DVD Talk
The Cheapening of DVD [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : The Cheapening of DVD


jough
11-02-03, 03:51 PM
I just wanted to address a few things that I've noticed on the boards in the past few... years.

It seems that there are a number of things happening with DVD of late that many members don't like. Then of course there are those who chime in with their "What's the big deal about _______?" threadcraps.

Here's a short list I've compiled of what I consider to be legitimate gripes about the DVD industry, and problems with it as we cinephiles see it:

1) Full Screen/Pan & Scan/"Standard" Ratio Transfers

Early DVD adopters didn't have to worry about the ratio that a film was shot in - the DVD would of course be widescreen.

That's because cinephiles prefer to see the entire image, as framed by the director. Framing of shots and camera movements are very VERY important artistic decisions. Cinephiles prefer to see camera movements as directed, not false camera movements added by an intern working for the studio's home video department, who adds a camera move that was not present in the film, but has been added so that audiences could see who was speaking when nearly half of the frame is obscured in a "full" screen release.

There are always those who claim that they're cinephiles but prefer "Full Screen" transfers. They are not.

Cinephiles love, respect, and honour film. Pan & Scan transfers do not honour the original film. If you don't care about that extra 1/3 to 1/2 of the picture, you are not a cinephile (by definition, since you don't care about some of the most important aspects of the art of film).

It's OKAY not to care. But just understand that you were not part of the early DVD and LD market, which is who I'm addressing.

The biggest problem facing transfer ratio is the lack of an OAR (Original Aspect Ratio) release for many films. And this problem looks like it's getting worse instead of better.

Some have suggested that providing both transfers in a single release is the answer. Some people prefer separate releases. Both of these are a problem for cinephiles. We either have to pay extra for another disc or have the quality of our preferred format (widescreen, or OAR) suffer due to having two copies of the movie on a single platter, or else have the problem of stores not stocking enough of the Widescreen transfer and having a hard time finding a DVD we'd like to buy because the store won't order more of the WS until they've sold out of the FS.

Cinephiles would prefer that there be only a single release: OAR.

2) No insert.

This is a problem that seems like most DVD consumers don't care about, so since it costs *some* money to make and print inserts, and since DVD buyers have shown that they don't care, in general, the insert for DVDs will likely go the way of Divx in a few years' time.

I like having a booklet that I can read offscreen that offers additional printed material about a film - essays, reviews, a cast list that I can look at while the film is in the player, a chapter list, details about the production.

I prefer to buy films that have nice inserts, and given that I want to buy a lot of movies on DVD, I'll choose those that have inserts before those that don't.

But regardless of whether you think it's a big deal or not, it's another cheapening of the DVDs that we love.

3) Keepcase vs. Digipack/Snapper Cases

This is a subject that seems to divide the Cinephile DVD buyers down the middle.

Ultimately the packaging doesn't matter as much as the film and the supplements, but given the choice, the keepcase is superiour in many ways.

The multi-disc set digipacks are nice space savers - but so are the keepcase style Next Pak slim cases.

Snappers and Digipacks are made of cardboard and brittle plastic - you may not mind the dings and dents and tears in the cardboard case, and the plastic holding the discs are often fine - UNTIL THEY BREAK.

If the disc holder inside a keepcase breaks, you can remove the discs and inserts and change out the case, like you would a CD jewel case (and probably have many times).

You cannot do this with a digipack, which is why there's such an aftermarket for custom slip covers.

4) Forced Trailers

This is a fairly recent hot-button issue, given the release of the high-profile "Hulk" DVD which disables the "Next Chapter" button and forces you to either watch their promotional trailers or fast forward through them - EVERY TIME you load the disc.

Sure, the Hulk trailers are only a couple of minutes - but how long will they have to be before they're a problem for YOU?

People have made the case that VHS rentals have long had trailers before them. This is true. Video RENTALS have had these trailers - but if I've purchased a disc that I'll probably watch more than once over the years, I don't want to have to sit through increasingly outdated trailers EVERY TIME.

Sell-through VHS removed the trailers, and sell-through DVD (i.e. ALL DVD) should not have trailers before the menus - forced or otherwise.

Put the trailers in a section of the disc called "Sneak Peaks" or something. Then I can choose whether or not to view them.

Forcing ads or trailers before a home video release only generates hostility towards the items being advertised. Creating IRE in a consumer towards your product is at best a poor marketing decision.

5) Double-Dipping

I don't think most Cinephiles have as much of a problem with multiple releases of the same title, provided that:

a) it is announced when the bare-bones version is released
b) it contains all of the features of the previous release, and then some
c) it provides compelling enough supplements offering a reason to upgrade
d) it offers a new (and superiour) transfer of the film

I've only "upgraded" a few of the DVDs I bought, but I didn't regret doing so. And the old discs always found a new home.

Still, it'd be nice if studios took the time to do it right the FIRST time, especially on deep catalog titles that they took years to release in the first place.

6) Non-Anamorphic Transfers for Widescreen Ratios

Thankfully this is becoming a non-issue, as studios are quickly updating their telecine transfers for the upcoming HD-TV standard.

This is one of the cheap aspect of early DVD that has actually *improved*. However, even at the end of 2003 there are still some discs being released in letterboxed non-anamorphic widescreen.

7) Promotional Special Features
Suggested by Drexl

DVD Supplements is an area that has both improved (with the Lord of the Rings Extended Editions, all of the Pixar films, the new Disney SEs, etc.) or has cheapened (i.e. the extras for Spider-Man, Minority Report, Tomb Raider, etc.).

Many supplemental features are little more than a promotion for the disc we've already purchased. Yes, we know the film is good. We just bought it. We're sold. You don't have to sell us on it again.

Adding interactive games, web links, original promtional "first look" featurettes and such is FINE - but please don't re-wrap this material and market it as compelling features. They're not, and we're not falling for it anymore.

Of course, even shallow featurettes are still an improvement over "Chapter Selection" or "Widescreen Presentation" being listed as a "Special Feature."

8) DVD-ROM/Web Content en lieu of DVD-Video Content
Suggested by napstimpy

DVD-ROM content can be really nice when it's done well - a read-along screenplay is always welcome, and I'd personally rather view stills in high-res on my computer monitor rather than on my DVD player and television.

However, some DVD producers inexplicably include audio and video-based content in a computer-only format. This is especially jarring when that content is comprised of things that you'd prefer to watch on your big tv, like trailers, deleted scenes, etc.

Even worse is web-based content, like audio commentaries (see the Star Wars discs) and other behind-the-scenes video material that we'd rather have on disc, so that we can archive and keep it (and watch it on an airplane, etc.) rather than having to access it on the internet.

I won't even bother to go into depth about bandwidth concerns, and the availability of web-based content years from now (whereas discs will always be around as long as we'd like).

Please, studios, put content on the disc so that we can view it with our DVD players.

============================================

These are the cheapening aspects of DVD releases that I could think of here. If you'd like to add more - please do so below and I'll add it to the list.

I look forward to hearing from my fellow Cinephile's and the Joe-Six-Pack's alike on these issues.

Drexl
11-02-03, 03:59 PM
7) "Special features" that are mostly fluff, such as interactive "games" and advertisements for merchandise with the film's license

speedy1961
11-02-03, 04:25 PM
Some have suggested that providing both transfers in a single release is the answer. Some people prefer separate releases. Both of these are a problem for cinephiles. We either have to pay extra for another disc or have the quality of our preferred format (widescreen, or OAR) suffer due to having two copies of the movie on a single platter, or else have the problem of stores not stocking enough of the Widescreen transfer and having a hard time finding a DVD we'd like to buy because the store won't order more of the WS until they've sold out of the FS.

Cinephiles would prefer that there be only a single release: OAR.

Well said jough :thumbsup:

This issue should go by the wayside as DVD-14's make it into the marketplace. Both versions (When available) can fit onto a single DVD release (1 per side) in this manner (excluding super deluxe versions of course).

gutwrencher
11-02-03, 04:45 PM
thats a ton of gripes and whining that I can deal with. once again...as always...the issue of poor disc manufacturing has been ignored, denied and left off the "top concerns" list. everything else is always a priority....leaving the most essential of gripes in the closet. :D

sorry man...you know the "gripes and whining" part is nothing personal. it's nothing I have not heard before...so what I said is not directed at you.:thumbsup:

JimRochester
11-02-03, 05:04 PM
Repeat after me

I loved working with actor/actress/director they were great

This movie was very fun to make

matome
11-02-03, 05:05 PM
Nice analysis, Jough!

ben12
11-02-03, 05:05 PM
Sure you can't think of a few more things to whine about?

jough
11-02-03, 05:18 PM
gutwrencher,

I left transfer quality off the list because that's simply a GIVEN. And for the most part transfer quality is improving, and my list is mostly comprised of things that have been cheapening, declining, etc.

And ben12, I'm sure I can think of more ways DVD is being cheapened by studios looking to increase profits at the cost of quality, but my initial list is a good enough start.

Dave C
11-02-03, 05:30 PM
In my opinion the most important cheapening of DVDs of the last few years is that they've become cheaper to obtain.

Jah-Wren Ryel
11-02-03, 05:37 PM
Don't forget that the DVD spec contains the ability to add a pan-n-scan track to a widescreen transfer. It is just very rarely implemented (and often ends up confusing buyers with a disc that says "widescreen" but is displaying foolscreen because they left their DVD player set that way since it doesn't usually make a difference).

matome
11-02-03, 05:38 PM
Well, I'll add a future one: the unskippable product ads that will follow the unskippable trailers. As a way to ease us into this, now instead of getting the movie related insert we get ads in the insert space (oh yeah, I'm just dying to get that Hulk Mastercard :rolleyes: )

gutwrencher
11-02-03, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by jough
gutwrencher,

I left transfer quality off the list because that's simply a GIVEN.

uhh...thats not even close to what I said. manufacturing has nothing to do with the transfer. I'm talking about issues involving manufacturing...such as actual disc quality, excess glue, improper bonding, off-center holes in discs, questionable control teams at pressing plants....that kind of stuff. you know...stuff that matters. things that will sneak up to bite us in the ass while were being concerned with snappers and paying twice for the same title.:D

El-Kabong
11-02-03, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by jough
There are always those who claim that they're cinephiles but prefer "Full Screen" transfers. They are not.

Cinephiles love, respect, and honour film. Pan & Scan transfers do not honour the original film. If you don't care about that extra 1/3 to 1/2 of the picture, you are not a cinephile (by definition, since you don't care about some of the most important aspects of the art of film).


What a load of elitist film snob crap. By your 'definition' I'm not a cinephile because I own and enjoy pan and scan films. I'm not a cinephile despitre a big screen TV, 1,000+ DVDs and laserdiscs and really kickin' DVD player.

My ass.

Look, I'd love to have the Godzilla films in subtitled wide screen glory. However Toho refuses to budge on this matter, and as a result we only get dubbed pan and scan versions of these films.

I'd love to get some of the El Santo movies in widescreen. I'd love to get some Shaw Brothers Kung Fu in Widescreen. These older films dont even EXIST in widescreen anymore. The only way to get them is the use the cropped TV masters.

So, you are saying that I shouldnt enjoy these films JUST because they don't present the film widescreen?

Bullshit.

Or what about the Remo Williams, Breakin' and Breakin' 2 discs I picked up for less than 5 bucks each. Sure it would have been nice to get them wide screen, but come on - I spent less than the price of a value meal at McDonalds on them. It would cost more to rent them in some places.

Originally posted by jough
It's OKAY not to care. But just understand that you were not part of the early DVD and LD market, which is who I'm addressing.

You know what - I DONT care. And I've got laserdiscs older than some of the users around here, so dont feed me a line about not being an early adopter.

The movie is the most important thing. If I had to get an 3rd generation Star Wars on 8mm silent film, cropped and pan and scan - I'd still do it. The movie means more than the presentation.

Of course I'd love a wide screen print - but failing that, I'll take what I can get and upgrade as nessassary.

As for the rest of your 'arguments', well I'll leave the superiority complex ramblings for another day. . . .

marty888
11-02-03, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by El-Kabong
What a load of elitist film snob crap. ....
The movie is the most important thing.

Glad I'm not the only one who nearly gagged on the pretentious sophmoric film-school diatribe - a dazzling display of self-important sermonizing by a self-proclaimed "cinephile".

Are there some valid points made? Yes, but presented in a way that I find arrogant and self-righteous,

Just my own personal cinephile opinion.

Gyno Rhino
11-02-03, 08:04 PM
Dork.

leemik
11-02-03, 08:15 PM
There's one thing that wasn't mentioned and has increased over the years:
The amount of security stickers on the cases.. Back in '97, '98 and '99, You might find one sticker on the top spine of the case and that was it.. but now it's a common sight to see all three entry points of the DVD stickered...even on the cardboard snappers! What's the point if the DVD is shrink wrapped anyways? Do we see this kind of sticker fanaticism on CDs, VHS, or software? A lot of DVDs are $19.99 or less these days: $5.88, $9.99, $14.99 retail is not uncommon--not $21.95 or more like in the early days, not exactly an expensive item...

It takes me a while to take the stickers off just to get to the disc and as a collector it's tough to take the stickers off without slightly damaging the case too.. The"pull" tab is useless and why does only one of the stickers have a "pull" tab?

--mike

gutwrencher
11-02-03, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by leemik


It takes me a while to take the stickers off just to get to the disc and as a collector it's tough to take the stickers off without slightly damaging the case too.. The"pull" tab is useless and why does only one of the stickers have a "pull" tab?

--mike

guess we all have our own style and methods of opening dvds. I've never had much trouble with a new case...and I've opened over 1,100. there has been a few slight mishaps...but most of my cases and dvds are in as close to mint condition as possible. a helpful tip for the residue that is sometimes left behind after peeling a sticker.....use a little lighter fluid on a soft cloth and polish it out.

jough
11-02-03, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by El-Kabong
By your 'definition' I'm not a cinephile because I own and enjoy pan and scan films. I'm not a cinephile despitre a big screen TV, 1,000+ DVDs and laserdiscs and really kickin' DVD player.

That's right. You're not a cinephile by my definition. You got it.

See, by definition a cinephile is someone who loves cinema. The composition of a shot, camera movements, framing, these things are all part of the FILM itself. They are as much content as the dialogue and music.

So if you don't respect a film enough to want to see all of it, presented as best as can be, then no, you're not a cinephile.

That's not a bad thing. Maybe film isn't your bag. But I'm not really talking to you with my initial post, then.


Look, I'd love to have the Godzilla films in subtitled wide screen glory. However Toho refuses to budge on this matter, and as a result we only get dubbed pan and scan versions of these films.

So you're saying that's a good thing? I'm saying that's a bad thing - and that if no one purchased the P&S version they'd have to put out Widescreen in order to make any money.

Essentially, Kabong, you're part of the problem.

So, you are saying that I shouldnt enjoy these films JUST because they don't present the film widescreen?

No, I'm saying that *I* can't enjoy these films unless I can view them in their OAR. You can do whatever the heck you want.

The movie is the most important thing.

I agree. But this thread isn't about how important movies are. It's about how DVD manufacturers are cheapening their product to our detriment, even if only in minor ways (so far).

But if you feel the film is the most important thing, I'd question why you only want to watch 2/3s of it?

Sure, if you cut off your baby's arms and one leg (about a third of the child) it's still the same baby, but it's a horrible mutilation. I feel that Pan and Scan is a horrible mutilation of a film. If you disagree, you're part of the problem as I see it.

The movie means more than the presentation.

Film IS presentation. By destroying the audio and video they destroy the film as a whole.

jough
11-02-03, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by gutwrencher
uhh...thats not even close to what I said. manufacturing has nothing to do with the transfer. I'm talking about issues involving manufacturing...such as actual disc quality, excess glue, improper bonding, off-center holes in discs, questionable control teams at pressing plants....that kind of stuff. you know...stuff that matters. things that will sneak up to bite us in the ass while were being concerned with snappers and paying twice for the same title.:D

Hmm... I didn't mention manufacturing errors because I've rarely noticed any. Usually these are QC issues and can be fixed by returning a disc to the store in exchange for another non-faulty copy.

My list would address *choices* that studios make. Cheaper manufacturing is a choice too, but it's not something that I've seen to be too much of a problem (except from some Anchor Bay releases).

Have you had a lot of problems in this area?

napstimpy
11-02-03, 08:59 PM
Play nice, kids... most of the issues raised here are dead-on, in my opinion.

Something that's always bugged me (and hasn't been mentioned) is DVD-ROM content, for two reasons:

I rarely if ever watch DVDs anywhere but on my home theatre. It annoys me that significant bonus feature content I've paid for is unreachable (deleted scenes from E.T. come to mind, there are many others...). These features could easily have been regular DVD video content, it's just someone decided they wouldn't be. Don't even get me started on web-based content (dial-up, longevity, etc).

Second, I'm a Mac user (thousands of eyes roll) and see no reason that most content for Windows couldn't be written for dual systems or as platform-independent. Yes, Macs are only fraction of the PC market (let's not debate the merits here, OK?), but I'd bet that in the world of DVD authoring, movies-making, etc, you'd find it's a higher percentage.

I know it comes down to what's more cost-effective, and a lot of ROM content isn't anything I feel too broken up about missing, but still, it stinks, at least a little.

El-Kabong
11-02-03, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by jough
So you're saying that's a good thing? I'm saying that's a bad thing - and that if no one purchased the P&S version they'd have to put out Widescreen in order to make any money.

Essentially, Kabong, you're part of the problem.


I tried that. I waited for over a DECADE - like since sometime around the early 90's when Criterion announced that they were perusing the Godzilla license. I avoided buying the pan and scan LD's for the longest time waiting for them to work around Toho's stubbornness.

Then the laserdisc market imploded, taking my dreams of The Tokyo Stomp with it.

Then with the dawn of DVD, Sony released some of the later G movies - in dubbed pan and scan. Well, crap I thought. Ok, I'll sit back and wait. Perhaps Toho will come to their senses and a better version would surface.

Here it is - 4 years later. No good Godzilla transfers. Some of them to be sure, but not all. How far had my boycott gotten me? oh look at that. . . . NOWHERE!

If boycotting pan and scan at the expense of missing the movie is your bag, great - wait as long as you want. But don't talk down to me while you're doing it.

But if you feel the film is the most important thing, I'd question why you only want to watch 2/3s of it?

Simple - I'd rather have 3/4th of the movie than none of it.

DVDho78DTS
11-02-03, 09:24 PM
I hope by the time HD-DVD rolls around Widescreen TVs are more cost friendly. I look at DVD as being a transition format. Basically a format that is helping the transition to Widescreen TVs and movies being viewed in their proper aspect ratio.

It is my desire that when HD-DVD rolls around in the not to distant future that Widescreen TVs are the normality & movies are released on HD-DVD without giving thought of anything but a widescreen transfer (older movies excluded of course) and that transfer being anamorphic. Seeing as how the DVD format has evolved I don't think this is wishfull thinking at all.

