For videophiles, a common current question is: Why aren’t the studios releasing more classic, older, and oddball movies on Blu-Ray? It’s actually a good question; there are many popular titles, such as the Star Wars trilogy, Indiana Jones, the James Bond movies, and the classic Universal horror features (Dracula, Frankenstein, etc.) that still have not appeared on Blu-Ray. So what’s the holdup?
To paraphrase James Carville: It’s the economy, stupid. Movies aren’t selling well at all right now, whether they’re on DVD, Blu-Ray, or even digital download. And with a lackluster home video market, Hollywood is loathe to pour money into remastering movies into HD that might not sell…not to mention producing extras and bonus content.
Unfortunately, there’s the rub. One of Blu-Ray consumers’ biggest beefs is the perceived lack of detail to Blu-Ray releases by the studios. There’s a common belief that a movie should look much better on Blu-Ray than on regular DVD–hey, it’s high-def, after all! Sometimes this belief is justified. But consumers also often have ridiculous expectations and a lack of comprehension regarding the nature of old film and the inherent limitations of HD remastering.
To make matters worse, Blu-Ray discs usually don’t have much in terms of extras, especially not compared to some of the better, standard-def DVD releases. Combine the two criticisms, and you get a valid rationale as to why consumers are hesitant to purchase movies on Blu-Ray–especially if it’s movies they already own on DVD.
Studios say it is easier to justify spending money to release mainstream, popular movies than deeper catalog titles. And indeed, the Star Wars trilogy and similar fare are on the menu for 2010 and 2011. But consumers are right in complaining about double-dipping–a.k.a., the practice of releasing multiple, “better” versions of films progressively. (George Lucas and Peter Jackson, I’m looking at you.) Remember, studios: that “tough economic times” rationale? It applies to movie lovers, too. (I would be happy if Greedo just shot first, frankly.)
Personally, I’m still torn about Blu-Ray and HD. On one hand, HD can look spectacular. But is Blu-Ray destined to replace DVD? Or will it wind up as a relative of the cinephile-loved-but-consumer-rejected laserdisc? Only time will tell.
