I agree with the general sentiment, if not the specifics. There are only a handful of pre-70's films available on Blu-ray so far, though I'm sure that will change eventually. It only makes sense for the studios to put out the action/popcorn stuff out first, as it will sell better. I don't think Joe Six-Pack is clamoring for Naruse or Murnau in HD.

Wasn't there an article awhile back about this? How classics don't sell on HD it's the day and date new releases that are actually pushing the format.

Why would Joe Six-Pack buy a Blu-Ray player to begin with? I don't get why someone would drop 200 bucks on a player to watch The Contract or Step Brothers. Wait..... I'm forgetting the intelligence level of humans.
But.... If this is the logic then why are companies releasing standard dvds without a Blu-Ray counterpart?

While the films I listed aren't exactly classic-classics they are very popular flicks from years ago. I'm sure anyone with a blu-ray player would pick up Ghostbusters and Gremlins.

Don't try and steal Incredible Hulk's thunder!

Yes, the Weinsteins got the rights to it; they're supposed to be releasing a remastered version on DVD sooner or later (probably around the time the David Gordon Green directed remake with Natalie Portman is released). Hopefully, a Blu-Ray release is in the cards as well; this movie screams to be seen in high-def.

Agreed. The colors would be eye-popping on Blu. (Or is it in Blu?)

Why did Joe Six-Pack buy a DVD player when the mass price tag for SDVD was less than 399$?

Why did companies release VHS titles without DVD counterparts well into the second year of the format? Do you remember those times or did you start collecting when the DVD market was already set?

Bingo. What is shitty for you probably isn't for someone else. For the record: I would not buy copies of Ghostbusters and Gremlins on BD. As far as I am concerned they belong to the S-category.

A fair answer!

Pro-B

I'm doing my best to support classics in HD, but my list of classics is very different and definitely pre 1980s.

You think it's bad were you are?

Try finding "classics" on Blu in Region 2 land!!! :down:

At least you guys have Black Narcissus, Red Desert and Seventh Seal already.

True, I can see a difference on my 27" CRT 1080i television.

But the studios didn't know then what they know now. The movie buying habits of the general public were much different on VHS than they are now on DVD.

I don't think they knew DVD was going to take off the way it did. However, they are expecting Blu-ray to take off in a similar fashion.

Red Desert is region B only, but Black Narcissus and The Seventh Seal will play in U.S. Blu-ray players if you're willing to import those titles from a site like amazon.co.uk. Both discs look phenomenal and are well worth it.

Right, I meant that those releases were native to R2, in response to Rad14 complaining about a dearth of classic films available on Blu in the UK. I've got both of the R0 discs in my wish list, but I'll probably wait until the inevitable Criterion releases (Seventh Seal has already been announced).

Ok. I understand. Which is precisely the reason why I've insisted that is is up to the studios to decide when DVD stops being the mass format. As content providers, they have the power, and as you recognize above, the know-how to set up a new mass market. With other words, I am a little uncertain exactly from what angle you are seeing the market. As far as I am concerned, as soon as BR percentages, in terms of software and hardware sales, get close to where the studios would comfortable restricting content on SDVD we will begin seeing a market shift. Obviously, the economy blurred the projections a bit but depending on how well this Holiday season pans out, and there is plenty to be optimistic about looking at CNN, I think that the road ahead of us is pretty clear.

Pro-B

All things considered, as of this very moment, Region-B land has a much better variety of classics:

Black Narcissus
Red Desert
One + One (Godard)
Fellini's Casanova
Fanny and Alexander (Bergman)
The Seventh Seal (Bergman)
Great Expectation (Lean)
SALO
ZULU
A Fistful of Dollars
La Piscine


etc....

Pro-B

The power... yes.
The know-how... well the jury is still out on that one. :D

I just thought, with the success of DVD, that the studios would be more apt to "push" Blu-ray a lot harder.

I understand the logic to hold certain titles back until "the time is right", but it seems counter-productive to put out a new DVD release of something popular (like the forthcoming "Back To The Future" DVD) and not put out the Blu-ray at the same time.

In my opinion, I think the shift from VHS to DVD was much easier. Remember the days of VHS releases? When you would have to buy a new movie on VHS on its day and date for like $100? Or new laserdiscs were $35-40? DVD had all the right elements to make people adopt the format very quickly:

Low price ($15-$20) on release day, fantastic picture and sound quality, no more flipping or swapping discs (except for a few early discs), direct access (no more fast forwarding or rewinding), small size, ability to play in most computers, interactive menus, and bonus features unlike we had ever seen. And it all worked on your existing TV and receiver.

And now DVD has one thing still going for it - many many titles have been released (yes I know there are plenty still to go), plus as mentioned, entire sets of TV shows that never made it to VHS.

Unfortunately for Blu-Ray, it has one selling point that I know of - better picture quality. And while that picture quality may be OUTSTANDING, it normally requires the purchase of a new HDTV to appreciate that improvement. Also, the players are still much more expensive than standard DVD players.

So yes, Blu-Ray is a huge advancement, but I don't think it has enough selling points for it to go mass market yet. That could change as mentioned above if distributors start releasing in Blu-Ray exclusively, but I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon, because they are likely afraid of hurting their cash cow. Imagine if a big release day seller like the next Harry Potter movie were released only on Blu-Ray. There would be a huge market they would be excluding that would be there on release day to pick up their standard DVD copy, only to leave empty-handed. And that's a HUGE amount of money that just went away. And yes, some dedicated fans would probably decide that it was the time to go and pick up a Blu-Ray player, but not all of them, and I would wager not most of them.

So what's the other option? If they release a small independent title on Blu-Ray only, then that doesn't work either. If it's a small title, that means not that many people aren't buying it. Which means it won't be big enough to drive the market to Blu-Ray. Welcome to Catch 22.

Remember, DVD distributors are businesses first and foremost, and those big release day numbers are very important to their financial success and drive future releases. So who will be first to NOT release a big title on standard DVD? I imagine all the companies are standing around saying, "Not me!"

My 2 cents.

Well, it is a hell of a selling point. Don't forget superior audio as well. Blu-ray player prices will continue to drop. The technology is still in it's relative infancy - if we revisit this topic in a year, I'm sure Blu popularity will have increased dramatically.

True, but I know a lot of Joe Six-Packs who own an HDTV now. And this past weekend had a lot of good deals on Blu-ray players. What better time to release a bunch of popular catalog releases.


Who says they have to release Blu-ray exclusively? The two can co-exist forever if that's what the studios want. My gripe is when they are putting out new versions of existing DVDs exclusively. Talk about a limited return. I know I keep using "Back To The Future" as an example, but if the box set that has been sitting on shelves for years for under $20 still isn't selling, why do they think another (probably higher priced) version will sell any better? I'm guessing that anyone that wanted to buy it on DVD would have done so already. They might attract a few collectors with a couple of new features, but as we saw in one of the threads here discussing it, the general consensus was "No Blu-ray = No Sale". We know the HD transfers exist. It's not like they have to pour a ton of money into restoring it or anything.

One reason new BD releases seem to favor current films rather than "classics" (as you call them... can't say I agree with most of your choices there) might be because Blu-ray is being sold on picture and sound quality. We've already seen many complaints about how noticeable film grain is (yes, I know it's not always a BAD thing, and bad transfers happen) and other such problems.

It seems to me that releasing a lot of catalog titles instead of starting out with recent films would give Blu-ray's detractors too much ammunition to claim the format was useless. Plus, studios don't have to spend a lot of money restoring these films... you really don't want to see a lot of older films as they exist today in 1080p, a LOT of cleanup work needs to be done.

I know this post ways days ago but these kind of posts always take place with new technology. People invest money in current products and hate to see things they enjoy lose value or hate they invested so much time into something that is now inferior. Movies in HD is a change that should be embraced not pushed away. I spent almost 10 years buying, selling, watching DVDs and look back at that time as well spent, yet I'm happy Blu-ray is here since it will provide me with better options for viewing and hearing the movies I enjoy.

I really don't see Blu-ray failing. HDTVs and HD cable/satellite aren't going anywhere and I highly doubt movies will be an exception.

Sorry to get off-topic a bit.

This is exactly right. You can only debut a title on a format once, and that is a huge marketing bullet.

There's 1,000 movies on BD, and the OP only likes 5-6?

Yup. And my list doesn't include any of the movies mentioned in this thread. :lol: