The great region rip off continues!!!!

[octanejunkie]

After amassing 2000+ DVD's, i've finally upgraded my equipment and gone blu. On the whole i'm over the moon with the technology, especially as many discs are coming to market region free.
Yay, everyone gets the same, no need to buy assorted different copies of your movies to get the best version/features..... WRONG!!!!!
This was alway irritating when collecting DVD's, more so with movies of the horror and action genres, often cut or edited, different soundtracks etc, etc.
After searching out some of my favourite films and buying on Bluray, i find its happening again! "Arrrgghh"!!!

I only have about 20 blurays so far, but nearly half of them have got issues!

Terminator 2 for example: US gets theatrical cut, lossy sound.. UK gets directors cut, DTS HD Master
US Rambo trilogy box set gets commentrys, trivia, and documentrys applicable to each movie. UK version gets no features at all, save for the same short featurette on each disc.

These are just two examples of the baffling way that movies are continuing to be released to home viewers. I could go on... (God knows whats going on in Aisia)
Can distributors not get together so we can have a global release of some kind, with the best of all these seperate versions? Its not like Blurays are strapped for space to contain different soundtracks and subtitles.
And why are some classic movies like Predator for example not getting any features? I've bought the disc now, but i know i'm going to have to shell out again when a "decent" version comes out.
I luuurve my movies and i like to get the best out of them, but i'm nearly always left disapointed by the studios mean, greedy and piss-taking attitude towards its customers.

I'll shut up now, but i thought with Blurays prices and the studios and manufacturers keeness to promote the technology, they'd stop stabbing us all in the back...... again

[AlaskaDon]

This really doesn't have anything to do with Blu-ray as a format. A given title may not be owned by the same studio in any given country i.e. the rights to a Fox title in the US might be owned by Warner in the UK etc. Not really a whole lot you can do in that situation. Even if it's the same studio, that doesn't necessarily mean that the title was mastered in the same location, or even that the same master might have been used to produce the BD.

[quexos]

Originally Posted by AlaskaDon

This really doesn't have anything to do with Blu-ray as a format. A given title may not be owned by the same studio in any given country i.e. the rights to a Fox title in the US might be owned by Warner in the UK etc. Not really a whole lot you can do in that situation. Even if it's the same studio, that doesn't necessarily mean that the title was mastered in the same location, or even that the same master might have been used to produce the BD.

I never understood what this deal about different studios having rights for any given movie in different regions was. If a studio, say Warner was not in some country say France, then I understand that they sell the rights to some French studio. But in my example Warner is established in France, yet movie X made and released by Warner in the US will be released by say Miramax in France. Why since there is a Warner in France ? except to be an excuse to rip us off on poor releases, I don't see a good reason

[ranma]

Originally Posted by quexos

I never understood what this deal about different studios having rights for any given movie in different regions was. If a studio, say Warner was not in some country say France, then I understand that they sell the rights to some French studio. But in my example Warner is established in France, yet movie X made and released by Warner in the US will be released by say Miramax in France. Why since there is a Warner in France ? except to be an excuse to rip us off on poor releases, I don't see a good reason

One of the reason the studio B paid a good amount of money, or even as investor of that movie. So, it got the partial of distribution right of the movie.

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by AlaskaDon

This really doesn't have anything to do with Blu-ray as a format.

well, i think his point was that this new format provided an opportunity for the studios to coordinate their releases with consistent global quality, but they didn't do that. it's not a very valid point, given the way the home video industry works, but i do at least see the connection of his rant to Blu-ray specifically.

[MarekM]

Originally Posted by AlaskaDon

This really doesn't have anything to do with Blu-ray as a format. A given title may not be owned by the same studio in any given country i.e. the rights to a Fox title in the US might be owned by Warner in the UK etc. Not really a whole lot you can do in that situation. Even if it's the same studio, that doesn't necessarily mean that the title was mastered in the same location, or even that the same master might have been used to produce the BD.

