James Reader
Screenwriter
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2002
- Messages
- 1,465
I've touched upon this in a couple of threads, but so far have had no responses :frowning:
The way I see it there are three reasons why the major studios do not wish to publish duel releases of DVDs:
1. They do not see the cost of mastering, pressing, promoting and managing a separate widescreen release as financially viable. This is because they maintain that the vast majority of purchases either prefer the ‘full frame’ version or have not strong feelings on the matter and would be perfectly happy with a P&S release.
Don’t forget the cost of administering duel releases must also include dealing with angry customer complaints, customer returns and shop returns.
2. They do not want to put both widescreen and P&S releases on the same disc because they either wish to overload the disc with worthless ‘promotional’ supplements or they do not wish to remove the label by making the disc double sided. While many may scoff at this last observation, do not underestimate the attractiveness of a clear, visually pleasing image to the average customer. I also believe that studios do not want to include duel discs with a version of the film on each for the simple reason that customers could buy one package and give a disc to a friend, thus potentially using a significant number of sales.
3. They do not wish to create new transfers when older transfers are perfectly acceptable when releasing catalog titles. Especially if said catalog titles are to be released as part of a ‘budget’ or ‘mid-price’ range of discs.
As has been stated many times in the past, when issues such thorny issues as region encoding, unreleased classics and even box cover art, the studios own the films and can do what they want with them. In fact, many of the HTF members have argued this at many times in the past when such issues as ‘extended editions’ and ‘alternative cuts’ have been brought up.
Sadly, we don’t have a legal leg to stand on. Neither do the vast majority of actors and work-for-hire directors. The studios own the property and can release them when they want, in what format they want and at whatever price they want. While it is true that we can put pressure on the studios, I really cannot see it having much of an effect, as when all is said and done the only thing that matters is profit.
However, I have another solution – one that takes into account all of points 1-3 above and TURNS THEIR OWN EXCUSES AGAINST THEM. And what is this solution? Simple, licensing!
Remember the golden days of Laserdisc. Remember the stunning releases from Criterion, Image and others? Notice how hard it is for such companies to licence titles now that the studios have jumped on the DVD bandwagon? Why can’t such a partnership be formed again, being as the studios obviously see
I suggest that our campaign is fundamentally flawed. We are arguing for the wrong action. No major studio is going to want to release two transfers of each title when such an action will result in a significant slowing in the rate and number of releases. Multiple releases cost both time and money. We should instead be using the studio’s explanations and excuses against them. Look at the interview with the Disney employee on The Digital Bits. We should be trapping the studios with their own logic.
They don’t want to release a widescreen version because they don’t think it will be profitable enough? Fine let someone PAY THEM A FEE and release their own version.
They don’t want to deal with customer confusion, complaints and returns? Fine, let the widescreen version have the phone number and address OF THE LICENSEE published on the packaging and let them deal with customer problems.
Shops refuse to carry widescreen films? No longer a studio concern, the problem is OFFLOADED ONTO THE LICENSEE.
Every excuse that they can come-up with can be negated with licensing.
While licensing would work exceptionally well for the vast majority of catalog titles, new releases would cause more problems where special features would be harder to obtain, but this would probably be a minor irritant as most of the big releases DO have duel transfers available.
It may mean that we may have to wait an extra 4-6 months for the licensed release should one be required, but in the end I feel the wait will be worth it. Besides, we would still have a steady rate of releases to keep us occupied. After all, wouldn't you rather have a Criterion release of titles such as 'In the Bedroom', 'Iris' or even 'Harry Potter'?
The way I see it there are three reasons why the major studios do not wish to publish duel releases of DVDs:
1. They do not see the cost of mastering, pressing, promoting and managing a separate widescreen release as financially viable. This is because they maintain that the vast majority of purchases either prefer the ‘full frame’ version or have not strong feelings on the matter and would be perfectly happy with a P&S release.
Don’t forget the cost of administering duel releases must also include dealing with angry customer complaints, customer returns and shop returns.
2. They do not want to put both widescreen and P&S releases on the same disc because they either wish to overload the disc with worthless ‘promotional’ supplements or they do not wish to remove the label by making the disc double sided. While many may scoff at this last observation, do not underestimate the attractiveness of a clear, visually pleasing image to the average customer. I also believe that studios do not want to include duel discs with a version of the film on each for the simple reason that customers could buy one package and give a disc to a friend, thus potentially using a significant number of sales.
3. They do not wish to create new transfers when older transfers are perfectly acceptable when releasing catalog titles. Especially if said catalog titles are to be released as part of a ‘budget’ or ‘mid-price’ range of discs.
As has been stated many times in the past, when issues such thorny issues as region encoding, unreleased classics and even box cover art, the studios own the films and can do what they want with them. In fact, many of the HTF members have argued this at many times in the past when such issues as ‘extended editions’ and ‘alternative cuts’ have been brought up.
Sadly, we don’t have a legal leg to stand on. Neither do the vast majority of actors and work-for-hire directors. The studios own the property and can release them when they want, in what format they want and at whatever price they want. While it is true that we can put pressure on the studios, I really cannot see it having much of an effect, as when all is said and done the only thing that matters is profit.
However, I have another solution – one that takes into account all of points 1-3 above and TURNS THEIR OWN EXCUSES AGAINST THEM. And what is this solution? Simple, licensing!
Remember the golden days of Laserdisc. Remember the stunning releases from Criterion, Image and others? Notice how hard it is for such companies to licence titles now that the studios have jumped on the DVD bandwagon? Why can’t such a partnership be formed again, being as the studios obviously see
I suggest that our campaign is fundamentally flawed. We are arguing for the wrong action. No major studio is going to want to release two transfers of each title when such an action will result in a significant slowing in the rate and number of releases. Multiple releases cost both time and money. We should instead be using the studio’s explanations and excuses against them. Look at the interview with the Disney employee on The Digital Bits. We should be trapping the studios with their own logic.
They don’t want to release a widescreen version because they don’t think it will be profitable enough? Fine let someone PAY THEM A FEE and release their own version.
They don’t want to deal with customer confusion, complaints and returns? Fine, let the widescreen version have the phone number and address OF THE LICENSEE published on the packaging and let them deal with customer problems.
Shops refuse to carry widescreen films? No longer a studio concern, the problem is OFFLOADED ONTO THE LICENSEE.
Every excuse that they can come-up with can be negated with licensing.
While licensing would work exceptionally well for the vast majority of catalog titles, new releases would cause more problems where special features would be harder to obtain, but this would probably be a minor irritant as most of the big releases DO have duel transfers available.
It may mean that we may have to wait an extra 4-6 months for the licensed release should one be required, but in the end I feel the wait will be worth it. Besides, we would still have a steady rate of releases to keep us occupied. After all, wouldn't you rather have a Criterion release of titles such as 'In the Bedroom', 'Iris' or even 'Harry Potter'?
)
