Twilight Time thread - Page 6

Originally Posted by DM2006RI

"Even Fright Night"???

Virtually any film from the late '50s is going to be a tough sell on Blu-Ray. I couldn't possibly imagine Bell Book and Candle doing well at retail at all. And in this day and age, I'd argue far more people know what "Fright Night" is than "Bell Book & Candle".

Once again, TT titles aren't being aimed at Walmart consumers used to routinely spending $5-$10 on catalog dump bin titles. They're not being sold for mainstream consumers in the first place! (This has been said over and over). They're being aimed at the hard-core HD loving fan of a particular film who wants to see it in the best possible quality and doesn't mind spending $30 to do so. They're only pressing 3000 copies of these titles, they don't need to engage the Walmart/Target crowd to make the model successful. And how this is so different than the $20 DVD-R model that all the studios have used for several years now is something you and any other contrarian here has totally ignored when the subject comes up. The pricing is commensurate....and believe it or not, people buy the $20 DVD-Rs or else they wouldn't be making them!

The simple fact that you also bring up this "single, easy to browse location" where the discs should be bought says it all. Like HDMe2 you seem to have the same tunnelvision that most people buy discs these days at a retail location. It's 2012. People buy discs -- and especially of catalog content -- online. They even search for these titles (as stunned as HDMe2 was to this alien concept), and buy them, on Amazon. I think the days of people going into a store hoping to find anything OTHER than "Avatar" and similar new-release titles are pretty much over myself.

What you expect and what the reality is for physical media are two different things. Or, don't mind me, simply go and read this article from Deadlinehollywood which notes many studios have been devalued at half their worth since 2007 primarily because the home video market has bottomed out:

http://www.deadline.com/2012/04/netf...rofits-report/

That's a fact. As it says, DVD sales are dropping faster than Blu-Ray sales (of all content, not just catalog) are growing. Continuing to feed retail chains with cheap product (at a loss) as they have all tried to do over the last few years hasn't turned things around either...so now you are seeing the result, which are catalog titles that most mainstream consumers aren't going to be interested in at ANY price, moving to a limited-edition or manufactured-on-demand model. Again, I don't understand why you continuously argue against this well-known fact that most people all understand.



And yet, as the decline of the home video industry shows, people haven't been buying catalog content no matter what the price is.

They're "undercutting the largest markets" because they're losing money going that route with catalog product that doesn't sell. You guys may never believe it until the books are opened to your perusal, but the writing is on the wall. You can keep going around in circles trying to ignore it or arguing it, but it's not going to change -- yes, it sucks you will have to pay more to get catalog content, but them's the breaks, and that's the reality of the marketplace in 2012.

Originally Posted by junglalien

I started this thread. I didn't see anything off topic. If anyone needs disciplined it is the person sending mod reports for no reason.

Originally Posted by rboster


Since the OP doesn't have a problem with it...post away. As always focus on the post and not the poster when responding. Be civil.

Ron

Originally Posted by dvdmike007

Is that a rule? Honest question

Originally Posted by DrDon

Depends on the situation. Case by case.

Originally Posted by NetworkTV

Heck, I'm gainfully employed, but at BD prices, I'm not buying as much as I used to. I just can't afford it. They cost too much for no reason other than the studios sell them for more. It's the same scan and restoration as the DVD, just HD instead of downrezzed to SD for DVD with different menus, yet it sells for $5-$8 more...and often more than even that. That adds up quickly.

Originally Posted by JoeD

I don't drink the kool-aid because I have too, I drink the kool-aid because I like the taste, especially Blue Kool-aid

Originally Posted by NetworkTV

Heck, I'm gainfully employed, but at BD prices, I'm not buying as much as I used to. I just can't afford it. They cost too much for no reason other than the studios sell them for more. It's the same scan and restoration as the DVD, just HD instead of downrezzed to SD for DVD with different menus, yet it sells for $5-$8 more...and often more than even that. That adds up quickly.

Originally Posted by fookoo_2010

With this economy, most people are trying to save a little bit here or there by doing things like combining store trips. In the large scale of things, BRs are cheap when compared to what a Betamax would have cost years ago - even when discounted at $40. Here is something that usually costs $millions to make and you can buy it for <$30. How cool is that? This is the golden era for people who love film because of the available inexpensive technologies available today. Aside from the cost, there is the continual problem of all of the dvds and BRs eating up space.

Originally Posted by fookoo_2010

With this economy, most people are trying to save a little bit here or there by doing things like combining store trips. In the large scale of things, BRs are cheap when compared to what a Betamax would have cost years ago - even when discounted at $40. Here is something that usually costs $millions to make and you can buy it for <$30. How cool is that? This is the golden era for people who love film because of the available inexpensive technologies available today. Aside from the cost, there is the continual problem of all of the dvds and BRs eating up space.

