This Boston Globe article, entitled Greedy studios make DVDs not so special, provides some sobering thoughts about the attitude of some studios towards DVD consumers. The quote from the Miramax COO is particularly disturbing. Basically, some studios have the attitude that they can release a bare-bones edition of a DVD, with the intention of releasing a special edition later to milk movie buffs for more money. Hardly news, I know, but it is surprising to hear studio executives basically admit what they are doing.
As for my take on the article, I am not as concerned about the issue as the writer seems to be. There are several different situations where a studio releases multiple versions of the same film, and they are rarely malicious. The first example is where the studio puts out a bare-bones edition early in the life of the format, and then works towards a special-edition release later. I don’t have a problem with that, since I would rather have a better edition come out later, than no new release at all. It’s up to the individual whether he wants to buy the newer release; no one is forcing me…I mean, him…to buy the same thing again. And usually, you can get a decent price on eBay for the previous version. So in that case, I don’t think that having more options is a bad thing.
The other case is when a studio releases a movie on DVD with the intention of release a more deluxe version at a later date. Even then, the studio can go about it in different ways: They can either keep the special edition secret, or they can announce both versions ahead of time, and let the consumer take his pick. The Lord of the Rings DVDs are a perfect example of the latter case. It’s not like consumers were blindly buying the first version without knowing that a special edition would be released later. And in that case, the standard edition and the special edition were two completely different cuts of the film, with two completely separate sets of supplemental materials. The consumer who buys both is maximizing his buying dollar, not wasting money on the same thing twice.
And then you have the Kill Bill example, where a special edition is planned, but not announced until later. Again, it’s up to the consumer to decide how much he wants to spend on the movie. Regardless of the supplements, the movie is worth buying in an of itself, especially for the $10 purchase price I paid on its release date. For that little money, I can afford to buy a special edition later. And for other movies with later special-edition releases, you have to decide on a case-by-case basis. For example, will it be worth buying the new Spider-Man special edition, just to get the exact same supplements as before, but with one new segment on Spider-Man 2? Not for me, and probably not for most people. But for someone who is buying the movie for the first time, they will get a slightly better release with the newer edition.
So, what is the issue again? Regardless of what the writer says, the main appeal of the DVD, at least for me, is the movie itself. If I am happy spending $20 on a bare-bones release, I shouldn’t be any less happy when a better release comes out later. In my mind, that’s like the people who buy a fast computer, and then when a faster one comes out, they say, “Oh, my computer is so slow!” It’s all about perception. As time goes on, DVDs will get better and cheaper, with more supplements, better picture and sound quality, and lower prices. Should the early adopters be unhappy? Of course not. Maybe they would only be happy if every movie was released once and never again, but that seems unreasonable, it doesn’t help anyone, and it is actually worse for the consumer and the movie industry as a whole. I say, let the studios improve their product lines as they see fit, but they should try to tell the consumers as soon as possible if a special edition is planned. Then the consumer can make the decision for himself, as it should be.
