Aug. 20th-21st, 2007, biggest battle of the format war!!!

[POTC123]

Over the last 24 hours we have seen the largest and most public, development of the Format War since its inception last June.

It began around noon yesterday with the announcement of Paramount/Dreamworks flip to only support HD-DVD. This came as a shock and blow to everyone, especially the supporters of Blu-ray. It also was weird due to Blu-ray sales out numbering HD-DVD 2 to 1, and the iminent end of the war looking promising for a blu-ray victory.

Stephen Spielberg was very upset by this and said he will not allow his films to be released on HD-DVD, and threatened to sell Dreamworks to another company.

So you think that would be the end, NO. Later that night, due probably to P/D annoucement, Fox and MGM stated they were going exclusively blu, and announced nearly 30 new and classic movies in the next 3 months.

Later, the BDA stated that they also found it werid that P/D decided to flip.

It was revealed this morning that Micheal Bay(GOD) has expressed his feelings towards Paramount, saying he doesn't want his movies to be released on a weaker format, and wants the best quality possible, and states he will not direct/write/produce a Transformers 2.

Finally, The NY Times revealed the rumor was true, and Paramount and Dreamworks recieved a 150 million bribe for supporters of HD-DVD to go exclusive.

What new develpoments will we see in the next 24 hours???

[dialog_gvf]

How about an SEC investigation into whether executives received bribes for this decision?

I would personally like to see a major retailer take an anti-HD DVD stand on selling discs.

[POTC123]

that would be something to see

[Rheologuy]

If it were illegal for Paramount to accept financial consideration to support HD-DVD exclusively, as dialog_gvf has said elsewhere, why would Viacom executives admit having done it to the New York Times? Why would the SEC be interested? And what could they do to reverse this? BTW, I hope you're right.

[xcntuatd77]

My thoughts:

The decision by michael bay to now no longer direct and produce transformer 2 was an EXCELLENT strategy.

Although as of right now, i am really bummed about no transformers sequel - or trilogy as a trilogy was already confirmed by him during a press conference, no longer directing a sequel will now light the pants of all those executives.

These guys failed to realize that he directed and made this HUGE blockbuster for paramount. Currently 24th best movies alltime- from box office sales, and 5th best movie for paramount all time. Now that hes no longer goign to direct a sequel for this blockbuster, its defintiely going to send vibes through to paramount.


This short term deal was just that, withouht foreseeing properly what the impact blockbusters like transformers will have. Now that he has clearly stated he will not direct transformers, paramount has definitely got it good way up their *******s.

[CptGreedle]

Latest rumors is that Paramount, after loosing it's star director and being unable to release Speilberg films, and being questioned by not just the Blu-ray consumers, but also the directors and BDA... may be reconsidering their stance.

We'll see. But it is only an 18 month arrangement.

[Iceman_II]

The SEC may be interested, depending on HOW paramount and dream works report the 150M

Bribes can not be reported as earnings, if they try to report them as earnings, they are violating the law. If they DON'T report them as earnings, their bottom line will suffer because of the lost revenue from sales of BD that aren't occuring... this SHOULD hit their stock price.

Even if they do get around the whole "reporting bribes as earnings" and keep this quarter up with the cash inflo from M$, their share holders are not going to be happy when they realize that their profits for the next 5 quarters will be lower because the execs lined their pockets this quarter... investors will not be happy.

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Originally Posted by Rheologuy

If it were illegal for Paramount to accept financial consideration to support HD-DVD exclusively, as dialog_gvf has said elsewhere, why would Viacom executives admit having done it to the New York Times? Why would the SEC be interested? And what could they do to reverse this? BTW, I hope you're right.

Because they are dealing in semantics... they got "marketing considerations".

[MasterXeus]

Originally Posted by POTC123

So you think that would be the end, NO. Later that night, due probably to P/D annoucement, Fox and MGM stated they were going exclusively blu, and announced nearly 30 new and classic movies in the next 3 months.

I think it should say

Fox and MGM stated they would be returning to Blu, and announced nearly 30 new and classic movies in the next 3 months.

Fox and MGM have always been exclusive to Blu-ray, yes they haven't release anything since March, but they were never neutral or HD-DVD.

[POTC123]

Originally Posted by MasterXeus

I think it should say

Fox and MGM stated they would be returning to Blu, and announced nearly 30 new and classic movies in the next 3 months.

Fox and MGM have always been exclusive to Blu-ray, yes they haven't release anything since March, but they were never neutral or HD-DVD.

ok, thats sounds better

[darinp2]

Originally Posted by POTC123

Stephen Spielberg was very upset by this and said he will not allow his films to be released on HD-DVD, and threatened to sell Dreamworks to another company.

Where did this come from? From what I've seen the films he has directed would be released on both formats. And the rumors of splitting off at the end of next year were way before this announcement, and I'm not sure what he would be able to take with him even if he did go.

--Darin

[Iceman_II]

Originally Posted by darinp2

Where did this come from? From what I've seen the films he has directed would be released on both formats. And the rumors of splitting off at the end of next year were way before this announcement, and I'm not sure what he would be able to take with him even if he did go.

--Darin

I think a lot of this can be a conclusion drawn from the fact that he won't let Universal release any of his powerhouse movies in their catalog, while only allowing CE3K to be released, which is exclusive to blu. For all I know, the bit about selling off could be simply "embellishment"

[u_nick]

Here's MB's offical post"

"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For them to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks! They were progressive by having two formats. No Transformers 2 for me!"

I think the Spielberg stuff is mostly assumption. I think both Spielberg & Lucas own a bigger portion of the movies they do, as they co=produce many of them, paying with their own money. So they may have stock to choose, as if they were their own studio.

[skubrick]

This war was really interesting to begin with. Now it's almost fun to see these Hollywood heavyweights punching each other.

Michael Bay is like one of the top 5 biggest/powerful people in movies. His reply is just as big as Paramounts decision as he is worth well over 150M in future movies for the company. And it lets the media slap Paramount around as foolish.

I'm tempted to pop some popcorn and just watch the headlines roll in over this battle...

[AustinSTI]

damn dude if you are gonna spread this kind of garbage and inaccurate information back it up with links...

Fox was always Blu-Ray exclusive and just re-commited to the format.
Speilberg wasn't quoted as threatening to sell dreamworks.
Bay wasn't quoted as calling HD-DVD the weaker format.

I'm all for blu-ray but let's keep this honest...and stick to fact.

[MrVorhees]

yes!!!!

and its a shame i cant read all the coments of all Blu-ray supporters, there are soooo many, i'd like to read all of them

BTW increbible cohesion of all the Blu-ray fans

[Anthony P]

If it were illegal for Paramount to accept financial consideration to support HD-DVD exclusively, as dialog_gvf has said elsewhere, why would Viacom executives admit having done it to the New York Times? Why would the SEC be interested? And what could they do to reverse this? BTW, I hope you're right.

it is illigal, it falls under anti competitive practices. If Paramount received money (or any incentive) with the condition they support HD DVD exclusively, then that is illigal. Or else any one could just buythemselves into a monopoly, a baker could go to the supermarket and tell them "If you only buy bread from us then I will give it for free for 3m and 1/2 price after that." if he does it with all the supermarkets then other bakers will go out of buisness and eventually he will have a monopoly. At that point the baker can charge whatever he wants because he as control and the price of bread skyrockets for the grocer and consumers.

Even though it is illigal, it happens all the times because it is extremely easy to hide and hard to prove. For example going back to the previous example, the baker instead of making a contract with exclusivity would make one where he gives "promotionaly" bread free for 3 months and then a decent price for large quantities the rest will be a wink wink and a handshake. Giving lots of money is easy, MS can over pay for movies, they can give promotional free encodings to advertise VC-1, the replicator could give free or discounted replication......

The point is that even if all studios that have taken sides have done so because of incentives to be exclusive (incentives for support are not illigal), it is impossible to prove. Fox, Disney... can give reasonable reasons and rais reasonable doubt that it is exclusivity agreements (i.e. "BD has more then 60% of the market, we are not morroins this was bound to happen and we knew it", "we think that 30GB and 36mbps is not enough HD DVD cannot offer what we want", "HD DVD does not have the security features we beleive to be important"......) even Universal can fake it (i.e. "we picked HD DVD because we thought consumers would buy into it because of price, it was the decision we made back then and the market is too small to support both so we will stick with the original decision").

The problem is that Paramount can't make a reasonable excuse. (why pick the side that is producing less revenue and has less market share now) It also makes it harder since it looks like some people are not happy with this dishonest choice and are willing to talk.

As for the consequences?
1) any agreement would be null (i.e. the money or incentives will need to be removed
2) both sides will be fined
3) it will put Paramount and the HD DVD under much more scrutiny.