[Eug]

We don't get those Imperioli commercials up here in Canada. We had some pretty lame HD DVD radio spots though.

[Dakarʒ]

Not that its actually that funny, but I was bored enough to check youtube and someone actually put it up.

YouTube - Toshiba HD DVD "Michael Imperioli"

[Chongo]

性交パラマウント was the sound coming from the sony boardroom

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

性交パラマウント was the sound coming from the sony boardroom

I somehow doubt that anyone at Sony was saying "sexual intercourse Paramount!" (there is no exact Japanese equivalent for f@ck used as an insult that way).

[Eug]

Followup article on the big Paramount announcement: Paramount Officially Cancels Blu-ray SKUs

In a note to retailers, Paramount has officially canceled all previously-announced upcoming Blu-ray releases.

As expected, Paramount won't release a single of its previously-announced upcoming Blu-ray titles, including 'Blades of Glory,' 'Next,' 'Top Gun,' 'The Jack Ryan Collection' and 'Face/Off.' Instead, each of the titles will now be HD DVD exclusive.

Retailers received official word late Monday that all five Blu-ray titles would be cancelled, and that existing orders would not be fulfilled.

[goMac]

Oh nice. The Jack Ryan films are all pretty good.

[jokell82]

May have to buy Blades on Tuesday just as a thank you to Paramount.

[Eug]

I'll probably buy none of the above. I may rent Blades of Glory though. Still, I found this amusing:





However, I may buy the Star Trek series, if it looks significantly improved.

[aristotles]

Man you people are hypocrites. You accuse Michael Bay of being childish and I see nothing but childish behavior and pictures posted here. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.

The reason why Michael Bay is upset is because he wants to have the best possible presentation for his body of work. He is also upset about his fans being let down with the cancellation of pre-orders and the broken promotions with Blockbuster.

Universal Studios reacted to this saying that Paramount may have made a mistake and they appear to be going neutral soon.

Mr. Bay is not the only mover and shaker concerned about this issue. Steve Spielberg is also voicing concerns and has insisted that his movies be released exclusively on Blu-ray. I think we have a civil war going on within Paramount. James Cameron also voiced concerns about his development.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

Man you people are hypocrites. You accuse Michael Bay of being childish and I see nothing but childish behavior and pictures posted here. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.

The reason why Michael Bay is upset is because he wants to have the best possible presentation for his body of work. He is also upset about his fans being let down with the cancellation of pre-orders and the broken promotions with Blockbuster.

Universal Studios reacted to this saying that Paramount may have made a mistake and they appear to be going neutral soon.

Mr. Bay is not the only mover and shaker concerned about this issue. Steve Spielberg is also voicing concerns and has insisted that his movies be released exclusively on Blu-ray. I think we have a civil war going on within Paramount. James Cameron also voiced concerns about his development.

Oh give me a break. It's been a string of good news for Blu-Ray, but as soon as something good comes from HD DVD you cry foul. Boo friggin hoo.

And Spielberg did NOT insist that his movies would be BD only. He did announce he prefers BD, but so far only Close Encounters is a BD exclusive. After that there are no plans for any Spielberg movies in HD. So take your FUD elsewhere.

Edit - And why is it Blu-Ray folks are treating this like the end of the entire world? When Blockbuster announced their BD expansion, the HD DVD fans didn't roll over and die or even cry about it. Why are BD fans doing just that now?

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

Steve Spielberg is also voicing concerns and has insisted that his movies be released exclusively on Blu-ray.

Btw:

Originally Posted by http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33722

"I then asked when the INDIANA JONES set would hit and if it would be exclusive to HD. Rob responded that on the films that Spielberg, however, is a huge supporter of Blu-Ray and always has been and wants the titles to be available in both formats - so those will be cross-platform titles. However, the rest of Dreamworks, Viacom/Paramount's world... those will be HD DVD exclusive for the next few years at least. Can you imagine BLOCKBUSTER not letting people rent TRANSFORMERS, SHREK THE THIRD, etc? Me Either. This format war is a fascinating chess game, isn't it?"

[icruise]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Edit - And why is it Blu-Ray folks are treating this like the end of the entire world? When Blockbuster announced their BD expansion, the HD DVD fans didn't roll over and die or even cry about it. Why are BD fans doing just that now?

As I recall, the HD DVD supporters here always played down every BR win, saying that it didn't matter. At least we're admitting that this is a major problem.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by icruise 

As I recall, the HD DVD supporters here always played down every BR win, saying that it didn't matter. At least we're admitting that this is a major problem.

Yeah, but some BD supporters (not necessarily anyone here) are talking about it like it's a major problem for High Definition in general, not just their chosen format. Seems they can dish it out but they can't take it...

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by icruise 

I somehow doubt that anyone at Sony was saying "sexual intercourse Paramount!" (there is no exact Japanese equivalent for f@ck used as an insult that way).

What a weird culture where sexual intercourse is not considered an insult.

[goMac]

Jokell: Yeah, I see a change of heart coming from Blockbuster soon. No way in hell they'd want to miss out on Blades of Glory, Transformers, or other Paramount films. They could ignore just Universal, but Universal, Paramount AND Dreamworks? No way they're staying Bluray only in retail.

[Montezuma58]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Oh man, I always knew Michael Bay sucked, but this is just hilarious. .

This is funny too.Maybe he had a bit too much wine with his dinner.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Montezuma58 

This is funny too.Maybe he had a bit too much wine with his dinner.

Hilarious. But nice to see Michael Bay is more level headed than he showed in his port on his blog.

[*TL]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Yeah, but some BD supporters (not necessarily anyone here) are talking about it like it's a major problem for High Definition in general, not just their chosen format. Seems they can dish it out but they can't take it...

The format war was showing signs of ending; Paramount has mucked with market forces for its own short term gain. I'm in the BD camp, but only because BD has the most promise of wrapping this thing up. Paramount has delayed the inevitable, and it's the delay that has the BD supports pissed.

Originally Posted by goMac 

Jokell: Yeah, I see a change of heart coming from Blockbuster soon. No way in hell they'd want to miss out on Blades of Glory, Transformers, or other Paramount films. They could ignore just Universal, but Universal, Paramount AND Dreamworks? No way they're staying Bluray only in retail.

Check out The Numbers. Paramount's had the lowest marketshare of all the majors for years, and has only turned it around this year with Transformers and Shrek. Dreamworks is worse. (Cf. Disney.)

So, yeah, Blockbuster doesn't get Shrek or Transformers. I think they'll manage.

[Kenneth]

Thanks Paramount for saving me some money by ditching the format I wanted.

I will be upset if I'm the director/producer too.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by *TL 

The format war was showing signs of ending; Paramount has mucked with market forces for its own short term gain. I'm in the BD camp, but only because BD has the most promise of wrapping this thing up. Paramount has delayed the inevitable, and it's the delay that has the BD supports pissed.

Only if you bought into the ridiculous BD hype. With sales of discs being at or around 1% of total home video sales, a lead of 2:1 is essentially meaningless. Of course, BD fanboys wouldn't listen to that and claimed the war would be over by next month. That's what happens when you listen to Bill Hunt...

Originally Posted by *TL 

Check out The Numbers. Paramount's had the lowest marketshare of all the majors for years, and has only turned it around this year with Transformers and Shrek. Dreamworks is worse. (Cf. Disney.)

So, yeah, Blockbuster doesn't get Shrek or Transformers. I think they'll manage.

Blockbuster has been in the toilet for a while now. I'm not sure they'll manage even with Shrek or Transformers.

Originally Posted by Kenneth 

Thanks Paramount for saving me some money by ditching the format I wanted.

I will be upset if I'm the director/producer too.

If you read a few posts above you'd see that Bay is actually not upset, and actually supports the move by Paramount.

[jokell82]

PC World's interview with the CTO of Paramount. Debunks at least one Blu-Ray fanboy rumor:

Originally Posted by http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136253-c,dvdtechnology/article.html

PCW: Presumably, making this move wasn't something you did lightly. What led up to the decision to shift your production exclusively to HD DVD?

Bell: Paramount has been getting experience with publishing titles in both formats for the last year. We've had a hands-on ability to see how these formats work in practice. And after some hands-on analysis, we decided that HD DVD was the format we wanted to support.

PCW: Why was that?

Bell: For one thing, the lower prices of the players: It's good for consumers, it's good for our customer base.

For another thing, HD DVD came out of the DVD Forum. The DVD Forum is very experienced at developing and managing specs. [HD DVD] was launched in a very stable way, with stable specifications, and they had specified a reference player model, so all players had to be compatible with the HDi interactivity layer, and all players had to be capable of the interactivity. So when we publish titles in the future that have interactivity, we can be assured that every HD DVD player will be able to handle this content.

PCW: So, as a studio, you believe that the underlying stability of HD DVD's specs is a benefit?

Bell: When you look at what the DVD Forum has specified as required, it's a good set of advanced technologies. You can be assured that that benefit will be available to all consumers, no matter what [player] model they purchased. That speaks to the DVD Forum, that it published specs that were complete and market-ready, and that it didn't need to publish up [and change the specs], as Blu-ray has. To some degree, [such changes are] going to create some legacy issues.

For example, HD DVD players have [ethernet] connectivity built-in. If the player doesn't have that, or it's optional, you can't rely on that [as a feature].

PCW: Didn't we see the same thing with DVD players, though, where some features were mandatory and others weren't?

Bell: When you have a format, you generally have mandatory requirements on players, and you sometimes have optional features. On DVD, Dolby Digital 5.1 was mandatory, but DTS 5.1 was optional. But that meant that when you published a title, you never really knew how many customers had players that supported the feature you were adding to the disc at some cost. On HD DVD, the mandatory audio technologies are Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital Plus, and Dolby TrueHD. [For more details, see an explanation of the differences among the various Dolby technologies.]

PCW: Over time, though, DTS became a de facto standard on DVD players. Don't you expect to see the same thing happen over time with Blu-ray's specs, such as the requirements for storage and interactivity via an ethernet connection? [Paramount's decision comes ahead of Blu-ray's new minimum specs, which go into effect for players sold after October 31.]

Bell: Eventually, that's true, but right now we have early adopters and enthusiasts [buying players]. If you do migrate the spec and your options are not included on the early players, these are the very people you leave behind. They're our most valuable customers in launching a new format, and you want to make sure that what they buy continues to represent the best of the format.

PCW: What about the additional capacity of Blu-ray, which has 50GB dual-layer discs, as opposed to HD DVD's 30GB dual-layer discs? Some studios have cited the additional capacity as necessary. Are you going to miss having the extra headroom?

Bell: This is a little bit overrated. Making a choice like the one Paramount has made is a multifaceted choice: It depends upon manufacturability, the reliability of players, the cost, the infrastructure that's developed to support our creation of titles. Many different factors came into play--including capacity. When Paramount made this decision, we considered the broad spectrum.

If everything else were equal, more capacity would be better. Why not?

But if you convert the playing time, a 30GB disc gives you somewhere between 3 and 4 hours of capacity. It depends upon the nature of the movie and how you compress it. There's no compromise on the quality. We've found that 95 percent of movies are less than 2.25 hours long. With a disc whose capacity is 3 or 4 hours, you can put a fair amount of bonus material on that disc as well. So 30GB with the option to add another disc is fine, from our point of view.

PCW: What if the multiple soundtracks and high-definition bonus materials won't fit on a single disc?

Bell: If there's an overflow of bonus material, we'll just go to another disc. That's not an issue for consumers. In some cases, they consider that it has more value. It's done routinely in DVD. Why put every single title on a high-capacity disc if it doesn't need it?

PCW: Do you expect capacity needs to change in the future?

Bell: A 45GB disc is under development. [Editors' note: This disc has been in development for two years.] Secondly, compression will become more effective. The number of minutes you get on a disc depends upon how much you can compress a movie. As we gain experience with the new codecs, the ability to compress at high quality will be improved.

Capacity is a factor, but it's not an overriding factor. In the grand scheme of things, the better proposition for consumers in our view, and for our business needs, is HD DVD.

PCW: From your first-hand experiences, what can you tell us about the difference in programming languages between HD DVD, which uses Microsoft's HDi technology, and Blu-ray, which uses BD-Java?

Bell: BD-Java is a programming language. The benefit is that it's very flexible. The drawback is that you may need 100 lines of BD-Java code. HDi is a relatively compact piece of code; one command can cover quite a bit of interactivity.

BD-Java is also more complex, so the possibility of errors is greater. And when BD players are put out, [there's the question of whether] they all support the scenarios as coded up from the low level. [Some of the early problems with BD-Java discs] were in part due to the complexity that BD-Java brings. From our point of view, HDi offers all of the flexibility we need, in practice, and it does so in a more simplified way and in a way that we feel leads to better compatibility, better reliability, and lower costs.

PCW: Up until now, how have you approached coding your discs for HDi and BD-Java?

