Ya know, I've been a long time Blockbuster Online customer, but based on your recommendation, I think I might go over to NetFlix now. I actually did see Audition through Blockbuster, but I haven't been able to see Cronenberg's Crash, Jackson's Meet the Feebles, or Bakshi's Fritz the Cat. You know what? I think you've got some new business for Netflix.

And guess who just canceled his Blockbuster account and signed on with Netflix.

Jim, really interesting post. I just wish it wasn't quite so scary! When i was younger i was in my local Blockbuster (Leeds, England)and was amazed and excited when i found "The Maltese Falcon" in the racks. Wow i thought, what a weird, old b and w movie, how great that a shop like this stocks this stuff. Now older, less naive and with far more old, classic and arty films under my belt i realize how foolish i was to think of this one classic film as a sufficient offering as an alternative to mainstream, Hollywood, post-millennial films. Usual story now, the shop in question now uses over a third of its floor space for the 4 or 5 popular new releases and the more alternative films are made fewer and look even more obscure than they actually are by the ever growing video games section on the other side. The IFC deal may just be an extension of the Blockbuster business-model, but like you say that IFC have let them do it and harm what the more alternative-film-conscious viewer gets to watch is dreadful. The devil indeed.

As a part-time employee of the Great Satan (it was a last resort, and believe me, the suffering hasn't been worth it, even though I need the cash), I feel exactly the same all the way through. Who the fuck are they kidding, as though 90% of Blockbuster customers actually give a shit about these titles? They're looking for the biggest and most prominent pictures, because everyone knows that a big advertising budget means there's talent at work, right? This is just the continuous gorging of a giant borderlining on monopoly -- but of course the government will never step in like they did with Microsoft, because, in traditional "it's only a movie" naivety, they'll think it an unworthy endeavor. There's no other reason why Blockbuster would seek to include these titles amongst more mainstream fare. It's sad enough seeing great mainstream movies submitted to such stupid advertising histrionics as the company has long since popularized ("A white-knuckle thriller that will keep you on the edge of your seat until the final, heart-stopping moment!"). The short-term memory implications are vast: when people ask me if we carry a title such as Troy or I,Robot, the majority would describe it as an "old" movie. Are you fucking kidding me? You don't have to know who Griffith is for that statement to be absolutely ridiculous. The company is simply pandering to the people who look to movies for mental escapism, a vacation, a relaxer devoid of the need for thought or effort put forth. The cinema of soma.

And I simply love how Blockbuster waives so many titles based on their NC-17 status (there go my dearly beloved Crash (Cronenberg, just to be clear), Bad Lieutenant, and Showgirls), yet they'll rent deliberately "unrated" films out the wazoo. If they hold their "family friendly" status so dear, then why not hold them as one and the same? In other news, note how they only receive the "unrated" versions of films like Superbad and Miami Vice, films that were all (much) better in their slimmer and un-tweaked R-rated counterparts. It's all gimmickry.

You're better off for avoiding them, Jim, but a visit now and again might be a helpful eye-opener to the state of cinema for a good portion of regular "audiences". The woman who narrates the in-store trailer tapes is overdue for a smacking (anyone who would can read that shit so enthusiastically must not have a soul), and the corporate heads frankly haven't a fucking clue what they're doing 9 times out of 10 (a good portion of my job is compensating for their idiocy), most of them having never worked in retail before, let alone with real people. Don't even get me started on the selection. We have a whopping two Herzog films (Grizzly Man and Rescue Dawn; better than nothing, but AHHHH!), and when we got a copy of Days of Heaven to rent recently, I nearly died of joy).

I've remained a Netflix customer since working there, and will continue to do so, and will continue to encourage others to do so until the very end. Somebody please bring this motherfucker down.

I am a frequenter here, so I do apologize for remaining anonymous in this one case. Once this bit has passed, though, there will be no end to my tale-telling. Consider me an undercover infiltrator.

Not available at Blockbuster? Don't forget The Last Temptation of Christ, one of the most notorious omissions.

Of course, such a list could go on and on and on....

Good for you Raymond.

Anyone who truly loves movies has to know that Blockbuster is bad for them for all the reasons Emerson stated, not to mention the Walmart like impact they've had on the Mom and Pop video stores in smaller communities.

They're anti-creativity, anti-originality and anti-art and they have far too much sway in the marketplace.

When I first read of this deal, I thought anything that exposes these movies to a broader audience is ultimately a good thing, until I realized of course that exactly the opposite will happen. It will limit exposure to people who probably aren't interested in what IFC has to offer.

On the other hand, all is not necessarily lost. A friend pointed out an item in the Netflix entry at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix that says Netflix circumvented a similar Blockbuster agreement with The Weinstein company by purchasing copies from mass marketers and retailers.

I am a person of deeply ingrained habits and one of them is going into a store and physically scanning what's available and picking one out. I also have trouble buying doughnuts (yeah, that spelling is deeply ingrained, too) at drive-throughs. I need to see them to figure out what I want on a particular day. I have never liked Blockbuster but the only competition around was Hollywood Video and the one near me just closed. Did they all? Obviously Netflix is the culprit. So now I'm supposed to make the leap to the online thing but I always resent being forced to do these things--just as I still resent Blockbuster and Hollywood knocking out all the Mom and Pop's that used to be on every corner when I had my Betamax. I'm too poor to be a bohemian and too inept to be a hermit,and so once a month or so I drive 60 miles (one way) to see a decent movie in its original form. Maybe I'll just start watching American Idol and Geek's on an Island or whatever it is, like everyone else in my town. Thanks a lot, Jim.

Jim,

Thanks for your post. I've always called B'buster the evil empire. They killed me when they did a 180 and started "educating the consumer about the benefits of widescreen" after years of refusing to carry widescreen releases.

Slow, the exact opposite is true around here. Blockbuster used to be the only game in town, so I'd have to go there even though they only had one foreign shelf and one indie shelf and no widescreens and I knew they were editing the movies. (Those were truly dark days.) As soon as Netflix starting getting big, I noticed they started carrying tons more foreign/indie/classic films.

We started with Greencine, which we loved, years ago, but Netflix proved to be so much more economical, and since they've stopped throttling my account (I think setting up multiple queues helped), I've been happy with them. And now that they have unlimited "Watch Now," and I can hook my little computer up to my slightly bigger t.v...

Well, the dark days are almost over. If we could just get a decent independent theater in town...

Now hang on a second. While we must criticize Blockbuster for failing to carry Shortbus, Fritz the Cat, the X-rated version of Caligula, and some other important titles, we must acknowledge what they do carry. And they do carry Last Temptation of Christ. I rented it there myself. We have to keep our facts straight.

"Blockbuster Video to this day does not stack this picture in its racks."
-- Martin Scorsese, director of "Last Temptation of Christ," to "Entertainment Weekly" in 1998

It was a pretty big deal in 1989 when Blockbuster announced it would not carry "Last Temptation" on video (under pressure from Donald Wildmon's American Family Association, formerly known as the National Federation for Decency, or NAMBLA*).

Due to limited shelf space, most video stores keep very few copies of movies a year or so after their initial release. But according to Andrew O'Hehir at Salon.com, as recently as 2001 (13 years later?), "Last Temptation" was still unavailable from Blockbuster. Once it launched its Netflix-clone service, Blockbuster Online, in 2004, "Last Temptation" was listed for rental. At some earlier point it became available for purchase online. Anybody seen it in a Blockbuster store? I'm just curious about their official policy on this R-rated movie after all these years.

* This is an old Jon Stewart joke.

I'm pretty sure I rented it directly out of the store.

By the way, it looks like NetFlix needs to update some of its titles, which have been extensively remastered since they first appeared on DVD.

JE: They may have updated the discs but not the cover art on the site. I've never received an "old" version of a title that had been remastered, but it's worth asking them if you're not sure what they're offering: 1-877-638-3549. Or:

http://www.netflix.com/ContactUs

Oh, and what about the National Society for Decency and Accebtable Practices? (That would be the NSDAP.)

I must give them this: I rented Last Temptation from my local Blockbuster twice before buying it, so they've had it on their shelves for about four years, at least. It hardly makes up for the bulk of their sins, but it's one that I'm glad they've come around to, even though they're p-u-s-s-i-e-s for omitting it in the first place, in traditional go-with-the-status-quo-on-controversial-works
form. Michael Moore's Sicko is among their "Blockbuster EXCLUSIVE" rentals, but I'm sure that they were less than supportive of Fahrenheit 9/11 back in the day when hating on Bush wasn't an officially unofficial American pastime.

JE: Thanks for that, rob. As a Weinstein Company production, "Sicko" may be an EXCLUSIVE at Blockbuster, but it's also available on Comcast PPV, for sale at Amazon, and for DVD rental on Netflix and GreenCine. Go fig. There's a topic for Michael Moore's next essay-doc: the power that companies like Wal-Mart and (formerly) Blockbuster and Microsoft have exerted to shape what's available in the marketplace. I wonder if MM would have the nerve...

I've yet to understand how the exclusivity deals are supposed to help anyone but Blockbuster overall.

I know the Weinsteins have a requirement for them to have a certain number of copies and certain display area, etc. in their brick and mortar stores. I suspect that helped them for a bit when their early releases were not the type that ordinarily would attract huge displays of dozens of copies anywhere... although the buzz I heard is this didn't help move many copies of them. But then how does that balance out now that they've had a couple of releases, such as the two Grindhouse movies, that one assumes would have gotten a good size display anyhow and theoretically at even more stores?

The problem with Netflix not updating to more current - and preferable - editions of DVDs is the only complaint I've had with them, but it comes up all the time. Offhand, I've received terrible earlier editions of Bob Clark's Black Christmas and Herk Harvey's Carnival of Souls. Currently they seem not to have a copy of the new edition of King Boxer (aka 5 Fingers of Death) despite it being a pretty attractive package with an informative and entertaining commentary by Quentin Tarantino, Elvis Mitchell and David Chute. In that case they don't even have the alternate public domain editions actually available, but only as one a person can "Save".

Jim, no anger at Alec Baldwin? He's the one who's been doing the voiceovers in the TV commercials promoting Blockbuster Video's (or as it's called in the comic strip Drabble, Lackluster Video's) new "return via mail or at the store" rental services. At least it sure sounds like ol' AB.

JE: I didn't know about that. Alec Baldwin is one of the most brilliant actors I've ever known (I wrote for him on "SNL" once). I'm appalled if he's working for Blockbuster.

Blockbuster is clearly not a good movie store for people who have good taste, but it is not designed for such people. It is called Blockbuster for a very specific reason. If you want to rent Live Free Or Die Hard, they probably have over 200 in stock when it first comes out. It is for people who only have interest in the large titles.

Why would IFC go into business with them? Because the kick-ass video store that you go to that has all of the good stuff, will probably only carry a couple of copies of the IFC movies, but Blockbuster, with its exclusive on IFC products, will carry thirty copies. IFC will cut them a deal so that Blockbuster will purchase the movies for rental at a drastically reduced rate, making it possible to buy more copies. When people see that there are 30 copies of something on the wall, they will assume it is a big title and get it, whereas their eyes would just pass over the title if it only took up the space of a single backer card. You may ask, why would IFC not just make their rental copies cheaper to all distributors? The answer is that apart of their deal with Blockbuster, once the initial burst of rentals ends after a few weeks, Blockbuster will destroy the rentals instead of selling them as previously viewed product. That way the market will not be surged with $10 copies of the film and people who liked it will have to shell out the new retail price. This is exactly why the Weinstein company choose to start doing the Blockbuster Exclusives. As for the independent video stores, they will still go out and buy a copy of the IFC movie and rent their single copy. If anything, the only thing IFC will lose is credibility.

In closing, JE, you are a movie critic, so by the very nature of the game you hold popcorn movies in contempt because you are forced to watch them. Believe it or not, but 95% of people who go into video stores like Blockbuster are going for the lowest common denominator entertainment. They don't care about the NC-17 Lust Caution. They are working class people who want to entertain a wife and two kids for the evening for under 5 dollars. That's it. We are a country entering into a recession, which is actually the business climate in which companies like Blockbuster strive, so I wouldn't expect the convenience of the monthly-fee based Net Flix to kill the competition anytime soon. Such programs will actually be the first to go when low income families start to cut corners to pay bills.

chris: I'm not sure what you mean by "popcorn movies" ("Bringing Up Baby"? "Superbad"? "Jaws"?) -- or where you get the idea I hold "popcorn movies in contempt" (are they all the same?).

Like Wal-Mart or Target or Home Depot or Amazon or Best Buy or Barnes & Noble, Blockbuster has a large customer base. My question is: Would a small book publisher, for example, think they would sell more books if they limited the availability of their titles to just one big retailer for a few months or years? Would a microbrewery make an exclusive deal with Ralph's grocery stores that kept their beer out of other stores, including Safeway?

Your point about shelf space is a good one. I'd be interested to know more about people's rental habits. Do they rent things they've never heard of before, just because they see it in the New Releases section? Is that how Blockbuster is going to present these IFC films -- or will they be featured in an "indie" section? I'm not sure the "wife and two kids" are going to be all that entertained by IFC titles, which don't tend to be all that kid-oriented. I would definitely have to wonder about parents who would show the R-rated or the NC-17-rated "Lust, Caution" to their kids. You're right: a 2 1/2-hour talkfest in Mandarin Chinese (157 minutes in the theatrical release; 148 in the R cut carried by Blockbuster) is not something that would interest some people. But if they are, do they know that, at Blockbuster, they're not being given a choice?

But Blockbuster does sell its previously rented titles at discount prices (and so does Netflix). They list the used DVDs right next to the rental info at Blockbuster Online.

I didn't realize they were still pulling the "no NC-17" business- I thought they'd have given it up now that every film nowadays gets a special "unrated" DVD release. The local store actually has the unedited rating-less REQUIEM FOR A DREAM (and I actually bought it from another Blockbuster.)

Shame, that. Netflix it remains.

Jim, for what it's worth, I'm almost certain I got the old version of Seven Samurai from Netflix after the remastered version was released. And that of Amarcord and Yojimbo and Sanjuro ...

Yes, Seven Samurai is one of the titles I was concerned about. And Dr. Mabuse, too. Jim, with your influence you could help persuade Netflix to do something about this.

Rick: You should definitely check with them to see which version(s) you received. They're all Criterion editions, but they have indeed been remastered in the past five years or so. I have the 1998 Criterion edition of "Seven Samurai," but it was remastered and re-released with different artwork in 2006. I've never compared the remastered versions of any of these with the earlier Criterion releases. According to DVD Beaver (link comparison below), the remastered version of "Seven Samurai" is split onto two discs, with a noticeable image improvement over the single-disc version. You can see comparisons of five different DVD versions of "SS" here:

http://tinyurl.com/ehqpy

Raymond: I'm not sure I can do anything, but I started by sending them an e-mail about which version of "Seven Samurai" they're offering. The box art on their site is for the earlier Criterion edition, so I asked if they were offering the remastered one and, if not, why not....

Sorry if offense was taken about saying you hold popcorn movies in contempt, that was not my intention. I was merely saying that Blockbuster mostly carries empty, uninteresting "popcorn movies" such as The Game Plan or Good Luck Chuck. Saying that you hold them in contempt is me assuming that as a critic it probably pisses you off to be forced to watch and write about such things. For instance, if you were not writing a review for the Bank Job, I doubt that you would have went to see it.

But back to my original post, I think you should reread the body because I explain exactly why IFC would make a deal with Blockbuster. As you said, yes Blockbuster does sell movies previously viewed, but they do not sell the Weinstein releases previously viewed, nor will they sell previously viewed IFC movies. They will destroy them in a disc shredder and remove them from inventory. Look up the recent Weinstein releases on Blockbuster's website, such as Sicko, the Hunting Party, Halloween, The Nanny Diaries, 1408, or Hannibal Rising. They don't have any copies for sale previously viewed, when they should have an excess number of copies. This is because the movies have been destroyed to create a false demand.

Now, how well could IFC do with this model? Well, the Weinstein companies have smaller titles as well, such as Factory Girl, Days of Glory, Shut Up and Sing, and countless asian martial arts movies. They should not be enormous renters, but Blockbuster completely rents out these movies for the first few weeks they are out and as people slowly lose interest, they start to destroy the excess copies. But they still leave the backer cards on the shelf, making it appear as though they have 30 copies that are checked out when in reality they down to only carrying 5 copies. Such strategies make the public believe these small titles are in more demand than what they actually are. Even though the titles are already out on the market, the large amount of shelf space they take up and the large signs that read "Exclusive!", make for very effective and cheap advertising. IFC can't afford big billboards in Los Angeles to compete with the hundreds of billboards for Drillbit Taylor, but when the new IFC movie and Drillbit Taylor come out on DVD, they will both take up huge amounts of wall space and consumers will believe that the IFC movie is a comparably desirable title. This sounds ridiculous, but it is true.

"I'd be interested to know more about people's rental habits."

Early on, before I could rent a movie myself, I was pretty much exclusively interested in either films I'd already seen (previously on TV and/or at the theater) OR movies whose shiny, sparkly, ad campaign had caught my attention. However, I never ever browsed for anything outside the narrow scope of the mainstream.

Later on, I would actually browse the selections a little more, armed with the names of filmmakers who had impressed me. "Hey, I've never heard of this movie, but it has a Jerry Goldsmith score!" Interestingly, it was in the horror and action genres I first started looking out for, and it eventually bloomed to include pretty much everything. So, as my film knowledge grew, I started trying more and more new things. I started becoming interested in cinema's roots, and started renting older films.

Now I rent a little of everything, and I lament that my queue grows faster than I can watch them. I go over various "greatest" lists for things to check out, I'll hit IMDb to see what Truffaut films I've missed, I'll stay up with Ridley Scott's latest projects, and of course guilty pleasures.

Really, there's only 2 differences in my renting habits. 1 - I'm far more familiar with cinema now than I was when I first started. And 2 - I'm a lot more willing to check out stuff that's foreign to me.

From watching my parents, my siblings, their children, and a large number of my friends ... if you can make any generalization about the masses, I'd say most of the renting public falls in line with my earliest renting habits. It's already been mentioned that the average person walking into Blockbuster is looking for entertanment and escapism. I'll push that a bit further -- since most people only want escapism, they're more likely to pick up a title they *know* provides escapism (ie, the mainstream that's advertised to death.)

Or in other words, whether they're consiously aware of it or not, the average person walking into Blockbuster has a pretty clear idea of what they'll be walking out of there with.

I've bought so many great used titles from blockbuster over the years that I can't not go there, but I join you in being perplexed by this deal.

Maybe it's different in Canada, or maybe they have different rules for the titles they sell, but just last week I saw a copy of 'This Film Is Not Yet Rated' for sale (near the latest 'Saw'). Does Blockbuster Canada have the same rules?

I've never rented from them, but as a collector with limited income I'd be foolish to pass up deals like 'Caché', 'Volver' or 'the Descent' for $3.99! Not to mention countless others for $10 and under. This almost makes buying more economical than renting considering our equivalent to Netflix (zip.ca) charges $11 a month for one dvd at a time. Which raises the question...who are these people that buy a movie like 'Caché' only to sell it?! There were bins full of copies, do these people exist or does blockbuster create "used" titles to sell?

The NC-17 issue really is absurd and dated though and it does get under my skin knowing that I support a company that claims to be "family friendly" with such hypocritical pretensions. Something for me to chew on I guess.

I love this blog.

Jim ---

I think I can help you with some of your questions about Blockbuster Video and the rental habits of their customers.

I know this may get me banned from this site, but I was a store manager at Blockbuster and worked there for six years. I was fairly young when I was promoted to manager (I was 21) and I was also a maturing filmgoer. I have always prided myself on having good taste in films, and I don’t think any of that was lessened because I worked at Blockbuster, but I enjoyed my time there before they tried to turn themselves into Netflix and Best Buy. I worked during what I consider was still a fun time (and somewhat considered cool) to work in a video store. Even though it was Blockbuster (I still rented at the independent video store called Movie Shack) I was proud of the work I did to educate the average moviegoer when DVD’s finally came out. I remember stocking the first DVD’s of “The Matrix” and “The Green Mile” on our shelves and holding in-store demonstrations about the advantages of widescreen and showing customers (at least 20-30 a day) why widescreen was better than full frame. It was the educating and the customer’s willingness to listen and learn that made that job so fun.

I think the rental habits of most Blockbuster customers are indicative of most people who step into Best Buy to buy a TV or walk onto a car lot to inquire about a new set of wheels. They want to know what the best use of their time and money will be. They are looking for the best possible films out there. Sometimes you strike out. I remember in 1999 I was constantly working the crowds on Friday and Saturday night with copies of “Being John Malkovich”, “Magnolia”, “Three Kings”, and “Eyes Wide Shut” in my hand telling people to check out these movies as an alternative to the latest big budget film they would consider (my proudest moment was getting someone to rent “Being John Malkovich” over “The Story of Us”, they thanked me the next night).

I guess what I am getting at is that the majority of Blockbuster customers (at least where I worked in Salem, OR which is not nearly as cultured at Portland) look for the alternative. Only rarely did I have someone get mad at me for a recommendation (they threw a copy of “Far From Heaven” at me because it was filled with “gayness”, or when someone asked if I had a more violent film than “Man on Fire” to recommend them, and I told him “The Passion of the Christ” he flipped me off and left) that I made and I was always putting the controversial and rarely seen films (as were my employees) on the “employees picks” rack.

I don’t think Blockbuster was always so bad, because I worked there and experienced a video company that would allow me as a manager to order anything I wanted for the stores “older” section. I was constantly on the phone stockpiling a huge collection of rare and foreign Criterion DVD’s and I made sure that we had the biggest selection of foreign films. I also remember that in 2001 we had the Criterion version of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (it was one of my picks) and we had the NC-17 versions of “Crash”, and we had the film “L.I.E.”, all of which you made reference to in your blog entry.

I know the company sucks now, but I enjoyed my time working there and improving (even though it was minimal) a small community video store. There was something very satisfying about flooding a chain store with foreign films and hard to find Criterion discs, about holding demonstrations on why people shouldn’t be angry that their “screen was shrinking because of the weird black bars” and why they should embrace the widescreen format. I tried to change the machine a little bit by employing a crew of people that didn’t have the same taste in movies as I did, but had the same passion for making sure un-tainted films go onto the shelves of their larger video stores (seeing how Movie Shack had the market on Adult Films and carried un-tainted versions of all major theatrical releases). I never experienced Blockbuster changing a film so that they could get in on their shelves, and I left the company before any of this online stuff happened (I always liked Netflix better), but the Blockbuster bashing about certain things are usually just a matter of misinformation. I can never remember a moment (I started in 1999) when “The Last Temptation of Christ” Criterion DVD was not on the shelf of the Blockbuster I worked at.

I agree with you that this whole “exclusive” crap is horrible now that so many people have access to the variety of ways one can go about getting a copy of a movie. To put a monopoly on what people should have available access to is wrong, but it’s nothing new (and maybe it was a little more innocent when I worked there) with Blockbuster as they did the same thing (pre-DVD) with “The Boondock Saints” which is now a cult classic thanks to Blockbuster stock piling the shelves with over 100 copies at my store in Salem. Because of the push they gave that film it created a buzz among everyone and turned that film into a ridiculous straight to video success. They also tagged the original “Halloween” with the exclusive tag and even if you go to another video store and try to rent the video (!) it will say “Blockbuster Exclusive” on the left hand side. But I digress (big time…sorry for the length of this post!) and just wanted to state that sometimes the “excessiveness” or big chain mentality was not always a bad thing as it helped a movie like “The Boondock Saints” find an audience and it allowed me as a manager to order whatever DVD’s I wanted to stock my shelves with quality choices.

Jim ---

I forgot to add:

In all of my experiences running a store, I am amazed at how with no help from the employees, most customers will just rent whatever came out that Tuesday. So if your movie is new, there is a good chance that if Blockbuster is carrying more than 10 copies, it will peak the interest of the customer.

Also, I remember in the pre-DVD era Blockbuster had (I don't know if they still do) a section dedicated to Sundance films with a header and everything so that the customers attention would be drawn towards that section.

I know that they saw this primarily as a marketing ploy and a new market to exploit, but isn't it better than spending the same money on the same new releases. I was glad to put that section in my store and draw attention to a different kind of film.

My Criterion section was exclusive to my store because I was the only manager in Salem (we have five other stores) who cared enough to do this. I made cheap looking homemade signs that read: Criterion Collection on it.

It was up to me and my employees to watch the films and point customers towards that section when they inquired about which movie they should rent.

We were successful and I think that most of the problems now with Blockbuster is that they found a way to suck all of the fun and individuality I know I had when I worked there. Now they just want to be Best Buy and I refuse to step foot into their store.

With regard to Netflix and versions of DVDs, I had some trouble with Francois Truffaut's "Bed and Board." Usually the discs I get from Netflix play fine, but the one I got for Bed and Board didn't play. So I sent it back and got a replacement. That one didn't play either. I sent it back and got a third one, and that did work.

The relevance here is that the first two broken ones were the Criterion DVDs of that movie, great print and great extras. The third one was an older one -- perfectly adequate but no frills.

I interpreted this to mean that Netflix stocks the newer editions of DVDs but doesn't necessarily get rid of the old. They might give priority to the newer ones, but if a new one isn't available, then they'll dip into the stores of the older ones.

This was years ago now, though, so even if my interpretation of that event was correct, who knows if it's still the case.

Yeah, Alec Baldwin's been doing Blockbuster ad voice-overs for at least the last couple years.

Jim, just fyi, my local Blockbuster (Norman, OK) carries Scorsese's "Last Temptation of Christ". Or at least it did until I went in looking for "The Sting" and "Aguirre: The Wrath of God" one time, couldn't find them and signed up for Netflix that night. That was about 3 years ago, but they had "Last Temptation" then.

Kevin - in all my experience at Blockbuster, you sound like the exception to the rule. Of course my choices were usually the non-mainstream films, but I never heard anyone who worked there ever suggest a lesser-known title to someone. In fact the comments I'd get from the check-out people were usually "I've never heard of this." And to the guy next to me renting Passenger 57 - "Oh, that's a great movie." And more than once I got the "Oh, we don't carry widescreen - you mean with the black bars blocking half the movie?"

I wish I'd lived near your Blockbuster, back when that was my only choice. To paraphrase "My kids are *so* lucky to have been raised amongst Netflix."

Recently went into a Blockbuster here in the L.A. area for the first time in years (free rental coupon!) and was surprised to see the foreign language selection was quite diminished compared to the old VHS days. Their rental price is also higher than other stores in the area, so I doubt I'll be going back.

I worked in a video store in the mid-West about 20 years ago, and I don't think any customer ever asked "What's good?" It was always "What's new?" The shelves could be loaded with the greatest classic, foreign language and indie titles, but they'd languish while any and all new releases would fly out the door (including straight-to-video crap, as long as there was at least one recognizable name in the cast). I'm guessing it hasn't changed much.

While we're talking about stocking issues, this is kind of a big thing where we might wanna make an issue. Why is it that Netflix and Blockbuster only stock the version of E.T. with all the ugly digital effects? The original theatrical version, with the guns and a 100% puppet E.T., is easily available on DVD. The re-edited version, with that horrible digital E.T., is an ugly abortion. So why is this the only version Blockbuster and Netflix allow us to rent?

I don't know if this one somehow slipped through the cracks, but I did rent the NC-17 cut of "Y Tu Mama Tambien" from Blockbuster (I also rented "Palindromes" from them, and I've seen the uncut "Bully" on the shelves, but I know the last two were unrated, not NC-17).

Also, when I was younger, and all movie rental accounts were under my folks' name, meaning the only place we went to was Blockbuster, I did rent "The Last Temptation of Christ". I can't guarantee that I'm remembering this correctly, because this was many, many years ago, but I don't know where else I would have rented it, especially since the only other place I can remember renting from in that general time-frame was an independently run video store that I know did NOT carry the film. I know, because I asked them, and the guy told me the manager didn't carry it on principal. He had quite a porn selection though, as I remember.

Bill ---

I remember in my days working at BBV that there was a difference to the higher-ups between "unrated" and NC-17. Seeing how they could tag the film with their strange "Youth Restricted Viewing" sticker. The sticker was dumb because BBV was lazy and just tagged anything that wasn't rated with the sticker. I remember calling my district manager and telling her to have all managers remove the sticker off a film called "King of Masks" which was unrated (because they couldn't afford to have the MPAA view it...or something like that) but a family film. But because it was unrated, BBV insisted on slapping it with the same sticker they give to movies like "The Sex Substitute" and all the Red Shoe Diary crap.

If a film is NC-17 (like "Lust Caution") then they will try and get the R rated version, which is lame.

However, if the film is released in theaters as an R rated film and then later released as "unrated" on dvd, then they would most likely carry the unrated version; which was the case with movies like "Palindromes" and "Requiem for a Dream".

Of course this isn't that big of a deal anymore because every dvd that is released now is the "unrated exclusive ultimate something or other" and so there seems to be a clear distinction between PG-13 film being turned into unrated films (which almost always suck with the added "gross out" moments) and films released as NC-17 and being stocked in stores as R rated films.

I don't understand how they can carry the unrated versions and not carry NC-17. It's frustrating, and I am glad I don't work there anymore.

Kevin, I understand all that, and did qualify my references to "Palindromes" and "Bully", but I really, no-fooling did rent "Y Tu Mama Tambien" from Blockbuster, and it said NC-17 right there on the back. Like I said, maybe it slipped through the cracks.

By the way, speaking of "Lust, Caution", I was in Hollywood Video the other day, and they're only carrying the R-rated version. What I find amusing, though, is that the front cover of this version says something along the lines of "R-rated version not seen in theaters!" As if we were being given some kind of gift.

I remember a shelf-tag for "Palindromes" but the movie never showed up. I admit I didn't ask about it, I just assumed someone realized it wasn't up to Blockbuster standards. As for foreign films, the one near me has a pretty big selection but very few that weren't released after DVDs made it big; not even big name classics of the Truffaut, Kurosawa, Bergman level.

Kevin,

I just wanted to say I wish the managers in my local BBV had the same passion for film as you did with your store.