A lot of the newer "Director's Special Extended Uncut Multi-Angle Widescreen" new standard DVD releases are going for $29.99 locally already. $5-$10 more, I would probably pay for the HD version instead. Is this a planned price increase to smooth the higher prices for HD?

I agree that these prices are outrageous, along with local store new CDs prices at $19.99. Oh, and the DVD version of the album is $12.95. Go figure. Guess what I'm buying lately?

I am making most of my CD/DVD purchases off of Amazon lately, at least there is some price competition.

But there are some movies that I will pay that much for, like Lord Of The Rings Trilogy, which will be way more than the $80 I have already spent on the standard DVD version.

As usual, I will be patient and wait several years for the "reduced price bin" value purchases for those classic movies I would love to see in HD. By the way, Pearl Harbor was incredible on HD over-the-air broadcast several months ago. So some early purchases are in order. Not Pearl Harbor, because I've already seen it in HD:) Even though I hate to watch US mainstream network TV due to commercials and editing of the sex and cuss words, I may be inclined to watch a few HD movies for free on those channels. Soon I will probably upgrade my satellite to HD anyway, to avoid the network editing and commercials.

It's a totally planned, scripted effort to manipulate us into buying. And it works for 80% of the people most of the time. Pure execution of theoretical marketing.

VHS's were that price for over a decade. DVD's started at that price. it will drop, it will just take a year or two.

the thing that will piss me off is that we'll have three major formats for a while: DVD, Blueray & HDDVD. And from the looks, BD players won't play HDDVD discs & vice versa. :/

oh but if they can mod a sony playstation, they can mod a blu ray player.

j razz

I still cannot believe that you watched Pearl Harbor in any format. :)

It's not THAT bad. You young whipper-snapper's don't remember how much Laser Disc movies were when they came out (neither do I, but it was a lot more than $30).

Just for the attack sequence:) Agreed the movie s@@ked otherwise.

I owned 2 laser disc movies- half way in the movie I had to get up, flip the disc and resume watching.... oh the good old days.
Come to think of it, didn't they only make 2 laser discs? Kindegarten Cop and Full Metal Jacket? Well, those were the only two I could find and I bought them so I could use my laser disc player for more than collecting dust.

j razz

Ken Crane's in L.A. had 11,000 laser disk titles in stock.

Oh, the glory days.

I used to own a heap of laser discs, sold them off before the price dropped too much when DVD came out.

Some of the Laser discs could only contain 30 mins per side - The Star Wars trilogy was in this form - but at least you could pause the movie!

In Oz we paid up to $70 for a laser disc - one reason it wasn't huge over here.

These days if it's a movie I REALLY want, i'll pay $15, otherwise $10 is my limit.

I can understand new movies being dearer, but re-issues on DVD, surely they've made enough money originally, and apart from the transfer in format and some packaging, isn't any income they get just gravy?

A

Like DVD's the size of LP's!

I had "Backdraft" and "The Abyss" on LD. Both good for showing off the surround sound. "The Abyss" was a 2 disc set. Yeah, the video looked good, but the hurdles you'd jump through were a pain in the butt. I invited friends over, popped in the first disc, then had to get up and flip it after 30 minutes. Next, 30 minutes later, I had to switch out the discs, and finally, 30 minutes later, flip that last disc to watch the end of the movie.

All that nonsense kept me from enjoying the format.

In Oz we paid up to $70 for a laser disc - one reason it wasn't huge over here.

I remember paying $95 for a VHS tape of the first Indiana Jones movie, at 20/20 Video in West L.A..

The special Hi-Fi soundtrack that was recorded in a separate layer over the picture area was defective (as verified on my $1800 professional AG-1830 deck), but the store wouldn't replace it.

They listened to the tape, sound came out, and they said, "there is nothing wrong with the sound." I tried to explain to them that the Hi-Fi sound required a Hi-Fi soundtrack-capable VCR, they didn't understand. They refused to give me a replacement.

So they missed 20 years of continuous business from me after that, and I made sure to tell everybody I knew to avoid this chain if they wanted to avoid getting screwed.

In this announcement actual prices are referenced, which I don't see in the above link. If the most expensive movies wholesale at $23.00, then peak price is likely going to be 30.00 or so at the standard big outlets like Amazon, Walmart, etc.
Basically 15% more than standard DVDs at all levels, so I fail to see what the hoopla is about. Higher quality, more information, more content, and cutting edge. Folks forget that DVDs were 25.00 when they first came out no matter where you bought them.
There is always rental. Blockbuster has already announced that they'll be renting BD and HD-DVD players and movies. I can also clearly remember when you'd rent a VCR and a movie for 15.00 a night, and then the prices started dropping once everyone had players, and once movies were popular. The old "piano key" VHS players originally sold for $1k, and that was in 1980.

DSE, respectfully, I think the big hoopla is the amount they are charging for movies that have been out forever. I can see charging $30 for a new movie but to charge the same for a movie from 20 years ago as one that is released today seems silly. I totally understand higher quality etc... but one would think that they have made enough off of those movies that they could afford to offer it at a much lower price. IMO, this marketing plan failed from the start. Higher priced than HD DVD players, I just dont see the mad rush from consumers to run out and drop $1000 for a player and then $30-$40 for movies. Do the major studios really think that people will quickly move from $10-$15 DVDs without the need for an additional player to the much more expensive BD?

Ive always been a big proponet of HD but looking at it from your average consumer standpoint, I dont think HD will be as successful quickly as was DVD. For BD to justify the price for thier discs, what extras will the consumer get besides a higher resolution since it doesnt have the interactive layer that HD DVD has?

Looks like Beta/VHS all over again with VHS coming out ahead.

As a Laserdisc owner myself (hey, at least I can watch the original Star Wars Trilogy - non "special ed" version - on something other than VHS) I must admit that $30 is a pretty steep price to pay. But unlike 1990, consumers actually have the gear to enjoy high quality video for the first time, so I doubt blue-ray DVDs, or HDDVDs will suffer the same fate as Laserdiscs and be relegated only to the videophiles of the world. The backlash that I've been hearing from the early adapters of plasma TVs is that they hate DVDs now that they have seen the better stuff like HBO-HD. I’ve been in a holding pattern for a few years now. I try not to buy DVDs and I’ve been holding off on a new video projector purchase until the next gen stuff comes out.

So in that light, I think $30 would fly for the obvious movies (Lord of the Rings, etc) and for the lesser movies (Herbie Fully Loaded) people will just rent the HD version. And like everything else, the prices will drop.

Yeah, charging $30 for Terminator is kinda stupid, even if it IS higher quality. Just because it is an old movie. And I can get it on DVD for $10. But HD is STILL pretty much a status symbol that people use to show off "Hey, I got HD! Look!" Majority of people don't own it so they can charge the higher price. DVD's will still most likely be sold & I'm happy with that. I don't plan on replacing any of my DVD's with HDDVD/BD copies any time soon (I REFUSE to replace my copy of Aliens 1-4 unless they can get be an equally big quality leap from VHS to DVD for the same price of player, TV & disc as DVD is right now. It's just not worth it to me) so I can EASILY wait until Terminator on HD comes to $10.

Charging more for a 30 year old movie....just found my receipt for "To Kill a Mockingbird" that I bought when it initially came out. I paid 34.65 for it plus tax with my discount on Amazon. The Special Edition cost less.

It costs MORE to bring old movies into HD, because they likely aren't stored at the higher resolutions if they've been digitized at all. They also are contractually obligated in some cases, to maintain a specific margin on the property and if that's the case here, then they've still got to make their nut too.
Like I said, I fail to see where the problem is. $30.00 (retail, not street) for a movie that is in HD with all the extras? Doesn't seem to be a big deal.
Now that asked....how many DVDs do you own that you bought and paid full price for from the store shelves?
I'll never be able to afford to replace all my DVDs in HD with over 2000 in my collection, so you'd think I'd be freaked myself. I'm not, because of two factors;
Value for quality
Demand will eventually lower the price.

Basic economics. If you can't supply the demand, charge for it. If you have too much supply, drop the price.

If you want the movie bad enough you'll pay the dough :)

I've got a $35 copy of Chaplin's The Gold Rush. Bought it because it's a great film and that's what it cost.

Spot's right about the cost to restore many of these films. Pending restoration and DVD prep of nearly 10 years ago now, I would argue that many films done then are not even in condition enough to prep for HD DVD and will see yet another round of restoration. There's your cost. :)

cheno

If you wait a little it will usually be in your public library. This is often hit an miss with VHS and cassette tapes that you check out from the library but CDs and DVDs are usually much more watchable --have your disc doctor ready for scratches though.

TomE

When "The Wizard of Oz" comes out in HD, get it if you like it, even if you have the DVD already.

I have seen the new restoration, and it is incredible to the point where you get a bigger experience.

It was shot on 8 ASA three-strip Technicolor, and over time the film faded, and the three strips shrunk unevenly.

The restorers went through not just frame-by-frame, but split up each frame into 16 areas and worked separately on each. The process was half automatic with Opterons crunching the best they could, and humans finetuning where needed.

The #1 thing I saw from this process was Scarecrow's face, which now for the first time shows the burlap structure (before, even in theaters, it was just a non-expressive mush).

This actually made a difference in the dramatic story telling, and it shows more of what the actor was able to do.

The chief restorer said he thought you'd even be able to see this on the SD DVD that should be released soon.

They also kept the booboos in the film, some things in the background that shouldn't have been there but were never visible even in theaters due to registration problems.

Yes, Wizard of Oz is a good one. I'd probably go as much as $7.99 for that one. Maybe even $8.99 if they put in the omitted Jitterbug scenes.

Keep in mind the effect of inflation--those $70 VHS tapes you bought in 1982 are equivalent to spending $144 for those same crummy VHS tapes today. I laugh when I remember spending $200 ($411) for a lousy VHS player back then, and complementing myself at the time on getting such a bargain.

you bring up a good point. $30 MSRP isn't bad. Almost all DVD's have an MSRP of $29.99. Media Play always charged ~that price while Target & simular stores normally charged ~25-33% less. If Columbia House lets me do HDDVD/BD on the DVD club then that might also make it worthwhile too (buy 1 at full price & get the rest at ~$50 off).