backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 144 comment(s) - last by cubdukat.. on Jan 18 at 12:22 AM
HBO, BBC also on Blu-ray Disc's side

Warner’s announcement last week of Blu-ray Disc exclusivity had a ripple effect on more than just one home video company’s releases. Warner Home Video also distributes New Line, HBO and BBC Video products, leaving some to wonder if Blu-ray Disc just gained an entire stable of studio support.

According to Variety, New Line and HBO will follow Warner’s lead to side only with Blu-ray Disc. BBC Video, the company behind the popular high-definition nature documentary Planet Earth, has not yet publicly expressed its intentions with format exclusivity.

New Line already positions its Blu-ray Disc products with greater priority than the equivalent HD DVD. New Line’s first high-definition film, Hairspray, hit Blu-ray Disc in late November 2007, while an HD DVD version was only promised sometime in early 2008.

The reason for the disparity in the release date of Hairspray was supposedly due to HD DVD’s lack of region coding, reported High-Def Digest. Studios can sell Blu-ray Disc and DVD versions in the North American market thanks to region coding technologies that uphold international distribution agreements. The same situation also applies to the currently released Rush Hour 3 on Blu-ray Disc and DVD. New Line has yet to announce release dates for Hairspray and Rush Hour 3 on HD DVD.

Perhaps the most important outcome of New Line's upcoming decision is that the studio owns the rights to The Lord of The Rings trilogy. Should the (second) most compelling motion picture trilogy hit high-definition home video, it’ll be on Blu-ray Disc.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
"second"?
By Gul Westfale on 1/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: "second"?
By cochy on 1/7/2008 9:59:41 AM , Rating: 4
Star Wars.

(IV, V, VI)


RE: "second"?
By EntreHoras on 1/7/2008 10:53:08 AM , Rating: 2
Is Star Wars in HiDef already?
I truly don't know, but I think is not.
What it seems to me, they are talking about The Matrix Trilogy.


RE: "second"?
By FITCamaro on 1/7/2008 11:18:55 AM , Rating: 2
Star Wars is not in HD yet. If it comes out on a particular format, that will drive me to care about having an HD player.


RE: "second"?
By mmntech on 1/7/2008 12:42:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think it may be a while. Look how look it took for the original trilogy to appear on DVD. It really depends what George's flavour of the month is, and right now he's more concerned about the live action series.


RE: "second"?
By Alpha4 on 1/7/2008 12:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
Well I know for a fact that there is a pirated copy of the Starwars Trilogy in High Definition making the rounds on various Torrent Sites. And if you google Star Wars HD you'll find various bits of news and even screenshots with comparisons.

Some things lead me to believe that its not ripped from an official release but maybe from a leaked sample. For instance I've not seen it in stores, and the comparison screenshots show the DVD versions as far more cleaned up, with character complexions appearing softened up and lighter looking.


RE: "second"?
By jonrem on 1/7/2008 1:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure either, but when all 6 movies were recently on HBO HD I was amazed at how much better they looked than the DVD releases. Maybe someone was able to get it off their HD DVR?


RE: "second"?
By JAH on 1/7/2008 1:33:42 PM , Rating: 3
Those are ripped from HBO HD broadcast and it does look better then standard def/DVD versions, but it would be no match for versions that are specifically authored for HD optical media.

Star Wars with 1080p pictures + uncompressed 7.1ch HD sound = *drools*


RE: "second"?
By BZDTemp on 1/7/2008 6:38:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Star Wars with 1080p pictures + uncompressed 7.1ch HD sound = *drools*


LOL - what ever the picture and sound format the Star Wars movies will stay pretty trivial adventure movies. I'd much rather see some really great movies in the new format.

Give me:

Lawrence of Arabia
Le Mans (The Movie)
American Beauty
The Usual Suspects
Apocalypse Now
North by Northwest
Cinema Paradiso


RE: "second"?
By TheBaker on 1/8/2008 6:31:17 AM , Rating: 4
*swoon*

Your disdain of such bourgeous drivel as Star Wars shows us all clearly how superior you are to the unwashed masses. And your choice of great movies! THREE different languages in the titles? Surely there is no one else as cultured and refined as you! Why, what sort of cretin would devote two or more hours of their life to entertainment so casual as a "movie"? Surely their time would be better spent watching a "film" that carries a profound message about the frailty of the human condition.

Kudos to you, sir, for showing us all what we should strive to be.


RE: "second"?
By rykerabel on 1/8/2008 12:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, everyone here needs help.

Red Dwarf > all

LOL


RE: "second"?
By Misty Dingos on 1/9/2008 12:06:49 PM , Rating: 2
You fawn too quickly. His list is suspect. Fine attire but still flawed showing his true nature not in the content but those in absence.

The list should have at the very least.

Blade Runner (director’s final cut)
Cool Hand Luke
Once Upon a Time in the West
The Maltese Falcon
Das Boot (with subtitles for those that don’t speak German)


RE: "second"?
By MatthiasF on 1/10/2008 12:35:17 AM , Rating: 1
While I love Blade Runner, I have a feeling because it's special effects are so dated and the production was on film, a high def version won't be that spectacular.

For the same reason, the rest of your files might seem more crisp but you can only scan film to a certain DPI. A true aficionado would probably prefer watching them from the original film than on a television anyway, high-def or otherwise.

Meanwhile, Children of Men, my second favorite sci-fi movie of all time, was 100% digital and I have a feeling it'll be gorgeous in high def.


RE: "second"?
By cubdukat on 1/18/2008 12:20:17 AM , Rating: 2
Where did you read that "Children of Men" was a digital production? It most certainly was not. It was shot on Kodak Vision 2 Expression 500T, which is a lower-contrast, more muted stock. And that's according to Kodak's own website. Parts of it may have been digitally-originated, but it was mostly shot on film--as it should be.

As for "Blade Runner," much has been made of its being scanned at 4K, and believe you me--if you saw it during its theatrical run last year, you'd never believe the film was 25 years old. Both the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray releases were struck from that 4K version, so it's gonna be a reference-quality disc. If any movie will test the limits of what either format is capable of, it's this one.


RE: "second"?
By Samus on 1/7/2008 1:54:26 PM , Rating: 1
I just downloaded a torrent that included episodes 1-6, all 1080p. Total download size was over 48gb, or apx. 10GB for episodes 1-3, and 7GB for episodes 4-6 (they were shorter in length)

They had to come from somewhere. They're encoded from DTS-HD as well.


RE: "second"?
By FITCamaro on 1/7/2008 2:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
You're free to do a search. Commercially available copies aren't available. As JAH said, likely HBO rips from the HD channel. Or possible rips directly from copies of a theater's files since a lot of it is digital distribution anymore.


RE: "second"?
By jpeyton on 1/7/2008 9:39:34 PM , Rating: 4
At this point, there are two major studios left in HD-DVD's camp: Paramount and Universal.

CES 2008 is the largest consumer electronics show in the world. Paramount has announced their continued support for HD-DVD (not surprising since they have a highly publicized 18-month contract and $150 million payout), but has announced no new titles at CES.

Universal has been declined comment since WB's announcement. Even at CES, they have refused any announcement for continued support for HD-DVD.

Toshiba covered HD-DVD for a few minutes at CES, noting their surprise of WB's announcement, but has announced nothing in regards to 4th generation HD-DVD players or studio support.

[b]Just compare how Blu-Ray and HD-DVD have reacted to studio defections.[/b] When Paramount announced HD-DVD exclusivity in August 2007, Blu-Ray studios like Fox, Sony and Disney came right back and immediately added new titles to their release schedules. They welcomed the media and renewed their commitment to the Blu-Ray format.

Toshiba, Paramount, and Universal have withdrawn from the spotlight since WB's announcement, even though media coverage of the consumer electronics industry is at a peak during CES. Not exactly confidence inspiring, since HD-DVD's 2008 release schedule was already pathetic before the WB announcement.

One last thing: check out Amazon's sales ranks for HD-DVD titles in the 48 hours since WB's announcement. Remember that title availability and pricing have stayed the same before and after the WB announcement. I'll give you a hint: the numbers are tanking. The WB announcement has set off a chain reaction; the media is already crowning Blu-Ray the winner; consumers are taking notice and backing away from the format.


RE: "second"?
By euclidean on 1/9/2008 8:04:14 AM , Rating: 2
There not talking about HiDef Trilogies...as the LOTR trilogy isn't out in HD yet either...there just talking about all time...


RE: "second"?
By virage on 1/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: "second"?
By Pythias on 1/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: "second"?
By deeznuts on 1/7/2008 1:33:10 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, that sounds exactly opposite of my perception. To put it bluntly, Starwars is for everyone, Dressing up as a star wars character is kinda nerdy, but they get laid too, with other nerds.

Nerds who think they are normal say normal men like Star Trek :D


RE: "second"?
By Samus on 1/7/2008 1:58:23 PM , Rating: 2
Startrek always felt super dorky to watch, mostly because it just wasn't realistic, and tried to be.

Starwars doesn't try to be realistic, they're just action movies with a good story, so you don't care about realism, therefor, don't feel like a dork.

Battlestar Galactica tries to be realistic, and succeeds for the most part, making you feel like less of a dork, especially when you consider all the sex, drugs and death, something definately lacking in Startrek ;)


RE: "second"?
By Belard on 1/7/2008 2:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
While Star Trek has many good moments (I never dressed up) - I always tended to think of it more of a fun/kiddie show compared to Star Wars - even whan I was a kid.

The New Battlestar Galatica is simply great. Very human character. In Star Trek - nobody has sex, the characters or the fans (except for Riker and Capt. Kirk)... I think I saw 3 Eps of the last Enterprise series... Cheap kiddie T&A scenes was a turn off. (1) Let's body lube the big-boobed vulcan (2) The Asian girl lost her shirt, runs through the ship covering her breats, while trying to avoid being killed by bad aliens... Sorry, when your life is in danger - You don't care. And in a sexless Star Trek future, who'd notice? ;)

Now FireFly... now those people had sex all the time! With funny semi-nude (not sexual scnes) and even had a Sex scene with a female character wrapped around a guys hips...

FOX studios is exclusivly BluRay... this means: Star Wars, which is a MOVIE that DOES take advantage of HiDef. I have hundreds of DVDs, and I will not replace all my discs - most movies will look fine in up-converted mode. But the best Visual films (Sci-Fi, Anime, Disney, 3D animation, usually) will really take off.

notice: I do not OWN any HiDef players or PS3.


RE: "second"?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/7/2008 4:53:54 PM , Rating: 1
> "While Star Trek has many good moments (I never dressed up) - I always tended to think of it more of a fun/kiddie show compared to Star Wars "

Are you kidding? I don't want to be put in the position of defending either of these, but some of the original ST series were written by greats in the SF field, and dealt with provocative and mature themes. SW, on the other hand, is unabashedly entertainment for children, which Lucas most of all admits to. The new BSG is admittedly adult, but beyond the pilot, its not even SF...its a Soap Opera set in space.

To be honest, though, if one subtracts 'Bladerunner', there really isn't anything in TV or film that qualifies as intelligent, mature SF.


RE: "second"?
By Chaser on 1/7/2008 6:22:24 PM , Rating: 1
Star Trek is old and worn out. Its acting and story quality is so poor compared to Star Wars that the budgets are based upon only nerdie Trekkies paying to see the movies. I like how Roger Ebert put it:
quote:
I think it is time for "Star Trek" to make a mighty leap forward another 1,000 years into the future, to a time when starships do not look like rides in a 1970s amusement arcade, when aliens do not look like humans with funny foreheads, and when wonder, astonishment and literacy are permitted back into the series. Star Trek was kind of terrific once, but now it is a copy of a copy of a copy.


RE: "second"?
By The0ne on 1/7/2008 6:57:20 PM , Rating: 2
And you trust in this guy to believe he knows what he's talking about. Old and outdated? I assume you and all others are talking the first series of Star Trek. If not, his statement does not apply.

I'm not sure why are you guys are arguing on star trek and star wars. I love both and I love the writing on both. Sure there are things to pick on for each, keeping in mind one being a TV and the other a MOVIE. All in all, you must have watched both and enjoyed it for some other reason than you hate it. If you do, this isn't the place for it. As someone had said earlier star trek does has it moments and some of the writings were pretty good. Star wars just had the wow factor included with it to open up more eyes for the "space" adventures :)


RE: "second"?
By Chaser on 1/10/2008 12:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
Trust? no. I trust myself and a top movie reviewer hit the nail on the head. Star Trek is for Trekkies. It lacks the spirit of imagination and "astonishment" to draw much more of a crowd besides some guy putting rubber ears to his head. Star Wars at least draws all walks of life too its movies and does indeed bring astonishment and creativity to a series.

As Ebert says, it's time to change the batteries on those shields that have been going out for decades. /yawn


RE: "second"?
By BZDTemp on 1/7/2008 6:49:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To be honest, though, if one subtracts 'Bladerunner', there really isn't anything in TV or film that qualifies as intelligent, mature SF.


Look again!

There is:

12 Monkeys
Farenheit 451
V for Vendetta
1984

To name just a few


RE: "second"?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/7/2008 10:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"There is:

12 Monkeys
Farenheit 451
V for Vendetta
1984"
I enjoyed V for Vendetta, but it certainly wasn't SF...if anything it was a political polemic. I'll grant you the others though :)


RE: "second"?
By Belard on 1/8/2008 7:30:30 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you a lot... I like quite a bit of Star Trek - but you know that nobody ever gets killed and the problem is solved in 50mins. FireFly... anyone can die and had some story arcs that were not allowed to finish. Babylon5 some characters deaths and of course it took seasons to tell its stories.

BSG - yep, and that IS what makes it good. Kind of like why Pitch Black is very good while the sequal kinda blew chunks... one movie was about character and dark creatures, the other - action.

What makes Star Wars quite a bit different than Star Trek is that SW is timeless. Star Trek looks and acts dated (not just the 60's series, but the movies and TV shows)

Bladerunner, the ultimate... just missed it in the theater last month! Ugh! I both the ultimate edition of that box set... best collectors set, period. Still going through the extras ;)


RE: "second"?
By djc208 on 1/7/2008 5:11:34 PM , Rating: 3
I see three basic types of sci-fi:

The pseudo-science ones: Star Trek TNG fits here. It was never very gritty but almost always watchable. Problem is they used "pseudo-science" to solve most problems. Almost believable but not very realistic which kind of ruined the effect. The stargate shows were/are another good example of this type.

Then there's the science as a prop shows. I think Star Wars was the father of these, and probably it's best example. Don't bother explaining how the Death Star works just show what it does. The original Star Trek started in this area but since it was a TV show it had to be more wholesome than Star Wars.
Galactica has been very well done, but that's because it's a good story set in a sci-fi background, they don't dwell on the technology, just use it as the backdrop to the characters and the story.
Firefly did this fairly well too, amusing characters and interesting story told in a sci-fi setting.
My personal favorite (and one of the best IMO) was Farscape, some of the best stories, very good effects, and wonderful characters, but the science was a prop, not the purpose.

The other end of the spectrum were the harder SF shows. Babalon 5 was probably one of the best here, no flying through space like an airplane, not everyone automatically spoke the same language or breathed the same air, etc. Still a good story, but more believable than most other sci-fi shows. Andromeda was good at this too.


RE: "second"?
By Mitch101 on 1/7/2008 4:22:39 PM , Rating: 2
Until someone in Battlestar Galactica says FRAK which after saying takes me out of the story for a moment.

