What do you consider a "catalog" title?

[mikem471]

Just curious what everyone thinks a catalog title is. I personally think anything more than 2 years old should be a catalog release and priced accordingly. I hate paying $29.99 for new releases, but I REALLY hate paying that for "older" movies. I know they all aren't that expensive, but unless they're chock full of extra goodies, they should never be anymore than $19.95.

Sorry, turned into a rant there at the end. Got away from my original question. LOL

[metsfan1545d]

anything not being released for the first time

[sonnyworld85]

I agree with you. A good example of a catalog title is The Shawshank Redemption. When it first came out on Blu-ray, it was selling for around $30 where I live. It pained me to pay $30 for a film made in 1994, but I stomached it because it's one of my favorite films.

[DetroitSportsFan]

A title that isn't a day-and-date release straight from showing in theaters is a catalog title.

[Mike53421]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

A title that isn't a day-and-date release straight from showing in theaters is a catalog title.

Bingo.

[thecroshow]

yeah i think it's ridiculous to pay "new release" prices for catalogue titles. most i'll pay for a catalogue is $25ish unless it's REALLY AMAZING

[ckent22]

For a catalogue title to pay more than 15 dollars to me is ridiculous. Especially when you've considered how many times you've bought a particular film changing formats or when special editions come out. I just can't justify spending 29.99 on catalogue titles or even 24.99.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

A title that isn't a day-and-date release straight from showing in theaters is a catalog title.

I thought a catalog title was old movies studios have in their.....catalog.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by thecroshow

yeah i think it's ridiculous to pay "new release" prices for catalogue titles. most i'll pay for a catalogue is $25ish unless it's REALLY AMAZING

I'm going to play devil's advocate a little..... but I'm not trying to be rude.....

It seems that everyone jumps up and down about how the Audio, Video, extras, etc.. involved in blu-rays are so much better (AKA it's a new product) than DVD....... but now people think just because the movie is a few years old, you should pay less for the efforts put forth to restore it????

Shawshank, for instance, or Casablanca, or 2001 (which is commonly found for $14.99 ironically enough) are great transfers...... and I'm not surprised they fetch a standard MSRP....

Like Young Frankenstein or Poltergeist (two that come to mind because I looked for deals for a long time on those, and they're never part of a big sale) Both older movies..... but great transfers.....

I think the fact that they go for the same price as a movie just released, is testament to the fact that this is a NEW and IMPROVED version, and an all-together new product

[Batman1980]

Catalog title is anything that isn't a new release, fresh out of theatres. I kind of consider new to blus non-catalogs but that's just me.

[thecroshow]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

I'm going to play devil's advocate a little..... but I'm not trying to be rude.....

It seems that everyone jumps up and down about how the Audio, Video, extras, etc.. involved in blu-rays are so much better (AKA it's a new product) than DVD....... but now people think just because the movie is a few years old, you should pay less for the efforts put forth to restore it????

Shawshank, for instance, or Casablanca, or 2001 (which is commonly found for $14.99 ironically enough) are great transfers...... and I'm not surprised they fetch a standard MSRP....

Like Young Frankenstein or Poltergeist (two that come to mind because I looked for deals for a long time on those, and they're never part of a big sale) Both older movies..... but great transfers.....

I think the fact that they go for the same price as a movie just released, is testament to the fact that this is a NEW and IMPROVED version, and an all-together new product

you raise a valid point, how about those of us collectors that have double and triple dipped on those movies? (VHS, DVD, DVE CE, DVD Remaster etc) sure it's our choice to double and triple dip on these titles, but come on...

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

Like Young Frankenstein or Poltergeist (two that come to mind because I looked for deals for a long time on those, and they're never part of a big sale) Both older movies..... but great transfers.....

I think the fact that they go for the same price as a movie just released, is testament to the fact that this is a NEW and IMPROVED version, and an all-together new product

Good point, I have been looking to get Young Frankenstein for awhile, and like you said, it is never part of a sale, lol. These are New and Improved. It isn't like you are going to shell out $25+ for a DVD now...

[djluis2k6]

Only 1 definition, an older title previously released before BD was in existence.

