mann-scorsese

Two film tech tidbits for you: First up, we’ve caught word from the Italy-based blog screenWEEK that Michael Mann is apparently very interested in doing a 3D feature at some point. In a recent event with Mann regarding Public Enemies, someone in the crowd asks him about shooting in 3D. Mann responds:

Yes! I’d love to shoot a 3D movie, it’s something that fascinates me! The more the audience is immersed the better it is!

This should be no surprise since Mann has a history of embracing new film technologies, much to the chagrin of some purists out there. In the same piece, Mann discusses how he decided to shoot Public Enemies digitally, and I think it also speaks to his stance on 3D.

We were supposed to shoot on film but then just before the beginning of the shooting we had a test. On a rainy night we took a car from the ’30s and some people dressed as those days, we put them in front of a wall and shot both with a film camera and with a video camera. When we watched the result, the film images looked like a period movie, the digital ones looked like today.

Even though I don’t consider Public Enemies one of his better films, I stand behind his decision to shoot it digitally. It added a unique texture to the film that was different than any other period piece I can think of. Similarly, I’d love to see what Mann could do with a 3D feature. I can already imagine one of his glorious shootouts with added depth. If these technologies are to mature we need directors like Mann out there taking chances. They may not always be successful, but they pave the way for the future of cinema.

Meanwhile, Martin Scorsese had more than a few kind words to say regarding Blu-ray at the recent Blu-con 2.0 symposium. “Blu-ray is going to extend the lifetime of a movie,” he told the crowd via video, and also went on praise Criterion’s recent remaster of the 1948 film The Red Shoes. “It’s like experiencing the film for the first time again. It’s not just the details of the eyes or such; it creates a completely different experience.” He also mentioned that Blu-ray films have a “film-grain quality”, and that Blu-ray “allows the film to be seen as closely as possible to how it was intended to be.”

High praise indeed, but I don’t think the Blu-ray folks should be counting their lucky stars just yet. Scorsese’s praise focused on the visual quality of Blu-ray, he made no mention of next-generation audio formats or special features. Blu-ray is certainly the highest quality way to see films right now, but as broadband speeds increase and video codecs become more efficient it’s going to become increasingly possible to get the same quality streamed to your television and computer.

I won’t argue that current 1080p streaming technology is as good as Blu-ray, because that’s certainly not true. Blu-ray discs are high bitrate, and feature next generation surround sound formats whereas DVD-level surround sound is still not a standard among video streaming providers. These deficiencies will all be remedied over time however, which is bad news for Blu-ray.

Ultimately, Blu-ray’s weakness lies in its inability to change. The format is pretty much locked in, and aside from 3D Blu-ray discs coming god knows when, it won’t be changing much other than by getting cheaper. Meanwhile, streaming technologies are constantly evolving and aren’t locked into hardware as much as Blu-ray.

Streaming may not outright kill Blu-ray anytime soon, but it’s becoming increasingly obvious that Blu is the last video disc format we’ll see on the consumer market.

  • ptek
    Gotta disagree with Scorsese on this one. Were audiences in 1948 seeing The Red Shoes in the same crystal quality that the Blu-Ray allows? No. Did Pressburger and Powell (the directors) envision that clarity of image when they were shooting it? No, because they'd never seen it. Blu-Ray may be super-crisp image, but it is definitively NOT how films were intended to be seen. For that reason I stick with DVD for older flicks, but am totally willing to watch Blu-Rays for movies made in the digital age, when that clarity WAS intended.
  • I disagree with what you just said and here's why: Ok so a blu-ray image is 1920x1980, that's just under about 2k resolution. Film stock is not a digital format so you can't really know for sure the exact resolution the original film was in but it has been said to range between 2k and 6k resolution depending on variables like film stock, lenses, etc. So therefore a blu-ray disc is a compressed version of basically any movie shot on film, the difference is a blu-ray is less compressed then a DVD (720x480) so I see no reason why that's not how the movie was intended to be see because what people saw in theaters was of higher quality then the blu-ray itself. Now and older film will not have the clarity of a current film because film stocks today are a lot better so with the increase in quality you will see more detail which means more film grain so I can understand why some people wouldnt care for the higher resolution.
  • ptek
    I think it's pretty noticeable that a 35 mm film print looks worse than a Blu-Ray, but similar to a DVD transfer, at least for movies actually shot on film. Therefore I'd conclude that a movie being shot in a time before Blu-Ray resolution was never intended to be watched in that high of a resolution.
  • You really need to get to a better cinema. Your average crappy multiplex (which runs a cheap print through an interlock a few hundred times) is in no way a point of reference for 35mm film. Why do you think they shoot movies on it!? Go to proper theatre and see a movie which made before 1980 and isn't GI JOE... and then you'll see what 35mm can do. I've seen BFI restoration prints of films from the 50's and they can make blu-ray look like youtube.
  • cambion
    Try blowing up the highly compressed blu-ray image to the size of a theatrical screen and see if you still feel that way. Blu-ray is a terrific format for home theater (probably the end-all be-all, actually. I've seen demos of 3k tvs and the difference between that and 1080p wasn't noticeable to me) but it's still nowhere near a theatrical-quality format, except in the sound, which isn't actually discernibly better than regular DVD on most sound systems.
  • Jr.
    Cambion, 3K resolution is nearly twice as high as 1080P, so if you couldn't tell the difference that is more of a knock on your eyesight then 3K technology. I guess it also entirely possible that the footage you saw was actually 1080P footage on a 3K screen which is the equivalent of watching standard definition on an HD tv and saying HD isn't any better then SD.

