I totally agree that I like to have the physical media in my hand. I like the packaging, the graphics on the case and the disc itself. The packaging becomes part of the movie!

I think I can speak for everyone on this site that they enjoy owning DVD's and/or Blu-Ray.

On the other hand you can't lose sight that this is a DVD/Blu-Ray fan site. Our enthusiasm for these products and the attention to quality may not be shared with the majority of the casual movie watching public.

Unless you have an incredible home theater, you'll never really replicate the theater experience. A lot of people live in small apartments where they don't have the room for a 52" TV or can't crank the volume up on a 7.1 Surround System.

Watching a movie on a laptop or a smaller TV is their reality. I don't agree with it personally but this is how a lot of people prefer to watch movies these days.

The studios wouldn't include a "digital copy" with the DVD/Blu-Ray if there was no market for it or if they didn't think it would help increase sales. I'm sure they did plenty of consumer research before adding that feature.

Ultimately the majority rules. Betamax was better than VHS, but the public chose VHS. Laserdisc and Super VHS was better than VHS, but VHS never lost any ground until DVD arrived almost twenty years later.

DVDs have been out for 10 years now. No reason why Blu-ray can't include what people are now acustom to. Not enough space? Make it a 2 disc set.

Exactly. Joe buys DVD. Puts DVD in player. DVD plays.

Believe me when I say that we are a minority here, folks. We have people at my job that are so tech-dumb that they hit a brick wall if we change the color of a screen. I can't fathom the idea of explaining to them to download and .iso and turn it into a disc, then upgrade their firmware so they can watch Hitch II. For the most part, and from the beginning, you bout a DVD and it worked without any "advanced" knowledge required.

For the record, this is not a "BluRay problem." This applies to both BD and HD DVD.

I completely agree with you, but there are many that don't recognize that "we" are not "the mainstream.".

For the same reason people go there and pay to rent movies instead of going to the local library and getting them for free. And for the same reason people still go to the theater even though technology has gone so far nowadays that you could replicate everything a theater experience offers at home, and improve.

Aside from a few internet forums where a few selected internet posters keep on harping how special features are such a key factor they are not. They aren't that big of a factor on DVD either outside of the collectors circles. If they were there would have been a major outcry with the bare-bones SDVDs Blockbuster introduced. If they were Criterion would not be introducing extra-less versions of their releases.

Extras are not the factor you want them to be.

Top audio/video quality remains the key factor. All interactivity options, extras, etc. are just that...extras.

Pro-B

All of the "mainstream" people I know are perfectly willing to rent movies via pay-per-view from their cable or satellite companies because the equipment is already hooked up to their TV. This is different from VOD downloading. Most people I know haven't looked into downloading because they don't want to watch movies on their computers and don't even want to think about what it would take to get the movies from their computers to their TVs.

In other words, they'd much rather rent from Netflix or pay-per-view. VOD isn't even on their radar.

I truly believe this is part of a studio's business plan now. It worked with VHS. It worked even moreso with DVD. It will work with BD or whatever comes next physical media wise.

They release a standard release with nothing or a few extras. The movie enthusiast pays for it at a premium right off just to have the movie and the studios make decent money doing this. The product is out there but it is ready for a super-special edition that will follow in a few years. They milk the early dvd buyer/movie fan not only twice but for more money than Joe Public who doesn't give a shit and waits for an impulse buy or whenever it hit the $5 bin.

That why I made a promise to myself to not pay over $10 for any new product that comes out on BD or HD-DVD. If I REALLY want it, I may throw out $13 but definitely nothing over. That goes for used or new. Netflix can tide me over until it drops in price. Hell, I still have dvds that haven't been watched for a couple of years. I'm not falling into that cycle this time around.

I wonder if there are others like me out there that could also have a small affect on BD in that regard.

Bingo. And a lot more.

Pro-B

Do you consider a direct rip of the DVD or Bluray to be a horrendous looking copy?

Sure, but that's assuming that the consumer has already bought into the technology and then got fed up and returned the product. There's a lot more reasons first and foremost preventing the average dude from even getting his feet wet in HD and Blu-ray before they hit the firmware complication.

Complicated technologies as a whole, sure, but I don't believe firmware itself as a big barrier to entry.

I tend to agree with this. I remember buying a DVD a couple of years ago and it came with a mail-in survey asking the purchaser several questions including how important extras were.

I guess they were trying to feel out whether it was worth the extra cost involved to put the extras on or not.

The Blockbuster near me in Canada rents the standard issue DVD, not a special extra-free version. I think Blockbuster probably has lost a lot of money loaning out their DVD's as a two-day rental because of the time it takes people to watch the extras. Back in the VHS days it was usually a one night rental at the same price.

I think they're finding that no one really cares about how they made a movie like "Legally Blond 2" or care to hear the director go on and on about the production details on the commentary track.

For future Blu-Ray releases, I think they will just release bare-bones films to begin with and then follow-up with a special edition if deemed necessary. It's a gamble but unless the movie has a franchise fan-base, is an interesting indie film or, I hate the term, a "fanboy" film there's probably little interest in the extra goodies.

I download movies frequently. Most of what comes out of Hollywood these days is unworthy of repeat viewings, let alone holding a place in my collection. Sure there are exceptions like TDK or Wall-E, but those are few and far between. For the rest, the streaming ability of my PS3 was a most welcomed surprise. -wink-

I don't think for a second downloads are hurting Blu-ray sales. Lack of consumer knowledge, DVD inertia, goodenuf-ism, pricing, economy, and media ownership fatigue are hurting HDM sales. (All these points have already been addresses earlier in the thread).

I don't understand, though, the concern over Laptop viewing of downloaded media. Convergence of downloads -> living room tv display is here (see Apple TV, Xbox Live, etc) and inching along now. Still on the fringes. But, man, it's now working both tech wise and business wise. Xbox live movie downloads are obviously something that's generating income (larger selection, been around now for a while, etc) and I suspect Apple TV will join it soon. I'm not sure this sort of thing is a threat to Blu-ray in its entirety. There's just something about physical media or, I'm too thick-skulled, stuck in the mud to see the writing on the wall. But, I didn't grow up with on-demand and the internet and netflix and tivo.

Today's media world is like the candy store out of the original Willy Wonka movie compared to the looted, poorly stocked, quarter-eating vending machine of my youth. I still don't take the bonanza of today's cheap and easily assessable movie media as some given right I have. Consequently, I'm surprised anyone is upset and worried about media coming or going or making it or not making it. To me it's amazing and wonderful, whether or not a single additional HD title is released. I smile because of enjoying what I have, and don't bitterly fume over not having even more.

-beebs

Very few people even know they can rent DVDs for free at the library nor do they even own a library card. That is a null point. Again, people rent DVDs and Blu-rays from those retailers to watch once and be done with it. VOD is the same damn thing except they don't have to get off their butt, jump in their car, use expensive gas to get there and back, hope the store has the film they want, rent in line, pay, and then drive home. Why do you think Netflix and now Blockbuster now offer online viewing options? People go to theaters to see movies on release week on giant screens and essentially "get out" of their house. Very few people could replicate a Theater experience and even if they can, it would be very costly. Not only would it be costly to buy all the equipment nessecary, but they would have to buy/rent the discs as well several months after that hot film has already left theaters.

Extras don't matter? Really? Why do studios keep selling the same movies over and over and over with new features? Funny how they all seem to sell just fine - usually because they include new extras. Blockbuster, yet again, is a rental place and people typically do not buy movies there unless they want to find movies cheap or forced to due to some exclusive deal. Oh wait, Sony is double dipping on Casino Royale BD in a few months with, whats that, new features. Silly them, they should know its going to sell 0 copies because you don't think people care about extras.

As it stands right now, VOD is only available through a seperate box (VuDu, Roku, AppleTV, Xbox, PS3 etc.). How long before TVs come with build-in VOD solutions? Isn't Sony going to do that with their new line of TVs and Hancock? Eventually their will be very little need for those "extra" devices and it will simply be a key on the remote you click and get access to movies and TV shows.

I too hate watching things on my laptop and would never "rent" a film to watch on it. But if there was a way (AppleTV) to do it on my TV, I will, and have many times. My Xbox and AppleTV have produced a decent enough image (both in SD and HD) where I don't feel bad for spending $4 on a HD rental of a film, especially since Blu-ray offers very few catalog titles I want to watch right now. How long before MGM decides to offer Harold and Maude on Blu-ray? A year? Two years? Ever? For $4 I can watch it right now in HD.

