Why all the bad movies

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

There's crap on every format, from VHS to DVD, from HD DVD to Blu-ray and from cinema to cinema.
Why would Blu-ray be the first format in history to selectively only put out what you think are good movies?
Sure I'd love to have the Star Wars trilogy and it would end the format war in it's tracks, but there are lots of current BD movies I can see in the stores that I'll be buying and lots coming up too.

You see the crap on DvD and VHS as that was the standard media that was out there when that crap was put out to the markets. I see studios going out and digging crap out of their catalogs and putting that out on Blu Ray. The question is why? Why avoid A list movies to put B list movies out?

I'm not talking about what I think are good movies, plenty of critics have slammed these titles. I think Titanic blows chunks, but I am surprised that has not been announced (to my knowledge) for Blu Ray or HD DVD. It's about market size, more people would be buying movies like Titanic on Blu Ray then American Psycho.

Paladin

[dobyblue]

Titanic is the highest grossing film of all time.
Your point is asinine.

[jedisinclair]

So, the theory is for Blu-ray to wait and see what happens before releasing great titles? Meanwhile Universal Studios is putting out great HD DVD releases. That makes NO sense. If Blu-ray based studios would put out better content out the gate, consumers would adopt it much quicker. I am a Blu-ray supporter, so I'm only stating on observation here.

Since the title is regarding bad movies, let me take a quick moment to bash the Sopranos Season Six. (Not on BD but in general)... that show really slipped the past few seasons. I rented S6 only out of morbid curiosity. WEAK!!!

Anyway, I think Blu-ray needs to put out (had to pause and laugh "put out") some blockbuster titles and let's crush HD DVD earlier, rather than later !!!

Go Blu !

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by jedisinclair

So, the theory is for Blu-ray to wait and see what happens before releasing great titles? Meanwhile Universal Studios is putting out great HD DVD releases. That makes NO sense.

Some would say Universal had no choice. HD DVD would have no chance at all without Universal stepping up. They've been a vocal opponent of BD, so they better put up or shut up when it comes to movies, right?

I would think people should wait for the CES announcements before passing judgement. There was little market for BD discs until the PS/3 was released. Now, the studios have a market to produce for.

Gary

[GTP]

Originally Posted by jedisinclair

So, the theory is for Blu-ray to wait and see what happens before releasing great titles? Meanwhile Universal Studios is putting out great HD DVD releases. That makes NO sense. If Blu-ray based studios would put out better content out the gate, consumers would adopt it much quicker. I am a Blu-ray supporter, so I'm only stating on observation here.

Since the title is regarding bad movies, let me take a quick moment to bash the Sopranos Season Six. (Not on BD but in general)... that show really slipped the past few seasons. I rented S6 only out of morbid curiosity. WEAK!!!

Anyway, I think Blu-ray needs to put out (had to pause and laugh "put out") some blockbuster titles and let's crush HD DVD earlier, rather than later !!!

Go Blu !

Yes but BD studios still have all their blockbusters for 07-08 ect....what does Universal have left for the long haul....not much I say

Invincible sold out at my local Wally World by 1 p.m. and they only had one copy of Pearl Harbor left......so if BD is now selling better for a multitude of reasons....why rush the blockbusters?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Titanic is the highest grossing film of all time.
Your point is asinine.

Why? It proves my point. Titanic is the highest grossing film of all time (b.t.w. that doesn't make it a good film.) why isn't there a HD version of it?

Paladin

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Why? It proves my point. Titanic is the highest grossing film of all time (b.t.w. that doesn't make it a good film.) why isn't there a HD version of it?

Paladin

By your theory you really are being dim-witted, you say high-grossing films should be released (Titanic), but there have been, look at Click or TN. They were poor films, yes, but they made lots of money.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

By your theory you really are being dim-witted, you say high-grossing films should be released (Titanic), but there have been, look at Click or TN. They were poor films, yes, but they made lots of money.

I see you have a reading comprehension issue. The question is why are low grossing (crappy) films getting put out before the higher grossing films. I never made the claim that high-grossing films were not released, I am just amazed at the amount of crap that is getting out before the good stuff.

Gary made a good point, that they could be using the films to get the system worked out so they can release better quality films later, and these will be the better films. That my be true, we'll just have to wait and see.