    Also 99% of digital cinemas project in 2K so 3K is much better then even a theatrical movie at the cinema.
  • cambion
    It was 3k footage on a 3k television. Thanks for the lesson but I do video professionally, I know what the difference is between resolutions. The reason the difference was hardly discernible is because it takes a very large television for most people to see the increase in quality when you get to that number of pixels. When you factor in the cost compared to what you'll be able to see in a home theater, anything above 1080p is unrealistic and necessary.

    Yes, when I got up close to the screen the fine lines were clearly much sharper than the 1080p display. From more than three feet away it didn't matter. 3k is awesome for shooting theatrical quality film (I can't wait for the 3k RED Scarlet!) but I'm not remotely sold on consumer applications at this point.
  • existenz
    Are you kidding? What theaters have you been going to?

    A good 35mm projection has MUCH higher resolution than DVD. Hell, a good theater projection is usually better than Blu-Ray. DVD quality is crap compared to 35mm.
  • Trent
    It's 1920x1080. The equivalent of 1k. Why did nobody catch that terrible mistake?
  • cambion
    No, he's right. 1080p is just under 2k. 2k = 2048 x 1080
  • cambion
    Never mind, I see what you were pointing out.
  • wESh
    Maybe they wanted their films to be seen in quality that blu-ray provides us today, but the technology back then couldn't realize their wishes... Not everyone is like Cameron, who can wait ten years for progress in technologies to make his dream come true, i just think they had to make it with availible means.
  • Goro
    A few things.

    Filmmakers intend the movie to be shown projected on a screen in as high-quality a medium as possible. Not super-CRISP or SHARP, but high quality, meaning that there's some inherent softening due to projection, but they used the best film stock they had to make it as nice a presentation as possible.

    DVD does the best it can to try to reproduce that quality in a digital format.

    BluRay does it as well but with higher resolution and capacity to work with.

    Consider this: DVD 5 with low bitrate vs DVD9 with a higher bitrate. Do you say that you would insist upon The Red Shoes to be on a DVD5?

    Now, the argument of ALTERING (Enhancing?) an image is one that is valid, but it's one that has been true of DVDs since the beginning. Edge-enhancement is a big one. Digital artifacting is another. I recall when DVDs first came on the market and being a Laserdisc owner i was very curious! The early DVDs looked TERRIBLE b/c they were mastered poorly and the artifacting showed and in comparison to the analog video of the LDs, they were terrible.

    Now, another major thing to consider is screen size. I have a 50" 720p DLP that i watched movies on. DVDs looked great. BluRayDiscs looked noticeably better but wasn't "Killer App"-level better. So i bought a few BRDs here and there but mostly just DVDs. Now i have a 73" 1080p DLP and i set up my Oppo BRD-83 Bluray player (which has a fantastic DVD upconverter). I HAVE to watch HD content on this tv (BRD or 1080p MKV content). Even 720p content is noticeably worse than 1080p and it's very clear when video is poorly mastered or highly compressed. So watching a DVD on this is a miserable experience! It just looks BAD. So screen size is an issue.

    Also, TV type is an issue. In the bedroom, i have 120Hz 46" LCD with LED edge-lighting (Samsung 46B7000). It's beautiful. But there's a definite difference when the image is via LCD than when it is rear-projected a la DLP. It's brighter, sharper, more contrasty, and "smoother" (esp. if you turn on all the image controls, which i don't). LCDs with bluray makes things look more video-ish than film-ish. This may make older films look starkly different from the original vision and may enhance or may detract from the experience. I want the picture to look CORRECT not just BRIGHT and SHARP.

