"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Esox50

Agreed 100% regarding this movie. One of my all time favorites.

I gotta ask though, do you know something we don't regarding the A/V quality of this upcoming release, or was it just a general statement?

It was just a general statement on how I make my personal purchasing decisions. I have no knowledge of what the ultimate audio/video quality will be of that particular Blu-ray disc.

Point being, I find it somewhat ironic that some people on some high-def forums sometimes love to carry the banner of self-proclaimed ‘film aficionados’ when it is not uncommon to see more enthusiasm and passion for films on the standard definition DVD forums all over the internet.

Oh well.

P.S.
And no I'm not speaking about anyone in particular, and certainly not Deci who loves everything about film, so much so as to travel to LA to attend The Reel Thing symposium.

[Penton-Man]

Anyway, for that matter, the same above mindset will be applicable for me for this upcoming title…..
Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace & Music

Because I also purchased it back in the day in the “Truck Tire Size” as Deci so apply described it.
(too big even to capture with a camera all of the three laser discs and the box art )

[Penton-Man]

But don’t get me wrong.
I admire high quality audio/video presentation in high definition packaged media just as much as the next guy and I think it should be commended as such whenever the situation arises......as long as the story or music appeals to me personally.

Another one of my all time favorites is Seabiscuit , a much desired (for me) Universal make-up title for Blu-ray that has already seen its appearance on the now defunct format, HD DVD -and got listed in “The Cream of the Crop” category on AVS for HD DVD’s…………….
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=942015

and received outstanding accolades for its PQ………
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...61#post8390361

with your typical movie review stating things such as…………..
“I have to admit that the reason I fished Seabiscuit out of the review pool wasn't because of a long-standing love of thoroughbreds or a craving for something uplifting and emotional.
No, I picked up this disc purely because so many posters on the AVS Forum and DVD Talk have pointed to its 2.39:1 high-definition presentation as reference quality, and all of that fawning is fully deserved. I've watched an even forty HD DVDs since the format's launch”………………..
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/24121/seabiscuit/

I can’t wait to get this on Blu-ray.
I love the story of another underdog Braveheart (this time a horse ) and it holds a special significance to me as I spent some of my formative years living in the Baltimore area, having visited the Pimlico racetrack for more than one Preakness.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by DenonCI

Were you an owner of DVD in the beginning (1997)?

I was and not only was software a pain in the @$$ to find, it was d@&# expensive. In those days, there really wasn't an rental option, in order to watch movies, you had to buy them. Thankfully the Internet boom created a lot of opportunities to buy things much cheaper, but that wasn't until the format was a couple of years old.

I censored the above somewhat, but...

I ordered my first DVD player from 800.com (later bought out by Circuit City)in September 1998, and other than the copy of "Air Force One" purchased at Target and the free copy of "L.A. Confidential" that came with it, my first DVDs were ordered from them as well during a promo in which you could get three DVDs for... well, I can't remember if it was a penny or a dollar, but it was super cheap, and their prices were decent for DVDs compared to Target (the only store in town that sold DVDs). I spent the first couple of years ordering from them and DVDExpress.com (now DVDEmpire.com) as I saved a TON ordering from them. I remember my first Fox DVD, "Hope Floats" that was among Fox's initial DVD offerings (released November 3, 1998), I ended up buying it online for $30 when Target had it for full MSRP ($34.95).

The reason why I'm saying this? Well, DVD wasn't a couple of years old before the opportunity came along... it's just that less people had the access to it to take advantage of it.

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

A couple stores in my town, such as Hastings, were offering DVDs for rent by early 1998. They had a pretty good selection by the time I bought my first DVD player. I waited the same amount of time to get into Blu-ray. If anything, I see fewer BDs for rent at this point than what I saw with DVD in 1999.

Some people may disagree with me, but I've seen more support of Blu-ray than I saw of DVD during the same amount of time. I had had DVD for months, if not almost a whole year (or longer than a year) before my local Wal-Mart started carrying DVD, and when they did, they locked them up behind a glass case on a aisle in the back of the electronics section, and the prices were still much higher than online prices. Jump forward to today and Blu-ray is featured prominently amongst the DVDs both in the electronics section AND up front near the registers, and the prices ofter match or beat E-tailers such as Amazon. There was also a year or two in there somewhere where the B&M stores would be competitive with the E-tailers for a month or two leading up to Christmas, but once January hit, prices would go back up higher.

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

But, those figures are wrong. DVD was nowhere near 1000 after one year. I don't even think it had 100% studio support after one year.

DVD came out in March of 1997, but became widely available in September of 1997.

Paramount (one of the last "major" holdouts) started supporting DVD on October 6, 1998. Fox (one of the last "major" holdouts) on November 3, 1998. DreamWorks SKG (the last "mini-major" holdouts) on December 8, 1998.

This information was obtained by going to the VERY BOTTOM of this GREAT page.

Oh yeah, as far as the pricing issue goes, Disney released Walt Disney's Tarzan on DVD in February of 2000 for $34.95 MSRP (originally priced at $39.95 MSRP, read the LATE UPDATE POST for January 5 here for details), and released a TWO-DISC Collector's Set of it in April of 2000 for $49.95 MSRP. How much is the MSRP on that 3 disc set "Sleeping Beauty" going for?! $35.99 you say? I think we're doing just fine.

BTW, given the talk about "Braveheart" and looking through Bill's site for some information, I got a kick out of reading the update made on 12/6/97 way down at the bottom on the Paramount page.

~Alan

[DenonCI]

Alan,

Maybe my memory of the time was a little fuzzy, but it was difficult getting DVD's out of the gate, that's for sure. And as you have confirmed, they weren't cheap by any means.

As for BD, yes, they are MUCH easier to get today than DVD was when it launched.

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Penton Man

I find it somewhat ironic that some people on some high-def forums sometimes love to carry the banner of self-proclaimed ‘film aficionados’ when it is not uncommon to see more enthusiasm and passion for films on the standard definition DVD forums all over the internet.

Terms like "film enthusiast," "film buff" or even "film fan" are used pretty loosely especially when those titles are self-proclaimed.

One attitude I find ironic from certain Blu-ray.com forum members is they'll describe themselves as serious film fans yet also boast about not watching movies in commercial movie theaters at all.

I believe any real film fan makes at least some effort to see a few movies in commercial theaters to give some support to that side of the movie industry. Without commercial movie theaters, the movie industry would be reduced to a mere shadow of its former self.

Commercial theaters give movies a unique venue apart from the tide of TV programming and straight-to-video junk. If all movies were released straight to video, the actual productions would be much smaller, lower in budget and lower in quality. The best projects would be produced for TV networks like NBC or HBO. Very few of us would like that situation.

Film distributors and theater operators should be working harder together to improve the movie-going experience in a lot of theaters. There's too many badly operated theaters and not enough of the good. D-cinema has helped in some places. But audio remains a major problem in many venues (equipment is out of proper adjustment, blown/damaged speaker drivers not replaced, movies being run at too low a volume level due to stupidly loud mixed movie trailers, etc.).

I go out of my way to see movies in good quality theaters, not the crappy one nearest to home. I paid $10.75 to see The Dark Knight in IMAX when I was in Colorado Springs. Not too far away in Moore, OK sits the Moore Warren theater -literally one of the world's best quality movie theaters. Warren Theaters is a company that "gets it" when it comes to knowing how movies should be presented.

[Penton-Man]

Any Speed Racer fans out there?..........as it’s streeting on Sept. 16……….. right after your wallets have recovered from purchasing Kill Bill Vol.1, Kill Bill Vol. 2 and The Fall (a likely candidate for an Academy Award nomination in the category for BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY).

Anyone out there interested about Speed Racer ?
If so, it will offer me an opportunity to give the requisite Sony plug and a couple tidbits about the making of this feature film…………..which should translate into a spectacularly vivid looking piece of Blu-ray eye candy, if indeed WB home media has done it justice.

[Bullseye]

Penton I feel alot of members on here will give SR a miss due to the lack of HD audio. I am sure the picture will be amazing but WB need to realise that there is more the BD than just picture.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

One attitude I find ironic from certain Blu-ray.com forum members is they'll describe themselves as serious film fans yet also boast about not watching movies in commercial movie theaters at all.

Well I don’t have much problem with any Blu-ray.com forum members in that regard as I actually find statements like that to be refreshingly honest.

It’s more of the elitist (*I love film*) attitude that is expressed on some other high-def boards that have a propensity toward spending all their time viewing screenshots rather than watching motion pictures whether at home, or in your local theater.

Not to mention the fact that I really find it dubious how many outside posters now claim they have seen the theatrical presentation of this or that –when they are comparing a Blu-ray disc to their *theatrical presentation recollection*.

Call me cynical but, I really have my doubts in that regard, unless those posters have a long history of online honesty, do a superb write-up of a theatrical presentation like Rob Tomlin did for our favorite western………or they post a pic of their actual ticket stub !

P.S.
Speed Racer, The Dark Knight (ect.) being notable exceptions to the above, because I do believe that many did catch those at the theater.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

Penton I feel alot of members on here will give SR a miss due to the lack of HD audio. I am sure the picture will be amazing but WB need to realise that there is more the BD than just picture.

