Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Fox to issue rental DVDs sans bonus material

This is topic Fox to issue rental DVDs sans bonus material in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000711

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 03-08-2009, 02:50 PM:

From Video Business via Hacking Netflix:

quote:
Fox Encourages DVD Purchase by Removing Extras

Video Business is reporting that Fox is removing DVD extras from rental DVDs to encourage purchasing instead of renting.

quote:
Starting with March 31 releases Marley & Me and Best Picture Oscar winner Slumdog Millionaire, wholesalers will be “authorized to sell rental accounts only the rental SKUs and to sell retail accounts only the retail SKUs,” according to a letter sent to accounts by Fox senior VP of sales Don Jeffries and obtained by VB. Fox will impose the same restrictions on direct accounts, according to the letter.

The rental DVD of Slumdog, for instance, carries only the movie and trailers, but the retail DVD also has special features including deleted scenes and commentaries. The rental Blu-ray Disc does have the bonus features, but the retail Blu-ray adds digital copy.

There are variations by title, however. Marley & Me, for example, has special features on both the retail and rental DVDs. The Marley Blu-ray also carries bonus features, but the retail Blu-ray is a combo pack with a DVD movie and digital copy.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 03-08-2009, 03:23 PM:

I doubt that this will have an impact.

I would presume that most people renting DVDs aren't bothering with the special features, so they won't notice when they are missing.

Furthermore, I doubt that the majority of the audience for Marley & Me & Slumdog Millionaire are big "supplemental features" fans.

I recently Netflixed the supplemental disc from the latest release of CE3K to watch the new 20 minute retrospective. If that hadn't been available for rental, it would not have driven me to buy the disc (despite the fact that it's one of my favorite films).

I tried to Netfilx the new Blade Runner documentary, but couldn't find it. So I borrowed it from a co-worker.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-08-2009, 07:18 PM:

I wonder if the rental copies will have a higher bitrate and therefore better picture quality as a result?

Anyway, who buys a movie for the extras? I think most people buy the movie for the movie. However I've seen DVDs come with so much extras like a fold out map and little dolls and super-crappy boxes (which almost all special edition stuff has). I wanna buy the rental copies! Screw that extra nonsense! Who gives a rat's ass what the director's thought on scene 34b was? Seriously! I am a nerd and even I can't nerd up that much!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-08-2009, 09:22 PM:

Agreed. Renters by and large don't care about the extras - especially if they are under a time limit, they don't have time to watch'em!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-11-2009, 05:40 PM:

I don't mind the studios removing extras from rental DVDs, as long as they don't go crazy with the tactic on rental Blu-ray discs. Some movies do have extras I want to see.

In a certain respect, extras have been disappearing from certain DVD releases already. Lots of movies have 1-disc and 2-disc SE versions for DVD (along with widescreen and fool-screen variants). The video stores stock up the 1-disc fool-screen version and leave those wanting to nerd-out over extras stuck with having to buy the 2-disc version.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 03-11-2009, 06:12 PM:

I just hope this doesn't lead to certain titles being available for rental only (or at around $70-100 if you do wanna buy them) like with VHS. Fox wanted to do this around 1999 but thankfully didn't. I haven't rented a DVD in my over 10 years of having a player, though I've checked out a few for free from the public library and from Redbox which gives out tons of free rental codes. If they do go to a higher-priced rental market then illegal copying will become a MUCH bigger problem than it is now.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-11-2009, 06:17 PM:

I only thought the movie was only worth a rental when I went to Blockbuster and took home the single disc of FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL to watch and return. To my surprise, I really enjoyed the made in Hawaii movie and was very interested in buying a copy because I know I will enjoy having it plus the fact that the double disc version has a lot of extra special features that interests me very much. I was almost going to buy the double disc DVD but I bought a Blu Ray player first and had realized I could get a BD with all the special features and other stuff for only a few dollars more. I just bought the BD the other day and will hold off watching it until I get a HD set in a week or two. Collecting DVDs has become a joke when almost all the extra stuff now cost more. In order to get them, one will have to pay extra for a 2nd disc set. Although BDs cost more than the special edition DVDs, it comes with all of the special as well as Exclusive Blu Ray features, gorgeous 1080p picture and better sound.

-Claude.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-11-2009, 07:26 PM:

Forgetting Sarah Marshall had some nifty extras, such as the "Line-O-Rama," "Sex-O-Rama" and "Drunk-O-Rama" outtakes from the movie. The Blu-ray version has some exclusive picture-in-picture "U-Control" extras not found on the collector's edition DVD.

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 03-12-2009, 10:40 AM:

Warner Bros. has been doing this for years.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 03-12-2009, 02:04 PM:

I haven't been to a big chain Video rental store in years. However, the local mom & pop video store we frequent during the winter actually buys their DVD's at Wal-Mart. They don't even bother to take off the Walmart labeling.

May be a dumb question... but is that legal? I know nothing about the video rental business.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-12-2009, 03:25 PM:

I don't see how it would be illegal. A video store near here did the same thing until they went out of business last year -- except they bought their vids at Costco.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 03-12-2009, 03:37 PM:

A while back, Weinstein tried to withhold DVDs from Netflix, so Netflix went to Costco or some such place.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 03-12-2009, 05:08 PM:

Jesse is right. If sales of DVDs keep declining the studios will likely adopt a new business model like they had with videocassettes - higher prices for initial releases for rental. This helps them all around...they recoup a lot of the lost revenue of the old VHS days and still get the sell-thru dollar on the back end.

If that meant three or six months down the road I could buy a used blu-ray or a new one at the sell-thru price for $10 or $12 I'd go for that. Of course my Netflix subscription would end up costing me more.

I disagree that it would add substantially to bootlegging. It's widespread now and with more people renting more and buying less - and most of the renting being done by mail or at large retailers who won't mess with bootleg discs - I think the additional income will far outweigh the loss.

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 03-12-2009, 08:48 PM:

I don't waste my time with the extras anyway.

You have the making of video. After you have seen two or three of them, you know that they are all the same. The director says how great the actors were, and the actors say how great the director was.

Then there are the bloopers, that are only funny if you were on the set when they happened.

All you have to do the find out why the deleted were deleted, is to watch them; they SUCK.

And, just like in a theater, I don't want some idiot talking aver the movie.

This will just make it easer for some people to copy the movie.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-12-2009, 09:05 PM:

While many commentary on DVDs & Blu Ray are a waste of time, there have been others that were great and filled with a lot of information about the production of the film. The best ones are on Criterion especially on films like Alkira Kurosawa's SHICHININ NO SAMURAI and AKAHIGE., One can learn quit a lot about fillm making from these commentaries. Many of the "Making of" features are also very good. The only problem I have with these features is the lack of time to spend on them and that is a shame.

-Claude

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-13-2009, 09:56 AM:

Some directors commentary tracks are well worth the listen. The commentary track on Airplane! featuring directors Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Jerry Zucker was entertaining and often pretty funny. The commentary track on the Criterion Collection version of Robocop, with director Paul Verhoeven and producer Jon Davison, described the back and forth issues with the MPAA and what they had to edit to avoid the X-rating (those cuts are restored on the unrated version).

Likewise, some extras are pretty interesting too. I don't like the EPK puff pieces with actors and directors kissing each others' asses. That is indeed a waste of time. Extras that get into the nuts and bolts process of making the movie are much more interesting. It's like watching a documentary you would see on the Discovery channel or something.

quote: Joe Tommassello
If sales of DVDs keep declining the studios will likely adopt a new business model like they had with videocassettes - higher prices for initial releases for rental.

The home video industry was a lot smaller when "rental pricing" was standard back in the 1980s and it would shrink back to that much smaller size if high rental-style pricing was put back into effect. The industry shifted to a sell-through model in the 1990s for a number of reasons.

The studios knew they could make a lot more money by pricing movies for sell through when they debuted on home video. They also knew they were losing a lot of potential sales by way of people taping movies off cable. If the movie was only going to be priced at sell through by the time it debuted on HBO a lot of people just taped it off of HBO. Now we have the DVR thing. I can attach external hard discs to my DVR and back up lots of shows.

There's also no chance of rental pricing coming back due to the business models now firmly in place at movie studios. They produce movies with a LOT of borrowed money. They pay interest on that borrowed money. They want new movies going from theaters to home video fast so they can pay back that borrowed money fast. Rental pricing will get in the way of that big time.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 03-13-2009, 11:43 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The home video industry was a lot smaller when "rental pricing" was standard back in the 1980s and it would shrink back to that much smaller size if high rental-style pricing was put back into effect. The industry shifted to a sell-through model in the 1990s for a number of reasons.

Bob - I was in that industry from 1981 to 1998. I don't know what happened early this decade to VHS pricing but I can assure you most titles still debuted at $100 retail pricing (about $60 to distributors) through the end of the 90s.

Back then the studios had a 10-to-1 mindset...if they believed they could sell 10 times as many copies at sell-thru price (typically $19.95 to $26.95) they would go for it. This takes into account multiplying the cost of marketing to create the desired awareness and the lower margin of profit on each piece sold. By the late 90s the industry had grown enough that a top title could sell a million units or more at rental pricing...Basic Instinct may have been the first rental priced title to break that barrier. In any case that meant they wanted to be comfortable that they could sell 10 million units before they even considered sell-thru over rental. New Line took a shot with "The Mask" at $19.95. When "Dumb and Dumber" came up the next year they went with rental pricing. Inquiring why when it had obvious similar audience appeal and higher box office than "The Mask" I was told that only 8 million pieces of TM had sold through.

The studios are holding all the cards. If they choose to start releasing titles at higher prices initially, lowering to sell-through later and holding off various TV windows to maximize the number of units moved they could find a successful balance. ("Mr. Brooks" is only hitting pay cable now...I watched that in a hotel room in August of 2007. That's a nice long window!) Bootlegging would pick up incrementally of course, but let's face it kids...if you want something bad enough to buy a bootleg copy then you are likely to buy it anyway when it is re-priced. If you only want to see it you won't get a bootleg because the REAL rental product will be available. The studios want a bigger cut of the rental market and they are out there every day wishing for it.

10-to-1 folks. Works for "Dark Knight" or "Iron Man" for sure. But 90+ percent of the titles would not make anywhere near the numbers. We may well see this model again - especially with increased capacity for various pay-per-view or online rental options.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-13-2009, 12:23 PM:

My understanding is that what killed "rental pricing" was deals struck between distributors and rental chains (Blockbuster, etc.) whereby the distributors would provide the tapes/disks for free or almost free and the rental stores would then pay a per centage of the rental fee (or maybe it was a set fee per rental) to the distributors. As the major rental chains put the mom-and-pop rental stores out of business, fewer stores were buying tapes outright at "rental prices" anyway (and almost no consumers were/are willing to pay $100+ for a VHS tape, although the "rental" tapes were often of higher quality than the "sell through" tapes, due to the smaller production runs).

Perhaps someone who knows more about the video business can comment on whether that rumor is actually true and, if so, if that pricing arrangement still applies.

It _is_ perfectly legal for anyone to purchase a legal copy of a video/sound recording and then loan, rent, or sell that copy. Unless it is purchased with a license that allows it, it is generally not legal to exhibit it to the public or to duplicate that copy, though things have become murky with the DMCA and other recent legislation.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-13-2009, 01:13 PM:

quote: Joe Tommassello
Bob - I was in that industry from 1981 to 1998. I don't know what happened early this decade to VHS pricing but I can assure you most titles still debuted at $100 retail pricing (about $60 to distributors) through the end of the 90s.

Underscore that "most" in most VHS titles debuted near $100 MSRP. It went from "all" in the 1980s to "most" in the early 1990s and then really started declining big time after that. By the time DVD debuted in 1997 most VHS releases were arriving on store shelves with sell through pricing. It didn't require working in the home video industry to be able to read prices on products sitting on store shelves.

I forgot about the factor Scott mentioned -the "Blockbuster Video" factor. They sure as hell weren't paying $100 per tape in the kind of volumes they were buying.

Also add Wal-Mart to the mix. This is where I started seeing so many new release VHS tapes being priced at $20 levels rather than $80-$100. Wal-Mart bluntly tells vendors, be they movie studios or clothing hangar companies, they have to cut prices to the bone to get any shelf space in their stores.

quote: Joe Tommassello
The studios are holding all the cards. If they choose to start releasing titles at higher prices initially, lowering to sell-through later and holding off various TV windows to maximize the number of units moved they could find a successful balance.

The studios think they're holding all the cards. The customers are still the ones holding the dollars in their wallets and deciding how they want to be entertained.

Back in the 1980s the home video industry was at best a $5 billion per year industry. Now it is at least 5 times that size. Home video revenues now dwarf the theatrical side of the movie industry. Back in the 1980s home video was only on an equal or lesser footing. If they want to try bringing back rental pricing they'll kill off much of the lucrative sell through market. They're not stupid enough to do that.

