-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Hi-Def Media Lovefest: The war is over and we can all go home.
- Thread starter HyperionX
- Start date
- Status
Cheebs said:
Kite Runner looks like it could be good.
Bee Movie Im really interested in.
Beowulf looks meh.
the JJ Abrams movie has a cool trailer, but dont know enough about it.
Judd Apatow? Sign me up. I loved 40 year old virgin, knocked up and superbad
Iron Man looks really really good from what Ive seen
Star Trek interests me and Indiana Jones for sure (but we wont see that so id doesnt matter).
Thee rest are kinda meh to me. Peter Jackson especially. Im envisioning an "epic" movie with little charachter development lots of special effects and about an hour long.
Geez guys calm this thread down, its too much to catch up on for someone who doesnt have internet.
Im only through page 225, but no need to get excited about what Josh "beatboy" has to say. the extent of his "insiderness" is getting movies to review a week or two before they come out. I would honestly be surprised if he really did have a supposed "megaton."
Oh and im sorry Manabyte, you were right and didnt edit the quote.
What was his original tag after it was changed from take the advice, and before it is what is now.
Im only through page 225, but no need to get excited about what Josh "beatboy" has to say. the extent of his "insiderness" is getting movies to review a week or two before they come out. I would honestly be surprised if he really did have a supposed "megaton."
Oh and im sorry Manabyte, you were right and didnt edit the quote.
What was his original tag after it was changed from take the advice, and before it is what is now.
Crayon Shinchan said:
I'm behind, but I read something last night - a quote from a Paramount exec - who said their commitment to HD DVD was indefinite. Some were taking that to meant the 18-month thing was a mistake.
Is Paramount's commitment 18 months or are they in it for the long haul?
ManaByte
Member
Kolgar said:
Nope, 18 months contract wise. Of course the execs will say "we're in this for the long haul" just like they've said they chose HD-DVD for the consumer, and not the moneyhats.
It wouldn't make any sense to say, "We're only in this for 18 months. But it'll be the best 18 months ever!"
distantmantra
Member
Crayon Shinchan said:But... 20% is less than a 30% discount isn't it?
20% off their already low prices. The Spiderman box is currently $67, so with ANOTHER 20% off, it will be $54.
Crayon Shinchan
Aquafina Fanboy
Kolgar said:
You don't think a paramount exec coming out and flat out saying, exclusivity for only 18 months is damaging to HD-DVD?
You don't think 150 million buys a clause that prevents that from happening?
heavy liquid
Member
Crayon Shinchan said:
I guess we'll just have to wait until 2009 to find out.
Crayon Shinchan said:
You're right. A high level exec can't come out and put a time table on these things because it just gives the other side hope or reason to wait it out. They want you to believe that they'll always be on HD-DVD and if you want paramount movies, then you need a HD-DVD player right now. They certainly don't want to send the message that those that don't want HD-DVD can just wait it out for 18 months.
Crayon Shinchan said:
I don't believe $150 million is enough to buy off a studio like that. What is that, enough to fund but two films? I'm reminded of Dr. Evil demanding "one miiiillllion dollars" and being met with uproarious laughter.
I'd love to see a source for the 18-month thing before I decide whether it's FUD or not.
ManaByte said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/t...l?_r=2&ref=technology&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
The two studios may have left themselves wiggle room, however. Paramounts agreement to use only HD DVD is limited to only 18 months. And Paramount noted that no films directed by Steven Spielberg were included in the deal as his films are not exclusive to either format. Mr. Spielberg is a co-founder of DreamWorks SKG, a unit of Paramount.
So the New York Times is not a credible source anymore? :lol :lol
That's not from anyone else but the journalist, by the way.
Crayon Shinchan
Aquafina Fanboy
Kolgar said:
You're missing the point.
150 million is certainly more than enough to compensate Paramounts exclusion from BD for the next 18 upcoming months, given the fledgling size of the market.
OTOH, if HD media were already at DVDs size, no 150 million probably wouldn't be enough to buy exclusivity from a movie studio for a few films, much less the entire studio. Especially when you consider that home media make up a significant portion of overall movie revenues. A few tentpole flicks, and their revenue would exceed 150 million for those DVD sales.
But you're dealing with a small fledgling market, a tiny fraction of DVD sales... and as much damage as this deal will do to that market, and as much as it'll delay a unified format, from Paramounts POV, it's still worth it - despite the negative backlash and the hindering of the overall market place, it's still worth it to them, because it won't be an indefinite thing.
ManaByte said:
THE SOURCE IS BROOKE BARNES, NEW YORK TIMES JOURNALIST YOU CRAZY FOOL!
Who is he? I don't know. But I'm pretty sure NYT journalists don't make stuff up to throw in their articles for a living.
By the way ManaByte, if you chose to believe everything that the company PR throws at you, then you must know that Blu-Ray is the winning format, has superior technology, has outsold HD-DVD and will continue to do so indefinitely (source: Sony, Fox & Disney PR executives).
Crayon Shinchan
Aquafina Fanboy
ManaByte said:
You mean stuff like the clauses of a 150 million dollar exclusivity contract?
ManaByte said:
That authority figures with obvious vested interests has any credibility to you speaks volumes about you.
If that NYT article was the only thing worth mentioning, then you might have a point. But there's logic and reasoning behind a time limited agreement (even if 18 months may not be spot on correct... it may after all be shorter! Although 2 christmases sound pretty much about right).
If you could, you'd still be trying to convince us that no money hats were exchanged.
chubigans said:
I'm not disputing the fact that it is likely a credible source, but...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
The NYT is not known for speculating and printing it in factual terms. And "indefinite" is as vague an answer as any PR-speak you can expect.
Interpret that differently if you like, but it's how I think 99% of the public would, too. Take the blinders off, or stop spinning, whichever it is you are doing.
Edit: Looks like Mana is angling for a new tag already!
Interpret that differently if you like, but it's how I think 99% of the public would, too. Take the blinders off, or stop spinning, whichever it is you are doing.
Edit: Looks like Mana is angling for a new tag already!
DarkJediKnight
Member
ManaByte said:
If there is an 18 month contract, then they're not going to admit it. Is this so difficult to understand? Just mentioning 18 months deflates the "exclusivity" part of the agreement. No CEO or CTO is going to fall for that. We'll see what happens in 18 months.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Archaix said:
The key phrase in that piece is "forced to resign." You think an NYT reporter is going to risk his career in order to put a factoid in a tech piece? What's the motive?
Crayon Shinchan
Aquafina Fanboy
Ignatz Mouse said:
If anything, that article bolsters and reinforces to me the credibility of the New York Times. It's a paper where the editors check and double check their writers work; and there are consequences for getting things wrong or just making shit up.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
More Mana logic to add to the list:
New York Times has the same credibility as a random anonymous forum poster.
This is just fucking shameless spin now. Mana, do you get paid? Or are just that clueless?
New York Times has the same credibility as a random anonymous forum poster.
This is just fucking shameless spin now. Mana, do you get paid? Or are just that clueless?
KachoMakura
Banned
Why is it so important to some of you to perpetuate a officially denied statement that it's only for 18 months? I thought Paramount films don't matter? :lol
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
KachoMakura said:
I don't care about Paramount so much (not that I ever said that before) but Mana's tactics bug the shit out of me. He's like the Rush Limbaugh of HD-DVD-- continually snarking at "the opposition" while hugely blind to the same things done by his "side" and immensely hypocritical.
Crayon Shinchan
Aquafina Fanboy
KachoMakura said:
Yes, because we're all a single inconsistent hive-mind.
Some of us give a damn about paramount movies. I myself like some of their movies and was looking forward to the stuff. But I can wait 18 months for them.
the 18 month thing is probably at least partially true, but none of us know what the deal is.
It could be 18 months and done. It could be 18 month minimums with some sort of kicker that is activiated if HDDVD hits certain benchmarks that keeps them exclusive. It could be 18 months with the option of making it longer with more moneyhats. It could be 12 months with a 6 month option.
All of these options would also allow for Paramounts "indefinite" thing to be true as well.
The fact is, we have no idea how long the deal is or what the exact terms of it are. Ya'll fighting over this 18 month thing being fact versus it not being fact, when the only fact is none of us really know the details.
Just like any other exclusive studio: If you have to have their movies now.. go buy an HDDVD player. If you can wait, feel free to do so. You could have the movies in a year, 18 months, 3 years or never. We really have no idea what is going on other than to say their movies (sans Speilberg) are not going to be on BRD at this time.
It could be 18 months and done. It could be 18 month minimums with some sort of kicker that is activiated if HDDVD hits certain benchmarks that keeps them exclusive. It could be 18 months with the option of making it longer with more moneyhats. It could be 12 months with a 6 month option.
All of these options would also allow for Paramounts "indefinite" thing to be true as well.
The fact is, we have no idea how long the deal is or what the exact terms of it are. Ya'll fighting over this 18 month thing being fact versus it not being fact, when the only fact is none of us really know the details.
Just like any other exclusive studio: If you have to have their movies now.. go buy an HDDVD player. If you can wait, feel free to do so. You could have the movies in a year, 18 months, 3 years or never. We really have no idea what is going on other than to say their movies (sans Speilberg) are not going to be on BRD at this time.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Stooge and others make a lot of good points.
Crayon Shinchan
Aquafina Fanboy
gkrykewy said:
It's a pretty big reach you HD-DVD fans are trying to pull there.
Still have to contend with 4 exclusive studios and PS3 before you get to the 'in favor of HD-DVD' thing.
What would be ironic is if BD numbers were boosted for this and next week due to BD fans trying to snap up the paramount stuff.
chubigans said:I might pick it up on DVD, but I like waiting if there's an HD future ahead of me. Which is why I never got any of the Spider-Man films.
http://us.yesasia.com/en/PrdDept.aspx/code-j/section-videos/pid-1004598093/
Product Information
Product Title : Face / Off (Japan Version) (Blu-Ray)
Artist Name(s) : John Travolta | |
Release Date : May 23, 2007
Language : Japanese, English, Portuguese, Thai
Subtitle : Portuguese, Indonesian, Thai, Korean, English, Traditional Chinese, Malay, Japanese
Package Weight : 100 g
Publisher : Buena Vista Home Entertainment
Other Information : Blu-Ray Disc
YesAsia Catalog No. : 1004598093
Shipment Unit : 1 (What is it?)
Crayon Shinchan
Aquafina Fanboy
StoOgE said:
If you're going to put it that way, I might as well speculate that it'll be at most 18 months, and less if HD-DVD don't reach certain targets.
- Status