Re: Pirates Vs Matrix

The Pirates movies were
1) more sucsessful theatrically than the Matrix
2) released on dvd only once
3) available individually and for a lower price point
4) had a current theatrical tie-in and benefitted from the massive pre-release hype for the brand saturated across all media (print, tv, web, etc)

The matrix set
1) was the third release of all the films on a home video format, with the most expensive version being a nearly a direct port of a previously available high price point set
2) forced people to buy a complete set with two other films that were nowhere near as universally liked as the first (and in many cases, openly disliked)
3) featured property that was no longer "new" or currently 'hot'
4) had a fairly high price point

I can't believe that so many people were actually expecting an older catalog title (however popular it may once have been) to kick ass all over a franchise that was current, had a follow-up that grossed more than the original, was still being promoted and hyped- and available individually at much lower price points.
Not to mention was accessible to over one million people with the capacity to play them.

The pirates movies kicked ass all over the Matrix release...but then, relatively speaking, the Pirates movies sucked ass for considering all the positives in their corner, including a playable base that numbers well over a million.

I can't see how either side can disupute these things.

Oh one other thing- The Matrix set (being mostly a direct port) cost a hell of a lot less to produce- that's including replication costs and production of new content including its new (IME) content. This point seems to elude a lot of people. It's not really about how many units you move...it's about how much net profit you make moving them.

Great points all (I like Pirates, but Matrix is the better movie IMHO). However, POTC did have more than one release.

Are you talking about the extra disc that was eventually bundled next to the first film? I forgot about that.

I guess then the difference would be that the Matrix series (well the first film, and the one most people care about) was 'upgraded' with a new transfer previously on dvd, while the neither of the two Pirates movies so far have been.

Also, technically at least, The Matrix films have already all had a satisfying release on dvd. The first Pirates film is almost universally slagged due to excessive EE. Otoh, DMC got a very fine A/V quality dvd release. I wouldn't be surprised if the breakdown between the two films was more around 65/35 with the edge to first one.

Pirates and Matrix are a tough comparison anyway. A better one would be Matrix v. LOTR or some similar genres. I don't think too many families consider the Matrix to be a draw, whereas they would for Pirates.

My position is that I'm for any release on either format that gives it positive press and increases ownership. We can hope for a winner all day long, but until HD formats reach a significant number of households, it doesn't matter.

Best Buy also had a $10 deal off deal if you bought Pirates 1/2.

Well, there were some pretty amazing deals (2 free movies) with a bundled player/Matrix trilogy as well.

But it's just not a good comparison to make if someone is expecting some sort of relevant data out of the ratios.

This past weekend my wife and I were visiting with some friends, whose 10 year-old son was shocked, SHOCKED that we hadn't seen the second Pirates of the Caribbean movie. So we got sucked into watching it on DVD with them.

They have a reasonably decent 35" plasma, so I thought maybe this wouldn't be too painful... until I realized that they had their DVD player connected by composite cable, and worse had the player set for 4:3 mode, causing the 2.35:1 movie image to be squished into a tiny strip in the middle of the screen. Of course, they'd never done anything that could be called "calibration" to the set, so the Brightness, Contrast, and Sharpness were jacked up to obscene levels, and for some reason the entire picture pulsed with major pixellation blocks every few minutes. Also, even though they've only had the TV for a few months, they've clearly already got burn-in marks.

A few minutes after the movie started, I leaned back and whispered to my wife, "I'm not going to say anything, but you know this is killing me, right?". She responded, "Yes, I know. Keep your mouth shut and smile."

That was one long friggin' movie, let me tell you.

The point to this was that, when we were done, it was clear that the entire family saw nothing wrong with the picture. In fact, they were beaming with pride at showing off their wonderful new HDTV.

So to answer your question, no I don't think the average consumer gives a flying crap about HD DVD or Blu-ray and never will. They think any garbage they watch now on their TV screen is already High Definition.

I feel your pain. Someone I know bought a huge HDTV and was bragging to me about the amazing stretched uncalibrated non-hd picture. Yes, it was an HD set, but not hooked up to an HD source. I tried to act impressed...ish.

You have just described everyone I know with an HDTV.

You people need to go back to your friends' houses and fix their TV. Sitting there smiling is not the correct answer. What, you think that improving their picture will make them hate you? If you are paranoid about pissing them off, start the conversation with, "Isn't hooking these things up a bitch?" And worm your way into helping them hook it up properly.

Have to agree. No way I could sit through that. I would have faked illness or something.

And if they're the type of people that get offended when you try to help them configure their gear properly, well, are those people really worth knowing?

I'm not even subtle about it. I say "Hey, you're TV's not set up properly. Let me fix that for you..." and I grab the remote and start fiddling.

Exactly. Hell, a few months ago I had a few people buy some HD DVDs from me off of Amazon, which they later returned to me when they found out they needed a completely different player. Apparently they thought that they could play HD DVDs simply because they had an HDTV. I'm pretty confident that a lot of other uninformed people think the same way.

HaHa! It's tough because you don't want to sound like a prick I guess. Josh is right on the money about John Q though. I found out the other day that my friend has been buying DVD-Audio discs and playing them on an old HTIB dvd player with built in receiver. I didn't know where to begin.

which is why I think Bill Hunt is mis-leading a whole lot of people right now with some extremely faulty logic.
Blu-ray, despite its allegiences with CE manufacturers and Studios, has to build its entire infrastructure from the ground up. Its not simply re-tooling existing lines as as the base grows- its sinking money into a whole new foundation, that will- as these examples demostrate- find little mass support anytime soon.

There is simply no way you can look at this situation objectively and come to the conclusion that Blu-ray is in a healthier postion because it moves 30,000 more units of a popular title (in a GOOD week), and moves a few thousand more in an average week.

Its like building a house from the ground up just to sell glasses of lemonade on the front lawn. HD DVD may not sell as many glasses, but the only real money they drop goes into painting and refinishing the exterior. Sony on the other hand, is footing the bill to have a whole new house built.
And with the PS3 coming in #3 on the console wars, who is going to bother with the hassle of developing exclusive games for it, when the system is already a bitch to program for? For the glory? Or for the far more limited audience? And if they can't look to the PS3 games to pull the fat out of the fire...

They can't keep hemorraging money on PS3, low software yields, standalones.
Something will have to give.

...although to be fair, if what I've read is accurate and if I didn't misunderstand it, most (all?) of the HD DVD production lines in use are dedicated and newly constructed, not a revamping of existing lines even though such a thing is reportedly not all that costly or difficult.

Well, my story actually continues. After the movie I 'borrowed' the DVD player remote and fixed the aspect ratio setting to 16:9 out of mercy, then quickly checked a scene to make sure it took. The wife said, "I don't see any difference". I tried my best not to visibly gnash my teeth as I said, "It's a subtle thing. It's meant to be seamless. But in the long run it'll be better." Almost like she was twisting the knife she said, "I don't know. You better show me how to change it back just in case."

I smiled as politely as I could and said, "You won't need to change it back. It's correct now and you should just leave it there. You'll have to trust me." Fortunately, she decided not to put up any more of a fight than that and said a little sarcastically, "Well if it'll make you feel better...."

I've heard that as well- however once they are built, from what I understand they can be switched back to sd replication very easily- basically with the push of a button they can switch back and forth. BIG advantage, and that makes a huge difference as once a blu-ray line is built, that is all its good for (as far as I know).
I'll try to dig up the relevant quote is anyone is interested.

And you do, right? Don't lie.

It's a good thing that Blu-ray is new technology built from the ground up. That's what allows it to be 50 GB instead of being limited to 30. HD DVD was hobbled by Toshiba's insistence that it be more similar to DVD and thus cheaper to manufacture in the short term. No such limits were placed on Blu-ray.

This is but a temporary advantage for HD DVD. While the prices for manufacturing Blu-ray will go down over time as the technology matures, HD DVD will forever be stuck with the limitations purposely built into it from the beginning.

Meanwhile, Toshiba -- still the only manufacturer of HD DVD players at present -- is throwing tons of money away with its premature player price reductions. They can't keep doing that forever for a format which is being consistently outsold every week and still has only a minority of studios supporting it.

I have a penis of 11 inches and I think Blu-Ray is going to win.

And this impacts you as a viewer how? That you may not have to get up and swap discs sometime during a four hour movie? So that you can have lossless audio in languages that you don't speak?

They only go down in reality if there are enough people buying them to support economies of scale. If there are very few people buying them, relatively speaking, then those economies never kick in- and if the price is lowered that means it is being artificially lowered- and hence, probably not sustainable.
If you think that Toshiba, after making and selling 100,000 players cannot afford to cut prices or offer incentives, how can Sony or Panasonic or Samsung cut prices by 50% (which is much steeper than Toshiba has so far) when they've likely only sold in the range of 5-10,000 units previously?

You would consider those to be disadvantages, then? Do you also prefer single-layer DVDs to dual-layer ones?

Having an entire four-hour movie uninterrupted on one disc would absolutely be great. In general, lots of extra space to allow for maxed-out bit rates, longer running times, more audio options, and plentiful extras is a major benefit.

Very few people now, but it's short-sighted to think that will never happen. Blu-ray is guaranteed to get more buyers as more movies from Disney, Fox, and Sony are released -- movies that will never be on HD DVD. When HD DVD's short-lived manufacturing savings are a thing of the past, people will be glad for the extra features and higher quality made possible by Blu-ray's more advanced disc structure.

The Toshiba price cuts are a sign of desperation. The Blu-ray manufacturers don't need to heavily slash prices or give away discs yet, since the format is winning. How many other manufacturers are going to join Toshiba in making HD DVD players at insanely low prices with profit margins that are next to nothing?

Wow. Lots of absolutes here. There are no guarantees at all. Disney and Fox have scaled back their support (especially Fox). Never say never.


So BD's recent hardware price cuts and free discs and b2g1 sales are a sign of strength while HD DVDs are a sign of desperation.

Christ.

Also, the studios have conditioned the DVD masses to think "2 discs=superior." Having all the content on one disc may be bad from a marketing standpoint.

Most of the extra BD space is used for, as Paul SD said, language tracks. Remind me again which format has done a better job with extras at least matching the SD counterparts?