Movies have a far shorter shelf life now than in the past, in part due to the need of paying back all that borrowed production money quickly to avoid getting killed by high interest payments. The other problem is viewers have far more choices of entertainment now than ever before. Movies have to be marketed in a short term blitz just to keep them in the customers' minds.

BTW, most movies are appearing on premium cable in roughly 12 months or less after the original theatrical release. Street Kings premiered on HBO recently. That movie was released in theaters last April. Look up the movies now debuting on HBO or Showtime and you'll see a lot of early 2008 fare being offered. It isn't a 2 year window like that example of Mr. Brooks would attempt to suggest.

Posted by Geena Phillips (Member # 3726) on 03-24-2009, 08:23 PM:

I can't see this affecting anything. Fox already issues a single-disc version of virtually every two-disc set they put out eventually, anyway.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-24-2009, 10:55 PM:

Case in point: Quantum of Solace. I thought this movie was going to be released on home video through Sony, but somehow Fox has the rights. Strange.

Anyway, there's two DVD versions available. A single disc version with minimal extras and a two disc version featuring the extras included on the Blu-ray version. The BD release is a single disc product; a deluxe 2-disc version with even more stuff is planned.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-25-2009, 12:04 AM:

Any news when that 2 disc blu ray will be released? My dad just bought the 1 disc, but hasn't opened it... I should take it back for him.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-25-2009, 12:23 AM:

No word on the release date at this time. I'd guess 6 months or more.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-25-2009, 01:23 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I thought this movie was going to be released on home video through Sony, but somehow Fox has the rights. Strange.

According to our audio/video supplier, it's on the MGM label. (Their catalog number is MGMV113466.) Sony only had the theatrical rights. I don't see Fox in the picture anywhere.

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 03-25-2009, 09:47 AM:

I believe Fox is MGM's home video distributor.

DM

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-25-2009, 10:06 AM:

Fox did the DVD and Blu-ray release for Quantum of Solace in the US. The Blu-ray version even maintains the Fox tradition of using DTS-HD Master Audio. It's pretty odd to play the movie and see a 20th Century Fox home video branding and then see MGM/Columbia Pictures branding in the actual movie.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 03-25-2009, 01:41 PM:

20th. Century Fox-UK is handling Quantum of Solace DVD and Blu-ray release in England.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-25-2009, 03:38 PM:

SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE is still playing at many of Honolulu's theatres at regular first run admission prices on the eve of it's video release next Tuesday from Fox. I wonder if people who are seeing this movie in a theatre at this time realize that they can rent the movie for less than it cost for a single admission ticket unless they have a thing about seeing movies on the big screen with others who talk with their companion, put up with parents with crying babies, tolerate young people who talk on text with their cel phone as well as people who arrive late after the movie has started.

-Claude

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-26-2009, 12:33 AM:

Maybe they're lucky and can find theatres that don't have those features. They're out there somewhere.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-26-2009, 11:43 AM:

Yup, the theater(s) I go to don't have those distractions, other than the occasional person taking out their cell to check texts during the movie.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 03-27-2009, 10:12 AM:

Bob - I agree with some of what you wrote but there were a few outright errors.

quote: Bobby Henderson
By the time DVD debuted in 1997 most VHS releases were arriving on store shelves with sell through pricing.

Simply not true. As big as it was even "Titanic" was being considered to go at rental pricing because PAR new it would be the biggest seller maybe ever. If you have access to any sales materials from that era you will see titles like "Devil's Advocate" and "A Time To Kill" and "Goodfellas" (and on and on) were all rental priced. Hell up to that time you couldn't touch "Gone With The Wind" for less than $59.95. I may have some old "newsletters" as we called them though they were really a weekly magazine for our customers. I will look. I assure you only a small percentage of theatrical titles were sell-thru priced at least into 1998.

quote: Bobby Henderson
the "Blockbuster Video" factor. They sure as hell weren't paying $100 per tape in the kind of volumes they were buying.

Technically you are correct but it doesn't make the intended point. Blockbuster stores were paying me $65 for most titles at that point.

quote: Bobby Henderson
If they want to try bringing back rental pricing they'll kill off much of the lucrative sell through market. They're not stupid enough to do that.

What does a moderately successful movie sell on DVD? Here's a chart...

http://www.the-numbers.com/dvd/charts/annual/2008.php

The sales figures are at retail. It supports my estimate of an approx. $10 profit per piece to the studio.

