PDA

View Full Version : How Important are Extras on Blu Ray?


spawningblue
09-30-2008, 06:51 PM
So I'm sure anyone who has been reading on the Hi Def forums has heard me bitching about Blu Ray's laziness and their lack of effort when it comes to extra features. Wondering if anyone on here feels the same, or am I going solo on this one.

From a lot of regular folk that I've talked to, it seems like they feel the same as me, and when they upgrade, they want an upgrade in every way, not just in video and picture, especially considering a lot of people still don't have big screen Hi Def TVs, or Hi Def surround systems. That and Blu Rays are usually twice the price!

Unfortunately the Blu enthusiasts think only picture and sound should matter, and anything else is extra. Personally I think DVD set a precedent, and anything less is going back, instead of leaping ahead. That and I don't want to own two copies of every movie I buy. Why can't Blu Ray's include all the DVD extras and the great video and picture. The extras don't have to be in Hi Def, so they wouldn't take up that much room. I'd rather they throw in an extra disc for extras then a stupid digital copy of the film.

Anyways, vote and voice your opinions. There is no wrong answer here as some people just don't watch the crap, but I KNOW there have to be others like myself that love all the extra stuff, and are completest's who just must own every little extra out there.

Mutilated Prey
09-30-2008, 06:58 PM
I'm not one for extras - I would much rather the picture quality be the best it can be when it comes down to the two. However, I like deleted scenes for the most part, but stuff like bloopers, trailers, behind the scenes and interviews I could care less about.

Matt89
09-30-2008, 07:08 PM
This is something that gets me wondering, did I make the switch to BR because of the fact that more space meant more special features? Or was it the jump in quality? For me honestly, it's the audio and video. Special features, while they can be nice, have almost no replay value for me. (I mean, how much more could I possibly know about A Nightmare on Elm Street, Carrie, Halloween...) I mean no, not putting special features on a blu-ray disc isn't the smartest way to sell BR but it's not like every studio is doing it. Warner, Universal, Paramount, Anchor Bay, Lionsgate, Columbia/Sony are all carrying over everything from their DVD counterparts.

In fact, it really is only MGM that's been porting over absolutely nothing. MGM's always been a hit and miss, though. They'll have good periods and then go right back to being total shit. (Crappy transfers, no extras, NON-ANAMORPHIC TRANSFERS *AHEM* New York, New York being re-released in 2007 STILL with a VERY low-res non-anamorphic transfer!!!!) Fox carries MOST of them over, but with them too, some blu-rays have ALL the special features that the DVDs have, plus more (The Omen) but only a few have a couple dropped extras (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid).

~Matt

dwatts
09-30-2008, 07:20 PM
This is something that gets me wondering, did I make the switch to BR because of the fact that more space meant more special features? Or was it the jump in quality?

For me they're not mutually exclusive.

DVD changed the way I watch movies. When I watched movies on TV I'd tune in, watch, and then move on to something else. With DVD I could watch a film, and then get educated about that film. I could listen to the Director tell me about his choices, listen to the actors, see FX featurettes etc. Basically, the value of DVD wasn't simply that there was stuff packed on it - but that as a package I could enjoy the film I was buying in many different ways, and to a greater extent.

As such, I can't honestly say it's just the audio/visual that matters to me. I recently bought Vampyr on DVD - and it came with two commentaries, an 80- page booklet, printable scripts, featurettes. All that stuff greatly enhanced my enjoyment of the film, they're not just add-ons. And hell, the A/V on that is never going to be stellar.

And... if all the same extras are on the DVD, then the studios are just shooting themselves in the foot. As I stated elsewhere, if the value proposition is only pixels, it's going to be a tougher sell.

I think we under-estimate the value of extras. They're not just bullet points on the back of the box to me. I enjoy (most of) them, and find they add a LOT.

dwatts
09-30-2008, 07:22 PM
Mind you, I can't vote in the poll. The first option looks obvious, but I can't say I absolutely wouldn't be if the extras are missing. The second option I can't go with, "some" extras seems a bizarre choice. And yet, A/V isn't the be all and end-all of everything....

So screwed really. :D

KR~!
09-30-2008, 07:26 PM
If you care about extras, BD-Live can, in theory, offer an unlimited amount of extras.

spawningblue
09-30-2008, 07:45 PM
Whether Blu Ray enthusiasts want to admit or not, extra features do sell movies. That is why Superbit and bare bones editions of films are/ were always outsold by the 2 disc special editions, and usually the reason why people double dip on films, or buy other region DVDs.

25 GB discs shouldn't even exist when 50 GB discs are available. Is there a huge difference in price? Stop being cheap and include everything. It just amazes me that with a lot of recent releases, even if they are only small things like still galleries or featurettes, that the DVD includes more then the Blu Ray. Even looking at the recent Mummy releases, the DVDs included a couple of little extras that the Blu Rays didn't. Just makes no sense to me. I have a curse and I am a completest, and Blu Ray is making me choose between the two, when they shouldn't. Blu Ray should have everything plus more!

dwatts
09-30-2008, 07:50 PM
Hang on, BD-Live in online, downloaded through phone lines. Something you just mentioned in another thread wasn't feasible today. Which is it? ;)

BD-Live is a horrible option. Either make the whole thing online, or put it all on disc.

Matt89
09-30-2008, 07:51 PM
The reason I bought most of MY region 2's:

Friday the 13th - uncut status of the film.
The Hitcher - better transfer. (It just happened to have more extras.)
Blow-Up - better transfer.
Repulsion - better transfer.
Creepshow - MUCH improved transfer.
Prom Night - improved transfer and anamorphic enhancement.
Happy Birthday to Me - original soundtrack on German track.

There are a few I bought for better extras, (Peeping Tom, Don't Look Now, Scanners) but the image quality on these DVDs didn't blow away their R1 counterparts, so it's not like I lost anything in the A/V dept.

~Matt

spawningblue
09-30-2008, 07:52 PM
And as much as people hate still galleries, I want the original posters and ads, the make up and sculpture stills, or like in Top Gun's case, the deleted scenes that only exist as stills, and were included on the DVD but absent from the Blu Ray. I hate that now I have to keep my Top Gun DVD, when I should have been able to sell it off and put the money towards another Blu Ray. Now I have to take up two spaces for the film on my shelf, when they could have obviously included the gallery. How much space could it take up, honestly?

spawningblue
09-30-2008, 07:59 PM
The reason I bought most of MY region 2's:

Friday the 13th - uncut status of the film.
The Hitcher - better transfer. (It just happened to have more extras.)
Blow-Up - better transfer.
Repulsion - better transfer.
Creepshow - MUCH improved transfer.
Prom Night - improved transfer and anamorphic enhancement.
Happy Birthday to Me - original soundtrack on German track.

There are a few I bought for better extras, (Peeping Tom, Don't Look Now, Scanners) but the image quality on these DVDs didn't blow away their R1 counterparts, so it's not like I lost anything in the A/V dept.

~Matt

That's fine. I believe you went to films school right? It had an effect on you, you stated that in the Friday the 13th box set thread. It even hindered your enjoyment of horror films like the Friday films or any other slasher film. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. You look at films differently then a lot of people, so to you that's all that matters, but it is clear that some people, I'll use myself as an example, do care about extras. I'm sure if I put this thread up in a Blu Ray site forum, option number three would kill the other two choices, but to the average joe, the population that will make or break Blku Ray, I think the choices would be a lot closer. And if Blu Ray wants to win and take over DVD, they can't ignore like 70% of their possible audience, and just go after the enthusiasts. If they do, they will go the way of laser disc, and DVD will stick around.

Matt89
09-30-2008, 07:59 PM
...You know you don't HAVE to keep it. Just for a few photos you can probably find on Google or Yahoo images, or possibly IMDb. Or, The Motion Picture and Television Photo Archive might have them.

Been meaning to get Top Gun, though. My friend bought it. Looks amazing.

~Matt

spawningblue
09-30-2008, 08:01 PM
Why can't Blu Ray offer two options like DVD does? If you just care about the video and audio then get the bare bones version, if you want the extras, then get the 2 disc edition. It's just the laziness that really gets to me, as they could EASILY include everything from the DVD, especially measly picture galleries!

Matt89
09-30-2008, 08:03 PM
Why can't Blu Ray offer two options like DVD does? If you just care about the video and audio then get the bare bones version, if you want the extras, then get the 2 disc edition. It's just the laziness that really gets to me, as they could EASILY include everything from the DVD, especially measly picture galleries!

That's the thing, though. They're measly and studios decide to no longer include them.

~Matt

spawningblue
09-30-2008, 08:04 PM
...You know you don't HAVE to keep it. Just for a few photos you can probably find on Google or Yahoo images, or possibly IMDb. Or, The Motion Picture and Television Photo Archive might have them.

Been meaning to get Top Gun, though. My friend bought it. Looks amazing.

~Matt

But again, why not include it? As it's already done! And would take up no room. If it was already offered on a crappy old DVD, then why not add it to the superior new Blu Ray? Yeah I can go and buy a book, but it was already available! It's not like the Friday the 13th box set where they would have to put extra time and money into adding new things, these features are already done and available! It is laziness and there is really no excuse for it, end of story.

dwatts
09-30-2008, 08:07 PM
Spawningblue - Stop Making Sense.

You won't convince people with less. Really.

spawningblue
09-30-2008, 08:09 PM
That's the thing, though. They're measly and studios decide to no longer include them.

~Matt

Would you rather have the deleted scenes from my Bloody Valentine or Friday the 13th included on the Blu Ray as stills, or not included at all? I'm sure everyone would rather have them then not. For those two movies they would need to put a little effort or moeny into putting them Blu Ray though, but in Top Gun's case, they were already done for the DVD, so no effort what so ever would be needed to add them to the Blu Ray!

Matt89
09-30-2008, 08:09 PM
Why must everything just be handed to people? I ask. Laziness on everyone's behalf that thinks everything should just be handed to them. Honestly, I can learn enough from reading about a movie on IMDb. If there's nothing on the DVD, seek out IMDb for liner notes. But some people don't take into consideration the effort the studio puts into MAKING a high-definition transfer...oh no, of course not.

~Matt

spawningblue
09-30-2008, 08:11 PM
And one last thing, yes you can search sites and books for the original movie art, and deleted scenes, ect., but if they are already done and available on an old DVD, wouldn't you rather they just include them on the Blu Ray and have them all in one place with the movie and all the other extras?

Matt89
09-30-2008, 08:15 PM
I don't want people to think I'm anti-extras or something. I just personally feel that A/V quality is far more important than a documentary or a still gallery. But honestly...HONESTLY, still galleries always were quite pointless.

~Matt

spawningblue
09-30-2008, 08:15 PM
Why must everything just be handed to people? I ask. Laziness on everyone's behalf that thinks everything should just be handed to them. Honestly, I can learn enough from reading about a movie on IMDb. If there's nothing on the DVD, seek out IMDb for liner notes. But some people don't take into consideration the effort the studio puts into MAKING a high-definition transfer...oh no, of course not.

~Matt

But you are not seeing the point. They were already on the DVDs, no effort would be needed to just throw them on the Blu Ray as well! Haha, I just don't see why this is so hard to grasp. If they weren't already on the old inferior DVD I would not be complaining, or if they lost the rights or something, but that is not the case here!

