The Hot Blog

WOW they are getting either really desperate to reignite sales or Paramount is just plain desperate.

Tranny2 is already the 3rd best selling DVD of the year after one week of release...second in terms of revenue behind only "Twilight." It's raked in an estimated $122 million in sales already, double what "Wolverine" has in a much longer window of release. Between that and "Paranormal Activity" raking in $$$, wtf is going on over there that they need to promote Star Trek so heavily AND narrow the window for GI Joe.

Am I missing something? Why is any of this surprising? Aren't you always arguing that DVD was not the revenue stream that it used to be to the studios, and that they're bleeding money because of it?

Why would it be a surprise to you that they would partner with every retailer that they can find, to get as many DVD's as possible sold during the Holiday season?

And Paramount, in particular-Brad Grey is trying to save his ass, so giving away discounts to every retailer imaginable (and getting major sales from it), is probably his Christmas wish.

I'm just bewildered. Paramount has the biggest domestic movie of the year, the most profitable movie based on return on investment/the highest grossing live actioner of the fall so far (Paranormal), Star Trek was a hit, and even GI Joe will probably come close to breaking even or showing a small profit. So this plus risking the wrath of exhibitors with "GI Joe" indicates things are way more serious than already stated.

How is this remotely surprising or desperate? Exclusive packages for various retailers on event movies has been par for the course for a while now, especially on geek movies. And a countdown widget? Not exactly new.

I mean, are we supposed to be surprised they want to sell DVDs? Were they not supposed to bother because Trannies sold well? What is different here from any other big DVD release?

Trek and Public Enemies are out on BD this week here in Europe. Both look and sound amazing. PE is awash with video noise in the nighttime sequences, but that's a deliberate stylistic notation on the part of Michael Mann. Overall both movies look better than they did in theaters, and are must-buys if you have Blu-Ray.

I upgraded to Blu-Ray a few months ago, but the funny thing is, I find myself buying very few Blu-Ray discs. In fact, I even returned one or two when I brought them home and saw that the difference in picture quality from my DVD was (to my eyes) insignificant.

"How is this remotely surprising or desperate?"

I've never seen a domestic movie that grossed so much advertise so much. Take Tranny2...it had almost zero promos with features like Trek, despite waaay lower reviews, yet revenue wise it's the 2nd biggest DVD of the year after 7 days of release!

Still don't see the big deal, or even that it's marketed THAT heavily. I've yet to see a TV spot for the DVD. Seen lots for Trannies 2. A countdown widget just doesn't scream desperation to me.

Just feels like folks are looking real hard for something to complain about, when there is really no story.

Yeah, I don't get the hullabaloo either. I guess the difference is Paramount partnering with a lot of retailers, instead of just one... but I don't think it reeks of desperation (on Paramount's part, at least). If anything, it's the retailers that are hoping to capture consumers' dollars.

Like storymark, I've seen a lot of TV spots pushing Trannies 2. Nothing for Trek.

Here is a prime example as to why Poland can come across to me as a douche from time to time. Warners put out multiple versions of the Woodstock set and the Wizard of Oz set. They are going to do the same with Gone With the Wind, but where is Poland's douche indignation?

If you are not going to get on Disney for what they did with Snow White, and Warners with what they are doing with the Harry Potter films. You should not get on Paramount for giving the consumer a shitload of exclusives depending on where they buy DVDs. I will definitely go and get the pin set from Best Buy. So thanks for the heads up, douche magoosh.

Jeff, what type of eyesight do you have? Once you answer the question. I will give you a follow up as to why I asked.

Sorry, in my honest bewilderment I forgot to add in DP's continual personal bias against Paramount. Case in point: Wolverine has an estimated $64 million in sales through 4 weeks. Tranny2 has an estimated $122 million in 1 week.

Yet DP feels the need to make a post extolling the Wolverine release, but ignores the fact Tranny2 sold more than 5 million copies in a week by highlighting Paramount's supposed desperation with the Star Trek release.

Ethan G... STRIKES AGAIN!

Did you guys read some entry other than the one I posted?

If someone wants to say that this is standard operating procedure, so be it. But as has become all too much the norm, the personal spin with inaccurate, cheap manipulation of what I actually printed and a few of you swirling it around is all the There that is There.

Starting with Ethan...

I did not revel in the Wolverine release... I ran a press release that was marked as a press release because when I saw it, it struck me that the movie has been endlessly slammed, that its DVD piracy was a huge story in April, and that it still opened to strong DVD numbers.