Paladin

[shido]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I see you have a reading comprehension issue. The question is why are low grossing (crappy) films getting put out before the higher grossing films. I never made the claim that high-grossing films were not released, I am just amazed at the amount of crap that is getting out before the good stuff.

Gary made a good point, that they could be using the films to get the system worked out so they can release better quality films later, and these will be the better films. That my be true, we'll just have to wait and see.

Paladin

Have you ever considered this: If they just dropped all the big titles now, what would they release next year? It ain't as easy as you seem to think it is. If either Blu-ray or HD-DVD wants to officially replace DVD, then they have to be able to match DVD in terms of library size. It might not matter to you if these "crappy" titles are released, but it probably does to other people. Otherwise, studios wouldn't even bother putting these titles out on DVD.
Also, have you considered that there might be more costs involved bringing the big blockbusters to an HD format? Whether it be additional licensing fees, costs of remastering, etc, I think it might be quite substantial. It'd only be more expensive if the movie was a big hit.

[Deciazulado]

Universal has put out 55 movies on HD. It's the studio that has more titles out. Even more that Warner! (And Warner has already 30 on BD). For a studio that comprises about 10% of the box office in recent years, they're certainly playing all stops! There's about 199 movies in between both High Definition discs formats (of the 199, there are 118 on BD). Of the 199, 28% is Universal. 28/10 is almost 3x so Universal is pumping out movies like there's no tomorrow. 3 times more than any other studio. Think why.

If you care to count the 'bad movie vs good movie" titles between the two formats, first it's a subjective call, then HD DVD has been out about 60% more time than BD accumulating titles (but even with that, there's just about a 10% difference in movie titles numbers) so to make a fair comparison you'd have to calculate lets say HD DVDs first 5-6 month of titles against BD's first 5-6 months of titles. I haven't counted what I consider a "Good movie" vs "Bad movie" so I wouldn't really know. I just buy movies I like or want. I like "bad movies" on occasion too.. I love movies.

It takes a while for a format to accumulate the big guns. On CD the Beatles took 5 years to come out. The RS were out earlier.

The studios have their marketing strategies and bean counters. Maybe the BDA strategy is more like it would be if there wasn't a "War" going on, maybe they counted on (or are still counting on, in a smaller manner) that they're big enough that they can introduce a format as business as usual, while the HD DVD group (specially Universal and their partner) knowing what they're up against, are using up as much "artillery" as they can (3 times as much as they normally would). If you don't like a title, you don't buy it, and that sends a message to the Studio. If you like a title, you buy it and the Studio may get the trend. Inertia slows this process, and of course, the Studio tends to do what it wants and considers best for them to make money. It's their movies we are buying. So it's their choice. (A possible extreme example: See what happened with the Blade Runner SE edition over the years, apparently the party that had ownership seemed not interested on doing it, no matter what the consumer demand on it was). Or just look how George, or Disney, plan their release strategy on DVDs.

If you want a better selection on BD, write to the studios, ask your store managers, do the amazon request thing. and buy titles you consider good.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Universal has put out 55 movies on HD. It's the studio that has more titles out. Even more that Warner! (And Warner has already 30 on BD). For a studio that comprises about 10% of the box office in recent years, they're certainly playing all stops! There's about 199 movies in between both High Definition discs formats (of the 199, there are 118 on BD). Of the 199, 28% is Universal. 28/10 is almost 3x so Universal is pumping out movies like there's no tomorrow. 3 times more than any other studio. Think why.

Kudos to Universal for bringing out so many titles. And for making many of them decent titles. They are doing their best to help HD DVD (almost as if they were being encouraged monetarily ).

One of the questions originally asked is whether HD DVD could keep pumping out the initial quality. Here are recent Universal releases:

Field of Dreams (2.5 on HDD)
Miami Vice (3.5 on HDD)
An American Werewolf in London (3.0 on HTHF)
The Mummy (4.0 on HTHF)
Dune (3.5 on HTHF)
You, Me and Dupree (4.0 on HTHF)

Gary

[john_1958]

I disagree with Paladin
there are no bad movies On bluray he is being far to cynical and picky
maybe he perfers SD

[Zvi]

Originally Posted by john_1958

I disagree with Paladin
there are no bad movies On bluray he is being far to cynical and picky
maybe he perfers SD

Come on I am behind blu-ray 100% but all movies on BD are good? Unfortunately not. Besides it's a mater of taste. I for one, can't stand Syriana and Flightplan and many others ...