    I don't yet have an HT room, but i have sat in a beautiful viewing room at Hudson's Audio in Abq (my favorite place) where they had the $50k Runco DLP Projector with the anamorphic lens and the B&W Nautilus 801s set up with a Bluray Player. Full wall screen (200"+?) and it was beautiful to wathc Pirates of the Caribbean and X2 on it).

    So while I may be disagreeing with you fundamentally on Blu Ray, I agree with your issues. I think they are a bit misplaced, but are a point of concern for masterings of the classics. Although, I would tend to trust Criterion for their masterings (other studios? not so much) on Blu.
  • ameta4
    Can I come over and watch a movie ;)
  • Woochifer
    If anything, Blu-ray is much more capable of getting closer to how older movies were intended to be seen. It' not about "super-crisp" clarity, it's about preserving all of the image detail in the original film, including the film grain.

    The higher resolution on Blu-ray allows for microdetails to be seen, and for things like the film grain to be preserved without macroblocking or other visible artifacts. These details are in the film image and get obscured by the DVD format's lower resolution. Watch a high quality Blu-ray transfer like Blade Runner, and the experience is much closer to an original 70mm theatrical presentation than the DVD version.
  • hellojacktoad
    I'll only switch to blu-ray when they stop selling DVD's and stop making DVD players completely.

    Sad how Public Enemies now officially falls into the 'underrated' category. Should have been classic.
  • existenz
    Bah. I felt the same way once. But I just got a Blu-ray Samsung player for $120 and I love it. My TV is only 720p but it makes a difference compared to DVDs (even up-converted). I get most of my films through Netflix, so they send me Blu-Ray whenever it's available. The Samsung also does Netflix streaming and Pandora radio.

    Blu-Ray is great, and the best technology available RIGHT NOW. If you care about picture quality it's well worth it.
  • hellojacktoad
    You must earn more than me then.
  • Craigasorusrex
    Michael Mann would be perfect for the currently in development "Ghost In The Shell". Collateral showed me that he understands that the setting is as much of a character as the human characters.

    Thats going to be a live action/3D movie. Maybe that would be a good place for him to try out the tech.

    This is just pipe dreaming but it would be great if it could happen.
  • mangoshakes
    i saw indy/crystal skull playing blu ray and i thought it just looked bizarre. takes a lot of the look out of movies.
  • whatdoiknowreally
    I have to disagree with the comments about blu-ray as the last video disc format. The new holographic storage technologies will end up replacing blu-ray at some point but that is someway off.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_data_s...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versat...
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=313


    Streaming is fine and it will carry on growing but there is still storage issue to take into account as Blu-ray can store currently 50GB of data with companies like Sharp and Pioneer working on expanding to 100GB. I currently have over 50 Blu-ray movies plus over 20 HD-DVDs, the required disk space I would need which would be in the PBs is out of my price range.

    There are still out standing question about how content providers will allow people to replace downloaded data in the case on massive storage failures? With the streaming data I pay for will I be allowed to store it off-line? If you look at the current problem we are having around this plus the arguments around DRM downloading or streaming of content as a replacement for physical media is a very long way off in my humble opinion.

    Where I do see this as a option is more in the music industry, you still have the problems as I have stated above but more of a option now then Hi-Def movies or TV.

    I know that there will be many people that disagree and rightly so but those you disagree tend to me far ahead with these technologies then most of people at large.
  • Goro
    I think you are making a mistake on the nature of streaming. Instead of buying and downloading, i think the content providers are going to want to do more of a PPV model. "Streaming" doesn't mean that you get to keep the video after playback, but rather that you get to watch the video stream.

    Granted that the next gen could vary and may be more download than stream. DirecTV already does something like this where you can pay to download a 1080p video to the DVR and then watch it.

    We should also consider that the content providers are always in this seeming "War against our Customers"-mode where they will do anything to screw us over. So expect heavily DRM'd video, crippled video, highly compressed whenever possible, potential retraction of videos (note what happened with Amazon's Kindle and the book _1984_), etc. etc. Streaming would be a god-send to the studios b/c they would be back in control of the content and the distro and that's bad news for the consumers.

    And i do agree with you re: storage. I have several TBs of HD space allocated to *SD* material (more convenient to store ISOs in a media server than to handle media esp with PUOPs) and have had some disk failures in the past and was a pain to rerip all that data.

    I think movies are different from music, notably in how we consume and how we think of them. While i want to be able to use movies in portable video format ALSO, it's not the sole way i want to use it (vs. mp3s where my primary usage is in an iPod).

    There was someone who posited that DVDs have now replaced coffee table books as the conversation piece in a living room. I think people will continue to want to buy movies in physical form for a while.
  • Goro pretty much said it. The evolution of streaming tech will mean disk space isn't even an issue for us. For example, in the next Xbox Live update users will be able to play 1080p videos with 5.1 sound completely via streaming. This is to include users with the smaller Xbox hard drives. Local storage will increasingly become a thing of the past as well.

    As for holographic media, that stuff has been talked about for *years*, but they're far from being a reality on the consumer level. By the time they're actually real products, streaming will have been around for years and people won't want to invest in another disc-based platform.
  • Goro
    You make an interesting point here with the XBox Streaming and it caused me to think of something.

    There are 2 separate markets to consider: The rental market and the sell-thru market. They are overlapping but distinct. If i KNOW i like a movie then i am more likely to buy it, knowing that i can then watch as i want and consume the media as i want. But for movies i haven't seen or don't want to own, rental is fine. And rental is how the streaming market is being used (well and "net-casting" like Hulu).

    But there's no real ownership involved here.

    I very much would expect that the entire physical media rental service could shift to streaming. (Or at least a sizable portion of it).

    But i continue to think that people will pay to OWN the item physically (even if i have to circumvent all sorts of copyprotection).
  • cambion
    Those HVDs are mainly being produced for archiving at this point, since so many high-end digital cameras are tapeless now and people don't trust hard drives for long stretches of time.

    Considering they have a transfer rate of 1 Gbit/s, they could theoretically be used to watch uncompressed or nearly uncompressed high def video, but as the other two posters pointed out, streaming is the future. I heard Apple is even talking about discontinuing software updates for DVD Studio Pro (I would too if I owned iTunes) which is pretty much industry standard for disc creation. Discs will definitely become a niche market, but never go away completely.
  • Octoberist
    does anyone agree that the one bad thing about blu-ray is the ugly packaging? And how the artwork looks squashed to fit the smaller boxes.
  • noodles483
    I hate the packaging. I don't know why they can't just package them in something more similar to DVD cases. I also don't see why they have to be blue. I don't think the name of the format has to be reinforced that much. I'm not a fan of the load times either, although I understand that firmware upgrades will fix that by the time it replaces DVD.
  • Tetsuo_Man
    I completely agree with the 2 of you. Why do I want a super thin square that has a bright blue frame around a cropped dvd cover? It just makes all blu-ray movies look silly and not worth 30 bucks.
  • BrendonConnelly
    I like having a disc to hold and touch and get from the shelf.
  • Brendon, do you guys have any legitimate streaming options to your television over there? Netflix streaming, for example, has completely changed the way I look for stuff to watch. Now instead of going to my DVD shelf, I browse Netflix's shelves virtually.

    I also love the extremely high quality of Blu-ray (I've also invested in MANY HD-DVDs), but ultimately when the content looks exactly the same coming down the pipe, and you'll never have to get off your couch to access it, who cares about the physical product? It's not like Blu-ray packaging has been all that great either. I personally would rather have less stuff cluttering up my apartment.
  • Kangaroo Be Stoned
    I care about the physical product. I like having a physical DVD collection; I like to be able to have people see my collection and ask if they can borrow a DVD.
  • You have to understand that people like us who have big DVD collections aren't among the majority of consumers. Also, if movies are readily available online for cheap (or with a small subscription a la Netflix), isn't it easier to send someone there than handing them a copy of a film? Think of how often we recommend Netflix streaming options on the Filmcast.
  • Woochifer
    But, the majority of revenue in home entertainment does come from sell-through. And even if a consumer does not have a large DVD collection, people still buy them. Each sale generates far more revenue for the studios than income from rentals. Raising the revenue generated per transaction, that's how the DVD transformed the home video market.

    The streaming rental options are no different than any other rental or PPV option, except that it's more convenient (provided that you have the network connection going to where your TV is, or you're fine with watching it on a computer, which most consumers are not). If you buy a downloaded movie, the cost is not that much lower than a DVD purchase and that download comes DRM restrictions that limit which devices can play it back.

