milo bloom

Too many of the DVDs I bought over the years were titles that I got based on comments on forums or because they were part of a sale. I ended up unloading a ton of them in the past few years without even watching them because I didn't really have any interest in watching them. Those are the kind of titles I'm fine with coming and going on the subscription services.

I still have a sizable DVD collection (see link below), these are the titles that I don't want to risk not being on some service. One notable exception is Star Trek. As big of a fan as I am, I don't have any of the series because that's something I know will always be available somewhere.

dvdshonna

I'm probably confusing a lot of things. I'm not in the movie business.

I was under the impression that studios get the biggest percentage of their income from DVD sales. I vaguely recall reading that somewhere.

For whatever reason, it sounds like that is changing.

Groucho

Don't get too excited about titles "expiring" on Netflix. Typically, the contract is renewed by that time and the title never goes away. Likewise, many of those that do expire will often come back sooner or later. I think overall their selection has grown in the last year, not the other way around.

Streaming is great for those titles that you're interested in, but not enough to buy. For me, it's occasionally led to a purchase when I uncover a gem.

indiephantom

All I can say is thank God streaming came along. I was buying far too many DVDs and in the end, I basically ran out of storage room. Now I buy the odd Criterion or Box set (1 a month or so) and stick to online for everything else. I like to be able to just open a file or stream something without having to load up a warning or menu. It's convenient. I've been a collector of movies since 1984 and I still have VHS, laserdisc, DVD, and now Blu-rays in my collection. Lately, the HD options have been pretty solid. They look better than 3/4 of my collection, so...it's a no brainer. I will continue to support physical media for features and novelty, but it is no longer the primary way I watch movies at home.

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi

Many times this isn't possible as they stream many titles that haven't even been released on DVD yet and aren't available from other online services.

Plus the big issue of ISPs putting more restrictive usage caps on accounts slows things down a lot.

manicsounds

Why bother with selling books at a bookstore when a library is FREE?!!

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi

Libraries are all going digital. Now they'll just charge you to print pages if you want it physical.

zyzzle

For the minority (?) of us who like our catalog releases, horror films, and quality-encoded physical media, we are indeed doomed. Films are now a true commodity, throw-away product. Movies older than 5-10 years will languish into the realm of digital obscurity and mediocrity imposed by streaming and the 99% not caring about a quality product and / or encode.

It is sad, disgusting, and enough to make me throw in the towel after 30 years of collecting. This is not really meant as a rant, but a show of raw emotion.

Will those of us who care have to go back to the days when fans collected or rescued the original 35-mm and / or 16 mm prints of catalog films to save them from oblivion? It will become an expensive and unsustainable hobby.

dvdshonna

zyzzle; The future may surprise you. Better than even chance the U.S. suffers an economic crash that makes the great depression look like fun. There's little or nothing I would predict or count on in the comming years. (FYI: I'm not a survivalist. I don't have a bunker, stockpile food, ammo, dvds, etc.)

dvdshonna

I've been reading some articles and it appears DVD sales peaked in 2006 and then went into serious decline (not bluray). This was before netflix streaming was a big thing.

Studios started looking to the internet to replace revenue lost in DVD sales. No surprise they are looking to offer new releases at a premium price before they are available for low cost streaming from netflix. In many cases consumers will have to wait years.

What I'm wondering is if consumers will prefer purchasing new releases stored in "the cloud"
instead of discs. If not, then the death of discs may be an exaggeration. The studios will be milking new releases as they always have.

g

Wall street journal just published an interesting story on this. You have to search
"hollywood's new star has a classic look" on google to read it.

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi

I disagree. More and more of those films are being released on blu-ray.

The only place streaming will ever really take a big chunk out of is the rental market. Redbox recently got in on it, for those not aware. You can get a free trial if you have xbox live.

BobO'Link

That's not surprising as the current recession started in 2006/2007 (depends on your outlook but by 2007 it was a given). At that time many people cut back or stopped much of their discretionary spending. BluRay was then, as now, more a niche category with the majority of purchases done by more upper income households who were not as hard hit as middle to lower income households.

BobO'Link

That's an interesting article. From the article: Hollywood Mines the Classics for DVD and Blu-Ray Releases:
I'd also say it's a situation where people just want to watch a newer film and will consider a purchase once it's stood the test of time. I know that's how I am for just about any film produced within 10 years or so of the current date.

Based on this single article it seems that subscription services are destroying the *new release* DVD/Bluray market and having little impact on catalog titles/sales.

dvdshonna

The $2.99 for streamed rentals ($3.99 new releases) is just weird. Very strange compared to $1.25 redbox rentals and even stranger compared to the $7.99 "all you can download" subscription services.

How many restaraunts charge $2.99 for a hot dog and $7.99 for all you can eat steak, lobster, chicken, buffets for a month? (All you can eat for a month).

Sorry....I thought it was time for another apples and oranges comparison.

TheBigDave

Your analogy is mixed up. The VOD rental isn't a hot dog. It's the exact meal you want right now. And the Netflix buffet doesn't have steak and lobster. It's all-you-can-eat tuna casserole and beanie weenies.

Moviefan02

How many of you live in a rural area where broadband internet hasn't been fully developed yet? I do, and trust me streaming isn't even an option. I'll continue my weekly routine of scouring pawn shops, closeout and department stores for DVDs and Blu-rays for under $5. I watch a few $1.25 rentals from Redbox every month, and go to the theater once in awhile but other than that it's all about DVDs and Blu-rays for me. The value of DVDs have greatly decreased (same goes for Blu-ray), I don't know if it has anything to do with streaming services or the fact that studios have been continuing to dump excess inventory to closeout stores like Big Lots.

dvdshonna

It's not all tuna and beanie weenies. There's some really solid titles available with the subscription services.

Hunger Games, Rango, Requiem For a Dream, Gandhi, Seven Years In Tibet, James Bond, Sleepless In Seattle, Top Gun, Das Boot, Last Of The Mohicans, Braveheart, Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, Babel, Empire Records, Cleopatra, The Graduate, Once Upon A Time In America, Ladyhawke, Cool Hand Luke, etc.etc. etc. ....thousands, all genres.

I doubt if I would have time to watch all the titles I like. If I had bought these DVD titles (new), $5 to $15, I would probably be feeling a little sick. I would have strong doubts about purchasing DVDs or blurays in the future.

Back to my original post. I had no idea the studios were "giving away the farm" with the subscription services. Now I understand why people are saying, "I don't need these DVDs anymore. I have netflix."

TheBigDave

That's the thing. There are tons of titles that you "like". But are any of those films the exact movie you want to watch right now?

Make a list of the past 10 DVDs/Blus that you watched. Then check Netflix and see how many of them are available for streaming. I'd be surprised if it's 4/10 or more.

dvdshonna

BigDave; I understand what you are saying. The point I was trying to make....If the average consumer can find more movies than they have time to watch for $7.99/mo on netflix, I doubt if they will spend much time even thinking about what is not available for streaming.

I'm really wondering why the studios did not go with VOD rentals for $1.00/$1.50. The subscription services seem like suicide.

davidh777

Those are all solid titles worthy of watching. But what else do they have in common? They're not new. When Amazon Prime scores something as new as Hugo x months after release, that's the kind of thing they plaster on their front page. If the beanie weenies comparison doesn't work, think of The Hobbit as a turkey dinner and Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring as turkey tetrazzini made with the leftovers. (And yes, I know The Hobbit is the inferior film but I'm just trying to make a point here. )

To illustrate TheBigDave's point, last night I had a few BDs saved up and some TV on the DVR, but one of my kids was busy and couldn't watch so I wanted to find something that the rest of us could watch that the busy one wouldn't feel left out on. I surfed the Amazon Prime selection and found a lot of good tiles (including Ladyhawke) that I saved to my watchlist, but nothing that we wanted to watch right at that time.

I do agree that new-release pricing for digital movies at $15-20 is ridiculous. I think most people feel that digital content should cost less than the equivalent DVD/BD unless they're completely digital-only.

Alan Smithee

Just as one example, "Iron Eagle" was on Netflix a few years ago but expired before I had time to watch it. It hasn't been back on there since, and I just checked for it on the 3 pay-per-use alternatives I have- Vudu, CinemaNow and FilmFresh- none of them have it. (This was one of Sony's DVD titles that originally had both 16x9 and 4x3 versions on one disc, but was later reissued without the 16x9 version.)

I watched "The Hunger Games" on Netflix when they added it, since I never saw it beforehand. Was disappointed it didn't have 5.1 sound (the app on my TV does support it, but not every title has it), but didn't complain too much given the cost. I'd still buy the Blu-Ray if I really cared to see it properly.

davidh777

^Good point. That reminds me that subtitles/captioning can be an issue for some people/services.

g

For the WSj article I noted in post number 36, it appeared that you had to be a WSJ subscriber to read it unless you go through google and then it lets you read it.

dvdshonna

Absolutely. ...But in my case, If I'm paying $3.00 or more for ANY title, I want a physical copy of it on my shelf. ...If for no other reason, I want to reserve the right to sell it off if I no longer want it.