DIGITAL VIDEO DRAMA:  The DVD revolution took an interesting step this week, as Blockbuster announced that it may rethink its arrangement with the studios in which they pay the studios a piece of the video rental pie in exchange for smaller upfront purchase costs for the videos, which have allowed retailers to stock dozens of copies of the same titles as a matter of course.  What does this have to do with DVD?  Well, as reported by Variety’s Paul Sweeting, Blockbuster, which has been pushing DVD rental over purchase for a long while, is now making a healthier profit on DVD rentals than on video.  Why?  The wholesale price for DVDs is already almost as low as the price for a video under Blockbuster’s current agreements with the studios and no percentage goes back to the studios after rentals.  With DVD becoming a bigger and bigger percentage of Blockbuster’s rental business, the company is ready to try to squeeze the studios for a no-lose-for-Blockbuster arrangement. 

There are various ways to look at this   It could simply be an effort by Blockbuster to make more money, driven by results of a bean counting exercise.  It could be an effort by Blockbuster to force the studios to adopt the same rules for DVD that they have for video… something Blockbuster was pushing for no more than six months ago.  And most nefarious of all, it could be an effort by Blockbuster to get the studios to go to the two-tier pricing that used to be the norm in home video, with low-priced ($19.99) sell-thrus and more expensive prices ($89.99) for titles that are considered “rental” titles.  How would this help Blockbuster?  Well, they want to get consumers to think of renting DVDs at $3.50 (or whatever it is) rather than buying at $24.95 (or whatever it is).  Increased retail prices on DVD would discourage sales, which is an area where Blockbuster is at a competitive disadvantage against discounters like Wal-Mart and net outlets like Amazon.com.  One consumers think “renting is better” and Blockbuster is in control of the business again, they explain how they can all make more money with more copies of films in the marketplace… especially considering that the hard costs of producing actual DVDs is less than 50 cents a unit.

Anyway, conspiracy theories aside, read the whole story here.

JUST WONDERING:  Did you get the same evil smirk on your face that I did when you saw that Paul Walker is now attached to S.W.A.T. – The Movie?  The reason I got to grinnin’ is that I remember Bob Urich and Steve Forrest from that show… but none of the others.  And I do remember that there was a young blonde guy who reminded me a lot of Paul Walker… pretty and bland (And I’m sure, a great guy).  When I saw the headline that a Fast & Furious star was signed for S.W.A.T., I thought, “Hmmm… Vin Diesel in S.W.A.T. could work.”  But Paul Walker?  Kind makes me pine for Ryan Phillipe. 

GRAPE APE:  Interesting piece on collectibles.  Read it here.

SMELLING DISASTER:  Let me start by saying that I have a lot respect for Stuart Baird as a cutter and, based on his first film, not his second, as a director.  That said, I am scared to death for him and Paramount, where he was just hired to put the notoriously prickly Star Trek: TNG crew through the paces on their next movie.  I will always remember John Leguizamo doing the entire production of Spawn squatting in clown make-up, but having no doubt that it was an easier job than his turn in Baird’s Executive Decision, where he was in a small role wearing no significant make-up and khakis.  You see, Baird is said to direct like an editor.  He knows all the pieces he wants and wants them to fit exactly as he imagines them.  That means retake after retake after retake.  Between Patrick Stewart, who is said to be less happy on a Star Trek set than anywhere else in the world and Brent Spiner, who really wants to direct – the only two cast members signed so far – it could be a long, long, long shoot in a galaxy not too far, far away.

UNDER THE SKIN:  An interesting (and free) piece on a small controversy brewing around the stunt players on Planet of the Apes.  It sure seems to me like a whole lot of intensity about a whole little real trouble.  If you ware going to accuse someone of sexism or racism, I generally expect there to be more evidence than turns up in this piece.  But you can judge for yourself.  (Click here… at least for the moment.)

P.S.:  There was an interesting story somewhere (I’m getting old) about the cost of processing your credit card being greater than the cost Inside.com is charging to read any one story.  So the upshot is that if you buy five stories or less on Inside, your credit card may never be charged.  (May!  No promises… no lawsuits.)  Ah, remembered!  Forbes’ Betsy Schiffman wrote the piece, which you can read here.  

READER OF THE DAY:  The Other Sundance Bob kicks off the voices of civilians.  Read CV today.  Here’s Bob’s take:  “My perfect movie world would...

-consist of movie trailers that don't give away major plot points, and can advertise themselves to young people without flashes of multiple cuts with loud flashes and explosions and creatures gaping mouths rushing to the camera...as if movies can only be amusement park rides, and not the 20^th Century (and now 21st) art form that can be many things to many people....

-see the return of movie palaces to cities, and simple little theaters to small towns, instead of the train stations they've become.

-that the Independent Film Channel and Sundance showed more of the vast amount of playable indie films that are out there sitting on their respective filmmaker's shelves....sure they're not all classics, but isn't half of every premium film channel out there full of guilty pleasures that no one's heard of but watch anyway?  

-every major studio tithe a part of their schedule to filmmakers who are visionaries, so we can have the next Kubricks and Kurosawas and Aranofskys come out with classics that we don't know about yet.

-that America can see the same non-porno adult films that the rest of the world sees.  Ironic that the land of free speech doesn't allow it in commercial releases anymore without branding it as something that can't see a full release across the country.

-that more musicals would be filmed.  

-that Hollywood's comedy short subjects, from the silent years to the 50s, be shown more regularly on AMC and/or TCM in between films.   

-and that my screenplay SHOOTING STAR gets to thrill and charm audiences someday.  (I had to throw that in...you can leave that out of the article....)”

E ME:  Wouldn’t dream of it!  What would you dream of?