Dude,
That's why I bolded "eye" in my above post.

[Bullseye]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Dude,
That's why I bolded "eye" in my above post.

No doubt. I am sure it will rival Pixars releases.

[DenonCI]

Until movie theaters ban cell phones or allow other patrons to physically remove offenders from the premesis, then they will rarely get my business. I'll take my kids to the movies but I can't tell you how many movies I've been to that have been ruined by a crying baby, teenagers text messaging or worse, talking on the phone or to their friend sitting next to them that it has ruined all the fun of going to there. For nearly 20 years, I went to the movies at least once per week, sometimes more, now I only venture out a few times a year because Americans have no social skills anymore and all they care about is themselves.

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Dude,
That's why I bolded "eye" in my above post.

Such a shame about the sound on this particular title, because I'm sure it will look great, even on a BD25.
Anyway mine on its way (actually strictly speaking its my son's, the first BD he's buying all by himself!!)

[wallendo]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

I censored the above somewhat, but...

I ordered my first DVD player from 800.com (later bought out by Circuit City)in September 1998, and other than the copy of "Air Force One" purchased at Target and the free copy of "L.A. Confidential" that came with it, my first DVDs were ordered from them as well during a promo in which you could get three DVDs for... well, I can't remember if it was a penny or a dollar, but it was super cheap, and their prices were decent for DVDs compared to Target (the only store in town that sold DVDs). I spent the first couple of years ordering from them and DVDExpress.com (now DVDEmpire.com) as I saved a TON ordering from them. I remember my first Fox DVD, "Hope Floats" that was among Fox's initial DVD offerings (released November 3, 1998), I ended up buying it online for $30 when Target had it for full MSRP ($34.95).

The reason why I'm saying this? Well, DVD wasn't a couple of years old before the opportunity came along... it's just that less people had the access to it to take advantage of it.



Some people may disagree with me, but I've seen more support of Blu-ray than I saw of DVD during the same amount of time. I had had DVD for months, if not almost a whole year (or longer than a year) before my local Wal-Mart started carrying DVD, and when they did, they locked them up behind a glass case on a aisle in the back of the electronics section, and the prices were still much higher than online prices....

I think that a lot of people forget that DVD formative years were also the start of the online shopping boom. There were a lot of start-up online merchants trying to get into the business (Amazon, buy.com, DVDWave, CDNow, etc) and DVD's were frequently sold as "loss leaders". Companies were selling products at a loss in order to build up a customer base.

With the blu-ray revolution, the online retailers are well established, and are not willing to "burn" money as freely.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

DVD came out in March of 1997, but became widely available in September of 1997.

Paramount (one of the last "major" holdouts) started supporting DVD on October 6, 1998. Fox (one of the last "major" holdouts) on November 3, 1998. DreamWorks SKG (the last "mini-major" holdouts) on December 8, 1998.

There ya go. So, not 100% support one year after launch.

I got a Sony S7000 in March 1997. Despite it being an eight city US soft launch, I was able to easily get DVDs in Toronto.

You can apply the same sort of split to Blu-ray. It forced launched in June 2006 to counter HD DVD, but seriously launched in November with the release of the PS/3.

Gary

[Anthony P]

By December 1997, over 1 million individual DVD discs were shipped, representing about 530 titles. (First year)

By the end of 1999, over 100 million discs had shipped, representing about 5,000 titles. (3rd year)

Blu-ray had about 290 titles by the first year, and 720 titles by the second year. In those first 24 months it had a very contested format war against HD DVD which preceeded it by 2 months and released about 460 titles.

Blu-ray by next Tuesday, at 26 months and a half old, will have almost 900 titles. Till the format war ended 20-30 titles were added a month, currently we're getting around 60-100 titles a month. Blu-ray will easily have broken a 1000 by Halloween and probably will reach into the 1300's by the end of 2008. (2 and a half years)

Sources: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about DVD: The Official DVD FAQ, Blu-ray.com database, Apocalist

I think you missed one thing https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=104 so even with less time, a fearcer battle and less titles, more BD disks got shipped then DVD disks. in the first calandar year.

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I really find it dubious how many outside posters now claim they have seen the theatrical presentation of this or that –when they are comparing a Blu-ray disc to their *theatrical presentation recollection*.

I agree. It's also equally dubious for anyone to claim a movie on Blu-ray is better than what movie theaters can deliver. Some theaters do a poor job of showing their movies, whether they're showing a 35mm film print or digital. Nevertheless, the theaters are using better quality "media" than what's stored on a Blu-ray disc.

