April 29, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Lots of comments on the lack of characterization. Any guesses that this is what was cut out of the rumored longer cut of Poseidon? (“More action, none of that dippy character stuff” say the producer’s notes)
I really enjoyed watching Kurt Russell on Letterman last night; regardless of how the movie turns out, the man seems to really be enjoying himself these days.
I am a POSEIDON ADVENTURE freak (I even reordered the new DVD editions released May 9 for both TOWERING INFERNO and POSEIDON – both supposedly look better than ever on DVD) and I was looking forward to this film.
I love Kurt Russell. From “Snake Plissken” to “Stargate” to “Breakdown” to “Dark Blue” etc – the man delivers the goods and had a decency and gravitas about him so I was looking forward to this. And Richard Dreyfuss is a bonus also; the rest of the cast I couldn’t really care about.
I was a bit distressed when I found out the film was just over 90 minutes (usually that is not a good sign). I really don’t understand what the problem could have been for someone like Wolfgang Peterson to have included a bit more exposition (10 minutes worth) and you still could have had a deeper film and brisk also at 108 minutes instead of 98 minutes.
The reviews so far have been mixed to say the least; I never thought I’d see the day when film critics slammed a disaster movie for lack of characterization, but it happened here – I mean you hit it on the spot when you mentioned Dreyfuss’s suicide attempt and his motivation for fighting for life – if the film dropped that ball then Peterson fucked up big time. The original film, with a somber yet lyrical John Williams was also an added plus, and I remember very moving scenes with Shelley Winters dying and Hackman sobbing like a baby holding her, and when Ernest Borgnine – after having lost his wife – lashes out at Hackman, eventually breaking down and crying – those were great scenes.
Shelley Winters gave off warmth, when she motioned to a Red Buttons to sit next to her (whom I assume the Dreyfuss role is modeled after) because he looked lonely at the table, we already cared about the characters.
Yeah, I’m an old fart,I saw a reissue of this film in Madrid, Spain in 1979 at a huge movie palace with balconys and all the whole shebang – huge screen – when theatres were theatres and you could hear a pin drop when Hackman bit the dust.
Now the movie has a camp *and* cult following and it may seem dated but it was a great figment of my childhood and was very dramatic and moving at the time.
Great review Poland.
I can’t wait for the Earthquake remake. It will be the one movie where people can cheer as Hollywood is swallowed whole in an act of God.
We must not forget that famous song from the original “Poseidon”.
There’s got to beeeee a mornnnn-innng afterrrr . . .
That David Blaine gag (with the card trick guy) was the real reason to watch Letterman last night. The punchline with the smoke bomb had me rolling on the floor.
Good review…I’m curious to see it, because I think Kurt Russell is great…but I dunno, the movie just looks boring. None of the previews have enticed me. At least The Day After Tomorrow looked somewhat fun. This lacks that quality.
Coming soon: Matthew Lillard, Jesse Ventura and Faye Dunawaye in The Swarm.
Hollywood is already being swallowed up whole… by the DVD.
Someone needs to tell consumers, Crow. “Hollywood” is more nervous about the drop in DVD sales for movies than they are about the theatrical grosses. But as usual, the tradtiional media is four steps behind.
Has there really been a drop in DVD sales or have they merely flattened? Just curious.
If DVD sales have really dropped, I wonder how much the much-hyped new formats may have to do with that. For instance, I don’t exactly relish the thought of replacing my oversized DVD collection with high-definition ones. At the same time, I’m not sure if I should continue paying for new releases in a format that may be defunct in a couple of years. So maybe a lot of people are taking a wait-and-see approach, and are starting to be more judicious with their sell-through purchases.
I’d be interested to hear some knowledgeable feedback about either of the new high-def formats (BluRay and HD-DVD). I took a look at HD-DVD at my local Best Buy and was not the least bit impressed. I have a DVD player that allows for 1080i upconversion, and I swear the picture it produces is just as good as the HD-DVD I saw of “Serenity” at BB. And if the picture quality is no better, I doubt many consumers are going to give a damn about increased storage capacity. (BTW: If you haven’t already heard, the consensus seems to be that PlayStation 3 with BluRay has so far landed with a thud at E3.)
I’m actually pretty excited about the new Nintendo Wii. It’s affordable and actually sounds (literally and figuratively) like a hassle-free good time. And you won’t be totally static on the couch either.
I’m just saying…
The shortened video window… DVD
Academy screeners leaked… DVD
Hi-Res pirated movies I can buy on Melrose… DVD
The explosion of Netflix… DVD
There’s even evidence to indicate that our own DP isn’t a person at all, but Artifical Intelligence created to spread their agenda. Simply take the “A” and “I” out of his name and you get…
DVD POLAND.
“Back and to the left, kids. Back and to the left.”
Now hang on, when ‘traditional media’ is talking about slumping theatrical grosses, but nobody at all, to my knowledge, is talking about a slump in DVD figures, then what DP actually means is not “traditional media is four steps behind” but rather, “I, David Poland, am four steps ahead”.
And I’m NOT trying to belittle you, DP.
As the name implies, HD DVD will not really catch on until HDTV does. And by the time it does Blu Ray should prove itself to be of superior quality.
It strikes me, though, that HDDVD or Blu-Ray or whatever will prove to be the equivalent of Laserdiscs…of interest to collectors and people with high-end home systems, but not of any interest to the general population, because DVD is more than enough for the average consumer. It doesn’t seem like the next paradigm shift will happen until high-quality, high-speed downloads of full-length movies are practical and legal.
(I hope…I don’t relish replacing my hundreds of DVDs anytime soon)
Jeff, WB is teaming up with Bit Torrent…it was in yesterday’s trades. The paradigm is shifting.
That’s what I figured…just happening faster than I guessed – although I’m sure we still have a long ways go before BitTorrent can do both DVD quality video and have it take a reasonable time to download.
Wrecktum, The Swarm scared me silly as a child. I blame that movie for my phobia of bees and wasps. I freeze up if one gets close to me. I fainted once because a bee landed on me.
Fun!
It seems as though we have reached the point where anyone shopping for a new TV set would be very unwise not to invest in an HDTV-capable one. Go into any electronics store and you’ll see where all of the action is: in the plasma and LCD aisles. HDTV is the here and now, even if many consumers (and cable/satellite providers) still need to catch up. My earlier point was that, from what I’ve seen, an HD-DVD picture is not discernibly more impressive than one from a standard DVD upconverted to 1080i resolution by a standard player with an HDMI connection (available at my local Costco for about 80 bucks). If that’s the case, I think the market will be much smaller than ever was the case for laserdiscs. (Keep in mind that laserdiscs were leaps and bounds ahead of VHS tapes, the only other commercially available format at the time.) So why are the studios staking so much on this format war?
I really don’t think the original movie is as good as everyone seems to remember. I still remember the first time I saw it thinking that about 3/4 of the way through it started lagging a bit, the same as this one. I’m not sure why anyone would expect Oscar caliber anything in this one. It’s meant as a popcorn movie, nothing more, nothing less… at least I thought it was better than Day After Tomorrow and even Perfect Storm, which isn’t saying much, but it certainly wasn’t as painfully bad as so many other summer movies.
Where I am is not a real concern, j-Mc. I am there… nowhere else to be.
But the agenda does get set, in a big way, by the NYT and others. And unlike other stories, they do a shitty job understanding what is happening in the industry, stuck reporting what they are told like trained monkeys, which is always old news.
Anyway… hi-def is as severe a middle technology as exists. The reason that DVD is slipping – and overall numbers are not as bad a movie sales because they keep adding new library material – is because the format has matured and people are realizing that they have invested, but aren’t really taking advantage of the investment. Meanwhile, they still are saying for new entertainment. DVDs were a great sell as a convenience and ownership. But if it is another box on a shelf, the convenience factor slips… and if you can get the movie on HBO and save it to a DVR six months later, what is the upside of ownership. Expect rentals to keep growing as people ask themselves, “Will I really watch this five times?”
By the time HD-DVD is great, it will be available by the cable or satellite. Convergence will happen too soon for HD-DVD to really become standard, much less have anyone pay to replace their library. The next iteration of ownership will be purely digital via one of many forms of delivery.
I always choose the formats specs and the then decide what to buy – Bluray has better specs and storage than HD -DVD and will also be features on PS3 players – so one waits for that and hopes people catch up.
To me HD DVD is like DIVX (which was released) with DVD at the time; it will eventually lose out because its the lesser format.
But I won’t buy any new players until there is a clear winner however – im not pulling a Laserdisc thing like I did before and join a niche market, im not interested in joining a niche market for quality that is not even discernable on a regular plasma or lcd.
Nope, there’s no way I’m getting into HD-DVD (or Blu Ray or whatever). I can’t see a clear worthwhile benefit to getting into the technology now or even five years down the road.
Hell, I refuse to upgrade to HD-TV until my current tv dies or my cable company stops trying to charge me an arm and a leg to even watch HD-TV (no matter how good it is).
I’m sick of new technology coming out, and being expected to buy it simply because it is new. Make it worthwhile, like deleted scenes on DVDs made that format worthwhile to me. Then bring the prices (including the cable prices) into a reasonable range and I’ll think about it.
Right now, HD-DVD/Blu-Ray seems like it is going the way of Laserdisc.
Now if you want to talk about being able to get visual media the same way I can get music off of iTunes, and then burn it on a disc (which seems to be where Tivo is heading), then we can talk. But until they figure out how to make the file sizes smaller, to make downloading easier, we’re not there yet, either.
I think we’re underestimating the new DVD technology a bit. Yes, we’re all bitter about having to invest in more boxes and collections…but it will be easy if all this is backwards compatible. HDTV will be the norm in 2009 if mainly because that’s the date the government set for shutting down the older broadcast signal. Meanwhile, PS3 will be in most gamers’ living rooms giving them Bluray…why wouldn’t they take advantage of it? The difference with Laserdisc is that it was HUGE…Bluray and HD-DVD should be the same size as the current technology. And with increased internet bandwidth and Bittorrent, we won’t want smaller file sizes but bigger, better ones. As Spacesheik points out, we already passed Divx by.
I could be wrong, but just because we think DVD is good enough doesn’t mean toddlers today will think so when they grow up.
With the price point of the PS3 on Monday, I am going to confirm that Blue-Ray is screwed. HD-DVD likely will become the new LaserDisc.
The $500 PS3 won’t even play Blu-Ray movies. Instead, you have to buy the $600 model. Most players will be $1000.
No thanks. I’m sticking with DVD and buying a Nintendo Wii this winter instead.
I agree that HD-TV is all but certain (and Palmtree makes a good point about the government imposed deadline – though we’ll see how firm that holds). But the difference between that and HD-DVD (whichever format) is that there is a clear distinction between TV and HD-TV, to the point where people will invest (much like they did when people compared VHS and DVD).
But DVD on HD-TVs and HD-DVD on HD-TVs aren’t a clear enough difference (or so I’ve been told by people I trust) to make it worthwhile. It’s why people aren’t going to invest in whatever is better sound quality than CD – at some point the human ear can’t tell the difference.
As for toddlers, I believe they’ll barely use discs. It’s all going to be iPod-like tivos (hell, there’s already one non-brand-name one on the market) and computers. Why carry one movie on a disc when you can 200 in your pocket? If the industry can find a legal way to offer DVD-quality downloads of movies and shows, discs will slowly go the way cds are going now.
I think I should backtrack a little.
Truth be told, the spinning disc model is inherently inefficient precisely because it has to spin. Flash memory and the next generation all-in-one blackberry/ipods may indeed be the trick. But for home ent., probably we’ll get to download the movies onto our home servers (Lucas believes that will be the next big thing).
I agree the HD DVD at Best Buy was not impressive, but we haven’t seen Blu Ray yet, and that is about 20 Gigs more info…
In the very near future everyone will have an HD convergence box hooked up to their TVs. This box will be a television DVR, a videogame system, a music storage unit and a movie player. All content (videogames, movies, music) will be downloaded from the internets or recorded directly from television.
The PS3 is a “middle technology” too. Once the next generation delivery devices become popular (which will happen once HD-TV reaches a saturation level) expect all these current next generation technologies to fade away.
From what I’ve heard, there is no appreciable difference between the picture quality of HD-DVD and BluRay. The battle as I understand it has been over lower manufacturing costs (HD-DVD) vs greater storage capacity (BluRay). Up until this week I thought BluRay had the advantage because of its PS3 synergistic relationship. But with the PS3’s sticker-shock $600 MSRP announcement a few days ago, it’s now probably much more of a toss-up as to who (if anybody) will prevail.
Prices for the first DVD players were also in the stratosphere. The question is not whether everyone will buy them, but will early adopters buy it and make them cool through word of mouth, etc. My guess is that the early adopters will definitely get ps3, and some normal people who bypassed 360 (pretty much everyone else) will be saving up for ps3 as well.
And one factor that gives Sony a leg up: it is the only videogame company that is also a movie company with a deep well of titles via MGM.
I think PS3’s sticker shock are going to be sending quite a few people to rethink an XBox purchase.
Really though, what are the early adopters going to say about HD-DVD or Blu-Ray that will make the public want to get on board? The few people talking now aren’t saying anything overwhelmingly good.
SPOILERS WITHIN * SPOILERS WITHIN * SPOILERS WITHIN
I had fun with Poseidon for the most part, but I was surprised with (and this is not to come off as a sociopath, but..) the high number of survivors.
In the beginning, there are ten people in the Lucas/Russell group. If, say, Renny Harlin was directing, out of these ten there wouldn’t be more than two or three of them who make it out alive (see Deep Blue Sea, Mindhunters, etc..), but here you can count the ultimate survivors on two hands.
Isn’t half the fun of disaster movies watching people get knocked off? Seems like they missed a real opportunity here to wreak a good amount of havoc.
“Really though, what are the early adopters going to say about HD-DVD or Blu-Ray that will make the public want to get on board?”
Absolutely nothing. If the games are good (and better than 360), then they won’t need to say anything about Blu Ray. They’ll have it available to them…and then Sony has a “captive” audience.
As a culture–we have always been about POSSESSION. Be it land, women, children, or anything else. We are a SOCIETY based on OWNING things. How exactly can a society that has it’s foundation–ever since we figured out this subsistance pattern–based upon OWNERSHIP. All of a sudden change to a digital delivery process? Because if I own the box–I OWN IT. However–if my pc or dvr or TIVO have the content–then what do I OWN? Because people can buy ITunes all-day, downloaded them to their Ipods, but do they really OWN the songs? Or do they simply HAVE THEM?
The more I read about DIGITAL DELIVERY and paradigm shifts. The more I wonder if any of these tech people ever once considered calling a cultural anthropologist. Since all of this CHANGE–pretty much requires going against fundamental building blocks of OUR SOCIETY! That aside–anyone notice that the PPV window has been pushed back a couple of months from the release of the DVD?
When people have a song in their IPod, they basically feel like they “own” that song as much as if they owned a CD; as long as they have immediate instant access to their favorite movie, they’ll consider that they ‘own’ it.
Yeah, I gotta agree with Jeff – the iPod made digital music mobile, allowing people to feel like they own the song rather than just own a tangible cd.
Once a mobile tivo comes along (one that’s a lot further ahead than the video iPod), and the ability to download the movies you already own to it becomes easier, I forsee the same paradigm shift for movie/television ownership. Then again, I think that’s the studios’ biggest nightmare.
Also, I’m not so sure about the captive audience of Blu-Ray. Didn’t Sony think they’d have the same thing with the PSP? Who is making movies (and more importantly putting them on store shelves for sale) for that one now?
Me, that’s totally different. UMD was about convienence, not quality. It failed for the same reason Movielink will…the amount you pay is not comparable to the quality of the experience. If blu ray can be about an inexpensive yet superior product, they might have something. After all, didn’t DVD playability help sell PS2?
The difference is that DVD had already taken off in the general population as Sony was adding it to the PS2. Here they’re hoping that it’ll spur the general population to adopt Blu-Ray as a format. So what was an added bonus in the PS2 has become a “Why do I need a HD-DVD player if the format hasn’t even been established as something I need?” for PS3.
Fair enough…they failed with Beta when that was better too, so I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re right. Ironically, the more anti-piracy protection they create, the less attractive it will be to buyers. One reason for the huge PS sales was the ease of piracy.
“I’d be interested to hear some knowledgeable feedback about either of the new high-def formats (BluRay and HD-DVD). I took a look at HD-DVD at my local Best Buy and was not the least bit impressed. I have a DVD player that allows for 1080i upconversion, and I swear the picture it produces is just as good as the HD-DVD I saw of “Serenity” at BB.”
Okay, well, first — you cannot see what HD really looks like at Best Buy, or any of those places — they have every set turned up so bright that everything saturates, and they usually have one player looped to every TV. The flourescent lights don’t help, either, and you’re usually standing way too close to the display. You need to go to a high-end speciality place, or to the house of someone who has it set up properly.
HD looks *awesome,* and it’s not some thing of the future for film — HBO and Showtime both have HD channels with 5.1 sounds, and movies on those just look spectacular. Phantom of the Opera may not be a very good movie, but it sure was pretty on HBO HD.
As for TV, all the networks have the vast majority of their primetime lineups in HD, including all dramas and a lot of comedies. Those, for the most part, look great. “Lost” is the reference show on HD. Sports (though I don’t watch much) look great. So does made-for-HD programming such as that on the INHD channels.
If you have an HD capable set but aren’t taking advantage of any HD TV programming, you are really missing out. If you live in a major metro area, you may be able to get HD over the air with a cheap antenna, even.
“If DVD sales have really dropped, I wonder how much the much-hyped new formats may have to do with that. For instance, I don’t exactly relish the thought of replacing my oversized DVD collection with high-definition ones. At the same time, I’m not sure if I should continue paying for new releases in a format that may be defunct in a couple of years. So maybe a lot of people are taking a wait-and-see approach, and are starting to be more judicious with their sell-through purchases.”
I certainly am, and have been for the last year or more. I’m going to end up with one of the two HD formats within a year or so, and so I’ve pretty much stoppped buying theatrical movies on regular DVD. Stuff I want to see, I Netflix instead — or if it’s going to be on HBO or Showtime in HD within a few months, I wait for that.
I don’t think HD DVD is going to be like laserdisc. The price on those machines never dropped much below $600, and that was 10 years ago. There will be under $500 players this year for at least one of the formats.
I am waiting for the price to drop, and to see which format is going to be the winner in this stupid format war that should have been avoided in the first place.
Lynn, have you seen the picture quality a standard DVD player with HD upconversion can produce? I have HD capability on my 51″ widescreen home set and subscribe to all of the HD channels on my cable system. I also have a standard Sony DVD player that allows for 1080i upconversion through an HDMI connection. The picture off of that player is sterling and pristine, at least as good as what I get from my cable HD channels.
So my underlying question remains unaswered: If everyone can already get that kind of quality from a DVD player available for about $100 bucks, where is the consumer need for HD-DVD/BluRay players and discs? From everything I’ve seen, read and heard, the cart here is definitely pushing the horse.
“I don’t think HD DVD is going to be like laserdisc. The price on those machines never dropped much below $600, and that was 10 years ago.” All due respect, but that’s simply incorrect. I paid about $225 for my basic Pioneer model when laserdiscs were at their relative peak.
“Lynn, have you seen the picture quality a standard DVD player with HD upconversion can produce?”
Yeah, and I don’t think it compares to true HD.
“I paid about $225 for my basic Pioneer model when laserdiscs were at their relative peak.”
Wow, well, not where I was living at the time! Still… I don’t think it’s the same. What really killed laserdisc was DVD.
“What really killed laserdisc was DVD.” I think that’s a bit misleading. DVDs may have been the most convenient excuse to pull the plug, but the laserdisc market was always operating on life support from the get-go. Laserdiscs were around for about 10 years or so and never were anything more than a niche cachet item. The studios never really got behind them, and they provided close to zero marketing support. Video retailers hated them because they took up an enormous amount of shelf space for extremely little return. Electronics dealers typically shunned them because the players were big and clunky, as were the two-sided (often more) disc platters. Although they were both shiny and of high digital quality, DVDs succeeded where laserdiscs failed because DVDs were able to be sold to the studios and consumers as the video equivalent of the then-exploding music CD market, something laserdiscs never could realistically aspire to become.
For anyone still interested in the debate over the worthiness of HD-DVD and BluRay, I suggest the following linked assessment by the New York Times’ David Pogue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/11/technology/11pogue.html
jeff, Me, good points. I simply see a huge problem occuring the closer we get to a TRULY DIGITAL pop-culture experience. Will having a DATABASE of our favourite films–have that same FEEL as owning them in a packaged solid-state form? For a society and a culture–that values material possessions to a certain extent. Wouldnt the changing to ALL-DIGITAL ALL-TIME pop-culture consumption–equate to a RADICAL shift in society and culture as well? Since you really cant brag about the size of a database–but people sure do try to anyway. Again–there are simply more questions to be asked of all this change–outside of the general TECH questions.
According to ShowBizaData.com, here are Friday opening figures, along with total gross to date:
MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 3 – 7.6/67.6
POSEIDON 7.2/7.2
RV 2.3/35.6
JUST MY LUCK 2.0/2.0
AMERICAN HAUNTING 1.2/8.6
STICK IT 1.1/20.1
UNITED 93 1.0/23.0
SILENT HILL .7/42.9
GOAL!: THE DREAM BEGINS .6/.6
ICE AGE 2: THE MELTDOWN .6/184.9
Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, SACD and DVD-Audio. SACD and DVD-Audio, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.
If you think these technologies are anything more than desperate grabs at your wallet you’re very naive. Like the Poseidon remake (keeping us on topic) there’s very little demand for HD-quality television, or HD-quality DVDs. But through advertising, they are creating a demand for something that may or may not float. HD does look better, but it’s not a breakthrough. DVD was truly a home entertainment breakthrough. HD-DVD (whichever format) is a modest quality upgrade to get you to shell out for more DVDs. HD-TV is a way for broadcasters to pay more for content. That’s all it’s about. Quality is beside the point, besides being a possible promotional point.
Yeah, but the government is forcing the change in 2009 (or so they claim). Demand won’t really be relevant. And when most people have the newer TVs, then demand will follow for newer DVD players or perhaps the next big thing.
The FCC is forcing change to HD on over-the-air “broadcast”, ie your rabbit ears reception. There’s no requirement that cable companies need to send HD signals by 2009, and most won’t because it’s a pricey upgrade. FCC is doing this because of frequency issues that will be solved by HD broadcasts. Most people could care less about HD quality television. They care about in-demand type choices and better control over their programming. Image quality (digital SD on a new tv) is more than fine for most people, and they will not upgrade until HD unless it is required by their cable companies.
I agree, Martin, no one is going to suddenly feel the need for a better picture. But my point was more that slowly the zeitgeist will have changed then. I think the power of social/peer pressure (keeping up with the Joneses) will motivate people outside of just wanting a better picture.
You make some good points, Martin, but I think you are greatly underestimating HD-quality images and consumers’ desire for them. Like I said above, just walk up and down the aisles of any electronics store in the world (or even a discount warehouse like Costco) and you can’t help but be amazed by the difference between standard and high-def pictures, and by how purchasers are gobbling them up. It’s true that the differences are a bit less pronounced on smaller screens, but I don’t think small screens are driving the key living-room market anymore.
Everything I just said, though, applies to high-definition broadcasts. I still maintain that HD-DVDs are no discernible improvement over standard DVDs with a relatively inexpensive 1080i upconversion.
There have been significant upgrades in home entertainment that got people into stores: color TVs and DVD players were hardware upgrades that provided a genuinely improved experience. HD is not an improved experience unless you have eagle eyes. It does look better, sounds a little better, but it isn’t the sort of thing that will get people into stores. The vast majority of tv owners are not going to shell out the hundreds of dollars (or thousands to get a comparable “size” screen they have now) for a new TV in the next decade. So instead most people will get set-top converters from their cable companies that will allow them to watch HD programming on regular SD (Standard-def) tvs. That means that yes, 2016 probably all programming will be offered in high-def, but many people will still be watching it on their standard-def tvs with little improvement in picture quality.
“There’s no requirement that cable companies need to send HD signals by 2009, and most won’t because it’s a pricey upgrade.”
Um, most of the major cable companies (Comcast, Cox, Time Warner and others) *are* already offering HD for all the broadcast content for which its available. And my cable company doesn’t charge for it, either — a regular HD cable box (without DVR) costs the same as a standard digital cable box, and you don’t even need a box to get the major channels, if your TV has a tuner. The HD channels (except for a couple of premiums) don’t cost extra, either.
The cable content available (a different issue) is expanding, albeit somewhat more slowly. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see the big, mainstream cable channels like FX and USA going HD soon. ESPN already has 2 channels of HD offerings.
I really disagree that there isn’t a true difference between HD and standard def, and I’m wondering if most people’s opinions about what HD really looks like isn’t limited to something like a Best Buy demo, which doesn’t really scratch the surface.
I’d agree there’s some question about whether the HD format for DVD’s will really take off — but for TV itself? There’s no question it’s going to do nothing but expand as more people get HD capable TV’s — and for good reason, it’s a huge quality improvement. Not quite as big as the difference between color and black and white… but not all that far away. There is just no comparison between watching something like “Lost” on a 4×3 standard def TV and watching it in 16×9 widescreen in high def.
As I said, HD does look better, but most of us are content with cable tv and DVD quality. 16:9 is not a framing that is conducive to many shows, like news or documentaries where the 4:3 framing is much better for headshots. Resolution is clearly better, but not an improvement like VHS to DVD. Plus, HD does not offer anything new as far as goodies on the discs. Regular old DVD is still the format to beat for endless extras. And people seem to be happy with letterboxing. Certainly, letterboxing is not going away for perhaps decades. HD does not eliminate letterboxing, movies shot widescreen with 2.35:1 aspect ratio will still have black bars on top and bottom of the 16:9 picture. Smaller than on your regular tv but still there. Technically 16:9 is not even good enough to show 1.85:1 ratio without the black bars, and basically every movie made in the last 50 years is 1.85:1 ratio or higher.
Sports in HD is where HD really shines.