OK, kids and kidettes...
I finally signed up for BlockBuster's Total Access... same premise as NetFlix (you have an online queue, and videos auto-magically appear in your mailbox), except that you can also go to the brick & mortar blockbuster down the street if you don't want to wait, drop off your watched movie, grab and new one off the shelf... and at no additional charge. The one in the queue still comes.
That stinkin' rocks! I predict that NetFlix is going to have a hard time keeping up with this if the marketing is well-done, and it seems to be so far.
Anyone else using it? Thoughts?
Bill! My man! Any inside scoop on how it's doing for the company?
Troy
Full Version: BLOCKBUSTER Total Access
If only our crappy franchiser here in Lexington would participate. He has signs all over his stores "We will not blah blah Total Access"
QUOTE(FallingLeaf @ Feb 17 2007, 09:07 AM) 
Bill! My man! Any inside scoop on how it's doing for the company?
Troy
Troy
t-dawg, it's doing very, very well. and the 'customer satisfaction' scores are very high. this seems to be a hit. not only do you still get the next one in your online que as you stated, the second that you return it to the store and it is checked in, it clears you que and your next movie is shipped, giving you a 2-3 day turnaround advantage to mailing it back like you have to do w/netflix. as of now, blockbuster online has roughly 1/3 the subscribers as NF (2.3m vs 6m), by the end of this year it's projected that we will be at about 4.5+m and NF @ about 8(+/-)m, a huge gain on our part. and one of the biggest indicators is what "the market" thinks of all of this, since TA was announced NF's stock has dropped from near it's 52w high of close to $30 down to trading in the low $20's (currently $22.87). it has also put a lot if pressure on our bricks & mortar competitors like hollywood/movie gallery, which took on over $1.5b in debt (and is struggling just to make it's quarterly interest payments and tettering on the edge bankruptcy) to consumate that merger made in hell.
in today's fast changing world, it's tough to stay relevant, but we're trying. the great thing is that we are the only company that can offer a service like this, we are the only company with a significant online and store presence (there is a BV within a 20 minute drive of approx 75/80% of the US population). and most importantly, the bottom line is, this has been great for the consumer, forcing everybody to get their asses out of the box we were in and figure out what you want, not trying to make you take what we want to give you. and it seems to be working. and it's not finished yet, there are othe enhancements that should be rolling out in '07 & '08 that should keep this ball rolling, keep customers smiling and competitors scrambling.
thanks for the plug.
*and as stiv mentioned there are a few instances where (imho) franchisees have made horrible business decisions and chosen not to participate. but it is pretty isolated, only about 50-60 franchise stores out of over a thousand (unfortunately for stiv 10-12 of those are in lex) aren't involved.
** and to help point out the ease and advantages of "TA" over "NF" we are extending the offer to "NF" members over president's day weekend. customers that take the removable/tear off address flap into a (participating) blockbuster store will receive a free rental (for ea one they take in). obviously we can't clear your NF que and/or mail the discs back for you (legal issues) but we can show you what we've got that they can't give you. cool huh? so, if you are a netflix customer, check it out, worst case, you get a free movie rental or two. best case, you like it and get more for your hard earned money.
I've been using it for a coupla months now. Love it... after a few kinks were worked out! It works out great for me b/c I would have never gotten Netflix... I like going to the video store, I actually forget to keep up with my online queue.
Good stuff.
Good stuff.
QUOTE(kylie jo @ Feb 17 2007, 10:54 AM)
p.s. What's this pres day thing? I take in the part I would normally throw away?
the president's day thing is for netflix customers, (thru monday) they can take in their tear off flap and get a free rental at a (participating) BV store. and of course, we are hoping the will see how good of a deal it is and consider converting from NF to TA. a little guerilla marketing from big blue.
So when are you going to buy out this lexington guy so I can play along? 
This is interesting. I tried both ways a few years ago. Net Flix and BB. In recent years, I seriously thought BB would be in big trouble, given the state of the digital revolution. Seems they have dodged a bullet for the time being. Those brick and mortar outlets seem to be their ace in the hole for the moment.
I'm not really up to speed on this whole thing (there WAS a day), but it seems to me that eventually we will just be clicking our little mouse button and, voila!, our movie will be played on any screen in our home. For me, the only reason I haven't rented more "on demand" movies from my
cable company is because I can't get it in 5.1 or better sound. Maybe I'm missing something. If the cable company was able to provide movies in DVD picture quality and sound, I'd be down.
I'm not really up to speed on this whole thing (there WAS a day), but it seems to me that eventually we will just be clicking our little mouse button and, voila!, our movie will be played on any screen in our home. For me, the only reason I haven't rented more "on demand" movies from my
cable company is because I can't get it in 5.1 or better sound. Maybe I'm missing something. If the cable company was able to provide movies in DVD picture quality and sound, I'd be down.
the biggest issue w/downloading and "electronic delivery" is that the studios lose control of their copyright/property. until they can come up with an unfallible copy protection (or at least something that a 15 year old from sweden can't defeat), none of these are going to be viable "mass market" options for the studios. at some point, some day, maybe, possibly, probably. supposedly one illlegal d/l or illegal copy takes 12-14 disc sales "out of the market," that is enormous loss of revenue for artists, writers, producers and studios. once they lose control of the "copyright" it's over for them. and currently, still after the erosion due to these other delivery streams, home video is still by far their largest source of revenue, still significantly higher than theatrical.
plus, at this time people are demanding, bigger and better. not smaller and worse. once blu-ray (it will be the surviving HD format, trust me) takes hold in the market, i think it will be harder and harder for electronic delivery to compete due to the enormous difference in quality. then there is the issues of storage space on current computers, slow and interrupted downloads. for the time being "electronic delivery" is and will be a niche market (as steve jobs recently acknowledged that w/all of i-tunes success, that's all it will ever be), but in 5-10 years...who knows how you'll be getting you entertainment.
personally, i think that some day (in the not to distant future) you will be able to walk into a (blockbuster) store and tell the CSR what 4 or 5 movies you want, how long you'll want them (anywhere from overnight to permanently), they'll pop in a something like an sd card and in a minute or two they'll hand you the card and charge you accordingly. then you'll be able to go home, pop it in a computer and wirelessly send "toy story 10" to you child's room, "pirates of the caribbean 12" to you teenagers room and you and the wife will be able to sit down, relax and watch "running with sissors 5" in your family room.
or not. (things are changing so fast)
plus, at this time people are demanding, bigger and better. not smaller and worse. once blu-ray (it will be the surviving HD format, trust me) takes hold in the market, i think it will be harder and harder for electronic delivery to compete due to the enormous difference in quality. then there is the issues of storage space on current computers, slow and interrupted downloads. for the time being "electronic delivery" is and will be a niche market (as steve jobs recently acknowledged that w/all of i-tunes success, that's all it will ever be), but in 5-10 years...who knows how you'll be getting you entertainment.
personally, i think that some day (in the not to distant future) you will be able to walk into a (blockbuster) store and tell the CSR what 4 or 5 movies you want, how long you'll want them (anywhere from overnight to permanently), they'll pop in a something like an sd card and in a minute or two they'll hand you the card and charge you accordingly. then you'll be able to go home, pop it in a computer and wirelessly send "toy story 10" to you child's room, "pirates of the caribbean 12" to you teenagers room and you and the wife will be able to sit down, relax and watch "running with sissors 5" in your family room.
or not. (things are changing so fast)
I've been thinking off and on about trying Total Access. I had tried out Blockbuster's online service a couple years ago, the same time I tried out Netflix. I stuck with Netflix because their selection and speed was better. (I like some obscure indie stuff that Blockbuster just didn't have at the time.) I--I also find Netflix's red envelope in the mailbox more happymaking than Blockbuster's blue one. anyway, the times I've tried to get a weekend rental from Blockbuster because all my Netflix stuff was in the mail, the local BB didn't carry what I wanted (Battlestar Galactica), or they only had one copy (Monk season 1) and it was out. boo. there is a part of me that wants to stay loyal to Netflix. the Total Access features are pretty tempting, but my nearby brick-and-Mordor stores would need to improve on their selection before I would consider switching. I'd rather wait a day or two to get the dvd I want in the mail than to make an effort to stop at the store and then not find what I was looking for.
QUOTE(beforesunrise @ Feb 17 2007, 12:36 PM)
I've been thinking off and on about trying Total Access. I had tried out Blockbuster's online service a couple years ago, the same time I tried out Netflix. I stuck with Netflix because their selection and speed was better. (I like some obscure indie stuff that Blockbuster just didn't have at the time.) I--I also find Netflix's red envelope in the mailbox more happymaking than Blockbuster's blue one. anyway, the times I've tried to get a weekend rental from Blockbuster because all my Netflix stuff was in the mail, the local BB didn't carry what I wanted (Battlestar Galactica), or they only had one copy (Monk season 1) and it was out. boo. there is a part of me that wants to stay loyal to Netflix. the Total Access features are pretty tempting, but my nearby brick-and-Mordor stores would need to improve on their selection before I would consider switching. I'd rather wait a day or two to get the dvd I want in the mail than to make an effort to stop at the store and then not find what I was looking for.
Yeah. I'm not tryin' to be a hater on the BB here, but I have found the Netflix works really hard to keep me happy, and I have kids that are not of the age that I like cruising in and out of ANY establishment. So, a bit out of loyalty and a bit out of "I fear change", I'm sticking with Netflix until something forces a change (like Netflix being absorbed into BB).
Two cents and a haypenny,
swg
OK, well... here's my kicker: I spend X bucks a month to have one movie out at a time... but if I take the movie back to the brick store when I'm done watching it, the next one in my queue is auto-sent to me. In the meantime, I can take another movie outta the store at no charge. Until Net Flix gives me that, I'll be sticking with BB.
Besides! It's Bill, Apples! Show some loyalty!
Besides! It's Bill, Apples! Show some loyalty!
pirates of the carribbean 12.
whew. that's a good one.
BB or die.
so, is the rumor true that Blockbuster edits some of their movies to make them more "family-friendly"?
QUOTE(FallingLeaf @ Feb 17 2007, 08:08 PM)
OK, well... here's my kicker: I spend X bucks a month to have one movie out at a time... but if I take the movie back to the brick store when I'm done watching it, the next one in my queue is auto-sent to me. In the meantime, I can take another movie outta the store at no charge. Until Net Flix gives me that, I'll be sticking with BB.
Besides! It's Bill, Apples! Show some loyalty!
Besides! It's Bill, Apples! Show some loyalty!
Alright, alright already. I'll keep the Buster as an option.
QUOTE(Brookd @ Feb 18 2007, 12:44 AM)
so, is the rumor true that Blockbuster edits some of their movies to make them more "family-friendly"?
what?!?!?! that is pretty laughable, i've heard some weird, crazy rumors about the company, but that's a new one. the studios do make what are called "airline versions" of some very popular movies with edited content but they are only available and licenced to that industry. to my knowledge BV has never made an effort to influence and/or edit content (as others have, i might add).
absolutely, completely, totally false. not only is it wrong, it would illegal to edit and distribute someone else's copyright plus that would mean a company would have to have it's on duplication plant in order to do something like that.
not only is it wrong, in most cases if there is a "rated" version and an "unrated" version released by the studio. we will carry both (if the box office warrants it) to give people the option to rent what they want. we do not stock "adult," "X" or (MPAA) rated NC-17 (which the MPAA says is the same criteria as an "x" rating), because that was a commitment made when the company was founded, and is has been stuck to for all of these years (plus as a large, publically traded company, institutional and large investors generally frown on being in "that" business).
QUOTE(bivester @ Feb 18 2007, 08:08 AM)
absolutely, completely, totally false. not only is it wrong, it would illegal to edit and distribute someone else's copyright plus that would mean a company would have to have it's on duplication plant in order to do something like that.
Can you imagine?
"Hey, del Toro, we need you to do a 'Blockbuster' cut of your film. Otherwise we won't distribute it. NO? Well, fine then! We'll just edit it ourselves, don't sweat it. Oh, can we have the original film for a few months? That'd make it much easier for us. Thaaaaaaaaanks."
Wal*Mart has insisted on carrying censored versions of CDs -- or refusing to carry them altogether -- but, to my knowledge, this is not happening with film.
Yet.
Yet.
perhaps I worded the question wrong... It is my understanding that BB themselves don't do the editing, but they negotiate with the studios for watered-down versions of some films they deem inappropriate for their stores to carry. obviously this doesn't include porn or anything like that.
I'm surprised you haven't heard this yet. to my understanding, it is the #1 criticism of Blockbuster. just google the words "Blockbuster" and "censor" and see how much this "rumor" is out there.
this, for just one source, is from Wikipidia:
"Critics of the chain, including Naomi Klein in her anti-globalization book No Logo (1999), allege that Blockbuster is involved in "censorship," because it not only bans certain titles, but often edits videos for release beyond the standard retail cut, or uses its significant market share to influence studios to do so. Blockbuster's critics claim this editing to secure more "family-friendly" ratings is a necessity for studios if they want their products to reach a wider video market.
Some award-winning movies such as Darren Aronofsky's Requiem for a Dream (2000), Michael Haneke's The Piano Teacher (2000) and Pedro Almodovar's Bad Education (2004) have been subject to such editing [citation needed], and were at one time unavailable for rental in their original form in most Blockbuster locations. Since being spun off from Viacom in 2004, Blockbuster's policies toward these films have become relaxed and these films are now widely available in their original versions."
I'm surprised you haven't heard this yet. to my understanding, it is the #1 criticism of Blockbuster. just google the words "Blockbuster" and "censor" and see how much this "rumor" is out there.
this, for just one source, is from Wikipidia:
"Critics of the chain, including Naomi Klein in her anti-globalization book No Logo (1999), allege that Blockbuster is involved in "censorship," because it not only bans certain titles, but often edits videos for release beyond the standard retail cut, or uses its significant market share to influence studios to do so. Blockbuster's critics claim this editing to secure more "family-friendly" ratings is a necessity for studios if they want their products to reach a wider video market.
Some award-winning movies such as Darren Aronofsky's Requiem for a Dream (2000), Michael Haneke's The Piano Teacher (2000) and Pedro Almodovar's Bad Education (2004) have been subject to such editing [citation needed], and were at one time unavailable for rental in their original form in most Blockbuster locations. Since being spun off from Viacom in 2004, Blockbuster's policies toward these films have become relaxed and these films are now widely available in their original versions."
QUOTE(Brookd @ Feb 18 2007, 02:41 PM)
perhaps I worded the question wrong... It is my understanding that BB themselves don't do the editing, but they negotiate with the studios for watered-down versions of some films they deem inappropriate for their stores to carry. obviously this doesn't include porn or anything like that.
I'm surprised you haven't heard this yet. to my understanding, it is the #1 criticism of Blockbuster. just google the words "Blockbuster" and "censor" and see how much this "rumor" is out there.
I'm surprised you haven't heard this yet. to my understanding, it is the #1 criticism of Blockbuster. just google the words "Blockbuster" and "censor" and see how much this "rumor" is out there.
nope, in 17 years, that's the first time and god knows, i find it hard to belive with all the shit i've heard, that this is "it is the #1 criticism of Blockbuster."
whatever the "rumor," it's wrong. W-R-O-N-G! if a title is "deem[ed] inappropriate" for whatever reason, which would usually only be a ratings issue (such as we would not carry an NC-17 rated movie, for the reasons mentioned above, but we would stock the exact same title if it were "unrated").
as content is concerned we, in our franchise, with my support and guidance do not, have not, and will not stock some very (imho) "exploitive" titles like the "faces of death" series, etc. censorship, nope. just a conscious business decision based on ownership. and trust me, we forfeit some significant revenues/profits for those decisions.
we (along with just about every other major retailer) do offer the studios input on cover art, release schedules, etc but content is not a part of the negotiations.
could i be any more clear about it?
QUOTE(bivester @ Feb 18 2007, 02:58 PM)
whatever the "rumor," it's wrong. W-R-O-N-G!
could i be any more clear about it?
could i be any more clear about it?
Bill, you're not being clear. Are you saying that there's some truth to this rumor? That you do, in fact, sometimes work with the studios to water down the movies?
Please clarify, and stop this wishy-washy half-speaking.
P.S.: BrookD, you ever rent un-rated versions of R-rated movies at BB? Or Saw I/II/III? Or Hostel? If so, then what exactly do you think the franchise would be negotiating to "water down," if not THAT shit???
QUOTE(Brookd @ Feb 18 2007, 02:41 PM)
Some award-winning movies such as Darren Aronofsky's Requiem for a Dream (2000), Michael Haneke's The Piano Teacher (2000) and Pedro Almodovar's Bad Education (2004) have been subject to such editing [citation needed], and were at one time unavailable for rental in their original form in most Blockbuster locations. Since being spun off from Viacom in 2004, Blockbuster's policies toward these films have become relaxed and these films are now widely available in their original versions."
so this person is stating (with no apparent proof) that viacom encouraged this practice? well, that's just stupid. as you may (or may not) know viacom also owns paramount pictures along with several other smaller studios and production companies. so she is suggesting that a studio owner would encourage/demand studios and/or producers to bow to the wishes (or apparently demands) of a retailer? again, that is just stupid logic.
now, if there is a "tamer" version available in the marketplace, might we consider buying it? sure. do we dictate that there be a tamer version. once again (and for the last time) NO! our buying is largely based on demographics, so it is very possible that you might find a store in a bedroom community with an "R" rated version (or possibly tamer version if available) and a version surrounding a college campus w/the "unrated" version. sure. that's a responsible allocation of your buying dollars, not censorship. we are not a "censorship fighting" non-profit. we closely watch and depend on our ROI (return on investment) on titles, genres, etc. for our success.
QUOTE(Brookd @ Feb 18 2007, 02:41 PM)
this, for just one source, is from Wikipidia:
now there a reliable source, an open, fully editable forum where anyone can post anything with no substantiation. if you are going to continue making accusations brookd, how 'bout tossing something based in fact (and that ain't wiki, if you've got nothing, why not drop it instead of continually spreading unfounded rumors? your question was asked, and truthfully answered.
excuse me, i stand corrected, she obviously knows more about the workings and practices of the company than someone closely involved with the company for the past 17+ years.
believe what you want, you're going to anyway. i'm done with this.
and i'm still not quite sure what any of this has to do with total access...
QUOTE(Brookd @ Feb 18 2007, 11:41 AM)
just google the words "Blockbuster" and "censor" and see how much this "rumor" is out there.
Wow. Why would Bill or anyone else need to defend themselves against this kind of tripe? I guess Blockbuster is innocent until proven Googled.
Damn! FallingLeaf stole my reply!
actually, to me, THAT makes perfect sense. I don't know numbers, but like WalMart in music and book sales, Blockbuster is such a huge factor in video sales and rentals, that if they won't carry a movie unless it is cleaner, then the movie company stands to lose a helluva lotta money because of that. and if a small change here or there would ensure that BB will carry it, then I'm willing to bet that those in charge of the finances will insist on those changes being made. It works similarly in (just to take one micro example) the christian music industry. If Family Bookstores won't carry a certain CD because of content (say they let a "shit" fly in the lyrics or something), sales in the christian market for that CD are as good as dead. and so they either get dropped from the label or they "get in line" with acceptable content.
I haven't rented these or any other movies from Blockbuster. I don't like watching censored movies.
QUOTE
so she is suggesting that a studio owner would encourage studios and/or producers to bow to the wishes of a retailer? again, that is just stupid logic
.actually, to me, THAT makes perfect sense. I don't know numbers, but like WalMart in music and book sales, Blockbuster is such a huge factor in video sales and rentals, that if they won't carry a movie unless it is cleaner, then the movie company stands to lose a helluva lotta money because of that. and if a small change here or there would ensure that BB will carry it, then I'm willing to bet that those in charge of the finances will insist on those changes being made. It works similarly in (just to take one micro example) the christian music industry. If Family Bookstores won't carry a certain CD because of content (say they let a "shit" fly in the lyrics or something), sales in the christian market for that CD are as good as dead. and so they either get dropped from the label or they "get in line" with acceptable content.
QUOTE
BrookD, you ever rent un-rated versions of R-rated movies at BB? Or Saw I/II/III? Or Hostel?
I haven't rented these or any other movies from Blockbuster. I don't like watching censored movies.
QUOTE(pico de gallo @ Feb 18 2007, 03:38 PM)
QUOTE(Brookd @ Feb 18 2007, 11:41 AM)
just google the words "Blockbuster" and "censor" and see how much this "rumor" is out there.
Wow. Why would Bill or anyone else need to defend themselves against this kind of tripe? I guess Blockbuster is innocent until proven Googled.
I was simply expressing my surprise that, working for Blockbuster, he hadn't heard ANYTHING about it ever. seems a pretty widespread and pervasive rumor, even if it turns out to be unfounded (or "tripe")
QUOTE
and i'm still not quite sure what any of this has to do with total access...
it has to do with total access because those movies are coming from BlockBuster, and there was concern that Blockbuster movies are censored, therefore making that a possible undesireable aspect of TA.
I am not making any accusations, Bill, I am simply asking a question and following up with evidence that this rumor is all over the place and apparantly a lot of people believe this to be true. I am not vouching for the veracity of any of it. I personally have not made up my mind on any of it. other people have made some pretty specific claims on the subject, and it seemed like a legitimate conversation to be having in this thread. but if you want to take your marbles and go home, thats up to you. thanks for gracing us with with your 17-years of insight.
QUOTE(Brookd @ Feb 18 2007, 04:08 PM)
QUOTE
BrookD, you ever rent un-rated versions of R-rated movies at BB? Or Saw I/II/III? Or Hostel?
I haven't rented these or any other movies from Blockbuster. I don't like watching censored movies.
Dude, HERE you're saying they ARE censored, whereas one post ago you said you didn't support the notion yourself. You're being combative about something you apparently know nothing about.... and then do.... and then don't. If you think the movies are being censored, try quoting someone at BB corporate instead of Wikipedia. But don't pretend you're all innocent and "just asking." What a load of bullshit.
Anyone who HAS rented Saw I/II/III or Hostel, or the unrated 40-year-old virgin, at Blockbuster can tell you that there's nothing... at all... censored. So let's move on.
QUOTE(Brookd @ Feb 18 2007, 04:27 PM)
but if you want to take your marbles and go home, thats up to you. thanks for gracing us with with your 17-years of insight.
why should i bother, just don't see the point, i continue to state facts, you continue to try to justify and/or spew unfounded rumors. you have yet to show one bit of fact, i challenge you to walk into any blockbuster and find one dvd that content was edited or revised at our request. do studios look at the market and make decisions based on who will stock it or not? absolutely. they would be stupid not to. the reason that studios make very few NC-17 movies because most major theatre chains will not show them, most of their landlords restrict them from it in their leases and most newspapers will not accept ads for them (NC-17). did you look google those horrible offenders, look them up on wiki too, or make accusations, or spread rumors, or slam them as censors? nope. but again, i ask you to find me one movie in a BV that was edited down in content from it's theatrical release. just one. if you would like, i can name you several that we stock with added content that was not available theatrically that have far more explicit content (both violent & sexual) than was in the theatrical release..
whenever you are the biggest at what you do, you always have a target on your back for this kind of crap. and i'm used to it, but imho, the reason this bullshit continues is because no one stands up and calls people out as thet continue to spread stuff like this. so brookd, let me know when you find that title, k?