Originally Posted by NetworkTV

Except the economics aren't the same anymore.

Computers cost $3K in 1982 - in 1982 dollars. Today, you can buy something 10000x more powerful for $600 in 2012 dollars. Heck, in the 70's, computers cost a couple thousand and you had to put it together your self and screw it to a plank of wood.

My family's first camcorder was a big VHS shoulder cam costing $900. Now I can get a DSLR that shoots HD for $800 or less and will also shoot 18MP photos. A standalone HD camcorder can be had for around $500. You can get a smart phone that fits in your pocket for next to nothing from most providers that will shoot video far better than that monster I owned decades ago.

Technology gets cheaper to produce as manufacturing techniques improve and economies of scale increase.

We've been using optical disc based media since the 80s. Each step from CDs, to DVDs to BD's is merely an improvement to the technology that starts with less overhead with each advancement.

It's shouldn't cost $100 to buy a movie like it did in the laser disc days. It shouldn't cost $30 to buy a catalog title, either. By the time movies make it to home video, nearly all of them have paid for themselves with theatrical tickets. Catalog titles also often have the added bonus of previous home video releases, TV rights and, in some cases, decades of merchandising. Further, many of these catalog titles were made on very tight budgets that would pale in comparison to those of today, even accounting for inflation.

We aren't paying $20, $25 or $30 for a multi-million dollar movie. We're paying $20, $25 or $30 for our small share of the chance to watch it.

We don't pay $3,000,000 for a chevy because that's how much it costs to produce a prototype. We pay $20,000 for it because that's how much our copy of that prototype costs with a reasonable profit for all those involved.

The right price for something produces the most revenue by setting the right price to sell the maximum number of units vs. what most people will pay. The secret is to not under or overcharge. Too much money and people won't buy and you lose revenue. Too little and you lose to much profit on each unit and lose as much revenue as you would by overcharging.

In the end, it falls on the studio to figure out how to make it at a cost that lets them sell it at a price most of the potential audience for the product will pay.

$30-$35 ain't it.

Originally Posted by NetworkTV

The right price for something produces the most revenue by setting the right price to sell the maximum number of units vs. what most people will pay. The secret is to not under or overcharge. Too much money and people won't buy and you lose revenue. Too little and you lose to much profit on each unit and lose as much revenue as you would by overcharging.

In the end, it falls on the studio to figure out how to make it at a cost that lets them sell it at a price most of the potential audience for the product will pay.

$30-$35 ain't it.

Originally Posted by NetworkTV

.....In the end, it falls on the studio to figure out how to make it at a cost that lets them sell it at a price most of the potential audience for the product will pay. $30-$35 ain't it.

Originally Posted by Hi_Def_Boss

LOL, great post but absolutely begs the question: why aren't studios (sony in the most recent case) releasing seemingly popular catalog titles at a reasonable price?

Why does a company like TT have to step in and charge a premium???

Originally Posted by NetworkTV

Which means content from earlier than the 50s should be all but un-sellable, right? Tell that to the folks who bought "The Wizard of Oz" and "The General". The latter doesn't even have sound...or color...



Um...I specifically called for them to partner with Amazon. Fright Night would have likely had legs at Walmart along side the remake, but a proper presence on Amazon would be far better than the insignificant independent store TT has. There's also merit to selling in the store, but online is definitely where it's at.

People base what they buy on what's "trending" and Amazon is better equipped to work with that than just about any seller.

Having said that, if things were that bad at Walmart, they wouldn't sell media. Walmart only sells what they can move.

Honestly, the best thing TT could do for themselves is sell a hundred or so discounted copies to Netflix to rent out so people at least know the titles exist.



The problem is, the economy has been in the dumper for the last 5 years or so. People aren't buying buying BD's because they cost too much compared to other choices.

People buy all kinds of stuff when the economy is hot. It will be again if our elected officials get it together and companies stop sending our jobs to people who steal our patents instead of using that money to buy stuff from us.

Heck, I'm gainfully employed, but at BD prices, I'm not buying as much as I used to. I just can't afford it. They cost too much for no reason other than the studios sell them for more. It's the same scan and restoration as the DVD, just HD instead of downrezzed to SD for DVD with different menus, yet it sells for $5-$8 more...and often more than even that. That adds up quickly.

Originally Posted by NetworkTV

Except the economics aren't the same anymore.

Computers cost $3K in 1982 - in 1982 dollars. Today, you can buy something 10000x more powerful for $600 in 2012 dollars. Heck, in the 70's, computers cost a couple thousand and you had to put it together your self and screw it to a plank of wood.

My family's first camcorder was a big VHS shoulder cam costing $900. Now I can get a DSLR that shoots HD for $800 or less and will also shoot 18MP photos. A standalone HD camcorder can be had for around $500. You can get a smart phone that fits in your pocket for next to nothing from most providers that will shoot video far better than that monster I owned decades ago.