I think we all agree Bucket List would be an average hit. Let's use it for comparison.

2 million units x $10 profit (approx. wholesale price minus manufacturing and promotional costs) is $20 million...

Let's say it being average they would only sell 400,000 units at rental price (low estimate)...

400,000 units x $60 profit is $24 million.

At rental they already make $4 million more dollars and that doesn't account for future sell-thru (including that fact that there will likely be a million or two less used rental discs to compete with for the eventual sell-thru dollar).

It's clear that they can make at least the same dollars up front and more on the back end with their old VHS model. Trust me Bob - I lived this for 17 years.

quote: Bobby Henderson
most movies are appearing on premium cable in roughly 12 months or less after the original theatrical release

True - but the studios have the ability to control those windows.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-27-2009, 11:31 AM:

Two weeks later...

quote: Joe Tommassello
I assure you only a small percentage of theatrical titles were sell-thru priced at least into 1998.

You must not have been visiting Wal-Mart stores often at all back then.

quote: Joe Tommassello
Technically you are correct but it doesn't make the intended point. Blockbuster stores were paying me $65 for most titles at that point.

Sure isn't $90-$100. Wal-Mart sure wasn't paying those prices or selling VHS tapes at those prices either.

quote: Joe Tommassello
It's clear that they can make at least the same dollars up front and more on the back end with their old VHS model. Trust me Bob - I lived this for 17 years.

You're not living the "today" version of it.

The video store business model of the late 1980s and 1990s is dead. Most "mom and pop" video stores are out of business. The big boys like Blockbuster and Hollywood are not exactly doing great either. Video on demand services and Netflix are gouging big chunks out of the traditional brick and mortar video store business. Wal-Mart and others are cutting them off at the knee caps further with $1 Red Box rentals.

quote: Joe Tommassello
True - but the studios have the ability to control those windows.

Not really. They need to squeeze all of the money they can out of a given movie title ASAP. They have no option to milk it over a longer period of time.

I'll say it again: viewers have a lot more entertainment options now than in decades past. If a movie studio wants to screw around and wait an extra year before allowing a certain release onto HBO or Showtime they run the high risk of a fickle, short attention span-prone public of losing interest in the movie and choosing something more new instead.

Movie studios spend tens of millions of dollars on marketing for the initial theatrical campaign blitz for a movie with the intention of that buzz lasting long enough to support the DVD/Blu-ray release and carry over into other forms of release. That extra money spent on marketing makes it more imperative for the studio to recover its investment ASAP otherwise they'll lose millions more in interest payments. They push to get the DVD released in ever shortening windows to get more out of that initial marketing campaign. And the movie is showing up on premium cable within a year for a greater level of profit. A network like HBO isn't going to pay nearly as much for the rights to broadcast a 2 year old movie as they would something a little more fresh.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 03-27-2009, 01:40 PM:

I am giving you actual figures and scenarios based on historical accuracies and you are countering with generalities. Again I admit I was out of the loop by the end of '98 so I cannot speak with any authority of the years since.

quote: Bobby Henderson
You must not have been visiting Wal-Mart stores often at all back then.

Sure I was. Those titles you saw then for $12.95 were already marked down...probably 90 to 120 days after the initial release.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Sure isn't $90-$100.

Yeah, but it wasn't sell thru either. $90-$100 was the retail price.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Video on demand services and Netflix are gouging big chunks out of the traditional brick and mortar video store business

You're right...and also out of the studios pockets. I used to buy a lot more movies before I got Netflix. The studios may well decide to squeeze some of those dollars out of them. I have no figures to compare on demand to DVD sales. Granted if the studio gets half the $5 on demand fee it's a lot less than the $8-$10 they get from a DVD sale - but the purchased DVD can be passed around lowering the per-view profit on that too and furthering the value of increasing the prices and encouraging a rental window. I don't expect brick and mortar stores to make a comeback but from the performance of Netflix stock - doubling in this down economy in fact - it's obvious that many people believe that is the wave of the future.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Movie studios spend tens of millions of dollars on marketing for the initial theatrical campaign blitz for a movie with the intention of that buzz lasting long enough to support the DVD/Blu-ray release and carry over into other forms of release.

Yes, but that's true whether it will be a rental or sell-thru title.

quote: Bobby Henderson
That extra money spent on marketing makes it more imperative for the studio to recover its investment ASAP otherwise they'll lose millions more in interest payments. They push to get the DVD released in ever shortening windows to get more out of that initial marketing campaign.

True also, but I already demonstrated how a moderate release could likely bring them MORE dollars up front and additional dollars three or four months down the road. (Back in the day "Bucket List" would have been a 600,000 unit seller...I used 400,000 to compensate for the market changes to which you referred and with which I for the most part agree.) Pay television can still get the titles in their approx. one year window and the studio could have picked up the same or more dollars initially and - depending on the sell thru demand - up to 50% more dollars before it hits that market.

Again, this is only for what we consider an "average" hit movie - the kind of thing 99.99% of the population isn't anxious to buy but heard about and wants to see. Blockbusters, Disney Classics, etc. will always benefit from sell-thru from the start.

I am not saying I believe a rental model is an absolute certainty but I am quite certain that the studios will be looking at in lieu of just accepting decreasing sales figures.

[ 03-27-2009, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Joe Tommassello ]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-27-2009, 02:30 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I wonder if the rental copies will have a higher bitrate and therefore better picture quality as a result?

I could actually see them going the OTHER direction, and making rental DVDs single layer only.

quote: Bruce Hansen
I don't waste my time with the extras anyway.

You have the making of video. After you have seen two or three of them, you know that they are all the same. The director says how great the actors were, and the actors say how great the director was.

Thankfully I am not the only person who thinks that the "making of" videos are the biggest waste of video since the invention of youtube. The only making of I've ever thought was interesting was listening to Corey Feldman getting pissed because the lead role in License to Drive was given to Corey Haim instead of him...but that was a real rarity. Nowadays I'll bet the actors are legally required to talk about how wonderful everything was. Ever since the making of videos involving Industrial Light & Magic stopped happening, they are as Bobby puts it "EPK puff pieces".

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 03-27-2009, 03:09 PM:

I usually half-heartedly watch the extras on my discs. Once in a while you find a great commentary track. One I really liked was "From Dusk Till Dawn". Tarantino and Rodriguez were really entertaining.

I do love the supplements and commentaries on classic films but on all these new titles I wouldn't miss them a bit. They indeed seem to be - for the most part - puff pieces.

Somewhere I have a VHS copy of Universal's very first "electronic pressbook". It was for Conan the Barbarian and is introduced by Steven Spielberg who explains the concept and jokes how he wants it to be perfected (not sure that's the exact word) before the release of his upcoming film E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial the following year. Many of today's DVD supplements are nothing more elaborate than that first attempt.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-27-2009, 07:13 PM:

I think the movie studios need to put more thought into what viewers will find interesting when they want to produce extras for movies on DVD and Blu-ray.

Unfortunately, the studio heads seem to think any home theater enthusiast loves the sort of mindless, celebrity fluff you see on E!, Entertainment Tonight or the typical HBO First Look promo. I think the folks who regularly watch those channels/shows probably don't watch extras on DVD at all and hit the "stop" button as soon as the credits roll (or even before then).

I think the extras that are more interesting are those which feature the technicians and artisans working behind the camera. The extras should be about them, not so much about the actors/celebrities. Besides, the on camera talent probably doesn't want to be around for that dry nuts and bolts crap anyway.

At the very least, I think a movie on DVD or Blu-ray should include the trailers and teasers used to promote the release.

quote: Joe Tommassello
I am giving you actual figures and scenarios based on historical accuracies and you are countering with generalities.

You gave a "what if" scenario about The Bucket List using imaginary figures -not the actual disc sales figures from that movie. You're arguing against my so-called generalities with nothing more than generalities of your own.

quote: Joe Tommassello
You're right...and also out of the studios pockets. I used to buy a lot more movies before I got Netflix. The studios may well decide to squeeze some of those dollars out of them. I have no figures to compare on demand to DVD sales.

If a movie studio wants to raise the price on a title with mediocre appeal, Netflix (or any video store for that matter) could counter the move by purchasing fewer discs. If the movie is a title not many people care about then the video store isn't going to get very many complaints about the low supply. The movie studio ends up shooting itself in the foot on the deal.

Netflix already has a common complaint of not carrying enough copies of certain movies (especially Blu-ray titles). A lot of Netflix customers have merely accepted the problem of some movies staying stuck in the rental queue for weeks on end.