    The Netflix service is primarily limited to older movies and TV shows, and does not include new releases. With my friends, it's certainly a lot easier to simply hand them a Blu-ray disc that I've finished watching, than to convince them that they should shell out a monthly fee for a Netflix subscription -- one that does not include new releases and has very limited HD options.
  • Kangaroo Be Stoned
    Why send them to Netflix to see a film that I own where they will have to pay, when they can just borrow it from me for free? I would not recommend Netflix streaming to my friends because we have slower connections, approximately 6.0mpbs. I have streamed videos from Netflix and the quality is quite horrible with my connection.
  • Tetsuo_Man
    General consumers don't have dvd collections? Way to just make up something....

    Every "casual" person I know has many many dvds... so many they don't need any more to complete their collection (or re-buy them in blu-ray). Do you think all of us film people are the ones giving Walmart their high dvd sales??? Netflix streaming is just a nice added extra little push that makes the decision between blockbuster online and Netflix all the more easier to make.
  • Kangaroo Be Stoned
    Why send them to Netflix to see a film that I own where they will have to pay, when they can just borrow it from me for free? I would not recommend Netflix streaming to my friends because we have slower connections, approximately 6.0mpbs. I have streamed videos from Netflix and the quality is quite horrible with my connection.
  • quintushalls
    I have a book, a VHS tape, a floppy disk, and a cassette, here for you.
  • BrendonConnelly
    I rather like books, and often transfer data on USB sticks despite the ease of doing it via the web too. As for cassettes, well... they were superseded by another physical medium before being made obsolete, but I'll pretend you said CD. I guess my relationship with music has always been different to my ones with literature and moving image media because I rather like streaming music services.
  • Dewinter
    If ISPs get their way and start imposing metered billing, streaming, particularly high-def streaming, will die a lot faster than Blu-ray.
  • zamarov
    i have mixed feelings about blu ray
    there's a part of me that thinks it (or some other physical version) will be around a long time because
    1) people will always want to buy a physical product
    2) blu ray has massive capacity and they will get bigger
    3) studios and film makers are only beginning to explore ways to use the format
    4) there are costs with regards to storing downloads
    5) internet traffic is set to explode in the coming years and there are concerns that this may create problems

    blu ray hasn't exploded mainly because of the economic recession and owning films is a relatively new phenomenon, therefore a lot of people are happy to have a dvd copy and are reluctant to double dip. furthermore bluray has emerged not too long after dvd's emergence. whereas dvd emerged afters years of vhs and it was an exponential improvement on vhs. whereas blurays improvement on dvd is massive, it's not as great.

    yet there's a strong demand for different formats which probably means that blu ray will never reach the hegemonic levels of dvd
  • The thing people seem to forget is this is Blu-ray and streaming are not really in competition they are both controlled by the same entity, the studios. Ultimately they will decide what direction we go in. I have no doubt in the potential in streaming movies but until the studios decide to put a full fledged effort behind it by making the prices cheaper and resolving the storage and bandwidth problems streaming will always be second to discs.
  • The studios aren't in direct control of these things. Sony is the driving force behind Blu-ray, and they had to work extra hard to woo the studios away from Toshiba's HD-DVD format. All it will take is for streaming options to be cheaper and more convenient than Blu-ray (which is NOT hard at all), and the studios will jump ship in the blink of an eye.
  • I think they've already got the more convenient part down it's the price that seems to have these studios puzzled. $19.99 for an HD movie on iTunes and $6 for a one time HD rental that I have to watch in 24 hours from Xbox Live is kind of outrageous. If they cut these prices in half they would kill off Blu-Ray for everybody expect hardcore HD fanatics. I suspect the reason they don't is because they see a higher profit margin from Blu-Ray.
  • Agreed. Apple is currently working on a potential "all you can eat" monthly subscription plan for iTunes, which is a good start to rethinking these costs.
  • existenz
    If streaming were to kill off the physical disc market altogether, then either streaming will become more expensive than it is now (to make up for lost revenue) or the film business will deteriorate and we'll start seeing fewer films.

    Right now, I love Netflix streaming but I don't see how Hollywood makes any money off it. I used to buy DVDs but have no reason to do so anymore. If hard core fans only have to contribute $130/year in Netflix subscription costs to the film business, of which who knows how much goes back to the studios, that's just not a sustainable business plan.

    Should be interesting to see how it all goes.
  • Woochifer
    I disagree. Streaming options would need to demonstrate that they can generate greater revenue returns than physical media before the studios jump ship. And even if consumers begin to network their TV watching in a big way (which to date they have not), it will still take a huge shift in demand to replace the revenues that physical media currently generates. Most of the studios only half-heartedly embraced the DVD format until it became clear that the sell-through model was far more lucrative than the rental-pricing window model that had previously developed around VHS.

