High Def Forum
Thank you for visiting. This is our website archive. Please visit our main website by clicking the logo above.

DVDs and Blu-ray Discs Still Consumersí Choice for Feature-Length Movie Rentals

HD Goofnut
08-20-2012, 06:34 PM
https://www.npd.com/wps/wcm/connect/f8d0a4804c46ba4aa4adef5df370bdde/1/gmpcahho2073752574399196922.gif?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=f8d0a4804c46ba4aa4adef5df370bdde/1

Source: https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/pressreleases/pr_120808b

What's more telling is that a large portion of that streaming subscription is for TV shows. For movies it's all about OD.

morriscroy
08-20-2012, 06:46 PM
NPD appears to be a marketing research firm.

On the surface, they appear to be legit.

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/NPD_Group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPD_Group

morriscroy
08-20-2012, 06:59 PM
What's more telling is that a large portion of that streaming subscription is for TV shows. For movies it's all about OD.

This doesn't bode well for tv shows on dvd/bluray.

Though this makes sense for tv shows which are marginal, to end up on netflix streaming. (ie. Not enough to warrant an OD release).

morriscroy
08-20-2012, 07:34 PM
When all is said and done, I wouldn't be surprised if the 2000's ends up being written as the "golden age" decade of television shows being released on dvd. (To be written by future historians on the subject of the entertainment industry).

IIRC before the dvd era, there wasn't much in terms of tv shows on VHS and/or laserdisc.

I remember seeing various Star Trek episodes on VHS and laserdisc. There were several original Battlestar Galactica episodes on VHS. There were several X-Files episodes released on VHS and laserdisc.

From a casual search on google and amazon, there were sporadic VHS releases of other tv shows episodes, such as: I Love Lucy, Dragnet, The Brady Bunch, The Monkees, The Honeymooners, etc ...

Not a whole lot else on VHS/laserdisc.

morriscroy
08-20-2012, 10:29 PM
Something I haven't seen mentioned much, is what demographic is buying most dvd/blurays.

Came across a rambling article from 2011, which asserts that many green-lit movies over the last decade or so, are aiming towards the under-25 male demographic.

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201102/the-day-the-movies-died-mark-harris?printable=true

The rise of marketers has also brought on an obsession with demographics. As anyone in Hollywood will tell you, the American filmgoing populace is divided two ways: by gender and by age. Gender is self-explanatory (usually); the over-under dividing line for age is 25. Naturally, every studio chief dreams of finding a movie like Avatar that reaches all four "quadrants" of the audience: male and female, young and not. But if it can be made for the right price, a two- or even one-quadrant film can be a viable business proposition.

In Hollywood, though, not all quadrants are created equal. If you, for instance, have a vagina, you're pretty much out of luck, because women, in studio thinking, are considered a niche audience that, except when Sandra Bullock reads a script or Nicholas Sparks writes a novel, generally isn't worth taking the time to figure out. And if you were born before 1985... well, it is my sad duty to inform you that in the eyes of Hollywood, you are one of what the kids on the Internet call "the olds." I know—you thought you were one of the kids on the Internet. Not to the studios, which have realized that the closer you get to (or the farther you get from) your thirtieth birthday, the more likely you are to develop things like taste and discernment, which render you such an exhausting proposition in terms of selling a movie that, well, you might as well have a vagina.

That leaves one quadrant—men under 25—at whom the majority of studio movies are aimed, the thinking being that they'll eat just about anything that's put in front of them as long as it's spiked with the proper set of stimulants. That's why, when you look at the genres that currently dominate Hollywood—action, raunchy comedy, game/toy/ride/comic-book adaptations, horror, and, to add an extra jolt of Red Bull to all of the preceding categories, 3-D—they're all aimed at the same ADD-addled, short-term-memory-lacking, easily excitable testosterone junkie. In a world dominated by marketing, it was inevitable that the single quadrant that would come to matter most is the quadrant that's most willing to buy product even if it's mediocre.


Adding more fuel to the fire, the article further asserts that a new classification is being used in decisions to green-light movies.

The good news is that the four-quadrant theory of marketing may now be eroding. The bad news is that it's giving way to something worse—a new classification that encompasses all ages and both genders: the "I won't grow up" demographic. As recently as 1993, three kid-oriented genres—animated movies, movies based on comic books, and movies based on children's books—represented a relatively small percentage of the overall film marketplace; that year they grossed about $400 million combined (thanks mostly to Mrs. Doubtfire) and owned just a single spot in the year's top ten. In 2010, those same three genres took in more than $3 billion and by December represented eight of the year's top nine grossers.

Let me posit something: That's bad. We can all acknowledge that the world of American movies is an infinitely richer place because of Pixar and that the very best comic-book movies, from Iron Man to The Dark Knight, are pretty terrific, but the degree to which children's genres have colonized the entire movie industry goes beyond overkill. More often than not, these collectively infantilizing movies are breeding an audience—not to mention a generation of future filmmakers and studio executives—who will grow up believing that movies aimed at adults should be considered a peculiar and antique art. Like books. Or plays.


If these demographic assertions have any merit, one can ask who exactly is buying the dvds/blurays of such movies (ie. under-25 guys, the "I won't grow up" demographic, etc ...).

morriscroy
08-21-2012, 10:22 AM
An article from 2010, on how demographics may have drastically affected actor salaries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/movies/04stars.html

Peter Dekom, a film industry lawyer who co-wrote the book “Not on My Watch: Hollywood vs. the Future,” pegged the general devaluation of movie stars to a lack of interest among younger viewers.

“Stars don’t resonate with the ‘what’s next’ ” crowd, theorized Mr. Dekom. “They attract an over-30 audience, which is going to the movies less in an impaired economy.”


For the most part guild minimums are set in a provision of the Screen Actors Guild contract that Hollywood cognoscenti refer to as Schedule F. It requires than an actor receive at least $65,000 for work in a feature film. Overtime is negotiable. The actor must be fed and, at some point, allowed to rest.

The pay for a number of actors in “District 9,” “A Serious Man” and “An Education” was at or close to guild minimums, as each was made on a relatively low budget. As for the ultrahigh-budget “Avatar,” the highest paid appears to have been Sigourney Weaver, though she almost certainly worked for a small fraction of the $11 million she was reported to have been paid for “Alien: Resurrection” in 1997.

ZoŽ Saldana and Sam Worthington, meanwhile, got fees that were more than guild minimums but less than enough to make them feel financially secure, despite having acted in a picture with over $2.5 billion in ticket sales around the world.