Monday, January 28, 2008

Direct-to-DVD, no Longer an Ugly StepBrother?

NYTimes reports that 'direct-to-dvd' is no longer the loser tactic here. I remember movie-discussions that went 'whatever happened to that flick with xyz in the main lead?' 'Oh it went direct-to-dvd' [scoff]. No longer, NYTimes reports.

Interestingly, the direct-to-dvd strategy depends on the potential for a multiplex draw of a potential sequel. Can be a successful sequel? Make it. If not, push it out to DVD. But DVD sales are noteworthy in recent times--and the window for DVD releases is going down all the time, pegged at 2 weeks last i checked. Movie-theatre erosion? Most certainly. Not many people are going to the movie-theatres--with 45 or 60 inch screens adorning walls of homes, its an almost theatre-like experience, i am told [sorry, I still like the movie-theatre experience. Call me old-fashioned :-p]. And DVD release channels are increasing widely--from direct purchases, to viewership via PPV or movie rentals like Netflix, consumers are offered a plethora of choices to view their desired movies in the most cost-effective way possible.

And those exclusives! commentary, extra-clips, add on the goodies for the DVD-friendly audience to sweeten the deal. Movie directors like Quentin Tarantino spend months just working on their movie DVDs, understanding the cult-like potential for some of his movies. His recent 'Grindhouse' movie effort split up the DVD revenue by making it two separate DVDs--each for a segment of the two-sided movie. What's your movie-watching preference? Are you frequenting those mom-and-pop DVD stores still? Are you a netflix user? Do you pay 10$ in theatres every single time? Why?

[Eyeing the Oscar line-up]

No comments: