re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

At this point, the only possible definitive conclusion which I might be inclined to believe from the (questionable and overestimated) data culled from the-numbers.com, would be that the movie company PHB/Dogbert types want to see (per title) more than 3000-5000 units moved in the first week of release.

This is based on the "upper limits" of first week units moved of some tv on bluray stinkers (such as season 1 of Human Target moving below 4,706 units in its first week of release), and the 3000 copies limited edition model of Twilight Time.

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/hd-talk/620...fx-11.html#261
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._Time_releases

Basically if the PHB/Dogbert types do not believe something will move at least 3000-5000+ copies in its first week release, then it either gets discontinued or is never released at all (or it gets outsourced to TT, etc ...).

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

I get that studios don't want to release two formats if they don't sell that well......but what I really don't get is why studios don't finally stop producing DVDs altogether. If you don't release DVDs, then people will buy Blu-Rays automatically.

Otherwise they could just go back and release everything on VHS again, if they rather support outdated formats instead of finally letting DVD rest in peace together with VHS.

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

Not necessarily.

In the absence of a dvd version, some people may very well just watch some older tv shows (or movies) on a streaming service like Netflix, amazon, hulu, etc ...

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

For which the studios get paid as well.....and they don't have the cost of producing the DVDs anymore.

But basically it just comes down to if the studios actually want to sell their shows in better quality and as it seems people don't adopt it as long as they continue selling it in crap quality (for whatever reason), so the only way to force people to finally give a crap about quality is to only sell it in HD and finally stop this SD nonsense.

What I especially don't get is people complaining about no Blu-Ray release (also in this thread)...and then buying the DVD release and therefore encouraging the studios to continue abandoning Blu-Rays.

For years I have never bought DVDs anymore (for shows from the last 10 years). But if people continue to support the studios by buying their crappy DVDs, then things will never change.

(Actually I made the error of buying Friday Night Lights on DVD, but the quality is so horrible compared to the HD-Version that I really can't watch it. It's like an anthill on my TV screen, while the HD version has a completely clear picture...but sadly has never been released on Disc.)

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

You do not have to "get" anything. (All that does is create logical headaches).

In general people are not rational, especially when it comes to buying stuff. The PHB/Dogbert types running the movie studios are the ones who are attempting to figure out the irrational and illogical spending behavior of their customers.

You are "preaching to the choir" here. ;)

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

Studios didn't drop VHS to "force" people to buy DVD. They stopped producing VHS versions only after DVD totally dominated sales.

Also, releasing TV shows in seasons on DVD is way cheaper and only marginally larger in size than a single film DVD release, while VHS wasn't really a good media format for full season sets (only 2 hours per tape, each tape taking a long time to dupe).

Content providers will go wherever there's a demand for their product. That's why music has seen a resurgence in vinyl releases, while the DVD-A and Blu-ray Audio formats languish.

If a DVD-only release of a TV show has poor sales, the studio will come to conclusion that simply nobody wants the show, and discontinue releasing it on any disc format. They're not likely to put out a Blu-ray release of a low selling DVD title. So "boycotting" the DVD release to try and force a Blu-ray release isn't likely to help. It's more likely that a studio would try releasing a high-selling DVD-only title on Blu-ray in order to increase sales.

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

DVDs cost so much less to produce than a Blu-ray release. The studios purposely did that to keep riff-raff and junk titles off the format, but it did ultimately hurt Blu-ray's maximum market potential.

As sales decline, it's far easier to still profit off a DVD release than Blu-ray.

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

There's still plenty of junk titles on Blu-Ray, many of them with poor technical quality as well as that of the material on them.

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

I disagree.

It didn't stop bottom feeders like The Asylum from releasing their crappy movies on bluray. For example, stuff like Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus, Sharknado, etc ....

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

Definitely.

The purveyors of junk (whether of content and/or technical quality) are bluray companies like Mill Creek, Echo Bridge, The Asylum, etc ...

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

There were far less junk titles released on Blu-ray than DVD. The barriers to entry (exorbitant licensing costs) also removed any chance of niche material (fitness, pre-school content, etc) ever hitting the format. Some of the dip in sales growth can directly be attributed to Blu-ray having no long tail like DVD once did.

There are far worse examples of junk on DVD than trashy Asylum movies.

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

I think the major difference here as that Blu-ray and DVD can coexist in a way in which DVD and VHS couldn't. Blu-ray players can still play DVDs, and more people have DVD players. It obviously makes more commercial sense to release DVDs, since the expense of producing them is presumably less and they are more accessible to pretty much everybody in what's becoming a smaller market. A casual buying impulse buying is more likely to get the DVD. And when sales are low, that seems the obvious choice. Like I said, and HD UV code would be an acceptable compromise, but is there a reason they cannot? Does it have to do with UV consortium, or is it just something in which they're uninterested? Or is it a preference that consumers buy digital directly? Or maybe they just don't care :p.

