Because Blu-Ray will "obviously" be replaced rapidly by streaming only...

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

What IMAX theatre is closest to you?

the one in Phoenix

[blonde_devil]

streaming won't take over until the internet issues are fixed, namely getting proper high speed and proper cost for all. I mentioned it before but here in Saskatchewan, we are just getting fiber optic for cable and internet. how long have you had that in the States? even with the current internet, the moment Netflix started up here in Canada, the internet providers started complaining about it eating up the bandwidth - mostly because a majority of them are also cable providers who have thier own on-demand stuff and Netflix messed that up for them(but they don't admit that part). Also, there are still areas where all you can get is dial-up internet(belive it or not) if those types of issues get sorted out, you could see a lot more steaming going on as the quality will improve. then you could see bluray starting to get replaced but until that point, bluray is not going anywhere. personally, i think it is a long hard fight to get to that point, at least here in Canada. Money talks and the goverment listens to the companies more than to the people. when they started talking about putting caps in usage and restricting bandwidth for those who use a lot(even though we are paying for unlimited use), the government right away was saying "okay, sounds fair to us" until people started complaining and the truth started to come out. but even with that, it is tough. we don't have the competition you do in the States - here, it is pretty much one main provider per province and the smaller companies get thier internet from that main provider so we are kind of screwed. because of that, streaming is an option but won't replace bluray anytime soon and i think that is how it is in a lot of countries.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

streaming won't take over until the internet issues are fixed, namely getting proper high speed and proper cost for all. .

Not everyone will be needing downloading as there is a market for physical rental, downloading, netflix, Video on Demand as well as purchasing physical media. The biggest loser will be purchasing physical media going forward as people simply will turn to downloading for their movie watching at home when it comes to rental.

People seem to forget, that places like Saskatchewan etc are almost irrelevant in the whole picture as the population not just a big city or two of that entire province is very small. The people who live in major metro areas are generally the most affluent with the money burn. Blockbuster was not in every tiny market when rentals boomed in the early 90's, however I do remember having the access to purchase video on demand at my cottage via satellite about 10 years ago.

[arrow61095]

Streaming is fine for rental, but will never replace physical media for movies.

Yes, bandwidth and internet speeds will increase and become more widely available over time, but there is 1 major problem with streaming replacing physical media (that none of the streaming fans have addressed):

People want to "own" a copy of the movie. Streaming is fine for renting. But if you had all your movies downloaded on a hard drive and the hard drive crashed, you would lose all your movies. Movie studios would use formats and write protection to prevent you from backing up your hard drive of movies, since they are so paranoid about piracy. While some companies may allow you to re-download movies (in the case of a hard drive crash), they may make you pay for it + how long before they rotate a movie out of their library and then you can't re-download it (think of the movies you own that are now out of print). Personally, when I buy a copy of a movie, I want to own a copy of it.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Not everyone will be needing downloading as there is a market for physical rental, downloading, netflix, Video on Demand as well as purchasing physical media. The biggest loser will be purchasing physical media going forward as people simply will turn to downloading for their movie watching at home when it comes to rental.

People seem to forget, that places like Saskatchewan etc are almost irrelevant in the whole picture as the population not just a big city or two of that entire province is very small. The people who live in major metro areas are generally the most affluent with the money burn. Blockbuster was not in every tiny market when rentals boomed in the early 90's, however I do remember having the access to purchase video on demand at my cottage via satellite about 10 years ago.

Nah, collectors are collectors

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Not everyone will be needing downloading as there is a market for physical rental, downloading, netflix, Video on Demand as well as purchasing physical media. The biggest loser will be purchasing physical media going forward as people simply will turn to downloading for their movie watching at home when it comes to rental.

People seem to forget, that places like Saskatchewan etc are almost irrelevant in the whole picture as the population not just a big city or two of that entire province is very small. The people who live in major metro areas are generally the most affluent with the money burn. Blockbuster was not in every tiny market when rentals boomed in the early 90's, however I do remember having the access to purchase video on demand at my cottage via satellite about 10 years ago.

but are companies going to focus on the relative small population of a city and tick off the rest of the province/state/country? Our province has a population of over a million people yet the 2 largest cities are less than 450 000 combined. that is not uncommon in a lot of areas - City of New York has about 8 million people but the state has 19 million. seems to me that if you focus just on the cities, you lose out on many more customers. in those areas, this is the best option because you don't have places to rent or even buy movies. my parents need to drive 90 minutes to find a place that even sells movies. but without proper internet, you can't download, stream, or anything.

there may be more affluent people living in cities but how much money do you need to make in order to use this stuff? you don't need to be rich to have high speed internet. there are tons of people in small towns and farms that could use this same technology and can afford it. if the companies actually invested the money to get these things out to the more remote areas instead of hoarding the money and then raising rates because people are not using their product and profits are not as high as they like, things would be very different.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by arrow61095

People want to "own" a copy of the movie. Streaming is fine for renting.