Technology gets cheaper to produce as manufacturing techniques improve and economies of scale increase.

We've been using optical disc based media since the 80s. Each step from CDs, to DVDs to BD's is merely an improvement to the technology that starts with less overhead with each advancement.

It's shouldn't cost $100 to buy a movie like it did in the laser disc days. It shouldn't cost $30 to buy a catalog title, either. By the time movies make it to home video, nearly all of them have paid for themselves with theatrical tickets. Catalog titles also often have the added bonus of previous home video releases, TV rights and, in some cases, decades of merchandising. Further, many of these catalog titles were made on very tight budgets that would pale in comparison to those of today, even accounting for inflation.

We aren't paying $20, $25 or $30 for a multi-million dollar movie. We're paying $20, $25 or $30 for our small share of the chance to watch it.

We don't pay $3,000,000 for a chevy because that's how much it costs to produce a prototype. We pay $20,000 for it because that's how much our copy of that prototype costs with a reasonable profit for all those involved.

The right price for something produces the most revenue by setting the right price to sell the maximum number of units vs. what most people will pay. The secret is to not under or overcharge. Too much money and people won't buy and you lose revenue. Too little and you lose to much profit on each unit and lose as much revenue as you would by overcharging.

In the end, it falls on the studio to figure out how to make it at a cost that lets them sell it at a price most of the potential audience for the product will pay.

$30-$35 ain't it.

Originally Posted by haineshisway

And has been proven in just about every thread in the history of this board - if Sony did this and charged twenty dollars, people would complain and say "Why isn't it fifteen?" And others would say, "I'll just wait for it to hit the ten-dollar bin." And then those same people, when it did hit the ten-dollar bin, would say, "Well, I've waited this long, it's bound to hit the five-dollar bin." And that is why studios have begun licensing out titles. They don't need the aggravation and they like getting a certain chunk of money up front, never having to think about it again, nor dealing with returns - they are in, they are out - AND they still own the title and can work that title for their HD channels and streaming and however else they want to work it - and three years after the Twilight Time deal is up, they can, although they won't, release it themselves.

Originally Posted by Hi_Def_Boss

But this practice is still very rare, it seems. Studios are much more likely to release catalog titles on their own, rather than through a third party. The ratio of studio released (catalog) titles vs. licensed third party catalog releases is at least 10 to 1? 100 to 1?

Originally Posted by haineshisway

c) the bottom line, which I and others keep reiterating in response after response because not one of the three or four that keep posting the same thing over and over again seem to want to understand and probably never will - and it's really simple to get - if the studios thought there were ANY upside to doing this themselves they would - wait for it - do it. I am here to tell you that they have all taken rather large baths on way too many titles specifically because even at bargain basement prices NO ONE is buying in sufficient numbers. There is no refuting this. There is no way around it. If the studios were making money with these catalog titles they would release these themselves. They are not. The End.

Originally Posted by JoeD

That's the sad truth of it, and that's why I'm glad TT is releasing some of my favorite catalog titles, which I will gladly pay a premium. I firmly beleave that streaming is killing off any interest in catolog titles, it's a shame because there are so many great catolog titles that may never come to Blu-ray.

Originally Posted by JoeD

That's the sad truth of it, and that's why I'm glad TT is releasing some of my favorite catalog titles, which I will gladly pay a premium. I firmly beleave that streaming is killing off any interest in catolog titles, it's a shame because there are so many great catolog titles that may never come to Blu-ray.

Originally Posted by haineshisway

And has been proven in just about every thread in the history of this board - if Sony did this and charged twenty dollars, people would complain and say "Why isn't it fifteen?" And others would say, "I'll just wait for it to hit the ten-dollar bin." And then those same people, when it did hit the ten-dollar bin, would say, "Well, I've waited this long, it's bound to hit the five-dollar bin." And that is why studios have begun licensing out titles. They don't need the aggravation and they like getting a certain chunk of money up front, never having to think about it again, nor dealing with returns - they are in, they are out - AND they still own the title and can work that title for their HD channels and streaming and however else they want to work it - and three years after the Twilight Time deal is up, they can, although they won't, release it themselves.

Originally Posted by Hi_Def_Boss

It's not that people don't want to own, I think it's that we are so overwhelmed with content and that access to digital versions of media (recordable to hard drive) are so easy to obtain, it's becoming harder to convince people to buy physical media. Two or three CD's can take up as much space as a 2 TB hard drive now.

Originally Posted by fookoo_2010

Once the content is on any kind of hard drive, it is easily copied. Not that I couldn't eventually do it, but it is too much trouble to rip cds, dvds, BRs, SACDs, and DVD-As and create an archive.

Originally Posted by spectator

Copying content from a physical disc is "too much trouble" versus copying it from a file

the way that

taking a bite of a sandwich and putting on your socks is "too much trouble" versus putting on your socks.