I have to take issue with some of the things you've said here. While extras certainly are not going to make or break a format, they are a key part of the home video landscape. The advent of DVD has lifted the expectations for special features among mass consumers. Even if most people hardly ever actually dig into the extras, there is perceived value that they bring which has been proven over and over again. That's why studios do double and triple-dips with new features and variations on the "special edition."

Furthermore, your last two statements in the above quote are logical fallacies. To support your point, Criterion would have to stop releasing extra-laden versions and only release extra-less versions. The fact that they are just now, 10+ years into the life of the DVD format, releasing extra-less versions of their catalog merely means that they are appealing to a subset of the market that would like to see their films, but don't care to pay the "special edition" prices. In no way does it prove that extras are or are not a factor in the DVD market. It simply means that Criterion believes that there is a portion of the market that prefers low prices to extra features - nothing new really.

I don't think that there is much that I disagree with here. You simply see the end result, I see the process that validated the inclusion of extras as being key. I mentioned it so many times during the war - BD will follow exactly the same progression DVD did and thus far all signs point that the studios are indeed following the same market philosophy. When DVD was introduced it took a substantial amount of time for the prices to become own-esque and more for the SE to appear. So, all the talk that extras on BD are a key factor are very much a debatable point at best - the major motivation to upgrade is quality. The format is growing and the bigger the market becomes the greater the opportunities for the studios to double dip with extras, etc. This is the process that forced greater SE for DVD and this would be precisely what I believe will happen with BD. Thus far extras have not been key regardless of the expectations DVD owners may or may not have had as I am unaware of any notable examples where the addition or exclusion of extras have forced the studios to reconsider their schedules.

I don't think I agree here. My read on what Criterion has been doing is that they very much feel that there is a shift in the consumer's desire to pay for lavish sets. I think that this is the reason why they introduced the Eclipse line as well - it was either a budget presentation of lower-profile films or no presentation(s) at all. And as SDVD sales decline they are trying to improve performance by introducing budget-versions of their SEs. Which leads us back to what I mentioned earlier that aside from the core group of collectors their business model is built around the majority of casual consumers are not enticed by lavish SE.

Pro-B

It is probably best that you read carefully what is being posted and then rush to refute as I don't believe you understand what is being said.

Pro-B

I consider it to be an illegal practice casual consumers are not enticed with.

Pro-B

I agree with Buck, the stuff coming out Hollywood (with a few notable exceptions) is pretty poor and meant to be consumed on opening weekend and then forgotten. I just can't justify much of anything anymore...I have my catalog favorites on DVD, and while I did buy a cheap HD DVD player, I never was that enthused about re-buying titles on HD DVD. The ones I did buy, I quickly realized that it was a mistake and not worth the additional money. I guess I am content on paying for one movie channel (StarzHD), TIVOing what looks interesting and watching it. For example, I tivoed Vacancy the other night..I watched it but it immediately went in the trash bid. It would have been a waste of money at $8 for the DVD, and especially lets say $17 for the Blu Ray

Right, typical dance.

You brought up horrendous looking illegal copies. I was saying to you that illegal copies that are direct HD rips aren't going to look horrendous. My argument was not that it was keeping BD down, but that people aren't downloading Jerry Seinfeld's camera in the jacket movies.

Unfortunately that is the problem there, the copies people download these days are not horrendous-looking copies by any stretch, though most still swim around the DVD quality level.

And I agree, on a mass scale illegal downloads won't hurt the format once it catches on a bit more. The problem in my experience is that the people who download the x264/hdwmv/avc rips of hd/ota/blurays are the ones that would be accelerating adoption a bit.

:up:

A lot of the people that could be interested in a HD format certainly understand how to download HD content.

I completely believe that d/l's are hurting the adoption rate, coupled with the whole HD DVD thing, which turned plenty of people off to purchasing HD content for the time being.

Well I own a Toshiba A2 and a PS3 and own movies on both formats.

I also download x264/hdwmv/avc rips of hd/ota/blurays mainly because while I would like to own more, the media prices are just to expensive. I purchase the movies I really like, but other than that it is either Netflix or downloading very good rips.