OK, was going to necro the thread for the conversational context, but basically it was complaining about streaming services and how you have to subscribe to a whole package for maybe one show you'd want to see. I'd started making notes for a reply, comparing this to buying magazines back in their heyday. Never got around to posting or finishing the notes. Normally when I come across such notes later, I delete them, but I had made a New Year resolution to participate in the group more, if not helping with the signal to noise ratio, at least to contribute a higher quality of noise. I'd begun researching to get it ready to post in February, but here we are halfway through the year.

Back in their heyday, buying a magazine would be the only way to read a serialized novel (with no guarantee that it would become a book) or a new story in any series any author may or may not be making.

Taking our epoch to begin in Feb, 1953, sf mags cost 25 to 35 cents out of a dollar that is worth ten to eleven of 2023's, so $2.50 to $3.85.[1] A search on "streaming deals" and just scrolling through the prices gives us $3..99 to $14.99, often as an introductory deal. That's a closer comparison than I expected to get, given that audiovisual has a premium over print -- in terms of time, a normal length movie has a novella or novelette's worth of story, let alone that text can be produced by a starving artist in a garret, while a performance needs somewhat pampered performers, plus somewhat husky personnel to move around the physical representations of the setting.

Which brings up the first thing streamers have learned from cable companies on how not to engender goodwill, not giving clear costs. A heavily advertised starting rate, increasing to some agreed-upon, if not clearly stated, rate for some period, followed by them charging whatever they think they can get you to pay that month. The second comparison is subscription; the magazine you can buy one off the rack. Do all streaming services require multi-month signup? And why? It's not like the cable company has to go to the trouble of running a wire out to your house for this new service and then wind it back up afterward. How troublesome would it be with automated recordkeeping to change your service status on a monthly, weekly, or daily basis, as non-fans of anthologizing would say, "Why subscribe to a whole streaming service? Why can't I just rent a movie from them?"

[1] Inflation is only an average. Checking magazines of February 2022, I find, if I am reading
https://isfdb.org/cgi-bin/fc.cgi?date+2+2022
correctly, prices from $2.99 to $5, for the web versions (one slim outlier at $1.99), print $7.99 and up. This probably reflects the shrinking of the print industry, and the loss of economies of scale.

Here is where I drove off into the weeds.

Comicbooks, come to mind as an example of the loss of economy or scale -- current issues cost thirty to fifty times what they did in the '50s -- and perhaps the first rise of the non-fan of anthologizing: they handled changes a bit differently from other magazines.

Action Comics #1, the first 12-page story of Superman,
http://www.mikesamazingworld.com/mikes/features/series.php?seriesid=28&page=gallery
and Detective Comics #27, the first 6-page story of Batman,
http://www.mikesamazingworld.com/mikes/features/series.php?seriesid=693&page=gallery

offered a number of other stories as part of packages that give you 59-61 story pages. The Detective title was the more focused, with Action being more like Argosy or All Story magazines as far as genre content.

Moving to my chosen February 1953 cover date, you can pick out the covers of Detective Comics #192 and Action Comics #177 and see they have used what we now call "shrinkflation" to still sell comics for a dime, but with four stories totaling 32 pages. Detective is mixing genres into its mysteries, with Batman, another detective with a gimmick of working through TV, a Sioux detective from the 1880s, and... well, a robotman detective. Action has Congo Bill, and Tommy Tomorrow, who wear their settings on their sleeve -- or I should say on their lapels, if they had nametages. The Vigilante wears his on one of the bandanas of his story title; I don't know if "vigilante" would raise any connotations *but* the old west in those days.

Struggling company Marvel was putting out anthology titles such as Journey into Mystery
http://www.mikesamazingworld.com/mikes/features/series.php?page=gallery&seriesid=3980
with story pages in the low twenties. (I had chosen Journey into Mystery as a special case. Of the Marvel Age heroes, the Fantastic Four and Daredevil premiered in their own title, the others appeared as a story in an anthology title, became the star story in that title, and later shared the book with another hero (each story being 10-12 pages). Journey into Mystery is where Thor got his start, he went on the share the book with... himself. The main Thor stories of about 17 pages were followed by "Tales of Asgard": stories of Thor as a boy living in Smallville. When the "split books" actually split into separate books, one hero would get his own title beginning numbering with 1, and the other would get the anthology book (Tales to Astonish, Tales of Suspense, Strange Tales) renamed, but carrying on the numbering. Journey into Mystery did a clever process of gradually changing the size of the fonts, so that it changed from JOURNEY INTO MYSTERY with the contents advertising of "with The Mighty Thor" to what looked like a slogan "Journey into mystery with" over the title THE MIGHYT THOR. You can see this gradually happening from issues 103 to 104. Eventually they pretended it had always been called The Mighty Thor.)

As we skip forward 70 years, we pass over some more shrinkflation and good old inflation. Story pages shrank down to a low of about 17, but stabilized around 22. Stories grew to be "novel length" by which they mean "fill the whole book" by which they mean "the pamphlet." Genres other than superhero atrophied. And prices rose.

It'll take too long to write out the aversion for split books after comics readers got used to "novel length" stories. In 1988, Action Comics changed to Action Comics Weekly from #601 to #642, containing six stories averaging eight pages each for 48 pages. One story starred Superman, the others various other superheroes, many not currently having their own book. As you can tell, that lasted less than a year. Around the same time, Marvel started an anthology book, Marvel Comics Presents, four stories in 32 pages, biweekly, and slightly cheaper -- not in cost-per-page, but in less "waste" if you are only interested in one or two of the features, I guess if you are only interested in the same number of features as in the other up to four. With these advantages and settling on a lead feature of Wolverine and/or Ghost Rider at the height of his popularity, it ran six years.