I.E. Mean Girls, The Bourne Trilogy, The Fast & Furious Trilogy, and Rambo 1-3 are all catalog titles.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by thecroshow

you raise a valid point, how about those of us collectors that have double and triple dipped on those movies? (VHS, DVD, DVE CE, DVD Remaster etc) sure it's our choice to double and triple dip on these titles, but come on...

I have double and triple dipped DVDs just for a "special edition" or "collector's edition" Hell... I have 7 copies of Reservoir Dogs on DVD..... not even counting my blu-ray version of it...... so when it comes to "Collectors" I think we fall into a whole-other classification.... (possibly one that needs medicated )

[robertc88]

Well some studios recognize multiple purchases on titles we like so they offer a rebate. Let's just say I'd have lots more BDs if this were the case!

[monkeyjb1988]

Originally Posted by metsfan1545d

anything not being released for the first time

Sounds right. My idea was that if a film already had a video release (any format, even Blu) and then had a(/nother) Blu makes it catalog.

Originally Posted by Beta Man

I'm going to play devil's advocate a little..... but I'm not trying to be rude.....

It seems that everyone jumps up and down about how the Audio, Video, extras, etc.. involved in blu-rays are so much better (AKA it's a new product) than DVD....... but now people think just because the movie is a few years old, you should pay less for the efforts put forth to restore it????

Shawshank, for instance, or Casablanca, or 2001 (which is commonly found for $14.99 ironically enough) are great transfers...... and I'm not surprised they fetch a standard MSRP....

Like Young Frankenstein or Poltergeist (two that come to mind because I looked for deals for a long time on those, and they're never part of a big sale) Both older movies..... but great transfers.....

I think the fact that they go for the same price as a movie just released, is testament to the fact that this is a NEW and IMPROVED version, and an all-together new product

Plus, older films need more work than newer films to look good on Blu. If anything, they should cost more (an unpleasant idea, but reasonable considering the restoration efforts involved).

[Ph4ZeD]

Catalogue titles are shameless attempts by the big 6 to milk as much money as possible. Independence Day for £18? Thats a ****ing joke.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by Ph4ZeD

Catalogue titles are shameless attempts by the big 6 to milk as much money as possible. Independence Day for £18? Thats a ****ing joke.

Same attitude that the people who oppose Blu-ray have........ some magical player, is going to use its magic, to magically make DVDs display magic amounts of data that aren't physically on the disc........... how??? MAGIC... that's how..... So why do we have this new fangled technology called blu-ray if we have magic???? because it's a "Shameless attempt by the big 6 to milk as much money as possible"


You're paying a premium for a premium product...... nobody is making you buy ID4

[Ph4ZeD]

Sorry dude, but I don't think old catalogue titles are "premium products". Their old tat with poor transfers being used to get as much money as possible from films that are no longer generating any revenue. I'm 100% happy to pay more for blu ray, without question. But look at the comparison. Quantum of Solace DVD, £12.99. Blu ray £17.99. Thats a premium. Independence Day DVD, £3.98. Blu ray £17.48. Thats a ripoff, plain and simple.

[ckent22]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

Same attitude that the people who oppose Blu-ray have........ some magical player, is going to use its magic, to magically make DVDs display magic amounts of data that aren't physically on the disc........... how??? MAGIC... that's how..... So why do we have this new fangled technology called blu-ray if we have magic???? because it's a "Shameless attempt by the big 6 to milk as much money as possible"


You're paying a premium for a premium product...... nobody is making you buy ID4

When you look at what it costs the studios to make the discs, then you realize they are in fact making big bucks every time you purchase a film or tv show.

You are right, nobody is making anyone buy anything. We choose what to do with our money. Nobody else does.

However, just because a studio puts out a "premium product" doesn't mean that the consumer is going to tolerate it.

Merchants charge what a consumer will pay. And if a consumer feels that they don't provide the adequate price than they don't buy their product.

Unfortunately, the reason they charge so much money on these films is that people do in fact shell out 29.99 for films on Blu whether they are catalogue or new releases.

If consumers didn't then we'd have lower prices.