The great region rip off continues!!!!

[AlaskaDon]

This really doesn't have anything to do with Blu-ray as a format. A given title may not be owned by the same studio in any given country i.e. the rights to a Fox title in the US might be owned by Warner in the UK etc. Not really a whole lot you can do in that situation. Even if it's the same studio, that doesn't necessarily mean that the title was mastered in the same location, or even that the same master might have been used to produce the BD.

[quexos]

Originally Posted by AlaskaDon

This really doesn't have anything to do with Blu-ray as a format. A given title may not be owned by the same studio in any given country i.e. the rights to a Fox title in the US might be owned by Warner in the UK etc. Not really a whole lot you can do in that situation. Even if it's the same studio, that doesn't necessarily mean that the title was mastered in the same location, or even that the same master might have been used to produce the BD.

I never understood what this deal about different studios having rights for any given movie in different regions was. If a studio, say Warner was not in some country say France, then I understand that they sell the rights to some French studio. But in my example Warner is established in France, yet movie X made and released by Warner in the US will be released by say Miramax in France. Why since there is a Warner in France ? except to be an excuse to rip us off on poor releases, I don't see a good reason

[ranma]

Originally Posted by quexos

I never understood what this deal about different studios having rights for any given movie in different regions was. If a studio, say Warner was not in some country say France, then I understand that they sell the rights to some French studio. But in my example Warner is established in France, yet movie X made and released by Warner in the US will be released by say Miramax in France. Why since there is a Warner in France ? except to be an excuse to rip us off on poor releases, I don't see a good reason

One of the reason the studio B paid a good amount of money, or even as investor of that movie. So, it got the partial of distribution right of the movie.

[quexos]

Originally Posted by ranma

One of the reason the studio B paid a good amount of money, or even as investor of that movie. So, it got the partial of distribution right of the movie.

I don't get it. If studio B is willing to give a certain amount of money for the rights of movie X then it's cause studio B reckons it will make more money than it had to pay for those rights, so Studio A is losing money by selling rights to studio B, since studio A could be getting all the money of the sales.

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by quexos

I don't get it.

Obviously.

If studio B is willing to give a certain amount of money for the rights of movie X then it's cause studio B reckons it will make more money than it had to pay for those rights, so Studio A is losing money by selling rights to studio B, since studio A could be getting all the money of the sales.

It's a gamble and very much like the stock markets or any speculative market. One of the worst example of executive miscalculation happened with Titanic. Paramount poured (ahem) money to the project and just could not commit to that movie anymore. So they got Fox to contribute in exchange for WORLDWIDE RIGHTS sans for the US. Much of the Fox money went to building the water studio down in Mexico, I believe. As it got close to the end of post production and testings were done, Paramount realized their mistake. Fox is raking in money worldwide - the Japanese market alone is worth all that money.

Another reason for selling those rights could be how certain movies are tied to other projects. If Studio A wants a lucrative share on a high profile movie starring Neil Patrick Harris from Studio B, then they also have to buy shares for a lower-profile movie directed by Uwe Boll from Studio B.


fuad

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by AlaskaDon

This really doesn't have anything to do with Blu-ray as a format.

well, i think his point was that this new format provided an opportunity for the studios to coordinate their releases with consistent global quality, but they didn't do that. it's not a very valid point, given the way the home video industry works, but i do at least see the connection of his rant to Blu-ray specifically.

[MarekM]

Originally Posted by AlaskaDon

This really doesn't have anything to do with Blu-ray as a format. A given title may not be owned by the same studio in any given country i.e. the rights to a Fox title in the US might be owned by Warner in the UK etc. Not really a whole lot you can do in that situation. Even if it's the same studio, that doesn't necessarily mean that the title was mastered in the same location, or even that the same master might have been used to produce the BD.

+1

Marek