DVD Dossier Blog: New Releases, Street Dates, Movie Reviews and Commentary

HD DVD For Low Fee, But Not For Thee

Engadget HD reports that Crutchfield is offering the Toshiba HD-A2 HD DVD player for a mere $199, (after an instant $100 rebate).

Here's the problem... they have none in stock and the ship date is "uncertain."

(Amazon, on the other hand, has the player in stock for about $280.00.)

You know, my father was a pharmacist who owned his own drug store. And this reminds me of a story he once told me about how customers would always come into his store looking for this or that.

He would point them to the appropriate product on the shelf and they would often say something like "A dollar seventy-five for cough syrup? That's outrageous! I was just at (insert name of any major drug store chain) and they only charge a dollar twenty-nine!"

My father would then say that he understood completely if they wanted to buy the item from his competitor.

"But I was just there," the customer would invariably say. "They don't have any."

"Oh," my father would reply, "when I don't have the item in stock, I sell it for only ninety-nine cents."

The Gift That Keeps On Giving

Want to give Netflix as a gift? How very thoughtful of you! Just make sure the recipient has a valid credit card. And a good memory.

Debbie Thomas found this out the hard way. She bought her son a four month ($60) subscription to the online DVD rental service, only to find out that he couldn't use it because he had no credit card.

Due to the value of the DVDs being shipped out to people with whom they have no prior relationship, Netflix requires a credit card in order to activate all subscriptions, even those that are prepaid.

Netflix says complaints are "rare" and that this practice is all clearly spelled out in its terms of use:

Recipient will not be charged monthly subscription fees during the Gift Subscription period for the Netflix plan selected at the time of purchase. Recipients will need a valid payment method to redeem the membership and Recipient authorizes Netflix to charge for any movie the Recipient fails to return, as provided in our Terms of Use.    

Also, upon the conclusion of the Gift Subscription period, Recipient authorizes Netflix to begin to bill the payment method for monthly subscription fees and applicable tax unless the Recipient cancels prior to the end of the Gift Subscription period. Although the subscription is cancelable at anytime, there is no refund or credit for partially used periods.

But still... it does seem unfair to us - or "No Fair" as this NBC affiliate serving D.C., Maryland and Virginia puts it in their new consumer advocacy segment, "The No Fair File."

And it definitely violates the spirit of gift giving, but not nearly as much as this nasty surprise from the same report: once your gift subscription runs out, Netflix apparently just keeps billing your recipient month after month until they cancel.

Isn't this exactly what held up the Netflix class action settlement?

They wanted to include this very same "negative option," so that the six million recipients of a "free month" would automatically continue as paying customers, unless they remembered to cancel the service.

Now, you can certainly make a business case for the need for a credit card because of the value of the DVDs being shipped - although we'd be the first to argue that the terms of that gift subscription should not be buried three clicks away - but what's the rationale behind billing people who were fortunate enough to receive a gift subscription allowing them to sample your service?

This is a chance for Netflix to shine, not play dirty tricks.

Why resort to this unscrupulous business practice, which has already been frowned upon in court? Wouldn't you rather that they enjoy your product, have a positive customer service experience and come back for more?

Rather than having to search for your phone number and argue with a customer service rep to get credit for something they didn't actually order?

In Blockbuster's Dictionary, "Complimentary" May Not Mean Free

We hope Blockbuster's lawyers have a lot of free time on their hands... because they may get very busy dealing with a class action suit should they decide to proceed with their proposed plan to raise the price of some of their online memberships. 

Hacking Netflix shared an e-mail earlier today from Blockbuster that is being sent to some Blockbuster Online members. The e-mail invites them to take a survey about a potential price increase for its Total Access plan. That's Blockbuster's highly touted - and highly successful - new initiative that enables its members to return DVDs rented online at a Blockbuster store, with the option to exchange the returned DVDs for "free" rentals at the store. 

Blockbuster Online has been exploring different ideas of how to meet the needs of members who can not take advantage of the Blockbuster Total Access program for one reason or another. 

Really? Don't you mean you wish to raise the rates of the far greater number who do take advantage of the program, because it's unprofitable? This reminds me of stores who charge more when you use your credit card and say they're offering a "cash discount." 

One of the ideas is to offer Mail-Only plans, which would allow members to receive and return DVDs only by mail, without the option to return them at a Blockbuster store and exchange them for free in-store movies. 

At the same time that the Mail-Only plans are introduced, Blockbuster Total Access may also experience price changes to reflect the added value that this program represents compared to the Mail-Only options.

You can read the full text (and weep) here, along with a proposed e-mail announcing the change(s) and the price increase. 

You know, in sales and marketing, managing expectations is key. And Blockbuster has bungled this one Big Time (as the Vice President might say). First, they announced a "complimentary upgrade" to their new Total Access service. Then they promoted the heck out of it with TV commercials and in-store signs.

The strategy not only worked to change existing customers' minds regarding the value of their Blockbuster membership, but helped them close out the 4th Quarter of last year with greater growth than their online rival Netflix and meet the 2006 subscriber goals that many doubted they could. The Total Access program is a significant point of difference with the service offered by Netflix, and was instrumental in convincing many Netflix members to switch to Blockbuster. 

Now, they want to impose a fee (the one-at-a-time membership currently at $9.99 would go to $14.99 according to the e-mail quoted on the Hacking Netflix site) to all those folks who took advantage of the "complimentary upgrade."

That's what's called a "negative option" - you have to specifically opt out of the plan or you'll be charged - and the courts generally frown upon that practice. Nobody liked it when TCS did it back in the 80s when they launched Starz and Encore and nobody liked it when Netflix proposed it last year to settle their class action lawsuit. 

They have every right to charge whatever they like, but they'd keep more customers if they tell them upfront what they're doing and that their new service feature, while initially free, may be available later only at an additional charge. 

Maybe that's what they thought they were doing when they referred to it as a "complimentary upgrade." Or maybe they genuinely thought the increased foot traffic would lead to increased sales of high margin items like soda, candy, popcorn and previously-viewed movies. That would certainly pay for the increased costs associated with the Total Access program... but those sales haven't materialized.   

That may have more to do with poor training of the Blockbuster clerks than anything else. I was at a Blockbuster store this weekend with Mrs. Dossier doing the free in-store exchange thang (she's a Total Access member) and the clerk checking us out was very eager to "upsell" us... asking if we needed candy or soda and imploring us to check out the bin of movies marked "4 for $20."   

Clearly, they have some kind of incentive in place for their store personnel who hit required sales targets. But the whole thing reeked of desperation and insincerity... she was completely lifeless and never even looked up at us throughout the entire transaction.  Then she asked if we wanted a bag for our DVDs, which made me think that Blockbuster really must be in serious financial trouble.

It's always the little things that go first, isn't it? The olive in the salad on the airplane... and now the bag at Blockbuster. (Without fail, one way to tell if a long-running show is about to close on Broadway is to visit the box office on a sweltering Summer day. if the air conditioning is not on, the show is cutting costs and will soon shutter.) 

Of course, they could just be going "green," you know, becoming more friendly to the environment. (On second thought... it's not easy being green: while in the store, I saw that they had a bunch of copies of "An Inconvenient Truth" that had been taken out of their biodegradable post-consumer-waste packaging and placed into standard plastic packaging.) 

Mrs. Dossier - who, by the way, has not received the Blockbuster survey e-mail - and I love the Total Access program. In fact, it's why we've stayed with Blockbuster. There's a brick and mortar location just a few blocks from our house and the in-store exchange rocks! 

We doubt that Big Blue is losing any money on us, though, even if we don't buy candy and popcorn. We're one of those couples who keep the DVDs we receive through the mail on top of the TV for two weeks or more gathering dust.

The problem is not just a lack of time... it's mostly because our rental queue is filled with artsy fartsy esoteric and foreign fare and when these DVDs arrive, we each point fingers accusing the other of ordering it and neither of us wants to see it. Eventually, we take a walk and exchange them for some flicks we're actually in the mood to see. 

Without a doubt, the Total Access program has tremendously enhanced our relationship with Blockbuster, but there's no way we'd pay more for the privilege of returning in-store, especially since they gave us a "complimentary upgrade." The only reason we go to the store is because the rentals are "free." Once we're there, we encounter the same problems - lack of titles, rude or disinterested staff - that drove us to online rentals in the first place.

And, not for nothing, poor queue management often means we're sent through the mail the same DVD we just rented in-store. Where's the added value there? 

So if Blockbuster chooses to radically alter the Total Access program, we'll cancel. And I believe many others will, too.

[Previously: Analysts Assess Total Access]
[Previously: Blockbuster Extols Meeting Subscriber Goals]

Larry Sanders Gets His Due, But Where Is Season Two?

When the First Season of "The Larry Sanders Show" was released on DVD way back in 2002, it was widely panned. The show itself - which was one of the first standout original programs on the HBO premium network - was as brilliant as ever. What was shocking about the release was the incredibly poor quality of the video transfer.

The show fizzled on DVD, but nobody would go on record to say why. Was it the poor quality video - and the total lack of special features in that boxed set - or did the DVD-buying public never really know what to make of this offbeat show, even though it was the darling of critics and nominated for 56 Emmy awards?

HBO no longer owned the rights to the show when Columbia Tristar rushed "Larry Sanders" onto DVD, ridiculously overpriced and with virtually no extras. Worst of all, most of the thirteen episodes on the 3-Disc set appeared soft and grainy and were an embarrassment to the home video industry.

It's hard to say whether poor quality master tapes were used or whether Columbia just screwed up. I'm guessing the latter, since - well, the show was on HBO, not TV. It's not likely that they didn't have pristine masters. "Larry Sanders" is a modern classic; it's not as if we're trying to restore kinescopes of Ernie Kovacs, ferchrissakes.

Fans have been waiting five years for Season Two to be released... and they'll have to continue to wait. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment (formerly Columbia Tristar) will not release a Second Season set of "Larry Sanders" on April 17th.

Instead, they'll be releasing what they're calling "Not Just The Best of The Larry Sanders Show."

This time out, it'll be a 4-Disc boxed set with 23 of the "best" episodes of the Emmy Award-winning show taken from its entire six season run, plus over eight hours of newly produced special features.

Included will be the documentary, "The Making of The Larry Sanders Show," which provides an in-depth look at the process of turning a script into a show.

"Not Just The Best of The Larry Sanders Show" also features guest appearances on the featured episodes by a wide slate of stars including Jim Carrey, Vince Vaughn, Warren Beatty, Sean Penn, Ellen DeGeneres, Jason Alexander, Carol Burnett and Winona Ryder.

The featurette “Rip Torn and Jeffrey Tambor Visit Garry Shandling in His Living Room” is a reunion of Shandling, Torn and Tambor discussing working together on the show. Also included are interview featurettes with cast members Penny Johnson, Wallace Langham, Scott Thompson, Janeane Garofalo, Mary Lynn Rajskub, Sarah Silverman, Jeremy Piven, Bob Odenkirk, and Linda Doucett.

The press materials for this release say we should also expect "personal, intimate, indulgent" backstage visits "meant until now for only Garry Shandling to see – raw, real-life situations between Shandling and stars who appear in the featured episodes – including Alec Baldwin, Tom Petty, Jerry Seinfeld, Jon Stewart, Sharon Stone and many others."

I don't know, but that sounds like outtakes and deleted scenes to me.

Much more on the show - plus a complete list of special features and an episode breakdown - follows after the jump.

The Suggested Retail Price for "Not Just The Best of The Larry Sanders Show" will be $49.95, although we think you'll be able to find it for $33.00 or less.

Pre-order now and save 35%.

DVD Deathwatch

Over at Slate, Sean Cooper weighs in on the digital divide surrounding the great HD DVD and Blu-ray debate and declares the fat lady has all but sung.

The winner will be neither HD DVD nor Blu-ray... Mr. Cooper insists that both formats are D.O.A. "because shiny little discs will soon be history. He predicts not just the demise of HD DVD and Blu-ray, but the death of the DVD itself.

It's an interesting piece and he has all his facts right; I disagree with his timetable and his conclusions, however.

Video On Demand (from the internet and from cable companies), he says, together with the high cost of high definition players ($350 - $1,000), plus the ever increasing size of hard drives (and their ever decreasing prices) will all contribute to the death of those shiny little discs.

In a few years, you'll buy every episode of "The West Wing" on a drive the size of a deck of cards rather than on 45 DVDs in a box the size of your microwave oven. If you think that sounds far-fetched, consider that shortly after releasing a comprehensive, eight-DVD New Yorker collection (since updated to nine discs), the magazine released the same collection on an (admittedly expensive) iPod-sized hard drive. Which would you rather have, especially once the price of hard drives sinks even lower?

Well, personally, I'd rather have the microwave oven-sized box, thanks for asking.

You see, I'm a collector of sorts. And that dossier of "The West Wing" includes a bunch of things you can't replicate with VOD or by downloading the same content (including a reproduction of the original pilot script).

In fact, many DVDs and boxed sets have packaging and tangible special features designed for those who want to touch, hold and become engaged with the content.

A computer file just isn't the same thing.

The DVD boxes themselves - and all the associated paraphernalia - become objets d'art which get displayed prominently on shelves and coffee tables. Just look at recent or upcoming releases of "Six Feet Under," "King Kong" "Forbidden Planet," "Friends" and "Superman." None of these elaborate gift sets would exist in a world where we get all our movies delivered digitally by downloading directly to a computer or set top box.

It's not just the fancy schmancy packaging, though; it's also the pride of ownership, of advertising to other "Buffy" or "Smallville" or "Sopranos" fans that you're a member of the community.

But that's just one reason I think the reports of the death of DVD are greatly exaggerated.

After working in the cable television industry for more than two decades, I have very little confidence that the Comcasts and the Time Warners of the world can get this right. They've got enormous bandwith issues, pricing that is a barrier to entry for many people and, most importantly, tremendous customer service, billing and training issues related to the digital delivery of movies.

And let's face it, unless the quality of the downloaded video gets much better and the user interface becomes Luddite-proof, digital delivery will peacefully coexist with physical media for a very long time to come.

Subscriptions to the DVD Dossier newsletter are FREE...
Sign up today and have new release information e-mailed to you each week!

What the World Needs Now... Are Heirloom-Quality Narnia Bookends

We've just received word from the folks at Disney that they intend to release a new extended version of "Narnia" later this year. We'll try to talk them out of it, but we doubt we'll be successful.

It's not that it's a bad film - it's not - it's just that this new edition is, well, unnecessary. And its release will no doubt annoy many fans who have purchased one of two editions - including a 2-Disc Special Edition - that were released this April ("Narnia" has already become the top-selling DVD of the year, with more than 11 million units sold).

Clearly, the folks at the Mouse House haven't read our rant on the new extended version of "King Kong" and why we think that's a less than stellar idea. The same principles apply here.

How many times do they intend to go back to the well before the lion, the witch and the wardrobe run dry?

It's a rhetorical question, but that won't stop us from answering it. The answer is, unfortunately, at least twice more.

Walt Disney Home Entertainment and Walden Media have announced that they will bring forth what they're calling the ultimate “Narnia” DVD collection: "C.S. Lewis's The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe 4-Disc Extended Edition" on December 12th.

They say that this new edition will only be available for seven weeks - during the Christmas holiday season (probably just a coincidence) - before it gets tucked away into the Disney Vault.

The "Extended Edition" - which they refer to as an "EXTENDED EDITION" (they insist on using all caps, perhaps to distinguish this "new" edition from the virtually identical editions already available) - will feature a new, "extended" (duh!) version of the film with "enhanced special effects and an extended, climactic battle scene."

Also included will be “C.S. Lewis – The Dreamer Of Narnia” (an all-new feature-length film about the author of the original ‘Narnia’ tome) and “Visualizing the Lion, the Witch and The Wardrobe: The Complete Production Experience" (an in-depth look at the process and technology of adapting the book into the motion picture.

But wait, as they say, there's more!

If you pre-order now, you'll also get a set of Ginsu Knives.

No, not really. Disney will, however, also be releasing "The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe 4-Disc Gift Set."

This "Limited Edition" offering will feature the 4-Disc Extended Edition, er, sorry, I mean EXTENDED EDITION... plus a pair of "heirloom-quality" bookends from the creative artists at Weta Ltd., the people who designed the creatures for the film (and the same folks who performed similar duties on "Kong" and are also responsible for the Kong figurine in the recently announced "King Kong: Deluxe Extended Edition Gift Set."

(You might want to look into whether Weta is a publicly-traded company; if so, I'd buy stock now.)

The Extended Edition will carry a Suggested Retail Price of $42.99 and the Gift Set will go for $79.99 (SRP).

Those "heirloom quality" bookends? Priceless.

(Gee, you think any of those will wind up on the Antiques Roadshow thirty or forty years from now?)

If you're interested in further details, we've included specs on both of the "new" "Narnia" releases after the jump.

[Previously: The Lion Sweeps Tonight; Narnia: Which Witch Will You Choose]

Kong Gets Bigger, Not Better

We received some disturbing news this week from our friends at Universal Studios Home Entertainment:  Peter Jackson's "King Kong: Deluxe Extended Edition" will arrive on DVD November 14th.

The studio says this will be the definitive 3-Disc version of Jackson's action-adventure film and will  include "over 13 additional mind-blowing minutes of King Kong's astounding visual effects and exhilarating action."

This is a very bad idea.

My first objection to this new extended edition has to do with our firm stand against "double dipping." (That's the affectionate term given to the common studio practice of releasing a film a second time - usually with deluxe special features not available the first time 'round - forcing fans and collectors to pay again for a movie they already own.)

When this 2005 remake of "King Kong" was first released just four months ago, consumers were given a choice: a standard (full screen or widescreen) edition and a deluxe widescreen 2-Disc "Special Edition."

So in fact this forthcoming "King Kong: Deluxe Extended Edition" isn't so much a double dip, as a triple dip!

More about why I think an "extended" Kong is a horrible idea - and details of the two new extended editions for those that insist - after the jump.

[Previously: Kongzilla; Lord of the King (Kong)]
[Previously: All That Regurgitated Jazz]

War of the Roses

And now for something completely different...

Excuse the interruption into your regularly scheduled dose of DVD news and information, but I must share with you a little customer service nightmare I've been going through for the past ten days or so.

If you're just interested in the latest DVDs, then by all means skip this post. No harm, no foul. We have lots of good stuff coming up tomorrow for you, including full details on the DVD debuts of "Thank You For Smoking" and "Friends with Money."

But if you're ever ordered anything online and were unhappy with the product when it arrived and then tried to get the company to stand behind its "satisfaction guarantee," you might want to stick around.

Full details of my Kafka-esque journey with FTD™ after the jump.

McWhy?

McDonalds' attempts to rebrand itself as an integral part of a healthy "active lifestyle" continue with the August 15th release of two horribly misguided DVDs for children, "McKids Adventures Volume 1: Get Up and Go with Ronald" and "McKids Adventures Volume 2: Treasure Hunt with Ronald."

Ronald, of course, is Ronald McDonald, the clown spokesman for the hamburger chain and proponent of such healthy active lifestyle choices as the Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese (730 calories, 40 grams fat, 1330 milligrams sodium), the large order of french fries (570 calories, 30 grams fat, 330 milligrams sodium) and the Caesar Salad with Crispy Chicken and Newman's Own Creamy Caesar Dressing (490 calories, 31 grams fat, 1520 milligrams sodium).

(Yes, that's right... that seemingly healthy salad - with dressing - actually has more fat than a Big Mac, which has "only" 30 grams, along with 560 calories and 1010 milligrams sodium.)

McDonalds may genuinely wish to promote physical activity, but is Ronald McDonald really the best role model?

 Was the Pillsbury Dough Boy too busy editing his new Pilates video?

Now to be fair, we haven't actually seen these new McKids Adventures discs (and after this post, it's unlikely that Warner Home Video, the distributors of the McKids DVD series will be sending us review copies). Our strong opposition is based solely on the confusing message they will surely send to children.

Even if there's no overt product placement in the videos, your host just happens to have a restaurant with a playground down the street! The underlying message is pretty clear: "Run, jump and play... and when we're you're done, kids, go visit that nice clown... he'll give you tasty food and free toys!"

Isn't this a little like Tony Soprano doing public service announcements reminding you to do file your taxes on time? Or having Paris Hilton advisng teenagers to practice safe sex? Or asking Billy Joel to star in a Driver's Ed video?

Let's just hope that the Hamburglar's new video series on Crime Prevention comes out before my DVD player is stolen.

Also, folks, unlike McDonald's recent exercise videos for adults, these premium-priced DVDs (only about thirty minutes each) are actually commercial products that will be sold in stores, not given away with a Happy Meal. So we feel the criticism of Ronald as an active lifestyle role model is completely warranted.

For the record, SRP on these McKidVid discs will be $14.98 (each), but most stores will knock at least a dollar off the suggested price. We suggest, of course, that you don't buy them at all.

Details on the individual titles appear after the jump.

[Previously: Mckey D's Free DVDs]

Patently Obvious?

Earlier today, Hacking Netflix posted a link to the latest Netflix patent (#7,024,381). Filed in May of 2003, but not issued until yesterday, the patent covers an "approach for renting items to customers" and forms much of the basis for the infringement suit they filed yesterday against their online rival Blockbuster.

It makes for a pretty dry read - "customers specify what items to rent using item selection criteria separate from deciding when to receive the specified items" - as you might expect from a legal document explaining the obvious.

Ah, yes. The obvious.

There are some folks today who claim to be outraged - positively outraged - that a business model such as this could be patented. It's just common sense, ferchrissakes! It's so obvious!

Of course, if it were really so damn obvious, you or I would have thought about it and patented it ourselves.

"It seems obvious because Netflix has made it obvious," Netflix spokesman Steve Swasey says, as quoted in the LA Times. "We've filed suit to protect our invention. Netflix has built a better mousetrap and Blockbuster copied it."

"But is 'the concept of doing business through the U.S. mail' something a company can really patent?" the naysayers ask.

Uh, no, it's not.

But that's only one small aspect of the operations for which Netflix successfully sought a patent. Even a cursory glance at the patent shows that it's much more complex than that... it's not simply about sticking a naked DVD into a thin red envelope.

Anyone can send a DVD through the mail. But Netflix invented a unique methodology for doing so and for all the back-end operations that support that simple act. The United States Patent and Trademark Office deemed it worthy of not one, but two, patents.

Who are we to argue?

Much has been made about the terms "Max Out" and "Max Turns" which are central to the patent issued yesterday. The former refers to "the number of items that may be simultaneously rented to customers," while the latter refers to "a specified number of item exchanges" that "may be performed during a specified period of time."

Those who are still angry at Netflix over the throttling debacle, have shouted "Gotcha!" loudly and now claim that "Max Turns" is proof positive that Netflix knew all along it would throttle and that is in fact what "Max Turns" refers to, once you crack the code.

Well, not so fast. It actually doesn't say anything of the sort.

What it says is that "Max Out" is a method by which a company can rent "unlimited" DVDs (limited only to the number allowed in circulation at one time) and that "Max Turns" is an alternate method of renting, whereby a customer is allowed a set number of rentals ("turns") during a specified period. Netflix currently offers just such a plan at $11.99 monthly for two DVDs out at a time, with a maximum of four DVDs per month.

Rest assured, Netflix has not been granted a patent on throttling!

Of course, we know they'll continue to throttle; we know they probably have an algorithm that governs it. But it doesn't look like the recipe for that secret sauce is in patent #7,024,381.

What is indeed in there that I haven't heard anyone talk about yet is the ability to allow an override to the "Max Turns" limit, so a subscriber can exceed his or her cap in any given month by paying an additional fee.

What's also in there - surprise, surprise - is yet another twist on the "Max Turns" formula.

(Please note: in the following text, taken directly from the patent, the numbers refer to a "flow diagram" supplied by Netflix and the italics have been added by the DVD Dossier.)

Customer 102 may not use all of its allotted turns during a specified period. According to one embodiment, customers lose unused turns during a subscription period.

For example, if customer 102 has a "Max Turns" limit of four item exchanges per month and only makes two item exchanges in a particular month, then the two unused exchanges are lost and cannot be used. At the start of the next month, customer 102 would be entitled to four new item exchanges.

According to another embodiment, customers are allowed to carry over unused turns to subsequent subscription periods.

For example, if customer 102 has a "Max Turns" limit of four item exchanges per month and only makes two item exchanges in a particular month, then the two unused exchanges are lost and cannot be used. At the start of the next month, customer 102 would be entitled to six new item exchanges, two from the prior month and four for the current month.

Much like cell phone companies that introduced "rollover" minutes to differentiate their product, this may well be the next enhancement to certain Netflix plans... the ability to "carry over" unused rentals.

In fact, that's exactly what we suggested a couple of months ago, when writing about the throttling controversy.

Hey, wait a second... maybe all this stuff is obvious.

[Previously: Sue and Your Shares Accrue]
[Previously: Rental Combatant Sued Over Latent Patent]

--------------------

Update: Reuters has a good piece in which several analysts weigh in on the legitimacy of the suit, the likelihood of a Netflix victory and the financial implications for both companies.

Update: Analyst Michael Pachter predicts Blockbuster will ultimately emerge victorious: "My professional opinion is really more colored by Netflix's repeated public comments about how inferior the Blockbuster online offering is," Pachter told the E-Commerce Times. "If Blockbuster stole Netflix's process, then the two offerings would be identical."

Steven Gets Even

"Mercenary For Justice," an adrenaline-fueled thrill-ride starring Steven Seagal as a soldier of fortune, arrives on DVD April 25th from Fox Home Entertainment.

When you're a mercenary, there's always going to be casualties, but no job is  too treacherous for John Seeger (Seagal), who finds himself orchestrating an imposisble prison break when he's blackmailed by a rogue organization.

Seeger is the best in the business. (And, apparently, his business is kicking ass.)

He leads a team of heavily-armed soldiers on a deadly mission to South Africa to rescue the son of a billionaire arms dealer. But when Seeger finds out he's been double-crossed, it's payback time.

The sole bonus feature here on "Mercenary For Justice" will be a "making-of" featurette.

Widescreen and full screen versions of the film will both be included on the dreaded "flipper disc" that the film will come on... and that Fox insists on using more and more these days. On the one hand, this sure does cut down on confusion in the store... how many times have you grabbed a full screen DVD when you really wanted the widescreen edition? Here, you get both in one package, kinda like those "hybrid" CD-ROMs that include both Mac and Windows software on one disc.

It also cuts the shelf space required to display the title in half, which is a good thing, as merchants will soon have to stock not just the DVD format, but the new HD-DVD and Bluray discs and an ever increasing array of large boxed sets.

On the other hand, the so-called "flipper disc" sucks out loud in technicolor (yes, I'm twelve years old today). The budget compromise slash deal with the devil that Fox has made is to use both sides of the disc.

This makes the DVD more prone to scratches and operating malfunctions simply because both sides of the disc are meant to be played and invariably you and I will pick up the wrong side and abuse it on its way back and forth from the DVD player.

Look at the DVDs you already own... see those scratches, nicks and ketchup stains on the printed side of the discs, right on top of the movie's logo or the picture of the movie's stars?

Well, with these double-sided discs from Fox, those scratches and stains will still be there, only the pretty picture and logo won't be and you'll be expected to actually put that dirty disc into your player, gunk side down.

Enjoy!

But I digress.

And I'm keeping Steven waiting.... and you know how he gets.

Audio on "Mercenary" will be in English (Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound), with (optional) English and Spanish subtitles. Suggested Retail Price will be $26.98, but don't tell me you're still paying retail! Smart shoppers should be able to pick this one up for about nineteen bucks.

Pre-order "Mercenary For Justice" now and save 30%.

Tender Gender Bender Features Cover Blunder

The Weinstein Company has announced the May 23rd release of "Transamerica," starring Felicity Huffman.

The Emmy Award winner for TV’s “Desperate Housewives,” Huffman won a Golden Globe for Best Actress in a Drama, and was nominated for an Academy Award for her work in "Transamerica," a film that takes a funny, touching, completely original look at a modern American family.

In one of the most extraordinary roles of her career, Felicity Huffman plays Bree, a transsexual about to take the final step in her transformation from man to woman while at the same time playing new mother to the son she never knew she had.

Prim and proper Bree gets an out-of-the-blue phone call from Toby, her illegitimate 17-year old son just as she is about to take the final step in becoming the woman she always wanted to be. The son (Kevin Zegers), who was raised by her ex-lover, has been arrested and needs Bree to bail him out.

So she leaves L.A. and flies to New York with the plan to deposit her estranged son with his stepfather in Tennessee. But the wheels of fortune take Bree and Toby on a cross-country adventure filled with u-turns, both humorous and emotional, that bring parent and son closer together.

The film also features acclaimed performances by its supporting cast, including Fionnula Flanagan, Graham Greene and Elizabeth Peña.

"Transamerica" marks the directorial debut of writer/director Duncan Tucker, who won an Independent Spirit Award for Best First Screenplay. The soundtrack features the Academy Award and Golden Globe nominated song “Travelin’ Thru,” sung by Dolly Parton.

Extras on the DVD will include a blooper reel with over four minutes of never-before-seen footage, a feature length audio commentary by the director and two taped conservations between the director and stars, Felicity Huffman and Kevin Zegers. Additional bonus features will include the music video of “Travelin’ Thru” and a featurette on the behind-the-scenes making of that music video.

The film will be presented in widescreen (1.78:1) with audio in English (Dolby) and subtitles available in English and Spanish.

Now, after having just saluted The Weinstein Company a few minutes ago for their smart decision on putting out two distinct covers for the two different versions of "Mrs. Henderson Presents,"  we're scratching our heads wondering: whose dumb idea was it to put a glamor shot of Felicity Huffman on the cover of "Transamerica?"

It's a great photo and will certainly help to move product. The problem is it's just a wee bit misleading, doncha think?

There she is in the cover photo, looking wily and womanly, every pixel supporting her fans' image of her as a desperate housewife. But she doesn't look like that anywhere in the film! She plays a man about to undergo a sex change operation and as such she's not all that attractive or glamorous (by conventional standards)... in any case, she certainly doesn't look like that.

Now, we like this film. We think it demands to be seen. And we believe there's a certain segment of Felicity Huffman's audience who may not have considered buying or renting a film about a pre-op transsexual... and who will indeed be attracted by the cover which practically screams "Hey, if you like me on 'Desperate Housewives,' I'm sure you won't want to miss my Oscar-nominated performance in this!"

So, in that sense, this is damn good marketing.

But there's also a large number of fans who may feel duped and - for whatever reason - may not wish to view a film on this topic, no matter how critically acclaimed. Yes, a careful perusal of the back cover will tell you what the film is really about, but a lot of people won't bother to read that.

Like it or not, "Felicity Huffman" is now a brand and when the primary image of her on the front cover of her latest product is a glamorous shot, it raises certain expectations about what's inside the box.

We think there should have been a little more mystery and a little less Wisteria with this DVD release of "Transamerica." We would have simply picked up the key art from the film's theatrical release (shown here on the right) which rather brilliantly and quickly gets across some of the film's central themes.

But we're not stupid - we also would have inserted a small photo of Huffman right there on the front cover, so that fans who don't know her name or who lack imagination can see her in all her glamorous glory. A small photo with a snipe, yeah, that's the ticket.

You know, when your film is about a pre-op transsexual, maybe you shouldn't try too hard to appeal to everyone; you may discover that not everybody wants you... and you may alienate your core audience in the process.

This glam cover reminds me of those internet parodies that have cropped up recently, in which they re-cut the trailer for a horror flick like "The Shining" to make it look like a romantic comedy.

But you can't put lipstick on a pig.

No matter how much you try to make "Transamerica" look at first glance like a reckless romp with that chick from that popular Sunday night ABC dramedy, it's still a film about a woman imprisoned within a man's body.

You've got a good film here; sell it on its merits, ferchrissakes. To do anything less is a disservice to the creative artists involved and to the universal themes of acceptance and truth illuminated by the film itself.

Suggested Retail Price on "Transamerica" will be $28.95, but most stores will be selling this for about $20.00.

Pre-order "Transamerica" now and save 31%.

------------------------------

Update: The street date for this title has been moved up to May 9th.

Update: The street date for this title has been moved back to May 23rd.

Also, mea maxima culpa: we've just learned that the cover art for "Transamerica" will actually feature two images - one of the star as herself and one of her in character as "Bree" - and the cover will use a lenticular process to alternate between them (much like those pictures of Jesus where his eyes follow you as you move around the room).

So, yes, we feel pretty silly about our rant, but how were we to know? You won't find that feature mentioned in any of the advance press materials and we still can't find a picture of the second image anywhere. Nevertheless, we humbly apologize.

(And, oh, if anybody at the Weinstein Company is reading this, your password-protected site for the press is apparently live, but it doesn't work... none of the links are "clickable," including the "contact us" button.)

Update: At long last, we're pleased to be able to share the alternate cover image for "Transamerica."

This is not an alternate cover... it will not be sold alongside the other one in a separate edition. Nor is it the art for the full screen version of the film. (There will be no full screen version of "Transamerica.")

This image will alternate with the first as you walk past the box as it sits on the shelf, or as you rock the box back and forth in your hand. It's an expensive printing process and adds a few pennies to the cost, which is why it's normally reserved for deluxe collector's sets with a much higher retail price point.

But for communicating the unique nature of this particular film, while still exploiting the huge commercial appeal of Felicity Huffman, it was well worth it.

Don't you agree?

The Oscars, Episode 78: Revenge of the Sid

So, someone has to ask this and it might as well be me.

What exactly was up with all the DVD bashing at the Oscars?

The Academy Awards began with a little bit of a shaky start; first-time host Jon Stewart seemed a bit nervous and restrained with his slow, deliberate - and rather safe - opening monologue. It was only later - when introducing prepared film parodies and when ad-libbing about events that had just taken place onstage - that he came into his own.

But what most interested me as a DVD guy was the unexpected and completely unwelcome insults thrown at the home video industry.

First we had Sid Ganis, new president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (these are the folks who put the Academy into the Academy Awards). He muttered something about how watching films in a theatre with a big screen and an audience full of people is the only way to go... that you're not getting the true picture if you watch the film at home.

Really, Sid?

Then there was actor Jake Gyllenhaal, who - in prepared remarks apparently written for him - introduced a film montage, one of several unnecessary and ineffective montages for the night. (Note to Gil Cates: you'll have more room for the acceptance speeches next time if you cut out the montages.) In his intro, Jake said something about how you simply can't watch movies on a TV and wished us luck trying to watch one of these films on a "portable DVD."

I'm not even sure what that means, as all DVDs are portable. I guess he meant a portable DVD player and was trying to suggest that big films (he was introducing a montage on "epic" movies) suffered when seen on a small screen.

Well, there's some truth to that.

Films like "Raiders of the Lost Ark," "Star Wars" or "2001: A Space Odyssey" are best enjoyed on huge screens supported by state-of-the-art sound systems.

Comedies, while not normally needing a big screen for their visual effects, do indeed benefit by the presence of other theatergoers and the infectious nature of public laughter. It is funnier with several hundred (or a thousand or more) strangers laughing along with you.

But all the films nominated for "Best Picture" this year are small in scale, except for their ideas.

They all play beautifully (or will) on DVD. And the film that unexpectedly took home the big prize - "Crash" - may have won specifically because people watched it in their homes.

Not only has the film been commercially available on DVD since September, but the studio (Lionsgate) sent out an unprecedented 130,000 DVD screeners (promotional copies) to members of the Academy and other showbiz types, so they could watch the film when and where they pleased. (The DVDs are portable, after all.) If you didn't get your copy, Sid, contact Lionsgate and I'm sure they'll rectify the error.

Seriously, though, just where are Sid and Jake watching their movies?

I live in New York and I can count on one finger the number of show palaces that remain... large theatres with humongous screens and sound systems that will not only knock your socks off, but most of your undergarments, too.

Seeing a film at the Ziegfield Theater is indeed an experience.

But most theatres I go to in New York (and Los Angeles) have postage stamp size screens, filthy bathrooms and sound that bleeds through from one theatre to the next so you hear loud explosions during sensitive dramas. The theatres I go to have sticky floors, rude employees and even ruder audiences, who talk through much of the film.

When you complain to theatre management, they shrug their shoulders and hand you a business card for the "district manager" (often in another city) so you can call and complain. The phone number is never answered by a human being and so you leave a voice-mail message, which is never returned.

No, Jake, you're right. I can't have that kind of experience with a "portable DVD."

The theatregoing experience is exactly why many people prefer watching films at home and why video windows (the delay from theatre premiere to the home video release) are shrinking.

At home, I watch what I want when I want. If I'm hungry I can eat healthy popcorn or a salad or pig out on a pastrami sandwich or a pizza. I can stop for a phone call or a bathroom break. I can play a particularly dense scene over and over if I don't understand all the complicated plot points - or if Mrs. Dossier talks over a scene - or she's fallen asleep.

I have a 34 inch digital television and, frankly, given the size of most theatre screens these days, the picture looks pretty darn big (and often better quality than a scratchy print that's been running for weeks or months down at the local multiplex).

Hey, Sid, did you ever hear of biting the hand that feeds you?

Tell me, I'm really curious about this... how can you be a producer and the president of the Academy and yet somehow be unaware that most films make more money from their home video release than they make in theatres? This has been going on for about ten years!

"The Incredibles" made over $100 million the first day the DVD was released, compared to $93 million in theatres in its first week. The first week "The Passion of the Christ" was released on DVD, it made $134 million. First week in theatres? $119 million.

And "Ray" took in $75 million in DVD sales in its first week, exactly the same amount it made after twenty weeks in theatres.

Last week, "Walk the Line" sold three million units on its first day of sale. Even at a discounted price of about $15 a pop (for the Single Disc Edition), that's still equivalent to more than a third of the film's gross in theatres so far.

Clearly, people like watching movies on TV.

Does it really make sense to come down hard on the home video experience when millions of people are watching the Academy Awards at home, many of them on their brand new fancy schmancy HDTVs with superior picture and sound?

Talk about Hollywood being out of touch!

How do you think they felt when you told them they just spent $1500 or $2000 on something not all that worthwhile?

As for the films you yourself have produced... Sid, baby, sweetie, are you really trying to tell me that "Deuce Bigalow, Male Gigolo" must be seen on the big screen? That "Big Daddy" is somehow bigger and daddier in theatres? That we're not having the complete "Mr. Deeds" experience if we don't see it at the cinema?

I'm not here to argue that going to a theatre to see a BIG movie is not a worthwhile experience (provided the theatre is well maintained and the audience doesn't misbehave), but the fact is they're not making many BIG movies anymore.

Now we can "chicken and egg" that discussion all we want - are there no big movies because people aren't going to the theatres or are people staying away from theatres because there are no big movies? - but the fact is that the home video business is on the rise.

Whether we watch those movies on DVD or whether they get downloaded directly to our TVs, people will continue to watch and enjoy Hollywood's best at home.

If for some reason the Academy believes that going to a movie theater is vastly superior or that it's the way to somehow "save" the business, then do something to get people in theatres.

Make GOOD movies. (If you make them, they will come.)

Make BIG movies. (Pleasant though it may be, there's no compelling reason to see "Jiminy Glick in La La Wood" in a theatre.)

Make theatregoing PLEASURABLE.

The theatres that will succeed in the future are the ones that create an experience you truly can't have at home. Theatres with plush seats or sofas. Boutique theatres that serve gourmet food and cocktails, with valet parking and childcare.

More traditionally, theatres that focus on quality, service and preserving the integrity of the movie-going experience will prosper.

What do I mean when I say "preserving the integrity of the movie-going experience?"

I'm talking about removing patrons who talk and those who insist on taking and making cell phone calls during the movie. I'm talking about cleaning the theatre - really cleaning the theatre - so I'm not sitting in the residue of week-old junior mints and soda pop.

I'm talking about properly installing and maintaining seats so that I don't have to see a chiropractor after every show.  I'm talking about maintaining a comfortable temperature in the theater, so I don't have to wear an overcoat or strip down to my skivvies to watch the film. (I'm talking about removing patrons who insist on stripping down to their skivvies.)

I'm talking about cleaning the bathrooms so I don't have to walk through a pool of other men's urine in order to relieve myself or wash my hands. (While you're at it, why not refill toilet paper and paper towels more than once a week? That would be nice.)

Most importantly, I'm talking about having quality prints of each film and having projectionists who monitor what's actually being shown in the theatre to make sure everything is running smoothly; I'm talking about having ushers who actually move through the theatre at regular intervals to monitor audience behavior.

You encourage theater owners to do all that, Sid, and I'll go to see movies on (what passes for) the big screen more often.

Oh, and I'm sorry about what I said before. "Duece Bigalow" was better in theatres. In fact, the special effects were amazing... in one scene, they actually made it look like Rob Schneider was acting.

Kongzilla

A couple of days ago, we shared details of the forthcoming "King Kong" release for March 28th. This will be the DVD debut of last year's remake and will be available in full screen and widescreen editions, as well as in a 2-Disc Special Edition, all from Universal Studios Home Entertainment.

Now comes word from Warner Home Video that they will use the same street date - March 28th - to release the original 1933 RKO classic as a Single Disc DVD to supplement the 2-Disc Special Edition and 2 Disc Collector's Edition which were released last year.

The date is shaping up to be the 400 pound gorilla of street dates!  In addition to these Kong titles, Fox Home Entertainment will issue two distinct "Planet of the Apes" boxed sets on the same day.

As for "King Kong," it remains Warner's most requested title. After making its long-awaited DVD debut in November, it quickly sold nearly a million-and-half units.

And now, if you're interested in having just the film itself, without all the special features, you'll be able to buy it at a relativley reasonable Suggested Retail Price of $14.97. (Although we expect the actual price you pay will be closer to $12.00.)

I have mixed feelings about this release strategy, frankly.

On the one hand, it's nice that the version with all the bells and whistles was available first and collectors were not forced to buy the film again. Here at the DVD Dossier, we've often complained about that very thing.

How many times have you seen an initial bare bones edition followed six months or a year later by a "Special" or "Collector's" Edition of the very same movie, with no way to "upgrade" your copy so that it has the same special features?

Aaarrrggghhh!

On the other hand, in this case, the curse has been reversed. I was one of those people who - even though I was interested in just having a good copy of the film on DVD - actually bought the "King Kong" 2-Disc Special Edition (despite what you may think, we don't get review copies of every new title here).

So I was a little, um, frustrated to learn that this new cut-down version will be out in just a few weeks, timed to coincide with the 2005 remake's arrival on DVD. (Presumably, they'll be able able to ride the coattails of that release and sell a few of the originals as impulse buys.)

To make matters worse, I haven't actually watched the damn thing yet. (But that's a whole different story.)

In any case, Warner is still doing the other thing, too.

Much to the consternation of true collectors who may have already made a tough decision about which version of Kong to purchase, Warner is taking the opportunity on March 28th to repackage and upgrade the "King Kong Collection" with the 2-Disc Special Edition in its keepsake tin, along with copies of "Son of Kong" and "Mighty Joe Young."

The new boxed set ($49.92 SRP) differs from the original issue (still available) by the addition of the the keepsake tin; the prior version had the same DVD contents, but the 2-Disc Special Edition featured plain vanilla packaging. So collectors had to decide which they wanted more... the whole shebang, including the two Kong sequels... or the keepsake tin, available only in the "2-Disc Collector's Edition."

I tell you, it's a wonder they sell any of these at all, what with the dizzying array of Special and Collector's Editions flying left and right. At what point does buyer confusion set in?

By our count, on March 28th, there will be no less than ten recently issued DVDs with the title "King Kong" emblazoned on the cover... which is all the more reason to boycott Kong and turn your attention to "Godzilla."

Sony Pictures Home Entertainment will keep the international, larger-than-life icon alive with the release of "Godzilla: Monster Edition," arriving - you guessed it - on March 28th. The only problem is that director Roland Emmerich’s 1998 version is a dreadful film starring Matthew Broderick, Jean Reno, Hank Azaria, Doug Savant and Harry Shearer (Suggested Retail Price will be $19.94).

All-new bonus features for "Godzilla: Monster Edition" will include an "All-Time Best of Godzilla Fight Scenes" featurette; a never-before-seen production art gallery; photo galleries; FX supervisor commentary, plus three episodes from the new volumes of television’s Godzilla: The Series.

But wait, there's more...

Sony will also be releasing two volumes of "Godzilla: The Series ," a made-for-television adventure show based on the movIe.  This fast-paced animated series pits humanity against a new generation of giant monsters including Godzilla’s offspring. Both the second and third volumes of the popular series -  "Monster Mayhem" and "Mutant Madness" - will be available for an SRP of $9.98 each.

Pre-order the Single Edition disc of "King Kong now and save 25%.

Pre-order the new version of "The King Kong Collection" and save 10%.

Pre-order "Godzilla: Monster Edition" now and save 25%.

[Previously: Take Your Stinking Paws Off Me; Lord of the King (Kong)]

Netflix Settlement Unsettled?

As reported today in The Washington Post's consumer blog - "The Checkout" - and over at Netflix Fan, trouble is brewing with the proposed settlement in the Netflix class action suit dealing with delivery times and "throttling" of customers' accounts at the online DVD rental service.

(If you need to be brought up to speed on what the class action suit is about, click this link for a PDF of the proposed settlement or read our previous post entitled "Movies By Mail" to learn more about delivery times or check out hackingnetflix.com to see what they have to say about "throttling.")

As is common with class action suits, the lawyers pocketed huge legal fees here (reportedly $2.5 million in this case, at least a million more than will likely go to Netflix subscribers), while the members of the class - regular schlubs like you and me - get fairly worthless coupons or discounts on future purchases.

With the Netflix settlement, that translates into a one month upgrade to a higher level of service for current members (worth between $2 and $6, depending on the level of service the member currently has), but that upgrade will be set up as a negative option... members will have to remember to cancel the upgrade after 30 days or they'll be automatically charged the new, higher rate.

Former members (who were Netflix subscribers during the time covered by the suit) can get one free month of service.

Now the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice have weighed in on the matter, saying the Netflix settlement is unfair. They've legally challenged the settlement (PDF), urging the court to refuse to approve. They say that the settlement is nothing more than a marketing tool to get more money out of members and that most customers would, in fact, be worse off, particularly if they fail to cancel the higher priced service.

From their official objection:

This settlement is a striking example of the growing trend of class action settlements that provide substantial benefits to the defendants and class counsel but little or no relief to the class.Here, the parties’ proposed Settlement Agreement gives defendant Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”) a broad release of liability and class counsel $2.5 million in attorneys’ fees.

By contrast, the class members receive nothing but non-cash vouchers of dubious value.  They can redeem these vouchers only if they submit to a claims process that, because of the settlement’s “automatic renewal” feature requiring class members to opt-out to avoid incurring additional charges from Netflix, threatens to leave the class worse off than if this case had never been brought.

Because few class members will want to use these non-cash vouchers, the value of the settlement does not approach the $85 million figure trumpeted by class counsel.

In actuality, Netflix has acknowledged in an SEC filing that the value of the relief provided to 2/3 of the class is less than $1.5 million.  With class counsel standing to receive $2.5 million in attorneys’ fees, this settlement will give class counsel 60% or more of the total relief paid out by Netflix.

As a consumer who personally can never remember or can't be bothered to file for substantial rebates (we're talking $100 on a printer, $50 on a cell phone), I would tend to agree with the reasoning here. Most people who take this upgraded service will forget to downgrade it, at least for a few months.

With regard to attorney's fees far exceeding the benefits to the members, well, yes, but that's nearly always the case with class action suits. It needn't be, but that's another issue entirely.

But isn't this whole thing really smoke and mirrors?

If the very basis of the suit is that Netflix has had problems in keeping its promise to deliver DVDs in a timely manner, well, shucks, what good is it to sign me up for more DVDs sent in the same untimely manner?

As far as I can tell, they haven't really addressed the actual problem yet.

And what about all those folks who will never even respond to the proposed settlement... those who are either too intimidated by the "legal" nature of the communication, those who don't understand it or those who simply can't be bothered (like me)?

I say adjust the lawyers fees down to a more reasonable level and offer all members of the class a refund of ten or fifteen dollars or (I'm plucking this out of thin air) a credit of $35 or $40 to their account - their choice.

Now, all that being said, I have to interject here that I personally have never had a problem with Netflix delivery times (except for one period when there was a thief at the local post office who evidently had as big an appetite for indie flicks as I do).

I realize others have had major legitimate problems; I'm just saying I haven't.

And as we have in recent posts about Wal-Mart, we'd like to remind you that we're an affiliate of Netflix, so if you join through our links, we earn a small commission that helps defray the operating costs of the DVD Dossier site. Clearly, though, this doesn't affect our coverage, as were just as pissed off by this settlement as everyone else.

But in the interest of full disclosure, we thought we'd take the time to remind you once again that A) we're an affiliate and B) we're quite obviously cantankerous angry consumers, just like you... and possibly C) we may have had just a bit too much caffeine this morning, Mrs. Olsen.

How Much Is That HDTV in the Window?

HD Beat has an interesting post today about how you can now get a good HDTV set for far less than you'd expect.

If you don't have an HDTV set yet, do you need to spend upwards of $3,000 to $5,000 to get one this holiday season? Not necessarily...

My intent here isn't to point out specific sets or specific retailers for you to rush out to. No, the point here is to illustrate that you can spend under $1,000 or even under $500 for that first HDTV set this holiday season.

I was a fairly early adopter and have had an HDTV set for more than three years now, even before my cable company, demons that they are, started passing HDTV signals. ("Passing through" might be a more accurate description, as they can never seem to get their compression algorithm right and invariably the audio is a half a second in front of the video, rendering the whole thing unwatchable.)

I prefer the clarity of a tube set, which places limitations on how big the screen can be, of course... mine is a smallish 34" widescreen Panasonic, no longer made. At the time, it was quite something. And it still is. (But I do now covet some of the really big plasma screens I see out there now. Sigh.)

By the way, Amazon has started doing something incredibly interesting and helpful.

Yesterday, the pain became too great to bear and I just had to find out what wonders were lurking just out of reach in my Gold Box™.

(Wassup with that, by the way? Would someone please tell Amazon that just because I once bought a tube of shaving gel from them it doesn't mean that I want to be shown the same three electric razors every time I open the damn box? It reminds me of that episode of "The Mind of the Married Man," the misguided HBO dramedy, where the Married Man's TiVo thinks he's gay just because he recorded "Ellen" and "Will & Grace.")

But I digress. Where was I?

Oh, yeah... Amazon is now offering side-by-side product comparisons. The one that caught my eye while meandering through my Gold Box was for HDTVs. I dunno, maybe they've been doing this for ages and I've missed it, but I think these comparison pages are great.

(Which is more than I can say for all their other changes lately... have you noticed their expanded product info pages for DVD listings? What's that all about? A list of cities and addresses where the movie was filmed? Plot keywords? Seems more like search engine SPAM to me.)

But I digress. (Then again, that's the whole point of having a blog, isn't it? You probably wouldn't be reading this freakhouse of DVD miscellany If I digressed less.)

Anyway, the comparison page feature lets you custom-build a page that, well, compares up to eight similar products, highlighting the key differences in features.

I'd love to link to one of them thar Amazon comparison pages, but it's apparently still in beta and a bit buggy and when i try to to enter the link in another browser window, it renders a blank page.

So, if you're interested in seeing this in action, your best bet is simply to go to Amazon and navigate to a product page that has a "compare" link on it.