Originally Posted by DenonCI

Until movie theaters ban cell phones or allow other patrons to physically remove offenders from the premesis, then they will rarely get my business. I'll take my kids to the movies but I can't tell you how many movies I've been to that have been ruined by a crying baby, teenagers text messaging or worse, talking on the phone or to their friend sitting next to them that it has ruined all the fun of going to there.

That's why I tend to see movies in theaters during off-peak times -such as a weeknight. Crowds are usually smaller and significantly more mature. I also tend to avoid movie theaters built inside shopping malls. That cuts down the obnoxious teen crowd factor quite a lot. A growing number of malls are adopting evening curfews for anyone under 18 not with a parent or not working at a job there.

Hopefully the strange obsession so many people have with texting will die down soon. Those phones wouldn't be coming out of pockets and purses so often. The displays on most mobile phones are bright enough to where it's like turning on a flash light in the theater.

Whether someone see movies in theaters or watches exclusively at home, it's in the best interest of the movie industry and movie fans (and the Blu-ray format) for the theater business to stay healthy. Several factors are working to undermine the movie theater industry. Poorly operated theaters and inconsiderate audience members are driving away good customers. Short-sighted business people are promoting day-and-date releases of movies in theaters and on video the same day as a "strategy" of getting a faster return on their investment. The audio/video quality of Blu-ray makes it more critical for shoddy theaters to get their act together. Many aren't doing that. Major movie companies pay "checkers" to make random visits to theaters to see if theaters are playing the right trailers. They don't take notes to judge presentation quality, but they should.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by DenonCI

Alan,

Maybe my memory of the time was a little fuzzy, but it was difficult getting DVD's out of the gate, that's for sure. And as you have confirmed, they weren't cheap by any means.

As for BD, yes, they are MUCH easier to get today than DVD was when it launched.

Hey, I've had people say my memory is fuzzy and that DVDs were found cheap right from the start. Maybe in their neck of the woods, or on sites that I didn't stumble across, but I'm just speaking from my experience.

Originally Posted by wallendo

I think that a lot of people forget that DVD formative years were also the start of the online shopping boom. There were a lot of start-up online merchants trying to get into the business (Amazon, buy.com, DVDWave, CDNow, etc) and DVD's were frequently sold as "loss leaders". Companies were selling products at a loss in order to build up a customer base.

With the blu-ray revolution, the online retailers are well established, and are not willing to "burn" money as freely.

As I stated above, my first Fox DVD was sold at $34.95 MSRP, and Target simply charged you MSRP (well, they might have charged you $34.00, but I just remember it being $34.00), and I bought it for $30 online. Jump forward to today and Fox is charging $39.95 MSRP for their discs and I can buy them online cheaper than $30 ($27.95 at Amazon), Target often sells them at $29.95, and Wal-Mart has even sold some for $26.95 being Amazon's price.

~Alan

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

There ya go. So, not 100% support one year after launch.

I got a Sony S7000 in March 1997. Despite it being an eight city US soft launch, I was able to easily get DVDs in Toronto.

You can apply the same sort of split to Blu-ray. It forced launched in June 2006 to counter HD DVD, but seriously launched in November with the release of the PS/3.

Another thing to consider as well, is that while DVD also faced a format war, it was nowhere near as dividing among users... both in internet "rancor", and in adoption since (to my memory) all DIVX players could play DVD, so DIVX users could get movies released only to Open DVD (AKA, DVD) while the format war was going on, and could still play DVDs after the format war was over unlike today where you see some people who supported HD DVD choosing to go back to Upconverted DVD saying that's "good enough".

~Alan

[Anthony P]

I agree. It's also equally dubious for anyone to claim a movie on Blu-ray is better than what movie theaters can deliver. Some theaters do a poor job of showing their movies, whether they're showing a 35mm film print or digital. Nevertheless, the theaters are using better quality "media" than what's stored on a Blu-ray disc.

I did not respond to your first post where film buff means going to the theatre and I agree that film "in theory" can deliver much more (so as a blanket statement "BD looks better" makes no sense what so ever) then BD. But like you also said some theatre owners just don't care and even though the quality of the media should be better it is also equally true that it is not always the case. The theatre can be showing a badly burned/scratched print, the projector might not be at its best, the audio could be badly set up. And that is limiting to the A/V presentations, once you add the rest there are many reasons why someone could prefer a home viewing in a nicely setup HT to the real thing.


Your comments are just as bad and exaggerated as the ones you criticize.

Hopefully the strange obsession so many people have with texting will die down soon.

it won't, tech moves forward not backwards, the issue is that "comunity" is no longer defined by what is directly in front of you, so forums, IM, texing have become our communities.