 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.80.76.45
and don't bet on BluRay being the savior.
-Wendell
Follow Ups:
.
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well
(Proverb)
Charge exorbitantly for the "new" release ($30-40), six months later, the stores are dumping them at 40-60% of "original MSRP". Now you can just wait for the sales; Last time I walked into Fry's, I saw at least five (5) Blu-ray movies priced at $12.99. Best Buy is starting to do this as well (...finally).
In the early '90s I remember spending $20 on a new VHS and those $20 were worth a lot more in 1990 than $20 today. Blu-ray is amazingly cheap for the quality. This isn't just the same strategy as DVD. Every new technology is introduced at a high pricepoint and comes down over the years.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
VHS went from a rental model, with very high prices for purchase, to a sales model that knocked the price down significantly. DVD was an easily observed improvement over videotape. The difference, between DVD and BluRay, is much closer for the average person. It's a tougher sale and is not going to support, in the long term, a premium over standard DVD.
-Wendell
Edits: 02/22/09
That doesn't just apply to video formats. It's across the board. There's no getting around it.
But there is no reason Blu-ray will cost more than DVD in the long run and in fact I am already buying most of my BDs for what I spent on DVDs a few years ago. The players are quite cheap for a two-yr old format and still coming down in price.
The difference between DVD and BD is apparent to anyone with an HDTV set. And BD is the growth area in optical home video. DVD lost market share last year for the first time since its introduction while Blu-ray is in the throes of double digit growth. It's one of the few bright spots in the downturn.
I'll post Auph's reply so he doesn't have to:
Your pom poms are out and you look good in your blu-cheerleader outfit. Now where's my bong?
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
I just picked up Amadeus and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest for $14.99 ea at Best Buy. When the price becomes a mere $5 premium over the standard DVD version, I'll go for the Blu-ray.
I know I'm not alone, and I suspect the studios and retailers are finally figuring this out. In this poor economy, I expect more sales and have been very disappointed at how stubborn the stores have been on Blu-ray pricing - especially on the older movies. After a year, I still have less than 30 Blu-ray discs in my collection.
> > > After a year, I still have less than 30 Blu-ray discs in my collection. < < <
After about 2 years, I have bout 50, some of which were free.
In my case, its more about selection, or lack thereof. I keep hoping BD will catch on, so they'll finally put out more titles I want.
We'll see.
jack
Maybe there is a connection.
Joe
Not sure what you mean by really good movies, but AFAIK they are not what sell the big numbers. "Mutiny on the Bounty" is not going to sell top numbers on DVD/Bluray. Blockbuster movies (Matrix, etc) are what sell. No?
Besides the economy...
I think the market is somewhat flooded. People have their collection (for those who collect) and will now trickle add some as new faves come along. But it's not a new thing anymore. And I personally can't imagine BD will by any means replace SD DVD. The move from VHS to DVD was huge to my eyes and worth it even as an early adopter. It was a digital revolution. :)
BD is not as large a jump (IMO), so it's not as if BD sales will take over where DVD drops off. Even just as far as being the same old disc.
So I think it's simply market saturation. And short of holographic presentation or a disc that fits in the palm of your hand (or less), I think the drop will continue. BD will rise for a while longer perhaps, but that too will even off and eventually drop. All IMO only.
Some examples. I heard that Dark Night was a good seller, but I barely made it through my Netflix rental copy. While I thought the picture quality and sound were superb, as a movie I found it highly forgettable, even stupid allowing for all suspension of disbelief, and certainly not one I would care to watch again. And this was supposed to be a big seller. I barely made it through the dreadful latest Indiana Jones movie, though I liked the earlier ones and even own two of them. It would be torture to have to watch it again. I found Vicky Christina Barcelona somewhat entertaining, but would never buy it. No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood are two movies I think I might want to see again some day- there were depths to those movies I don't think I fully appreciated on my first viewing- but not enough to own. As I said in my original post, I'm probably far too critical and not typical of the average movie goer. Maybe I've gotten more that way as I've aged, but my impression is that the number of new movies that I really like introduced each year has steadily gone down. It's probably me. On the other hand, it's my impression that on average the quality of acting has gone up over the decades. Many films from the '50s through the '70s, even with famous stars, had some pretty poor acting in them.
Joe
Edits: 02/20/09
I thought Dark Knight had the possibility of being very good... if not for Bale. We still joke around about his horribly fake deep voice. "I'M BATMAN...." OK. Sorry Bale, didn't do it for me. Borderline ruined the movie. A few others also didn't fare too well.
Haven't seen the latest Indiana; I'll probably pain through it some day semi-soon. Thanks for the warning. :)
Never heard of "Vicky..." or "There Will be Blood" so I can't comment there.
For my taste however, No Country was a waste of 2 hours. I've been reading here as of late this is a "Coen film". The poster mentioned other Coen films, none of which I liked either. That goes for Tarantino also however, so I guess I just don't like "popular" (?) movies.
Overall I have to definitely agree with your conclusion. I rent a movie once every 1-3 weeks. I'm shocked when I go because I always think to myself.. "self, I haven't seen a movie for a while, so there'll be TONS of great choices". Self is usually wrong. :)
There Will Be Blood because of Day-Lewis' overacting. I really liked No Country For Old Men because I found the acting to be outstanding.
-Wendell
...downloading, stream and on demand services.
I don't own DVDs or BDs unless it's a title I love and will watch over and over. Otherwise I rent it.
But I do confess I like having that library of precious discs in hand and "touchable" for whenever I feel like it. Of course, I've also passed the half century mark.
OK, turning 45 this year. :) But I have the same "want the physical item in my hand" attitude. I agree though, that's the future.
Blueray is too expensive, we buy one SD DVD a month more or less. Netflix direct downloading is the future, we love it.
Netflix claims Millions of subscribers used streaming video.
I've had this thing for about a year now, and what can I say? It's been terrific. Yes, I wouldn't mind more non US/UK content and more soundtrack options, but browsing is so handy, and sometimes I spend a couple of hours just checking out trailers before finally deciding on something totally off the wall.
I'd guesstimate that:
70% of my annual video fix can be handled by Apple TV
20% goes to my local independent rental store
10% (at best) I deem worthy of multiple viewings,and purchase.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
