Carrie (1976) 10/07

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by Ash28M

This will be intersting as they never got it to look very good on DVD. Unless they got a better print I don't know how it can benifit too much.

That's just the thing, though. Since it looks bad on DVD, the enhancement of blu-ray will make it look all the more better in high definition. Same thing goes for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

~Matt

[Reverenddave]

Movie-only discs for $40? Love the titles, but I'll pass on principle. Personally, I can care less about special features. But when they drop features AND price gouge, that's too much. I want to support blu-ray, but I'm giving my money to the studios that deserve it.

I guess this will be using MPEG2 as well. I will definatley pass on this one.

[dwatts]

I do think the lack of extras on a format basically designed to support them is silly

I'm not sure where you got this idea from. The format was devised to allow hi-def prints of films (and sound) to be sold, with little compression. It wasn't design to support extras. That there is more space for them is a byproduct.

[rhett]

Originally Posted by dwatts

I'm not sure where you got this idea from. The format was devised to allow hi-def prints of films (and sound) to be sold, with little compression. It wasn't design to support extras. That there is more space for them is a byproduct.

I'm sure your wife has told you this in the past, but size isn't everything. The way the structure is designed to access menus on the fly and to easily incorporate picture in picture and the like certainly makes the medium more extra friendly than any other before it. The online jack built into these units now certainly isn't for the better of the picture or the sound, either.

[spawningblue]

Originally Posted by dwatts

I'm not sure where you got this idea from. The format was devised to allow hi-def prints of films (and sound) to be sold, with little compression. It wasn't design to support extras. That there is more space for them is a byproduct.

I see this reasoning all the time, and really don't understand it. Yes, Blu Ray was put out to deliver the best in sound and picture, but it was also put it to eventually replace DVD. Sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon when companies are releasing these lazy discs sans extras. I have a Blu Ray player and will probably pick up Doomsday on DVD because the Blu Ray lacks the extra features. There's no reasons they can't throw in an extra disc and add the extra features, or use a 50gb disc as opposed to a 25gb disc, other then being cheap. You shouldn't have to own two copies of a movie, one for the picture and sound, and one for the extras! Superbit did that years ago, and failed. Blu Ray won't take over as long as they make people buy two copies of every movie.

[dwatts]

Originally Posted by rhett

I'm sure your wife has told you this in the past, but size isn't everything. The way the structure is designed to access menus on the fly and to easily incorporate picture in picture and the like certainly makes the medium more extra friendly than any other before it. The online jack built into these units now certainly isn't for the better of the picture or the sound, either.

It does all the things you suggest (well, will do eventually). But those features were added AFTERWARDS as the standards were developed - changed - proposed - developed - changed, etc. They weren't, as far as I'm aware, a driving force in the development from day one. In fact, given those things weren't in the initial specs speaks volumes about what was on the table when this technology was being put together.

But it's supposed to give us all those things in the current standard - but I've yet to see it.....

The weirdest thing I've seen with BR have been the needless multi-disc sets..... now that's strange.

Originally Posted by Matt89

http://dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=68498

"Priced at $39.98 SRP each, these horror classics arrive on barebones discs just in time for Halloween."

What pisses me off the most about not having special features is:
1. There's MORE fucking space on these discs! No longer is there any need for a 2-disc special edition.
2. When I replace a title I want to get rid of the old one. (i.e. if I replace a film on blu-ray, I don't wanna have the DVD sticking around anymore. Then you end up with multiple copies of the same film. It's a nuisance.)

~Matt

What Matt said. This is precisely why I'm going to hold off on the Blu-ray craze...well, that and not being able to afford it right now honestly...and I have to say, what made me so excited for the advent of dvd WAS the special features for some of my favorite films!

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by dwatts

The weirdest thing I've seen with BR have been the needless multi-disc sets..... now that's strange.

YEAH!! Wtf is up with that!? I was shocked to see that when I bought Blade Runner on blu ray, it too was a 5-disc set...just like its DVD counterpart! It seemed like such a waste of discs for it to have five. I mean they could've EASILY made it two. They could've fit all five versions of the movie on one disc, (seeing as how they were all branched anyway, except for the workprint) then the extra features on disc 2.

What bugs me even more (and I feel like an idiot because I said this too before I went blu-ray) are people who say things like, "well...that's not really a blu ray movie." Warner just announced a blu ray release of Casablanca. They're putting tons of effort into it, but just look at all the dumbass remarks on dvdactive.com. Saying all the extra stuff they're putting in is stupid, and how "black and white and fullscreen" aren't what blu-ray is for, and how color and widescreen are what it's for. Clearly these people completely missed the point of blu ray. It's NOT about making every movie look PRISTINE, it's about the ADDED RESOLUTION that it gives any film. It makes a film look as close to a film print as anything I've ever seen before. For colour films, it's about the added depth, resolution, proper color reproduction and for b&w films it's all those (minus the color) but it adds a great amount of shadow detail. I used to say things like "that's not really a blu ray movie" BEFORE I went blu-ray, and I honestly cannot believe how some people who went blu ray are STILL saying it now.

~Matt

[Matt89]

Looks like axelmusic.com already has a scan of the back of the cover and well....at least we get the theatrical trailer...



Well at least the movie's been remastered (considering it had to have been transferred from a new high definition master), since the last DVD was taken from the print used for the laserdisc.

~Matt

[rhett]

Elm Street didn't even get that, so we're making progress, aren't we?

I'm still likely to make the plunge as this is one of my favorites. No rush for me though, since I watched it not too long ago.

[Matt89]

I've honestly almost stopped caring about DVD special features. I've had this pre-ordered on amazon for about a month now. Carrie's the movie that got me into horror, so I owe it a lot. I have to get it lol. Plus I really wanna see how much better the movie looks since they've put some remastering into it. The movie in high definition, isn't that what high-def is all about?

~Matt

They're all going to laugh at...

[spawningblue]

Originally Posted by Matt89

http://dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=68498

"Priced at $39.98 SRP each, these horror classics arrive on barebones discs just in time for Halloween."

What pisses me off the most about not having special features is:
1. There's MORE fucking space on these discs! No longer is there any need for a 2-disc special edition.
2. When I replace a title I want to get rid of the old one. (i.e. if I replace a film on blu-ray, I don't wanna have the DVD sticking around anymore. Then you end up with multiple copies of the same film. It's a nuisance.)

~Matt

Originally Posted by Matt89

I've honestly almost stopped caring about DVD special features. I've had this pre-ordered on amazon for about a month now. Carrie's the movie that got me into horror, so I owe it a lot. I have to get it lol. Plus I really wanna see how much better the movie looks since they've put some remastering into it. The movie in high definition, isn't that what high-def is all about?

~Matt

Umm... okay. haha you totally changed your stance. Everyone buying these lazy releases are the reason companies aren't putting any effort in their Blu Ray releases and are making you own two copies of the same movie. I'm sure a double dip is inevitable, triple dip I guess if you already owned the DVD so I guess if you have the extra money to waste then why not. i personally am not rich though, and wait until they do it right.

Originally Posted by rhett

I do think the lack of extras on a format basically designed to support them is silly, but at the same time I don't really have any qualms about it - since I've already got them all on DVD, and really, don't have much desire to ever watch them again. I actually wouldn't be surprised if in this new format extras slowly fall by the wayside. Now the focus is on recreating the theater experience rather than the novelty of accessing supplements. With the window of theatrical films coming home ever decreasing, that means less time for supplements anyway.

I disagree, and don't see that happening anytime soon. If you don't care about the extras then why not just download the movie. I'm guessing as long as the picture and sound are good you don't care if you even have a case for it either. And lots of people care about DVD extras, probably more so then people that own huge Hi Def TV's and Hi Def surround systems. That's why they release two versions of popular movies. And 90% of the time the 2 disc edition sells more then the 1 disc bare bones edition. If people didn't care and they weren't selling, then they would have stopped doing 2 disc sets a long time ago. The only time the bare bones editions sell more is usually with kids titles as they don't know any better.

Blu Ray enthusiasts are the ones that are going to be the fall of Blu Ray discs. Because they encourage companies to put out lazy discs as long as the picture is okay. To the average customer, when they are upgrading, they want to see the new product be better in every way, but with Blu Ray that is rarely the case. Other then picture and sometimes sound being better (Though not always the case, check out the Interview with the Vampire Blu Ray, only has 5.1 surround while the DVD has DTS), usually the old DVD's trump them as overall packages.

It just really annoys the hell out of me, as when I got into Blu Ray I expected to be able to replace all my DVD's, but that is just not the case. I either have to keep my DVD around and own two copies of every movie (Which isn't a big deal now, but when you have 200 movies twice, it adds up!), or I have to hold out and hope they double dip, or just buy the DVD. Personally I'd rather have Carrie with good picture and sound and great extras, then Carrie with great picture and sound, and 0 extras. To each his own though. But I think these lazy releases are really holding a lot of people back, more then you would think.

You can't just tease people with extravagant DVD sets, and then take it all back, and say pay twice the amount for good picture and sound, but forget extras ever existed. It's like we are going back, rather then forward. Don't get me wrong, I agree the picture and sound should be the most important part, but extras should not be ignored either. Especially when they already exist on the DVDs! So it would take next to no effort for them to just throw them on the Blu Ray, and also next to no room. I don't care if they are Hi Def, but just include them.

[spawningblue]

Look at Superbit releases. What sold more the Superbit release sans extras, or the 2 disc Special Edition? Not even a comparison. I'm telling you, this is going to keep Blu Ray from totally taking over.