Best NC-17 movie ever...
all you need to know... by the Southpark guys / about a Mormon who gets a job in porn (accidentally).
I'm guessing they did the "unrated version" was to get into Blockbuster. That's a-OK with me. It's HILARIOUS.
~fff
all you need to know... by the Southpark guys / about a Mormon who gets a job in porn (accidentally).
I'm guessing they did the "unrated version" was to get into Blockbuster. That's a-OK with me. It's HILARIOUS.
~fff
QUOTE
Dude, HERE you're saying they ARE censored, whereas one post ago you said you didn't support the notion yourself.
that was a joke, in light of the whole conversation. sorry for no smiley face icon. dry humor.
QUOTE
so brookd, let me know when you find that title, k?
k.
You goofballs. It's only The Esquire theater in Cincinnati that censors films themselves.. Of course, this gets everyone involved in hot water.
http://www.citybeat.com/2001-06-07/artsbeat.shtml
The CityBeat critic who raised the fuss was banned from future screenings. The theater stopped carrying CityBeat, at the time the premiere source of arts information in the city. The print was removed by the film's distributor, and the theater owner apologized and promised to continue to air cutting edge fare.
It made national entertainment news, about six years ago...
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,165465,00.html
http://www.citybeat.com/2001-06-07/artsbeat.shtml
The CityBeat critic who raised the fuss was banned from future screenings. The theater stopped carrying CityBeat, at the time the premiere source of arts information in the city. The print was removed by the film's distributor, and the theater owner apologized and promised to continue to air cutting edge fare.
It made national entertainment news, about six years ago...
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,165465,00.html
duuuude! it's wikiality!
QUOTE(Brookd @ Feb 18 2007, 02:41 PM)
this, for just one source, is from Wikipidia:
"Critics of the chain, including Naomi Klein in her anti-globalization book No Logo (1999), allege that Blockbuster is involved in "censorship," because it not only bans certain titles, but often edits videos for release beyond the standard retail cut, or uses its significant market share to influence studios to do so. Blockbuster's critics claim this editing to secure more "family-friendly" ratings is a necessity for studios if they want their products to reach a wider video market.
Some award-winning movies such as Darren Aronofsky's Requiem for a Dream (2000), Michael Haneke's The Piano Teacher (2000) and Pedro Almodovar's Bad Education (2004) have been subject to such editing [citation needed], and were at one time unavailable for rental in their original form in most Blockbuster locations. Since being spun off from Viacom in 2004, Blockbuster's policies toward these films have become relaxed and these films are now widely available in their original versions."
"Critics of the chain, including Naomi Klein in her anti-globalization book No Logo (1999), allege that Blockbuster is involved in "censorship," because it not only bans certain titles, but often edits videos for release beyond the standard retail cut, or uses its significant market share to influence studios to do so. Blockbuster's critics claim this editing to secure more "family-friendly" ratings is a necessity for studios if they want their products to reach a wider video market.
Some award-winning movies such as Darren Aronofsky's Requiem for a Dream (2000), Michael Haneke's The Piano Teacher (2000) and Pedro Almodovar's Bad Education (2004) have been subject to such editing [citation needed], and were at one time unavailable for rental in their original form in most Blockbuster locations. Since being spun off from Viacom in 2004, Blockbuster's policies toward these films have become relaxed and these films are now widely available in their original versions."
I had a real quick question. Do the in store movies come with the late fees? I thought that they didn't, but the blockbuster kids told me they did when I was gong to turn in my netflix mailer today for a free rental. This is the biggest drawback of blockbuster or any other store rental. I hate having to think when a movie has to be returned. If this is not the case I would probably give blockbuster a chance. I understand if they do charge late fees for the in store movies, however.
QUOTE(Nixonsdouble @ Feb 19 2007, 02:07 PM)
I had a real quick question. Do the in store movies come with the late fees? I thought that they didn't, but the blockbuster kids told me they did when I was gong to turn in my netflix mailer today for a free rental. This is the biggest drawback of blockbuster or any other store rental. I hate having to think when a movie has to be returned. If this is not the case I would probably give blockbuster a chance. I understand if they do charge late fees for the in store movies, however.
it depends. no corporate stores charge late fees on any rentals, most (not all, see your store for specifics) franchise stores charge a "per day" or "pro-rated" "extended viewing fee," no real penalty, just pay for the additional time you keep it. otherwise people just don't bring the stuff back in any kind of reasonable time. in our stores, while we do charge a "pro-rated" fee, but we also offer an "early return credit" on new releases if you bring them back a day early. i try to think and operate like i am my own customer and imho, fair is fair, keep it late, pay the extra day(s), bring it back early, you get $1 credit (per early return) on your next transaction.
QUOTE(posty mcposterton @ Feb 18 2007, 06:09 PM)
Best NC-17 movie ever...
all you need to know... by the Southpark guys / about a Mormon who gets a job in porn (accidentally).
I'm guessing they did the "unrated version" was to get into Blockbuster. That's a-OK with me. It's HILARIOUS.
~fff
all you need to know... by the Southpark guys / about a Mormon who gets a job in porn (accidentally).
I'm guessing they did the "unrated version" was to get into Blockbuster. That's a-OK with me. It's HILARIOUS.
~fff
Great movie!
Cher
I don't know if Roger Ebert is considered much of a reliable source around here (and I know he's not a BB emloyee or anything like that), but I thought these were some pertinent questions and answers on the subject of censorship and BB (taken from his website):
lest this be considered a "personal attack" by me on Blockbuster or anyone affilatied with it (though I'm still not sure how quoting others is considered a personal attack), let me now offer my opinion: IF all of this is true, I still don't think Blockbuster is the problem here. BB is holding to a standard of what they stock or don't stock, and they are not "forcing" (as many critics imply) anyone to edit a film down for them. Blockbuster will not stock NC-17 movies, and if you have an NC-17 movie to offer, it just isn't going to happen. I personally don't see any problem with a company deciding what it will and will not carry. I don't care how big and powerful they are, they don't have a "moral obligation" to carry every type of movie out there. The movie company is the one choosing to edit the movie down because they are holding on to the idea that their movie must be stocked at BB. If anyone is to blame for watering down any movies, it should be the movie makers/producers/distributors/whoever. they are the ones selling out their original vision for the sake of money. And no one is forcing the directors to sign a contract with any company that will do this to their movie.
I first heard about the whole "blockbuster censorship" thing from my brother quite a few years ago (where he heard it, I don't know), and then a couple years ago from David Bazaan onstage at Calvin's Faith & Music thingy (who was encouraging a boycott of BB because of this, wanting to (and I quote) "bring those f*ckers to their knees"), and then from a couple different people I know here and there in between time. I wasn't just pulling this idea out of my ass, and contrary to the idea I seem to have formed in some peoples minds, I wasn't trying to push or justify these "rumors", even though I wasn't taking the "bill said it, that settles it" position. so anyway, here are your specific titles bill, k?
QUOTE
Movie Answer Man
Roger Ebert /
Q. Has David Cronenberg's controversial "Crash (1997)" been censored for its current release on video? That's what I heard. (Charlie Smith, Chicago)
A. Only at Blockbuster stores. The film, about a very literal form of auto-eroticism, was rated NC-17 when it was released, and Blockbuster won't handle movies with that rating. So Fine Line Pictures put a clause in Cronenberg's contract requiring him to deliver a "Blockbuster cut" for home video. All other video stores will carry the uncut version. Of the Blockbuster version, Cronenberg cheerfully told Wired News: "It'll probably run about an hour and make no sense at all."
Q. I have a question about your discussion of Blockbuster and the content-sanitizing of the DVD of "Y tu Mama Tambien." Have all DVD versions of "Y tu Mama" been edited in content or only the ones sold and rented at Blockbuster? (Ken Gelwasser, Hollywood FL)
A. Blockbuster is offering only the sanitized version. Some stores are offering both. What you want to look for is the unedited theatrical version, which is being sold online at Amazon.com and sold and rented at facets.org and netflix.com.
Q. I recently rented the film "Bully" by Larry Clark, and was played for a fool. On the box it was given an R rating, even though I knew it had been rated NC-17. Yet there was no disclaimer on the box stating that it had been altered from the original. I went home to watch it and sure enough before the movie began there was a title screen explaining that the version I had rented was not the version the director intended to be seen! I was unable to return the film for a refund--nor would anyone else who made the same mistake! How could they market this film without a written disclaimer stating it had been altered, and why can't they carry the original "Director's Cut" as well? (Kevin Young, Whitman MA)
A. You did not name the video store. If it was Blockbuster, the chain refuses to handle NC-17 movies, insisting that R-rated versions be supplied. Blockbuster thus dictates both format and content. Imagine the outcry if a book store stocked only the Reader's Digest Condensed Book versions of a novel, and quietly removed all the offensive parts.
Q. Having missed it in the theater I was excited to rent "Requiem For A Dream" on video. However, Blockbuster only carries the "Edited Version" of the film without giving the customer any choice. Is this a policy? This makes it seem as though all the fighting Darren Aronofsky did to keep his original, uncut vision was in vain once the movie hit the video shelves. (Jeremy Sigel, Rockville, MD)
A. Some chains want to protect you from yourself. They ban unrated and NC-17 films, but don't put their money where their mouths are by refusing to carry such films altogether. Instead, they offer edited versions which distort the director's original vision. The chains should be honest enough to ban the films outright, instead of taking business from stores that respect the original versions.
Q. In "House on Haunted Hill" there is a scene where Giovani Ribisi is tooling around with some video hardware. Near him are some video boxes. On the Blockbuster version of this video, they have super-imposed the Blockbuster logo onto the boxes! The reason it caught my eye was the visual effect looked superimposed--these didn't look like Blockbuster videos just sitting there. They've taken the liberty of forcing product placement into the film. I was wondering if the studio knew about this, and what their opinion was. (Chris Bushnell, San
Francisco CA)
A. Oh, yeah, the studio knew, all right, although director William Malone was none too happy. He replies: "The studio made a deal with Blockbuster prior to the theatrical release of the film. An optical effect was indeed utilized in placing the Blockbuster logo onto the video cassettes, and this effect appears in all versions of the film. It's part of the commercialism in film today."
Q. Guess I've been living in a cave, but just recently I realized that what we see on video is not necessarily what we saw in theatrical release. Can you enlighten me as to why movies would be arbitrarily edited for video release? I've noticed this in some films but wonder if it's done as a matter of course and I just haven't been paying attention? I should mention, I see most films on video rather than in the theater, unfortunately. (Kathy Nickerson, Meadow Vista, Ca.)
A. In general, the video release represents the theatrical version. In the case of Blockbuster Video, however, the company has a policy against NC-17-rated material, and so much marketing clout that studios will sometimes edit offending material out of a movie in order to quality for Blockbuster distribution. On the other side of the coin, studios sometimes release "unrated" versions of movies that include steamy scenes originally cut out to qualify for the R rating. A third variation is the "director's cut," a version including scenes the studio wanted deleted but that the director now wants you to see.
Q. One of the things I love most about DVD is that the studios will sometimes release two versions of a film at once--the regular theatrical release, and the definitive director's cut. This means I get to see the film as it was originally intended by the authors of the film before it was watered down by the ratings boards and the studio executive brass with their marketing department. But why do the studios have to wait until DVD to do this? Why can't the studios release more than one version of a film into theatres at the same time--a version for teens or people that are faint of heart, and a version for those of us who can stomach a bit more "realism" or want to see the director's original vision? Curtis Hanson's "8 Mile," with Eminem, reported the biggest opening ever for an 'R' rated movie. It seems to me the studio could have made a bundle more money and kept everyone happy by distributing two versions of his film. (Euan B. Sharp, St. Catharines, Ont)
A. Since then, of course, "Matrix Reloaded" has shattered all records for an R-rated film. I was told by an exhibitor at Cannes: "Once you buy a ticket, we basically don't know which multiplex screen you go to." So - those under 17 buy a ticket to another movie, then slip into the "Matrix Reloaded" theater. Of course, Warner Bros., distributor of "Reloaded," doesn't collect the money on that ticket, which may go to a family film. The ratings system today has little meaning except as a guide to parents, who should not deceive themselves that theaters will, or can, enforce it. When the DVDs come out, Blockbuster refuses to carry unrated or NC-17 rated film, so directors of unrated films (like "Requiem for a Dream") for forced to create an R-rated version for the Blockbuster stores. It's not so much that the movie can't play in theaters unrated as that it can't get into Blockbuster that way.
Q. I note that director Paul Verhoeven has cut four minutes out of "Showgirls" to make a tamer video release, and this version has received an R rating? Blockbuster has announced that they will carry that version. Of course, the film will also be available in the NC-17 version in other stores. (Jeffrey Graebner, Columbus, Ohio)
A. Funny, that's just what I was thinking while I watched the movie: Take out four minutes, and it's a highly moral story.
Roger Ebert /
Q. Has David Cronenberg's controversial "Crash (1997)" been censored for its current release on video? That's what I heard. (Charlie Smith, Chicago)
A. Only at Blockbuster stores. The film, about a very literal form of auto-eroticism, was rated NC-17 when it was released, and Blockbuster won't handle movies with that rating. So Fine Line Pictures put a clause in Cronenberg's contract requiring him to deliver a "Blockbuster cut" for home video. All other video stores will carry the uncut version. Of the Blockbuster version, Cronenberg cheerfully told Wired News: "It'll probably run about an hour and make no sense at all."
Q. I have a question about your discussion of Blockbuster and the content-sanitizing of the DVD of "Y tu Mama Tambien." Have all DVD versions of "Y tu Mama" been edited in content or only the ones sold and rented at Blockbuster? (Ken Gelwasser, Hollywood FL)
A. Blockbuster is offering only the sanitized version. Some stores are offering both. What you want to look for is the unedited theatrical version, which is being sold online at Amazon.com and sold and rented at facets.org and netflix.com.
Q. I recently rented the film "Bully" by Larry Clark, and was played for a fool. On the box it was given an R rating, even though I knew it had been rated NC-17. Yet there was no disclaimer on the box stating that it had been altered from the original. I went home to watch it and sure enough before the movie began there was a title screen explaining that the version I had rented was not the version the director intended to be seen! I was unable to return the film for a refund--nor would anyone else who made the same mistake! How could they market this film without a written disclaimer stating it had been altered, and why can't they carry the original "Director's Cut" as well? (Kevin Young, Whitman MA)
A. You did not name the video store. If it was Blockbuster, the chain refuses to handle NC-17 movies, insisting that R-rated versions be supplied. Blockbuster thus dictates both format and content. Imagine the outcry if a book store stocked only the Reader's Digest Condensed Book versions of a novel, and quietly removed all the offensive parts.
Q. Having missed it in the theater I was excited to rent "Requiem For A Dream" on video. However, Blockbuster only carries the "Edited Version" of the film without giving the customer any choice. Is this a policy? This makes it seem as though all the fighting Darren Aronofsky did to keep his original, uncut vision was in vain once the movie hit the video shelves. (Jeremy Sigel, Rockville, MD)
A. Some chains want to protect you from yourself. They ban unrated and NC-17 films, but don't put their money where their mouths are by refusing to carry such films altogether. Instead, they offer edited versions which distort the director's original vision. The chains should be honest enough to ban the films outright, instead of taking business from stores that respect the original versions.
Q. In "House on Haunted Hill" there is a scene where Giovani Ribisi is tooling around with some video hardware. Near him are some video boxes. On the Blockbuster version of this video, they have super-imposed the Blockbuster logo onto the boxes! The reason it caught my eye was the visual effect looked superimposed--these didn't look like Blockbuster videos just sitting there. They've taken the liberty of forcing product placement into the film. I was wondering if the studio knew about this, and what their opinion was. (Chris Bushnell, San
Francisco CA)
A. Oh, yeah, the studio knew, all right, although director William Malone was none too happy. He replies: "The studio made a deal with Blockbuster prior to the theatrical release of the film. An optical effect was indeed utilized in placing the Blockbuster logo onto the video cassettes, and this effect appears in all versions of the film. It's part of the commercialism in film today."
Q. Guess I've been living in a cave, but just recently I realized that what we see on video is not necessarily what we saw in theatrical release. Can you enlighten me as to why movies would be arbitrarily edited for video release? I've noticed this in some films but wonder if it's done as a matter of course and I just haven't been paying attention? I should mention, I see most films on video rather than in the theater, unfortunately. (Kathy Nickerson, Meadow Vista, Ca.)
A. In general, the video release represents the theatrical version. In the case of Blockbuster Video, however, the company has a policy against NC-17-rated material, and so much marketing clout that studios will sometimes edit offending material out of a movie in order to quality for Blockbuster distribution. On the other side of the coin, studios sometimes release "unrated" versions of movies that include steamy scenes originally cut out to qualify for the R rating. A third variation is the "director's cut," a version including scenes the studio wanted deleted but that the director now wants you to see.
Q. One of the things I love most about DVD is that the studios will sometimes release two versions of a film at once--the regular theatrical release, and the definitive director's cut. This means I get to see the film as it was originally intended by the authors of the film before it was watered down by the ratings boards and the studio executive brass with their marketing department. But why do the studios have to wait until DVD to do this? Why can't the studios release more than one version of a film into theatres at the same time--a version for teens or people that are faint of heart, and a version for those of us who can stomach a bit more "realism" or want to see the director's original vision? Curtis Hanson's "8 Mile," with Eminem, reported the biggest opening ever for an 'R' rated movie. It seems to me the studio could have made a bundle more money and kept everyone happy by distributing two versions of his film. (Euan B. Sharp, St. Catharines, Ont)
A. Since then, of course, "Matrix Reloaded" has shattered all records for an R-rated film. I was told by an exhibitor at Cannes: "Once you buy a ticket, we basically don't know which multiplex screen you go to." So - those under 17 buy a ticket to another movie, then slip into the "Matrix Reloaded" theater. Of course, Warner Bros., distributor of "Reloaded," doesn't collect the money on that ticket, which may go to a family film. The ratings system today has little meaning except as a guide to parents, who should not deceive themselves that theaters will, or can, enforce it. When the DVDs come out, Blockbuster refuses to carry unrated or NC-17 rated film, so directors of unrated films (like "Requiem for a Dream") for forced to create an R-rated version for the Blockbuster stores. It's not so much that the movie can't play in theaters unrated as that it can't get into Blockbuster that way.
Q. I note that director Paul Verhoeven has cut four minutes out of "Showgirls" to make a tamer video release, and this version has received an R rating? Blockbuster has announced that they will carry that version. Of course, the film will also be available in the NC-17 version in other stores. (Jeffrey Graebner, Columbus, Ohio)
A. Funny, that's just what I was thinking while I watched the movie: Take out four minutes, and it's a highly moral story.
lest this be considered a "personal attack" by me on Blockbuster or anyone affilatied with it (though I'm still not sure how quoting others is considered a personal attack), let me now offer my opinion: IF all of this is true, I still don't think Blockbuster is the problem here. BB is holding to a standard of what they stock or don't stock, and they are not "forcing" (as many critics imply) anyone to edit a film down for them. Blockbuster will not stock NC-17 movies, and if you have an NC-17 movie to offer, it just isn't going to happen. I personally don't see any problem with a company deciding what it will and will not carry. I don't care how big and powerful they are, they don't have a "moral obligation" to carry every type of movie out there. The movie company is the one choosing to edit the movie down because they are holding on to the idea that their movie must be stocked at BB. If anyone is to blame for watering down any movies, it should be the movie makers/producers/distributors/whoever. they are the ones selling out their original vision for the sake of money. And no one is forcing the directors to sign a contract with any company that will do this to their movie.
I first heard about the whole "blockbuster censorship" thing from my brother quite a few years ago (where he heard it, I don't know), and then a couple years ago from David Bazaan onstage at Calvin's Faith & Music thingy (who was encouraging a boycott of BB because of this, wanting to (and I quote) "bring those f*ckers to their knees"), and then from a couple different people I know here and there in between time. I wasn't just pulling this idea out of my ass, and contrary to the idea I seem to have formed in some peoples minds, I wasn't trying to push or justify these "rumors", even though I wasn't taking the "bill said it, that settles it" position. so anyway, here are your specific titles bill, k?
and just to balance this out just a little bit by throwing some negative pr in the direction of Netflix, Netflix (and not Blockbuster) has been known to engage in "throttling" - a practice by which, if you return your DVDs a little too quickly and too often for them to make their desired profit off you, they will "slow down" how quickly you recieve new DVDs from them - delaying them by a day or two. just something to think about if you were planning on blowing through 20 movies a month with them...
QUOTE(Brookd @ Feb 21 2007, 04:13 AM)
I don't know if Roger Ebert is considered much of a reliable source around here (and I know he's not a BB emloyee or anything like that), but I thought these were some pertinent questions and answers on the subject of censorship and BB (taken from his website):...
...so anyway, here are your specific titles bill, k?
...so anyway, here are your specific titles bill, k?
ever feel like you are talking to a wall?
if you will remember (or look), i clearly stated in post #15 that blockbuster does and will not not stock "NC-17" movies. yet every title you referenced in roger's little diatribe was an "NC-17," but once again, we at no time requested/asked for or demanded a revised cut of any of the films mentioned. we simply would not have bought it/them. the end. i honestly don't know how i can state that more clearly. now, if the studios arranged (or strong armed or whatever) producers and directors for a revised edit to get the releases in more stores that's between them. personally, i think it's wrong for them to do so, but if they wanna "whore" themselves for the extra bucks, that's their business, not mine. but keep in mind, without the revenues generated from home video, many movies would never be made, video generates far more revenue and profits for the studios than theatrical. so it's quite possible the some of the films you mentioned would never have been "green lighted" (or made) without the concessions that you mentioned made for the home video releases. and fwiw, the phrase "blockbuster edit" is ebert's term, nothing that i have ever heard used in the industry, at one time they were called "grocery store edits" when they were big in the rental business, many wouldn't even stock "R" rated titles. (btw, "hollywood video" has virtually the exact same policy re: "NC-17"/"X" as BV, so you are talking about roughly 75-80% (or approx 7,500+) of the video rental stores in the US that would not stock these titles if released exclusively as "NC-17")
here is a little more background on this issue (though i don't know why i bother). when wayne huizenga purchased BV from it's founder, david cook, the video industry was a bit, well... sleezy, fractured and had a horrible reputation. he saw an opportunity for a national chain and looked for ways to differentiate BV from the rest of the industry. one was big, bright, well lit free-standing stores in neighborhoods and high traffic areas. another was to be family friendly, the company's first taglines were "america's family video store," & "wow, what a difference" and a big part of that was a commitment to investors, partners and customers that BV would never carry "x-rated or "adult" product. to this day (at a cost of billions of dollars in revenue/profits) that has and is still being honored.
for some reason the MPAA, while copyrighting the "G, PG, PG-13 & R" ratings, never copyrighted the "X" rating and it became sort of taken over by the adult industry (and if "X" was dirty, "XXX" must be, well, 3 times dirtier, right?). many years later, after much prodding by the industry, the MPAA finally revisited the rating system and changed "X" to "NC-17" and we honestly thought we had found a loophole and could now start stocking legitimate product, by legitimate studios/directors/producers, should we choose (you may remember, such titlies as "last tango in paris" & "midnight cowboy" were orig "x" rated, both were later revised to an "R"). "henry and june" was the first "NC-17" major release, we bought heavily and it was renting well. about a month after it's release on video, jack valenti, then head of the MPAA, in an interview, stated that there was no difference in "x" and "NC-17," that it was just a copyrighted name for "x." that the exact same criteria was used, that the description "patently offensive content. unsuitable for children under 17 years of age" still applied. so based on that comment, the decision was made to pull "henry and june" and discontinue purchasing "NC-17" titles based on wayne's original commitment. and personally i find that decision hard to argue with, while i wish valenti had kept his mouth shut.