Remember recording in SP and clipping out the commercials when you wanted to keep a show, or ordering single episodes for exorbitant prices? Ah, good times. Good times.

I could never have predicted that vinyl would see a resurgence in the collectors' market. Shame film can't do the same ;).

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

I was still doing this as recently as 2008/2009. I didn't have a dvr at the time. (I only had a dumb non-hd digital cable box).

At the time, I was recording then-current first-run episodes from the CSI franchise at EP speed, mostly live and pausing the tape during the commercials. In the end, I don't think I ever watched through these tapes again.

In hindsight, perhaps this should have been the first huge sign screaming at me that most tv shows have very little to no rewatch value, which I consciously chose to ignore at the time. :brickwl2:

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

I would like to point out that the extra price charged for a blu-ray compared to it's dvd counterpart is utter bullshit, as by now, the production cost of a blu-ray disc pretty much matches that of the dvd, the blu might cost a penny or two more to produce, but not nearly as big a percentage as they charge. If they were priced according to cost, which would be pretty much equal, I think we'd see blu gaining more traction.

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

It's more than a few pennies. First of all there many times more DVD production lines that can only make DVDs. So there are many more companies, mostly independent, that compete for replication services. On the other hand, most of Blu-ray's lines are owned by Sony. Second, since DVD has been so darn successful and still is, DVD production costs have not stood still and have fallen as well during Blu-ray's era. Third, Blu-ray licensing fees are higher.

Doing an online search for pressing companies will show that getting 1000 Blu-ray discs pressed (with case and artwork) costs over twice as much as pressing 1000 DVDs. I don't know what the difference would be for large scale jobs, but most Blu-ray runs are only in the 1000-5000 range anyway.

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

When DVD was introduced, VHS players were already in nearly every household. Plus there were things like the combination VCR/DVD players, which people bought, especially since VHS was often still the only way to record video at that time.

VHS lost out to DVR, which killed the demand for VCRs. The VHS pre-recorded market was never that big to begin with, due to the low quality of the tapes and their tendency to degrade. DVD caused an explosion in the purchasing of films and TV instead of just renting it. Blu-ray hasn't been able to usurp that command of the market, especially as streaming services have started to enter the market.

Film was never a viable home viewing format. That's why there wasn't really a market for watching films at home until videotape came on the scene. 16mm and Super8 "digests" of films, editing them down to 4-12 minute runtimes, were available for home viewing, but full 35mm feature viewing at home would be prohibitively expensive, if the studios ever even allowed it.
http://www.pulpnovelties.com/History.htm
http://www.monstersfromthevault.com/LittleGiants.html

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

When I see that for years now Lionsgate can sell complete seasons of TV shows (Mad Men, Nurse Jackie, Weeds) for around $10 on Blu-Ray (not only on Black Friday but pretty much year round expect for the most current season), then it can't really be expensive to produce, since they certainly make a good profit even with such low prices.

So why can't all other studios sell their seasons on Blu-Ray also for $10 and preferably charge more for the same seasons on DVD? Because I'm sure the only reason that more people still buy DVDs is just that they are sold cheaper. So studios should start charging a "premium" for people still wanting to buy a legacy format instead of the other way around - and very quickly Blu-Rays will finally be the dominant format.

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

Something like this is already happening, but not for the reasons you're stating.

Tons of older blurays are already ending up in the dump bins at the same price or less than the dvd versions. I suspect this has more to do with the market showing a vote of no confidence in bluray, than any direct studio meddling with prices.

Many dump bin blurays I've been purchasing are frequently less than the price of the dvd-only version in the same dump bin.

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

True, but my point is that DVD is still viable now that the next format has come, and is playable on most Blu-ray players, whereas VHS was phased out since the two formats were basically completely incompatible. DVD and Blu-ray are both optical disc formats, so the physical difference is less. If you want to buy a movie for someone, it's a fair bet that they must have a DVD player, whereas they may not have a Blu-ray player.

DVD was a perfect storm for a variety of reasons though. So much of that stuff had never been available in home viewing format for such agreeable prices, and in OAR, and lots of it had extras which were very novel at the time. You could watch something which you hadn't seen in years or hadn't been readily available previously. Nowadays, streaming can fill that void, often have higher quality, and tape up less space. For a few dollars per month you can access all kind of different things in pretty much any genre from pretty much any era, whether you're an older person who likes classical Hollywood cinema, a teenager who want to watch anime, or whatever your particular field of interest is (except the OOT :p). If you know it's something you want to watch and be finished with and don't want to clutter up space, streaming is more convenient than ever.

