Talk:Blockbuster (movie rental store)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

An event mentioned in this article is an October 19 selected anniversary.

---

Contents 1 Concerns and Censorship 2 Mormon Church 3 Late fees section 4 Cleanup 5 Sample Images 6 IPO was in 1999 not 2004 7 Concerns and censorship section 8 Unrated films and censorship 9 Blockbuster Music? 10 Guaranteed In Stock

[edit] Concerns and Censorship

I added this section. I hope it does not appear POV, though interested in comments. It does appear that to cast a dark shadow on the online section. I do believe it needs more work still. --JJ Glendenning September 18th, 2005

It's still pov as heck:

The standard model for video rental stores was that they would pay a large flat fee per video, approximately US$65, and have unlimited rentals from the lifetime of the cassette itself. The new system, controlled by the distribution company Rentrak, and perhaps influenced by the studios due to the smaller space constraints and longer shelf-life of the DVD format, is based on royalties. Blockbuster obtain videos for little or no cost, and takes approximately half of the rental fee, paying the other half back to the studio and to Rentrak. Under this model, there is little incentive to purchase movies that have enduring interest for fewer people.

I don't see how that follows: a system with near-zero upfront costs for buying a movie, with costs determined _only_ by the number of times the movie is rented, is far _more_ likely to encourage stores to stock fringe movies (they pay only when they're rented). The old flat-fee system would discourage that -- if a movie wasn't likely to rent enough times to justify the upfront costs, it wouldn't get stocked. This paragraph is just whining. 140.247.60.194 22:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you know how many movies (A and B titles) come out per week? You obviously don't. I work at a small video store (comparable in physical size to a typical Blockbuster, 4000-6000 sq. ft) and we are constantly racking and stacking videos all the time. Approximately 2-3 A titles are released every week, and anywhere between 10-30 B titles are stocked EVERY WEEK. This problem is compounded for Blockbuster, because unlike other video stores, they CANNOT sell their movies before a certain date which ultimately locks up a good amount of shelf space.-Eric

I agree with 140.247.60.194 - this just doesn't make sense. Moving from an upfront fee to a per-rental royalty surely makes it easier to carry low demand titles? If Blockbuster are concentrating on the more popular DVDs then this surely can't be the reason.

In any event, aren't Blockbuster just catering to what the majority of their customers want? They carry multiple copies of the latest hit movie because lots of people want to rent it. Mauls 15:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur. People who want some weird movie from 1974 or whenever can go to Netflix or Amazon or BN.com. Blockbuster Video is simply a business that has to "give the people what they want," to quote James Bond's line from Tomorrow Never Dies.

I was just in a local Blockbuster the other day, and they had many older and fringe movies. "The Wizards" for instance - it wasn't a blockbuster in the 70's when it came out, but it was on the shelf in the local Blockbuster. That was a movie that I couldn't find in any rental shop for many, many years. "Doctor Zhivago", the entire "Karate Kid" series, etc, are all examples of older movies that I saw at the local Blockbuster. Also, the blockbuster.com website lists several NC-17 movies for rent, so if Blockbuster has any restrictions on NC-17 videos, it's in the stores only.

The point of carrying a fringe movie for Blockuster under the PPT policy is negated because if a fringe movie is sitting on the shelf, it is occupying space of a movie that will rent getting them money. The only benefit to having fringe movies would be buying the movies outright on their initial release date, having the cost of the movie refunded through rentals. Then after the cost of the movie is refunded 100% of the rental price will be profit. Under the PPT system this does not happen. Any older movie that never rents is a waste of space because there are older movies that frequently rent and do generate some revenue through a PPT system.::

I edited some page content to reflect the relevant ideas in the above discussion. Also, if I might voice my own observations... Blockbuster does carry a wide variety of smaller-release titles for rent, including many foreign-language films. "Selection" and "Number of Copies" are what differentiate a major market player from the local ma-and-pa store. Moreover, it is impossible for every store to have every movie. For years, I have been looking for certain movies that not even Netflix or Blockbuster Online carries. It's useless complaining to fault a particular store for not having carrying your personal favourites. DVDs and VHS also have moratoriums, which cause a movi to become unavailable after a certain period of time. New locations of any video chain will have less access to older films simply because copies of older films may no longer be in production. VodkaMartini, March 19, 2006

[edit] Mormon Church

I'm a novice Wikipedia editor here ... but I've heard several places that the Mormon Church has a large financial stake in Blockbuster. Can this be confirmed and is it pertinent to the main page?

[edit] Late fees section

The entire "lawsuit" section was deleted by the unregistered "66.167.58.189", who made a similarly drastic excision in the Netflix article without comment. While in both cases the content might have been considered flabby or subjective, our mysterious editor wields an over-drastic eraser!

I've created an "Elimination of Late Fees" section to replace this. The link on "Assurance of Voluntary Compliance" goes to the California Attorney General's press release, which includes a link to a PDF of the actual legal agreement. New Jersey, which brought the original lawsuit, was not a part of this settlement, and I can't seem to find any reference that suggests their action isn't still pending.

The rest of the article could probably do with some editing and tightening up. The "Concerns and Censorship" seems a little subjective, and I'm not sure that the two stills from their TV ads are needed. David Oberst 21:35:38, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

I heard earlier today that Blockbuster was currently writing up a revised policy of reintroducing late fees. Does anyone have any backup to this uncalled for rumor? Please tell me I'm dreaming!

