Is Paramount INSANE?!?!?

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Doug Jacobs, Jul 30, 2007.

  1. Doug Jacobs

    Doug Jacobs Guest

    I just heard that this November Paramount is going to be re-releasing the
    first season of the original Star Trek series remastered in HD for the
    low-low price of $217.99:

    http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s..._Trek:_The_Original_Series_HD_DVD_Details/815

    Are they crazy? I know that HD is supposed to be 6x the resolution of
    standard DVD, but 6x the price as well?!

    You can get the red, yellow and blue DVD boxes that contain the entire series
    for less than that. Makes no sense whatsoever.

    --
    It's not broken. It's...advanced.
    Doug Jacobs, Jul 30, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Doug Jacobs wrote:
    > I just heard that this November Paramount is going to be re-releasing the
    > first season of the original Star Trek series remastered in HD for the
    > low-low price of $217.99:
    >
    > http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s..._Trek:_The_Original_Series_HD_DVD_Details/815
    >
    > Are they crazy? I know that HD is supposed to be 6x the resolution of
    > standard DVD, but 6x the price as well?!
    >
    > You can get the red, yellow and blue DVD boxes that contain the entire series
    > for less than that. Makes no sense whatsoever.


    But you can't get the new Trek 2.0 Version, or get them on HD/DVD combo
    disks, and R&D costs thereof.

    (And that's only because there's no such thing as a Blu/DVD combo yet,
    but the non-combo's coming.)

    Derek Janssen
    Derek Janssen, Jul 30, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Doug Jacobs

    Impmon Guest

    On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:39:39 -0000, Doug Jacobs
    <> wrote:

    >You can get the red, yellow and blue DVD boxes that contain the entire series
    >for less than that. Makes no sense whatsoever.


    And I'll bet that average Joe doesn't have a HDDVD player *and* a good
    high resolution HDTV to view it. I'm still using my 9 year old TV and
    I wouldn't know the difference between VHA, DVD, and HDDVD quality.
    --
    disgust me. spams a lot in game
    so I am posting as often as possible so
    would start getting spammed eye for an eye. for good
    luck, and
    Impmon, Jul 31, 2007
    #3
  4. Per Doug Jacobs:
    >Are they crazy? I know that HD is supposed to be 6x the resolution of
    >standard DVD, but 6x the price as well?!


    In the context of $250 impulse-purchase sunglasses on the Ocean
    City boardwalk it seems to support my next-door neighbor's
    assertion that "Taxes are too low".
    --
    PeteCresswell
    (PeteCresswell), Jul 31, 2007
    #4
  5. Doug Jacobs

    AZ Nomad Guest

    On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:39:39 -0000, Doug Jacobs <> wrote:


    >I just heard that this November Paramount is going to be re-releasing the
    >first season of the original Star Trek series remastered in HD for the
    >low-low price of $217.99:


    >http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s..._Trek:_The_Original_Series_HD_DVD_Details/815


    >Are they crazy? I know that HD is supposed to be 6x the resolution of
    >standard DVD, but 6x the price as well?!


    DVD was 6x the price of VHS with players 10x the price. I guess it'll never catch on.
    AZ Nomad, Jul 31, 2007
    #5
  6. Impmon wrote:
    > On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:39:39 -0000, Doug Jacobs
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>You can get the red, yellow and blue DVD boxes that contain the entire series
    >>for less than that. Makes no sense whatsoever.

    >
    > And I'll bet that average Joe doesn't have a HDDVD player *and* a good
    > high resolution HDTV to view it. I'm still using my 9 year old TV and
    > I wouldn't know the difference between VHA, DVD, and HDDVD quality.


    But, if they had released the Trek2.0 series in *just* HD-DVD, as it was
    designed for, purist fans would've howled that Paramount was "holding
    the series hostage" and "trying to shove a new technology down their
    throats"...

    Derek Janssen (accepting the lesser of two whines, being glad Paramount
    is neutral, and waiting for the Blu-Ray)
    Derek Janssen, Jul 31, 2007
    #6
  7. On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:39:39 -0000, Doug Jacobs <>
    wrote:

    >I just heard that this November Paramount is going to be re-releasing the
    >first season of the original Star Trek series remastered in HD for the
    >low-low price of $217.99:
    >
    >http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s..._Trek:_The_Original_Series_HD_DVD_Details/815
    >
    >Are they crazy? I know that HD is supposed to be 6x the resolution of
    >standard DVD, but 6x the price as well?!


    You're fucking nuts. I have it in several formats.

    The Laser Disc format was 37 discs at $20 each. That's $740 for the
    slow.
    >
    >You can get the red, yellow and blue DVD boxes that contain the entire series
    >for less than that.


    I have them. They were NOT that price when they came out. They were
    $70 each. Just because you can now find them in a group set at a
    discounted price doesn't mean you have an argument here.

    > Makes no sense whatsoever.


    You are just some lame tard that doesn't have a dime to your name.

    Some of us have hundreds of discs, and several tens of TV shows on disc,
    and Yes, I will be buying the HD release eventually. Particularly if I
    can find it presented as a demo somewhere, so that I can examine if it is
    worth the trouble.
    Spurious Response, Jul 31, 2007
    #7
  8. On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:47:55 GMT, Impmon <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:39:39 -0000, Doug Jacobs
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>You can get the red, yellow and blue DVD boxes that contain the entire series
    >>for less than that. Makes no sense whatsoever.

    >
    >And I'll bet that average Joe doesn't have a HDDVD player *and* a good
    >high resolution HDTV to view it. I'm still using my 9 year old TV and
    >I wouldn't know the difference between VHA, DVD, and HDDVD quality.



    Yet you felt the need to enter the thread and add absolutely nothing of
    substance, since you have zero perspective as it relates to the subject.
    Spurious Response, Jul 31, 2007
    #8
  9. On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:25:00 GMT, AZ Nomad
    <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:39:39 -0000, Doug Jacobs <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I just heard that this November Paramount is going to be re-releasing the
    >>first season of the original Star Trek series remastered in HD for the
    >>low-low price of $217.99:

    >
    >>http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s..._Trek:_The_Original_Series_HD_DVD_Details/815

    >
    >>Are they crazy? I know that HD is supposed to be 6x the resolution of
    >>standard DVD, but 6x the price as well?!

    >
    >DVD was 6x the price of VHS with players 10x the price. I guess it'll never catch on.



    Bullshit. Platoon DVD was $20. Platoon VHS was $99.
    Spurious Response, Jul 31, 2007
    #9
  10. On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:43:20 -0400, Derek Janssen
    <> wrote:

    >
    >Derek Janssen (accepting the lesser of two whines, being glad Paramount
    >is neutral, and waiting for the Blu-Ray)



    Will you ever not make a post that isn't fucking retarded?
    Spurious Response, Jul 31, 2007
    #10
  11. Doug Jacobs

    AZ Nomad Guest

    On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:46:21 -0700, Spurious Response <> wrote:


    >On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:25:00 GMT, AZ Nomad
    ><> wrote:


    >>On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:39:39 -0000, Doug Jacobs <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I just heard that this November Paramount is going to be re-releasing the
    >>>first season of the original Star Trek series remastered in HD for the
    >>>low-low price of $217.99:

    >>
    >>>http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s..._Trek:_The_Original_Series_HD_DVD_Details/815

    >>
    >>>Are they crazy? I know that HD is supposed to be 6x the resolution of
    >>>standard DVD, but 6x the price as well?!

    >>
    >>DVD was 6x the price of VHS with players 10x the price. I guess it'll never catch on.



    > Bullshit. Platoon DVD was $20. Platoon VHS was $99.


    What planet are you from?

    Tapes typically sell for under $10-15. Are you quoting rental media
    prices?
    AZ Nomad, Jul 31, 2007
    #11
  12. Doug Jacobs

    TB Guest

    "AZ Nomad" wrote:

    (snip)

    >>>DVD was 6x the price of VHS with players 10x the price. I guess it'll
    >>>never catch on.

    >
    >
    >> Bullshit. Platoon DVD was $20. Platoon VHS was $99.

    >
    > What planet are you from?
    >
    > Tapes typically sell for under $10-15. Are you quoting rental media
    > prices?


    You have no idea what you're talking about.

    When theatrical releases first showed up on home video on vhs and beta
    tapes, they were indeed around $90 per movie in the early 80's. This was
    even before home video rental. A Video tape player/recorder averaged at
    least $1,000 - $1,500 the first couple years the format was available to
    consumers. In the mid 80's, tapes eventually started dropping below the $30
    price and eventually the $20 barrier was broken for major releases. During
    the mid 80's, the laserdisc format found a large niche market but movies
    averaged between $30 - $50 per title even up through the mid 90's. LD
    players averaged between $400 - $1,500 to the end of the format.

    DVD's *started out* priced at $20 - $30 per movie. To this day, most new
    1 - 2 disc dvd titles average about $20. Players quickly dropped to below
    $400 by the second year the format was available to consumers and within 5
    years, you could get a player for under $50.

    DVDs have been by far the best value for the money as far as player and
    media in the history of home entertainment without even factoring in a/v
    quality.

    It appears the studios are attempting to price the HD media much like they
    did with laserdiscs, as a high quality/higher priced alternative for a niche
    market of so-called a/v enthusiasts who they believe will pay more for
    better quality product. The players may already be dropping down to a
    reasonable price but I think as long as the discs themselves are priced as
    high as they are right now, neither format will supplant dvds in the next 5
    years.

    T.B.
    TB, Jul 31, 2007
    #12
  13. Doug Jacobs

    Impmon Guest

    On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:43:20 -0400, Derek Janssen
    <> wrote:

    >But, if they had released the Trek2.0 series in *just* HD-DVD, as it was
    >designed for, purist fans would've howled that Paramount was "holding
    >the series hostage" and "trying to shove a new technology down their
    >throats"...


    Yeah so? Some of them will probably get burned in the end when the
    HDDVD and Bluray war dies down in the same manner as the VHA and BETA
    war did. One good thing about HDDVD and Bluray- you could have a
    single player that does both format as the disc are still the same
    size, only need different laser assemblies. BETA and VHS were
    completely different at hardware level and no practical dual format
    deck sold well back then, very pricey.
    --
    disgust me. spams a lot in game
    so I am posting as often as possible so
    would start getting spammed eye for an eye. for good
    luck, and
    Impmon, Jul 31, 2007
    #13
  14. TB wrote:

    >
    >>>>DVD was 6x the price of VHS with players 10x the price. I guess it'll
    >>>>never catch on.

    >>
    >>> Bullshit. Platoon DVD was $20. Platoon VHS was $99.


    (Of course that wasn't *really* what everyone else was talking about,
    but hey, it's an interesting thread idea anyway: )

    >>What planet are you from?
    >>
    >>Tapes typically sell for under $10-15. Are you quoting rental media
    >>prices?

    >
    > You have no idea what you're talking about.
    >
    > When theatrical releases first showed up on home video on vhs and beta
    > tapes, they were indeed around $90 per movie in the early 80's. This was
    > even before home video rental. A Video tape player/recorder averaged at
    > least $1,000 - $1,500 the first couple years the format was available to
    > consumers. In the mid 80's, tapes eventually started dropping below the $30
    > price and eventually the $20 barrier was broken for major releases. During
    > the mid 80's, the laserdisc format found a large niche market but movies
    > averaged between $30 - $50 per title even up through the mid 90's. LD
    > players averaged between $400 - $1,500 to the end of the format.
    >
    > DVD's *started out* priced at $20 - $30 per movie. To this day, most new
    > 1 - 2 disc dvd titles average about $20. Players quickly dropped to below
    > $400 by the second year the format was available to consumers and within 5
    > years, you could get a player for under $50.


    Actually, he *is* referring to rental media--
    Unless it was a big-sale title meant for Target and Wal-Mart (eg.
    Disney), most debut VHS were produced in limited amounts for rental
    stores, and averaged industry prices of $99-120.

    If you wanted to own the tape anyway you had the choice of A) paying out
    the dough that first week, B) searching the "Previously Viewed" shelves,
    C) waiting three months for Columbia House Tape Club to clearance out
    industry stock and sell it mail-order for $29, or D) waiting a year and
    HOPING the title would show up as a back-catalog reissue for $20.

    Don't really know anyone who was fool enough to spring for A), unless
    they were some complete tech geek who weighed all his self-worth by what
    he could buy that you couldn't, and daring you to even approach his
    home-theater acumen...
    So, Dark, how's that $99 copy of Platoon holding up? ;)

    > DVDs have been by far the best value for the money as far as player and
    > media in the history of home entertainment without even factoring in a/v
    > quality.


    > It appears the studios are attempting to price the HD media much like they
    > did with laserdiscs, as a high quality/higher priced alternative for a niche
    > market of so-called a/v enthusiasts who they believe will pay more for
    > better quality product. The players may already be dropping down to a
    > reasonable price but I think as long as the discs themselves are priced as
    > high as they are right now, neither format will supplant dvds in the next 5
    > years.


    Also, it's a small market, on a disk that isn't as widely produced as it
    probably will be a year from now--
    Remember those $39.95 DVD's that used to come from Fox and Disney?--That
    was back when it was still Neato.

    Derek Janssen
    Derek Janssen, Jul 31, 2007
    #14
  15. Impmon wrote:

    > On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:43:20 -0400, Derek Janssen
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>But, if they had released the Trek2.0 series in *just* HD-DVD, as it was
    >>designed for, purist fans would've howled that Paramount was "holding
    >>the series hostage" and "trying to shove a new technology down their
    >>throats"...

    >
    > Yeah so? Some of them will probably get burned in the end when the
    > HDDVD and Bluray war dies down in the same manner as the VHA and BETA
    > war did.


    Well, was referring to fans thinking Paramount was "doing a Matrix on
    them" if they released the new title in hi-def only and not a standard
    set that any fan could buy--
    That it had the bad luck to be HD only comes down to the fact that
    there's no Blu-Ray/DVD combo yet, and it was the only way Paramount
    could be "diplomatic" about it.

    Still, when the war dies down around <checks watch> January, we should
    hear the Blu-Ray version coming out...Be glad Trek wasn't from Universal.

    Derek Janssen
    Derek Janssen, Jul 31, 2007
    #15
  16. Doug Jacobs

    Guest

    On Jul 30, 5:39 pm, Doug Jacobs <> wrote:
    > I just heard that this November Paramount is going to be re-releasing the
    > first season of the original Star Trek series remastered in HD for the
    > low-low price of $217.99:
    >
    > http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Paramount/Disc_Announcements/P...
    >
    > Are they crazy? I know that HD is supposed to be 6x the resolution of
    > standard DVD, but 6x the price as well?!


    Paramount has ALWAYS been notorious for overpriced and underfeatured
    home video releases, going back to the Laserdisc/VHS days.

    When they first came to LD, they offered only crappy pan&scan releases
    with no features and big price tags.

    When they first came to DVD (and they were one of the last studios to
    embrace DVD), they did the same thing. Their DVD's were $5 more than
    most other studios, and they offered NO extras (early Paramount
    releases had to list things like "interactive menus" as extras). Once
    they did started adding extras, they would slap on a simple commentary
    track on a DVD, label it a "Special Edition" and charge you yet
    another $5 extra. Seeing "Paramount" on a film was as bad for us DVD-
    philes as seeing "Sony DADC" on a LD (hello laser rot).

    Back in the day, the big debate about Paramount Home Video was whether
    they ENCOURAGED their employees to smoke crack or whether they were
    doing it in secret. I guess the old glass pipe is still around over
    there.

    -Eric
    , Jul 31, 2007
    #16
  17. Doug Jacobs

    Biffster Guest

    On 2007-07-30, Impmon <> rambled on thusly:

    > And I'll bet that average Joe doesn't have a HDDVD player *and* a good
    > high resolution HDTV to view it. I'm still using my 9 year old TV and
    > I wouldn't know the difference between VHA, DVD, and HDDVD quality.


    Some of us have eyes that can actually see....

    :)

    --
    Michael Fierro (aka Biffster)
    http://apt-get.us Y!: miguelito_fierro AIM: mfierro1
    -==-
    "He's a real nowhere man, sitting in his nowhere land"
    - The Beatles
    Biffster, Jul 31, 2007
    #17
  18. In message news:,
    sprach forth the following:

    > When they first came to LD, they offered only crappy pan&scan releases
    > with no features and big price tags.


    Well golly gee willikers they better not release ST:TOS in crappy pan&scan!
    Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute, Jul 31, 2007
    #18
  19. Doug Jacobs

    Richard C. Guest

    "AZ Nomad" <> wrote in message
    news:slrnfat0as.hmc.aznomad.2@ip70-
    >
    > DVD was 6x the price of VHS with players 10x the price. I guess it'll
    > never catch on.


    ================================
    Actually, even at the start, DVDs were about 1/4 the price of VHS titles.
    Richard C., Aug 1, 2007
    #19
  20. Doug Jacobs

    Richard C. Guest

    "AZ Nomad" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>>
    >>>DVD was 6x the price of VHS with players 10x the price. I guess it'll
    >>>never catch on.

    >
    >
    >> Bullshit. Platoon DVD was $20. Platoon VHS was $99.

    >
    > What planet are you from?
    >
    > Tapes typically sell for under $10-15. Are you quoting rental media
    > prices?
    >

    ===============================
    There is no such thing as "rental media" in the US.
    The same copies are for consumer and rental outlet.
    MANY VHS titles were $85 to $125........
    Richard C., Aug 1, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Sorby
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    515
    Steven M. Scharf
    Feb 25, 2004
  2. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    693
    Doug MacLean
    Jul 22, 2003
  3. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    531
    Buckaroo
    Aug 5, 2003
  4. Aphelion

    DS9 Paramount $20 Rebate Question

    Aphelion, Dec 7, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    385
  5. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,149
    Doug MacLean
    Jan 29, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page