There's also another problem in that a rental pricing model would depend on all movie studios doing business by that model. Otherwise the studios would just get played against each other, with studios who charge less for their discs getting more shelf space in the video stores. This would certainly play out with titles that aren't high demand event movies.

Based on the format wars with DiVX/DVD, HD-DVD/Blu-ray and even DTS/SRD/SDDS it's pretty clear movie studios rarely agree on doing anything unanimously. A video store that gets price hikes from one studio may simply choose to stock more discs from a rival studio.

A rental pricing model would add an additional 3-6 month block of time in the way of a movie going to retail. That extra delay could cost the studio the opportunity of charging standard prices for the retail product. The title would be older and probably already playing on channels like HBO. Movies the same age from other studios would going through their first round of retail price cuts (like the $20 DVD being dropped to $15). That previously rental-priced movie would have to enter the retail market at a substantial discount to have any chance of being competitive.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 03-31-2009, 01:55 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I think the extras that are more interesting are those which feature the technicians and artisans working behind the camera.

I agree. I enjoyed the "Dark Knight" extras about filming in IMAX.

quote: Bobby Henderson
You gave a "what if" scenario about The Bucket List using imaginary figures

That's not true. I used actual disc figures backed up with a link to the data. Based on the star power and box office I estimated the sales in 1997 or so figures that a VHS rental release would have generated...then subtracted a full third to compensate for the spread of electronic delivery options. Still the VHS model would have generated more. An educated guess from a 15 year video industry veteran is not imaginary numbers.

You do bring up an interesting variation. While I wouldn't call "Bucket List" a title with mediocre appeal, there are many that would fall into that category and, yes, in the 80s and 90s many of those were priced in the $50-$60 range (cost to store, not SRP). That would never fly again because there are too many other options for cheap entertainment.

The studios gambled and won in the 90s betting that stores would have to have as many copies of hits no matter how much they cost. It was the B titles that suffered as a result. My better customers - where applicable - bought MORE of the hit titles to compensate for either the shallow pockets or short-sighted purchasing decisions of specific competition...and ended up growing their businesses. Netflix would still have to buy hit titles at comparable levels to remain fiscally healthy. Prices may increase (again) but everything goes up in price.

Netflix could triple the number of pieces they buy and they will still get complaints. Every mom and pop that ever owned a video store will tell you if they bought two or twenty pieces of a title there would still be people complaining about not getting it fast enough.

As far as intitiating a new pricing structure...one studio would have to be bold enough to try it first and with the right progression of titles. If they succeed the others will jump on board quickly.

Lastly the pay TV window need not be altered. True they would have a lessened sell-through window (presumably 8 or 9 months instead of 12) but - as you state repeatedly - the $$$$ are the bottom line and they could pocket more money faster if they can shift the market into rental pricing.

Again - I am not saying I expect this but it wouldn't surprise me if it gets tried sometime.

Note - Bob you make an an interesting point in another thread. I think it's the one about the increased Netflix pricing where you note that the price of standard DVD new releases isn't getting any lower...in fact I think in many cases they are getting higher. The studios are shifty...they raise the wholesale cost but leave the SRP alone - or they lower the marketing or back-end incentives. I had been thinking for some time that new release DVD on-sale prices seem to have creeped up a couple of dollars.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 04-01-2009, 05:33 PM:

Fox Home Video ran into some trouble this week with the release of "Slumdog Millionaire". They mixed up the rental (without extras) version with the purchase (with extras) version. People who bought the film got the version without the extras but the package had them listed. Fox has setup a Hotline number for the complaints.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-01-2009, 09:12 PM:

That's a really, really involved April Fool joke!

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 04-07-2009, 03:47 PM:

Boneheads! I don't see the point in making two discs. It has to cost more money and DEFINITELY did this time considering the screw-up. Now I could see if they had a release packed with so much supplementary material that they wanted to have a "movie-disc only" version...essentially the same as the "Disc One" in a multi-disc set. This would be good not only for rental outlets but for those of use who'd rather save $5 or more than pay for a second disc of extras we don't care to have.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 05-05-2009, 02:44 PM:

Add Disney to the list of issuing rental DVD's without boud materials.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 05-05-2009, 04:31 PM:

Yes, but Disney is going to give all outlets the option to carry both versions. That may bring blu-ray new releases down to a price point where I'd consider buying them since I don't want all the extra junk anyway.