changing becuse the Once upon a time in the west dvd was cheap and filled with extras.

 

[Christian Preischl]

That has already changed a while ago. Their new bare bones releases are pretty cheap and have damn fine transfers (e.g. Nobody's Fool, Young Sherlock Holmes, I.Q.). The only thing still overpriced are their Star Trek TV releases, but that's a subject for another, already existing, thread.

Chris