For the record so does seeing a phone number with a 555- in the prefix.


RE: "second"?
By cubdukat on 1/18/2008 12:22:59 AM , Rating: 2
Only if they give it a 4K scan, and they release one end-all, be-all version.


RE: "second"?
By FITCamaro on 1/7/2008 9:59:57 AM , Rating: 2
Star Wars.


RE: "second"?
By Oscarine on 1/7/2008 10:00:25 AM , Rating: 2
My guess would be Star Wars Episodes IV through VI.


RE: "second"?
By Oscarine on 1/7/2008 10:01:06 AM , Rating: 2
Three replies in 40 seconds, looks like I'm the slowest typist heh.


RE: "second"?
By Terberculosis on 1/7/2008 10:00:29 AM , Rating: 5
Nope, Wrong, all of you.

It's Robocop


RE: "second"?
By Gul Westfale on 1/7/2008 10:02:31 AM , Rating: 2
ah yes, star wars... i was never a huge fan but i like darth vader... but since he isn;t really in the first 3 episodes (the new ones) i kinda forgot... and NO, that backstreet boys reject in ep.3 is not the real darth vader.


RE: "second"?
By cochy on 1/7/2008 10:03:57 AM , Rating: 5
In my mind the first three episodes never happened. They were all a bad dream.


RE: "second"?
By mpc7488 on 1/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: "second"?
By cochy on 1/7/2008 10:32:37 AM , Rating: 3
Your rating won't register if you post in the same thread.

FYI


RE: "second"?
By Pythias on 1/7/2008 12:01:11 PM , Rating: 4
Kind of like the last 47 Highlander movies.


RE: "second"?
By Andrwken on 1/7/2008 3:06:21 PM , Rating: 4
"waves hand"

There is no first 3 episodes.


RE: "second"?
By Mitch101 on 1/7/2008 4:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't think episode 2 and 3 were that bad.

Episode 1 was a lame because of the kids acting ability and poor direction on the part of Lucas. There are a lot of emotional scenes that should have been done close up to add dramatic effect instead they were shot from a distance. So you never connected with any of the characters except the one Jedi who got killed. I also believe that Anikan shouldn't have done a lot of things by accident. If they gave him confidence toward the end of the movie it would have had a better effect. Lets roll thats a good trick. Barf. Jar Jar accidentally wiping things out in a poor attempt at humor. Is this the three stooges or Star Wars?

Things could be worse though like Terminator 3.
1 - Remote Control Cop cars without visual aid to steer them?
2 - Bouncing a truck over to hit the terminatrix without hitting Connor?
3 - The coffin gets carried into the car and they have a conversation while the FBI cant seem to hit the car with a bullet or track the car as it easily gets away?
4 - Connor somehow walks right into a secret military base with no effort? Umm how did he get in there?
5 - Terminator fights programming was the lamest scene of all.
6 - missile fired into the window of the military installation and has the lamest explosion worse than a bottle rocket.

I could go on but if there is a movie that should have been a dream it was Terminator 3.


RE: "second"?
By Andrwken on 1/7/2008 8:21:48 PM , Rating: 2
I actually liked them too. I was just having some fun in my intense boredom.


RE: "second"?
By mdogs444 on 1/7/2008 10:01:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
richard simmons' pink spandex workout millenium extreme edition?

Uhh....erm....clear to see what you are looking forward to.


RE: "second"?
By Gul Westfale on 1/7/2008 10:08:34 AM , Rating: 6
RE: "second"?
By trajan on 1/7/2008 11:07:56 AM , Rating: 2
Why would you do that to us?
Why???


RE: "second"?
By Spuke on 1/7/2008 11:10:54 AM , Rating: 2
LMAO!!!!!! That is WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!


RE: "second"?
By FITCamaro on 1/7/2008 11:20:44 AM , Rating: 2
Don't blame him that you were dumb enough to look at it.

I knew it'd be something I wouldn't want to see.


RE: "second"?
By Pythias on 1/9/2008 3:35:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why would you do that to us? Why???


You've been Richard Rolled.


RE: "second"?
By Belard on 1/7/2008 2:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
Hey! When they make a blu-ray version of that, will it be a Special Deluxe Edition with mult-views, TruHD Dolby? Imagine all the room for the extra's that we'll be getting!


RE: "second"?
By KeithTalent on 1/7/2008 11:12:34 AM , Rating: 3
Wait, I'm the only one that takes issue with you saying The Godfather was overrated? Also, Godfather 3 never happened, so it's not a trilogy.

KT


RE: "second"?
By deeznuts on 1/7/2008 1:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
No you aren't. Godfather Part I and II are so excellent and have so much going on, simples just don't get it. So don't fret.

Tip: GF I and II are already excellent on their own. But I had to read the book for an organized crime class I took in college. It made the two movies so much better, it is definitely worth a read. It opened up a lot of info.


RE: "second"?
By VitalyTheUnknown on 1/7/2008 11:19:59 AM , Rating: 5
I do kill off every man who says overrated Godfather.


RE: "second"?
By Pythias on 1/7/2008 12:02:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I do kill off every man who says overrated Godfather.


...for The Family.


RE: "second"?
By daftrok on 1/7/2008 1:37:01 PM , Rating: 3
Peter: It insists upon itself.


RE: "second"?
By Anonymous Freak on 1/7/2008 4:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
Disney markets Pirates of the Caribbean as the biggest trilogy of the decade. (I thought that was pretty overreaching on their part, personally.)


RE: "second"?
By Mitch101 on 1/7/2008 4:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
Sign of the times "Everything is Over Rated"


On a Side Note...
By Oscarine on 1/7/2008 10:05:19 AM , Rating: 1
At least Warner unlike the nice folks over at Paramount/Dreamworks, are still committed to releasing titles they had projected to release on HDDVD on HDDVD.

From what I rememeber reading, Paramount/Dreamworks actually destroyed disks days before releasing them on Blu-ray following there $150 million dollar "donation" from the HDDVD camp.




RE: On a Side Note...
By Terberculosis on 1/7/2008 10:22:45 AM , Rating: 1
I would like to announce righ here and now that I am considering moving my production company to an HD-DVD exclusivity contract. HD-DVD camp, please feel free to contact me to discuss donations.


RE: On a Side Note...
By chick0n on 1/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: On a Side Note...
By OxBow on 1/7/2008 11:12:55 AM , Rating: 3
If you do receive a "donation" I'd cash that check quickly. It doesn't look like HD-DVD will be around much longer to honor it.

It makes me wonder whether HD-DVD will be wanting their $150,000,000.00 back to cover the legal woes involved in closing up shop. I certainly can see Paramount saying "Thanks for the money, we stuck with you as long as you were viable. Have a nice day."


RE: On a Side Note...
By Spuke on 1/7/2008 12:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
There's still three studio's on HD DVD. When they switch, then it'll be dead but not before.


RE: On a Side Note...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/7/2008 12:58:46 PM , Rating: 1
There are actually 45 studios releasing on HD-DVD, if you count all the smaller organizations.

Among major studios, 4 (Universal, Paramount, Dreamworks, and Weinstein) are HD-DVD exclusive and one (New Line) is dual-format.


RE: On a Side Note...
By Murst on 1/7/2008 2:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
Weinstein? Guess it must be major where you live, cause I've never heard of it.

And as for New Line... isn't this article about how it will be BR exclusive?


RE: On a Side Note...
By goodstuff on 1/7/2008 2:17:46 PM , Rating: 2
Weinstein. LOL, they dumped HD-DVD. Their last release was back in June.


RE: On a Side Note...
By saiga6360 on 1/7/2008 2:41:17 PM , Rating: 2
That's hardly saying anything when they are considered the worst studio for HD releases on either format.


RE: On a Side Note...
By Oscarine on 1/7/2008 2:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
Weinstein Brothers. Famous producers, broke off from there parent company 2? years ago now.

Some added sillyness is that Weinstein was for awhile (and may still be) Blockbuster Exclusive for rentals... and most Blockbusters are Blu-ray only for rentals so no Weinstein HDDVD rentals I guess.


RE: On a Side Note...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/7/2008 2:25:15 PM , Rating: 1
> "Weinstein? Guess it must be major where you live, cause I've never heard of it."

The Weinstein Bros are the founders of Miramax, and two of the biggest names in Hollywood. Their new production company has only been out a couple of years, and is responsible for titles such as Scary Movie 4, Clerks 2, Lucky Number Slevin, Hannibal Rising, etc. In market size, they're already tied with Miramax, and about half the size of MGM.

> "as for New Line... isn't this article about how it will be BR exclusive? "

About how it might become BD exclusive.


RE: On a Side Note...
By ElrondElvish on 1/7/2008 2:36:13 PM , Rating: 5
uh... thats the first time I've ever seen anyone (person, media, etc) try to say the Weinstein's have a "major studio". Hardly. Neither is Dreamworks, of course. No one in the industry even remotely considers them along with the major studios.

I understand your desire to paint them that way and they certainly shouldn't be discounted, but major studios? No.


RE: On a Side Note...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/7/2008 2:46:21 PM , Rating: 2
> "uh... thats the first time I've ever seen anyone (person, media, etc) try to say the Weinstein's have a "major studio". "

With a 2.5% market share and 10+ full-budget releases a year, Weinstein Co. is a major studio compared to the hundreds of minor studios that average one low-budget flick or less a year.

To be precise, the industry usually refers to them as a "mini-major", to distinguish them from powerhouses such as Paramount and WB:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_film_studio


RE: On a Side Note...
By ElrondElvish on 1/7/2008 4:11:31 PM , Rating: 3
By your (lone) logic, Blu-ray now has 10 "major" studios in their corner and HD-DVD has four. Thats ridiculous:

Blu
Warner Bros.
Disney (Buena Vista)
Sony Pictures
20th Century Fox
New Line Cinema
MGM
Lionsgate
Screen Gems (Sony)
Fox Searchlight
Miramax

HD-DVD
Paramount Pictures
Universal Studios
Dreamworks Pictures
Weinstein Co.

I'm sorry, but no one counts all those studios the way you are attempting to.


RE: On a Side Note...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: On a Side Note...
By ElrondElvish on 1/7/2008 5:30:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Except for the entire motion picture industry, you mean?


Well, considering that the entire motion picture industry calls the six majors, uh, "majors"... then no. Only you want to call all these studios majors (splice with mini-majors all you want: six actual major studios control 90% of the market, not 14). Read your own linked wiki: it states exactly that, of course.

quote:
Work in the field, or take a cinematic history class, and you'll hear the same terms.


Fortunately, I do work in the field: for CanWest Global in Vancouver. No one, I repeat, no one calls Weinstein Co. a major movie studio in this industry.

quote:
BTW, Lion's Gate and Weinstein Co are both majors ("mini-majors", if you prefer), but Screen Gems certainly isn't. Not only is it a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony/Columbia, but its release schedule of ~5 films/year doesn't quite push it over the limit.


Now you are really stretching. Dreamworks is exactly the same type of company as Lion's Gate: only its a wholly owned subsidiary of Paramount. Yet, you want to somehow mix all these industry recognized and standard terms in a big pile and pick at random what you desire to classify for whatever reason. It simply doesn't work that way in the actual industry, I'm afraid (or ever in the press... I'd never heard of anyone calling Weinstein a major studio until you uttered it).


RE: On a Side Note...
By ElrondElvish on 1/7/2008 5:33:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Dreamworks is exactly the same type of company as Lion's Gate


I meant to type Screen Gems, of course, not Dreamworks. Although they too are wholly own subsidiary's.


RE: On a Side Note...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: On a Side Note...
By Chaser on 1/7/2008 6:34:18 PM , Rating: 5
Welcome to HD DVD fantasy land. Its the last bastion of HD DVD hope and denial driven spin doctoring.


RE: On a Side Note...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: On a Side Note...
By Brockway on 1/8/2008 5:28:29 AM , Rating: 2
Screw LOTR, I want my Doctor Who BD's! Dear god, what I would pay them to release the (entire)old seasons on Bluray. *droooooools*


RE: On a Side Note...
By Belard on 1/8/2008 7:34:24 AM , Rating: 2
Why? The original Dr.Who from the 60s~80s was shot for broadcast TV, which is sub-par to DVD output.

Blu-Ray/HD-DVD of TV shows is not a big deal - unless they were ACTUALLY filmed and remastered onto HiDef.

As much as I enjoyed Dr.Who (Tom Baker of course) - I don't think I want to see how much more FAKE the sets and tech look in HiDef ;)


RE: On a Side Note...
By Brockway on 1/10/2008 2:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I kind of meant for them to cram them in remastered SD onto Bluray. Kind of like those remastered 3 stooges episodes. There's like 30 seasons of this show, getting it to fit on like 15 blurays instead of 40+ would be awesome. Trying to get them on DVD is tough the way they release them, I'd pay alot for a Dr. Who mega bluray box set.


RE: On a Side Note...
By ElrondElvish on 1/9/2008 4:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
I know what a mini-major is... but, again, thats not the issue. From your original post that I replied to, up till this one, you keep attempting to say that Weinstein Co. is a major studio. You've said that now four different times.

Weinstein Co. is not a major studio.

Yes, its a mini-major, as is Lion's Gate, MGM, etc. But thats not what we've been arguing about together. Please stop calling Dreamworks and Weinstein major studios and we'll be done with this silly topic ;).

In short: yes, Weinstein Co. is a "mini-major" studio. No, its nowhere near one of the six actual "major" studios.


RE: On a Side Note...
By ElrondElvish on 1/7/2008 2:41:24 PM , Rating: 3
As for New Line, there's no "might" involved. They confirmed Blu exclusive to Variety.


RE: On a Side Note...
By Gio6518 on 1/7/2008 11:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
you havent read the financial times lately HUH ?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc409afa-bd75-11dc-b7e6-...


RE: On a Side Note...
By Belard on 1/8/2008 8:05:15 AM , Rating: 2
If that Escape Clause is there, Paramount would do it ASAP... they have angered both sides thou. BR for leaving in the first place and HD-DVD for going back.

To make good, Paramount should offer coupons or replacement to those exclusive HD-DVD titles... luckily, thats not too many titles.

The remaing little studios will switch over faster (bet they are already making calls for BR production) and Blu-Ray factories are ordering new hardware for mastering/production lines.

Universal will not be stupid enough to be the ONLY studio left to support Toshiba... its not worth the money they'll lose. Universal will know that HD-DVD owners will not be buying new titles. (Some will, but not not most).

I had predicted about 4~6 months for one of these studios to switch to BluRay. With that clause, it can be the next 1~30days that Paramount/Dreamworks goes Blu... Who wants to bet during CES?


RE: On a Side Note...
By Hawkido on 1/11/2008 3:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
you should be saying that you see no benifit for moving to the HDDVD production side.

Why would you bribe a congressman or senator if he is already going to vote the way you want?


RE: On a Side Note...
By TimTheEnchanter25 on 1/7/2008 10:46:29 AM , Rating: 2
I really wonder if the timing of when they stop releasing HD-DVD disks (May) is going to be when the LOTR is going to be released. That would be a huge increase in sales of Blu Ray players. Much more than what Transformers did for HD-DVD.


RE: On a Side Note...
By Murst on 1/7/2008 10:54:03 AM , Rating: 3
Perhaps it has something to do w/ a specific release, but I think its more likely that titles slated for release in May have already had a significant investment put into them, and they may not want to throw away all that work.


RE: On a Side Note...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/7/2008 10:56:06 AM , Rating: 1
Most likely.


RE: On a Side Note...