+1

Marek

[quexos]

Originally Posted by ranma

One of the reason the studio B paid a good amount of money, or even as investor of that movie. So, it got the partial of distribution right of the movie.

I don't get it. If studio B is willing to give a certain amount of money for the rights of movie X then it's cause studio B reckons it will make more money than it had to pay for those rights, so Studio A is losing money by selling rights to studio B, since studio A could be getting all the money of the sales.

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by quexos

I don't get it.

Obviously.

If studio B is willing to give a certain amount of money for the rights of movie X then it's cause studio B reckons it will make more money than it had to pay for those rights, so Studio A is losing money by selling rights to studio B, since studio A could be getting all the money of the sales.

It's a gamble and very much like the stock markets or any speculative market. One of the worst example of executive miscalculation happened with Titanic. Paramount poured (ahem) money to the project and just could not commit to that movie anymore. So they got Fox to contribute in exchange for WORLDWIDE RIGHTS sans for the US. Much of the Fox money went to building the water studio down in Mexico, I believe. As it got close to the end of post production and testings were done, Paramount realized their mistake. Fox is raking in money worldwide - the Japanese market alone is worth all that money.

Another reason for selling those rights could be how certain movies are tied to other projects. If Studio A wants a lucrative share on a high profile movie starring Neil Patrick Harris from Studio B, then they also have to buy shares for a lower-profile movie directed by Uwe Boll from Studio B.


fuad

[tron3]

Originally Posted by octanejunkie

...
I luuurve my movies and i like to get the best out of them, but i'm nearly always left disapointed by the studios mean, greedy and piss-taking attitude towards its customers.

I'll shut up now, but i thought with Blurays prices and the studios and manufacturers keeness to promote the technology, they'd stop stabbing us all in the back...... again

I would like to think I could believe the studios when they give us poor excuses instead of performance, but I can not. The consumers are expecting a golden blu-ray experience are are getting "golden showers" instead!

If you want to make this a pissing match you can always boycott the movie title. But I firmly believe boycotting doesn't punish the studio, it punishes me. I am a big Terminator fan and have yet to buy the blu-rays because they are of questionable quality. I am waiting for the hopefull re-release next fall after the new movie.

Disney delivers the goods with PQ and AQ the FIRST time around. But then, you have to wait for it to come out of the vault every 7 years as you can't just pick it up at any time.

The other studios will jerk around the consumer as much as possible. I recall a quote from an article in an AD dating back up to 10 years. The reporter asked an HP rep how they determine what prices to charge for toner for their printers. The HP rep merely laughed in response, "OH, we just charge what the market can bear."

Much as "A rose is a rose is a rose." Business is business, is business.

[Anthony P]

I don't get it. If studio B is willing to give a certain amount of money for the rights of movie X then it's cause studio B reckons it will make more money than it had to pay for those rights, so Studio A is losing money by selling rights to studio B, since studio A could be getting all the money of the sales.

because that is not how it works.

Let's say a movie costs 120M to produce, and A and B think it might do well but are not sure if it will be a block buster or a bust. They might make an agreement where A pays 70M and B pays 50M and A gets the rights for one area and B for an other. Now if the movie bombs A only paid 70M (so much less then 120M), if it is a Blockbuster it does lose profit (from other regions) but still makes a lot of $ WRT the 70M. It helps take the risk from more iffy movies.

The deal happens long before anyone knows for sure. If B was that certain then they might have bought the rights to it from the start, on deals like this (usually) none of the studios involved have the warm fuzzies on it

[Neo65]

Originally Posted by tron3

The other studios will jerk around the consumer as much as possible. I recall a quote from an article in an AD dating back up to 10 years. The reporter asked an HP rep how they determine what prices to charge for toner for their printers. The HP rep merely laughed in response, "OH, we just charge what the market can bear."

I no longer bother replacing the color toners on the hp laser printer. I just buy a new printer, retrieve the four cartridges and send the printer to the recycle box. It's a lot cheaper than buying the four cartridges.