DVD fights back!

[scoobiesnackarff]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/bu...in&oref=slogin

Studios fight to save DVD


Alan

[stockstar1138]

Originally Posted by scoobiesnackarff

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/bu...in&oref=slogin

Studios fight to save DVD


Alan

this article makes little to no sense. the only thing that is a threat to them is piracy, which blu-ray helps protect.

why would studios, who support blu-ray and the higher margins that come with blu-ray, want to save the low-margin, market sagging DVD?

[BillCable]

You know... maybe they'd sell more DVDs if they made better movies. Let's look at last year's top 10 box office draws:

1 Spider-Man 3 - no question, the worst of the Trilogy.
2 Shrek the Third - not only the worst of the Trilogy, a bad movie period.
3 Transformers - dumber than a box of rocks. Inbred rocks.
4 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - a notch below the other two
5 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - quality flick.
6 I Am Legend - nothing but mindless action
7 The Bourne Ultimatum - a good film. Not as good as the first two.
8 National Treasure: Book of Secrets - Fun, but not very substantive
9 Alvin and the Chipmunks - SERIOUSLY??!!
10 300 - Great film, and thus selling amazingly well

And studios wonder why people are purchasing fewer DVDs? How many of those movies would you want to own for repeat viewing? If Hollywood wants to sell more movies, they need to produce movies people will watch over and over. Not poorly scripted sequels. Not movies dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

[scoobiesnackarff]

Exactly Sock, unless they don't have confidence in Blu right now? I don't get it either. Its like trying to save a dying car which needs to have more money put into it than its worth when you have a brand new Mercedes at your disposal. I don't get it.

Alan

[plee]

It's really the catalog titles that are slowing down, which is mentioned briefly. Most of the newer movies do well, so the big question will be, will people double dip for some of the old movies/catalog in Bluray? I think certain titles will do well but I think for the most part, J6P will not spend too much on older titles.

[blu-ray fan002]

I agree with BillCable completely. I actually made a comment to one of the associates I work with that the recent new releases are getting weaker. I'm actually renting less because the movies are getting dull, or the studios use the same plots but with different actors and at a different location. Remaking old movies, for example, is okay, but change it up a little bit. I don't know if studios are afraid to make something different because they think it won't sell or what? They will never know unless they try. If they're afraid of loosing money over a different idea, they already are with poor titles being released. But hey, some new releases have been great, but the poor titles override the good ones.

[LynxFX]

You would have a point BillCable if it wasn't for the fact that all those movies listed there were the money makers for the Studios and sold, or will sell great on DVD.

[takezo]

trying to save a 10+ year old format is not wise. DVD will be replaced by Blu-ray eventually. There is no highspeed internet capable of blu-ray quality bitrates yet, unless some company miraculously makes T3 line availibe to the home consumer.

The number one reason why DVD sales are down is simply because of a bad economy. Every electronics store is feeling the pinch right now. People are holding tight to their money for food, gas, Rent/Mortgage, and every day needs. You can't indulge yourself with DVDs or any other kind of electronics goodies if you can barely afford your living expenses.

DVD sales has also been watered down because of online rental companies like netflix and blockbuster which basicaly recycle a fixed amount of discs. Thus their member are not buying new dvds. The LCD TV revloution has also played it's part of slowing DVD sales. Why? HDTV service. Direct TV and Dish Network, plus most Digital cable companies like Time Warner, have PPV movies which can be bought and have HD quality for less than a new release non catalogue movie DVD. Most Electronics Sale Reps will try to tack on HDTV service from a HDTV provider with a purchase of a LCD screen or other flat screen technology, meaning that even the non tech savy person can have this. Internet based media is reserved for the more tech savy group, which is large and growing but still incomparable to the technically inept masses. I beleive that movies on demand through an HDTV provider is more prevalent than I-tunes and other legal internet movie provider. Finally DVD sales are down cause Blu-ray sales are up. Basically if your planning to get blu-ray, your not going to buy anymore DVD's.

[STARSCREAM]

Completely stupid. Don't they know people will rebuy their movies on Blu-Ray thus more money for the studios.

[jw]

Studio executives dismiss that view as sour grapes, pointing to their own research. Fox, for instance, estimates that sales of Blu-ray discs will soar to nearly $1 billion in 2008, from $170 million last year. “Blu-ray growth will more than replace losses from the mature business,” said Mr. Chapek of Disney.

AT 28.00 a blu-ray this is an easy milestone....

[JohnGalt]

Originally Posted by BillCable

You know... maybe they'd sell more DVDs if they made better movies. Let's look at last year's top 10 box office draws:

1 Spider-Man 3 - no question, the worst of the Trilogy.
2 Shrek the Third - not only the worst of the Trilogy, a bad movie period.
3 Transformers - dumber than a box of rocks. Inbred rocks.
4 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - a notch below the other two
5 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - quality flick.
6 I Am Legend - nothing but mindless action
7 The Bourne Ultimatum - a good film. Not as good as the first two.
8 National Treasure: Book of Secrets - Fun, but not very substantive
9 Alvin and the Chipmunks - SERIOUSLY??!!
10 300 - Great film, and thus selling amazingly well

How many of those movies would you want to own for repeat viewing?

At least six, probably seven and maybe as many as eight if the price were right.

[FallenAngel78]

I read that article and I saw it more as them fighting back against piracy and digital downloads then against Blu-ray. I must say that it would be nice to get a digital copy of a Blu-ray... i.e. a separate disk or a way to transfer the file over the network. After all my laptop does not have Blu-ray capabilities. But that doesn't win me over with the digital copy... After all I can use a combination of Mactheripper and MPEG Streamclip to achieve the same effect.

I am sort of reminded of the whole music industry fight. The recording industry is still so deadset against downloading music and are losing money as a result. I have all my music on my computer so except for special collectors editions (or ones with a bonus DVD) I prefer to download my music.

Not to say that they should embrace the digital age and downloading... it just seems a little reminisent. Studios should stop focusing on DVD and ways to improve it... and embrace Blu-rays. Well okay more originality in films would be a good start... since if the movie sucked it's not going to sell any better on Blu then on DVD.

Now that I am rambling I am going to give up... It's late... I'm at work... and am tired. 'Nuf said.

[BluStar88]

The article is actually kind of hilarious the contradict themselves multiple times. one second they say BD won't grow dvd will. then they say that BD will help dvd grow...

[ryoohki]

Originally Posted by BillCable

You know... maybe they'd sell more DVDs if they made better movies. Let's look at last year's top 10 box office draws:

1 Spider-Man 3 - no question, the worst of the Trilogy.
2 Shrek the Third - not only the worst of the Trilogy, a bad movie period.
3 Transformers - dumber than a box of rocks. Inbred rocks.
4 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - a notch below the other two
5 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - quality flick.
6 I Am Legend - nothing but mindless action
7 The Bourne Ultimatum - a good film. Not as good as the first two.
8 National Treasure: Book of Secrets - Fun, but not very substantive
9 Alvin and the Chipmunks - SERIOUSLY??!!
10 300 - Great film, and thus selling amazingly well

And studios wonder why people are purchasing fewer DVDs? How many of those movies would you want to own for repeat viewing? If Hollywood wants to sell more movies, they need to produce movies people will watch over and over. Not poorly scripted sequels. Not movies dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Humm i watched TF about.. 5 times in Theater and ... 2-3 times at home... Thanks for inputting you're opinions as the mass opinion...

[yagami]

The drop in sales makes me wonder how many people out there are really waiting for the hd releases. I used to buy a few DVD's weekly and ever since I heard that a High Def disc was coming out, I immediatly stopped purchasing DVD's. I refuse to pay for an inferior product and there are probably many people that are also taking notice of High Def and are on the fence when it comes to dropping cash on DVD since they will want to upgrade when the Blu-ray is released. Even upscaled, they don't look good on my set.

[caliminius]

Originally Posted by FallenAngel78

I am sort of reminded of the whole music industry fight. The recording industry is still so deadset against downloading music and are losing money as a result. I have all my music on my computer so except for special collectors editions (or ones with a bonus DVD) I prefer to download my music.

Sorry, but I think you might be proving Toshiba's point that DVD is good enough. You clearly consider downloads good enough for music despite them being a downgrade from CD quality. Why wouldn't one expect the same for DVD vs Blu-Ray?

For myself, if I could I would be buying all my music on hybrid SACD/CD discs (since the car can't play SACDs). I'd even settle for single-layer SACD. Since that's not possible either, I've had to settle for the best quality available which is the CD.

The way the current video download market works, I NEVER want it to take off for two major reasons: hardware/retailer lock-in and fixed prices. If I purchase from iTunes I'm stuck watching it on Apple hardware. Buy from Amazon Unbox, and I'm locked into TiVo hardware. Buy from Live Marketplace and I'm stuck with a Xbox 360. (Yes, I know I could watch Unbox and iTunes content on a PC but that's really not where I want to watch it). Top that off with the fixed prices that both iTunes and the Live Marketplace have in place (Amazon at least seems to have sales on their downloadable content), and I would easily be paying on average more to own a film than I do currently.

And currently you can't even own an HD copy of even a 720p movie download which leaves you paying $4-5 every time you want to view it. Ultimately, that's my fear about where downloads will take us where you can never own your content but will have to constantly rent it. At $4 a viewing, I have quite a few movies where it would easily have cost me $100 to view them as often as I have.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by BillCable

You know... maybe they'd sell more DVDs if they made better movies. Let's look at last year's top 10 box office draws:

1 Spider-Man 3 - no question, the worst of the Trilogy.
2 Shrek the Third - not only the worst of the Trilogy, a bad movie period.
3 Transformers - dumber than a box of rocks. Inbred rocks.
4 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - a notch below the other two
5 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - quality flick.
6 I Am Legend - nothing but mindless action
7 The Bourne Ultimatum - a good film. Not as good as the first two.
8 National Treasure: Book of Secrets - Fun, but not very substantive
9 Alvin and the Chipmunks - SERIOUSLY??!!
10 300 - Great film, and thus selling amazingly well

And studios wonder why people are purchasing fewer DVDs? How many of those movies would you want to own for repeat viewing? If Hollywood wants to sell more movies, they need to produce movies people will watch over and over. Not poorly scripted sequels. Not movies dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

pretty much....I will have owned 4 of the top 10 when everything on that list is out..

the problem is that I have about 50 Blu's in a year so that is 1 Blu a week or more for the length of time I've had my PS3 and that makes me an avid movie buyer..

If me, being the avid movie buyer, does not have even 5 out of the top 10...then I think there is a problem..

[The Don]

Originally Posted by yagami

The drop in sales makes me wonder how many people out there are really waiting for the hd releases. I used to buy a few DVD's weekly and ever since I heard that a High Def disc was coming out, I immediatly stopped purchasing DVD's. I refuse to pay for an inferior product and there are probably many people that are also taking notice of High Def and are on the fence when it comes to dropping cash on DVD since they will want to upgrade when the Blu-ray is released. Even upscaled, they don't look good on my set.

yeah I get the same thing with up-sclaed DVD's....I won't buy them anymore..

They want to aim at releasing on downloads for HD content

[mdm1699]

Originally Posted by BillCable

You know... maybe they'd sell more DVDs if they made better movies. Let's look at last year's top 10 box office draws:

1 Spider-Man 3 - no question, the worst of the Trilogy.
2 Shrek the Third - not only the worst of the Trilogy, a bad movie period.
3 Transformers - dumber than a box of rocks. Inbred rocks.
4 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - a notch below the other two
5 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - quality flick.
6 I Am Legend - nothing but mindless action
7 The Bourne Ultimatum - a good film. Not as good as the first two.
8 National Treasure: Book of Secrets - Fun, but not very substantive
9 Alvin and the Chipmunks - SERIOUSLY??!!
10 300 - Great film, and thus selling amazingly well

And studios wonder why people are purchasing fewer DVDs? How many of those movies would you want to own for repeat viewing? If Hollywood wants to sell more movies, they need to produce movies people will watch over and over. Not poorly scripted sequels. Not movies dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

I am Legend - mindless action? What movie were you watching. It was more suspense than action-packed.

300 - Great film? Just patch together syles from Gladiator, Troy, LOTR, et al and you have a great film.

This is why everyone runs to see a movie when the critics do not recommend it.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by BillCable

You know... maybe they'd sell more DVDs if they made better movies. Let's look at last year's top 10 box office draws:

1 Spider-Man 3 - no question, the worst of the Trilogy.
2 Shrek the Third - not only the worst of the Trilogy, a bad movie period.
3 Transformers - dumber than a box of rocks. Inbred rocks.
4 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - a notch below the other two
5 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - quality flick.
6 I Am Legend - nothing but mindless action
7 The Bourne Ultimatum - a good film. Not as good as the first two.
8 National Treasure: Book of Secrets - Fun, but not very substantive
9 Alvin and the Chipmunks - SERIOUSLY??!!
10 300 - Great film, and thus selling amazingly well

How many of those movies would you want to own for repeat viewing? .

I might get 300 (don't have it yet) I can't say I liked any of the other movies, and 300 was fairly cheesy if you ask me.