No ‘Avatar’ 3D Blu-ray in 2010

[Smokey]

Apparently 3D stands for 3 dips, because that’s what it looks like it’s going to take to get “Avatar” on 3D Blu-ray. So if you are looking for Avatar in 3D Bluray, you will have to wait after 2010 since no 3D bluray version of Avatar wil be released this year.The reason for this is waiting for fledgling home 3D technology to catch up, says James Cameron.

Two other versions of Avatar (non 3D) will be released this year. The first version which will be released on Aprill 22, is a barebone movie only with no extras or even a trailer. A move made to exploit every bit of disc space for the top-of-the-line audio and video presentation of the film, according to the movie's producer, Jon Landau.

The second version will be multi-disc "ultimate version" set planned for sometime in November 2010, says the Los Angeles Times. Landau and James Cameron will attend an March 23 press event in West Hollywood where they will discuss the release, and plans for a multi-disc "ultimate version" that will follow in November.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2010/03/avatar-.html

[E-Stat]

The second version will be multi-disc "ultimate version" ...
Interesting. I would certainly prefer the inclusion of a second disc eliminating the need to wire my player to the internet. "Shelf" pricing for BR will be about $10 or 50% higher than the DVD version. Hmmm. So much for closing the gap. :)

rw

[pixelthis]

In other words, milk it for all its worth.
I guess two billion wasnt enough.
TALK ABOUT GREEDY:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Interesting. I would certainly prefer the inclusion of a second disc eliminating the need to wire my player to the internet. "Shelf" pricing for BR will be about $10 or 50% higher than the DVD version. Hmmm. So much for closing the gap. :)

rw

That ten dollars extra gives you the DVD AND the Blu ray. That is what your 50% premium gets you.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Apparently 3D stands for 3 dips, because that’s what it looks like it’s going to take to get “Avatar” on 3D Blu-ray. So if you are looking for Avatar in 3D Bluray, you will have to wait after 2010 since no 3D bluray version of Avatar wil be released this year.The reason for this is waiting for fledgling home 3D technology to catch up, says James Cameron.

Two other versions of Avatar (non 3D) will be released this year. The first version which will be released on Aprill 22, is a barebone movie only with no extras or even a trailer. A move made to exploit every bit of disc space for the top-of-the-line audio and video presentation of the film, according to the movie's producer, Jon Landau.

The second version will be multi-disc "ultimate version" set planned for sometime in November 2010, says the Los Angeles Times. Landau and James Cameron will attend an March 23 press event in West Hollywood where they will discuss the release, and plans for a multi-disc "ultimate version" that will follow in November.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2010/03/avatar-.html

The ultimate version will not be the 3D version. I do not believe that will come until next year. I suspect that Fox is probably going to re-release the film later this year(during a lull in releases before Christmas) to coincide with the release of the ultimate version to Blu ray and DVD. With Alice in Wonderland kicking Avatar prematurely out of 3D IMAX theaters(where it was making the most money), there is too much money being left on the table regarding the film release. Usually most films get kicked out of theaters when they begin to lose viewers. However, Avatar has not shown any loss of "legs" before Alice came along. I am willing to bet they will release it again.

[Smokey]

"Shelf" pricing for BR will be about $10 or 50% higher than the DVD version. Hmmm. So much for closing the gap. :)

I think if you wait couple of months, the price will probably drop to more reasonable price of $19.99 for Blu and $14.99 for DVD. But wonder how sales of non 3D disc will hold up since most of people went to see Avatar for its 3D feature. I'm guessing most people will rent the first release of movie, and buy the ultimate version when it comes out in November.


In other words, milk it for all its worth. I guess two billion wasnt enough. TALK ABOUT GREEDY

Really, nothing new here. Studios being doing the same thing for high gross movies since home videos became the norm. Just look at how many version of Terminator 2 movies are out there on DVD.


The ultimate version will not be the 3D version. I do not believe that will come until next year. I suspect that Fox is probably going to re-release the film later this year(during a lull in releases before Christmas) to coincide with the release of the ultimate version to Blu ray and DVD.

That probably explain why Fox is holding back on 3D version of this movie. Cameron said the main reason 3D will not be released this year is because of waiting for 3D hardware to be more available to home viewers. But 3D hardware is already available on the market for those that want to test the water.

[E-Stat]

That ten dollars extra gives you the DVD AND the Blu ray. That is what your 50% premium gets you.
Be that as it may, such a premium only benefits the BR buyers for them to play the movie back on their other non-BR players. The price gulf between the formats remains large to sway the large number of folks who have not yet made the switch. Who knows? I suspect they will sell lots of the DVD version.

rw

[Woochifer]

I think if you wait couple of months, the price will probably drop to more reasonable price of $19.99 for Blu and $14.99 for DVD. But wonder how sales of non 3D disc will hold up since most of people went to see Avatar for its 3D feature. I'm guessing most people will rent the first release of movie, and buy the ultimate version when it comes out in November.

Geez, you gotta get your head out of those discount bins! :cool: Those are probably the prices you will see during the week-of-release. AThat's what happened during the holiday season, and even this week with the release of The Princess and the Frog, the barebones Blu-ray copy was selling for under $20 at some stores.

A couple of months after release is exactly when the prices on new release videos are typically at their highest. Still new enough to have some remaining demand, but too old to draw crowds into stores or websites. And not old enough for demand to drop to the point that stores need to drop prices to clear shelf space.

As you say, this has been done many times before. If you'll recall, this release strategy is exactly what Lord of the Rings did when they released the theatrical cut first and preannounced the special edition copy for holiday release. Think about it this way, at least Fox is announcing their release schedule well in advance.


That probably explain why Fox is holding back on 3D version of this movie. Cameron said the main reason 3D will not be released this year is because of waiting for 3D hardware to be more available to home viewers. But 3D hardware is already available on the market for those that want to test the water.

Yep. With more 3D TVs in place next year, you'll see a greater uptake. There are plenty of other high grossing 3D movies that will come out this year, and hold things down until Avatar really shakes things up.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Be that as it may, such a premium only benefits the BR buyers for them to play the movie back on their other non-BR players. The price gulf between the formats remains large to sway the large number of folks who have not yet made the switch. Who knows? I suspect they will sell lots of the DVD version.

rw

This costs issue is a pickled red herring. If it was an issue, then we would not see the Blu ray format growing, and the DVD format basically shrinking in the market. It would be the other way around.

A single DVD costs $16 bucks, and a Blu ray PLUS DVD costs $25.00. Based on simple math, you are getting a DVD for $9 dollars in stead of $16.00 when you purchase the Blu ray copy. That means either the Blu ray is being sold to you for the same cost as the DVD only version, or the Blu ray is $25.00 and you get the DVD for free. Any way you look at it, the Blu ray is a better value than the DVD is.

I believe this will be another example of the BR disc making a big percentage of the overall disc sales. This title is primed for it just like The Dark Knight was, and several other big titles.

[E-Stat]

This costs issue is a pickled red herring. If it was an issue, then we would not see the Blu ray format growing, and the DVD format basically shrinking in the market. It would be the other way around.
Actually, it indicates what it indicates. Unlike you or I who gladly choose to pay extra, there remains a significant part of the video audience who remain happy buying DVDs. The studios obviously agree with that assessment or they wouldn't continue to release all the latest blockbusters in both formats.


A single DVD costs $16 bucks, and a Blu ray PLUS DVD costs $25.00.
Except of course for Avatar, which happens to be the topic of this thread. Let's review what the article says, shall we?

" For the Earth Day release, the single-disc version of "Avatar" will have a suggested retail price of $29.98 on DVD and $39.99 on Blu-ray. A source at Fox said the "shelf" prices at many retailers will be closer to $19.99 for the DVD and $29.99 for the Blu-ray."

The difference is ten bucks. I will agree that the shelf pricing will more realistic than list price where the differential is FIFTY PERCENT.


Based on simple math, you are getting a DVD for $9 dollars in stead of $16.00 when you purchase the Blu ray copy. That means either the Blu ray is being sold to you for the same cost as the DVD only version, or the Blu ray is $25.00 and you get the DVD for free. Any way you look at it, the Blu ray is a better value than the DVD is.
You are both preaching to the choir and completely missing my point. As for me, I couldn't care less if I get a DVD copy when I buy the higher resolution BR version. I'm buying the better quality. For those who are not as quality sensitive, however, paying a FIFTY percent upcharge to get the BR version (DVD copy or not) may or may not seem reasonable to them.


I believe this will be another example of the BR disc making a big percentage of the overall disc sales.
Agreed. A "big" percentage with a substantial percentage that is not. Such has nothing at all to do with my "two channel head". It is called observation.

rw

[Smokey]

Geez, you gotta get your head out of those discount bins! :cool:

Well, bins was the reason for my movie collection to grow as I buy most of my movies for under $10. For example, pickup up Mutiny on Bounty with Clark Gable and Charles Laughton, and Lost In America for $3. You be amazed how many (forgotten) movies are out there that you have not seen in a long time. And thanks for DVD low prices, we can have them.


Those are probably the prices you will see during the week-of-release. AThat's what happened during the holiday season, and even this week with the release of The Princess and the Frog, the barebones Blu-ray copy was selling for under $20 at some stores.

I checked out Walmart prices on new movie blu ray releases for last and this month, and avarage price for them seem to be around $23. So I am guessing the Avatar bluray price will hover around that price for couple of months.


A couple of months after release is exactly when the prices on new release videos are typically at their highest. Still new enough to have some remaining demand, but too old to draw crowds into stores or websites. And not old enough for demand to drop to the point that stores need to drop prices to clear shelf space.

You are probably right. But one can buy at discount prices waiting for a sale or with a coupon if persistent enough. I don't know if you shop at Kroger grocery store or not, but I see $5 off coupon in their flyers for new movies all the time (ofcourse with a $10 grocery reciept :D).



Yep. With more 3D TVs in place next year, you'll see a greater uptake. There are plenty of other high grossing 3D movies that will come out this year, and hold things down until Avatar really shakes things up.

I wonder how much a 3D feature on a disc will add to price of disc? Given that %99 of population dot not have a 3d player or TV yet, reasoably low prices (as compare with non 3D disc) will guaranty that 3D discs will not sit on the shelf for a long time.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Actually, it indicates what it indicates. Unlike you or I who gladly choose to pay extra, there remains a significant part of the video audience who remain happy buying DVDs. The studios obviously agree with that assessment or they wouldn't continue to release all the latest blockbusters in both formats.

Yes, and the audience that is buying DVD's is shrinking yearly. As far as you statement about the studios agreeing with your assesment, you have no idea what the studio agree with, you don't work for one(I do), you never have, nor will you ever. As I have told you before, the buzz around Hollywood is that there is less than two more years of support left for DVD at the current rate of disc sale losses, that is the assessment of the studios, not what you state. Secondly, I guess the concept of the transitional window completely escapes you. When DVD came to market, for a few years the lastest blockbuster were released on both VHS and DVD, but that came to a halt in about four years when VHS sales dropped below 50% of total home release sales.



Except of course for Avatar, which happens to be the topic of this thread. Let's review what the article says, shall we?

" For the Earth Day release, the single-disc version of "Avatar" will have a suggested retail price of $29.98 on DVD and $39.99 on Blu-ray. A source at Fox said the "shelf" prices at many retailers will be closer to $19.99 for the DVD and $29.99 for the Blu-ray."

The difference is ten bucks. I will agree that the shelf pricing will more realistic than list price where the differential is FIFTY PERCENT.

The accuracy of the article is in question when it comes to Amazon. Amazon lists Avatar's sales price at $25.00 for the Blu ray and DVD.

http://www.amazon.com/Avatar-Two-Disc-Blu-ray-DVD-Combo/dp/B002VPE1B6/ref=sr_tr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1268969220&sr=1-1

It lists the DVD's price at $16.99.

http://www.amazon.com/Avatar-Sam-Worthington/dp/B002VPE1AW/ref=sr_tr_3?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1268969334&sr=1-3

This is real world pricing, not what the article states, and certainly not a ten dollar difference. You were foolish to use a article as support for your foolishness.



You are both preaching to the choir and completely missing my point. As for me, I couldn't care less if I get a DVD copy when I buy the higher resolution BR version.

Since the studios are not marketing directly and only to you, what you care about is irrelevant. Many folks love the fact they have the ability to view a copy on their HDTV's, and take a copy on the road to view on a PC or portable DVD player. That is why the studio include them.


I'm buying the better quality.

That is why you get the Blu ray.


For those who are not as quality sensitive, however, paying a FIFTY percent upcharge to get the BR version (DVD copy or not) may or may not seem reasonable to them.

Those who are not quality sensitive are probably not interested in Blu ray in the first place. This is not who the studios are marketing Blu ray to. Blu ray is for those who want the ultimate in viewing experience, and DVD is for those who don't own a Blu ray player yet. Two different consumers.



Agreed. A "big" percentage with a substantial percentage that is not. Such has nothing at all to do with my "two channel head". It is called observation.

rw

My goodness, another air sandwich. You sure do major in using words, but saying absolutely nothing. In the future, can you not major in minors?

