Warner Bros. Withholds New Release DVDs from Blockbuster

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Blockbuster has been busted by Warner Bros Studios for releasing first run movies before meeting the mandatory 28 day wait between theatrical release and rental date. Major movie studios are suffering from declining box office revenue and are trying to generate higher profit by longer runs at movie theaters.

Movie studios, however, are not taking so kindly to Blockbuster’s business move, with Warner Bros. the first to crack the whip
Click to expand...
 
>Declining box office revenue

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA

Oh wow movie studios just pulling shit out of their asses now aren't they?

The last -FIVE- years for movies they have made record breaking profits, and they were banging the drums that "Piracy is killing us!" and now "Movies coming out on DVD early are killing us!"

Blockbuster should sue them for defamation and also to bring to light that movie studio's are NOT suffering
 
I grew up on a farm. On the farm when we saw something old, weak, and useless that was barely clinging to life, we took it out back and shot it. The other studios should follow WB's example and band together to put Blockbuster out of its misery already.
 
The movie industry should have no right to tell Blockbuster that they can't buy and rent movies until after they've been released for 28 days.
 
In a world where Paranormal Activity 3 makes $54,000,000 in a single weekend how can they say there is "declining box office revenue"
 
it's become apparent to me that nothing is going to change ever.

It's too bad really, we had so much potential.
 
Morgansaur said:
I grew up on a farm. On the farm when we saw something old, weak, and useless that was barely clinging to life, we took it out back and shot it. The other studios should follow WB's example and band together to put Blockbuster out of its misery already.
Click to expand...

Blockbuster is making a come back.... I think you are shooting off your load too soon on this one :D

I noticed a Blockbuster "redbox" machine in my local gas station recently, total mind blower. You can rent them online, and pick it up instantly at the soda machine blockbuster puts all aorund..... pretty smart, and cheaper than redbox now for DVD rentals....
 
Maybe the Movie Companies should wait an additional 28 days before pushing the DVDs out to consumers..
 
BladeVenom said:
The movie industry should have no right to tell Blockbuster that they can't buy and rent movies until after they've been released for 28 days.
Click to expand...

Blockbuster is just buying the movies at retail (I'm sure they can partner with some retailer to get a sweet deal) now instead of wholesale like before so they can still beat the 28-day window. When the studios sell you wholesale direct, they put the 28-day limit. If you buy retail, you can rent it all you want.

If the studios had their way, you wouldn't be able to own or rent this stuff - it'd be pay per viewing.
 
chrispix said:
Maybe the Movie Companies should wait an additional 28 days before pushing the DVDs out to consumers..
Click to expand...

Movie companies are trying to do that. Movie comes out... ok they take a long damn time to release it... then it's released... but they say "nope you can't rent it yet" because they still want to try to get revenue from those who buy without thinking. I mean that $2 rental fee doesn't go back to the studios after all.
 
How can these companies force a 28 day period? I was at a Redbox in front of a Walmart when a new release was in the store but not allowed in the Redbox, yet go down the road to the Blockbuster kiosk and it was there for $3. What prevents anyone from buying a retail pack and putting it in the kiosk? And how does this do anything about movie prices? If it is on DVD already they should not be in any theater. DVDs trail a theatrical release by 3 to 6 months already do they not?
 
If only the studios were actually doing bad. I would love it if the current ones failed and new ones that weren't so stupid popped up in their place; because it looks like they're never going to change with the times.
 
If they were smart they'd be doing everything in their power to push new content delivery methods. Instead they do everything in their power to hold them back.
 
Declinging sales? Bullshit. More like increasing bullshit numbers to make themselves look like they're losing money even though they're making even more of it year over year.
 
Derangel said:
Declinging sales? Bullshit. More like increasing bullshit numbers to make themselves look like they're losing money even though they're making even more of it year over year.
Click to expand...

That is actually a time honored Hollywood tradition. Though it used to be about screwing investors and anyone else who was supposed to earn a percentage of the profits.
 
BladeVenom said:
The movie industry should have no right to tell Blockbuster that they can't buy and rent movies until after they've been released for 28 days.
Click to expand...

Um.. you are aware this is what they have been doing with Netflix and Redbox right? Everyone wants to bitch about Netflix being a bunch of assholes and not letting you have the movies when they first come out. Well it wasn't their choice, they are not allowed too. Blockbuster was one of the few they let, now they changed that.