Bell: At this particular point in time, we've been able to supply more features with HDi and HD DVD than with BD-Java and Blu-ray Disc. What we have typically done in practice is that we've created the interactive scenarios in HD DVD and then tried to pull them into Blu-ray. But that has not been entirely possible: Some things we can do in HDi are not supported in BD-Java. If you're going to do BD-Java, you need someone who's capable of programming at a low level. With HDi, you don't need somebody with that additional level of training. We don't need programmers to code our discs.

PCW: Do you think users are interested in the interactivity on these discs?

Bell: Interactivity is an important part of why you would move up from DVD. Yes, [high-def] has a great picture, but is that enough? Connectivity is something that studios will grow into, and it's something that we believe studios will grow into.

We're thinking about [having media servers to provide extra content via the Internet], but those kinds of investments cost money. The motivation to do them grows as the installed base grows. If we see there's a sufficiently large installed base to justify the cost of the server, we'll do it. Right now we're concentrating on getting a great picture out, and great interactivity.

PCW: Will this exclusive period extend for a limited time, or is this an indefinite arrangement?

Bell: At this moment in time, it's an indefinite commitment. The core of this announcement comes from our experience, and what our consumers are looking for. We hope this will influence consumers' choices.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by *TL 

Check out The Numbers. Paramount's had the lowest marketshare of all the majors for years, and has only turned it around this year with Transformers and Shrek. Dreamworks is worse. (Cf. Disney.)

So, yeah, Blockbuster doesn't get Shrek or Transformers. I think they'll manage.

You really think Blockbuster is going to ignore Universal AND Paramount AND Dreamworks? I wouldn't be so sure.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by goMac 

You really think Blockbuster is going to ignore Universal AND Paramount AND Dreamworks? I wouldn't be so sure.

I'm guessing they aren't going to ignore them... they simply won't buy their HD disks.

They still will offer DVD versions.

[Eug]

PCW: Will this exclusive period extend for a limited time, or is this an indefinite arrangement?

Bell: At this moment in time, it's an indefinite commitment. The core of this announcement comes from our experience, and what our consumers are looking for. We hope this will influence consumers' choices.

---

I also found this interesting. It reminds me (albeit superficially) of the difficulty of programming for the PS3, vs. programming for the Xbox 360:

PCW: From your first-hand experiences, what can you tell us about the difference in programming languages between HD DVD, which uses Microsoft's HDi technology, and Blu-ray, which uses BD-Java?

Bell: BD-Java is a programming language. The benefit is that it's very flexible. The drawback is that you may need 100 lines of BD-Java code. HDi is a relatively compact piece of code; one command can cover quite a bit of interactivity.

BD-Java is also more complex, so the possibility of errors is greater. And when BD players are put out, [there's the question of whether] they all support the scenarios as coded up from the low level. [Some of the early problems with BD-Java discs] were in part due to the complexity that BD-Java brings. From our point of view, HDi offers all of the flexibility we need, in practice, and it does so in a more simplified way and in a way that we feel leads to better compatibility, better reliability, and lower costs.

[Brien]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Followup article on the big Paramount announcement: Paramount Officially Cancels Blu-ray SKUs

In a note to retailers, Paramount has officially canceled all previously-announced upcoming Blu-ray releases.

As expected, Paramount won't release a single of its previously-announced upcoming Blu-ray titles, including 'Blades of Glory,' 'Next,' 'Top Gun,' 'The Jack Ryan Collection' and 'Face/Off.' Instead, each of the titles will now be HD DVD exclusive.

Retailers received official word late Monday that all five Blu-ray titles would be cancelled, and that existing orders would not be fulfilled.

If that's what'll happen if/when other studios change sides, man, that's harsh.

[*TL]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Blockbuster has been in the toilet for a while now. I'm not sure they'll manage even with Shrek or Transformers.

You brought up Blockbuster, not me.

[*TL]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

PC World's interview with the CTO of Paramount. Debunks at least one Blu-Ray fanboy rumor:

These are fair points (although they sound a lot like damage control/papering the record). They'd sound more convincing from a small company rather than a studio with near-infinite resources (especially considering the BDA had already agreed to cap Paramount's Blu-ray expenses at what they were paying for HD). Not sure which rumor it debunks, but they are fair points.

Still, two things jump out at me: First, it doesn't deny (or address) the reported $150M payoff. Second:

PCW: Will this exclusive period extend for a limited time, or is this an indefinite arrangement?

Bell: At this moment in time, it's an indefinite commitment.

Nobody enters into an indefinite commitment. Whether it's the reported 12-18 months or 10 years, at some point it ends.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by *TL 

You brought up Blockbuster, not me.

I'd like to see where I did that...

Originally Posted by *TL 

These are fair points (although they sound a lot like damage control/papering the record). They'd sound more convincing from a small company rather than a studio with near-infinite resources (especially considering the BDA had already agreed to cap Paramount's Blu-ray expenses at what they were paying for HD). Not sure which rumor it debunks, but they are fair points.

Still, two things jump out at me: First, it doesn't deny (or address) the reported $150M payoff. Second:

Nobody enters into an indefinite commitment. Whether it's the reported 12-18 months or 10 years, at some point it ends.

First: the payoff has been denied elsewhere by many sources. It appears as though the "payoff" will come as free marketing - i.e. a Shrek the Third promotion by Toshiba.

Second: So Sony Pictures has a commitment with Blu-Ray that is scheduled to end? Kick ass!

News flash - indefinite commitment does not mean permanent commitment. It only means that there is no end date set, and as of now they do not see an end to the agreement in the future. It does not mean that they can't change their mind in the future. But good to know you know more about the deal than the CTO of Paramount.

(And the second point is the debunked Blu-Ray fanboy rumor)

[Eug]

Nobody enters into an indefinite commitment. Whether it's the reported 12-18 months or 10 years, at some point it ends.

If the 18 month commitment rumour is true, then the BD camp should be doubly worried. Why, cuz that means it includes Xmas 2007 and all of 2008.

I've always said that the real fight in this war would be in Q4 2007 and extending throughout 2008, with the possibility of victor effectively emerging in 2009.

[*TL]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

I'd like to see where I did that...

Yeah, you're right, it was goMac, not you. My mistake.

First: the payoff has been denied elsewhere by many sources. It appears as though the "payoff" will come as free marketing - i.e. a Shrek the Third promotion by Toshiba.

And cash, per the NYT:

But money talks: Paramount and DreamWorks Animation together will receive about $150 million in financial incentives for their commitment to HD DVD, according to two Viacom executives with knowledge of the deal but who asked not to be identified.

The incentives will come in a combination of cash and promotional guarantees. Toshiba, for instance, will use the release of “Shrek the Third” as part of an HD DVD marketing campaign.

(Emphasis added.) We'll see in a few months how the HDPG promo campaign plays out; given their efforts to date, I'm going to guess it won't be worth $150M.

Second: So Sony Pictures has a commitment with Blu-Ray that is scheduled to end? Kick ass!

It's apples and oranges to compare Sony Pictures, which probably has corporate policy dictated to it, to a widely publicized deal where a studio has agreed to dump a format based on incentives it's received from the HD camp.

News flash - indefinite commitment does not mean permanent commitment. It only means that there is no end date set, and as of now they do not see an end to the agreement in the future. It does not mean that they can't change their mind in the future. But good to know you know more about the deal than the CTO of Paramount.

I never claimed to know more about the deal that the CTO of Paramount, but it doesn't take an insider to figure out when a party takes money, there are some specifics about what it has to do in return. Paramount's not going to lock itself in for time immemorial, and the HDPG wants to make sure it gets at least (hypothetically) 18 months of exclusivity for its money. It's not rocket science.

"It does not mean that they can't change their mind in the future." -- So you think that, tomorrow, Brad Grey could call up the HDPG and say, "Thanks for the cash, but we've changed our mind"? Of course not -- Paramount is locked into the deal for a specific period of time.

The statement is clearly intended to give the impression of, in your words, a "permanent commitment," otherwise he could have just said "I'm not at liberty to discuss the specifics of the deal."

[goMac]

Jokell originally brought it up.

Originally Posted by jokell82 quoting someone else 

However, the rest of Dreamworks, Viacom/Paramount's world... those will be HD DVD exclusive for the next few years at least. Can you imagine BLOCKBUSTER not letting people rent TRANSFORMERS, SHREK THE THIRD, etc? Me Either. This format war is a fascinating chess game, isn't it?"

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by *TL 

And cash, per the NYT:

(Emphasis added.) We'll see in a few months how the HDPG promo campaign plays out; given their efforts to date, I'm going to guess it won't be worth $150M.

I guess it depends on who you believe. 2 anonymous sources or every other person involved in the deal who has said no money changed hands. That's not to say there's no financial incentive - but everyone involved has denied a direct payment.

And you know what, even if they were paid, so the f* what? You think Sony hasn't done the same thing with Blockbuster? We already know they paid Target for carrying their player. So what's the big deal either way???

Originally Posted by *TL 

It's apples and oranges to compare Sony Pictures, which probably has corporate policy dictated to it, to a widely publicized deal where a studio has agreed to dump a format based on incentives it's received from the HD camp.

Ok, so how about Fox and Disney, then? If they have deals set to expire I'd love to know about it...

Originally Posted by *TL 

I never claimed to know more about the deal that the CTO of Paramount, but it doesn't take an insider to figure out when a party takes money, there are some specifics about what it has to do in return. Paramount's not going to lock itself in for time immemorial, and the HDPG wants to make sure it gets at least (hypothetically) 18 months of exclusivity for its money. It's not rocket science.

"It does not mean that they can't change their mind in the future." -- So you think that, tomorrow, Brad Grey could call up the HDPG and say, "Thanks for the cash, but we've changed our mind"? Of course not -- Paramount is locked into the deal for a specific period of time.

The statement is clearly intended to give the impression of, in your words, a "permanent commitment," otherwise he could have just said "I'm not at liberty to discuss the specifics of the deal."

The statement only gives the impression of a permanent commitment if you don't know what indefinite means.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Jokell originally brought it up.

The only thing I mentioned about Blockbuster was that HD DVD fans didn't roll over and die when the announcement was made...

[Railroader]

I wonder if the same types of posting would have been done during the Betamax/VHS fomat war was going on if computer forums existed then.

[aristotles]

OMG. jokell82 get a life. Nobody has the time to read crap that long. Are you a paid shill or something?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

OMG. jokell82 get a life. Nobody has the time to read crap that long. Are you a paid shill or something?

Yet you have time to post here simply to cast aspersions without even reading the content. Are you a paid shill or something?

Seriously, if BD's missteps are causing you so much grief, I suggest you take up knitting or something. I hear it's pretty relaxing. It's an inexpensive hobby too.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

OMG. jokell82 get a life. Nobody has the time to read crap that long. Are you a paid shill or something?

Sorry, I was unaware that you have problems reading and/or have a short attention span. You should probably just leave discussions like this to grownups.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I wonder if the same types of posting would have been done during the Betamax/VHS fomat war was going on if computer forums existed then.

Are you a paid shill or something? You should probably just leave discussions like this to grownups.

[*TL]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

I guess it depends on who you believe. 2 anonymous sources or every other person involved in the deal who has said no money changed hands. That's not to say there's no financial incentive - but everyone involved has denied a direct payment.

Two insiders with nothing to gain vs. public spin. I'll go with the former, especially since I haven't seen anyone from Paramount deny payment.

And you know what, even if they were paid, so the f* what?

I dunno. All's fair in love and war and all that. I don't think it was the right decision or a good decision as far as the public is concerned, but well played, HD Promo Group, well played.

I always assumed that Blockbuster and Target got paid.

Ok, so how about Fox and Disney, then? If they have deals set to expire I'd love to know about it...

Call up their PR people and ask. I don't think they'll be any more forthcoming than Paramount's though.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Are you a paid shill or something? You should probably just leave discussions like this to grownups.

Are you a paid shill or something? You should probably just leave discussions like this to grownups.

And why are you using bessie's signature?

[pooka]

Originally Posted by *TL 

I dunno. All's fair in love and war and all that. I don't think it was the right decision or a good decision as far as the public is concerned, but well played, HD Promo Group, well played.

I guess that is your perspective. I guess for a lot of us, we see it EXACTLY the opposite. The fact that HD DVD could win (long term) is the BEST possible outcome in our eyes. Granted, I have no delusions about either sides ultimate goals, but I personally feel that Sony is the greater evil in this battle. I also feel that I have numerous past offenses to back my views up. I dunno, maybe it's my background with A/V gear in the 80s and 90s.

Oh, and full disclosure and all, I do own plenty of Sony crap. My main set is a Bravia XBR2, so I'm not completely biased.

[Brien]

You really wonder how the reaction would've been if they'd gone BD exclusive (dumped HD).

And... I'm sorry, but they totally took a payoff.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Brien 

You really wonder how the reaction would've been if they'd gone BD exclusive (dumped HD).

Some HD types would have been ranting, and some BD types would be gloating of course.

And... I'm sorry, but they totally took a payoff.

Yes, it is likely they got some sort of incentive, for a substantial amount. Even if it is just promotional incentive and not an actual bag of cash, that can still amount to a lot of money. However, I also have no doubt that Fox and Disney got stuff like that last year, as did Warner and Paramount to go neutral... along with a lot of hype about the PS3 that never panned out.

However, I find it interesting that so many around the net claimed that it was MS themselves that bought them off. That doesn't make much sense to me. It would be the HD DVD group in general (esp. Toshiba) more than MS IMO, and anyways, MS categorically denies it.

Now we wait for CEDIA in early September, for additional announcements (from either side).

[*TL]

Originally Posted by pooka 

I guess that is your perspective. I guess for a lot of us, we see it EXACTLY the opposite. The fact that HD DVD could win (long term) is the BEST possible outcome in our eyes. ...I personally feel that Sony is the greater evil in this battle.

Fair enough. I don't see HD pulling it off absent a profound shift in internal studio politics. As for Sony, there are no angels on the other side either. The format war was being propped up by NBC/Universal, whose parent company is one of the largest defense contractors in the world; I won't even start on MS. (And Toshiba products won't work with my universal remote either....) But I'm past caring about internal CE mfgr. politics. I just want the stupid format war to end.

Originally Posted by Eug 

However, I find it interesting that so many around the net claimed that it was MS themselves that bought them off.

I can't figure out who else has enough cash or incentive to pony up $150M. And the sloppy reporting by the Times ("Microsoft, the most prominent technology company supporting HD DVDs, said it could not rule out payment but said it wrote no checks. “We provided no financial incentives to Paramount or DreamWorks whatsoever,” said Amir Majidimehr, the head of Microsoft’s consumer media technology group.") doesn't really clear things up either. I take this to mean MS wrote a check to the HD Promo Group, who then wrote a check to Dreamamount.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by *TL 

Fair enough. I don't see HD pulling it off absent a profound shift in internal studio politics. As for Sony, there are no angels on the other side either. The format war was being propped up by NBC/Universal, whose parent company is one of the largest defense contractors in the world; I won't even start on MS. (And Toshiba products won't work with my universal remote either....) But I'm past caring about internal CE mfgr. politics. I just want the stupid format war to end.

I can't figure out who else has enough cash or incentive to pony up $150M. And the sloppy reporting by the Times ("Microsoft, the most prominent technology company supporting HD DVDs, said it could not rule out payment but said it wrote no checks. “We provided no financial incentives to Paramount or DreamWorks whatsoever,” said Amir Majidimehr, the head of Microsoft’s consumer media technology group.") doesn't really clear things up either. I take this to mean MS wrote a check to the HD Promo Group, who then wrote a check to Dreamamount.

In reality, any of the companies involved could pay $150 million quite easily. Universal paid way more than that just to make Evan Almighty...

[PaperNotes]

Steven Spielberg said today all his films will remain dual format. He makes movies with Dreamworks and Paramount.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

In reality, any of the companies involved could pay $150 million quite easily. Universal paid way more than that just to make Evan Almighty...

Yeah, again, $150 is pocket change. It's hardly going to make a difference in Paramount's coffer (It's probably about enough to make one and a half movies). And it was pocket change for Microsoft.

It could have also been Toshiba though. They certainly make enough money to pay $150 million to Paramount.

[jokell82]

Especially since it's highly likely that some (if not most) of that money is not even a cash payout.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Steven Spielberg said today all his films will remain dual format. He makes movies with Dreamworks and Paramount.

Tell him to double-check his Close Encounters release. Because that one is definitely Blu-Ray only.

[Eug]

I take this to mean MS wrote a check to the HD Promo Group, who then wrote a check to Dreamamount.

MS categorically denies this too.

Basically what Amir says is that he has been aware for quite some time that Paramount was going HD DVD exclusive, but he himself is not aware of any specific extra incentive to Paramount to switch, either from MS or others. However, he also says he won't rule out that somebody other than MS is paying Paramount. (While he is high up with the group, it's clear that he's not privy to every single back room deal, etc.)

MS is providing Paramount assistance in getting their HD DVD discs authored, but they were doing that all along, and they do that for other studios as well.