[E-Stat]

As far as you statement about the studios agreeing with your assesment, you have no idea what the studio agree with, you don't work for one(I do), you never have, nor will you ever.
Such childish posturing really isn't necessary. You have already acknowledged elsewhere that the studios continue to release in DVD. They could simply stop offering the format. But they don't. Catch on? Go to Amazon.com and look for upcoming releases in April found in the DVD format. Why are your panties all in a wad over an observation of fact?


As I have told you before, the buzz around Hollywood is that there is less than two more years of support left for DVD at the current rate of disc sale losses, that is the assessment of the studios, not what you state.
I have made no prognostications as to the future of any product. I observe and state what is the case today.


You were foolish to use a article as support for your foolishness.
Silly me to think that the producer of the largest grossing film in history would know what he's talking about. I'll take your advice and ignore all industry sources.


Those who are not quality sensitive are probably not interested in Blu ray in the first place.
This is what I have been saying all along. A $29 DVD player with the same convenience of a BR player is just fine for them.

rw

[Woochifer]

Except of course for Avatar, which happens to be the topic of this thread. Let's review what the article says, shall we?

" For the Earth Day release, the single-disc version of "Avatar" will have a suggested retail price of $29.98 on DVD and $39.99 on Blu-ray. A source at Fox said the "shelf" prices at many retailers will be closer to $19.99 for the DVD and $29.99 for the Blu-ray."

The difference is ten bucks. I will agree that the shelf pricing will more realistic than list price where the differential is FIFTY PERCENT.

"Many retailers" is not all of them, and if the precedent from the holiday season, or even this week's release of The Princess and the Frog, holds true, the actual "shelf" pricing will be a lot closer. Avatar is enough of a surefire draw for retailers and websites that the discounted pricing on the Blu-ray will probably be closer to $20 than $30.

The Princess and the Frog carries the same list pricing (with the combo pack listing for $45), yet this week's street pricing finds the DVD going for around $16, the single-disc Blu-ray going for $20 to $22, and the combo pack (w/ BD, DVD, digital copy, and online streaming access) going for $26.

[Woochifer]

I checked out Walmart prices on new movie blu ray releases for last and this month, and avarage price for them seem to be around $23. So I am guessing the Avatar bluray price will hover around that price for couple of months.

It will vary considerably. The big blockbuster titles get the heaviest week-of-release discounting because those are the titles that draw people into stores and websites in large numbers. Harry Potter, Star Trek, etc. were all readily available for less than $20 when they came out in November and December.


You are probably right. But one can buy at discount prices waiting for a sale or with a coupon if persistent enough. I don't know if you shop at Kroger grocery store or not, but I see $5 off coupon in their flyers for new movies all the time (ofcourse with a $10 grocery reciept :D).

Yep, that's how I got The Princess and the Frog combo pack for $16 (online $10 off coupon from Disney and the usual week-of-release discounting). The biggest challenge was finding a copy of that movie in the first place. Three Target stores in my area were completely sold out in all formats, and the first two Best Buy locations I checked did not have any Blu-ray copies left.


I wonder how much a 3D feature on a disc will add to price of disc? Given that %99 of population dot not have a 3d player or TV yet, reasoably low prices (as compare with non 3D disc) will guaranty that 3D discs will not sit on the shelf for a long time.

Early adopters will be fine with paying extra for the 3D version. Pricing only becomes a concern when the feature begins migrating over to lower priced TVs. In the long run, the 3D version won't add all that much because the 2D and 3D versions can fit onto a single disc. It's only in the beginning that you will see premium pricing.

[E-Stat]

... yet this week's street pricing finds the DVD going for around $16... and the combo pack (w/ BD, DVD, digital copy, and online streaming access) going for $26.
The difference is about ten bucks. Expressed as a markup, it ends up being around 50%.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The difference is about ten bucks. Expressed as a markup, it ends up being around 50%.

rw

More air sandwich. Yes the difference is ten bucks, but for that ten bucks you get a digital copy of which you don't get with the DVD, the streaming option which you don't get with the DVD, the Blu ray disc of which the DVD does not provide, and a copy of the DVD as well. You keep looking at the cost, but missing the value the difference brings. The devil is in the detail, not on the surface.

