Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by svenge

Now that MGM has renewed its home video distribution deal w/ Fox, what does that mean for the remaining 9 James Bond films yet to be released on Blu-ray? Will they start to appear later this year, or is it going to be stalled until the November 2012 theatrical release of Bond 23?

Good question. I hope this is indeed the case.

[Jeff Kleist]

Last I heard they will not come out till it's in support of new bond

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Last I heard they will not come out till it's in support of new bond

That sucks, but its completely understandable.

Btw, I understand the concept of promotion and that it makes the most sense to release a product when there is something much bigger to tie it to, but why cant studios go ahead and release a product on an earlier date and then promote it more heavily when the bigger thing to tie it into gets released?

Does it have to do more with retailers being unwilling to allocate shelf space to it?

[Jeff Kleist]

Because they aren't going to spend the money and resources twice. In additiOn they can use the movies resources to do bigger things, like the Richard donner cut

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Because they aren't going to spend the money and resources twice. In additiOn they can use the movies resources to do bigger things, like the Richard donner cut

I am not talking about spending money and resources twice. I am talking about producing the bluray at an earlier time, go ahead and release it in stores and then when the time comes to promote it go ahead and release an ad campaign that says "in stores now" instead of "coming this tuesday." You still have to produce it and promote it, the difference is that they are done at different times instead of simultaneously.

I understand why they do it, since I can see retailers not being interested in buying a product to sell if their is no major promotion to go with it, but I fail to see how it would be spending money and resources twice.

I am not going to make a big deal about this, because I know its not going to happen but I am saying it would be NICE to see it happen.

[jaaguir]

Originally Posted by nathan_393

Give me Double Indemnity and I'll be as happy as a pig in pooh, although seeing any of these titles would certainly be encouraging.

Originally Posted by octagon

If I could only have one Paramount title that would likely be the one I'd go with.

That's a Universal a title, they own the rights to all pre-1948 Paramount movies (just so you're knocking at the right door).

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by merrick97

I am not talking about spending money and resources twice. I am talking about producing the bluray at an earlier time, go ahead and release it in stores and then when the time comes to promote it go ahead and release an ad campaign that says "in stores now" instead of "coming this tuesday." You still have to produce it and promote it, the difference is that they are done at different times instead of simultaneously.

I understand why they do it, since I can see retailers not being interested in buying a product to sell if their is no major promotion to go with it, but I fail to see how it would be spending money and resources twice.

I am not going to make a big deal about this, because I know its not going to happen but I am saying it would be NICE to see it happen.

You get your biggest marketing and sales bang from releasing a product for the first time. Repromoting it typically doesn't have the same impact - thus you get these tie-ins.

[Max_Genus]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

No, because this isn't something you can just toss. It has to do with the flow of movement, amd software will have to be developed to work kinda like Blu 3D compression to find the correct 24fps frames or create new ones. I'm sure WETA is up to the task

No TVs are a multiple of 48 refresh, so they couldn't display it anyway, and they're done with making additions to the format

Pardon my ignorance here, but can someone clarify for me that this news means that The Hobbit movies will be digital presentation only (in venues with 48fps capable hardware) - even if it's a 2D copy?

[Jeff Kleist]

It definately will not be. They will play it in as many theaters/formats as possible

[MerrickG]

Jeff,

Nintendo is apparently kicking off the next gen of consoles with a Wii 2 announcement. The rumors are running wild that will happen at E3, its even rumored to have a bluray drive (although only bluray.com seems to be reporting this)

What is the chance the MS might consider resurrecting the currently dead HD-DVD format to be used exclusively as a disc for the the Xbox 720, since the current 360 continues to get killed by piracy and given that HD-DVD would be VERY hard to rip since it cant be read by dvd-roms and HD-DVD drives are practically non-existent these days. We know at this point that there is no way in hell they will try disc-less media and they HAVE to go beyond what is offered on dvd.

OR would they just use a bluray drive and call it even?

[Jeff Kleist]

Zero. I'm sure they'd love to dump the drive altogether, but whatever comes will be blu-ray

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Zero. I'm sure they'd love to dump the drive altogether, but whatever comes will be blu-ray

What about the possibility of the PS4 and 720 being able to read the 100GB discs, eventhough the likely hood of them actually needing that much space is small.

[Musashi]

'Afternoon Jeff:

I might miss Otakon this year .

Despite the bad things happening in Japan, did you still line up some shows?

[Jeff Kleist]

What about the possibility of the PS4 and 720 being able to read the 100GB discs, eventhough the likely hood of them actually needing that much space is small.

Zero. BD-100 will not be used for commercial pressings. They're really not necessary. Hell, even BD25 is overkill for the majority of games.

BDXL is also really only used by Panasonic right now, and while I'm sure that their DVR/BDR combos in Japan will read them, the likelyhood of Sony going for another PSX type device is small.

Despite the bad things happening in Japan, did you still line up some shows?

http://www.otakon.com/guests_fri2011.asp

I'm working on shows for 2013 now. I work ahead

[octagon]

Originally Posted by jaaguir

That's a Universal a title, they own the rights to all pre-1948 Paramount movies (just so you're knocking at the right door).

Thanks, I have the Universal DVD and have wondered whether that was just a distribution deal or whether parts of the catalog had changed hands at some point.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

You get your biggest marketing and sales bang from releasing a product for the first time. Repromoting it typically doesn't have the same impact - thus you get these tie-ins.

Plus people expect cheaper titles after some time.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by merrick97

What is the chance the MS might consider resurrecting the currently dead HD-DVD format to be used exclusively as a disc for the the Xbox 720, since the current 360 continues to get killed by piracy and given that HD-DVD would be VERY hard to rip since it cant be read by dvd-roms and HD-DVD drives are practically non-existent these days.

think about it. Like you said HD-DVD drive are practically none existent. So if MS wants to add them they would need to find someone willing to make them. That would put them completely in the control of the manufacturer. Also then you would need HD-DVDs for the games. I am guessing since most of the replication lines where DVD/HD-DVD that the replicators did not get rid of them, but they would also put themselves and developers completely in control of those replicators. Why would any company in their right mind do that? Also, Wii, 360 & PS3 all play movies now, consoles are not just for gaming, if it is an HD-DVD drive only MS would lose out in movie playback capabilities.

[mark antony]

Hi Jeff, do you think the TV series "Millennium" sold well enough on dvd to be a likely BD release over the next couple of years?

[captveg]

Originally Posted by octagon

Thanks, I have the Universal DVD and have wondered whether that was just a distribution deal or whether parts of the catalog had changed hands at some point.

Universal's ownership of a large portion of the Paramount catalog comes from this deal as described on wikipedia:

"When the talent agency Music Corporation of America (better known as MCA), then wielding major influence on Paramount policy, offered $50 million for 750 features released until November 3, 1949 (with payment to be spread over many years), a cash-strapped Paramount thought it had made the best possible deal. To address anti-trust concerns, MCA set up a separate company, EMKA, Ltd., to sell these films to television. The deal included such notable Paramount films as the early Marx Brothers films, most of the Bob Hope-Bing Crosby "Road" pictures, and such Oscar contenders as Double Indemnity, The Lost Weekend, and The Heiress."

Wikipedia also notes some exceptions to this 1949 sale agreement:

"Paramount retained the rights to several films released prior to 1950, including You Came Along, The Strange Love of Martha Ivers, I Walk Alone, Sorry, Wrong Number, The Accused, Rope of Sand, My Friend Irma, Red, Hot and Blue, Top o' the Morning, Bride of Vengeance, Samson and Delilah and Dear Wife. Most of these were produced independently by Hal B. Wallis Productions, and picked up for distribution by Paramount.

Several feature films ended up in Republic's possession (as stated above), yet others had been retained by Paramount due to other rights issues (such as The Buccaneer and The Miracle of Morgan's Creek - it is presumed these remained under Paramount ownership so that remakes could be filmed for release in 1958, without having to license the rights).

Paramount has retained the rights to some of its silent films, including 1927's Wings, the first "Best Picture" Academy Award winner and Josef von Sternberg films Underworld, The Last Command, and The Docks of New York. However, many others are either lost or in the public domain (in fact, per US law, all films released before 1923 are in the public domain).

One additional pre-1950 film, the 1931 version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, was sold to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer in 1941 who filmed a remake that same year – this film is also now owned by WB/Turner Entertainment;

Three films produced by Paramount in 1942 - I Married a Witch, The Crystal Ball and Young and Willing were sold to United Artists when that studio needed product to release, and Paramount had a surplus. These films would not end up under EMKA ownership, and are now owned by Castle Hill Productions, with video rights licensed to WB" (though, it should be noted, WB did not renew rights for the Castle Hill library around 2008 or so.)

[Steedeel]

Hi, this is to any of the team. Do you think Bluray will last a long time? I love the format and am tired of reading about digital downloads making it obselete. Just wondered what you guys thought, thanks.