And It's weird you complain about people's laziness to search for books or on the net, but not about Blu ray's laziness when it comes to adding features already done for them!

dwatts
09-30-2008, 08:17 PM
Why must everything just be handed to people? I ask. Laziness on everyone's behalf that thinks everything should just be handed to them. Honestly, I can learn enough from reading about a movie on IMDb. If there's nothing on the DVD, seek out IMDb for liner notes. But some people don't take into consideration the effort the studio puts into MAKING a high-definition transfer...oh no, of course not.

~Matt


Hm, I find this post a little strange. Maybe it's just me. :D

"Everything handed to people"?!?! No - it's called VALUE, and more importantly CHOICE. Getting less is less value, and choice dictates I can just pay less, to get more, on DVD. Simple.

Are you saying I should put up with less extras because paying more for less isn't so bad when I can Google? Look, when I'm watching movies I'm not on the Internet, okay? I can stream computer content to my TV, but why not just put it on the disc? I'm sorry, they're different things entirely.

Studios are making hi-def transfer TO MAKE MONEY. Let's not mistake it for charity, or that they're doing us a favor, they're not. They're trying to sell me something. And if they want to sell something, they have to offer good value and incentives.

Laziness has nothing to do with it at all.

spawningblue
09-30-2008, 08:19 PM
I don't want people to think I'm anti-extras or something. I just personally feel that A/V quality is far more important than a documentary or a still gallery. But honestly...HONESTLY, still galleries always were quite pointless.

~Matt

I'm not saying I would rather have a still gallery over better picture and sound, I'm just saying once again, there was no reason they shouldn't have transferred them over to the Blu Ray. And yeah, maybe some still galleries are worthless. but do you honestly not find it cool to see all the original poster or ad art, or the deleted scenes if that is the only way they were made available. To each their own I guess. i just say hey, if they're
there, then include them. If someone was selling a disc exactly the same for the same price, and one included the stills and one didn't, would you take the one that didn't? Because that would be stupid in my opinion.

Matt89
09-30-2008, 08:28 PM
Okay, maybe I did go a bit off with the laziness comment. I take that back. But really, you ARE buying the blu-ray disc for the film itself. I don't buy movies for a documentary. If that was the case, I'd just buy a documentary. I've seen much of the info I wanted to know from many SE DVDs over the years. I already know the info and I personally don't feel that I need to watch it again. Now that I have the means, I think that A/V quality matters more to me now than extras. (Considering they're in 480p anyway.)

Okay okay, Paramount dropped the stills gallery. Yes, laziness on their part. But you know you CAN pop the disc into your computer and just copy the file(s) to your hard-drive?

~Matt

spawningblue
09-30-2008, 08:38 PM
The whole thing is I'm not disagreeing that picture and sound aren't important, and that Blu Ray doesn't deliver greatly in that regard. I'm just disappointed that unlike DVD to VHS, they aren't surpassing DVD in every regard, and are forcing me to keep two copies of a movie. you said it yourself in the Carrie forum, that you hate having to keep two copies of each movie, and that is my main issue. yes, I can pop in my DVD, or search the net, or read a book, but why not just include it all on the Blu Ray, and have it all in one nice complete package. There is no work for them to be done, it was already done for them years ago for the older DVDs. And don't bring up space, because unless the extras are done in Hi Def, they can't take up much space when we are talking 50 GB's here. That is all I'm saying. I understand, you don't watch or care about extras, but you can't deny that companies when it comes to Blu Ray releases have been lazy. And no it's not just MGM. I started a thread sometime ago with a list of all the Blu Rays missing extras (And I didn't even include the bare bone ones, as I'm sure they'll get re-released), and there was still a sizable amount of titles.

Matt89
09-30-2008, 08:45 PM
The whole thing is I'm not disagreeing that picture and sound aren't important, and that Blu Ray doesn't deliver greatly in that regard. I'm just disappointed that unlike DVD to VHS, they aren't surpassing DVD in every regard, and are forcing me to keep two copies of a movie. you said it yourself in the Carrie forum, that you hate having to keep two copies of each movie, and that is my main issue. yes, I can pop in my DVD, or search the net, or read a book, but why not just include it all on the Blu Ray, and have it all in one nice complete package. There is no work for them to be done, it was already done for them years ago for the older DVDs. And don't bring up space, because unless the extras are done in Hi Def, they can't take up much space when we are talking 50 GB's here. That is all I'm saying. I understand, you don't watch or care about extras, but you can't deny that companies when it comes to Blu Ray releases have been lazy. And no it's not just MGM. I started a thread sometime ago with a list of all the Blu Rays missing extras (And I didn't even include the bare bone ones, as I'm sure they'll get re-released), and there was still a sizable amount of titles.

I'm not saying I don't care about extras. It's just...show me something new with the extras. Something I haven't seen before. What can they show me that I don't already know about a movie like Halloween? They showed me something new in image quality with high-def so that's why I'm leaning more towards image quality. With Carrie, I spoke out in anger. It hit me later on that I watched the special features on that DVD once and then the extras didn't matter to me as much as I thought they did.

As I stated before. I had a tube TV my whole life. Finally got an HD set a few months ago and I was blown away. I had never seen a movie look so good, which is why I'm all over image quality and sound quality. It was such a drastic jump from a tbe TV's 480i.

~Matt

spawningblue
09-30-2008, 08:50 PM
Just looking at this poll, it is divided, and that's the biggest issue. Blu Ray shouldn't be dividing newcomers. It should beat DVD in every way, and make people want to jump in and start replacing all their old DVDs, like we all did with our VHS collection. The fact of the matter is is that it isn't, and it is making people hold out. And in my opinion, too much waiting will really hurt Blu Ray, which is sad because it could really offer so much more then DVD if more time and effort were put into their releases.

spawningblue
09-30-2008, 09:00 PM
I'm sure when I get a new 1080 huge screen TV, and new HD surround system, I too will be blown away by the picture and sound. I just say, why not include both? Great picture and sound, and great extras, and make everyone happy! Some people love the extras, some people don't, then at the least give people the option to by a bare bones Blu Ray, or a 2 disc extras laden Blu Ray. I just don't want to have two copies of one movie on my shelf, that is all I'm getting at, as I doubt a lot of people do either. And agian, I'm not saying spend lots of money or time adding new features, just give us at least what is offered on our old DVDs so we can replace them. Don't you think that is a fair request, and would make everyone happy. It would sure get a lot of people who are on the sidelines jump in, and then they too could be excited about the great picture and sound like you are. It's not like it's a dream, or asking too much, companies just need to stop being lazy, and that is really the end of it.

Reverenddave
09-30-2008, 09:18 PM
I rarely watch extras. They're nice to have. But I don't put any value in them, unless it's an alternate version for the movie (like the Mist and 1408 DVDs).

One thing that bugs me about Blu-Rays is that special features are almost always in SD. I hate watching a movie in beautiful HD, then check out the extras and they're non-anamorphic low-rez videos.

dwatts
09-30-2008, 09:20 PM
What can they show me that I don't already know about a movie like Halloween?

But.... that's only because they DID make the extras, and put them on disc. So if it was so important then, why not now? Sure, you've sucked in the information that's there - but for different films, it might not be, so extras mean a lot - and can enhance the viewing experience.

spawningblue
09-30-2008, 09:24 PM
I rarely watch extras. They're nice to have. But I don't put any value in them, unless it's an alternate version for the movie (like the Mist and 1408 DVDs).

One thing that bugs me about Blu-Rays is that special features are almost always in SD. I hate watching a movie in beautiful HD, then check out the extras and they're non-anamorphic low-rez videos.

Well one thing that may bug you then is that the 1408 Blu Ray doesn't include both version of the movie, just the director's cut. Apparently Blu Ray can't do branching films, oh wait, they can, companies are just lazy! I personally liked the theatrical version better too, which make it that much worse. Luckily, The Mist Blu Ray includes everything from the DVD.

KR~!
09-30-2008, 09:36 PM
You guys are not fair to the big money studios, I mean how are they suppose to make people double and triple dip if they include everything from the start on the 1st release?

Reverenddave
09-30-2008, 09:39 PM
The best extra HD discs ever had were the HD-DVD/DVD combos. The execution wasn't very good. The discs were glitchy, and flippers. But I loved the idea.

There are a lot of times where I have to buy both the HD and SD versions. Obviously, I prefer HD for the main "home theater" viewing. But if I want to see it in the bedroom, on the laptop, take it to a friend's house or loan it to family members, then I need the SD disc.

I'd love to see some 2-disc combo versions, even if they cost $5-$7 more.

dwatts
09-30-2008, 09:43 PM
You guys are not fair to the big money studios, I mean how are they suppose to make people double and triple dip if they include everything from the start on the 1st release?

You double dip while I wait. :lol:

KR~!
09-30-2008, 09:53 PM
You double dip while I wait. :lol:

that sounds dirty :cry:

Grim
09-30-2008, 10:11 PM
I wish there was a fourth option like "Picture and Sound come first, but I still would want extras as well." Picture and sound quality will always be the deciding factor for me, but that is not to say I don't want to learn about the film. I enjoy director's commentaries, deleted scenes, docs, etc. just as much as the next guy, in fact maybe even more so, but the quality of the presentation of the film will always be the deciding factor for me. If I am really interested in the behind the scenes aspects of the film and they aren't on the blu-ray, I'll hunt them down one way or another, even if it means buying the DVD version if I can find it cheap. Tedious, yes, but hey if I want the best presentation possible and all the behind the scenes and extra goodies, I'm willing to plop down the cash.

Another thing is that most of the older films I buy on blu-ray have already been released on DVD in spectacular special editions, so I already have all kinds of goodies. Thus, when I buy the blu-ray, extras aren't really a concern. As for newer flicks, I have found that a lot of extras these days are nothing more than fluff or EPK's. I think back in the beginning of the 21st century extras were really geared towards fans wanting to learn more about a film they love or have just watched, but now, after DVD has become the dominant format for the masses, I think studios just try to load as much as they can on a set so they can make it 2 discs and up the price another $8. There are many recent flicks that do have worthwhile extras on them, most of which have them present on their blu-ray counterparts, but I have found the vast majority of what's released these days to be fluff.

spawningblue
09-30-2008, 10:26 PM
I wish there was a fourth option like "Picture and Sound come first, but I still would want extras as well." Picture and sound quality will always be the deciding factor for me, but that is not to say I don't want to learn about the film. I enjoy director's commentaries, deleted scenes, docs, etc. just as much as the next guy, in fact maybe even more so, but the quality of the presentation of the film will always be the deciding factor for me. If I am really interested in the behind the scenes aspects of the film and they aren't on the blu-ray, I'll hunt them down one way or another, even if it means buying the DVD version if I can find it cheap. Tedious, yes, but hey if I want the best presentation possible and all the behind the scenes and extra goodies, I'm willing to plop down the cash.

Another thing is that most of the older films I buy on blu-ray have already been released on DVD in spectacular special editions, so I already have all kinds of goodies. Thus, when I buy the blu-ray, extras aren't really a concern. As for newer flicks, I have found that a lot of extras these days are nothing more than fluff or EPK's. I think back in the beginning of the 21st century extras were really geared towards fans wanting to learn more about a film they love or have just watched, but now, after DVD has become the dominant format for the masses, I think studios just try to load as much as they can on a set so they can make it 2 discs and up the price another $8. There are many recent flicks that do have worthwhile extras on them, most of which have them present on their blu-ray counterparts, but I have found the vast majority of what's released these days to be fluff.

Option 2

Grim
09-30-2008, 10:44 PM
Option 2

Well, I was going to go with that one, but I got the impression that it meant that extras, even if it was just the main ones, would still be the deciding factor for me, which it wouldn't. But if two meant what I wrote in the previous post, then I would've gone with that instead.

Vlachio
09-30-2008, 11:17 PM
Include everything from the DVD or I ain't biting.

fattyjoe37
10-01-2008, 05:28 AM
Include everything from the DVD or I ain't biting.

My thoughts exactly.

Azrael55
10-01-2008, 05:47 AM
Spawningblue I couldn't agree with you more. But then again I guess you could say I'm crazy about DVD extras. Out of the 150+ DVD's I have in my collection NONE that I bought don't have extras. I simply don't buy a movie if it doesn't have some sort of commentary, behind the scenes, documentary on it. I never have and I never will.

Matt89
10-01-2008, 05:59 AM
LOL wow. I guess I do think differently about films than other people.

~Matt

Grim
10-01-2008, 06:09 AM
Spawningblue I couldn't agree with you more. But then again I guess you could say I'm crazy about DVD extras. Out of the 150+ DVD's I have in my collection NONE that I bought don't have extras. I simply don't buy a movie if it doesn't have some sort of commentary, behind the scenes, documentary on it. I never have and I never will.
Really? Especially when you can get DVD's for $5 these days. If I love a film, I am not going to let the trivial aspect of it not having extras prevent me from owning a copy of it. I mean what if a version of your favorite movie with extras never comes out? Are you just going to never own the film? That just sounds ludicrous to me.

Matt89
10-01-2008, 06:21 AM
I mean what if a version of your favorite movie with extras never comes out? Are you just going to never own the film? That just sounds ludicrous to me.

Ludicrous? Absolutely.

So if you're a fan of say...April Fool's Day you're not gonna buy the film because it has no extras, even though the transfer itself is of higher quality than say...VHS? Makes no sense.

~Matt

indiephantom
10-01-2008, 08:35 AM
BD-Live is a horrible option. Either make the whole thing online, or put it all on disc.

I agree. My new Sony laptop doesn't even support BD live :confused:. I'm really against paying for a disc and having to contact a website to play the features. That pissed me off years ago with the T2 HD feature and I think BD Live is just divx under another name.

Does anyone really believe that they're going to use BD live to add features to existing BDs for years to come. :lol: Not without a price tag of some sort.

The answer to this question of extras is simple. If BD can support so much, put them on there. Don't sacrifice feature quality, but don't go all SUPERBIT and use it as an excuse to NOT deliver special features.

At the very least I'm a fan of trailers and TV spots and I think they should be mandatory content, and not even considered special features. Some commentaries are great, but those lame featurettes are pretty pointless. I expect BD features to be more interactive like we've always been promised. Let's get some innovation in there and offer something fun and educational. Something along the lines of INFINIFILM on crack would be fun to see. :banana: If need be, put some features on a second disc, but no fucking BD live bullshit.:fucked:

Vlachio
10-01-2008, 11:52 AM
That just sounds ludicrous to me.


Ludicrous? Absolutely.



I'm not a big fan of rap music but I can tolerate some of it.

http://www.plong.com/MusicCatalog/L/Ludacris%20-%20Chicken%20&%20Beer/Ludacris%20-%20Chicken%20&%20Beer.jpg

The Chaostar
10-01-2008, 12:51 PM
Well here's the thing. With BR I will double-dip. There's no way to avoid it. And all the dvds I have, have extras. So, I don't care if I buy movie-only versions...

dwatts
10-01-2008, 01:21 PM
It would surely be nicer if you didn't have to keep you DVD's around just to have the extras....

Besides, we all know this is a marketing trick to catch out early adopters and get them to double-dip.... so if you're happy with that....

Vlachio
10-01-2008, 01:25 PM
It would surely be nicer if you didn't have to keep you DVD's around just to have the extras....

Besides, we all know this is a marketing trick to catch out early adopters and get them to double-dip.... so if you're happy with that....

EXACTLY!

AndiOne
10-01-2008, 01:39 PM
Yeah thats true, but as long theres the commentary audio tracks on the BD version
it`s fine with me. If I already own the movie on DVD i don`t mind watch the extra stuff i SD.

Matt89
10-01-2008, 02:42 PM
I'm not a big fan of rap music but I can tolerate some of it.

http://www.plong.com/MusicCatalog/L/Ludacris%20-%20Chicken%20&%20Beer/Ludacris%20-%20Chicken%20&%20Beer.jpg

Vlachio, you never stop, do you? :lol:

~Matt

Vlachio
10-01-2008, 02:59 PM
Vlachio, you never stop, do you? :lol:

~Matt


Nope never, ever, ever I be silly all the time. http://freespace.virgin.net/zzz.99/k/bash3.gif

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g231/adresaklumea/funny-cats/barbiekitty.jpg

http://www.aboutgbs.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/smiley-funny-post-sign.gif

Matt89
10-01-2008, 03:54 PM
But really to be honest, I don't know how important special features are to the general public. My uncle LOVES Star Wars and he got the original trilogy for Christmas a few years back. He still hasn't watched a single special feature on them. He just has them for the movies themselves. My brother has the Back to the Future trilogy (as do I) and I asked him if he had seen one of the deleted scenes and he had no idea that deleted scenes were even ON the DVDs. I was like, "oh come on, really?" The thing is, people WILL go for quality. The point is, on here we do not represent the general public. We represent die-hard movie fans who (most of us) are crazy about special features. But to the average joe, I really don't think special features matter a whole lot. My friend bought Blade Runner on blu-ray, and has yet to watch all 5 versions, listen to the commentary or even watch the Blade Runner documentary. I'd say the general public really doesn't care about special features.

And, I wouldn't even say the jump from VHS to DVD was BIGGER than the jump from DVD to BR. It was a different kind of jump. We went from analog to digital. VHS was still NTSC, and we just went from NTSC-NTSC. VHS was 480i, and DVD was still either 480i or 480p. VHS always had a sort-of translucent "sheet" covering what was underneath. Sort-of watching a movie behind a shower curtain. (I'm just using this as an analogy, it wasn't THAT unwatchable) but what DVD did was remove that sheet and expose the film. What HD does is show film the way film LOOKS. With 6 times the resolution (and 5 times the resolution in PAL (576p) countries) and much improved sound quality, I personally think there's a bigger jump in quality with BR to DVD than DVD to VHS. We're dealing with a completely new and vastly improved video system here.

I will agree though, that studios dropping features from blu-rays then charging twice the price of other feature-laden blu-rays makes absolutely no sense. Then again, it's only Fox/MGM doing this. (All other studios have very reasonably priced blu-ray discs.) I have yet to buy a Fox or MGM title (with the exception of Carrie, but I've already stated my reasons for doing so.) I will get The Omen, even though it is expensive for a blu-ray ($27.95) but it has everything the DVD has, plus more exclusive BR content, which I think is a major selling point for me. Give me something the DVD DOESN'T have in the way of special features. You've already given me amazing A/V quality, and being given BR exclusive content is a nice commodity. A Nightmare on Elm Street had all the features dropped, sure. But, the picture quality was greatly improved upon and they only charged $20.99 for it, so I mean it was completely reasonable. I'll only be watching the movie anyway.

You guys may say that I don't get it. From your perspective, maybe I don't. I don't know how many times I've given up on a documentary because it was just rehashing things discussed in the commentary, or vice versa. But I just can't grasp the fact that people put so much emphasis on special features to the point where it seems like they're far more important than the film itself. :confused:

...you can all throw your rocks and bricks at me now. :nervous:

~Matt

dwatts
10-01-2008, 05:01 PM
The thing is, people WILL go for quality. The point is, on here we do not represent the general public.No, we don't. But I think the public is saying they're happy with DVD, hence BR isn't making huge inroads. I don't think Joe Blow cares too much about pixels, only in seeing the film (as you state). I'm agreeing with what you wrote, but disagree on the outcome. What you've described there is a model where BR stays niche, and people just pick up whatever is cheapest, and therefore offers better value.


My friend bought Blade Runner on blu-ray, and has yet to watch all 5 versionsI bought it, and have yet to crack the packaging. :D


And, I wouldn't even say the jump from VHS to DVD was BIGGER than the jump from DVD to BR. It was a different kind of jump. We went from analog to digital. VHS was still NTSC, and we just went from NTSC-NTSC. VHS was 480i, and DVD was still either 480i or 480p. VHS always had a sort-of translucent "sheet" covering what was underneath. Sort-of watching a movie behind a shower curtain. (I'm just using this as an analogy, it wasn't THAT unwatchable) but what DVD did was remove that sheet and expose the film. What HD does is show film the way film LOOKS. With 6 times the resolution (and 5 times the resolution in PAL (576p) countries) and much improved sound quality, I personally think there's a bigger jump in quality with BR to DVD than DVD to VHS. We're dealing with a completely new and vastly improved video system here.See, I think this paragraph nicely defines the problem. To many people this is a load of gobbledegook. 6 times this, 480i, NTSC, 576p?!?!? No - actually I just want to watch the flaming movie.... how much is that? Yeah, give me that. Seriously, this isn't how technology gets sold to the general public. It's far too technical.


But I just can't grasp the fact that people put so much emphasis on special features to the point where it seems like they're far more important than the film itself.You're right, you just don't get it - even though it's been explained several times. ;)


No-one on here has said special features matter more than the movie. No-one. What's been said is that value for money matters. It's the WHOLE package, not one element. We all know that the movie companies won't continue with these bare bone releases - it's a trap to get you to double-dip later.

Look, I just got back from the store where I saw the home release of The Eye. Allowing for conversion, the BR disc was $20 MORE than the standard release. $20 of extra money. OR - I could buy TWO other SD movies with that $20. So basically what I'm saying is, yeah the movie matters - but DVD is good enough for that movie, and I'd rather than THREE movies to watch tonight, than one. Value for money. You on the other hand seem to suggest it's all about pixels, and only about pixels. And I don't think it's anywhere near as simple as that. But again - no-one has said special features are more important than the movie. It's a non-argument. ;)

Hell, I love Cronenberg, but I never bought his last movie on SD - let alone BR. It had virutally no special features, not even a commentary. And, meh, I'll wait and wait and wait. Either a) The price will drop to a silly level, or b) A version with features/commentary will come out. Either way, it'll be better value for money.

No rocks and bricks, just clarification. :)

spawningblue
10-01-2008, 05:21 PM
Spawningblue I couldn't agree with you more. But then again I guess you could say I'm crazy about DVD extras. Out of the 150+ DVD's I have in my collection NONE that I bought don't have extras. I simply don't buy a movie if it doesn't have some sort of commentary, behind the scenes, documentary on it. I never have and I never will.

I did that maybe my first year or two into DVD. I started pretty early, and didn't want to re buy a DVD if it didn't offer much more then my VHS copy. That and after getting ripped off a couple times with double dips, I figured I would just hold out until they did the movie right. Unfortunately that stopped me from getting a lot of great movies, and after the two years I gave up and just started purchasing any movie I liked. If I had to double dip, then so be it. But a lot of movies they still haven't done special editions of, and probably never will, so I'm glad I gave in. But if it's a newer bid budget film and they release it bare bones, I will sometimes hold out (Unless i really really want it!), as it's pretty much destined to get re-released.

I know what you are thinking, well if thats the case then why won't you do the same with Blu Ray, just give in now and double dip later. Well I won't because thanks to DVD, the special features already exist! So there is no reason they should not be included!

Matt89
10-01-2008, 05:32 PM
But the thing is, blu-ray IS offering people value. You pay more for a high definition transfer that looks much better than DVD. Like I've said it's only ONE studio that's charging ridiculous prices and dropping lots of features. I don't know how it is in the UK, but by the sounds of it, blu-ray seems to be way overpriced. I know DVD always was, I don't know what it is about the UK and charging twice the price of its North American counterpart. But here in North America, blu-ray really isn't too much more than DVD. HMV, for example has Dog Day Afternoon for $19.99. The blu-ray edition is only $5 more. (And if you buy at Best Buy, it's only $23.99. If you buy it on amazon, it's even CHEAPER. $17.95) Everything is carried over, plus you get the advantage of HD. Value.

I totally agree with you that there are instances where studios are NOT offering value. I personally only really see it with Fox/MGM. The way they market their blu-ray titles it's as if they don't want them to sell (although they backed blu-ray from the beginning). I can totally see why you didn't get Cronenberg's last film. I've done that a few times, waited for the price to drop. I mean, I'm not stupid lol I just think I'm getting quality for the money I spend since I hold higher priority over A/V than extras. :D People on here are making it out to seem that EVERY single blu-ray coming out doesn't have extras on it, not even taking into account A/V quality.

Sure, nobody said "special features are more important than the movie" directly, but someone did say that if a movie has no special features on it, they won't buy it. That CLEARLY states that special features have a higher priority over the movie itself. What if the barebones DVD is like $8.99? (Like a lot of barebones Paramount DVDs are currently priced as) They're saying they still won't buy it? Ridiculous.

But meh, you're absolutely right. I just don't get it. A/V quality means so much to me right now. I'm sick of the way DVD looks. Flat, low-res and *shudder* NTSC. :lol: Maybe it's because I'm new to HD and have had a tube TV all my life. Maybe it's the fact that we've screened some films in my film class in 35mm (Thelma & Louise and Halloween come to mind) that just so happen to be some of my favorites. Then next lecture, they'll only have a DVD screened through a projector (of films they couldn't obtain from studios on 35mm) and well...much of the magic's gone for me.

And you know what, you're one of the few people who I have frequent disagreements with on here, yet I never seem to feel insulted. :D And hey, thanks for not throwing bricks. My forehead is thankful.

~Matt

spawningblue
10-01-2008, 05:38 PM
But really to be honest, I don't know how important special features are to the general public. My uncle LOVES Star Wars and he got the original trilogy for Christmas a few years back. He still hasn't watched a single special feature on them. He just has them for the movies themselves. My brother has the Back to the Future trilogy (as do I) and I asked him if he had seen one of the deleted scenes and he had no idea that deleted scenes were even ON the DVDs. I was like, "oh come on, really?" The thing is, people WILL go for quality. The point is, on here we do not represent the general public. We represent die-hard movie fans who (most of us) are crazy about special features. But to the average joe, I really don't think special features matter a whole lot. My friend bought Blade Runner on blu-ray, and has yet to watch all 5 versions, listen to the commentary or even watch the Blade Runner documentary. I'd say the general public really doesn't care about special features.

And, I wouldn't even say the jump from VHS to DVD was BIGGER than the jump from DVD to BR. It was a different kind of jump. We went from analog to digital. VHS was still NTSC, and we just went from NTSC-NTSC. VHS was 480i, and DVD was still either 480i or 480p. VHS always had a sort-of translucent "sheet" covering what was underneath. Sort-of watching a movie behind a shower curtain. (I'm just using this as an analogy, it wasn't THAT unwatchable) but what DVD did was remove that sheet and expose the film. What HD does is show film the way film LOOKS. With 6 times the resolution (and 5 times the resolution in PAL (576p) countries) and much improved sound quality, I personally think there's a bigger jump in quality with BR to DVD than DVD to VHS. We're dealing with a completely new and vastly improved video system here.

I will agree though, that studios dropping features from blu-rays then charging twice the price of other feature-laden blu-rays makes absolutely no sense. Then again, it's only Fox/MGM doing this. (All other studios have very reasonably priced blu-ray discs.) I have yet to buy a Fox or MGM title (with the exception of Carrie, but I've already stated my reasons for doing so.) I will get The Omen, even though it is expensive for a blu-ray ($27.95) but it has everything the DVD has, plus more exclusive BR content, which I think is a major selling point for me. Give me something the DVD DOESN'T have in the way of special features. You've already given me amazing A/V quality, and being given BR exclusive content is a nice commodity. A Nightmare on Elm Street had all the features dropped, sure. But, the picture quality was greatly improved upon and they only charged $20.99 for it, so I mean it was completely reasonable. I'll only be watching the movie anyway.

You guys may say that I don't get it. From your perspective, maybe I don't. I don't know how many times I've given up on a documentary because it was just rehashing things discussed in the commentary, or vice versa. But I just can't grasp the fact that people put so much emphasis on special features to the point where it seems like they're far more important than the film itself. :confused:

...you can all throw your rocks and bricks at me now. :nervous:

~Matt

I don't know. Yes my mom and sister don't care about extra features, but I would say most of my friends do, and they are far from movie enthusiasts. If that was the case then the single disc versions would sell more then the 2 disc versions, and that is rarely the case. That and companies would never double dip on movies, as they probably wouldn't make much money. And Superbits would have been huge.

And like Dwatts said, no one is disagreeing that the movie isn't the most important part, but the overall package is. I would rather have a DVD with good picute and sound and tons of extra features as well, then a Blu Ray with a little better picture and sound, but no extras whatsoever, and twice the amount. That and to get the better picture you have to have a huge 1080 TV. Yes, Hi Def TVs are slowly taking over, but is the average customer getting a 1080p TV or just a 720 or 1080i TV? Are they getting a 60+" screen TV. Not from what I've seen as they are still quite pricey. If it's not huge and 1080, you won't notice much of a difference. I know I sure as hell don't on my 720 TV. And next to no one has upgraded their surround systems to support Hi Def. So you aren't really getting much better sound then DVD, at least most aren't.

These are the problems that come with Blu Ray because to the average customer pixels mean nothing. I should know as I work retail (only on weekends now, but still). It's a lot easier to sell tons of extras then it is to sell pixels to Joe blow. Shockingly people still buy full screen movies, more kids DVDs, but still! And maybe to you, a film school student, having the better picture is all that matters, but to most it isn't. DVD was an easier sell to the average person over VHS, then Blu Ray is to DVD, because from the back of the box it offered so much more. Where as with Blu Ray, from the back of the box it offers so much less! To the average person, that's all that matters.

rhett
10-01-2008, 05:43 PM
Well here's the thing. With BR I will double-dip. There's no way to avoid it. And all the dvds I have, have extras. So, I don't care if I buy movie-only versions...
A wise man. I mean, if you've been in this game as long as most of us here have, you should already own the vast majority of movies you love. Sure, you'll discover new ones, but there are the basics like Halloween, Suspiria, The Beyond, Carrie, Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street, etc. that everyone probably owns (and multiple times, at that) on DVD already anyway. So when you upgrade, it's going to be for that added resolution, not really for extras. While I always hope that companies will include all the DVD extras on Blu-ray, if they don't I'm not too choked about it. The reason is that with backwards compatibility and upconverting, Blu-rays and DVDs are made to coexist. It's different than holding onto a VHS and DVD of the same film, or a DVD and an LD, because both are designed to play back on the same machine and compliment each other. Use one for the film quality, and the other for extras, portability, ease of use, etc.

In a way you can look at owning a Blu-ray of a film the same as a 16mm print. Both have a comparable resolution, are at this point a niche that requires special setup and are usually just the film itself. I know Tarantino doesn't complain about extras on his 16mm prints of The Beyond or The Devils. You keep the DVD for showing friends, playing wherever, watching extras, etc. but for the film itself, it's Blu-ray.

Again, in a perfect world, I want extras (the new Risky Business Blu-ray is a great example of a perfect upgrade) but the reality is that usually, it doesn't much matter.

dwatts
10-01-2008, 05:45 PM
But the thing is, blu-ray IS offering people value. You pay more for a high definition transfer that looks much better than DVD.

It's not a matter that BR doesn't offer any value, only that it's not as good a value. It's just not - depending if the total package means anything to you or not. I can tell you, special features make a difference to me with SD, and it will be BR.

I don't know how it is in the UK, but by the sounds of it, blu-ray seems to be way overpriced.

I'll tell you. :) Today the prices I saw were pretty good - roughly, a film on BR costs around $34 each. The most expensive SD release, in the same store, was around $20. However, they had SD films (Shrooms etc) for under $10. Now, value for money? SD all the way.....

In Europe the BR business is basically f*cked. WAY overpriced, and then region locked. So the proposition is just awful. And I know the vast majority of people here are in the US - but unless BR takes off globally, it'll always be niche. And look at those prices - terrible.

Sure, nobody said "special features are more important than the movie" directly, but someone did say that if a movie has no special features on it, they won't buy it. That CLEARLY states that special features have a higher priority over the movie itself.

Or it says the person doesn't want to be ripped off when he/she knows something better will come along later, and they can simply wait for the movie? There are a lot of people on this site that basically have to have things RIGHT NOW, as close to release as possible. Others don't mind waiting a bit - for whatever reason. Maybe they're just one of those. They want the film, but not that much.

But meh, you're absolutely right. I just don't get it. A/V quality means so much to me right now. I'm sick of the way DVD looks. Flat, low-res and *shudder* NTSC.

Yeah, I love BR, and have some movies on it. But I think you're way over-stating the negatives regarding SD. They're not as good, but they're not all that bad either.

I'd have thrown bricks - but then my house would have fallen down. So, meh. :D

Spit
10-01-2008, 05:55 PM
For the price of blu-rays they should include everything on the dvd, and you should also get the presonal phone number of people involved in the film so you can call them and ask questions if you feel the need.

rhett
10-01-2008, 05:59 PM
And, I wouldn't even say the jump from VHS to DVD was BIGGER than the jump from DVD to BR. It was a different kind of jump. We went from analog to digital. VHS was still NTSC, and we just went from NTSC-NTSC. VHS was 480i, and DVD was still either 480i or 480p. VHS always had a sort-of translucent "sheet" covering what was underneath. Sort-of watching a movie behind a shower curtain. (I'm just using this as an analogy, it wasn't THAT unwatchable) but what DVD did was remove that sheet and expose the film. What HD does is show film the way film LOOKS. With 6 times the resolution (and 5 times the resolution in PAL (576p) countries) and much improved sound quality, I personally think there's a bigger jump in quality with BR to DVD than DVD to VHS. We're dealing with a completely new and vastly improved video system here.
While I agree with you that Blu-ray is great, I think you're letting tech specs cloud your judgment here. DVD was the first to offer progressive, film like display (with pulldown, but whatever) in 480p, but that's only the tip of its legacy. It gave us a popular format that truly cared about the artistry and integrity of each and every film. It's the first medium where, finally, the original aspect ratio is all important. Even the niche LaserDisc was primarily pan and scam in the days before DVD. It also finally made watching films in their original language a viable option, with alternate tracks and subtitles options. Compare the jump in sound quality, from mono VHS to 5.1 DTS on DVD and then get back to me about "Lossless" Blu-ray tracks!

The jump from watching movies cropped and dubbed to the way they were gloriously intended in widescreen and in their original language and sound mix is, in my eyes, a much bigger jump than a mere increase in resolution. Add in how extras thrived and uncut films became the norm on DVD, and again, championing a refined visual look over all the huge artistic leaps that DVD paved, makes Blu-ray seem pretty pithy in comparison.

spawningblue
10-01-2008, 06:07 PM
You are right though Matt, Blu Rays are getting a lot better! But there still are a lot that are getting half assed as well, and no, not just from MGM/ Fox. Universal is weird, in that half of their releases are great, and the other half suck. Anyways, I don't want Blu Ray to fail as I'm sure when one day I get a huge 1080 TV and a Hi Def surround system, I will love it even more, but at the same time they are making it heard for early adopters to jump in. I could understand double dips for DVDs, as they had to make the special features from scratch, but in Blu Ray's sense, they are already done for them. It's just a matter of transferring them over. It just doesn't make sense why they wouldn't do that, as from the back of the box, which again is what the average joe sees, it makes them look worse then DVD's, even though they want you to pay more for them.

And yes, certain Blu Rays are close to the DVDs price. But there are still plenty that are way more. Take example the movie Point Break, a guilty pleasure of mine. The SE DVD can be found for $7-$10, where as the cheapest I've seen the Blu Ray is $35, $30 online. The Lost Boys, same thing. There are many other examples as well. Anchor Bay Blu Rays seems to have dropped quite a bit, as have Warner's early releases, but that's only because they are all definitely going to get re-releases. Warner only just started to add HD audio tracks to their movies, so all there early releases only have 5.1. They have already started the double dipping with Superman Returns. And Anchor Bay again, do you think Halloween, Evil Dead, or Dawn of the Dead won't see a better releases?

spawningblue
10-01-2008, 06:17 PM
A wise man. I mean, if you've been in this game as long as most of us here have, you should already own the vast majority of movies you love. Sure, you'll discover new ones, but there are the basics like Halloween, Suspiria, The Beyond, Carrie, Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street, etc. that everyone probably owns (and multiple times, at that) on DVD already anyway. So when you upgrade, it's going to be for that added resolution, not really for extras. While I always hope that companies will include all the DVD extras on Blu-ray, if they don't I'm not too choked about it. The reason is that with backwards compatibility and upconverting, Blu-rays and DVDs are made to coexist. It's different than holding onto a VHS and DVD of the same film, or a DVD and an LD, because both are designed to play back on the same machine and compliment each other. Use one for the film quality, and the other for extras, portability, ease of use, etc.

In a way you can look at owning a Blu-ray of a film the same as a 16mm print. Both have a comparable resolution, are at this point a niche that requires special setup and are usually just the film itself. I know Tarantino doesn't complain about extras on his 16mm prints of The Beyond or The Devils. You keep the DVD for showing friends, playing wherever, watching extras, etc. but for the film itself, it's Blu-ray.

Again, in a perfect world, I want extras (the new Risky Business Blu-ray is a great example of a perfect upgrade) but the reality is that usually, it doesn't much matter.

I disagree with this. Unless you are rich you can't afford to buy both. What, so instead of the Blu ray including all the extras for $35, it should just include better picture and some extras, because i can just buy the DVD with it for $27? So to own a movie with great picture and extras, I should be expected to fork out $60!? That comment only works if you already own the movie, and even so, you shouldn't be expected to keep two copies of the same movie on your shelf. It may be all fine and dandy now, but wait until you have 200 Blu Rays, which equals now 400 spaces on your shelf. Unless Blu Rays are going to be equal to the DVD price, and give you the option of choosing between the better picture and sound or the extras, then should include all the extras as well, hence make it worth the extra $8 you are paying.

Matt89
10-02-2008, 05:44 AM
So to own a movie with great picture and extras, I should be expected to fork out $60!?

Well to make you feel better, most laserdiscs had an SRP of around $70-$100 when they were first issued. And that was back in the 70s/80s/90s. So....the prices people are paying for blu-ray discs isn't murder. ;)

Even the niche LaserDisc was primarily pan and scam in the days before DVD.

I don't know if that was intentional or just a typo, but that's fucking hilarious. :lol: :lol:

"Wtf!? Fullscreen!?"
"Nigga, you's been pan and SCAMMED!"
"...Fuck!"

But on a more serious note, while I agree with everything you said in your post, what I really meant to say is that in terms of A/V, I've noticed much more of a jump from DVD-BD than from VHS-DVD. It's all probably because I bought an HDTV specifically designed to handle high definition, whereas I watched VHS and DVD on the same crappy tube TV for years. For me, the difference in A/V quality, anyway was such a mindblowing difference. It was not only the increased resolution but a more satisfying experience through a new TV. It was a combination of the two. A blu-ray disc on an HDTV looks SO much better than a DVD on a tube TV. Or, maybe it's just me? :)

Don't get me wrong, I praise DVD for the things that it did for films. I strongly believe DVD did more for films than blu-ray is doing in terms of showing films the way they were meant to be shown. (i.e. original ratios.) DVD was the first home video format to make things like that the standard. Like you said, uncut versions of films, remastering jobs, we could finally experience (through some good remastering) glorious technicolor and breathtaking CinemaScope in our own homes. But, I just meant it strictly in the sense of audio/video quality. I just personally feel that I've noticed a much bigger jump in A/V from DVD-BD than from VHS-DVD, that's all.

~Matt

AndiOne
10-02-2008, 09:51 AM
Well as long the BD title is an catalouge title I dont mind if the extras is`nt there.
As said before, I usually have the favourite movies in nice editions on DVD.

But with the releases of new titles that`s been released both on DVD and BD on the same date I sure expect more or at least equal amount of extras on the BD version.

Stige
10-14-2008, 09:48 PM
oki fell off the no way wagon , bought a bluray player and a full hd 42 inch tv , but i am reading about the blurays first ( after my oh my god buy 26 at once fase passed) it seems some of them arenŠt much better than an upscaled dvd , and even if the quality is just a tab better but no bonus features i probably won't buy it . As you can see I am haveing trouble getting space for my DVD's would be nice to buy the bluray and get rid of the dvd , buy I guess that's not the case these days or yet anyway. ( the six different versions og texas chainsaw massacre , multiple phantasm releases and hellraiser boxes are another story

bluray of Carrie one of my favorites , the image was lacking according to reviews and it was bonus free so no buy , too late to change my vote , but to be honest I wouldn't know which one to choose now.

that said anyone have any great blurays to recomend ?

KR~!
10-14-2008, 10:18 PM
if you can't tell the difference then something is wrong with your TV and you need to fix the settings.

Stige
10-15-2008, 07:16 AM
didn't buy it because of the reviews

Grim
10-15-2008, 02:34 PM
oki fell off the no way wagon , bought a bluray player and a full hd 42 inch tv , but i am reading about the blurays first ( after my oh my god buy 26 at once fase passed) it seems some of them arenŠt much better than an upscaled dvd , and even if the quality is just a tab better but no bonus features i probably won't buy it . As you can see I am haveing trouble getting space for my DVD's would be nice to buy the bluray and get rid of the dvd , buy I guess that's not the case these days or yet anyway. ( the six different versions og texas chainsaw massacre , multiple phantasm releases and hellraiser boxes are another story

bluray of Carrie one of my favorites , the image was lacking according to reviews and it was bonus free so no buy , too late to change my vote , but to be honest I wouldn't know which one to choose now.

that said anyone have any great blurays to recomend ?

Blade Runner, The Fifth Element, any of the Anchor Bay horror titles. The Road Warrior is by far one of the nicest hi-def transfers I've seen so far. It's amazing at how much of an improvement it is over the previous DVD, and it's the uncut foreign version. Despite it saying the Road Warrior on the cover and having an R-rating. The title in the actual film is "Mad Max 2" and it includes the extra few seconds of violence.

Matt89
10-15-2008, 04:14 PM
Blade Runner, The Fifth Element, any of the Anchor Bay horror titles. The Road Warrior is by far one of the nicest hi-def transfers I've seen so far. It's amazing at how much of an improvement it is over the previous DVD, and it's the uncut foreign version. Despite it saying the Road Warrior on the cover and having an R-rating. The title in the actual film is "Mad Max 2" and it includes the extra few seconds of violence.

OMG, The Road Warrior. This was like the 3rd blu-ray I bought. Jesus Christ it looks amazing. Some other great ones:

The Searchers (probably one of the nicest blu-rays there is, and this movie came out in 1956!)
L.A. Confidential
The Shining
2001 A Space Odyssey
The Mummy and The Mummy Returns
Twister
Gattaca
A Nightmare on Elm Street (gotta get this imported if you're outside Canada)
The Warriors
First Blood
The Prestige

Occasionally you do come across movies that are less than stellar in HD, but trust me they're better than the DVDs. It's just a result of the print materials. The images are a lot smoother and there is quite a bit more detail than their SD counterparts. Also, color is much better in High Definition, even with less than pristine transfers.

But Stige, check out blu-ray.com and see what you think looks good. They have some great reviews. I find myself visiting that site more and more often.

~Matt

Matt89
10-15-2008, 04:30 PM
Oh, and check out dvdbeaver.com. Gary's got some great blu-ray reviews that compare the blu-ray to the DVD.

~Matt

spawningblue
10-16-2008, 07:33 PM
Blade Runner, The Fifth Element, any of the Anchor Bay horror titles. The Road Warrior is by far one of the nicest hi-def transfers I've seen so far. It's amazing at how much of an improvement it is over the previous DVD, and it's the uncut foreign version. Despite it saying the Road Warrior on the cover and having an R-rating. The title in the actual film is "Mad Max 2" and it includes the extra few seconds of violence.

OMG, The Road Warrior. This was like the 3rd blu-ray I bought. Jesus Christ it looks amazing. Some other great ones:

The Searchers (probably one of the nicest blu-rays there is, and this movie came out in 1956!)
L.A. Confidential
The Shining
2001 A Space Odyssey
The Mummy and The Mummy Returns
Twister
Gattaca
A Nightmare on Elm Street (gotta get this imported if you're outside Canada)
The Warriors
First Blood
The Prestige

Occasionally you do come across movies that are less than stellar in HD, but trust me they're better than the DVDs. It's just a result of the print materials. The images are a lot smoother and there is quite a bit more detail than their SD counterparts. Also, color is much better in High Definition, even with less than pristine transfers.

But Stige, check out blu-ray.com and see what you think looks good. They have some great reviews. I find myself visiting that site more and more often.

~Matt

I don't have a huge 1080 TV, and never had the original DVDs to compare with, but I agree the colours in Blade Runner and Road Warrior look amazing! I also have The Prestige and Shining out of the ones you mentioned, and thought Prestige looked good as well, though I haven't got around to watching The Shining yet.

I really need a bigger 1080 TV though (Right now I have a 32" 720 TV), so I can see what all the hoopla is about. I don't really think I am truly experiencing Blu Ray the way others have, so maybe that is why I haven't really been as blown away.

Grim
10-16-2008, 08:45 PM
2001 A Space Odyssey

Christ I'm surprised I forgot about that one. That shit is basically eye-porn.

I don't have a huge 1080 TV, and never had the original DVDs to compare with, but I agree the colours in Blade Runner and Road Warrior look amazing! I also have The Prestige and Shining out of the ones you mentioned, and thought Prestige looked good as well, though I haven't got around to watching The Shining yet.

I really need a bigger 1080 TV though (Right now I have a 32" 720 TV), so I can see what all the hoopla is about. I don't really think I am truly experiencing Blu Ray the way others have, so maybe that is why I haven't really been as blown away.

Yeah I started out with a 32" 720p Toshiba set. I could tell a difference, but it was nothing compared to the difference I saw when I got my 46" 1080p Samsung 650. I can understand people not wanting to plop down the cash for a big set until the prices go down more, but its in those bigger sets that I think you really start to see how much of an improvement HD is over SD.

Stige
10-16-2008, 09:06 PM
I saw two that got bad/border reviews ( devil's rejects and terminator) and to be honested i was stunned ! thats what a "bad" bluray looks like ?!

I think I am going to go a little crazy here and buy a hell of a lot more than I originally planned on

was thinking nightmare on elm street ( after Rhetts review) and house of a 1000 corpses apparantly my budget bluray plays all region ( figured why not and buy a "better" one when prices drop)

In Norway here

Uncle Jay
10-16-2008, 09:22 PM
Well, I already bit. Having the PS3 and me being a movie freak, it wasn't long before I had a decent Blu-ray collection (now of 142 titles)! I have roughly 2100 DVDs in my personal collection and I won't replace them all.

Uncompressed video is indeed the future and the way to go when watching films. However, I'm extremely pissed off that certain companies don't transfer all their supplements over, 20th Century Fox being a perfect example of this. Most of their Blu library pretty much sans all their features from the DVDs! I'm scared to see Star Wars hit Blu-ray!

After I watch a flick, I like to go through the extras, watch the interviews, hear commentaries...get some more insight and whatnot on the film I just watched. So on that note, I am still a bit conservative when it comes to buying Blu-rays (or replacing my DVDs), but then there's movies I just must have on Blu regardless of skimpy features, like John Carpenter's The Thing. When I do replace a DVD I compare the features, which judges whether I get rid of the DVD or not. Sad, I know.

-UJ

Bristlebane
10-19-2008, 04:06 AM
I have had my Blu ray player for about two months now and I have only bought one blu ray disc so far. Due to pricing for a blu ray versus a standard dvd its hard for me to opt for the blu ray, especially when the blu ray lacks in the extras department.

vampyr789
10-19-2008, 06:07 PM
Even though i awesome anamorphic widescreen transer and 5.1 audio is a real treat for some of these old slasher films. i am one for the extras, i always love to watch a old horror film, and learn how they made it, if find it all very interesting, that must be the reason i own 4 different editions of Evil Dead. i love audio commentaries, director's cuts, documentaries, featurettes, trivia facts, production notes, trailers, tv spots/radio spots, poster/picture galleries. Im a sucker for all that. even if the transfer is terrible and there is a but load of features, i will get it.

russweiss
10-19-2008, 07:23 PM
I was a big laserdisc collector having over 700 titles at one point. I spent over $300 on a Japanese import box set once. I did this not because the picture and sound was better quality but because it had a ton of extra features that were not available domestically. Sure Blu-ray offers a huge improvement over SD DVD but the extra features are a very important part of whether or not I buy a title. There are several BD titles I have not bought simply because they lack the things that I came to expect with regular DVD. Most movie fans (if they are old enough) have gone from VHS/BETA to laserdisc to DVD and now to HD/Blu-ray. I can't imagine it costs that much more to press a SD DVD than it does a BD so either the prices of BD should come down to be more competitive with DVD or at least they should have all the extras and then some of their DVD counterparts.

spawningblue
11-21-2008, 09:31 PM
I thought this was a great article from one of the best sites on the digital format, The Digital Bits. It's exactly how I feel about Blu Ray, and from this poll, look like others do as well.

"Okay, I really didn't expect to get on a rant today, but circumstances have determined otherwise...

Specifically, MGM has officially announced the Blu-ray Disc release of Ronin on 2/24 (SRP $34.99 - we posted the cover art yesterday), thus sending a round of cheers through The Bits' offices. That's the good news. The bad news is that the disc includes NOTHING in the way of special features... not even the previous DVD CE material. And that quickly turned the cheers around here into groans. Seriously, a movie only Blu-ray for $34.99? That's just unacceptable. For $24.99, maybe. But for $34.99, MGM damn well ought to at least port over the previous DVD extras. Movie-only releases for FULL price just doesn't cut it.

While we're talking about Blu-ray peeves (following my rant from last week about Sony's movie-only La Femme Nikita and The Messenger), here's a couple other things that need to change: Warner needs to stop using excessive DNR on their titles, and start making lossless audio MANDATORY ON EVERY RELEASE. This has been an ongoing problem - one that we thought Warner had agreed to address earlier this year. But too many titles are still slipping through the cracks with lackluster specs. And on their catalog Blu-rays, Universal needs to stop taking perfectly good featurettes and documentaries and cutting them up for use as U-Control Picture-in-Picture material.

Look guys (and I'm talking to you studio folks now, so LISTEN UP), here's the thing: Do you REALLY want to impress consumers with your Blu-ray titles? Then here's how you do it: You focus on ENTHUSIASTS. You impress the enthusiasts with top-notch A/V quality and decent extras at a fair price. If you can please them, you'll please almost everyone else too. Blu-ray is ABOUT offering the best video and audio quality possible, so that should be a given. As far as extras, almost no one gives a s--t about BD-Live and U-Control if you can't be bothered at least to include the previous DVD bonus material! Why? Because you're asking movie fans to UPGRADE to the Blu-ray, when many of them probably already own the DVD special edition. Upgraded picture and sound, with downgraded extras and a higher price - that's a net NEGATIVE! Do you get it?! This stuff isn't rocket science, guys. If, after including all the previous DVD content, you really want to add on some advanced interactive stuff too, then fine. But Blu-ray is still being driven by enthusiasts, and enthusiasts - hell, I would think ALL Blu-ray consumers - demand top quality and VALUE for their money. So shape up, studios!"

http://www.digitalbits.com

Matt89
11-21-2008, 09:50 PM
...Which Warner titles have excessive DNR? Warner's one of the best studios when it comes to NOT DNR-ing their titles. Look at Bullitt, look at Poltergeist, Risky Business, Body Heat, Cool Hand Luke, Bonnie & Clyde, The Getaway, The Searchers...none of these films were DNR'd (ESPECIALLY BULLITT!) Where do they use excessive DNR? I certainly haven't seen it.

And about lossless audio...is it really mandatory for every film? I'd disagree with you there. No it's not. Do we really need a film like Casablanca or The Searchers in DTS Lossless audio? They'd all be fake mixes, and I'd rather the film include its original audio track than a fake surround mix. For many films, though, ones that heavily rely on their soundtrack and effects, (or films made in the past, say 20 years) yes I think those films should be presented with lossless audio.

But you're not going to get much of a mind-blowing lossless soundtrack from a film that only had 1.0 Mono to begin with. It's kindof a wasted effort in my opinion.

However I do agree wholeheartedly with MGM's travesties. I'm not huge on special features, but for them to charge an ABSOLUTELY ridiculous SRP of $34.99 for a bare-bones disc is just insanity. I do not understand their logic at all. They're the worsrt major studio when it comes to their blu-ray releases. (Fox is not close behind, they're rather hit or miss, and considering Fox owns MGM, this comes as no surprise.) To date I don't own a single Fox blu-ray and the only MGM disc I own is Carrie, as it's one of my favorite movies of all-time. I'm not giving them my money unless they SERIOUSLY lower their prices (although The Omen is well worth the retail price - has more features than the DVD. An example of a perfect upgrade.)

~Matt

dave13
11-21-2008, 09:50 PM
i read that earlier today and agree with it totally. it was hard for me to vote in this poll, because so often its a case by case basis. but the bottom line is that there should be no reason why a studio can't include the extras. i really don't care if they add anything new or not, but to not port over existing extras is just plain lazy. sure there are some discs i'd buy even if they were barebones, but come on! when i do, part of me is very pissed.

dave13
11-21-2008, 09:55 PM
...Which Warner titles have excessive DNR? Warner's one of the best studios when it comes to NOT DNR-ing their titles. Look at Bullitt, look at Poltergeist, Risky Business, Body Heat, Cool Hand Luke, Bonnie & Clyde, The Getaway, The Searchers...none of these films were DNR'd (ESPECIALLY BULLITT!) Where do they use excessive DNR? I certainly haven't seen it.

And about lossless audio...is it really mandatory for every film? I'd disagree with you there. No it's not. Do we really need a film like Casablanca or The Searchers in DTS Lossless audio? They'd all be fake mixes, and I'd rather the film include its original audio track than a fake surround mix. For many films, though, ones that heavily rely on their soundtrack and effects, (or films made in the past, say 20 years) yes I think those films should be presented with lossless audio.

But you're not going to get much of a mind-blowing lossless soundtrack from a film that only had 1.0 Mono to begin with. It's kindof a wasted effort in my opinion.

However I do agree wholeheartedly with MGM's travesties. I'm not huge on special features, but for them to charge an ABSOLUTELY ridiculous SRP of $34.99 for a bare-bones disc is just insanity. I do not understand their logic at all. They're the worsrt major studio when it comes to their blu-ray releases. (Fox is not close behind, they're rather hit or miss, and considering Fox owns MGM, this comes as no surprise.) To date I don't own a single Fox blu-ray and the only MGM disc I own is Carrie, as it's one of my favorite movies of all-time. I'm not giving them my money unless they SERIOUSLY lower their prices (although The Omen is well worth the retail price - has more features than the DVD. An example of a perfect upgrade.)

~Matt

im not much of an audiophile, so please correct me if im wrong, but does lossless audio have to be surround? isn't it really just a compression issue? if we could get the original 1.0 audio for cassablanca in a lossless format, i'd think that would be a good thing.

Matt89
11-21-2008, 09:58 PM
Well, so far lossless has been surround. I'm not sure how compressed 1.0 Mono is, because directly comparing the DVD of Bullitt to its blu-ray counterpart, it sounds OH so much better. But what I'm saying is with films that originally were 1.0 Mono, there's not much that can really be done in terms of making it sound a whole lot better than it does. (Really, I don't see what the issue is with lossless and non lossless 1.0. It all comes through one channel anyway, and so far there have been no issues (at least I think so) with blu-rays released in original Mono.)

~Matt

dave13
11-21-2008, 09:58 PM
although now that i think about it, matt, i don't remember warners ever being accused of excessive DNR. the instance that stands out in my mind is fox's patton disc. maybe bill hunt at the bits made a mistake in who he was talking about. or maybe he's seen some discs i haven't. i dunno. cuz you're right about bullitt.

Matt89
11-21-2008, 10:00 PM
although now that i think about it, matt, i don't remember warners ever being accused of excessive DNR. the instance that stands out in my mind is fox's patton disc. maybe bill hunt at the bits made a mistake in who he was talking about. or maybe he's seen some discs i haven't. i dunno. cuz you're right about bullitt.

LOL exactly.

~Matt

spawningblue
11-22-2008, 12:00 AM
Well, so far lossless has been surround. I'm not sure how compressed 1.0 Mono is, because directly comparing the DVD of Bullitt to its blu-ray counterpart, it sounds OH so much better. But what I'm saying is with films that originally were 1.0 Mono, there's not much that can really be done in terms of making it sound a whole lot better than it does. (Really, I don't see what the issue is with lossless and non lossless 1.0. It all comes through one channel anyway, and so far there have been no issues (at least I think so) with blu-rays released in original Mono.)

~Matt

I could be wrong but I thought I saw plenty of lossless track in 2.0? And for that article I think he was referring to a lot of newer movies that came out like Speed Racer, and a lot of there earlier releases such as Goodfellas, Lost Samurai, Swordfish, ect.

Fistfuck
11-22-2008, 12:44 AM
I didn't read this whole thread, so excuse me if someone already said this, but don't forget BR is only 2 years old. How many DVDs were feature-rich 2 years into DVD's lifecycle, especially considering that LD had been around for years and that was a major selling point? You'll get your special feature-packed BRs, but it will probably be a few years down the road.

Why is this? My best guess is that the companies know that the early adopters of the format are going to be home theater enthusiasts looking for the best commercially-available image and sound. So that's what they give them. Once BR catches on, IF IT DOES, then you'll see more features on discs.

Either way, I wouldn't get too bent out of shape about this. The whole I need to see the picture in XXXX lines of resolution is a new fad that I honestly think has more to do with number porn and side-by-side comparisons on sites such as these. Even if I watch a SD broadcast of a movie, my first thought is "this would look better on DVD." Then, I forget about it. I say most people would not be able to notice the difference in watching a VHS and a DVD. Besides, if people were really all that concerned about having TEH BEST PICTURE EVAR, they'd be buying 35mm prints and projecting them.

old-boo-radley
11-22-2008, 03:57 AM
I really have no idea whether or not Blu-ray will ever be huge, I think it might be too early. VHS was around for 25 or so years and never lost momentum until 2003. Shit, people are still buying CDs and you can argue digital downloads all you want, but if you want top quality, you still have to pick up the CD. People are actually going back in time with music.

As people progress to HDTVs, yes, Blu-ray will inevitably pick up. The the thing about DVD was anyone could hook a player up to any TV. Blu-ray is not so simple. A main Blu-ray player is one thing, but people with kids and teenagers, less well-off people, etc... will most likely have to have DVD players for a long time with standard def TVs and that is going to fuel sales of DVD.

All I really compare BD to DVD with is the facts that I went through when upgrading to DVD. In 2000, I got my first DVD player for $70 Canadian. That's 3 years after DVD came out. BD has been out two and the prices aren't anywhere near that. I don't know where to find the facts, but according to this (http://stason.org/TULARC/pc/dvd-format-video/1-6-What-DVD-titles-are-available.html), there were 3500 titles available on DVD two years in. It's safe to say since DVD exploded, a lot of people bought a lot of titles that most likely won't be re-bought en mass. The fact that a lot of special features aren't in high def and people accustomed to loaded discs will have to go barebones, etc... is something to consider. Even when people get HDTVs in masses, they're going to notice their DVDs still look really, really good in a proper upscaling player.

In the end, I don't think it matters. Blu-ray won't fail, I don't think. It will offer a better experience to those who choose. I personally don't think I'm going to jump in until compatibility issues are fixed unless PS3s come out in a decent bundle with a free game or two this holiday season.

Fistfuck - I'm with you. I always notice for the first few minutes how the image isn't up to hi-def standards, but sooner than I can realize I forget about it. Especially if it's in proper aspect ratio.

Matt89
11-22-2008, 07:12 AM
I say most people would not be able to notice the difference in watching a VHS and a DVD.

I can't think of a single person who doesn't notice the difference. So, I seriously doubt that.

~Matt

old-boo-radley
11-22-2008, 07:58 AM
I can't think of a single person who doesn't notice the difference. So, I seriously doubt that.

~Matt

Do you know many older people? There are tons of people I know who don't care to worry about the difference between standard non-digital TV and hi-def. Hell, I had one friend who is into buying higher quality tech stuff and he had his upscaling DVD player hooked up to his HD projector with composite cables and people thought the image was super clear. A lot of people don't look at the stuff they buy with a keen eye if need be and aren't even informed of the shit they have. It says hi-def so OMG DE PIKTURE IZ CLEER!!!11.

I think he's more referring to people getting used to it as they watch/getting lost in the movie. I'm pretty much the same, unless the film is headache-cropped from scope. I don't forget it's VHS or a poor transfer, but it just stops bothering me too much after a bit. I mean, I watched movies on VHS for years and I know what I'm getting before I buy anything. Not like it's a worn out Super 8 print blown up, recorded at a screening and the dubbed three times afterwards. Unless it's a Media tape...

Matt89
11-22-2008, 09:51 AM
Do you know many older people? There are tons of people I know who don't care to worry about the difference between standard non-digital TV and hi-def. Hell, I had one friend who is into buying higher quality tech stuff and he had his upscaling DVD player hooked up to his HD projector with composite cables and people thought the image was super clear. A lot of people don't look at the stuff they buy with a keen eye if need be and aren't even informed of the shit they have. It says hi-def so OMG DE PIKTURE IZ CLEER!!!11.

I think he's more referring to people getting used to it as they watch/getting lost in the movie. I'm pretty much the same, unless the film is headache-cropped from scope. I don't forget it's VHS or a poor transfer, but it just stops bothering me too much after a bit. I mean, I watched movies on VHS for years and I know what I'm getting before I buy anything. Not like it's a worn out Super 8 print blown up, recorded at a screening and the dubbed three times afterwards. Unless it's a Media tape...

Okay DVD to high-def, but VHS? Come on, seriously. There's no way someone can't tell the difference. (Unless they're blind, of course.)

But the main thing about blu-ray is the quality. Sure, I was all about special features when I was buying DVDs, but now that I've seen most of the stuff I've wanted to see, I only really care now about having the movie in the best possible quality. Sure, you can get lost in a film regardless of the quality. It's happened to me numerous times. I have a couple bootlegs ripped off TCM of movies that haven't yet made their way to DVD. Sure the quality's rather crap, but it's still watchable. (It's all there is at the present moment.) However, given the choice between blu-ray and DVD, I'll definitely go blu because there IS a difference.

~Matt

KR~!
11-22-2008, 03:20 PM
Okay DVD to high-def, but VHS? Come on, seriously. There's no way someone can't tell the difference. (Unless they're blind, of course.)

But the main thing about blu-ray is the quality. Sure, I was all about special features when I was buying DVDs, but now that I've seen most of the stuff I've wanted to see, I only really care now about having the movie in the best possible quality. Sure, you can get lost in a film regardless of the quality. It's happened to me numerous times. I have a couple bootlegs ripped off TCM of movies that haven't yet made their way to DVD. Sure the quality's rather crap, but it's still watchable. (It's all there is at the present moment.) However, given the choice between blu-ray and DVD, I'll definitely go blu because there IS a difference.

~Matt

Of course! Sometimes I feel that some people here are like this lady when it comes to this stuff:

http://www.heavy.com/video/59787

Regurgitate
11-22-2008, 04:36 PM
Extras don't matter to me unless it's a movie that has some special meaning. That's a pretty short list and even in these cases watching the extras may harm my opinion of the movie. Blu-Ray extras have been pretty underwhelming IMO anyway. Hardly any of the extras that I have checked out on the Blus that I own are in high definition and most inexcusably the trailers for god sakes. I'm not advocating for the removal of extras however but as they stand now they are pretty sad.

Regurgitate
11-22-2008, 04:39 PM
Of course! Sometimes I feel that some people here are like this lady when it comes to this stuff:

http://www.heavy.com/video/59787


:lol: Hah, brilliant! Stupid old people!;)

Fistfuck
11-22-2008, 04:40 PM
Okay DVD to high-def, but VHS? Come on, seriously. There's no way someone can't tell the difference. (Unless they're blind, of course.)
~Matt

Yes, seriously. You need to realize that the majority of the buying population are not as informed as much as you are, nor do many of them care. They've never heard of terms like resolution, progressive scan, and bitdepth. If you showed them a side-by-side comparison, yes, they would be able to say one looks better than the other. But if watching something on VHS, would they sit there and say to themselves, "Gee, I wish I had approximately 600 more lines of resolution on this?"

We're not trashing BR, so stop trying to defend it against people who could give less of a shit. Honestly, I don't think the format is going to catch on, but that has nothing to do with the quality of it. I'm merely making an observation on the obsession over image quality. If anything should piss you off, it's my comment over buying 35mm, you poser.

Matt89
11-22-2008, 08:36 PM
Yes, seriously. You need to realize that the majority of the buying population are not as informed as much as you are, nor do many of them care. They've never heard of terms like resolution, progressive scan, and bitdepth. If you showed them a side-by-side comparison, yes, they would be able to say one looks better than the other. But if watching something on VHS, would they sit there and say to themselves, "Gee, I wish I had approximately 600 more lines of resolution on this?"

We're not trashing BR, so stop trying to defend it against people who could give less of a shit. Honestly, I don't think the format is going to catch on, but that has nothing to do with the quality of it. I'm merely making an observation on the obsession over image quality. If anything should piss you off, it's my comment over buying 35mm, you poser.

I totally realize the general public isn't as informed as me. But to say they don't know the difference between DVD and VHS is just crap. Why did DVD catch on and VHS go obsolete? Because PEOPLE NOTICED A DIFFERENCE. Why are you even arguing that? Okay, sure my GRANDPARENTS didn't really care, but they NOTICED a difference. They have a DVD player. But, I mean they're over 80. My grandmother still hangs clothes outside on the clothesline when they fully HAVE a dryer. They still wash dishes by hand when they have a dishwasher. (Hell, my grandpa still washes his hair with a bar of soap, when shampoo is readily available!) Old people don't care about a lot of things, and they're perfectly content that way. DVD and blu-ray aren't even targeted towards them, anyway.

I don't really give a crap if some people don't care about the higher resolution. (Because there are a lot of people who DO care.) As much as people seem to deny it, blu-ray is catching on. TVs are becoming high-def, sports channgels, video games, films, EVERYTHING. You think all this is going to suddenly end? As long as HDTVs exist (considering HDTV is definitely in the foreseeable future, and HDTVs are becoming the standard), people are going to take advantage of them.

I can see why people are hesitant, because it's still a new format. It'll take a bit of time to completely catch on, and for prices to fall. There are places where blu-rays are the same price as DVDs (and in many cases on amazon, some blu-rays are even CHEAPER than their DVD counterparts!) But I can totally understand peoples' reasoning for not jumping on because of the price issue, that's totally cool. Some people have families, etc etc.

And why would the 35mm comment piss me off? The whole point of blu-ray is to have theatre, film-like quality IN YOUR HOME. Nobody's going to be screening 35mm prints on say, a 60" screen (if they even have one that big) because there's no point. 35mm is meant to be projected on a VERY LARGE screen, hence the reason you need so much resolution. Sure it has about 7,000 more lines of resolution than blu-ray, but blu-ray movies aren't meant to be projected on movie theater screens, either. For the relative size of the average person's HDTV, blu-ray GIVES the resolution of film because of the small screen size. If you watch anything (even a DVD) on a tiny screen, you get razor-sharp images. (i.e. the reason even DVD movies look so clear on your iPod.)

And anyway, anybody who is rich enough to HAVE a theater-sized screen in their home is probably rich enough to afford to own 35mm prints of films.

And that "poser" comment doesn't piss me off, either. I don't see how it applies, since I stand by what I believe in and I know what I'm talking about. But really, if you must make comments like that, we can all go back to grade 2. :D

~Matt

Fistfuck
11-22-2008, 09:01 PM
I totally realize the general public isn't as informed as me. But to say they don't know the difference between DVD and VHS is just crap. Why did DVD catch on and VHS go obsolete? Because PEOPLE NOTICED A DIFFERENCE. Why are you even arguing that? Okay, sure my GRANDPARENTS didn't really care, but they NOTICED a difference. They have a DVD player. But, I mean they're over 80. My grandmother still hangs clothes outside on the clothesline when they fully HAVE a dryer. They still wash dishes by hand when they have a dishwasher. (Hell, my grandpa still washes his hair with a bar of soap, when shampoo is readily available!) Old people don't care about a lot of things, and they're perfectly content that way. DVD and blu-ray aren't even targeted towards them, anyway.

I don't really give a crap if some people don't care about the higher resolution. (Because there are a lot of people who DO care.) As much as people seem to deny it, blu-ray is catching on. TVs are becoming high-def, sports channgels, video games, films, EVERYTHING. You think all this is going to suddenly end? As long as HDTVs exist (considering HDTV is definitely in the foreseeable future, and HDTVs are becoming the standard), people are going to take advantage of them.

I can see why people are hesitant, because it's still a new format. It'll take a bit of time to completely catch on, and for prices to fall. There are places where blu-rays are the same price as DVDs (and in many cases on amazon, some blu-rays are even CHEAPER than their DVD counterparts!) But I can totally understand peoples' reasoning for not jumping on because of the price issue, that's totally cool. Some people have families, etc etc.

And why would the 35mm comment piss me off? The whole point of blu-ray is to have theatre, film-like quality IN YOUR HOME. Nobody's going to be screening 35mm prints on say, a 60" screen (if they even have one that big) because there's no point. 35mm is meant to be projected on a VERY LARGE screen, hence the reason you need so much resolution. Sure it has about 7,000 more lines of resolution than blu-ray, but blu-ray movies aren't meant to be projected on movie theater screens, either. For the relative size of the average person's HDTV, blu-ray GIVES the resolution of film because of the small screen size. If you watch anything (even a DVD) on a tiny screen, you get razor-sharp images. (i.e. the reason even DVD movies look so clear on your iPod.)

And anyway, anybody who is rich enough to HAVE a theater-sized screen in their home is probably rich enough to afford to own 35mm prints of films.

And that "poser" comment doesn't piss me off, either. I don't see how it applies, since I stand by what I believe in and I know what I'm talking about. But really, if you must make comments like that, we can all go back to grade 2. :D

~Matt

Oh.
My.
God.

Seriously?

Matt89
11-22-2008, 09:03 PM
Seriously. :D

Whatever, I don't think you get what I'm saying. Sure I'm all about image quality, but there comes a point where 8,000 lines of resolution on home video becomes quite unneccessary.

~Matt

Bobbywoodhogan
11-22-2008, 10:10 PM
I love extras for certain things but could care less for others. Im only bothered about the film on a Blu Ray release but on my DVDs I like lots of extras (depending on what it is) so I say extras are not essential to Blu Rays.

Kolpitz
11-23-2008, 01:52 AM
Someone at Fox must have screwed up. I purchased Daredevil on Blu-ray today and not only is it the director's cut, it has all of the features from the director's cut DVD ... and all of the features from the theatrical cut DVD. What was Fox thinking? Special features on Blu-ray! Pish posh ...

spawningblue
11-24-2008, 08:05 PM
Someone at Fox must have screwed up. I purchased Daredevil on Blu-ray today and not only is it the director's cut, it has all of the features from the director's cut DVD ... and all of the features from the theatrical cut DVD. What was Fox thinking? Special features on Blu-ray! Pish posh ...

Yeah i picked that up as well. The way all Blu Rays should be done, with effort! Only thing that I was disappointed in was that it didn't include the theatrical cut as well, but that's something I can live with, and I can still get rid of my Director's cut DVD.

Kolpitz
11-24-2008, 08:12 PM
Yeah i picked that up as well. The way all Blu Rays should be done, with effort! Only thing that I was disappointed in was that it didn't include the theatrical cut as well, but that's something I can live with, and I can still get rid of my Director's cut DVD.

The theatrical cut is dead to me after seeing the director's cut all those years ago. From a completist point of a view, I guess they could've included it but I never would've watched it. Although, truthfully, I'm never going to watch any of the features either as I've already seen them all.

Bobbywoodhogan
11-24-2008, 08:30 PM
I could never watch Daredevil theatrical cut after seeing the Directors Cut which is far superior, however, I can see why you would want both versions. But its not like Daredevil even the DC is a great movie.

spawningblue
01-06-2009, 10:43 PM
Blu Ray strikes again. It looks like so far none of the Criterion Blu Rays have come with their in depth booklets. And the Last Emperor not only looses its book, but also loses the longer 218 Min. TV cut of the film. I'm really getting sick of some Blu Ray releases!

Matt89
01-06-2009, 11:04 PM
Really? I read a review that the Criterion blu-rays contain the booklets. Email Criterion, see what they have to say.

*EDIT: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=1195&show=review

If you read the first paragraph of the "Supplements" section, you'll see...there's SUPPOSED to be a booklet.

~Matt

spawningblue
01-06-2009, 11:43 PM
Sorry, they still include booklets, but they are not the same. The thick booklets are thinned down, pretty much consisting of only credits. All the good stuff is missing though.

Third Man
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/35681/third-man-the/

Last Emperor
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/35863/last-emperor-the/

Just doesn't make sense why they wouldn't include the same goodies. And for Last Emperor, why couldn't they include the extended cut, even if it was just a DVD version. That's almost an hour of extra footage that is absent from the Blu Ray. They could have at the least included it as deleted scenes. I will grab the DVD over the Blu Ray personally, as it doesn't even sound like the video quality is that great. Here's hoping they smarten up with their future releases.

Matt89
01-07-2009, 12:53 AM
Well, they both got "DVDTalk Collector's Series" ratings...they don't give those ratings to just any DVD/blu-ray.

~Matt

spawningblue
01-07-2009, 03:03 AM
Well, they both got "DVDTalk Collector's Series" ratings...they don't give those ratings to just any DVD/blu-ray.

~Matt

I'm sure they are still good. I mean they are still Criterion releases. They never make bad DVDs, well, maybe Armageddon, what's up with that!? It's still a little disappointing though to see them missing some of the stuff from the DVDs, and I think in The Last Emperor's case, it's more then just a small extra. To not include a whole other cut of the movie with almost an hour of extra scenes is really shitty. Anyways, not trying to knock it for anybody that doesn't care about that stuff, but again, for me who does, it's a real disappointment in Blu Ray's case once again.

Matt89
01-07-2009, 03:18 AM
I'm sure they are still good. I mean they are still Criterion releases. They never make bad DVDs, well, maybe Armageddon, what's up with that!? It's still a little disappointing though to see them missing some of the stuff from the DVDs, and I think in The Last Emperor's case, it's more then just a small extra. To not include a whole other cut of the movie with almost an hour of extra scenes is really shitty. Anyways, not trying to knock it for anybody that doesn't care about that stuff, but again, for me who does, it's a real disappointment in Blu Ray's case once again.

Yeah I actually agree with you here. There's no excuse as to why they dropped the whole other cut of the film. It's very "un-Criterion" of them. (But yeah Armageddon, wtf??? I've never understood why that was a Criterion, or why they'd ever consider releasing a film like that lol.)

I'm still gonna grab The Third Man, though. Apparently it has amazing image quality. (Really wanna grab Bottle Rocket too.)

~Matt

spawningblue
04-13-2009, 10:15 PM
Some good articles on Blu Ray that I couldn't agree with more.

"Finally this afternoon, this may surprise you guys a little: Our very own Dr. Jahnke has a few critical words for the Hollywood studios regarding some of their Blu-ray Disc efforts of late. (Actually, so do I - read on...) You'll find that in his latest (and in my opinion MUST READ) Bottom Shelf column. For the record, he makes a number of absolutely valid points that I agree with, so I'm hoping you studio insiders are reading and will PAY ATTENTION. Look... Blu-ray has most of us here more excited about movies on disc than we've been in a very long time and, despite the fact that we still love standard DVD, it's definitely become the best way to watch movies at home. BUT... the studios are still paying way too much attention to BD-Live games and other wizbangs that nobody with half a brain is going to play with more than once, they're still not including lossless audio on every disc, they're still using too much Digital Noise Reduction to scrub away film grain (and thus image detail), software prices are still too high, there have already been some unforgivable double-dips on the format, playback problems are too often being left to firmware updates to resolve and the damn discs still take too long to load... especially if you've hooked up your BD-Live player to the Internet. That damn "Internet Connection Established" message adds about about 15-20 seconds to the load times. Ugh. Select studios aren't bothering to include all of the previously released DVD extras on the new BD editions. Several studios, notably including Sony, drop the theatrical trailers on nearly every disc (irritating when you have friends over and you're trying to decide which of a handful of titles to watch - the trailers help you choose). Worse yet, MGM is still releasing movie-only editions for about half their titles. I mean, seriously... you guys couldn't port the DVD extras over for Ronin?! A number of previous HD-DVD releases STILL haven't found their way to BD. And some studios are being a lot more aggressive than others in terms of releasing great catalog titles on the format - something most of our readers really care about judging by the e-mails I get every day wondering when different movies are coming to BD. (This is my biggest point of disagreement with Adam's column, and one of the few.) I'm particularly impressed with Paramount in this regard. They might have been flip-floppers during the format war, but they're doing very good BD work now - great A/V quality, lots of big catalog titles, nearly all DVD extras (including Easter eggs) are being carried over. Other studios could do more. Look, we love the Blu-ray Disc format. But Jahnke's right... some of you studios really need to raise the bar a little more and try harder to clear it. Bottom line: The Bits held Hollywood's feet to the fire regarding DVD quality in the early days of that format, and we mean to do the same with Blu-ray too. 'Nuff said."

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/index.html#mytwocents

And here's Dr. Jahnke's opinions that he mentions in the article.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/adamjahnke/jahnke040909.html