[E-Stat]

More air sandwich. Yes the difference is ten bucks, but for that ten bucks you get ...
I will just accept the fact that the concept of paying a premium for those who couldn't care less about BR anyway is beyond your comprehension.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I will just accept the fact that the concept of paying a premium for those who couldn't care less about BR anyway is beyond your comprehension.

rw

The whole paying a premium argument is a old petrified persons argument. If a person does not care about BR, then so be it. The premium price angle is a false angle when sales are increasing on the BR format, and decreasing on the cheaper DVD format. You are out of touch, and that is something you just cannot face. People apparently want BR, price be damned. The adoption rate of BR bares this out.

[E-Stat]

If a person does not care about BR, then so be it.
Which remains exactly my point. You have hit the nail on the head. There are many who do not care and buy DVD instead. While you and I and others prefer the higher quality and buy all new content in the BR format, it remains an obvious statement that there are others who do not. As long as DVD players are sold and DVD content is available, people will continue to buy the less expensive and lower quality product. I'll repeat something I've said before. I couldn't care less if the studios changed their marketing policy today and stopped releasing in the DVD format.


The adoption rate of BR bares this out.
Indeed it does. Well, it bears it out. If all folks really wanted the higher def, then the adoption rate would be 100%. It is not!


You are out of touch, and that is something you just cannot face.
Observing reality is not an indication of being out of touch. It is you who fail to grasp that which occurs in a segment of the market. Look around! DVD is still on the market! Do you get that? Sheesh!

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Which remains exactly my point. You have hit the nail on the head. There are many who do not care and buy DVD instead. While you and I and others prefer the higher quality and buy all new content in the BR format, it remains an obvious statement that there are others who do not. As long as DVD players are sold and DVD content is available, people will continue to buy the less expensive and lower quality product. I'll repeat something I've said before. I couldn't care less if the studios changed their marketing policy today and stopped releasing in the DVD format.

If you could care less, then why do you continue to beat this drum?

If the market for the cheaper players was getting larger(or even holding steady), I could see your point. However, the market is shrinking yearly in double digits. With BR players and disc sales growing, there is obviously less and less people who no longer care less about BR. And with DVD players and disc sales falling, there is obviously a growing number of people who no longer care about mediocre picture quality, lossy audio, and basically zero interactive extra content. The growth of HDTV has pushed the growth of BR. The growth of BR is basically killing DVD.



Indeed it does. Well, it bears it out. If all folks really wanted the higher def, then the adoption rate would be 100%. It is not!

You are taking on the same lame stupid argument that nightstupid takes. It is stupid as hell to think that the transition from one format to another happens overnight. There is no precedent for that in history. First, they could not manufacture enough players for an overnight transition, and neither could they produce enough discs. Stores could not just replace their entire inventory of players and disc overnight. Based on these realities, it is stupid to judge the success of a format based on an overnight transformation. The success of a product is based on the how quickly the public adopts the product over time, not if they adopt it en mass overnight. The fact that BR has been the fastest CE product to achieve mainstream penetration shows the power of the formats success. The fact that the DVD business has shrunk by 20-25% in five years is a testament to how quickly a video format sales can fall when the market is saturated with the product, and when something better comes along.



Observing reality is not an indication of being out of touch. It is you who fail to grasp that which occurs in a segment of the market. Look around! DVD is still on the market! Do you get that? Sheesh!

rw

Get this in your thick fat head E-stat. Nobody is saying that DVD's aren't around. What I am saying is the support for the format in every way is shrinking. When it shrinks to a certain point, it dies. Whether it is a slow death(VHS), or a fast death(DVD IMO) it is going to die eventually. Now you can stay stuck with this format like you have done with two channel audio, but the reality is, it is going bye bye.

HD DVD players and disc are still on the market, does that mean the format is still healthy? Laserdisc players and discs are still on the market does that mean it is still viable format? Being on the market tells you nothing about the health of anything. Your perspective on this issue is shallow at best. Everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) related to DVD points to format death, even if it is currently on the market.

Transitional period, look it up.

[E-Stat]

If you could care less, then why do you continue to beat this drum?
First of all, my preferences (along with yours) have nothing to do with stating that which is supported by facts. While I recommend to friends that they buy BR, there are millions of video viewers who have not. Surely you understand that. You have made two incorrect statements:

1. DVD is dead. It is most alive in both players and content.
2. One MUST have BR to enjoy the convenience of HDMI cabling.

Neither assertion is true today. It is that simple. What may be the case in 2011 has still to be determined. Someone reading your posts might think that either notion is the case. They are not. Some people have stated that vinyl is dead. Similarly, such is not supported by fact. There is both new content available in that format and there is ongoing hardware development. Believe what you will despite those pesky facts.

I think you fundamentally miss the direction of my posts. They are independent of my preferences. I'm sure that it boggles your mind that anyone would purchase a DVD today when they could get better quality with Blu Ray. I would agree. I am equally amazed why it is that millions of people buy lossy, compressed, swishy sounding 128k MP3s from iTunes, Amazon, etc. Don't they know any better? Regardless of my perspective, I nevertheless observe that is the case. Just like the fact that folks continue to buy DVD movies and players. Why else would the studios continue to offer their latest content in that way? Why not force the issue and cut off DVD production? I have to think that your employer along with other studios seems to believe that they would lose money if they took that approach today. Who knows?

rw

[Woochifer]

The difference is about ten bucks. Expressed as a markup, it ends up being around 50%.

rw

Rather disingenuous bit of quote clipping on your part. You conveniently ignored the single-disc BD version, which is the only true apples-to-apples comparison to the DVD copy and has a considerably narrower cost difference.

[Woochifer]

You have made two incorrect statements:

1. DVD is dead. It is most alive in both players and content.
2. One MUST have BR to enjoy the convenience of HDMI cabling.

Neither assertion is true today. It is that simple.

Got something against strawmen?

[E-Stat]

Rather disingenuous bit of quote clipping on your part. You conveniently ignored the single-disc BD version, which is the only true apples-to-apples comparison to the DVD copy and has a considerably narrower cost difference.
A video expert pointed out that "Many folks love the fact they have the ability to view a copy on their HDTV's, and take a copy on the road to view on a PC or portable DVD player. "

Obviously, one cannot do that unless you buy the combo. Right? :)

rw

[E-Stat]

Got something against strawmen?
I love the smell of straw men roasting in the morning. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

First of all, my preferences (along with yours) have nothing to do with stating that which is supported by facts. While I recommend to friends that they buy BR, there are millions of video viewers who have not. Surely you understand that. You have made two incorrect statements:

1. DVD is dead. It is most alive in both players and content.

You call it alive because you are looking only on the surface of the market. As long as your beady eyes can see a player, you believe the market is healthy. So by your logic, HD DVD is alive, Laserdisc is alive, and VHS is alive. There are players and content on the market for all of these formats.



2. One MUST have BR to enjoy the convenience of HDMI cabling.

I never said that. Do you want to try again? I said HDMI is the choice cabling for Blu ray. There is a difference.


Neither assertion is true today. It is that simple. What may be the case in 2011 has still to be determined. Someone reading your posts might think that either notion is the case. They are not. Some people have stated that vinyl is dead. Similarly, such is not supported by fact. There is both new content available in that format and there is ongoing hardware development. Believe what you will despite those pesky facts.

E-stat, only on this forum do I see people arguing on the death of DVD. On other boards everyone understands this is a predetermined fact. It is going, and going quickly based on player and disc sales. Since you have chosen to side step the concept of transitional period, there is no point in rehashing this point over and over again. DVD is dead. There is no hardware development, and hasn't been any for years. If you call upscaling product development, then you do not understand marketing 101. DVD replicators are going out of business or scaling back. Fewer players are being manufactured by fewer vendors. The major CE companies no longer make their own players, they have been out of that business for years. Sales of discs and players have been on the down swing for 5 years all over the world. There is no catalog content left to release, and no mature format can survive on new releases alone. Everything points to format death. Now whether you can understand this or not is irrelevant. For some reason I am not surprised that you are defending the DVD format. DVD, two channel, I guess it is tough for you to let dying things go.



I think you fundamentally miss the direction of my posts. They are independent of my preferences. I'm sure that it boggles your mind that anyone would purchase a DVD today when they could get better quality with Blu Ray. I would agree. I am equally amazed why it is that millions of people buy lossy, compressed, swishy sounding 128k MP3s from iTunes, Amazon, etc. Don't they know any better? Regardless of my perspective, I nevertheless observe that is the case. Just like the fact that folks continue to buy DVD movies and players. Why else would the studios continue to offer their latest content in that way? Why not force the issue and cut off DVD production? I have to think that your employer along with other studios seems to believe that they would lose money if they took that approach today. Who knows?

rw

Just like in the other thread your motivation is showing. You are arguing just for the sake of arguing, and that $hit is boring. Why in the hell does somebody argue independent of their preference? That is because they are arguing just for the hell of it.