    "Cheaper and more convenient" is in the eyes of the beholder. For the 40% of U.S. households without broadband, that certainly does not work. For the majority of households that do not attach network connections or computers to their TV, that doesn't work either. The streaming and downloading market is fragmented right now, with multiple formats, multiple pricing structures, multiple devices, and different content offerings thru different services. That's a barrier to adoption that doesn't get mentioned very often.

    Like it or not, consumers are creatures of habit and embrace the familiar. Blu-ray is an easy transition because the hardware can play DVDs and it uses the same 5.25" form factor. For all the hype that streaming and downloading have received, the vast majority of video viewing still occurs on TVs. The Ball State video consumer mapping study that was done earlier this year found that 43% of consumers watch streaming video, but streaming video accounted for less than 1% of the total viewing time.

    Transitioning to a new media paradigm takes time, and the tech press continually overestimates consumer tolerance for short-term change. Remember that it took more than six years before the DVD displaced VHS, and the DVD is the most rapidly adopted media format ever. Even now, physical media accounts for the vast majority of home entertainment revenues. And the CD format has had its obituary written many times over, yet it still controls 65% of the music market.
  • That 40% number of people without broadband isn't going to be increasing, it's going to get steadily smaller. This is the beginning of a new paradigm of media consumption, so I'm not surprised it's all fragmented, and that may not actually be a bad thing. Who cares if you get the content via iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, or whatever, as long as you get a high quality version of what you want to see?

    Consumers are indeed creatures of habit, but let's not pretend that the DVD revolution was a direct outgrowth of VHS. With VHS, consumers were used to renting most of their films, with DVD costs dropped and they bought like crazy. It was unprecedented, and there's no reason to think we won't be seeing similar shifts in consumption down the line.
  • Woochifer
    On the other hand, that 40% nonadoption rate has been holding steady for the past couple of years. And consider that a large chunk of broadband subscribers don't have enough bandwidth to stream DVD-quality video. I don't disagree that a new media paradigm is emerging, I just think it will take a lot more time and need to overcome more market barriers than most techies think.

    The fragmentation in the market is a huge deal if each service requires a separate subscription fee or account, and if different content providers are tied to different services. The studios are already seeing the revenue returns from their online efforts, and they don't like what they see. That's the reason why the studios that own Hulu are looking into subscription options and walling off certain content exclusively for cable and satellite subscribers.

    BTW, I never said that the DVD was "a direct outgrowth of VHS." My point is simply that the DVD transformed the home video market from a rental-driven market into one driven by sell-through. With VHS, consumers had to rent most new releases because nearly all of them were "rental priced" with a list price of $80 to $100 per tape during the first few months of release. The DVD changed this equation by going with sell-through pricing on the date of release. Even though the VHS rental pricing model had a wholesale cost 4X or 5X higher, the volume of DVD sales more than made up for it.

    The issue with downloads is how will they make up for the revenue that physical media currently generates? The transactional volume needed to replace the revenues from disc sales is substantial, and would require a mindset change on the part of consumers where they are used to "owning" movies and now have to go back to renting them with time-restricted downloads or "owning" them in a restricted manner where the downloads can only be viewed on a limited number of devices. I don't see this happening soon, and that doesn't even account for the technical hurdles in most typical homes.
  • Goro
    "Streaming options would need to demonstrate that they can generate greater revenue returns than physical media before the studios jump ship."

    This is an extremely good point. And i think the studios should be wary of "getting what they ask for." At this point, I think many consumers are fairly comfortable with buying movies they want. When they see a great movie on the screen (eg. WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE), one of the first things they will say on exiting the movie is "I'm definitely buying that when it comes out on DVD/Bluray." But then how often do you actually WATCH a new dvd? (I mean other than that core collection that gets into high rotation)

    If you figure a rental price of $4/movie you'd have to watch a movie 5x to break even. If you use a monthly "All-you-can-consume" fee, the multiple increases. There's a convenience factor also since there is an effort to rent (or a time to wait in Netflix's case).

    However, if streaming becomes very convenient, many of those sales may turn into SINGLE rental views. That means they turned a $20 revenue into a $4 one.
  • overwatch
    How is his praise shortlived? at not point mid sentense did Scorsese add "but" or "alas" it was praise through and through. The critisisms in the arcticle are from YOU not Scorsese.
blog comments powered by Disqus