Well, it's about time. Read this at Home thetre forum, figured I'd post the original link fo r you guys. GO WARNER BROTHERS!!!

http://www.dvdreview.com/

From DVD REVIEW -----

"Readers of this site know that I have little sympathy for the country's largest rental chain, Blockbuster, or its chairman John Antioco for that matter. Well, finally it seems as if Antioco shot himself in the foot – big time potentially.
After bullying studios into all sorts of business practices that suited his needs, more recently Antioco became very vocal about how he thinks business has to be done with Blockbuster. Even more, he threatened not to carry certain studios' titles, unless they comply with his wishes. Just in time for the weekend to give Antioco some desperately needed time to think, Warner Home Video's Warner Lieberfab answered the call.
Instead of bowing to Blockbuster's outrageous requests, Lieberfab decided to announce the upcoming release is Swordfish as a sell-through title only. While this is common practice in DVD-land, in the world of VHS, this is a dramatic development. Basically, what this means is that Warner is cutting out all rental chains – spearheaded by Blockbuster – out of the loop, making Swordfish a title to buy rather than rent. There go Blockbuster's profits and margins. And unless Antioco comes to his senses and becomes more reasonable in his business practices, it is easy enough for Lieberfab to convert all of Warner's video releases to sell-through pricing – something he has already hinted at. That this would be fatal for blockbuster is evident, since the rental chain makes its profits on rental – and late-fee rip-offs.
It certainly seems there is a change on the horizon and with Blockbusters attempts to strong-arm Universal a few months ago, I would expect some response from other studios fairly quickly. Could this be the end of Blockbuster? I don't know, but the industry-bully definitely needed to be reigned in.

Ah, never mind, he edited it...

I can see good and bad comming from this. On the one hand I am glad that Warner gave the finger to Blockbuster on the other, this happens to be a movie that I would have rented and not bought. I can't afford to buy every movie that comes out (nor do I want to). What I would be concerned with here is this becoming a pissing match between to companies that leaves the consumer out in the cold. What keeps Warner from jacking up the price on the DVD if you can't rent it?

Actually this is good news for dvds. Prices are jacked up for rentals, not sell throughs. With the noises being made recently about the possibility of two tier pricing dvds like tapes this is very good news.

Dreamworks is doing this as well...but with a much bigger title: Shrek. Both the DVD and VHS are being released day-and-date at priced to own levels.


Shop Smart Shop S-Mart:

You'll still be able to rent Swordfish. The problem for Blockbuster is that more people would be "inclined" to buy because of the low cost. You'll still be able to find it for rent at all changes...probably just not in mass quantities because there's no monopoly on the market like there was with rental pricing. Trust me...this is a great thing.

well dreamworks is doing the shrek thing in reaction to how blockbuster treated american beauty's release. i worked there at the time and i couldn't figure out why management wanted to keep all the copies behind the counter and customers had to ask if it was in, leaving the shelf look like they were all rented out.

Why would they do that? Were they hoping people would just buy it instead? Or are they just friendly with the crack pipe?

It's my understanding it was done because Dreamworks had not yet entered into future revenue sharing agreements with Blockbuster. BallBuster was flexing (or thought they were) their muscle to try and strong-arm Dreamworks by saying..."see how much impact we have...if we don't display your title you get no rental profits..." I think in the end Blockbuster flinched and put it back on the shelf because so many customers were looking for it and pissed.

I personally think this is Dreamworks way of getting Blockbuster back and I'm all for it.

A bit of clarification, as I see it. Rental Pricing is about $80-$100 a copy, while Sellthrough Pricing is $15-$25 a copy, all depending on title (Perfect Murder, for example, was $149 a copy). Now, huge rental chains often work out discounts since they're buying in huge quanties, often getting those $100 movies for $30 or so. However, smaller stores (Mom N' Pop) can't get those discounts, so they get only a few copies. This is how Blockbuster is constantly on top - they can afford to work out deals that benefit them. If new titles are only SellThrough priced, then everyone will be on a more equal play field (tho I'm sure the big chains will still pay less than the smaller stores) and Blockbuster won't be the only place you can go and see 100 copies of Swordfish.

I make it a point never to buy or rent from Blockbuster. Maybe I would buy there if I wanted to pay extra for a movie that I could get for less almost anyplace else.

This news about Blockbuster only solidifies my dislike for the place!

i never go to blockbuster, cuz they suck, the big store chain that is the best is HOLLYWOOD VIDEO!! 5 day rentals on ALL their movies, dvds, vhs, new releases, old releases!!! but this is great about blockbuster, the owner sounds like a dick, and maybe now he'll realize blockbuster is a little chain store, but warner, universal, dreamworks, paramount, and all the other studios are MAJOR STUDIOS and pull in all the big bucks from the movies!!

I never EVER rented from Blockbuster..and NEVER EVER would buy a dvd from them. They can suck my nuts. I can't buy or make business with a company who is one huge scam artist.

-Chris Jericho

I don't like how Blockbuster is pushing people around trying to get their way but I got Snatch and Unbreakable there for under $15 each. I'd like to sign them off and join the haters, but as a poor college student, I just can't afford to. Besides, it's the only rental place around here that's worth going to.

Great news.....news which reaffirms my stance against Blockbuster and my refusal to rent from them any longer. Titles I choose not to keep(which I have purchased) I sell for as much or more than I paid for the title in the first place making it cheaper to buy then to rent. If I rent...I am out $4.00-$5.00 bucks and have time constraints on when I have to view the movie. Screw em!!!

Ok, Im a Blockbuster employee and I wont argue with any of yall, Blockbuster sucks. But unfortantely, for a 17 year old kid in Millington, Tennessee their isnt anywhere better to work if you enjoy movies.

Blockbuster is definately a ripoff. I've been working there for 6 months, haven't gotten my 90 day evaluation/raise yet and I'm making 5.35 an hour. Though everyone hired after me is making 5.50. Ok sorry, I got off on a personal rant there.

Blockbuster really got screwed on O Brother Where Art Thou also. Our average sized store got 129 copies of Castaway and 10 copies of O Brother. O Brother is constantly whinned about being out while we PVTed like 70 some copies of Castaway yesterday. They just sat on the shelf while O Brother was being fought after. The reason behind the lack of O Brothers, Blockbuster had to pay like 69 bucks per copy instead of their usual discount. So we were killed and still are. People cant get that movie for anything.

Its terrible when people are hired who dont even like movies or know anything about them to run a store. Im the Movie Encyclopedia of our store and its pathetic. I mean, we were putting up posters this weekend. My manager decided to put up Snatch, Hannibal, Get Over It and See Spot Run instead of many other posters such as Driven. See Spot Run? I dont get it. How about promoting The Mexican with that poster or Blow for all I care.

Also, they are moving our average sized by cutting it to 1/4 of its size now (its a small store, no magazines, no cds etc) just to be in front of Walmart for more traffic. Its a terrible intersection with no room for parking but they want the traffic and dont care they are cutting basically all their inventory. Supposedly they are going to have a 1 day .99 cent sell on all the old BSI. Im going to use my whopping 15% discount and clean up. Idiots.

Brandon Myers

This is my first post in this section of the page. Anyway, I haven't rented from any store in about 2 years eversince I started with my DVD collection. When I did rent it would be either VHS or video games and always from Hollywood video. For some reason I always disliked Blockbuster. I really started disliking them once I got into DVD and learned of the powerplays they were trying to pull against the studios.

While I am still angry with Warner over the Willy Wonka fiasco I must through them a bone in this case. GO WARNER! Anyway, I hope Blockbuster gets everything that they deserve from the studios.

Hey TheWrongGuy people getting hired that know nothing about the product they are carrying is nothing new. It is like that for all companies. The little guy does all the work and the big man with the suit gets all the glory. Unless you own your own busineess or become an exec you better get used to it.

Okay, I posted the DVDReview editorial in another post, and one of the guys here at DVDTalk (can't remember his name... maybe he'll chime in here to this thread) posted an intriuging reply.
The gist of it was: VHS has never really been a collectable format (unlike DVD). The vast majority of people who desire to see Swordfish on VHS are going to rent it from chains like Blockbuster, rather than buy it outright. Now, with Warner deciding to abandon the rental-pricing model for this particular title, it simply means that Blockbuster will be able to purchase it at a significantly cheaper price and put it out on its rental shelves.
So essentially, the primary benificiary of Warner's decision *is* Blockbuster.

Wouldn't the beneficiaries of the sell-through Swordfish be the smaller stores, though, since they don't have to pay as much per copy and given the fact that they have less circulation??

Not entirely correct. The reason VHS never exploded in a collectible format for the masses was because of rental pricing. Go back and look at the uproar caused because Indiana Jones was going to be released at sell-through pricing.

Now when a video is released at rental pricing (say $75.00) it's not very often the price that Blockbuster pays. That's why they are such pricks. They demand those high prices so that people won't outright by the movie. It also makes it hard for mom and pop shops because they can typically only afford a copy or two. Yet, BB then turns around and says...hey, nationwide we are buying X thousand copies..give us a huge discount. So they end up really only paying maybe $30.00 a copy. Hence they can afford more copies and then promote themselves as the store that will have it in stock.

This move makes it a level playing field for the consumer, mom and pop shops, and Blockbuster.

Make of this what you will...

Blockbuster ordered very few copies of Swordfish. Their reasoning was because of the terrorist themes of the movie. Or maybe they just don't want it to rent well...

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/bpihw/2...rdfish__1.html

I think Blockbuster's pants are on fire, after I read that blatant lie in their response. Movies with terrorism/anti-terrorism conflicts are renting well...so we'll order less of this new one because we don't think it will rent as well as it would have before 9/11?...Riiiiiight. The reporter calls them on this in the second paragraph which begins "Ironically".

I all behind WARNER......and I hate the double-standards that BLo0ckbuster offers. I do not need to be brainwashed.

Thank you!!!!!!

I'm surprised someone hasn't started a "Buy Swordfish, down with Blockbuster" petition already :-P

As far as I know, there is no rental pricing for DVDs. There is a wholesale price, about $15 on average, that retailers and rental stores pay for DVDs. Blockbuster thinks that DVDs are a rental medium and it wants to get an every lower rental price for each DVD, thereby making a profit even earlier on rentals of each film. Blockbuster does this with VHS, sharing the rental fees on each film with the movie studios. I don't know why the movie studios would sell to Blockbuster as a lower price in the hopes of making a profit on their share of the rental fees when the margins are so good on DVDs. It cost more money to make a VHS tape that it does a DVD.

I think most of us here disagree with the Blockbuster statement that DVDs are a rental product, especially since all the extras are clearly marketed to buyers. Also, Americans aren't too adverse to buying their entertainment, be it cable television, movie tickets or DVDs. And once DVDs are in as many homes as VCR's are, the cost of DVD movies will come down again because the studios will be able to make a profit on the sales volume, selling to a larger audience.

I think the smarter route for Blockbuster would be to start selling DVDs in earnest, instead of having only a few title for sale. More severly, it could eliminate late fees on DVDs and instead make the customer pay for the film with a portion of the rental fee deducted from the sale price.

Blockbuster is just a big rip off. I don't rent from there often, maybe about 3 times since I've got the account back in 99. All these mystery charges start to pop up in my account. I return all BEFORE the due date in the original package. I'm one VERY unsatisfy customer. It's a good thing there this is happening to them. Who do they think they are? It's only a stupid video rental store. There are plenty of video stores out there. I've heard plenty of good stuff from Hollywood Video. There is the Warehouse, and locol video stores. We don't need these guys!