Some francise stores have re-introduced late fees, but currently there is no word of it happening in the corporate stores. 206.15.129.14 20:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I see a lot of hard work done for this article, but it's very patched together. It would be nice to have a more chronological order (instead of No More Late Fees up top) and have a lot less in the unnamed opening section - perhaps create a "History" section, etc. Hence my cleanup request. --Oddtoddnm 05:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sample Images

They keep showing up in this page under mozilla but not in IE. Is anybody else seeing this? CaravaggioFan 22:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPO was in 1999 not 2004

The article sates Blockbuster spun off from Viacom in 2004. According to the Blockbuster webpage, their IPO was in 1999, not 2004.[1] So I have edited the article accordingly.207.69.137.21 19:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Blockbuster was listed in 1999 as a seperate company on the NYSE with 20% of its shares available and the remaining privately held by Viacom. The change in 2004 came when Viacom listed the remaining 80% of shares to sell the company off.

[edit] Concerns and censorship section

The section could use some work to improve it. The "note:" should be integrated into the the rest of the test. Sources should be found that back up the claim some local Blockbuster store carrying films like Last Temptation of Christ or previously prohibited NC-17 or unrated films. While I can verify that as true at my local Blockbuster it still needs a cite. Also, we should clarify, if we can, whether this is due to the corporate headquarters giving greater control to the local stores in deciding what to carry. It seems to me that the relaxed rules regarding NC-17 and Unrated films seems to have coincided with Blockbusters switch to carrying mostly DVD's. Maybe the availability of the parental controls on DVD players that allow films with certain rating to be blocked such as NC-17 promoted them to relax the rules. Any sourced info we can add to improve this section would be nice. --Cab88 08:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unrated films and censorship

What about unrated versions of PG-13 films? My local Blockbuster seems to only stock the unrated versions of Anchorman, Date Movie, Dodgeball, and Wedding Crashers, among others. The unrated films are tagged with a "Youth Restricted Viewing" sticker, but the rated films which people saw in theaters are nowhere in sight. Best Buy stores seem to sell both versions of the films in more equal numbers.

Also, is there a source that says that Blockbuster cuts scenes out of movies? --Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it was me i think that originally put that remark in about the 'cuts'...I never said they explicitly edit, only that "at the very least uses its significant market share to influence studios to do more editing in order to offer movies that have more 'family-friendly' ratings". I just had a cursory look for evidence of this beyond the Naomi Klein claim. This interview with David Cronenberg: [2] , contains the following quote:

"So I have to pretty much say that with all of my movies if there’s something in them you don’t like it’s my fault and I can’t blame somebody else for re-cutting it or whatever. The only moments where I’ve had that happen are with censorship, with the MPAA, which is not technically a censor. For example, with “Crash,” the company Blockbuster will not stock an NC-17 film. So in order to get it into any Blockbuster, I had to cut 10 minutes out of it to have it be an R. And I wasn’t very successful in stopping that from happening because I had a contract that said it had to have an R if somebody wanted it. On the other hand, when the Canadian version of Blockbuster tried to do the same, I did go very public with it in saying, ‘Look, that’s the American ratings. In Canada, we released this film as what we call Restricted,’ and there should not be a cut version in Canadian Blockbuster. And they did back down. "

--Pseudosocrates 14:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Blockbuster is probably a reason why so much gets cut from films, but I wouldn't think it would be the reason. Most of the bigger theater chains in the US that I have come across refuse to play NC-17 films. Although, Zoolander was originally rated R but had to be censored to get its current PG-13. It would have still been shown in theaters and stocked in Blockbuster with an R rating, but PG-13 was apparently what the filmmakers wanted. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it is a reason. To suggest that it was the sole reason for any cuts being made from films would be ludicrous, but that is not what is stated in the article :-) I raise the Cronenberg example as there have been discussions previously about removing the 'censorship' stuff entirely due to lack of source. Klein's No Logo was put in to back that up, and now this also will go in. A major international filmmaker singling out a specific organisation for this particular practice is worthy of inclusion. Note he said nothing of theatrical release re:crash + NC-17, I guess ol' Don 'Wildman' Wildmon's tentacles don't reach that far.

Of course much of the cutting that the US sees is merely for the lighter tastes of that audience. See the (less bleak) ending to the North American release of [The Descent], and this trickles down to organisations like Blockbuster. Or is fed by them? But that's all pov to be reserved for the talk page ;-)

--Pseudosocrates 19:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blockbuster Music?

No mention in this article of Blockbuster Music? or did I miss it? Either way, it needs a bigger presence, as this was a big part of Blockbuster in the mid-90s and then faded away. --Zpb52 04:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's now Wharehouse Music. Wharehouse bought it out in 1998. ZacBowling 01:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guaranteed In Stock

Should the "guaranteed in stock" section, which refers to an (allegedly) expired promotion, still exist on this page? Poobslag

"Guaranteed In Stock" is an ongoing promotion, and thus should remain in the article. I work at a Blockbuster, and thus can verify that the promotion is still going on, albeit for a limited number of titles. FireCrotchRIO 03:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)