The comics had begun to disappear from newsstands and magazine racks. Being cheaper than a regular magazine, but taking about as much space to display, they were less profit. In rec.arts.comics.* at the turn of the century there was fan concern about getting comics back on the newsstand as necessary to keep them alive. The main thought was to bulk them up to the value of magazines, probably by combining several books from different creators that would be ready that month. My memory is many posters objected to having to buy other books they might not want. Monthly comicbooks are still coming out in the same form factor of the '70s, and the industry is still dying the death it's been going through since the end of WWII.

To now take a look at movie theaters. Used to be admission got you in and you watched until you got bored. With the projectionist changing reels every ten minutes or so, they could mix any number of shorts in with the features -- hopefully not mix them into the feature. I'm not clear on how shorts were packaged. Possibly some yearly bundle of a certain number, delivered over time, and the theater could mix suppliers. Theaters had experience being vexed with "bundling," of good movies with bad known as "block booking," but did not have a convenient way to pass that on to their moviegoers. Still, whatever the studios were dishing out, they thought they themselves could take it; they also moved to own theaters themselves. Both of these practices were thought to possibly be monopolistic, and investigated from the beginning of the sound era up until the 1948 decision in US v. Paramount (et alia) put a stop to it. This and other forces were changing movie-going from the multiple-story format. I found out just last month that Warner Brothers and MGM would each briefly lay off their animation departments later in 1953 while they were considering the costs of upgrading them to 3-D, the wave of the future. We were far past the days when Disney's Technicolor cartoons or a double-length Popeye would be the draw on the marquee, but feature movies were still shown with shorts, the Three Stooges, for example, would still make shorts up until 1959. Republic and Columbia were the last studios to make serials into the '50s, the first giving up in 1955, and the other a year later. From what I've seen, audience complaints against multiple shorts have not been about money, but about time. I guess folks want to get home to watch television.

Which brings us to TV. Like radio before it, it had to fill the void of broadcasting all day -- if not yet all night. Essentially any random thing that came into the studio, or that they could go out and record. The limited number of stations in any one area led to an understanding of "something for everyone" in its programming. With the coming of cable channels also came the possibility of "narrowcasting." Not to get into the history of that, but maybe if I did I'd find that the first, obvious, ones have been the most popular subdivisions, and have remained truest to their brands. Nevertheless, any narrow interest is not going to be as popular as a broad interest, and there's temptation for every channel to chase that audience. But that's not the complaint I'm looking at; it's the way cable bundled and charged for channels. Here the complaint seems to settle around money, all up and down the hierarchy.

One what?

I'm not sure if you were saying this, but how media
product is sold always depended on presenting a
marketable unit of material that could be delivered
to the audience. A popular song was a "single" disc,
and usually it came with a less interesting "B Side"
of the disc. A Long Player disc contained several
tracks, inevitably of varying interest. Only very
recently has it been possible to offer music for
someone to hear /once/ for pennies, instead of to
take home and hear over and over and over again.
Well, I'm overlooking jukeboxes, lending libraries,
radio stations that play all this week's "hits" every
day, and the hypothetical Disney movie DVD that
you could play once or twice in the time it takes
to oxidize beyond use. Shades of wax cylinders.
Typically, not many plays of one track on a jukebox
were costing more than owning the disc.

Incidentally, many of those "Tales of Asgard" seem
to be traditional stories about the Norse Gods, maybe
adjusted to put Thor on top more often. I think they
had versions of the death of Balder - and he got better -
and the one where Thor visits the giants and their
housecat is really the World Serpent and stuff, which
makes picking it up and stroking it quite a challenge.

On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>One what?
>
>I'm not sure if you were saying this, but how media
>product is sold always depended on presenting a
>marketable unit of material that could be delivered
>to the audience. A popular song was a "single" disc,
>and usually it came with a less interesting "B Side"
>of the disc. A Long Player disc contained several
>tracks, inevitably of varying interest. Only very
>recently has it been possible to offer music for
>someone to hear /once/ for pennies, instead of to
>take home and hear over and over and over again.
>Well, I'm overlooking jukeboxes, lending libraries,
>radio stations that play all this week's "hits" every
>day, and the hypothetical Disney movie DVD that
>you could play once or twice in the time it takes
>to oxidize beyond use. Shades of wax cylinders.
>Typically, not many plays of one track on a jukebox
>were costing more than owning the disc.

Any idea which Disney movie DVD? I've had a small number of DVDs go
bad, and one or two were Disney. Most were not.

All were fairly early; apparently, there was a teething stage for DVD
production, after which the manufacturers finally figured out what
they were doing.

>Incidentally, many of those "Tales of Asgard" seem
>to be traditional stories about the Norse Gods, maybe
>adjusted to put Thor on top more often. I think they
>had versions of the death of Balder - and he got better -
>and the one where Thor visits the giants and their
>housecat is really the World Serpent and stuff, which
>makes picking it up and stroking it quite a challenge.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
><rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>One what?
>>
>>I'm not sure if you were saying this, but how media=20
>>product is sold always depended on presenting a=20
>>marketable unit of material that could be delivered
>>to the audience. A popular song was a "single" disc,=20
>>and usually it came with a less interesting "B Side"
>>of the disc. A Long Player disc contained several=20
>>tracks, inevitably of varying interest. Only very=20
>>recently has it been possible to offer music for=20
>>someone to hear /once/ for pennies, instead of to
>>take home and hear over and over and over again. =20
>>Well, I'm overlooking jukeboxes, lending libraries,
>>radio stations that play all this week's "hits" every=20
>>day, and the hypothetical Disney movie DVD that
>>you could play once or twice in the time it takes=20
>>to oxidize beyond use. Shades of wax cylinders.
>>Typically, not many plays of one track on a jukebox=20
>>were costing more than owning the disc.
>
>Any idea which Disney movie DVD? I've had a small number of DVDs go
>bad, and one or two were Disney. Most were not.

Perhaps he was referring to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX

With one or two exceptions, most cases of DVD rot were
ascribed to malhandling by the end user.

Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
> >On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> ><rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Only very
> >>recently has it been possible to offer music for
> >>someone to hear /once/ for pennies, instead of to
> >>take home and hear over and over and over again.
> >>Well, I'm overlooking jukeboxes, lending libraries,
> >>radio stations that play all this week's "hits" every
> >>day, and the hypothetical Disney movie DVD that
> >>you could play once or twice in the time it takes
> >>to oxidize beyond use. Shades of wax cylinders.
> >
> >Any idea which Disney movie DVD? I've had a small number of DVDs go
> >bad, and one or two were Disney. Most were not.
>
> Perhaps he was referring to this:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX
>
> With one or two exceptions, most cases of DVD rot were
> ascribed to malhandling by the end user.

Last I read, there was thought that the coverings of a double-sided DVD were letting in chemicals.

Some other plan like DIVX was used to turn your disk into an exDVD, one that would deliberately undergo disk rot, sold packed in an airtight package. It also met pushback for creating unnecessarily large amounts of waste disks that would not even be decorative to use as coasters, as my Mom did with AOL installation CDs back in the day.

--
-Jack

On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 3:07:02 PM UTC-4, Jack Bohn wrote:
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
> > >On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> > ><rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Only very
> > >>recently has it been possible to offer music for
> > >>someone to hear /once/ for pennies, instead of to
> > >>take home and hear over and over and over again.
> > >>Well, I'm overlooking jukeboxes, lending libraries,
> > >>radio stations that play all this week's "hits" every
> > >>day, and the hypothetical Disney movie DVD that
> > >>you could play once or twice in the time it takes
> > >>to oxidize beyond use. Shades of wax cylinders.
> > >
> > >Any idea which Disney movie DVD? I've had a small number of DVDs go
> > >bad, and one or two were Disney. Most were not.
> >
> > Perhaps he was referring to this:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX
> >
> > With one or two exceptions, most cases of DVD rot were
> > ascribed to malhandling by the end user.
> Last I read, there was thought that the coverings of a double-sided DVD were letting in chemicals.
>
> Some other plan like DIVX was used to turn your disk into an exDVD, one that would deliberately undergo disk rot, sold packed in an airtight package.. It also met pushback for creating unnecessarily large amounts of waste disks that would not even be decorative to use as coasters, as my Mom did with AOL installation CDs back in the day.

You're confusing Divx, which used a special dvd format only playable in Divx players, with
'Flexplay' and 'SpectraDisk', which could be played in standard dvd players, but oxidized to
uselessness in about 48 hours. Divx was a special dvd format that could only be played
Divx players.

Pt

On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 2:53:08 PM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> One what?
>
Conclusion, or possibly Solution.
My feeling is I've just listed a number of conditions.

> I'm not sure if you were saying this, but how media
> product is sold always depended on presenting a
> marketable unit of material that could be delivered
> to the audience.

Yes! That's what I'm going to claim I was trying to say.
To wax philosophical, every perfect joke, or song, or story in any form, is a gift, and yet we are expecting to get the next one after that. Imagine the disappointment in your clan if you gathered them all to hear the bard, and the only new thing that night was one limerick. To create that comic strip so fully expressive of your life that it deserves to be put on your office door, newspapers had to have a page full of artists creating one a day for years. Changing technology allows packaging such that you can collect things and sell three for the price of two (or whatever the exact economy is) but the problem is getting those three. If you've only found two, you are still even, if you buy three for the price of two to get only one, you're subsidizing failure, and not of your judgement, but someone else's. I guess my questions come to whether technology has come to make no cost difference in buying one or a dozen, what effect will not having to buy a dozen have on what they will even try to make?
> Incidentally, many of those "Tales of Asgard" seem
> to be traditional stories about the Norse Gods, maybe
> adjusted to put Thor on top more often. I think they
> had versions of the death of Balder - and he got better -
> and the one where Thor visits the giants and their
> housecat is really the World Serpent and stuff, which
> makes picking it up and stroking it quite a challenge.

Yeah, only a first few were Thor as a boy trying to be worthy to hold the hammer. Soon Thor was of an age indistinguishable from the main book, having adventures in the other realms.

I wish I could remember the podcast, but, as an adjunct to their reading Marvel comics in order, they reached out to a Norse mythology aficionado they knew for comment. He took the Tales to task as only what Stan and Jack remembered about mythology, but gently, he didn't beat Thor like a non-red-headed stepchild.

--
-Jack

In article <053acb1c-f94d-401e-818f-f78bc1469a3bn@googlegroups.com>,
Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 2:53:08 PM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> One what?
>>
>Conclusion, or possibly Solution.
>My feeling is I've just listed a number of conditions.
>
>> I'm not sure if you were saying this, but how media
>> product is sold always depended on presenting a
>> marketable unit of material that could be delivered
>> to the audience.
>
>Yes! That's what I'm going to claim I was trying to say.
>To wax philosophical, every perfect joke, or song, or story in any form,
>is a gift, and yet we are expecting to get the next one after that.
>Imagine the disappointment in your clan if you gathered them all to hear
>the bard, and the only new thing that night was one limerick. To create
>that comic strip so fully expressive of your life that it deserves to be
>put on your office door, newspapers had to have a page full of artists
>creating one a day for years. Changing technology allows packaging such
>that you can collect things and sell three for the price of two (or
>whatever the exact economy is) but the problem is getting those three.
>If you've only found two, you are still even, if you buy three for the
>price of two to get only one, you're subsidizing failure, and not of
>your judgement, but someone else's. I guess my questions come to
>whether technology has come to make no cost difference in buying one or
>a dozen, what effect will not having to buy a dozen have on what they
>will even try to make?
>
>> Incidentally, many of those "Tales of Asgard" seem
>> to be traditional stories about the Norse Gods, maybe
>> adjusted to put Thor on top more often. I think they
>> had versions of the death of Balder - and he got better -
>> and the one where Thor visits the giants and their
>> housecat is really the World Serpent and stuff, which
>> makes picking it up and stroking it quite a challenge.
>
>Yeah, only a first few were Thor as a boy trying to be worthy to hold
>the hammer. Soon Thor was of an age indistinguishable from the main
>book, having adventures in the other realms.
>
>I wish I could remember the podcast, but, as an adjunct to their reading
>Marvel comics in order, they reached out to a Norse mythology aficionado
>they knew for comment. He took the Tales to task as only what Stan and
>Jack remembered about mythology, but gently, he didn't beat Thor like a
>non-red-headed stepchild.
>

Well, they were *writing* mythology.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 16:44:57 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>><rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>>One what?
>>>
>>>I'm not sure if you were saying this, but how media=20
>>>product is sold always depended on presenting a=20
>>>marketable unit of material that could be delivered
>>>to the audience. A popular song was a "single" disc,=20
>>>and usually it came with a less interesting "B Side"
>>>of the disc. A Long Player disc contained several=20
>>>tracks, inevitably of varying interest. Only very=20
>>>recently has it been possible to offer music for=20
>>>someone to hear /once/ for pennies, instead of to
>>>take home and hear over and over and over again. =20
>>>Well, I'm overlooking jukeboxes, lending libraries,
>>>radio stations that play all this week's "hits" every=20
>>>day, and the hypothetical Disney movie DVD that
>>>you could play once or twice in the time it takes=20
>>>to oxidize beyond use. Shades of wax cylinders.
>>>Typically, not many plays of one track on a jukebox=20
>>>were costing more than owning the disc.
>>
>>Any idea which Disney movie DVD? I've had a small number of DVDs go
>>bad, and one or two were Disney. Most were not.
>
>Perhaps he was referring to this:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX

I don't think so.

Although it is possible given the dates for DIVX and the first Disney
DVD release.

>With one or two exceptions, most cases of DVD rot were
>ascribed to malhandling by the end user.

Only by studios trying to avoid lawsuits. Or the third-party
manufacturers they relied on.

Some became infamous. The DVD of the Korean film /The Host/, for
example: when it went bad, I found a discussion from 10 years earlier
about it online. I suspect that /every disc/ eventually went bad: when
mine did (it stopped in mid-movie and extensive testing showed
everything was bad from there), I went through /two new copies/ from
Amazon before Amazon insisted on doing a refund instead of a
replacement. Which I was planning to do anyway. All three died at the
same point in the film; only which menus/other items would or would
not play varied.

All in all, my memory and records suggest I have replaced 10 DVDs for
this problem. But that is out of (now) nearly 1200. This is a disc
problem; properly-produced discs (the vast majority) do not share it.
And, yes, they are all treated with the same care: stored vertically,
cases closed, disks secure, cases replaced when the grabbers break.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 16:44:57 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>><rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>One what?
>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure if you were saying this, but how media=3D20
>>>>product is sold always depended on presenting a=3D20
>>>>marketable unit of material that could be delivered
>>>>to the audience. A popular song was a "single" disc,=3D20
>>>>and usually it came with a less interesting "B Side"
>>>>of the disc. A Long Player disc contained several=3D20
>>>>tracks, inevitably of varying interest. Only very=3D20
>>>>recently has it been possible to offer music for=3D20
>>>>someone to hear /once/ for pennies, instead of to
>>>>take home and hear over and over and over again. =3D20
>>>>Well, I'm overlooking jukeboxes, lending libraries,
>>>>radio stations that play all this week's "hits" every=3D20
>>>>day, and the hypothetical Disney movie DVD that
>>>>you could play once or twice in the time it takes=3D20
>>>>to oxidize beyond use. Shades of wax cylinders.
>>>>Typically, not many plays of one track on a jukebox=3D20
>>>>were costing more than owning the disc.
>>>
>>>Any idea which Disney movie DVD? I've had a small number of DVDs go
>>>bad, and one or two were Disney. Most were not.
>>
>>Perhaps he was referring to this:
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX
>
>I don't think so.
>
>Although it is possible given the dates for DIVX and the first Disney
>DVD release.
>
>>With one or two exceptions, most cases of DVD rot were
>>ascribed to malhandling by the end user.
>
>Only by studios trying to avoid lawsuits. Or the third-party
>manufacturers they relied on.

I said, with one or two exceptions. There were a few bad batches
early on from specific manufacturing batches for a small number
of films (mostly art-house, iirc). However, of the several hundred
DVDs that I have, none have exhibited any evidence of DVDrot.

>All in all, my memory and records suggest I have replaced 10 DVDs for
>this problem. But that is out of (now) nearly 1200. This is a disc
>problem; properly-produced discs (the vast majority) do not share it.
>And, yes, they are all treated with the same care: stored vertically,
>cases closed, disks secure, cases replaced when the grabbers break.

less than 1% isn't a DVD problem per-se, rather a manufacturing issue.

On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 17:22:12 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 16:44:57 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>With one or two exceptions, most cases of DVD rot were
>>>ascribed to malhandling by the end user.
>>
>>Only by studios trying to avoid lawsuits. Or the third-party
>>manufacturers they relied on.
>
>I said, with one or two exceptions. There were a few bad batches
>early on from specific manufacturing batches for a small number
>of films (mostly art-house, iirc). However, of the several hundred
>DVDs that I have, none have exhibited any evidence of DVDrot.

In 2016, Pink Floyd put out a super-expensive "Early Years" boxed set
that included CDs, DVDs and Blu-ray discs. A high enough percentage
of the Blu-rays went bad within the first year that the label that
released the box was forced to offer a replacement program.

Unfortunately for me, when I submitted my info online to get the
replacements, I accidentally transposed two digits of my street
address and the replacement discs never showed up (apparently my local
post office wasn't smart enough to figure out that the non-existent
8281 Jefferson St address should have actually been 8182, even though
my name was correct).

So now I have a $700 boxed set where about half the Blu-ray discs are
unplayable, and the rest look like they're starting to go bad. Not
that I'm bitter about that or anything.

-- Bob

On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 17:22:12 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 16:44:57 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>>><rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>One what?
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not sure if you were saying this, but how media=3D20
>>>>>product is sold always depended on presenting a=3D20
>>>>>marketable unit of material that could be delivered
>>>>>to the audience. A popular song was a "single" disc,=3D20
>>>>>and usually it came with a less interesting "B Side"
>>>>>of the disc. A Long Player disc contained several=3D20
>>>>>tracks, inevitably of varying interest. Only very=3D20
>>>>>recently has it been possible to offer music for=3D20
>>>>>someone to hear /once/ for pennies, instead of to
>>>>>take home and hear over and over and over again. =3D20
>>>>>Well, I'm overlooking jukeboxes, lending libraries,
>>>>>radio stations that play all this week's "hits" every=3D20
>>>>>day, and the hypothetical Disney movie DVD that
>>>>>you could play once or twice in the time it takes=3D20
>>>>>to oxidize beyond use. Shades of wax cylinders.
>>>>>Typically, not many plays of one track on a jukebox=3D20
>>>>>were costing more than owning the disc.
>>>>
>>>>Any idea which Disney movie DVD? I've had a small number of DVDs go
>>>>bad, and one or two were Disney. Most were not.
>>>
>>>Perhaps he was referring to this:
>>>
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX
>>
>>I don't think so.
>>
>>Although it is possible given the dates for DIVX and the first Disney
>>DVD release.
>>
>>>With one or two exceptions, most cases of DVD rot were
>>>ascribed to malhandling by the end user.
>>
>>Only by studios trying to avoid lawsuits. Or the third-party
>>manufacturers they relied on.
>
>I said, with one or two exceptions. There were a few bad batches
>early on from specific manufacturing batches for a small number
>of films (mostly art-house, iirc). However, of the several hundred
>DVDs that I have, none have exhibited any evidence of DVDrot.
>
>
>>All in all, my memory and records suggest I have replaced 10 DVDs for
>>this problem. But that is out of (now) nearly 1200. This is a disc
>>problem; properly-produced discs (the vast majority) do not share it.
>>And, yes, they are all treated with the same care: stored vertically,
>>cases closed, disks secure, cases replaced when the grabbers break.
>
>less than 1% isn't a DVD problem per-se, rather a manufacturing issue.

Thank you for confirming that "DVD rot" is a manufacturing problem,
not a malhandling problem. I was responding to the claim it it was
caused by user's malhandling the discs.

And agreeing that properly-manufactured discs do not do this.

OTOH, I returned my first DVD of /Saving Private Ryan/ to the store
because it did not play properly the first -- and because, when I
turned it over, the shiny side looked as if someone had dropped it,
that side down, on a /very/ dirty floor and then stepped on it,
swirled around, and pushed down on it as hard as they could the make
/certain/ it would not play.

So /some/ problems are caused by malhandling the disk. Just not the
one(s) I was discussing.

Sadly, nobody seems to know /which/ Disney DVD it was that oxidized
after two playings. Disney did not follow the other major studios in
either letting Anchor Bay put them out or hiring a reputable
third-party to manufacture the discs for them. No, Disney decided to
do it themselves, and some of the early ones were ... very primitive.
I'm talking about things like menus and really clunky navigation here,
the content was always well done and, in most cases [1], at the proper
aspect ratio, which is more than can be said of Artisan or Warner
Family Entertainment (in the early years at least). But I still have
them, and they mostly [2] still play.

[1] At least two (/The Sword in the Stone/ and /Darby O'Gill and the
Little People/) were present in 4:3 because they had been made to be
shown in Academy ratio (1.37:1) but were cropped by theater owners to
1.75:1 because "audience prefer wide-screen movies". An excellent
illustration, BTW, of why the "correct" aspect ratio can sometimes be
hard to determine.

[2] /The Little Mermaid/ eventually was sent in because it stopped
playing at the layer change [3] and a disc that worked came back.
Whether this was a new disc or a professionally-cleaned disc I have no
idea. They were adamant in their emails that all it needed was a
"really good cleaning". There was no visible dirt or discoloration on
the disc I sent in.

[3] I can not, of course, be certain that it was actually at the layer
change. I tend to associate all playback problems in mid-movie to the
layer change, unless the change itself obviously occurs at a different
point. There is /nothing/ simple about /any/ aspect of reality.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 17:22:12 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 16:44:57 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>>On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>>>><rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>One what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not sure if you were saying this, but how media=3D3D20
>>>>>>product is sold always depended on presenting a=3D3D20
>>>>>>marketable unit of material that could be delivered
>>>>>>to the audience. A popular song was a "single" disc,=3D3D20
>>>>>>and usually it came with a less interesting "B Side"
>>>>>>of the disc. A Long Player disc contained several=3D3D20
>>>>>>tracks, inevitably of varying interest. Only very=3D3D20
>>>>>>recently has it been possible to offer music for=3D3D20
>>>>>>someone to hear /once/ for pennies, instead of to
>>>>>>take home and hear over and over and over again. =3D3D20
>>>>>>Well, I'm overlooking jukeboxes, lending libraries,
>>>>>>radio stations that play all this week's "hits" every=3D3D20
>>>>>>day, and the hypothetical Disney movie DVD that
>>>>>>you could play once or twice in the time it takes=3D3D20
>>>>>>to oxidize beyond use. Shades of wax cylinders.
>>>>>>Typically, not many plays of one track on a jukebox=3D3D20
>>>>>>were costing more than owning the disc.
>>>>>
>>>>>Any idea which Disney movie DVD? I've had a small number of DVDs go
>>>>>bad, and one or two were Disney. Most were not.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps he was referring to this:
>>>>
>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX
>>>
>>>I don't think so.
>>>
>>>Although it is possible given the dates for DIVX and the first Disney
>>>DVD release.
>>>
>>>>With one or two exceptions, most cases of DVD rot were
>>>>ascribed to malhandling by the end user.
>>>
>>>Only by studios trying to avoid lawsuits. Or the third-party
>>>manufacturers they relied on.
>>
>>I said, with one or two exceptions. There were a few bad batches
>>early on from specific manufacturing batches for a small number
>>of films (mostly art-house, iirc). However, of the several hundred
>>DVDs that I have, none have exhibited any evidence of DVDrot.
>>
>>
>>>All in all, my memory and records suggest I have replaced 10 DVDs for
>>>this problem. But that is out of (now) nearly 1200. This is a disc
>>>problem; properly-produced discs (the vast majority) do not share it.
>>>And, yes, they are all treated with the same care: stored vertically,
>>>cases closed, disks secure, cases replaced when the grabbers break.
>>
>>less than 1% isn't a DVD problem per-se, rather a manufacturing issue.
>
>Thank you for confirming that "DVD rot" is a manufacturing problem,
>not a malhandling problem. I was responding to the claim it it was
>caused by user's malhandling the discs.

I'm sorry if you got the impression that I confirmed that. Most
cases of supposed "DVDrot" were tracked to disks damaged by the
end user.

There were, as I originally noted, the rare case of a manufacturing
defect. But most disks that people "claimed" were rotted were
simply malhandled.

On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 16:41:39 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 17:22:12 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 16:44:57 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>>>On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>>>>><rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>One what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm not sure if you were saying this, but how media=3D3D20
>>>>>>>product is sold always depended on presenting a=3D3D20
>>>>>>>marketable unit of material that could be delivered
>>>>>>>to the audience. A popular song was a "single" disc,=3D3D20
>>>>>>>and usually it came with a less interesting "B Side"
>>>>>>>of the disc. A Long Player disc contained several=3D3D20
>>>>>>>tracks, inevitably of varying interest. Only very=3D3D20
>>>>>>>recently has it been possible to offer music for=3D3D20
>>>>>>>someone to hear /once/ for pennies, instead of to
>>>>>>>take home and hear over and over and over again. =3D3D20
>>>>>>>Well, I'm overlooking jukeboxes, lending libraries,
>>>>>>>radio stations that play all this week's "hits" every=3D3D20
>>>>>>>day, and the hypothetical Disney movie DVD that
>>>>>>>you could play once or twice in the time it takes=3D3D20
>>>>>>>to oxidize beyond use. Shades of wax cylinders.
>>>>>>>Typically, not many plays of one track on a jukebox=3D3D20
>>>>>>>were costing more than owning the disc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Any idea which Disney movie DVD? I've had a small number of DVDs go
>>>>>>bad, and one or two were Disney. Most were not.
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps he was referring to this:
>>>>>
>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX
>>>>
>>>>I don't think so.
>>>>
>>>>Although it is possible given the dates for DIVX and the first Disney
>>>>DVD release.
>>>>
>>>>>With one or two exceptions, most cases of DVD rot were
>>>>>ascribed to malhandling by the end user.
>>>>
>>>>Only by studios trying to avoid lawsuits. Or the third-party
>>>>manufacturers they relied on.
>>>
>>>I said, with one or two exceptions. There were a few bad batches
>>>early on from specific manufacturing batches for a small number
>>>of films (mostly art-house, iirc). However, of the several hundred
>>>DVDs that I have, none have exhibited any evidence of DVDrot.
>>>
>>>
>>>>All in all, my memory and records suggest I have replaced 10 DVDs for
>>>>this problem. But that is out of (now) nearly 1200. This is a disc
>>>>problem; properly-produced discs (the vast majority) do not share it.
>>>>And, yes, they are all treated with the same care: stored vertically,
>>>>cases closed, disks secure, cases replaced when the grabbers break.
>>>
>>>less than 1% isn't a DVD problem per-se, rather a manufacturing issue.
>>
>>Thank you for confirming that "DVD rot" is a manufacturing problem,
>>not a malhandling problem. I was responding to the claim it it was
>>caused by user's malhandling the discs.
>
>I'm sorry if you got the impression that I confirmed that. Most
>cases of supposed "DVDrot" were tracked to disks damaged by the
>end user.

And yet that is what you clearly said -- a failure rate of less than
1% is to be attributed to the manufacturing process, not the poor
innocent disc who certainly never had any intention of failing, and
not to mishandling.

I'm imagining a massive inter-Studio office where /all/ discs claimed
to suffer this problem were sent and each and every one was thoroughly
examined to determine the exact cause of the failure.

'Cause that's the only way the statement you made could be correct.
That sort of thing is the /only/ way that that statement could be a
statement of demonstrated fact. Anything based on, say, "the samples I
saw" may be true, but cannot be taken as applying generally.

Which is why I suspect that it is, instead, an anti-lawsuit statement
developed by lawyers. With or without any basis in reality.

>There were, as I originally noted, the rare case of a manufacturing
>defect. But most disks that people "claimed" were rotted were
>simply malhandled.

I should note that I do not appear to have introduced the term "DVD
rot" into the discussion. The original topic was something called
"oxidation" which, if it left the disc appearing normal but could be
removed by a really vigorous mechanical cleaning, might be what
happened with my copy of /The Little Mermaid/. It is entirely possible
that, when I used "DVD rot", I had a different idea of what it meant
than you intended. Most of these discs (/The Host/ was an exception)
did not show any discoloration or "dirt" at all.

There have been other problems that might be assigned to
"manufacturing", depend on how that process is defined. But those are
generally so blatant that replacement programs result as soon as the
publisher can get a properly-done disc (or discs) done. I believe a
relatviely recent one of these, involving BDs, was mentioned by
someone else here.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Wednesday, 28 June 2023 at 17:21:29 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >One what?
> >
> >I'm not sure if you were saying this, but how media
> >product is sold always depended on presenting a
> >marketable unit of material that could be delivered
> >to the audience. A popular song was a "single" disc,
> >and usually it came with a less interesting "B Side"
> >of the disc. A Long Player disc contained several
> >tracks, inevitably of varying interest. Only very
> >recently has it been possible to offer music for
> >someone to hear /once/ for pennies, instead of to
> >take home and hear over and over and over again.
> >Well, I'm overlooking jukeboxes, lending libraries,
> >radio stations that play all this week's "hits" every
> >day, and the hypothetical Disney movie DVD that
> >you could play once or twice in the time it takes
> >to oxidize beyond use. Shades of wax cylinders.
> >Typically, not many plays of one track on a jukebox
> >were costing more than owning the disc.
>
> Any idea which Disney movie DVD? I've had a small number of DVDs go
> bad, and one or two were Disney. Most were not.
>
> All were fairly early; apparently, there was a teething stage for DVD
> production, after which the manufacturers finally figured out what
> they were doing.

I said "hypothetical", but according to this
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexplay> -
thanks - it got farther than I thought; I thought
it was only on paper. This is discs
which intentionally become unplayable,
turning dark-colored, within a few days
of exposure to the atmosphere. Disney
owned the technology - loosely speaking -
and "announced in 2003 that it would issue
some releases on Flexplay ez-D discs
(Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the
Black Pearl, Bridget Jones' Diary, The Recruit,
Rabbit-Proof Fence, The Hot Chick, 25th Hour,
Heaven, Equilibrium, Frida and Signs).
Discs were test-marketed in Austin, Texas.
One grocery chain dropped the discs in
February 2004, saying "It didn't turn out to be an
item that our customers were looking for."

Of these, I identify _Pirates of the Caribbean_
as a Disney film.

On 7/1/2023 10:05 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 June 2023 at 17:21:29 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>> One what?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if you were saying this, but how media
>>> product is sold always depended on presenting a
>>> marketable unit of material that could be delivered
>>> to the audience. A popular song was a "single" disc,
>>> and usually it came with a less interesting "B Side"
>>> of the disc. A Long Player disc contained several
>>> tracks, inevitably of varying interest. Only very
>>> recently has it been possible to offer music for
>>> someone to hear /once/ for pennies, instead of to
>>> take home and hear over and over and over again.
>>> Well, I'm overlooking jukeboxes, lending libraries,
>>> radio stations that play all this week's "hits" every
>>> day, and the hypothetical Disney movie DVD that
>>> you could play once or twice in the time it takes
>>> to oxidize beyond use. Shades of wax cylinders.
>>> Typically, not many plays of one track on a jukebox
>>> were costing more than owning the disc.
>>
>> Any idea which Disney movie DVD? I've had a small number of DVDs go
>> bad, and one or two were Disney. Most were not.
>>
>> All were fairly early; apparently, there was a teething stage for DVD
>> production, after which the manufacturers finally figured out what
>> they were doing.
>
> I said "hypothetical", but according to this
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexplay> -
> thanks - it got farther than I thought; I thought
> it was only on paper. This is discs
> which intentionally become unplayable,
> turning dark-colored, within a few days
> of exposure to the atmosphere. Disney
> owned the technology - loosely speaking -
> and "announced in 2003 that it would issue
> some releases on Flexplay ez-D discs
> (Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the
> Black Pearl, Bridget Jones' Diary, The Recruit,
> Rabbit-Proof Fence, The Hot Chick, 25th Hour,
> Heaven, Equilibrium, Frida and Signs).
> Discs were test-marketed in Austin, Texas.
> One grocery chain dropped the discs in
> February 2004, saying "It didn't turn out to be an
> item that our customers were looking for."
>
No fecal matter. The whole point from the customer's POV is to
permanently own (or at least very long term) a copy of the movie/show.
And they wanted seven bucks for them?! Fornicate that!

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 10:05:48 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, 28 June 2023 at 17:21:29 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >One what?
>> >
>> >I'm not sure if you were saying this, but how media
>> >product is sold always depended on presenting a
>> >marketable unit of material that could be delivered
>> >to the audience. A popular song was a "single" disc,
>> >and usually it came with a less interesting "B Side"
>> >of the disc. A Long Player disc contained several
>> >tracks, inevitably of varying interest. Only very
>> >recently has it been possible to offer music for
>> >someone to hear /once/ for pennies, instead of to
>> >take home and hear over and over and over again.
>> >Well, I'm overlooking jukeboxes, lending libraries,
>> >radio stations that play all this week's "hits" every
>> >day, and the hypothetical Disney movie DVD that
>> >you could play once or twice in the time it takes
>> >to oxidize beyond use. Shades of wax cylinders.
>> >Typically, not many plays of one track on a jukebox
>> >were costing more than owning the disc.
>>
>> Any idea which Disney movie DVD? I've had a small number of DVDs go
>> bad, and one or two were Disney. Most were not.
>>
>> All were fairly early; apparently, there was a teething stage for DVD
>> production, after which the manufacturers finally figured out what
>> they were doing.
>
>I said "hypothetical", but according to this
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexplay> -
>thanks - it got farther than I thought; I thought
>it was only on paper. This is discs
>which intentionally become unplayable,
>turning dark-colored, within a few days
>of exposure to the atmosphere. Disney
>owned the technology - loosely speaking -
>and "announced in 2003 that it would issue
>some releases on Flexplay ez-D discs
>(Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the
>Black Pearl, Bridget Jones' Diary, The Recruit,
>Rabbit-Proof Fence, The Hot Chick, 25th Hour,
>Heaven, Equilibrium, Frida and Signs).
>Discs were test-marketed in Austin, Texas.

Ah, I see; I thought the "hypothetical" referred to the report of a
Disney DVD doing this. My bad.

And I seem to vaguely recall some long-ago discussion of this
high-quality marketing concept -- high-quality in that it would help
them preserve the sanctity of the "Disney Vault", making "Available
for a Limited Time Only" a reality. Releasing their animated classics
to theaters every decade or so was a regular practice for a a long
time. And why not? They had a new audience of kids who had never seen
them to entertain. Home video, of course, ended that.

The more recent ads hailing the release of a film from the Vault were
about films previously released but now getting the "Special Edition"
treatment with restored everything to (for animated films) /beyond/
their original brilliance -- IOW, not looking like they did originally
(I recall complaints about how they looked by those who purchased
them). But even those seem announcements to be dying out. Well, either
that or, since I'm not buying films (on DVD/BD) without first
streaming them any more and a lot of recent Disney/Pixar films just
weren't up to snuff (so to speak), I may be missing these "Vault"
announcements.

It's really discouraging how often Marketing appears to dictate
packaging and, in some cases, preparation presumably by insisting that
doing it their way will make more money.

>One grocery chain dropped the discs in
>February 2004, saying "It didn't turn out to be an
>item that our customers were looking for."
>
>Of these, I identify _Pirates of the Caribbean_
>as a Disney film.

That's the only one I recognize as Disney also. Most, but not all, of
the titles I have no memory of ever encountering before.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 7/2/2023 8:29 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 10:05:48 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 28 June 2023 at 17:21:29 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One what?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure if you were saying this, but how media
>>>> product is sold always depended on presenting a
>>>> marketable unit of material that could be delivered
>>>> to the audience. A popular song was a "single" disc,
>>>> and usually it came with a less interesting "B Side"
>>>> of the disc. A Long Player disc contained several
>>>> tracks, inevitably of varying interest. Only very
>>>> recently has it been possible to offer music for
>>>> someone to hear /once/ for pennies, instead of to
>>>> take home and hear over and over and over again.
>>>> Well, I'm overlooking jukeboxes, lending libraries,
>>>> radio stations that play all this week's "hits" every
>>>> day, and the hypothetical Disney movie DVD that
>>>> you could play once or twice in the time it takes
>>>> to oxidize beyond use. Shades of wax cylinders.
>>>> Typically, not many plays of one track on a jukebox
>>>> were costing more than owning the disc.
>>>
>>> Any idea which Disney movie DVD? I've had a small number of DVDs go
>>> bad, and one or two were Disney. Most were not.
>>>
>>> All were fairly early; apparently, there was a teething stage for DVD
>>> production, after which the manufacturers finally figured out what
>>> they were doing.
>>
>> I said "hypothetical", but according to this
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexplay> -
>> thanks - it got farther than I thought; I thought
>> it was only on paper. This is discs
>> which intentionally become unplayable,
>> turning dark-colored, within a few days
>> of exposure to the atmosphere. Disney
>> owned the technology - loosely speaking -
>> and "announced in 2003 that it would issue
>> some releases on Flexplay ez-D discs
>> (Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the
>> Black Pearl, Bridget Jones' Diary, The Recruit,
>> Rabbit-Proof Fence, The Hot Chick, 25th Hour,
>> Heaven, Equilibrium, Frida and Signs).
>> Discs were test-marketed in Austin, Texas.
>
> Ah, I see; I thought the "hypothetical" referred to the report of a
> Disney DVD doing this. My bad.
>
> And I seem to vaguely recall some long-ago discussion of this
> high-quality marketing concept -- high-quality in that it would help
> them preserve the sanctity of the "Disney Vault", making "Available
> for a Limited Time Only" a reality. Releasing their animated classics
> to theaters every decade or so was a regular practice for a a long
> time. And why not? They had a new audience of kids who had never seen
> them to entertain. Home video, of course, ended that.
>
> The more recent ads hailing the release of a film from the Vault were
> about films previously released but now getting the "Special Edition"
> treatment with restored everything to (for animated films) /beyond/
> their original brilliance -- IOW, not looking like they did originally
> (I recall complaints about how they looked by those who purchased
> them). But even those seem announcements to be dying out. Well, either
> that or, since I'm not buying films (on DVD/BD) without first
> streaming them any more and a lot of recent Disney/Pixar films just
> weren't up to snuff (so to speak), I may be missing these "Vault"
> announcements.
>
> It's really discouraging how often Marketing appears to dictate
> packaging and, in some cases, preparation presumably by insisting that
> doing it their way will make more money.
>
>> One grocery chain dropped the discs in
>> February 2004, saying "It didn't turn out to be an
>> item that our customers were looking for."
>>
>> Of these, I identify _Pirates of the Caribbean_
>> as a Disney film.
>
> That's the only one I recognize as Disney also. Most, but not all, of
> the titles I have no memory of ever encountering before.

I don't think you are missing the "Vault" announcements, I think with
the rise of streaming that Disney (and everyone else too now) have just
moved that availability on/off switch to streaming and are pushing the
extinction of DVD/BR and similar "the purchaser actually gets to keep
what they bought" avenues.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.