On what planet does that have anything to do with Tranny 2's DVD sales? That movie has also been slammed... but it also did more than double the theatrical business of Wolfie and the first film was a stronger DVD than any X-Men.

I have to say, you are doing EXACTLY what you claim I am doing. You are turning something that has nothing to do with studio bias into an ongoing story that you want to keep pushing because... I don't know why.

And, patso, I never wrote a word claiming Paramount was desperate with this Hone Ent strategy on Star Trek. Others in comments did, but not I. You want to read into it, you go ahead, but turning it into so accusation against me is a load of crap.

And IO... in this case, you are a douche. Like Ethan, you have talked yourself into thinking I am saying more than I am saying.

What happened, simply, was that I have gotten more e-mail promoting the Star Trek DVD than I have gotten on any other DVD... and then I saw the countdown clock, which I have never seen for any other DVD, though I have seen for a ton of theatrical releases.

Some of you guys should be working for Fox News. You want to find some meaning in anything I do so that you can push your own agenda while claiming you are fighting my relentless, single-minded determination to push my own. In the meanwhile, you see actual facts as false news somehow.

Remind me, boys... I am evil because I didn't attack WB... but wasn't the line of bull before that I was anti-WB? When I am critical of the strategy at Disney, am I now biased against Disney?

Do us all a favor and if you want to fight, fight what I actually say and not your fancies of what you have decided I think and keep insisting upon no matter what I say, write, or actually think.

Read some Sun-Tzu... the goal is to know what your "opponent" actually thinks, actually knows, and actually wants... or you will lose every battle.

David, you are being dicky. When two very different people come to this realization with very different takes. You should take it as a valid criticism, admit you are hater (and we know that you are nothing more than a hater with some aspects of the BIZ), and move on. If not, stop with the bullshit above, and respond like Jeff. He at least would get to the point in two sentences, you jerk.

Don't drag me into this.

IOI, to answer your question, I'm legally blind without glasses or contacts 20/20 with them. But as far as I'm concerned, that's all beside the point. I bought The Thing on Blu-Ray, then returned it when I realized that, even though the picture quality was obviously better, it was missing almost all of the special features from the DVD. I assume they're saving them for a 'Blu-Ray special edition' down the road.

IO, you're just wrong. And being a dick is not unfamiliar to you. I am pretty sure you are proud of this.

Bottom Line: If your points were strongly enough presented to hold up, you wouldn't need to lean them up against me to try to empower them, much less make up positions that you claim I am taking to undermine what I actually do think.

Yeah this is FAR from unusual for a big summer geek movie. It's actually rather unusual NOT to have exclusives for specific retailers these days if a movie is a big hit.

Off the top of my head, Iron Man and Wolverine both had exclusive mini-busts at Best Buy. Transformers 2 had multiple exclusives, such as a transforming Bumblebee case at Target(part 1 had a transforming Optimus Prime case). Tons of lesser movies have the steelbook exclusives at various outlets.

As for the Paramount bias, it's fairly obvious. I think it's tied into the Nikki Finke hate, since Brad Grey is one of her alleged main sources of spin. He certainly gets namechecked a lot in Poland's diatribes against her.

I don't get Poland's obsession with being considered fair and balanced. Because there are certain issues where despite his protestations he is clearly on one side or another, and if he just fessed up to it people would be less likely to assume bias in his other pet topics. As it is his biases make most of what he writes somewhat suspect a lot of the time, even when he probably is balanced. Can't trust someone who doesn't admit they picked a side.

I work to people's higher intelligence, not their unwillingness to think beyond their nose.

It's not about me being fair and balanced. It's about not having my words manipulated by others and then having that manipulation commented on by others as though I had said what was claimed.

As for Paramount...

The revenues vs costs on Star Trek are not something I created... or on GI Joe. Nor did I create the fact that the studio will release no movies made in-house for almost nine months. I didn't put a ton of projects in turnaround. I didn't fire hundreds, most of them quite quietly.

The interest of some in being fanboys who don't really care what it cost or whether it will lose money, so long as they like the film, is not me being biased.

And I have always been perfectly capable of writing about a film or a studio's business regardless of how I feel about their movies. They are completely different issues.

My only "bias" against Paramount is based on facts about Paramount. As I have explained a thousand times, some of my favorite people are at Paramount. But the objective facts of the last couple of years at the studio are not in question... unless you choose not to pay attention to them.

Do you like being lied to? Would you prefer I tow the line and just look at domestic grosses and pretend that nothing else matters... or that movies that do well on Rotten Tomatoes are hits and ones that don't are not, even if it is factually inaccurate?

Do you have any idea how NOT controversial my take on Paramount is with anyone who actually knows what's been going on over there? Seriously. Do you realize how vicious people who are biased against the team over there are?

Claiming I am anti-Paramount is a long way from actually confronting what I have written about the company. You want to step to me, then step to me with a real issue, not this nonsense about bias.

"Oh... the economy sucked last year... I must hate George Bush, because even though the economy was objectively in trouble, how dare I claim the president's policies mattered.. it must be personal."

Give me a break.

And my questions about Mr Grey are exactly the same as they were when Nikki was slamming him. Again, deal with facts, not the idea floating in your imagination.

If you could see it from my side, you would understand that if I were as biased as so many different people from so many different perspectives claimed, I would be so tied up in pretzels that I would never write a word.

But see it how you like. If you like being dead wrong, far be it from me to stop you... not that I could.

Any word on whether they are going to do the Disney DVD/Blue-ray combo pack? Those of us with other expenses and a perfectly fine old school DVD/5.1/TV who haven't laid out the cash for a new system would really appreciate it.

Doing a quick google search, it looks like, at the very least X-Men 3 and Twilight had countdown clocks for the DVD release.

I agree with Pastepot Pete's last paragraph from last night, which once again, David has managed to misunderstand.

"I work to people's higher intelligence, not their unwillingness to think beyond their nose."

Tell that to Lex.

Jeff, I did not drag you into anything. I simply wish David lack your ability to be succinct. If that's wrong. I apologize.

Thanks for answering the question about your eyesight. I asked because of other comments you have made about CGI. Which led me to believe you either had super bad ass eyesight or bad sight. Nevertheless, there will most likely not be a special edition of The Thing on BD. It seems the studios have a thing for releasing their catalog titles on BD, and forgetting about the special features those same catalog titles have on DVD. It's super annoying, but that's show business for you.

Oh yeah David, could you get to a point? Stop doing all of these stupid slams of me, and answer a question succinctly. Until you can do that, pay attention to Christian's statements, and have a nice day.

IOI, when I'm watching a movie, I do not have bad eyesight. GEEZ.

"I did not revel in the Wolverine release... I ran a press release that was marked as a press release because when I saw it, it struck me that the movie has been endlessly slammed, that its DVD piracy was a huge story in April, and that it still opened to strong DVD numbers.

On what planet does that have anything to do with Tranny 2's DVD sales?"

I don't get the point for running it period. You didn't run the release for the fast-selling "Bolt," despite the fact that movie was generally regarded as a disapointment and the DVD will probably take in $30 million more in revenue than Wolverine. Why run that one particular release? Ah yes, to show that "Wolverine" is doing "well," when it DVD terms for a summer blockbuster it's the equivalent of a meh.

Then when Transformers 2 has the best selling DVD week since "The Dark Knight" (better if you compare grosses and reviews), there's a post regarding its parent company's supposed desperation to sell DVD's....sorry if I added 1+1 there.

To put the DVD numbers there in pespective: "Wolverine is going to come far short of matching "Bee Movie," and short of "Hancock" among recent titles. I guess given the warnings of piracy following the leak it can be spun as a minor victory, but to post that, and then this "Star Trek" non-news at the same time Transformers 2 had one of the top 4 DVD openings of all time, strikes me as odd.

(and yeah, as a fan of good movies I make no secret of my dislike of Big Fox because they release nothing but complete horse-crap theatrically).

Jeff, thanks for confirming that you are the dude from Trailer Park Boys who wears the thick glasses. There's seriously no point in treating you nice, other than me not wanting to treat you poorly. So, yeah, you missed my point, but what else is new. I've never ever gotten along with people like you, and that's not going to change.

IOI, I have no idea what you're talking about, and in this exchange I never was under the impression that you were trying to treat me nicely (because of that whole not-understanding-you thing).

IOI, to clarify something for me, were you trying to rationalize our differences about...I don't know, something, by explaining it away with "Jeff has shitty eyesight so he can't actually see the movies and doesn't know any better"?

Is that your crazy Bizarro-world version of 'treating me nice"?

Jeff, I was not insulting you. You thought that I was, but you missed the point entirely. I asked about your eyesight for a reason: you've made comments about CGI and BD, that made me wonder if you have some really sharp eyesight, of if it's more of an aesthetic thing. So, again, I am not kicking you in the nards, and you really need to relax.

IOI, you see how much simpler all this could have been if you had explained some of that up front?

Well I did state that I would explain later, jeff. You just got all antsy on me. Be patient, sir. Be patient.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: