MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Potter DVD Freeze

When I read about the removal of Potter DVDs from shelves on Jan 1, my first thought wasn’t Disney, but rebranding with improved price points. I think they’re just clearing inventory. As you can see below, WB themselves are now selling Blu-ray for $9 a pop for the first 7 films. They are pushing out a big $35 package with a book and other toys for the last film, which hits shelves next week and will be looking to be a hot holiday gift.

But my expectation after the removed product will be a relaunch of Potter as the first fully integrated all-platform franchise release. I wouldn’t expect the relaunch to take more than a few months. Buy it for, say, $25, and get Blu-ray, DVD, and Ultraviolet. You can have Harry with you anywhere at anytime. Download it to your portable player if you like… or stream it… or watch it on your TV. Your call. Own the whole series of 8 movies for $150 and you’re set to have Potter for life.

7 Responses to “Potter DVD Freeze”

  1. Mike says:

    I think pricing like that will only drive piracy or more likely, the software for people to rip their own blu-rays. Think what a difference it made when iTunes showed up and even your parents could figure out how to rip a cd. Why pay $10-$15 extra for essentially a service charge when you already feel like you’re buying the film on disc? I think there’ll be an argument that the price should go down for streaming (no physical material to produce), not way up. It’s the same argument that helped fuel the hatred for the music industry.

  2. David Poland says:

    So what number would be fair, Mike?

  3. Mike says:

    I don’t really know – actually, I think it’s too early for studios to think they can get very far offering streaming on individual titles. Apple is still rolling out their iCloud and Amazon is still working on their cloud. The smart thing for both is they’ll be subscription packages that will continue to roll in money month to month or year to year.

    Maybe Warners should be looking at this as an opportunity to roll out their own streaming service. If $25 is too expensive per title, how about $10 per bluray and the first month of Warners version of Netflix for free?

  4. David Poland says:

    That number would suggest that there is no future for copyrighted materials being sold.

    The blu-ray number has already shrunk by 40% or so. $10 DVDs is what destroyed the DVD business in the first place.

    Truth is, I think the long-term reality is a bit like you frame it. $10 a month or $15 a month for access to all WB content everywhere every format. But that is a major paradigm shift to subscription models and you can’t really do it part way.

  5. Mike says:

    I think that’s a good question, though: Is there a future in copyrighted material being sold if there is no more physical media? Who would buy a streaming copy of Potter if they get it as part of their cable-like streaming? Or would it be like Apple’s iCloud, where you’re only streaming the individual titles you buy through the Warner-version of iTunes? I think if a studio commits to that, they can’t also commit to a Netflix-like streaming service. As you said, they can’t do it part way.

    But that begets more questions. Where is there more money to be made – one time sales or subscription? Could a studio replace their DVD income with a streaming subscription if the subscribers know they’ll get every movie a studio puts out at the beginning of the DVD window? Would that kill rental or make it a more popular alternative?

    I can see why the studios are taking their sweet time getting into the streaming business, but they’re also letting Apple and Amazon – two companies a lot bigger and harder to push around than Netflix – stake out the early territory.

  6. LexG says:

    They have most of them in the Vons DVD bin in SD for 5.99 each.

    They also have one copy of Harriet the Spy left.

  7. MarkVH says:

    That’s the whole issue, though, isn’t it Mike (and DP)? What’s going to create a more sustainable source of revenue for the studios – charging somebody like Netflix (or Amazon/Hulu/Apple/take-your-pick) through the nose to stream your content, or selling it to consumers directly and letting them watch it across devices (via Ultraviolet)? Is there room for both? And understanding the path that DVD took, are the studios even thinking about sustainability of revenue or how to maximize short-term profits?

    The studios seem to be committed to Ultraviolet as a way to extend the life of the DVD market, but it seems to me that to truly commit to it, they have to make a decision one way or the other on streaming via the available solutions. This is why it seems like the Netflix-for-crappy-reality-TV seems to make sense (though it seems a shitty proposition for growth potential), as people don’t really seem interested owning that content. But for movies – especially premium, new release movies – it feels like offering this via streaming or On-Demand is going to kill your potential UV/Blu revenue. It’s like they want the highs of both the VHS rental model AND the DVD sell-thru model, without realizing that at some point they’ll have to make a choice between them.

    So many questions. All I know is that I have about 1,200 DVDs and about 100 Blus (and yes Lex, it’s been years since I watched some of them, leaving me to wonder what it was all for), and at some point I’m assuming there’s going to be a legal way for me to rip them into digital. There’d better be.

    All fascinating stuff.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

The Atlantic: You saw that the Academy Awards recently held up your 2001 acceptance speech as the Platonic ideal of an Oscar speech. Did you have a reaction?

Soderbergh: Shock and dismay. When that popped up and people started texting me about it, I said, “Oh, it’s too bad I’m not there to tell the story of how that took place.” Well. I was not sober at the time. And I had nothing prepared because I knew I wasn’t going to win [Best Director for Traffic]. I figured Ridley, Ang or Daldry would win. So I was hitting the bar pretty hard, having a great night, feeling super-relaxed because I don’t have to get up there. So the combination of a 0.4 blood alcohol level and lack of preparation resulted in me, in my state of drunkenness crossed with adrenaline surge. I was coherent enough to know that [if I tried to thank everyone], that way lies destruction. So I went the other way. There were some people who appreciated that, and there were some people who really wanted to hear their names said, and I had to apologize to them.
~ Steven Soderbergh

 

“I have made few films in a way. I never made action films. I never made science fiction films. I never made, really, very complicated settings, because I had modest ambitions. I knew they would never trust me to have the budget to do something different, so my mind is more focused on things I know. So they were always mental adventures I wanted to approach and share. Working for cinema with no – not only no money, but also no ambition for money. I was happy and proud [to receive the honorary Oscar] because of that, that [the Academy] could understand what kind of work I have done over 60 years. I stayed faithful to the ideal of sharing emotion, impressions, and mostly because I have so much empathy for other people that I approach people who are not really spoken about. I have 65 years of work in my bag, and when I put the bag down, what comes out? It’s really the desire of finding links and relationships with different kinds of people. I never made a film about the bourgeoisie, about rich people. about nobility. My choices have been to show people that are, in a way, more common and see that each of them has something special and interesting, rare and beautiful. It’s my natural way of looking at people. I didn’t fight my instincts. And maybe that has been appreciated in the famous circle of Hollywood.“

Agnes Varda