[john_1958]

Would like to see snakes on plane in HD

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by john_1958

I disagree with Paladin
there are no bad movies On bluray he is being far to cynical and picky
maybe he perfers SD

BetaMax 4 ever!

I am not talking about PQ, I am talking about the actual film. There are bad movies on Blu Ray, like Ultraviolet. (I know the action sequences would be cool in HD, but the rest of the movie blows chunks.)

The question is, are the better titles being held back so the B movies can be sold at a higher rate if there was better quality films? Some have proposed that they are being used to test the system.

I noticed some Arnold movies coming to Blu Ray, many of them I picked out of the 2 for $11.00 bin at Wal-Mart. Are you really going to get them at $25.00 or $29.00?

Paladin0

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by Paladin

BetaMax 4 ever!

I am not talking about PQ, I am talking about the actual film. There are bad movies on Blu Ray, like Ultraviolet. (I know the action sequences would be cool in HD, but the rest of the movie blows chunks.)

The question is, are the better titles being held back so the B movies can be sold at a higher rate if there was better quality films? Some have proposed that they are being used to test the system.

I noticed some Arnold movies coming to Blu Ray, many of them I picked out of the 2 for $11.00 bin at Wal-Mart. Are you really going to get them at $25.00 or $29.00?

Paladin0

As others have said, it's a matter of personal opinion as to what are good movies and what are not. You have your opinion and others have theirs.

Personally, I'd like to see more of the classics announced as being on Blu-ray in a completely remastered edition (both imagery and sound) -- even some of those in the 2.55:1 aspect ratios. I'd really like to see Lawrence of Arabia and such on Blu-ray, but you don't see me whining because Titanic comes out before LoA!

You clearly knock Ultraviolet. I actually liked the flick. I certainly won't put it up there with *any* of the classics, but I like it and won't knock that it is out on Blu-ray.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Shadowself

You clearly knock Ultraviolet. I actually liked the flick. I certainly won't put it up there with *any* of the classics, but I like it and won't knock that it is out on Blu-ray.

I actually own the flick, and I regret buying it. Not only do I knock it, so do 92% of the movie reviewers out there. Yes, you can say it's a matter of personal opinion, but it's also the personal opinion of a lot of other people. When it comes to sales, it's not going to be a hot sell, and for $25.00 or $29.00 who are they kidding!

Many also miss the negatives that this approach will bring. After the desperate buy the movie, stores will be left with copies that will have to be sold at a loss, which will not make the retailers happy campers. We are fortunate that HD-DVD has the same problems.

Paladin

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Paladin

You see the crap on DvD and VHS as that was the standard media that was out there when that crap was put out to the markets. I see studios going out and digging crap out of their catalogs and putting that out on Blu Ray. The question is why? Why avoid A list movies to put B list movies out?

Well, what happens when they put out a cherished title, and the quality isn't spectacular?

What about when a new release is basic, with no extras?

It's not as if people are being totally reasonable here. All they are demanding is large numbers of their all time favorite titles be released in pristine quality, HD audio, with lots of extras, last week.

"I don't care about X" will always have someone disagree, and say that X is important (for any X). So, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. And everyone is left p!ssed off at the studios.

The B titles give them a chance of perfecting the workflow, and getting content out that people will forgive not being totally mindblowing, while they restoring prints, create HD audio masters, and produce the special extras the classic films demand.

Gary

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

The B titles give them a chance of perfecting the workflow, and getting content out that people will forgive not being totally mindblowing, while they restoring prints, create HD audio masters, and produce the special extras the classic films demand.

I hope it's that, someone told me another theory.

With a lack of good HD content, it's more likely that the crap will sell to people starved for HD content.

TNT HD showed LOTR, and you can get Narnia with Cin HD on demand. It looks like there are HD versions of these movies out there, just not on media.

Paladin

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I hope it's that, someone told me another theory.

With a lack of good HD content, it's more likely that the crap will sell to people starved for HD content.

TNT HD showed LOTR, and you can get Narnia with Cin HD on demand. It looks like there are HD versions of these movies out there, just not on media.

Paladin

The quality of HD for optical media needs to be way higher, HD in the UK uses 6-8Mb AVC VBR or 15Mb MPEG-2 CBR, usually in 1080i or 720p. So while you are correct in stating that HD versions of these films exist, they are not the right versions.