To Be Or Not To Be...16X9 Is The Question

I know, I know. I've been promising my editorial on this subject for almost a week, I've been a flake again. But at least I've been getting some of my reviews up. I'm a one man operation, with a day job, what more can I say? Here it goes...

16X9, it must be... or so it seems. Next to the cherished demise of DIVX, this is the hottest topic of conversation (aggravation?) in the world of DVD. Read any news group or web site, and there's at least a mention about 16X9, a.k.a. anamorphic widescreen every day. People are angry at studios, because some haven't joined in the apparent enlightenment that is the anamorphic world.

All right, let's first break it down this way: What are the benefits? What are the drawbacks?

Benefits for the consumer? First and foremost, it means the disc you buy today will be (more) compatible with the 16X9 widescreen televisions that are on the market, HD ready or not. Secondly, it almost guarantees the studio will strike a new print of the film, instead of rehashing a previous LB laser disc transfer, or in Warner's case, an inferior VHS transfer.

Benefits for the Studios? Consumer good will. Yes, that's it. This could result in more sale for the studio, but how much more? In the whole scheme of this industry probably and extra 1,500 copies. Their big titles sell, 16X9 or not.

Drawbacks for the consumer? None really, except for the down-conversion factor. Which honestly annoys the crap out me.

Drawbacks for the studios? Theoretically? None except the following. An extra expense , however minor, for the anamorphic enhancement for the disc. Striking a new print. Lowering the potential re-release value of a title. More p/s people griping about the bars on their television, assuming a piece o' shit version isn't provided. Wait! Back up a sentence. I think I hit the issue. Actually, I know I hit the issue. It all comes down to the grand american dollar, and capitalism.

I assume most of you have heard the phrase, "Leave them wanting more." That's exactly what certain studios are in the process of doing. (By the way, if someone know's who this quite is attributed to please contact me) By not putting the features you want on a disc, there's a chance that you'll buy it again when it is re-released the way you want it.

In the case of big ticket items, such as televisions, receivers, cars and the like, it's easy to hold off on a purchase. The larger amount you have to spend makes you think about it. Well, it at least makes me feel guilty about it, but back to the point. When it come to VHS (ugh!), Laser Disc or DVD were only talking about $10 to $40 dollars. That may be a lot to you, but for me, it's not a big deal. When the studio re-releases a film to LD after three to four years (DVD - three to four months?), I come to the to familiar situation "Again? I don't care... what have they added? Damn." At this point, more than likely, I'll probably buy the new one.

Some recent examples of my re-purchase habits are: Caddyshack (DVD) to, yes believe it or not, to the new LB SE of Caddyshack on LD. Mercury Rising (DVD) to Mercury Rising SE (DVD). Armageddon (DVD) to SE DVD. You see the pattern. Hell, there's more stuff I'll willing upgrade to, if the studios would release them, such as the Lethal Weapon Director Cuts, Big Trouble In Little China (requested by Carpenter and Russell themselves!), any incarnation of the original Star Wars and Indiana Jones Trilogies. You can see my point.

The home video industry business is built on this concept. Why did the studios fight VHS when it first came out in the early 80's? In case you didn't notice, until home video came along, theatrical re-releases of films were the norm every few years. Today, it 's amazing to think anyone in the film industry didn't see the potential revenue, but they didn't. Now their lives depend on it. Would Austin Powers 2 have made over $150 million in theaters if the original hadn't been released on home video, hell no! Look at the re-release of the Star Wars Trilogy in the theaters in 1997. While it would have made a ton of  money, I don't think anyone would have predicted over $100 million .

When it comes to releasing product on VHS, it's no longer such a big deal. There's an automatic re-purchase value of tapes over time, since they wear out. Laser disc was, and DVD will be, a totally different animal. Why do studio generally hate to release product on these formats, they don't wear out. Granted LD had a problem with "laser rot," but that was a manufactures defect. If you deal with the studios, more than likely, they help you replace the defective product. My Die Hard from 1989 still works today, buying the DD LD and DVD was not necessary, just my normal tendency. Considering how much I've watched this film, a video tape would be dead, I'd have to buy a new one. The only re-purchase values for LD and DVD are new features.

The studios goals are to release their product as many ways as they can, to optimize revenue. If any of you think that the studios aren't going to abandon LB (16X9 or not) on DVD, if the P/S' of Universal show promise, you're fooling yourself. LB will evolve into a future re-sale value for a title. The studios do not want this product to become a niche market, which it still is. In order to break through they'll have to support P/S more widely.

Studios are already killing themselves financially in the DVD market right now. DVD is beginning to cut into the VHS market share, however slight it is in the big picture, but the general revenue they are earning for a title is becoming less. Just check out the quote from Bill Mechanic on TNT Rough cut, or DVD File. No matter how you read this quote it makes perfect business sense, $12 revenue vs $60 revenue, what would you rather have. I know, the lower prices mean more people will buy the product, but lets put it into this perspective. Most people don't buy movies they rent them.

While all of you, myself included, rant and rave about how the studios are handling the issues of DVD, remember this. The studios are in it for the money, not for the convenience of the consumer. DVD would not have even been looked at, if it wasn't for the potential re-sale value of their older titles. VHS sales have about run their course, and they need a new revenue stream, however minor it is in the scheme of things.

Is it truly stupid of the studio's not to release titles in anamorphic widescreen? In the high-end, niche, consumers minds, yes. In the minds of the studio's accountants, no.

Dan Linzmeier, FIT Production
Fitprod@aol.com
Home
Editorials
Copyright 1999-2000, FIT Productions