I know, that's my point, it was designed for cinemas, it's not something you could distribute on an individual basis, so obviously collectors wouldn't be able to sustain it. There are independently wealthy people who collect prints and can even own cinemas like Quentin Tarantino, but obviously you and I couldn't. Well, I can't. Maybe you're independently wealthy, I don't know ;).

I know, plus as you point out, there are the obvious legal issues involved.

The TV guide was my Bible every week once upon a time, and when I discovered online schedules, it was nirvana too. Once the DVD market hit, I more or less gave it up since you could order most of what you wanted of simply get it from Netflix. Nowadays, if you miss a show, you can watch it free of charge on the station's websites many times anyway.

They aren't really profiting from things on sale though. I work retail, and usually when something is on sale, it indicates that it's something the store is having trouble selling.

Because the manufacturing costs for Blu-ray are higher, and they want to keep up the image that it offers superior quality (Which it of course does).

There really won't be a "dominant format" though. Physical formats of all kinds are a dying breed, streaming is where most of the viewing goes on. CDs hardly sell at all anymore from what I understand, for instance, iTunes downloads are king, compression or not.

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

Lionsgate doesn't sell any of their shows directly to consumers; they sell to retailers, and the retailers set the price. If a retailer wants to sell an item below cost to drive traffic to their stores, that's up to the retailer. But don't think that just because a show occasionally goes on sale for $10 that means Lionsgate is getting only $10 or less for that title.

Also, none of those shows launched on Blu-ray at those prices. As you note, the most current season typically costs more. This is due to the studio getting the majority of the sales upfront at the higher price, then slowly lowering the price to get any stragglers.

Also, you're correct that the pressing cost factors little into the profitability. It's more the initial production cost in authoring and initial pressing of the title. It's basically near twice the work for a studio to release both a DVD and Blu-ray version of a given title. If the Blu-ray doesn't add near double the revenue, it's probably not worthwhile to produce it in the first place. Once a title has been produced, it's pretty trivial to press additional copies. This is why studios are stopping releases of new Blu-ray seasons of some shows, while the Blu-rays of older seasons of the show stay in print.

Or, because they never upgraded to Blu-ray in the first place. Or they don't have a Blu-ray player in the bedroom, where they watch an episode before going to sleep. Or they only have a DVD player in the car, which they use on car trips.

DVD is simply more compatible. That's why there were all those Blu-ray/DVD combo releases for films; people didn't want to give up the convenience of having a DVD, so studios started supplying them with their blu-rays. Studios apparently think doing the same thing for TV shows though doesn't make sense (a 12 disc set, 6 Blu-ray/6 DVD, is too pricey/bulky compared to a 2 disc set).

Studios really aren't in the business of trying to force consumers into a higher-quality format, especially if it costs the studio money. The only appeal Blu-ray has to a studio is as an additional revenue stream; if it fails as that, then the studios will abandon it.

It's why VHS won over Beta: the studios followed the consumer to the more widely used format instead of losing sales trying to "force" consumers into the "better" format.

Keep in mind that "studios" aren't a monolithic entity; they're in competition with each other. If one studio tried to "force" Blu-ray by making DVD titles more expensive, they'd likely lose sales to other studios that would keep their DVD titles at the lower price. Consumers can be fickle, and it typically doesn't do a company good to alienate them, even if it's "for their own good."


Note that I want more titles on Blu-ray. A Blu-ray only release of a TV show would be fine by me. I'm just knowledgeable enough about the industry to know this isn't a practical consideration.

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

Even worse is if the older seasons are just old inventory collecting dust in the movie company's warehouse.

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

I don't necessarily agree that incompatibilty is the reason VHS died though. For example, CD and vinyl are completely incompatible too, but vinyl has held on for decades and is recently growing in popularity. So just because two formats are incompatible doesn't mean that they can't co-exist.

Rather, it was the specific shortcomings of the VHS format, combined with other tech usurping its advantages, such as recording, in a more convenient format, that caused its downfall.

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

But my point was exactly that they are not on sale but are around $10 pretty much the whole year on Amazon, i.e. it's their regular price.

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

Lionsgate uses a different philosophy in pushing their home video products to retailers. There are more incentives to initially over order Lionsgate's releases from a retailing perspective, their volume discounts are greater than the other studios. That is also why you see many of their releases end up selling at massive discounts for the holiday shopping season.

re: Why isn't TV-on-Blu-ray getting any love?
 

Blu-ray titles cost more than their DVD counterparts not because they cost more to manufacture, but because it perceived to be a premium format and commands a higher price.

When CD and cassette tapes were competing audio formats, CDs quickly became less expensive than cassettes to manufacture but still cost between 50 and 100% more because it was a superior product: Better audio quality than a cassette, ability to play tracks in any order, CDs don't wear out from constant play, etc.