Most people, average people, the majority of people do not have an interest in owning movies. Most people consume movies, they go to the theatre and see a movie, once they have seen it, they usually do not watch it again for a VERY long time.

Now, there are also people who don't necessarily see a movie in the theatre and thus wait for home video to rent it. They want see the movie, they could not care less about owning the movie. They just want to see it.

Finally, there is a segment of buyers who want to own the movie no matter what, no matter what the cost. Most of these owners are enthusiasts who have seen the movie in the theatre, then want to own it. There are also a number of buyers who want to buy the G rated movie so their little kid can watch it over, and over, and over again.

If you are luckily enough to have access to the data of "Buying" vs "Renting" vs "Video on Demand"....the top 10 are never, ever the same. It should be noted that there are some similarities like Hotel Transylvania being the Top 1 in two of the three, but a movie like End of Watch is not in the Top 10 of buying but is in the rental Top 10 and finally a movie like Trouble With the Curve is only in the Top 10 in the "on Demand" category.

Trust me, most people do not want to own the movie.

There is a market for owning, there is a market for renting discs, and there is a market for streaming....Each market is not the same and trends different.

[Monkey]

I find the low quality in sound on Netflix more annoying than the degrade in PQ (when Netflix is at its best).. Nothing from streaming comes close to a good blu-ray in audio so far from streeming like Youtube, Amazon (especially when I'm paying the extra $1 for HD (only half assed), Netflix..

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Most people, average people, the majority of people do not have an interest in owning movies. Most people consume movies, they go to the theatre and see a movie, once they have seen it, they usually do not watch it again for a VERY long time.

Now, there are also people who don't necessarily see a movie in the theatre and thus wait for home video to rent it. They want see the movie, they could not care less about owning the movie. They just want to see it.

Finally, there is a segment of buyers who want to own the movie no matter what, no matter what the cost. Most of these owners are enthusiasts who have seen the movie in the theatre, then want to own it. There are also a number of buyers who want to buy the G rated movie so their little kid can watch it over, and over, and over again.

If you are luckily enough to have access to the data of "Buying" vs "Renting" vs "Video on Demand"....the top 10 are never, ever the same. It should be noted that there are some similarities like Hotel Transylvania being the Top 1 in two of the three, but a movie like End of Watch is not in the Top 10 of buying but is in the rental Top 10 and finally a movie like Trouble With the Curve is only in the Top 10 in the "on Demand" category.

Trust me, most people do not want to own the movie.

There is a market for owning, there is a market for renting discs, and there is a market for streaming....Each market is not the same and trends different.

Lets play 'spot the annoying phrase that really winds steedeel up'in this post.

[Monkey]

A problem with the buying versus renting stats comparing movies as the the selections simply isn't the same. So the top 10 aren't going to be the same regardless.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Monkey

A problem with the buying versus renting stats comparing movies as the the selections simply isn't the same. So the top 10 aren't going to be the same regardless.

Not at all, it is pretty straightforward. Its the top 10 each week.

Dark Knight Rises is still it Top 10 for purchases but is nowhere to be found in rentals or streaming on demand for the last week.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

You said only blu ray collectors love movies and you also said you want the best quality so you should be seeking out a theatrical release in 70 or 35 if that is the case.

70, maybe, but there realy is not any 70mm theatres in most markets. As for 35mm there are very few theatres with old fashion film projectors and even then studies done by the industry have shown that theatres don't have them set-up in such a way (i.e. out of focus) that it would actually not be better than BD.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Don't agree that bigger is actually better 60" is enough for me home, $10k is actually too much for a set up for just audio alone, but that is just me. Some people like to do these set ups at home so I'm happy if that is what you want.

10K? yes it is possible to pay that much, but you can have any size screen you want for much less then 2k$ that is the joke that most don't realize. Your dad might have paid more for that 60" then what some pay for their 100"+ screen.

I certainly hope you are playing nothing but blu ray, what is interesting is that it is certainly possible (depending on your setup of course) that you are actually exceeding what is currently being shown in many digital 2K movie theatres.

actually most people with HTs have better set-ups than most theatres. It is not hard, theatres are run by kids that don't care and presentations for people that don't care.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

streaming won't take over until the internet issues are fixed, namely getting proper high speed and proper cost for all. I mentioned it before but here in Saskatchewan, we are just getting fiber optic for cable and internet. how long have you had that in the States? even with the current internet, the moment Netflix started up here in Canada, the internet providers started complaining about it eating up the bandwidth - mostly because a majority of them are also cable providers who have thier own on-demand stuff and Netflix messed that up for them(but they don't admit that part). Also, there are still areas where all you can get is dial-up internet(belive it or not) if those types of issues get sorted out, you could see a lot more steaming going on as the quality will improve. then you could see bluray starting to get replaced but until that point, bluray is not going anywhere. personally, i think it is a long hard fight to get to that point, at least here in Canada. Money talks and the goverment listens to the companies more than to the people. when they started talking about putting caps in usage and restricting bandwidth for those who use a lot(even though we are paying for unlimited use), the government right away was saying "okay, sounds fair to us" until people started complaining and the truth started to come out. but even with that, it is tough. we don't have the competition you do in the States - here, it is pretty much one main provider per province and the smaller companies get thier internet from that main provider so we are kind of screwed. because of that, streaming is an option but won't replace bluray anytime soon and i think that is how it is in a lot of countries.

Not everyone in the States even has fiber optic cable; I know I don't and don't expect it to come anytime soon. In fact I believe the majority in the US don't even have access to it.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

For me, anything past 60" and I would rather just go to an actual movie theatre.

have you ever tried a big screen at your home (or someone else’s?) I have known many ignorant people that thought X is big enough and nothing bigger is needed until they actually experience something bigger. Why would you go to a theare for something bigger IF 60” is really more than big enough?

[Steedeel]

Every single person i have ever met who buys a tv set bigger than their previous one all say that they quickly got used to the bigger size within a week or so.

[arrow61095]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Most people, average people, the majority of people do not have an interest in owning movies. Most people consume movies, they go to the theatre and see a movie, once they have seen it, they usually do not watch it again for a VERY long time.

..........

I am not sure what country or area you are from or what age group you are in, but I have lived several places in the United States (from Texas to Indiana to Pennsylvania).

And in all the places, the majority of people will wait and buy a movie or rent it and not go to the theater. The Theater is expensive (for 2 people in my area to go to a non-3D movie (3D is more) it will cost you $16 (for 3D- it costs about $21. The cheapest price for 2 people (if you go to the cheapest theater - 1st show of the day on a tuesday, it is $10))) This is not counting drinks, concessions (popcorn), gas, and the hassle of dealing with other people in the theater who may not behave during a movie.

You can buy the blu-ray the week it comes out for $19.99 or the dvd for $15.99. You can rent the dvd at a redbox for $1.20 (blu-ray $1.50).

In fact, movie theater attendance has been declining since the second World War. There are a lot of articles on the subject, for example:
http://www.ehow.com/about_5127540_hi...ttendance.html
http://www.crimefilenews.com/2012/04...earing-at.html

I would say that I don't know any person over the age of 18 that does not own a movie. Some own Blu-rays, the majority own DVDs, and some even own VHS tapes.

[Steedeel]

It is about 50/50 for me. For films I am hyped about I go to cinema. For the others that interest me I buy blind on bluray. If I enjoy at cinema, I buy on bluray. For all I love my home cinema, going to flicks is a night out with maybe a meal before. Most people take their own snacks to cinema these days don't they? I don't but many do.

[arrow61095]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It is about 50/50 for me. For films I am hyped about I go to cinema. For the others that interest me I buy blind on bluray. If I enjoy at cinema, I buy on bluray. For all I love my home cinema, going to flicks is a night out with maybe a meal before. Most people take their own snacks to cinema these days don't they? I don't but many do.

I go to the cinema for about 2-3 movies a year, I bought between 40 and 50 movies last year. I used to go to the movies about 5 times a year, but since my daughter was born I go less frequently. I usually pick the 2-3 movies I am the most hyped about and go to those, the rest, I wait until they come out.

[Steedeel]

Fair play. I buy a lot of foreign films as well that are not shown at cinema. Also, i do not drink so cinema is a night out for me.