People buy 128k MP3's because the format is portable plain and simple. Unlike us antiques, people do not sit and listen to music anymore, that is a fact. People who are left buying DVD players are replacing previous players, and people buying DVD disc are feeding DVD players they already own. This is the same behavior they did when DVD came. It took many folks quite a while to let go of their VHS machines and buy a DVD player. VHS had the benefit of being able to record television programming, and that extended its life a bit longer until Tivo came along. Many just like you were in denial that VHS would die, but it did. However DVD recording has not been explored, and tivo is firmly entrenched in many homes. The fact that a Blu ray player can play DVD's, and Blu ray player prices are getting close to that of DVD players shows me that DVD will die faster than VHS did.

Secondly, it is not good business to introduce a new format, and sunset a well entrenched format prematurely. It is better to collect revenue from two formats, than from one format - especially when one is dying. It is smarter to just let the format die to the point where it becomes irrelevant on the market. Another 25% sales loss, and that goal will be reached. In the first two months of this year the DVD market contracted another 13%, while the Blu ray market expanded 76%. You must be blind if you cannot read the handwriting on the wall. Anyone inquiring about DVD now(after thirteen years on the market) is late to the party, as it is almost over. If it wasn't for the format war(of which Toshiba wanted to extend the life of DVD to continue to collect its royalties), DVD would be well out the door by now. Nobody who understand the industry(of which apparently don't) would argue against that point.

Much like in the other thread, you are wasting my time arguing against your preference(which is kind of retarded to me). Your bullet points are becoming monotonous, circular, and increasingly shallow. As I have stated before, I have no patience for shallowness, and the lack of critical thinking. You can believe what you choose, but you are not going to change my perspective one bit, so with that, it is time to move on.

[E-Stat]

There are players and content on the market for all of these formats.
New content. You know, that stuff folks want to buy. You will not be able to purchase Avatar on VHS nor Laser Disc.


It is going...
As will BR when its successor takes hold. No debate there.


Sales of discs and players have been on the down swing for 5 years all over the world.
Yet, oddly you can continue to buy new content on DVD everywhere. While new players still use the same format, they are now cheaper and more convenient using HDMI cabling. Obviously, there are folks who find that compelling.


You are arguing just for the sake of arguing
What I've done is point out your straw men inaccuracies.



Why in the hell does somebody argue independent of their preference? That is because they are arguing just for the hell of it.
Sorry, I was always taught it is wrong to lie. My preferences have no bearing upon that which is true and that which is not.


People buy 128k MP3's because the format is portable plain and simple.
So is all of the lossless content I have on my iPhone. Difference=quality.


People who are left buying DVD players are replacing previous players, and people buying DVD disc are feeding DVD players they already own.
Absolutely!


VHS had the benefit of being able to record television programming, and that extended its life a bit longer until Tivo came along.
So can my DVD recorder. My wife uses the DVR to time shift all her programs. Those we want to retain, we burn to DVDR.


Many just like you were in denial that VHS would die, but it did.
I was quick to enjoy the convenience of the DVD format and MC audio tracks. Tapes had to be rewound, they died and none I found offered the 16:9 format unless it was letterboxed.


Blu ray player prices are getting close to that of DVD players shows me that DVD will die faster than VHS did.
When it happens, it happens. I will look forward to $30 BR players.


Secondly, it is not good business to introduce a new format, and sunset a well entrenched format prematurely.
This is what I have been saying all along. I don't believe for a moment that the studios are fools because they continue to release new content on DVD.


Much like in the other thread, you are wasting my time arguing against your preference(which is kind of retarded to me).
I have pointed out inaccuracies in your posts. Don't you remember saying this earlier in the post?

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

New content. You know, that stuff folks want to buy. You will not be able to purchase Avatar on VHS nor Laser Disc.


As will BR when its successor takes hold. No debate there.


Yet, oddly you can continue to buy new content on DVD everywhere. While new players still use the same format, they are now cheaper and more convenient using HDMI cabling. Obviously, there are folks who find that compelling.


What I've done is point out your straw men inaccuracies.



Sorry, I was always taught it is wrong to lie. My preferences have no bearing upon that which is true and that which is not.


So is all of the lossless content I have on my iPhone. Difference=quality.


Absolutely!


So can my DVD recorder. My wife uses the DVR to time shift all her programs. Those we want to retain, we burn to DVDR.


I was quick to enjoy the convenience of the DVD format and MC audio tracks. Tapes had to be rewound, they died and none I found offered the 16:9 format unless it was letterboxed.


When it happens, it happens. I will look forward to $30 BR players.


This is what I have been saying all along. I don't believe for a moment that the studios are fools because they continue to release new content on DVD.


I have pointed out inaccuracies in your posts. Don't you remember saying this earlier in the post?

rw

E-stat, you have pointed out nothing except that your perspective on this issue is shortsighted and shallow.

Here is the reality. There is no point in trying to make me wrong on this issue because we simply look at things from a different perspective. Your perspective only looks at the here and now, and nothing else. I am looking at the whole big picture over time, because I have history to support my beliefs, and the hard data as well.

You made your point, I made mine whether you think it is wrong or not. You think you are right, and I think you are half right. That is not going to change, so to keep belaboring the point over and over is a waste of time. Since I know what your true motivation is(which was apparent in the 35k cable thread, the thread in the home theater forum, and now this one) is to prove me wrong at every turn you can. I have no interest in immature pissing contests, of which any engagement we have always degrades to. If you do not like my views, cool. At this point I think it is perfectly fine if you never respond to my postings, and I never respond to yours. It is sorely apparent this is no love lost here.

When two people have this much contempt for each other, it is best they don't interact. I am perfectly okay with this, are you?

[E-Stat]

Your perspective only looks at the here and now, and nothing else.
Such is what the rest of us call *reality*. Perhaps you've been spending too much time in the Magic Castle. :)


I made mine whether you think it is wrong or not.
What you state are (reasonable) projections of what is to come, not that which is.


Since I know what your true motivation is...to prove me wrong at every turn you can.
There is a wonderfully simple solution - support your claims with substance as I have!

Your approach to things reminds of the Jack Nicholson line from "A Few Good Men". "You can't handle the truth."

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Such is what the rest of us call *reality*. Perhaps you've been spending too much time in the Magic Castle. :)


What you state are (reasonable) projections of what is to come, not that which is.


There is a wonderfully simple solution - support your claims with substance as I have!

rw

I think I have supported my claims with substance, and you continue over and over with yours. Here we go round in circles as Billy Preston puts it.

We look at things from a different perspective. That is the only thing gained from this debate.

You are completely predictable, and your motivations so totally transparent. I pretty clear what this is REALLY about.

[E-Stat]

I think I have supported my claims with substance...
Can you handle the truth? My guess is that the answer remains no. Since you brought up the cable link, let's see whether or not you will actually support your claim with substance. Clear your conflicting statements (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=321066&postcount=233) then support your claim that "no name" cables offer the same performance as others with substance. Examples. Data. Links. We're still waiting for you to provide some evidence.

Naturally, you will once again fail and either (1) attempt to divert attention with some tactic or (2) use your "It's none of your business" excuse. The Dog Ate My Homework. Can you do any better than that this time? Responding with real data is very easy for those who have real experience and know what they are talking about.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Can you handle the truth? My guess is that the answer remains no. Since you brought up the cable link, let's see whether or not you will actually support your claim with substance. Clear your conflicting statements (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=321066&postcount=233) then support your claim that "no name" cables offer the same performance as others with substance. Examples. Data. Links. We're still waiting for you to provide some evidence.

I have already made my attentions perfectly clear by not responding to your demands. Take the hint and move on.


Naturally, you will once again fail and either (1) attempt to divert attention with some tactic or (2) use your "It's none of your business" excuse. The Dog Ate My Homework. Can you do any better than that this time? Responding with real data is very easy for those who have real experience and know what they are talking about.


rw[/QUOTE]

How about a third option. I am going to not respond to your posting in the future. That is the best you are going to get from he. We do not see eye to eye about anything, so that means we have nothing to discuss on anything PERIOD. Cannot agree= stalemate. Stalemate=disengagement.

I have already made it perfectly clear how I was not going to respond to your posting any more. If you are having a hard time with this, get some help. This is the best advice I can give you.

[E-Stat]

I have already made it perfectly clear how I was not going to respond to your posting any more.
You continue to prove my point that you make claims with no substantiation. No surprise here. Folds again.

rw

[Woochifer]

A video expert pointed out that "Many folks love the fact they have the ability to view a copy on their HDTV's, and take a copy on the road to view on a PC or portable DVD player. "

Obviously, one cannot do that unless you buy the combo. Right? :)

rw

And yet your meme falls apart when comparable examples are used, which explains why you selectively misquoted me the way that you did.

[E-Stat]

And yet your meme falls apart ...
I will not be adding The Princess and the Frog to my collection.

rw