Greene420 said:
Blockbuster is making a come back.... I think you are shooting off your load too soon on this one :D

I noticed a Blockbuster "redbox" machine in my local gas station recently, total mind blower. You can rent them online, and pick it up instantly at the soda machine blockbuster puts all aorund..... pretty smart, and cheaper than redbox now for DVD rentals....
Click to expand...

They have has those for awhile. We have had one for about 2 or 3 years by me.

m_isom said:
How can these companies force a 28 day period? I was at a Redbox in front of a Walmart when a new release was in the store but not allowed in the Redbox, yet go down the road to the Blockbuster kiosk and it was there for $3. What prevents anyone from buying a retail pack and putting it in the kiosk? And how does this do anything about movie prices? If it is on DVD already they should not be in any theater. DVDs trail a theatrical release by 3 to 6 months already do they not?
Click to expand...

Easy, its called we won't sell you movies if you don't follow our rules. Retail copies of movies that you purchase are for personal viewing only, they can't be rented out, they can't show them to mass groups of people. Games are the same. The ones that can be rented out cost the places two or three times what you pay retail. So that $20 movie you buy is going to cost the video store more like $60ish. Pretty much they view that you using retail for rental use the same as pirarcy as you are taking money from them in the same manor.


They thought isn't only theater but also DVD. If they make it so that a movie comes out and you can ONLY buy it the first 28 days they are hoping that you will decide screw it i can't wait and go buy it on DVD. or that you will start to think, you know this movie won't be out on DVD for 5 months then i'll have to either buy it or wait another month to rent it, maybe i'll just go ahead and see it at the theater.
 
I call bullshit on your "can't rent out my personal belongings" argument.

You mean I can't charge someone to rent my movies? That's ridiculous and I doubt its veracity.
 
Dreaz said:
I call bullshit on your "can't rent out my personal belongings" argument.

You mean I can't charge someone to rent my movies? That's ridiculous and I doubt its veracity.
Click to expand...

By US Law, you're not even supposed to let other people view movies with you at your house, on your big screen TV. The only reason this isn't enforced is because it would be too costly, just wait until Kinect-like devices become cheap enough to be built into the TV. We'll have TVs that refuse to play movies if they detect more than one person in the room.

You don't own the movies and games you buy, you're just renting them.
 
wizdum said:
By US Law, you're not even supposed to let other people view movies with you at your house, on your big screen TV. The only reason this isn't enforced is because it would be too costly, just wait until Kinect-like devices become cheap enough to be built into the TV. We'll have TVs that refuse to play movies if they detect more than one person in the room.

You don't own the movies and games you buy, you're just renting them.
Click to expand...

As sad as it is... that is technically true. Since it's just copyrighted material, not items. You are against piracy? You apparently need to shut yourselves up in a room by yourself, before watching, or the chance of you committing "piracy" is high.
 
The only thing that's declining is the quality of the movies they are making.
 
Hornet said:
The only thing that's declining is the quality of the movies they are making.
Click to expand...

Just like with games people keep looking at movie's past with rose tinted glasses. Yes there is a lot of crap released these days (every fucking horror movie), but really ever since there has been a huge market for movies there has been a lot of crap released. Hell the remake/sequel craze is far from new,
 
Derangel said:
Just like with games people keep looking at movie's past with rose tinted glasses. Yes there is a lot of crap released these days (every fucking horror movie), but really ever since there has been a huge market for movies there has been a lot of crap released. Hell the remake/sequel craze is far from new,
Click to expand...

Hardly... the movies of the past aren't the same nowadays. But when they came out in the past, they had something that really made you like them. Nowadays, it's just the same old same old.

Games on the other hand, are different, the gameplay dictates (not gameplay alone, mind you), for a lot of us, how good the game is. And a lot of the games of today are rushed, glitchy, and over all boring, yet still expecting the same treatment as those that had a lot of good work put into them. Is FF7 ( the game proclaimed as the bestestestest in the world) as good looking as most games today? No way in hell. But the system it used is extremely interesting. And I'm saying this as someone who isn't a fan of FF7.

I don't look at those games or movies with nostalgic glasses, at least if it did affect me, it's not by much. But some of the movies in the past seem to have more directing in them, instead of a flashy show.
 
Serpent said:
Hardly... the movies of the past aren't the same nowadays. But when they came out in the past, they had something that really made you like them. Nowadays, it's just the same old same old.

Games on the other hand, are different, the gameplay dictates (not gameplay alone, mind you), for a lot of us, how good the game is. And a lot of the games of today are rushed, glitchy, and over all boring, yet still expecting the same treatment as those that had a lot of good work put into them. Is FF7 ( the game proclaimed as the bestestestest in the world) as good looking as most games today? No way in hell. But the system it used is extremely interesting. And I'm saying this as someone who isn't a fan of FF7.

I don't look at those games or movies with nostalgic glasses, at least if it did affect me, it's not by much. But some of the movies in the past seem to have more directing in them, instead of a flashy show.
Click to expand...

Depends how old you're talking about because there have been plenty of bad movies over the years.
 
Derangel said:
Depends how old you're talking about because there have been plenty of bad movies over the years.
Click to expand...

Yeah, people tend to forget the crap movies they shoveled out in the past. Just to use 1977 as an example, everyone remembers Star Wars but what about Drive-in Massacre or A Whale of a Tale or the countless others and that was just from 1977.
 
Last I remember, in the legal notice on movies I see, state that the video your are about to watch is authorized for viewing at home, or in a public setting such as a school, and you're not to make a profit off of it, or something like that. I've also seen some that say strictly for private viewing. I think it depends on the publisher...
 
N1GHTRA1N said:
In a world where Paranormal Activity 3 makes $54,000,000 in a single weekend how can they say there is "declining box office revenue"
Click to expand...
Because it's every weekend after opening weekend that they're counting.

Opening weekends are not what the studios care about, it's how long a movie can keep making money when it's in the theatre. Sure, a big opening weekend is nice, but if it can't even post a million in sales the next weekend, who cares?
 
Here's the important question...

WHY THE FUCK IS A MOVIE EVEN ON DVD LESS THAN 28 DAYS AFTER THEATRICAL RELEASE?
 
Morgansaur said:
I grew up on a farm. On the farm when we saw something old, weak, and useless that was barely clinging to life, we took it out back and shot it. The other studios should follow WB's example and band together to put Blockbuster out of its misery already.
Click to expand...

Old, weak, useless and barely clinging to life? Ummm...it's that a movie theater?
 
This is NOT 28 days after theatrical release but after the the DVD goes on sale!!! Studios get very little from rental agreements so they want people to buy the DVD so the longer people have to wait, the more likely they'll give up waiting and buy the DVD.
 
Derangel said:
Depends how old you're talking about because there have been plenty of bad movies over the years.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm talking about movies we considered good in the past. I mean, if we thought they were bad then, I doubt even nostalgia goggles would help it out later.
 
Serpent said:
Well, I'm talking about movies we considered good in the past. I mean, if we thought they were bad then, I doubt even nostalgia goggles would help it out later.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand my post. I mean people ignore that there were a lot of bad movies in the past just like there are now. What I mean by rose colored glasses is that they only focus on the good ones and think that the past was all sunshine and flowers and there were no bad movies or games.
 
Derangel said:
I think you misunderstand my post. I mean people ignore that there were a lot of bad movies in the past just like there are now. What I mean by rose colored glasses is that they only focus on the good ones and think that the past was all sunshine and flowers and there were no bad movies or games.
Click to expand...

Would still take Mannequin over most of this crap. I think that says alot.
 
Morgansaur said:
I grew up on a farm. On the farm when we saw something old, weak, and useless that was barely clinging to life, we took it out back and shot it. The other studios should follow WB's example and band together to put Blockbuster out of its misery already.
Click to expand...

Whe I started that comment, I thought you were talking about the movie studios.
 
seems like they are just going to slowly kill themeselves by doing stuff like this.

ppl will always chose the better way to get stuff usually.
 
Derangel said:
I think you misunderstand my post. I mean people ignore that there were a lot of bad movies in the past just like there are now. What I mean by rose colored glasses is that they only focus on the good ones and think that the past was all sunshine and flowers and there were no bad movies or games.
Click to expand...

I guess, in a way I was. But I think it's just most people concentrate on the majority that they remember rather than the bad ones they don't.
 
GilmourD said:
Here's the important question...

WHY THE FUCK IS A MOVIE EVEN ON DVD LESS THAN 28 DAYS AFTER THEATRICAL RELEASE?
Click to expand...
Nobody has an answer to this? I mean... Really, WB, if you don't want to lose theater ticket sales, don't put your movies out on DVD while the movie is still in the theater!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top