in the rating process, a film is submitted to the MPAA board, they review it and rate it based on certain (imho, antiquated criteria), the studio can then accept that rating or edit and resubmit. the system is very flawed with examples like; you can say f*uck once and a film can stll be rated "PG-13." if you say it twice, it's an automatic "R," if you say "f*ck" once in a generic or even violent context, it's a "PG-13" but in a sexual context, automatic "R." stupid huh? if a film, like dan's example of "orgazmo" is sent to the MPAA and gets a "NC-17" rating, that is the rating. period (unless resubmitted and re-rated at a later date). if it's obvious that it's going to get an "NC-17" and is pulled from the board the day before the rating is issued, even though it is obvious that will be the rating, it can be released as "unrated."
as far as the advertisement issue goes, that isn't editing, that is advertising. pure and simple. again, while personally i don't agree with it, product placement is a huge revenue producer for studios. you don't think it's written into most preliminary scripts that a character drive a ford, drink cokes, smoke marlboros and shop at blockbuster do you? this is a dirty little secret in hollywood, esp regarding the cigarette & liquor industries, since their advertising options are limited, they pay millions and millions to have their products placed, and yes, at times actually added/written into scripts.
i hope some of that helps, but i doubt it will. but, no. your examples were not films "edited" at blockbuster's request or demands. period. were they were business decisions made by studios & producers to maximize their return on investments? probably. is that our fault? nope. but, you would prob need to ask them about that.
now, i wonder how david bazan would feel if we posted a sign, or warned everyone that rented a movie that... "PEDRO THE LION/DAVID BAZAN SUCKS! DON'T BUY HIS MUSIC!" in all of our stores, which, imho he does, even prior to reading your post.
and yes, netflix does "throttle" even to the point that they settled a potential class action lawsuit out of court to attempt to keep it as quiet as possible.
QUOTE(Brookd @ Feb 21 2007, 04:13 AM)
I don't know if Roger Ebert is considered much of a reliable source around here (and I know he's not a BB emloyee or anything like that), but I thought these were some pertinent questions and answers on the subject of censorship and BB (taken from his website):
OK, so... first, they choose not to carry NC-17 ratings. They don't carry X ratings, either. Are other stores that carry NC-17 but not X guilty of "censorship," by your definition?
Second, choosing between two versions of a movie in release from the studio... i.e.:
QUOTE
Q. I have a question about your discussion of Blockbuster and the content-sanitizing of the DVD of "Y tu Mama Tambien." Have all DVD versions of "Y tu Mama" been edited in content or only the ones sold and rented at Blockbuster? (Ken Gelwasser, Hollywood FL)
A. Blockbuster is offering only the sanitized version. Some stores are offering both. What you want to look for is the unedited theatrical version, which is being sold online at Amazon.com and sold and rented at facets.org and netflix.com.
A. Blockbuster is offering only the sanitized version. Some stores are offering both. What you want to look for is the unedited theatrical version, which is being sold online at Amazon.com and sold and rented at facets.org and netflix.com.
... does not sound like censorship to me. If the studio releases a sanitized and non-sanitized version, of their own volition, and BB chooses to carry the non-sanitized version, are they then guilty of "censorship" against the sanitized version, which has other language and scenes? Or is this simply a matter of shopping decisions?
"Censorship" is such a strong-sounding, conspiracy-conjuring word. I just don't see how it applies here. Frankly, it sounds a lot like naysaying to me... easy to pick the big target, ya know?
PS, Bill: Got my DVDs in the mail. Life is good.
QUOTE(FallingLeaf @ Feb 21 2007, 10:48 AM)
QUOTE
A. Blockbuster is offering only the sanitized version. Some stores are offering both. What you want to look for is the unedited theatrical version, which is being sold online at Amazon.com and sold and rented at facets.org and netflix.com.
... does not sound like censorship to me. If the studio releases a sanitized and non-sanitized version, of their own volition, and BB chooses to carry the non-sanitized version, are they then guilty of "censorship" against the sanitized version, which has other language and scenes? Or is this simply a matter of shopping decisions?
"Censorship" is such a strong-sounding, conspiracy-conjuring word. I just don't see how it applies here. Frankly, it sounds a lot like naysaying to me... easy to pick the big target, ya know?
PS, Bill: Got my DVDs in the mail. Life is good.
so i'm assuming that by brookd criteria/post that he also thinks every bookstore or magazine retailer in america that chooses not to stock playboy, penthouse & hustler (or maxim, FHM, or...) is wrongly acting as a censor also?
glad you got your dvd troy. that IS what it's all about. thanks.
Not to put anyone's nose out-of-joint, but if it's that big of a deal that BB doesn't carry NC-17 rated films then don't rent from there. If BB is your only video/DVD source then I'd say opt for Netflix. This is the very reason I won't purchase music from WalMart opting for my local record store.
Cher
Cher
QUOTE
so i'm assuming that by brookd criteria/post that he also thinks every bookstore or magazine retailer in america that chooses not to stock playboy, penthouse & hustler (or maxim, FHM, or...) is wrongly acting as a censor also?
I think I already answered the question on my feelings about a companies decision to not carry something in the paragraph I wrote after all those ebert quotes (the only paragraph in this entire thread thus far where I actually stated how I feel on the issue, btw). but to be crystal clear about it: no, I DON'T think it is wrong OR censorship (in the active sense) for any company to not carry a product. making a product does not guarantee a market for that product, nor does it guarantee a retail outlet even if there is a market for it. again, I think people are blaming the wrong party here (while I thought it was interesting to hear Bazaan's f-bomb in a christian college, I also thought his comment was a little, shall we say, melodramatic). I think at this point we're now saying the same thing. (my original question - though stated poorly, and I do apologize for that - was not a question of who's to blame for the edited movies, it was simply, are some of the movies on BB shelves only the sanitized/edited versions of the original release? and the answer now seems to be, if it was originally NC-17, then yes). It's not a question of not carrying something (like porn), it's a matter of the movie I do rent being the full original movie. I actually think it's good to have 2 different versions (much like music) if they want to go to that trouble, so long as it is made clear to the consumer that there are 2 different versions and the one you hold in your hand here at BB is the clean(er) version of the 2.
Thanks for the comments.
btw, Bill, what do you do at BB? what is your official position / job description?
---
So as not to do a total Netflix hijack I'll comment on BlockBuster first.
Several years ago I cancelled Netflix because BB started their 2-at-a-time Movie Pass and the closest Netflix hub was San Diego so every movie had a 4-6 day turnover. I was all over that Movie Pass. I had no complaints with the Movie Pass system itself, it was awesome. But I did have issues with our BB stock. Foreign and Independent was lacking, pathetically lacking. And I can't think of titles right now but there'd be some recent, known titles that every video store 'should' carry, and they wouldn't have. Or, believe it or not, they'd have a I or II of some movies, but not both (
). Also, I'm all about un-edited, director cuts and NC-17 flicks. So I re-joined Netflix at 1-at-a-time specifically for foreigns, indies & untamed flicks. Eventually upon learning Honolulu had a Netflix hub I re-joined and cancelled BB. I have no cable and do 6-at-a-time.
I've mentioned that in the Netflix thread. Roughly 2-3X a month, depending on mixed factors of speed/quantity returned and the title of my next movie*, Netflix will send my next movie from a mainland hub. Personally I have yet to be perturbed for $$ reasons you'll read below. Also, I have my own system with Netflix that balance/help me care less - I bump new releases up to the top of the queue a week before release date and anything I return between Friday morning and Saturday afternoon they get Monday, meaning my failure rate for getting new releases from Netflix the day they're released is low. Very low. Babel and For Your Consideration will be in my mailbox today, and I'm totally psyched about that. If I were doing BB walk-in, I wouldn't get either as I would always go in after work. And as for Total Access, I'm not positive as I haven't looked into joining, but I don't think BB has a hub in Hawai'i - I'm a little confused as to how/if it works that actual stores in your area do any of the mailing out. Which is a whole 'nother thing if so.
I blow through 26-30 a month** at a total of $37.43 a month. Divided by the lowest amount I receive (26) you're talking $1.44 a movie. I couldn't in-store rent an older release for that.
* roughtly 75% of my movies that Netflix 'throttles' are odd/wacky/rare foreign titles. most i'd never heard of until wandering through the Netflix library. not justifying anything, i've just always found that interesting.
** yes. i realize my 'no life' meter just went off at an alarmingly high rate
edit: i have no pro/con comments re: who's a better online retailer, just comments in general from someone whose done both and is happy with her current set-up
Several years ago I cancelled Netflix because BB started their 2-at-a-time Movie Pass and the closest Netflix hub was San Diego so every movie had a 4-6 day turnover. I was all over that Movie Pass. I had no complaints with the Movie Pass system itself, it was awesome. But I did have issues with our BB stock. Foreign and Independent was lacking, pathetically lacking. And I can't think of titles right now but there'd be some recent, known titles that every video store 'should' carry, and they wouldn't have. Or, believe it or not, they'd have a I or II of some movies, but not both (
). Also, I'm all about un-edited, director cuts and NC-17 flicks. So I re-joined Netflix at 1-at-a-time specifically for foreigns, indies & untamed flicks. Eventually upon learning Honolulu had a Netflix hub I re-joined and cancelled BB. I have no cable and do 6-at-a-time.QUOTE(Brookd @ Feb 20 2007, 11:42 PM)
Netflix (and not Blockbuster) has been known to engage in "throttling" - a practice by which, if you return your DVDs a little too quickly and too often for them to make their desired profit off you, they will "slow down" how quickly you recieve new DVDs from them - delaying them by a day or two.
I've mentioned that in the Netflix thread. Roughly 2-3X a month, depending on mixed factors of speed/quantity returned and the title of my next movie*, Netflix will send my next movie from a mainland hub. Personally I have yet to be perturbed for $$ reasons you'll read below. Also, I have my own system with Netflix that balance/help me care less - I bump new releases up to the top of the queue a week before release date and anything I return between Friday morning and Saturday afternoon they get Monday, meaning my failure rate for getting new releases from Netflix the day they're released is low. Very low. Babel and For Your Consideration will be in my mailbox today, and I'm totally psyched about that. If I were doing BB walk-in, I wouldn't get either as I would always go in after work. And as for Total Access, I'm not positive as I haven't looked into joining, but I don't think BB has a hub in Hawai'i - I'm a little confused as to how/if it works that actual stores in your area do any of the mailing out. Which is a whole 'nother thing if so.
QUOTE
just something to think about if you were planning on blowing through 20 movies a month with them..
I blow through 26-30 a month** at a total of $37.43 a month. Divided by the lowest amount I receive (26) you're talking $1.44 a movie. I couldn't in-store rent an older release for that.
* roughtly 75% of my movies that Netflix 'throttles' are odd/wacky/rare foreign titles. most i'd never heard of until wandering through the Netflix library. not justifying anything, i've just always found that interesting.
** yes. i realize my 'no life' meter just went off at an alarmingly high rate
edit: i have no pro/con comments re: who's a better online retailer, just comments in general from someone whose done both and is happy with her current set-up
QUOTE(Brookd @ Feb 21 2007, 01:57 PM)
btw, Bill, what do you do at BB? what is your official position / job description?
Bill Ivester
Corporate Beeeeeeotch!
Blockbuster Inc.
QUOTE(bivester @ Feb 21 2007, 05:37 AM)
and yes, netflix does "throttle" even to the point that they settled a potential class action lawsuit out of court to attempt to keep it as quiet as possible.
Just to be fair here (i am a libra after all)... Blockbuster also had it's own "inconvenient" law suit w/ the Movie Pass. One of the bigger things BB sold the MP on was the "No more late fees!" deal. A lot of people, including myself, were never told at the time of signing up that actually yes, there was a late fee. Something about holding a movie for longer than 30 days (i think), BB would charge your account the cost of the movie. I believe there was some other little stock fee/charge thingymabob too.
I turned flicks over too fast to have this happen and didn't care for myself but I remember when the lawsuit broke. There was a lot of justifyably pissed off people. I do remember as an MP member one day in the heat of it all when I switched out a movie the printer printed out a looooong ass line of '$1 off any movie rental' coupons. Seriously, like 10 of them. It was part of BB "sorry 'bout that" thing. But really, for MP members, it was hysterically retarded. I mean... I'm on the movie pass... I don't actually exchange $$ for movies... it's a standard monthly charge... so uh, thanks, for all the $1 off coupons...? My freinds scored 'em instead.
QUOTE(michelle @ Feb 21 2007, 02:46 PM)
QUOTE(bivester @ Feb 21 2007, 05:37 AM)
and yes, netflix does "throttle" even to the point that they settled a potential class action lawsuit out of court to attempt to keep it as quiet as possible.
Just to be fair here (i am a libra after all)... Blockbuster also had it's own "inconvenient" law suit w/ the Movie Pass. One of the bigger things BB sold the MP on was the "No more late fees!" deal.
actually, we were never sued over anything to do with the movie pass, it was over the "no more late fees" program. the issue was that while no late fees were ever charged, but after 28 days, if you had not returned product, you were assessed a $1.25 "restocking fee" when the product was eventually returned (or you were responsible for paying the "previously viewed" price, less the rental fee that you originally paid if you never returned it). imho, a buck and a quarter isn't too much to ask for keeping a movie for almost a month past it's return day. but...a few state attorney's general (most up for re-election and seeking a high profile "fluff" case) didn't feel that this and the fact that about 500 franchise stores (at the time) weren't participating was properly communicated (and in all honesty, it probably wasn't), made some noise and BV settled quickly, got a slap on the wrist, and issued a bunch of coupons as a settlement.
but it had nothing to do with the movie pass, just the marketing around "no late fees." the in-store movie pass functions exactly like BVonline or netflix, as long as you subscribe, and pay your monthly fee you can keep in as long as you want with no additional fees or penalties.
Fabulous clarifying Bill. (seriously) I forgot the MP and No Late Fees were a separate thing.
But on a principal note, just tell people at the time that there's a restocking fee. I'm thinking the big hoo-hah was because people were getting their bills with the extra charges and being clueless as to why.
And same for Netflix, toss the 'occasional throttle' note in there when you mention 'Unlimited Rentals'. Which as a suggestion, sounds kinda stupid to do as far as how you'd word something like that, but when you wind up settling out of court 'cause of your little corner taking... it would have been a lot easier (aka: waaaay less expensive) to figure it out.
I still have almost no complaints with my personal experience. The whole 'has-no-life-movie-lover' aspect is really in my corner when it comes to movie rental programs.
But on a principal note, just tell people at the time that there's a restocking fee. I'm thinking the big hoo-hah was because people were getting their bills with the extra charges and being clueless as to why.
And same for Netflix, toss the 'occasional throttle' note in there when you mention 'Unlimited Rentals'. Which as a suggestion, sounds kinda stupid to do as far as how you'd word something like that, but when you wind up settling out of court 'cause of your little corner taking... it would have been a lot easier (aka: waaaay less expensive) to figure it out.
I still have almost no complaints with my personal experience. The whole 'has-no-life-movie-lover' aspect is really in my corner when it comes to movie rental programs.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.