DS9 on blu ray?

[Admiral Bear]

True, the retailers could have been sat on stock they had already paid for and which was sitting gathering dust in their warehouses. BTW the £55-60 is in the region of US$82-90. It's almost as if when they bring it to the UK they just change the $ sign for the £ sign and expect us not to thing we are being fleeced.

Exactly this. On some European Amazon sites, the TNG sets were half the price they were in the UK, even on the initial release day. Of course, those of us who know the numbers will be aware that the only country in mainland Europe that watches Star Trek in any great number is Germany, where strangely enough the TNG sets were about the equivalent price in Euro as they were in Sterling, so make of that what you will. Everywhere else. . .well, specifically Italy and the Nordic countries, the TNG sets were going for a virtual pittance from day one. Not that I bought any TNG from them, but I found a cracking Swedish DVD/Blu-ray retailer selling in Kroner. The TNG sets were about £25 from day one. I did try them out with the Friends Blu-ray boxset for £38 after shipping. Sold on Amazon UK for £60 at the time. Had a fantastic service from them. Arrived in 4 days.

I bought the Nordic versions of TNG Blu seasons 6 & 7 from an Amazon seller in Finland for £27 each about a week after release. Amazon wanted £60 each. And there, Mr CBS Suit, lies your problem.

 

[Kor]

At typical TV sizes, you can barely (if at all) tell the difference between HD and UHD with the naked eye. Maybe some day when I have room for a 60-inch or larger screen, I'll start looking into upgrading to UHD. Ergo, not very soon.

Kor

 

[BillJ]

At typical TV sizes, you can barely (if at all) tell the difference between HD and UHD with the naked eye. Maybe some day when I have room for a 60-inch or larger screen, I'll start looking into upgrading to UHD. Ergo, not very soon.

Kor

I have a 4K TV. But I just don't know what they can squeeze out of TOS and TNG that we don't already have at 1080p? These were shows built with 480i as the resolution they'd be presented at.

 

[benjaminh]

.... But for a new fan in 2016 who's just watched both (or most of both) on Netflix, like me, and is anticipating 4K media, I don't see why you shouldn't wait just a little while more.

Because these shows aren't going to be released in UHD. Blu-ray is the best they are going to get.

Why buy? Well, if you're a real fan, and into picture quality, the Trek blu-rays have better pq than streaming. Plus they have tons of special features, including documentaries, audio commentaries, bloopers, etc. Finally, buying the blu-rays makes a money vote for remastering more Trek, even though I'm a pessimist about that at this point and see it as a total long shot.

But I realize that streaming is good enough for most. That's part of why we'll almost surely never have DS9 and Voyager in HD.

 

[benjaminh]

....What's even crazier is fans complaining about others now buying them at a cheaper price....

Maybe if you back up a bit, and see it from the long-range perspective of long-time Trek fans, you'll begin to understand what some of us are talking about.

First, for new fans like yourself, we're happy if you get the TNG sets at a big discount. Great!

But take yourself back to the summer of 2012, when the first season of TNG came out on blu-ray. Some fans who had the money to buy that set for the c. $60 street price in the US said, more or less: "I'm thrilled they've spent a fortune rebuilding these sets and making the documentaries, but I'm going to wait a couple of years till they get really cheap."

The sales of the first season were actually great. But after that sales fell. A lot. Many fans were waiting for the amazing deals that are now available for the complete set.

In the meantime, CBS was adding up the income from sales of the TNG blu-rays, and trying to make the decision about whether to rebuild DS9 and Voyager as well. The long story short is that because many fans waited for the bargain price, it turned out not to be economically viable to rebuild DS9 and Voyager.

Essentially it's water under the bridge. There's nothing to be done about it now. But back in 2013 and 2014, when they were releasing these sets, not enough fans voted with their wallets to get DS9 and Voyager in HD.

That's also why it seems highly, highly unlikely that we'll ever get Trek in UHD—because they didn't sell well enough in HD to begin with!

Physical media is slowly dying. It's the twilight of the form. There's a whole company that has named itself after that reality: Twilight Time:

http://www.twilighttimemovies.com/

I use streaming myself, but the better pq of the blu-rays makes them very nice. And there are some things, as far as I know, that you can't get on streaming, like the extended "movie" version of "The Measure of a Man," plus the audio commentary on that episode, the documentaries, etc. Wish we could have that for DS9 and Voyager, but apparently it's not going to happen—just like your fantasy of Trek in UHD is also highly unlikely.

 

[MacLeod]

People will have a different definition of what is too high a price to pay would those that paid US$60 have paid US$90?

Conversly would those people who said I'll wait a few years for it to come down in price would they have bought it when it was first released if it had been US$40?

 

[Relayer1]

People will have a different definition of what is too high a price to pay would those that paid US$60 have paid US$90?

Conversly would those people who said I'll wait a few years for it to come down in price would they have bought it when it was first released if it had been US$40?

I can say without hesitation, if the initial releases were for the prices I've paid, I'd have preordered them !

There is an argument that by pricing lower you sell more, and can actually make more profit. Less profit per unit, but more overall - elasticity of demand.

It should also be noted that once you have sold enough copies to cover production and distribution costs for your entire production run, you can sell further copies for whatever you like - it's all profit. Sell it yourself direct to the customer for $10, that's $10 profit, sell it for $50, that's $50 profit.

 

[BillJ]

People will have a different definition of what is too high a price to pay would those that paid US$60 have paid US$90?

I would have. I paid more than $100 a season for TNG on DVD.

It should also be noted that once production and distribution costs are covered for your entire production run, you can sell further copies for whatever you like - it's all profit. Sell it for $10, that!s $10 profit.

You'll have production and distribution costs for every set you press. Also, you have to pay residuals to every person that worked on the show covered by them.

 

[MacLeod]

I can say without hesitation, if the initial releases were for the prices I've paid, I'd have preordered them !

There is an argument that by pricing lower you sell more, and can actually make more profit. Less profit per unit, but more overall - elasticity of demand.

It should also be noted that once you have sold enough copies to cover production and distribution costs for your entire production run, you can sell further copies for whatever you like - it's all profit. Sell it yourself direct to the customer for $10, that's $10 profit, sell it for $50, that's $50 profit.

I likely would have pre-ordered them as well if they where in the £35-40 range to expect me to pay more I would want somethng more i.e a Steelbook version.


And of course they could cut out the middlemen and release it as an exclusive availble only directly from them.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Conversly would those people who said I'll wait a few years for it to come down in price would they have bought it when it was first released if it had been US$40?

There has long been a "Star Trek premium" applied to ST home video releases. The TNG sets released here at around CA$90... roughly double what you would pay for a season of most television shows. So yes, I waited, because I couldn't justify that expenditure. I now have seasons 1 through 6, and the *most* I have paid for a season is CA$55. (Still waiting for season 7 to come down...) If they had released here at CA$50 or less, I would have bought them on release day.

I would have. I paid more than $100 a season for TNG on DVD.

So did I. But times change, and now I am no longer in a position where I can justify that kind of expenditure on entertainment. In fact, when I look back and realize how much money I spent on those types of "non-essentials" in those days, it makes me a little ill. If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have paid those prices then, either.

And I realize that I am lucky... I *can* still afford to buy non-essential entertainment, even if it means I have to wait/shop for bargains. Not everyone is so fortunate.

 

[BillJ]

So did I. But times change, and now I am no longer in a position where I can justify that kind of expenditure on entertainment. In fact, when I look back and realize how much money I spent on those types of "non-essentials" in those days, it makes me a little ill. If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have paid those prices then, either.

Star Trek is pretty much the only entertainment that I willingly pay full price for.

 

[MacLeod]

CAN$50 is around GB£30. So I suspect much like Candaa previous ST releases in the UK attracted a premium. So if they had in the past attracted a premium perhaps they are paying for it now as fans will no longer accept being taken for a ride in terms of price.

 

[Kor]

Entertainment is becoming more affordable as time goes on.

I remember paying almost $30 for the first DVD release of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country... the one with the screwy aspect ratio and no special features except for the trailer and "interactive menus." Considering inflation, that's almost $40 in today's money.

Kor

 

[Squiggy]

What does this even mean? People should go out of their way to find the most expensive option possible?

How dare they buy Blu-rays at a reasonable and convenient price!

Your definition of "reasonable" is probably not enough to cover the costs of production.

So, yeah. Sucks to be you if you can't afford to pay for the thing that costs a certain amount, but that's how economics works.

At least Star Trek: The Next Generation is still being syndicated, offering CBS another avenue to recoup its investment in restoring the series for HD. When was the last time Star Trek: Deep Space Nine or Star Trek: Voyager were on television in the United States?

Over 10 years ago - and that was on Spike in the middle of the night because they were probably getting DS9 and Voyager for free on top of TNG.

A network isn't going to spend a lot to run something at 3am.

Just because DSN and VOY aren't being syndicated in the US doesn't mean they aren't being syndicated in other countries.

It does to the studio. Having it on the air in the Netherlands is all well and good for the Dutch, but they money it generates for CBS/P is a pittance compared to what it would get in the US.

 

[MacLeod]

Yes but it still generates money if it's sold to

Australia
UK
Germany
Netherlands
etc...

All those "pitances" soon add up.

 

[Harvey]

Well yes and no. It all depends on what margin of the sale the studio gets back from each sale. A lower retail price whilst also carrying a lower amount of profit for each sale can actually earn a higher overall profit. It all depends on sales volume.

At the price the complete series was reportedly discounted at ($70), CBS would have to do a ton of volume to earn a profit that way. Since several people associated with the project have admitted that sales fell short of projections, that's obviously not the case.

Now, if those sets suddenly drop to $30 or £25 because the retailers can't shift them at $60, it's the retailers that are losing out, not CBS. CBS has already had its money, although I'll admit that as sales were poor, retailers wouldn't have been buying any more units.

Sales to retailers are not one-way sales like you describe. When DVDs and Blu-Rays go unsold at retail, they get returned to whatever company distributed them for credit. Distributors don't want to sit on all that inventory, which costs money to store, so they offer price incentives and ship them back out to whomever will take them.

Retailers like Best Buy and Target aren't going to slash prices and lose money on a home video title to get it off the shelves. They'll just return it and fill the shelf space with something else that will (hopefully) sell better. (And, if it doesn't, just rinse and repeat -- retailers are not the ones taking on most of the risk).

If CBS wanted to shift TNG on Blu and make a decent return, it should've sold direct to customers.

Selling (exclusively) direct would have been suicide. There's no way http://www.cbsstore.com/ could move the volume necessary to pay for a project as expensive as restoring Star Trek: The Next Generation in HD, even at the higher margins selling direct would get them.

 

[jaime]

Ds9 is on twice a day here atm, I am not sure voyager is on atm, enterprise is on two episodes twice a day, I think tng may also be on twice a day, and Tos is on two separate channels once a day I think on each. DS9 and VOY were as much prime shows in the UK as tng and Tos were.

 

[Karzak]

I'm all for taking advantage of a good deal, but fans should be honest with themselves.

If you wait to buy the complete Star Trek: The Next Generation on Blu-Ray until it comes down to $70 (the equivalent to the £50 mentioned in this thread), CBS Studios, Inc. barely made anything on that sale. That's a 41-disc set, and once you back out the cost of manufacturing, Amazon's percentage, and any royalties due, there isn't a lot of profit leftover -- certainly not enough profit to convince CBS that it should invest millions of dollars into Star Trek: Deep Space Nine or Star Trek: Voyager.

Indeed. There is a tragic lack of understanding I think here from some in this thread about what exactly is involved, cost-wise, to make these sets happen.

I spent a year working in post-production on a cable network television series so I'm somewhat qualified to comment on this aspect of the whole process.

Speaking strictly from the actual process, CBS literally has to open up post-production on the show again and re-cut everything as if it had all just been shot last week. This is all following the understanding that time and effort have been taken to track down the original masters to encode, the editor's decision logs to make sure all the cuts and edits are exactly has they were 25+ years ago (including sound effects and music, visual effects, color correction, titles, and final playback.) i.e. someone had to get paid to go down to CBS archive vault and search through and find all the original reels so they could then be used to start this entire process.

Assuming you have at least three editors and three assistant editors working full time (yes, this is a full-time job) that's still roughly a month's turnaround for a single episode, even if you eliminate things like studio and network notes calls, but because its Hollywood, let's be realistic. Of course the studio is going to want to see the cuts before they go out to final playback.

So: one month turnaround per episode, with 26 episodes per season (mostly), with three editing teams doing the work. That's still nine months of work just to get a single season done. Nine months of full time work for, at minimum, a producer, three editors, three assistant editors, probably an associate producer and a production assistant. If you take a show like Deep Space Nine, that nine months becomes sixty-three months to complete the entire series.

Now, obviously, it didn't take that long to resurrect TNG in HD, so I'm guessing the timetable was condensed and more people were working on the show... but this would still cost money. More money.

The long and the short of it is simply that if Trekkies go the budget-conscious route and wait for the sets to go on sale, it's just further fuel for CBS to believe that there is no profit in such an endeavor anymore, and certainly not worth the incredible expense that would be involved to create the HD editions of DS9 and Voyager to begin with if their most popular modern series (TNG) didn't live up to the projected expectations.

And this doesn't even take into consideration the cost of manufacturing, advertising and distribution of the discs.

At least Star Trek: The Next Generation is still being syndicated, offering CBS another avenue to recoup its investment in restoring the series for HD. When was the last time Star Trek: Deep Space Nine or Star Trek: Voyager were on television in the United States?

I can't honestly recall the last time I watched DS9 or Voyager that wasn't just on Netflix.

 

[MacLeod]

^Yes but as has been pointed out. Some of us would have bought had the original retail price been more attractive. And you can actually make more profit by selling something at a lower price. Sure a lower profit margin per unit but sell enough and you make money. Someone may buy it at US$60, another may buy it at US$40. But the retailer may have paid the same cost per unit, they have just had to cut their profit margin.

 

[BillJ]

Yes but it still generates money if it's sold to

Australia
UK
Germany
Netherlands
etc...

All those "pitances" soon add up.

You don't think CBS has crunched the numbers on these things? I'm sure they have scores of folks dedicated to wringing every last bit of profit out of the material they own that they can.

^Yes but as has been pointed out. Some of us would have bought had the original retail price been more attractive. And you can actually make more profit by selling something at a lower price. Sure a lower profit margin per unit but sell enough and you make money. Someone may buy it at US$60, another may buy it at US$40. But the retailer may have paid the same cost per unit, they have just had to cut their profit margin.

They may have moved a few more units, but there is more cost associated with moving more units. Pressing the discs, packaging, distribution, residuals. Once again, I'm sure they crunch the numbers on these things instead of just throwing darts at a dart board.

I honestly don't know how much of a financial success CBS sees TNG on HD as. But, to me, allowing the team to disperse once the project was over instead of moving them over to the other two shows is a pretty important sign as to how well they sold.