Personally, I have 1 full screen & 6 non-anamorphic DVD's. I purchased these early on in the format but of course have refused to buy such DVDs the past couple years. I don't consider myself a cinephile since I am still relatively new to film. I haven't seen a lot of movies before the 70's or 80's. I am slowly working my way back & at the same time opening up to foreign films. I do consider myself a smart consumer though. :)

Geez, I hope what I just said somehow provides some worth to this thread. :D

jough
11-02-03, 09:24 PM
3/4ths wouldn't be as bad, but most "Full Frame" transfers cut off 30-45% of the image (see widescreen.org for more on film mutilation).

I would rather have the entire image, which is the point of my #1 cheapening concern.

For instance, "Real Men" is coming to DVD in December. I love this film and have been waiting for years to own it on DVD. But it's being released only in a horrible P&S transfer, right from the videotape.

I'll pass on buying it. There are still Criterion Collection discs I haven't bought. Why waste my money on shoddy presentation?

In any case, the release of a Pan & Scan only version of a major studio title isn't something we would have seen 4+ years ago, which is why I included it on my "cheapening" list.

This isn't the thread to discuss whether widescreen is better than pan & scan. This is a thread that takes the fact that widescreen is superior as a given.

I'm sure people would be interested if P&S lovers posted about how they thought it was an improvement over OAR. I'd read your thoughts. This just isn't the place for it.

DVDho78DTS
11-02-03, 09:31 PM
Yeah, just like when Can't Buy Me Love was released earlier this year but not in widescreen. I was dying to have this film but I stayed strong and refused to buy it! Damn them!

fumanstan
11-02-03, 09:35 PM
"People have made the case that VHS rentals have long had trailers before them. This is true. Video RENTALS have had these trailers - but if I've purchased a disc that I'll probably watch more than once over the years, I don't want to have to sit through increasingly outdated trailers EVERY TIME.

Sell-through VHS removed the trailers, and sell-through DVD (i.e. ALL DVD) should not have trailers before the menus - forced or otherwise."


I'm confused here, as plenty of my old VHS's have trailers before the actual movie starts.

jough
11-02-03, 09:44 PM
fumastan,

It was common for rental VHS tapes to have trailers before the presentation - but when tapes were re-purposed for sell-through usually (but not always) there were no trailers before them.

Now we have DVD which offers a menu (usually) before viewing a film. Since DVD is not necessarily a linear medium like VHS tape, the trailers can be added to a part of the menu and not put before or after the presentation in a linear fashion.

Putting trailers in front of a film and trying to make it so that they can't be easily skipped is a minor annoyance, but a poor marketing ploy. Most of the people who have posted to threads regarding them have seemed to be annoyed to downright ANGRY about these trailers. Can this be a good thing from a marketing standpoint?

I think not.

Avid
11-03-03, 02:13 AM
The thing that makes me worry most are director's cuts/extended cuts/revisionist cuts of films. When we change formats which will be available? I think it will be the new version of the film because for the most part they are given better quality releases (both A/V and extra wise). Some theatrical cuts are not even available on DVD and others really need a new release to improve the picture quality but when the SE comes out is not on it.

I fear we are going to lose the theatrical cuts of some great movies. That concerns me much more than forced trailers and inserts.

scottall
11-03-03, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by jough
2) No insert.

This is a problem that seems like most DVD consumers don't care about, so since it costs *some* money to make and print inserts, and since DVD buyers have shown that they don't care, in general, the insert for DVDs will likely go the way of Divx in a few years' time.

I like having a booklet that I can read offscreen that offers additional printed material about a film - essays, reviews, a cast list that I can look at while the film is in the player, a chapter list, details about the production.

I prefer to buy films that have nice inserts, and given that I want to buy a lot of movies on DVD, I'll choose those that have inserts before those that don't.

But regardless of whether you think it's a big deal or not, it's another cheapening of the DVDs that we love.

Does it really bother you that much? I can't imagine passing on a dvd that I wanted because it does not come with an insert. I have never even looked through any dvd insert and do not see the fascination of an insert.

jough
11-03-03, 02:42 AM
Again, this thread is a list of ways in which DVD has been "cheapened" in recent months. It doesn't matter how important it is relatively.

There are obviously a number of people here who care about whether a DVD has an insert - enough to warrant mentioning it.

As far as Director's Cuts -vs- Theatrical releases, that's usually a decision of the director and not a result of cheapening a DVD release.

scottall
11-03-03, 03:15 AM
I agree that it does cheapen the overall dvd package, but you state that that you will buy a dvd that includes an insert before you buy one without. I am assuming that you are interested in both dvds, but if you become disinterested with a dvd because it has no insert then I think that is crazy. I understand the point of the thread, but I am responding to your comments under your main point. Sorry if that is not within your thread guidelines.

marty888
11-03-03, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by scottall
.... you state that that you will buy a dvd that includes an insert before you buy one without. I am assuming that you are interested in both dvds, but if you become disinterested with a dvd because it has no insert then I think that is crazy.

Does that make someone an "insertophile" rather than a "cinephile"? Just asking ....-wink-

EPKJ
11-03-03, 09:57 AM
Jough, I find two of your contentions absurd. While I agree that a cinephile must prefer OAR, I do not agree that a cinephile will refuse to purchase a film because it is unavailable in OAR. In my view, a true cinephile will buy the films he loves when available and upgrade when possible. Why should I be denied watching Dario Argento's Sleepless because Artisan issued it full screen? I am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.
In addiition, I find it absurd that you would buy a DVD with an insert in preference over another without one. This is simply insane. It is the movie which matters! You seem to have lost sight of that, which is something that no true cinephile would do.

talemyn
11-03-03, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by scottall
I agree that it does cheapen the overall dvd package, but you state that that you will buy a dvd that includes an insert before you buy one without. I am assuming that you are interested in both dvds, but if you become disinterested with a dvd because it has no insert then I think that is crazy. I understand the point of the thread, but I am responding to your comments under your main point. Sorry if that is not within your thread guidelines.-- and --

Originally posted by EPKJ
In addiition, I find it absurd that you would buy a DVD with an insert in preference over another without one. This is simply insane. It is the movie which matters! You seem to have lost sight of that, which is something that no true cinephile would do. Hmmm . . . I thought that he meant that if, given the option between the same movie, either with or without an an insert, he would choose one with the insert. Clarification, jough?

As for the rest of the original post . . . I pretty much agree completely, with the one deviation being on the "to buy or not to buy" issue of FF only releases. I think it deepends on the release. Ishtar in FF only, I think I wait for the WS . . . actually, that's a bad example . . . I don't think even a WS release of that would get me to buy it. :D Okay . . . Happy Gilmore . . . I will most likely get it when it is released in WS, but I've got a FF version on VHS, so I'll watch that until they come to their senses. However Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory . . . no contest . . . this was one I had to have immediately, so I bought it in FF and upgraded within minutes (literally) of finding out that a WS version had been made available.

I think that we can all safely say that we would prefer that movies were released in OAR when they come out on DVD. I think it's more of a question of how you wait out the time period before that release . . . with no movie or with an inferior version of it. Luckily (although this maybe debated by some) I still have a lot of my VHS movies left, so I don't have to make that decision. If a movie that I want isn't out on WS DVD yet, chances are, I already have the FF version on tape and that is good enough to tide me over until they release it in WS.

dtcarson
11-03-03, 11:18 AM
I personally could care less about the 'insert'--by 'insert' I mean the little front/back paper that has some credits and a chapter listing. If you mean a 'booklet', like in Brazil Criterion, or even a couple page fold out, where there's additional information on the movie, on the production, or even a 'letter to the fans' like in Dogma, that's cool. But that's not a decision rule for me.

I definitely prefer OAR, and I don't think I'd buy something that was P/Scanned, especially now that I have a widescreen tv [but even before then, I didn't, once I got into DVD.] I'd *watch* some, sure--the movie channels mostly play p/s, and while I'd never pay money for it, if it's a movie I want to see, but not enough to own, I'll check it out on HBO or whatever. I will still bitch and moan about it though.

VHS previews--Even the VHS sellthrough tapes that have previews, you can fast forward through them, so it's not quite apples to apples with the forced, nonskippable previews on some dvds.

Re: double dipping--your reasons B and C are enough for me. A DD doesn't have to be a superior transfer, but it has to be at least as good. Either more extras [preferably when the first one had none], and/or a superior transfer. Ideally both. Kind of moot point, though, because I don't think I've ever bought a double dip.
And nowadays, with DVD accounting for half the home-video market, there is absolutely no reason for a barebones/doubledip, except that the company thinks they can get away with it. There are, what, seventeen versions of the American Pie movies? If it has to be done, LotR is doing it right--announcing both at the same time, different extras, almost all very interesting, additional scenes to the picture, etc. You don't feel cheated buying only one version.
Directors cuts/theatrical cuts--that's a good one. I don't mind remastering and making something look/sound better; but I do have problems with 'changing' it. [vis ET]. Directors cut with 'added' stuff is one thing, but they should allow for the viewing of the theatrical version also. If it weren't for director's cuts, we'd only have the Happily Ever After version of Brazil.

Packaging--I agree, I hate those mulitple tape things, and plastic wrap, and security buttons inside. For an item which is honestly not that expensive. But this isn't only DVD's--cd's have been a PITA to get into for quite some time, and when we buy toys for my 1 year old son, they are attached in those boxes so well it takes us 10-20 minutes, literally, to get the silly thing out. So this is a trend in the whole 'retail' environment, unfortunately. At least they haven't gone to those *#&$# blisterpacks, I HATE those.

DVDRom--I agree with this one. I guess there are some things that make better sense on a computer, but hey, I don't have a working DVDrom [well, we do know, we just got a new computer.] [Steel Angel Kurumi, for instance, included PDF files of folding 'fortune tellers', which obviously can't be viewed on your TV.] But still.

But I would like to discuss your main contention: that these factors, and others, are 'cheapening DVD.' Some of them, yes--for films to be released *only* in P&S, not OAR, is an insult. But many of the others serve to provide attraction for the 'non-DVD' market, that is, Joe SixPack. We can either have an elitist, very limited product, that usually is very expensive and hard to find [laserdisc], or a product that offers something to many different types of people, opening the market up to new things, more time and energy spent on products, and the potential for a better overall release. Plus, it's always possible that J6P, who previously bought P&S from WalMart, would luck onto a website like this, or www.widescreen.org, etc, and say Hey, there's a whole new world out there; and that can only be a good thing, imho. And yes, they'll still be the regular folks who 'don't care' about OAR, don't consider themselves cinephiles, etc. And it's these people buying dvd's that allow me to get dvd's for an average of something like 8-11 dollars, including multi-hour TV show sets. As long as I can still get OAR, I will try to educate them, but the ultimate decision is up to them [an example of this would be my parents--they don't buy movies or have a DVD player, but I still talk widescreen/home theater to them; they are too set in their ways to really change now, but they do recognize that there is a difference. And they wondered why I needed a 60" widescreen HDTV, but they sure didn't mind watching The Bourne Identity on it.]

Of course, even with all that said, there is a fine line between, say, local stores 'cheapening' products so that there are more products, better choices, better service, and cheaper prices available; and WalMart moving into town and stomping every other store into nonexistence. We potentially face that with DVD, and that's the threat I see [allegorically] in the 'cheapening' of DVD.

Rypro 525
11-03-03, 11:30 AM
another bad thing for us cinefiles are when they skip dts but put it on another region (pirates of the carabian for instnace, the uk gets dts, same with the hulk.) dd is fine and dandy but mostly for me, dts will have sound thats louder, so i don't have to turn the volume up to loud.

Iron_Giant
11-03-03, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by jough
gutwrencher,

I left transfer quality off the list because that's simply a GIVEN. And for the most part transfer quality is improving, and my list is mostly comprised of things that have been cheapening, declining, etc.

And ben12, I'm sure I can think of more ways DVD is being cheapened by studios looking to increase profits at the cost of quality, but my initial list is a good enough start.
You have to take the whole package if you are going to say the DVD are being cheapened.

1. Video quality is getting better every year: Pixar Titles, IJ box set, Most of the Superbit titles (not all), Snow White, The Matrix Reloaded...
-99% of all DVD come in OAR, sure there are a few that do not - Like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. This NOTHING to worry about, Full vers OAR, the studios will not stop making OAR.
-Almost all new titles are getting to be almost ref quality
-Measure the 1st few years of DVD to the DVD being release now, and you will see a HUGE jump in quality. That alone will help balance your "Cheaping of DVD".

2. Sound quality has also taken major leaps, maybe not as much as video, but there has been alot of improvement.
-I now have a system that plays DTS and my ears cannot tell much of a difference on most of the titles.

3. Extra features: TLOTR (both movies and a 3rd to come. Everything will look poor compared to TLOTR), Star Wars, BOB, Indiana Jones Box Set (I loved the extras, some may not have)...and many more.
-Most movies being filmed now have someone in charge of creating extras for the DVD from the beginning of the movie (Star Wars, TLOTR...)
-True, not all DVDs have great Extras, but not all DVDs in the beginning had great extras either. So, it would be wrong to compare them to today.

4. TV Box sets: BOB, Smallvillie, 24, Simpsons, Star Trek sets, Buffy, Looney Toons...
-Great sets that were not around when DVDs first came out.

5. Restorations: Snow White, Singing in the rain, Casablanca, Adventures of Robin Hood, Sleeping Beauty, Lion King (except fot the Morning Report song), West Side Story (which had a GREAT insert)...
-The bar continues to raised for movies being restored for DVD


Saying that you are only counting the things that are "cheapening DVD" is like only looking at money I spend every month. After awhile I would get depressed. I also need to look at how much money am making per month. Lets hope I always make a gain, not a loss per month.

Overall, I would say that DVD is a much better product today than it was 4 or 5 years ago.

Have a good day!

redinger
11-03-03, 11:49 AM
What, you didn't mention flippers? Maybe this isn't a "cheapening" of the DVD. But come on, give me two layers or another disc!

Originally posted by jough
People have made the case that VHS rentals have long had trailers before them. This is true. Video RENTALS have had these trailers - but if I've purchased a disc that I'll probably watch more than once over the years, I don't want to have to sit through increasingly outdated trailers EVERY TIME.


Plus, it's easy enough to splice that trailer right out of there! :)

jough
11-03-03, 11:51 AM
I didn't mention DTS because there are more DTS releases NOW than ever in R1. It's not like every DVD used to have DTS but now they're not doing a DTS transfer to save money, which again, is my point.

For a clarification, I have in the past bought the Canadian version of a disc simply because it had a better cover image (nearly always) and an insert, when the U.S. version did NOT, i.e. "Far From Heaven."

But there have also been times when I had two DVDs in my hand, could only afford to buy one of them, and remembered that one of the films didn't have an insert. I put it back on the shelf.

Of course the FILM itself is my main concern, but I love many many films, and can't afford to buy them all, so I have to choose which product to buy. Given the option, if I like both films equally, I'll choose to buy the one that's less cheapened by the above factors.

And it's not like these discs are going anywhere, or won't be released in a different (hopefully better) format/package/etc. later.

True, I usually will only read an insert once, or will maybe check out the chapter list for reference when I look up a particular scene, but I can't help thinking "Cheap. Lame." when I open a DVD case to see nothing but the disc.

It's a minor annoyance but it's still something that makes the overall package cheaper, which is my point.

talemyn
11-03-03, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by jough
True, I usually will only read an insert once, or will maybe check out the chapter list for reference when I look up a particular scene, but I can't help thinking "Cheap. Lame." when I open a DVD case to see nothing but the disc.

It's a minor annoyance but it's still something that makes the overall package cheaper, which is my point. I'm with you on that. The other thought that crosses my mind is whether or not it is "defective" (i.e., it was supposed to have an insert, but mine doesn't). Very irritating.

matome
11-03-03, 01:00 PM
There's another downfall about not including inserts anymore. I sold a sealed copy of The Hot Chick on Half.com and the guy left me a neutral feedback claiming I homemade shrinkwrapped the disc because there was no insert. I sent him a poilte email asking why he left me a neutral feedback without contacting me, explained that a lot of discs don't come with inserts now (including a link to our DVDtalk insert thread) and asked how I could have duplicated the security sticker on the top of the disc. He replied to it with a simple "Don't cry". I left him a negative feedback after that. So glad I now wait for feedback first whenever I sell something. :D

kmac
11-03-03, 02:16 PM
I do not mind what most of the companies are doing now with DVDs. I have not been disappointed with a release in quite some time.

1) I do not care that there are FS and WS versions available. I buy the widescreen versions, but alot of my family members have smaller televisions so they buy or rent FS. I do not agree with it, but I am glad that they have that choice.

2) As far as inserts are concerened, I hardly ever looked at them anyways. I prefer them with inserts, but I would not stop purchasing DVDs because of it.

3) I agree that snappers suck, but most companies have started changing lately. I cannot wait to see snappers go.

4) I do not mind the forced trailers. Come on, there have always been trailers (in theaters and VHS). It is simple marketing. And, many of them can be skipped.

5) I do not think double-dipping is as bad as people let on. I have upgraded many of my titles to newer versions and do not mind. Also, I have read many posts on this board, that people wish Lucas would release a barebones version of Star Wars Ep 4-6. Well, wouldn't this be double dipping according to the criteria?

6) I want anamorphic transfers and almost every release now has it. Not like it was in the past when it was hit or miss.

7&8) I also do not care about these issues. I do not really like the promotional or DVD rom stuff, but its inclusion will not keep me from purchasing a DVD. I think the DVD rom stuff will eventually go away because most people aren't using it.


I am not a cinephile or a joe six pack, but I love movies. I have about 400+ DVDs and a large HT system with widescreen TV. I realize that many people cannot afford it or take it as serious. Why should companies completely cater to these demands?

The prices of DVDs are coming down.
They are almost always releasing anamorphic transfers now.
Why do we keep hearing complaints?

I applaud their efforts to try and make everyone happy. Sure, there are going to be a few bumps in the road, but it has steadily gotten better since 1997. Besides, they are just movies!!

MrE
11-03-03, 02:30 PM
Actually you could more accurately title this "The Enrichment of DVD". Even with all these legitimate gripes, the cost of a quality transfer with extra features is lower than ever before. As someone who started my digital collection with LDs, most of these issues seem fairly minor.

To use an apple/orange analogy, it's like complaining about CDs because the package is smaller...and ignoring fun things like noise, flutter, wow, etc. Ah, the young'uns are scratching their heads now.

Hendrik
11-03-03, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by MrE
...and ignoring fun things like noise, flutter, wow, etc. Ah, the young'uns are scratching their heads now.

. . . :) . . .

El-Kabong
11-03-03, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by jough
3/4ths wouldn't be as bad, but most "Full Frame" transfers cut off 30-45% of the image (see widescreen.org for more on film mutilation).

Yes, yes - thank you for that whole "This is what widescreen is" link. I do believe I'm familiar with the concept by now.

I would rather have the entire image, which is the point of my #1 cheapening concern.

And given an option, I'd jump that way too - but I'm not about to cut off my nose to spite my face. Even 50% of a movie is still better than none of it.

But there have also been times when I had two DVDs in my hand, could only afford to buy one of them, and remembered that one of the films didn't have an insert. I put it back on the shelf.

Oh my god, that's the most ridiculous and/or anal thing I've heard. What - the quality of the movie has absolutly NOTHING to do with your decision to buy or not to buy? Just some damn piece of paper - that you'll maybe look at once or twice - is the deciding factor?

Some "cinephile" you are.

Look to MGM and their midnight movies line. A whole bunch of great B-movies for under 10 bucks - and not an insert to be found in any of them. If ditching the inserts makes the discs cheaper (as in lower overall price) then great - get rid of the damn things. More power to them.

But then, I'm just one of the great unwashed and uneducated DVD masses. What do I know?

jough
11-03-03, 04:45 PM
El-Kabong
But then, I'm just one of the great unwashed and uneducated DVD masses. What do I know?
Exactly.

I didn't say that the quality of the film has nothing to do with my decision to buy or not to buy. I said that my list of films that I want to own on DVD is greater than my income, so I have to CHOOSE which films to buy NOW. Given the option between a sub-par release in FS, with no insert, in a snapper case, with only a promotional featurette as an extra, and the new Super-Dooper SE with a beautiful transfer and nicer packaging, if I like the films the same, I'll get the SE.

If more people didn't buy the crappier releases they'd have to do a better job in the future if they want our money. There are a tonne of back catalog items that I've never picked up because newer, better releases come out every week.

At this rate, I can wait for a newer release of "Remo Williams." And if they don't ever put out a widescreen release of it on DVD, I'll wait until the HD-DVD, or whatever the next format is.

There are just too many films that I love to warrant spending my money on sub-par releases.

El-Kabong
11-03-03, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by jough
Exactly.


Ok dude - whatever. Have fun in that little ivory tower of yours, looking down on all the little people.

And frankly, I wouldnt want to be part of this elitist anal retentive film snob club anyway. I enjoy the movies, not the freakin' box that it came in, or a silly piece of paper with chapter stops on it, or the extras that did or didn't get packed in with it.

The movie is key. Everything else is meaningless details.

djtoell
11-03-03, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by jough
But there have also been times when I had two DVDs in my hand, could only afford to buy one of them, and remembered that one of the films didn't have an insert. I put it back on the shelf.
...
True, I usually will only read an insert once, or will maybe check out the chapter list for reference when I look up a particular scene, but I can't help thinking "Cheap. Lame." when I open a DVD case to see nothing but the disc.

Wow.

Instead of "The Cheapening of DVD," it sounds to me as if this thread would be better titled "The Fetishizing of Irrelevant Aspects of DVD." If a self-described "cinephile" can't help but obsess on the insert (or lack thereof) upon the opening of a DVD case, I'd rather be a clueless newbie who actually thinks about film first.

DJ

EPKJ
11-03-03, 06:41 PM
Jough, one thing we all have in common is that we will all die one day. I don't know how long I will live. I might live another 54 years and reach 100 or I might be killed in a car accident tomorrow. Life is too short for me to pass up buying a film I love on DVD because it isn't OAR or because it doesn't have an insert. Think about it.

gutwrencher
11-03-03, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by El-Kabong
I enjoy the movies, not the freakin' box that it came in, or a silly piece of paper with chapter stops on it, or the extras that did or didn't get packed in with it.

The movie is key. Everything else is meaningless details.

bingo.:D

The Third Jake
11-03-03, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by gutwrencher
bingo.:D
Well, I wouldn't exactly say "bingo." I have a bit of a problem with the "meaningless," particularly following the question of extras, but I do agree with the spirit of it.

Ed Crane
11-03-03, 08:45 PM
You're the man jough!

gutwrencher
11-03-03, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by The Third Jake
Well, I wouldn't exactly say "bingo."

half a bingo?-wink-

I'm building a perfect, personal film library. a historical document of sorts. the film is priority. anything else that comes along is just a bonus. I'm no idiot though...of course I love extras! but if it's barebones, like the recent Dragonslayer, so be it. for now.:D

Jericho
11-03-03, 11:00 PM
My opinions on these....

1) Full Screen/Pan & Scan/"Standard" Ratio Transfers

While it's true that there are more full screen releases then ever, 99% of them also have a widescreen version. I don't really see that as a bad thing. In fact, there were more movies released in JUST full screen in the early days (i.e. Happy Gilmore, Chariots of Fire) than there are now. I don't care what other people want, I just care what I want. And there's no evidence that releasing a movie in fullscreen is bad for widescreen fans unless you're careless and get the wrong DVD (something I've never done)

2) No insert.

Yeah, it looks empty w/o one, but I never actually use them so in the end I don't really care

3) Keepcase vs. Digipack/Snapper Cases

I prefer the Keepcase, but I really have no problem with Snappers or Digipacks. People have bitched about the snapper forever, but in the end all I care about is what's on the disc. Although snappers may not be as nice, I've never had any real problems with any of the snapper cases I have.

4) Forced Trailers

I actually like watching some of these, and although it ican be annoying, I find this very minor. Most can be skipped by hitting menu or chapter skip. Even the Hulk DVD I can just hit fast forward and be at the menu in 2 seconds. That's not a big deal to me.

5) Double-Dipping

By far the thing on this list I actually agree with. I have no problem with studios re-releasing early DVD releases with better transfers, extras, etc... However, with new DVDs (and I'm talking about anything in the last 3 years) re-releases thend to be just due to laziness of the studios. Today more than ever studios have a DVD planned in advance of the actual movie being released, so there's little reason not to do it right the first time. Any other way seems like a FU from the studios. Luckily this doesn't happen very much (outside of the crappy Superbit line which I largely ignore)

6) Non-Anamorphic Transfers for Widescreen Ratios

Like you said, this has actually improved since when I got into DVD in '99. Very happy

7) Promotional Special Features
Suggested by Drexl

I guess this has improved in that many early DVDs did not have any extras so at least it's something. On the other hand, it is pretty much nothing even if it is considered an "extra". I don't expect every release to be a collector's edition gem though, so I can live with what I have. And let's face it, studios don't want to bother making nice stuff for some movies.

8) DVD-ROM/Web Content en lieu of DVD-Video Content
Suggested by napstimpy

I've never actually used a DVD-Rom feature. Partly because the computer I used to own didn't even have one and partly because I watch my movies on a large widescreen TV and not a computer. I guess I don't like the idea since I've never bother to use it, but I don't know what I missing either.

All in all, I'm pretty happy with how the DVD industry has gone. I know some people have feared that as the industry grew we'd see a dumbing down of discs or more fullscreen only movies, but the opposite has happened. I see better and better discs all the time. And I like how I can go into a Walmart and get many discs cheap. The more people get into it, the better the prices seem to get. And that's pretty good in my book.

Wizdar
11-03-03, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by jough
4) Forced Trailers
I don’t understand how a “cinephile” can cite Hulk when Disney has been doing this for ages. In fact, Disney invented this in the vhs era. Originally posted by matome
Well, I'll add a future one: the unskippable product ads that will follow the unskippable trailers. See above.


Originally posted by marty888
Glad I'm not the only one who nearly gagged on the pretentious sophmoric film-school diatribe - a dazzling display of self-important sermonizing by a self-proclaimed "cinephile".

Are there some valid points made? Yes, but presented in a way that I find arrogant and self-righteous,

Just my own personal cinephile opinion. :up:

What I find funny is that, as a troll thread, this isn’t even original.



Originally posted by leemik
There's one thing that wasn't mentioned and has increased over the years:
The amount of security stickers on the cases.. Now you’re talking! While this isn’t exactly news, compared with the stuff in the first post, it started just yesterday. ;)

talemyn
11-03-03, 11:05 PM
I don't see why everyone is jumping on jough. Can anyone honestly say that you wouldn't prefer to see all of the things that he mentioned be addressed properly in all future DVD releases? He was making a legitimate commentary of things that he, and MANY of the rest of us, all find wrong with current DVD releases.

And I don't want to hear anyone say anything about him being snobby and elitist, because, for the most part, anything that he said that could be taken that way came about after everyone started attacking him.

As I stated earlier, I agree that sometimes you do go ahead and buy FF DVD's if that is all that is available, but that was not even part of his original post. All he said was that DVD's should be released OAR.Originally posted by jough
That's because cinephiles prefer to see the entire image, as framed by the director. Framing of shots and camera movements are very VERY important artistic decisions. Cinephiles prefer to see camera movements as directed, not false camera movements added by an intern working for the studio's home video department, who adds a camera move that was not present in the film, but has been added so that audiences could see who was speaking when nearly half of the frame is obscured in a "full" screen release.

. . .

Cinephiles would prefer that there be only a single release: OAR.Can anyone actually say that they would not prefer their non-OAR releases to be released in OAR? That's all he was saying . . .

As for inserts, again, he only said that he wished all DVD's had them. Then he stated how he personally deals with situations in which DVD's that he is considering do not have inserts. Never once did he suggest, imply, or demand that anyone else do the same.

I agree with you jough . . . I'd like it if everyone of these things where addressed . . . even the part about non-skippable trailers, which I have previously stated (in other threads), don't really bother me. DVD's would be improved if they were gone, too.

Edit:Originally posted by Wizdar
What I find funny is that, as a troll thread, this isn’t even original.And why is it that when ever anyone wants to start a legitimate discussion about something it is labelled a "troll thread". Have you ever read any of jough's other posts? Not exactly troll material for the most part.

DVDho78DTS
11-03-03, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by talemyn
Have you ever read any of jough's other posts? Not exactly troll material for the most part.

Yeah, when I think of jough I think Indiana Jones, Best Buy, chase Manager to Restricted Area. Bad story but a funny one.

The man is very passionate about his DVD's. :)

talemyn
11-03-03, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by DVD-ho78(DTS)
Yeah, when I think of jough I think Indiana Jones, Best Buy, chase Manager to Restricted Area. Bad story but a funny one. I love that story too. :lol: BTW, jough, did you ever post whatever it was that the regional manager said he was going to send you?

The Third Jake
11-03-03, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by gutwrencher
half a bingo?-wink- Yeah. Close, but not a true bingo. Maybe the four corners. (That one's for all the grandmothers out there.)

Anyway, I totally agree with you. I just wouldn't describe everything besides the movie as meaningless. Subordinate would be more like it.

jough
11-03-03, 11:58 PM
Yes, Disney has had forced trailers for ages, but at least on their recent big title release, "The Lion King" you can skip past them easily.

I'd still prefer they not be there at all, but I mentioned "The Hulk" because it was the hot-button issue of the week.

Sometimes I forget that people don't read any other threads but mine. ;)

I wanted to address the small issues that I've noticed many other people were incensed about in a single thread.

EPKJ
11-04-03, 01:02 AM
You think that people are incensed by lack of inserts? I think that you are out of touch.

BizRodian
11-04-03, 01:04 AM
There have always been trailers in front of your movies? funny, this has never happened to me until a few DVDs started doing it.

El-Kabong
11-04-03, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by talemyn
I don't see why everyone is jumping on jough. Can anyone honestly say that you wouldn't prefer to see all of the things that he mentioned be addressed properly in all future DVD releases? He was making a legitimate commentary of things that he, and MANY of the rest of us, all find wrong with current DVD releases.

In a perfect world, yeah - of course I'd love every release to be a widescreen disc with a fantastic transfer and loaded to the brim with extras. Sadly we dont live in a perfect world, and I'll take what I can get.

And I don't want to hear anyone say anything about him being snobby and elitist, because, for the most part, anything that he said that could be taken that way came about after everyone started attacking him.

Guess you must have read a different thread than I was, because that first post was VERY condescending to the 'joe 6-packs' - or indeed anyone who would dare tolerate a insert-less pan and scan version of their favorite film. And of course it only went down hill from there.

Of course I've always thought that the whole distinction around here between Cinephiles and J6P'ers in of itself is an elitist and snobbish view. Just because they don't like what you like doesn't give you the right to rip on them.

DonnachaOne
11-04-03, 01:16 AM
DVDs aren't getting any cheaper
I still see criterions that are $40
wtf up with that

gcribbs
11-04-03, 01:48 AM
I also want to see my dvd's in OAR :)

I do not want them to make a 4:3 film or Tv show into 16:9 just to make it widescreen nor do I want to see a 2.35:1 film cut down to 1.33:1 to fill someone's small TV.

I guess that makes me an elitist :lol:

I do however like to have insert free dvd's :o

It makes it easier to tell floaters from inserts when I shake a dvd at the store :)

do I own some altered dvd's- yes :(

Joel
11-04-03, 02:15 AM
Phew. This thread. It took me a while to understand the whole concept of cheapening, and now I have lots of comment swimming in my head reading all your posts. Don't know where to start writing it down :D. So let me highlight some comments.

Originally posted by El-Kabong
What a load of elitist film snob crap. By your 'definition' I'm not a cinephile because I own and enjoy pan and scan films. I'm not a cinephile despitre a big screen TV, 1,000+ DVDs and laserdiscs and really kickin' DVD player.
...
So, you are saying that I shouldnt enjoy these films JUST because they don't present the film widescreen?
...
And frankly, I wouldnt want to be part of this elitist anal retentive film snob club anyway. I enjoy the movies, not the freakin' box that it came in, or a silly piece of paper with chapter stops on it, or the extras that did or didn't get packed in with it.
Mostly I'm with you. But I really don't think it is necessary to take things this hard. For me "Cinephile" is just a freaking title. The same as "Joe-Six-Pack" thing. Some people are proud of bearing this title, while it doesn't mean anything to the others.

Originally posted by talemyn
And I don't want to hear anyone say anything about him being snobby and elitist, because, for the most part, anything that he said that could be taken that way came about after everyone started attacking him.
Well .. I will quote this ..
Are there some valid points made? Yes, but presented in a way that I find arrogant and self-righteous,
I'm sure jough meant no harm in creating this thread .. but when you care to ask about my first thoughts, marty888 has said it all :D.

Anyway. Here's my comments on the cheapening.

1) Full Screen/Pan & Scan/"Standard" Ratio Transfers
Tell me about it. I am a VCD consumer .. yeah, you heard me. So it doesn't really matter to me. Of course when it comes to DVDs, I'd still prefer widescreen version. The reason is clear. Extra money to get extra quality.

2) No insert.
It is just a printed paper. Bonus is bonus. Good to have, won't miss it if it's not there.

3) Keepcase vs. Digipack/Snapper Cases
In my limited collection, I have all the cases. Keepcase, Digipack and Snapper. No problem with that. When I buy DVDs, I look for the movies and not the cases.

4) Forced Trailers
I love trailers :).

5) Double-Dipping
Haven't had to do double-dipping cause I am very slow in purchasing DVDs. Even when a studio re-releasing better versions of a movie that I have bought earlier, I don't think I will bother to buy it double. I will rent it instead, just to notify the difference.

6) Non-Anamorphic Transfers for Widescreen Ratios
Good to see all my collections are anamorphic, in coincidence. Never really give it a thought, not until I have 16:9 TV.

7) Promotional Special Features
Have no problem with this. I'd love to watch all kind of features. If one day I get bored, I can skip it.

8) DVD-ROM/Web Content en lieu of DVD-Video Content
Usually I ignore this bonus. Never want to have trouble opening it from my bro's computer.

From a Joe-Six-Pack (or a Jane, whatever), all I can say, things that are cheapening DVDs are very subjective. It depends on our expectation, on how we would like to spend our money and time on it.

Let's enjoy movies .. presented in the most suitable ways we choose to have.

talemyn
11-04-03, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by El-Kabong
In a perfect world, yeah - of course I'd love every release to be a widescreen disc with a fantastic transfer and loaded to the brim with extras.I believe that was his point . . .Originally posted by El-Kabong
Guess you must have read a different thread than I was, because that first post was VERY condescending to the 'joe 6-packs' - or indeed anyone who would dare tolerate a insert-less pan and scan version of their favorite film. And of course it only went down hill from there.Interesting, because, he never mentioned J6P's until the very last line:Originally posted by jough
I look forward to hearing from my fellow Cinephile's and the Joe-Six-Pack's alike on these issues. Originally posted by El-Kabong
Of course I've always thought that the whole distinction around here between Cinephiles and J6P'ers in of itself is an elitist and snobbish view. Just because they don't like what you like doesn't give you the right to rip on them. I think that you are missing a big distinction here. Cinephiles are people who take an extreme interest in film. They study it, they research it, and they put a lot of time into knowing about and enjoying it. There is a natural inclination to be a bit defensive when people do not appreciate your interests and yet, still impact your ability to enjoy them (e.g., the proclivity for FF by J6P's can influences a cinephiles ability to find OAR releases).

I think that a great comparison is vinophiles. My uncle has an excellent understanding of and appreciation for wine. He has spent many years experiencing and learning about different wines . . . learning their subtleties . . . learning what to enjoy them with . . . learning how to enjoy them. He has every right to be indignant if he has to go the extra mile to find a decent wine because people like me will drink most anything that is put in front of me (not to mention the people who regularly enjoy Boone's Farms). He has put effort into his interest and I'm sure that he feels some level of disrespect when people don't recognize his level of dedication to his interest.

I think that the important thing to recognize is that there is a difference between cinephiles and J6P's. J6P's do not recognize the full potential of what films have to offer. They don't appreciate the intricacies that cinephiles do. That doesn't make J6P's worse people, but it does make them ignorant (using the technical definition of "resulting from or showing lack of knowledge") to everything that a film has to offer.

Yes, there is a certain level of condescention in the term Joe Six-Pack, but more than anything, it is more a playful and convenient way of saying "people who don't appreciate movies". That's the way I use it and that is the way I interpret it when other people use it. The context of it's use may show less respect, but the term in itself doesn't necessary mean anything bad (like "jock" or "techie").

Anyway . . . enough for now . . .

jough
11-04-03, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by EPKJ
You think that people are incensed by lack of inserts? I think that you are out of touch.
I think it is YOU who are out of touch.
Perhaps you don't read these forums much.
I wouldn't say that they're incensed as such,
but just the same, as with the films they watch
folks 'round these parts prefer an insert with their discs to match.

There is an entire SUBFORUM devoted to the subject of inserts in DVDs and other packaging:

http://dvdtalk.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=35

And many many threads just in the past month asking about whether a title has an insert, people arguing back and forth about whether DVDs *should* have inserts.

I didn't make this agon up - I just added it to a list of common gripes people have about things that used to be STANDARD and EXPECTED and now no longer are a *given*.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=326593&highlight=insert

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=309630&highlight=insert

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=302534

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=302858&highlight=insert

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=293106&highlight=insert

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=298231

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=292224&highlight=insert


I think I've made my point.

djtoell
11-04-03, 03:36 AM
Originally posted by jough
but just the same, as with the films they watch
folks 'round these parts prefer an insert with their discs to match.

Some folks. Please don't make a blanket statement that pretends to speak for the entire forum membership.

I think I've made my point.

If your point is that a lot of people obsess on inserts, you're quite right. Of course, a whole lot of people dislike having those black bars on their TV sets, too. Safety isn't always to be found in numbers.

DJ

jough
11-04-03, 03:42 AM
I think I can make an easy blanket statement:

People would rather have an insert in their DVD case than NOT have one given the option.

I have yet to read a thread where someone has said "I just throw mine away. I HATE inserts!"

Don't waste your time proving me wrong by posting one now. -ohbfrank-

djtoell
11-04-03, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by jough
I think I can make an easy blanket statement:

People would rather have an insert in their DVD case than NOT have one given the option.

I have yet to read a thread where someone has said "I just throw mine away. I HATE inserts!"

Your false black-or-white dichotomy misses a third option: people who don't have a preference either way. Thus, when you state that "folks prefer inserts," you mischaracterize those who neither prefer nor hate inserts. When an insert is simply a reproduction of the cover on one side and a chapter listing on the reverse, as many if not most of them are, I neither prefer to have such an insert, no do I hate it. I couldn't care either way. Classifying me as preferring inserts given the option is therefore erroneous.

Don't waste your time proving me wrong by posting one now. -ohbfrank-

Don't waste my time by pretending you speak for the entire universe. Just speak for yourself. I never elected you as my spokesperson, so please stop playing one.

DJ

talemyn
11-04-03, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by djtoell
Your false black-or-white dichotomy misses a third option: people who don't have a preference either way. Thus, when you state that "folks prefer inserts," you mischaracterize those who neither prefer nor hate inserts. When an insert is simply a reproduction of the cover on one side and a chapter listing on the reverse, as many if not most of them are, I neither prefer to have such an insert, no do I hate it. I couldn't care either way. Classifying me as preferring inserts given the option is therefore erroneous.I have to say that I don't truely believe that "third option" exists. You may not put a lot of importance on it, but deep down, you must have a preference one way or the other. Think about it this way . . . if there was such a thing as a customizable DVD ordering service and in placing your order for the next DVD that you want to purchase, you need to choose either "With Insert" or "Without Insert" before you are allowed to place your order, which would you pick?

I think (and correct me if I'm wrong, jough) that this is what jough is getting at. If we, as the customers, could choose how DVD's were released, would we include an insert or not? I tend to agree with him that a majority of people, if given the choice, would say, "Yeah . . . go ahead and throw it in there . . ." Of course, they would probably also ask for a little more content in those inserts, but that is a slightly different question.

Anyway . . . if a CSR were to ask you, "Do you want an insert in your DVD,?" saying, "I don't care," wouldn't get you anywhere but to a follow-up of, "I'm sorry, but I need a 'Yes' or a 'No' in order to put together your DVD". Whatever your response then, either puts you in the "likes inserts" or "doesn't like inserts" group.

Originally posted by djtoell
Don't waste my time by pretending you speak for the entire universe. Just speak for yourself. I never elected you as my spokesperson, so please stop playing one.

And I don't think jough was "speaking for" the "entire universe" . . . I believe he was making an observation based the opinions that he has seen expressed in this forum.

djtoell
11-04-03, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by talemyn
I have to say that I don't truely believe that "third option" exists. You may not put a lot of importance on it, but deep down, you must have a preference one way or the other.

Please don't tell me what I "must" feel. You're neither my father nor a psychic, so spare me the lecture and false insight.

Think about it this way . . . if there was such a thing as a customizable DVD ordering service and in placing your order for the next DVD that you want to purchase, you need to choose either "With Insert" or "Without Insert" before you are allowed to place your order, which would you pick?

The world is not a series of 1s and 0s, of boxes that require checking. In the real world, there is a third option: no preference. I do not have to make a choice simply because you want me to. Given the option, I still don't care. Your imaginary customizable DVD service and CSR can make their own random choices for me.

Try this one out on yourself: would you prefer that your DVD's UPC number be 3-234324-342 or 3-364335-345? Do you really have a preference? How about deep down inside yourself, even if you don't place any importance on it? What if a CSR for a customizable DVD service forced you to make a choice? Would you then really have a preference? Or, is it the case that it's so incredibly irrelevant that, even if someone forces you to choose, it still doesn't matter?

One does not have to have a preference on everything. The presence of ordinary chapter listing inserts is as inconsequential to me as having a particular UPC number. If you literally force me to choose by holding a gun to me, I will (just as I would imagine you'd choose a particular UPC number in that situation), but that doesn't mean I actually have a preference.

And I don't think jough was "speaking for" the "entire universe" . . . I believe he was making an observation based the opinions that he has seen expressed in this forum.

And his observation was that there was only one opinion that anyone, anywhere had, and that it was his. This was obviously in error.

DJ

mdm67
11-04-03, 05:02 AM
Hi, there!
it's an interesting thread, colliding opinions are a good thing.
sometimes they collide because they lose control.

I'd like to ask jough: you are a cinephile, you have every symptom of the illness, but what do you do when an important movie you have never seen is released on a poor DVD edition? do you give up your chance - maybe your only lifetime chance to watch it - since it received a crappy DVD release?

I'd like to ask Kabong: once you know a movie, have seen it, do you need and like to own it even when it receives a poor DVD edition? I guess you had never seen the Godzilla movies, otherwise your interest doesn't reside in the movies but in owning DVD's.

As for the rest I don't think the cheapening of DVD's is an issue, I mean: look at the threads discussed when DVD's were starting being mainstream, the main fear then was that WS releases could even disappear. I think DVD is mainstream but the cinephiles can still be satisfied.

As for the inserts my situation is bizarre: I never read them but I hate to open a new DVD and see that the insert is missing.
I don't care about cases until they perform what they have to perform: protecting the disc.
As for double-dipping: I spend a lot of time before buying a DVD, I have my list of movies I want and every month the studios release too much titles for my pocket, so I pick them carefully and upgrading is a remote option: a good collector needs to be patient.
Overall I can say I'm very happy with DVD's. This month makes 3 years since I started collecting DVD's, it was a good choice of time to start collecting, as I already said: if you want to be an happy collector patience is a virtue. 22 years ago when I started collecting films on VHS I wasn't patient at all, in the end I was disgusted for the waste of money it ended to be: though I'm glad that thanks to VHS I had the chance to watch movies I could never had the chance to watch otherwise. So in the end it wasn't a waste of money. I like movies, I'm a cinephile - since I watch thousands of film, I read tons of books and magazines, I always watch movies in OAR and I hate dubbing, at least I act like one of them - and I think DVD is the best thing happened to films after cinema itself.

<A HREF="http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=mdm67">My Collection</A>

Wizdar
11-04-03, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by talemyn
I don't see why everyone is jumping on jough. Ya know, had this thread been a spoof, a work of satire, I would have considered it a masterful piece of brilliance. The way jough worked over El-Kabong, egging him on with forgiveness of his errant ways whilst using his own sarcasm against him – pure genius.

But, no, jough actually believes himself to be the “cinephile” he claims to be. Well, he is no “cinephile,” he’s a fraud. A “cinephile,” faced with the decision of two DVDs but only being able to purchase one, would consider the filmmakers, which one was more worthy of being added to the collection. A “cinephile” would consider his collection and which title would be the best to add. A “cinephile” would never publicly admit to being swayed by the lack of an insert.

jough, you, Sir, are a fraud, and a pretentious and arrogant one at that. Please clean out your locker and leave the building.
Originally posted by jough
I think I've made my point. In more ways than you realize. ;)





Originally posted by gcribbs
It makes it easier to tell floaters from inserts when I shake a dvd at the store :) :lol: :up: But people still look at you weird when you shake ‘em.

EPKJ
11-04-03, 05:32 AM
"There is an entire SUBFORUM devoted to the subject of inserts in DVDs and other packaging:"

So what? I have read many of these threads. People are not incensed about inserts. One or two individuals ask a question and many people make joking responses. You are out of touch. Words have meaning. Incensed is a very powerful word and yet you chose to use it in this context.

talemyn
11-04-03, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by djtoell
Please don't tell me what I "must" feel. You're neither my father nor a psychic, so spare me the lecture and false insight.I don't believe I've ever encountered someone so touchy before. I'm not trying to order you around, I'm simply stating a practical fact. I absolutely agree that the world is not black and white, however, it is filled with situations in which we must choose a black or white as an answer. In general, this is done by analyzing all available and relevant (in any way) data, to a level of completeness that is allowed by current circumstances (generally time and availible information), and deciding where ones overall feelings lie in between the given "one" and "zero". After that has been established, the general feeling is then analyzed to see towards which end of the spectum it leans. Based on this, the "black or white" decision is made.

Maybe it's the word "preference" that got us into this little mess. Would "choice" work better? Let's say that there were two DVD's of a movie that you really wanted on a shelf (use your most current "must have") and you knew that one had an insert in it and the other didn't but apart from that, everything else was identical. Which one would you choose? That seems to be more like what the original post is discussing. There is no option of "I don't care" . . . assuming that you are going to buy the movie you only have the choices of with or without.

Some people decide based on only somewhat related information (e.g., don't want inserts because they are aren't worth killing trees, don't want inserts because you can't tell when you shake the DVD in the store if it is a loose DVD or the insert rattling -- thanks to gcribbs for that one :) --, etc.). Personally, I don't get much out of the inserts themselves in most cases (except when they provide additional information as in Dogma, Hackers, etc.) I have one related "preference" that lead to my "choice" of wanting inserts: I like the look and consistancy of having inserts in all of my cases rather than having it vary from one to another. It is not a specifc preference for the inserts, but almost more of a design preference that led me to that choice. Either way, however, I made a choice.

You basically state that you don't have an opinion . . . the only people who don't have opinions are the ones who are dead.

djtoell
11-04-03, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by talemyn
Maybe it's the word "preference" that got us into this little mess. Would "choice" work better? Let's say that there were two DVD's of a movie that you really wanted on a shelf (use your most current "must have") and you knew that one had an insert in it and the other didn't but apart from that, everything else was identical. Which one would you choose? That seems to be more like what the original post is discussing. There is no option of "I don't care" . . . assuming that you are going to buy the movie you only have the choices of with or without.

If, somehow, every possible aspect other than the presence of the insert was equal in my mind, I would make a random choice. The presence of the insert would not be a factor. There is, indeed, the option of "I don't care." I don't have to care about the insert simply because you say I do. The presence of the insert would not be a factor in my decision, nor would the frequency of the letter "E" in the text on the back of the DVD case, nor would how many stars Roger Ebert gave the film, nor would the ethnicity of the director. Inserts are just one in a long list of things that do not affect my opinion of a DVD, and, even if you force me to choose, the choice will be unaffected by the presence of the insert.

Imagine you were going to buy one of two releases that were of identical quality in your mind, except one had the UPC number 3-432446-324 and the other had the UPC number 3-324236-233. Which one would you choose?

Do you prefer white people or black people? Imagine you were going to buy one of two releases that were of identical quality in your mind, except one was directed by a white person and one was directed by a black person. Which one would you choose?

You basically state that you don't have an opinion . . . the only people who don't have opinions are the ones who are dead.

Oh really? So what's your opinion on which UPC number is better: 3-432446-324 or 3-324236-233? Which race is better: white or black?

It is possible to not have an opinion on a topic, no matter how many times you keep telling me otherwise. This doesn't mean I'm dead, it means I don't have to listen to your demands to make a choice.

DJ

talemyn
11-04-03, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by djtoell
Oh really? So what's your opinion on which UPC number is better: 3-432446-324 or 3-324236-233? Which race is better: white or black?The UPC code, a peice of irrelevant (to the movie owner) information, is hardly comparable to an insert which (however important you deem it) does provide additional design aspects (e.g., artwork, screenshots, etc.) and related information (e.g., chapter information, movie information, etc.). However, to answer your question, given the option (and assuming I noticed that they UPC's were different), I would go with 3-324236-233 because I like the symmetry of the 332...233.

I'm not even going to touch the race question both because it is irrelevant to the issue at hand and the question itself is in poor taste to begin with, but I do admit, without hesitation that I have an opinion on the issue just, like, I am sure, that you and everyone else, who is cognizant of the fact that different races exist, does.

It is impossible not to.

Forum Troll
11-04-03, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by El-Kabong

Or what about the Remo Williams

I wanted Remo in widescreen as well, it was my most wanted DVD. Since the DVD was an open matte presentation, no big deal. I captured the movie from my DVD player to my computer as an AVI, used TMPGENC to crop off pixels to give it a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, encode to 16:9, author in DVDIt, and I have Remo the way it should be. I threw the original disc in the trash, I don't even miss it. (I know that the Japanese release is in anamorphic widescreen, but I'm too lazy to import the disc and buy a multi-region player.)

Just my $0.02.

marty888
11-04-03, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by talemyn
Let's say that there were two DVD's of a movie that you really wanted on a shelf (use your most current "must have") and you knew that one had an insert in it and the other didn't but apart from that, everything else was identical. Which one would you choose? That seems to be more like what the original post is discussing.

Actually, I'd be willing to exercise my brain and actually make a decision NOT based on a lame factor. This is a little like saying you have an extra ticket for a concert, and you'll decide which of your friends to invite based, say, on who is wearing the nicest shirt.

EPKJ
11-04-03, 07:36 AM
"The UPC code, a peice of irrelevant (to the movie owner) information, ..."

The UPC code is as relevant to deciding which DVD to buy as an insert. In other words, it is not at all relevant. One buys a DVD to watch the movie not to read the insert or the UPC code. If one has a choice between two films which one wants, what would jough do if both had equal inserts? Would he then decide based on which UPC code looked better to him? Would he base it on which keep case cover was placed straighter? Do you begin to see the absurdity of jough's position?

"Interesting, because, he never mentioned J6P's until the very last line:"

So what? The point is that he did mention it, and by so doing drew a line of division which is elitist. It isn't anymore interesting that this is in his last sentence than if it had been in his first.

RKillgore
11-04-03, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by jough in Kill Bill DVD News!!! (http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=4223441#post4223441)
Yeah, we need a niche format again, like LD, where the transfers were crappy and licensed out freely to sub-standard companies, where we can pay $200 for a multi-disc set of discs that we have to flip over every half an hour, where we have to travel an hour and a half to find a store that sells them, and we can show off our home theatres to visiting friends and family and watch the drool slowly ooze down their chin as they grind their teeth in envy...

Yeah, those were the days...
(Echo effect)"the days...the days...the days...the days..."

Flashback: Ten years ago at jough's home theatre

jough: Look, look upon the grandeur of my home theatre, you commoners. Surely you wish that you could own such splendor, but unfortunately for you, the discs are expensive and rare. But look at the quality of the image, hear the fullness of the sound. Your puny VHS pales in comparison to the might of my home theatre. Gnash and wail in envy, for I am.....a Cinephile! Ha Ha Ha Ha Haaaaa!

Flashforward: Present day

jough: Look, look upon the grandeur of my home thea....

guest: Uh, thanks, jough, but we've already got that DVD and watched it in our own home theatre. DVDs are great aren't they? And so affordable.

jough: But, but...I've spent many years and many thousands of dollars in the pursuit of the cinema. How dare you have something comparable to my beloved theatre experience? Don't you understand? I...I am....a Cinephile.

guest: Right. We'll see you later, OK, jough?

As guest leaves, we switch to a rotating overhead slow zoom of jough's upturned anguished face and clenched fists as he stares up into the pouring rain. (Why's it raining in jough's home theatre? For dramatic effect.)
jough: WHY, GOD, WHYYYY!!!!

I think that's what's really bothering jough. Home theatres are mainstream and DVDs are now mass market. And though practically all of us at DVDTalk prefer OAR over fullscreen, a sizable portion of the mass market prefers fullscreen. Fortunately, that portion is shrinking and there's no danger of widescreen being eliminated, as many feared. But, this increased market, fullscreen buyer included, have increased demand and it's resulted in many positive improvements that Iron_Giant pointed out (http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=4220479#post4220479) and jough conveniently ignored.

Myself, speaking as a guy who likes DVDs, I think the improvements outweigh the "cheapening".

talemyn
11-04-03, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by marty888
Actually, I'd be willing to exercise my brain and actually make a decision NOT based on a lame factor. This is a little like saying you have an extra ticket for a concert, and you'll decide which of your friends to invite based, say, on who is wearing the nicest shirt. Okay . . . we are straying even further from the original point here, but let me see if I can draw it back in.

I was using an extreme example because I was getting nothing from reasonable ones. But your example is in line with what I was trying to say which was that there are always inputs into the decision making process that allow you to make a decision.

Now, if you had two friends and one extra ticket, hopefully, you would be able to figure out a reason to pick one before it got down to how their shirts look, but for some people (not me) that might actually be a factor. Maybe they are hoping to pick up girls at the concert and one of the friends is wearing a shirt that, for whatever reason, is going to repel them like cat's from a vacuum cleaner. The ability of the other friends more attractive shirt to not drive away women could be a preference, however superficial or shallow, that impacts the decision.

May be it it has the opposite effect so that the person says, "Wow, my buddy is really a rotten dresser . . . nobody is ever going to invite him to a concert if I don't," and that affects the choice the other way.

The whole point that I saw Jough making was that, if given the ability to choose to have inserts put into DVD's or not, which way would go? Even if you don't care about inserts, there are always, if nothing else, external "forces" (i.e. the desire to preserve trees, the ability to hear a "floater" DVD rattle around the case, etc.) that allow you to at least make a decision. It shouldn't be this hard to get people to give and answer about whether or not they want inserts in DVD's.

talemyn
11-04-03, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by EPKJ
"The UPC code, a peice of irrelevant (to the movie owner) information, ..."

The UPC code is as relevant to deciding which DVD to buy as an insert. In other words, it is not at all relevant. One buys a DVD to watch the movie not to read the insert or the UPC code. If one has a choice between two films which one wants, what would jough do if both had equal inserts? Would he then decide based on which UPC code looked better to him? Would he base it on which keep case cover was placed straighter? Do you begin to see the absurdity of jough's position?

Wow . . . I'm starting to take more heat on this post that jough was.

Please don't get me wrong . . . I'm am not encouraging people to make buying decisions based on whether or not there are inserts in DVD's. Neither am I saying that they should put more importance on the insert as part of the package. I was just saying that I found it hard to believe that, given the question "Would you choose to have inserts put into DVD cases, if given if you had that decision?" that a resonable person could not come up with a "Yes" or "No" answer.

Originally posted by EPKJ
"Interesting, because, he never mentioned J6P's until the very last line:"

So what? The point is that he did mention it, and by so doing drew a line of division which is elitist. It isn't anymore interesting that this is in his last sentence than if it had been in his first. Hmmm . . . you and I must be interpretting the following line differently.Originally posted by jough
I look forward to hearing from my fellow Cinephile's and the Joe-Six-Pack's alike on these issues.I guess I can see how it could be taken negatively, but honestly, I just read it as, "I welcome anyone's comments."

dtcarson
11-04-03, 10:53 AM
FWIW, I interpret this
"I look forward to hearing from my fellow Cinephile's and the Joe-Six-Pack's alike on these issues."
as in part an invite for all opinions from all 'types' of DVD viewer, which is good, but it does seem to be a black/white 'them/us' kind of thing. I'm not a Joe Six Pack, I have an opinion on why OAR is better, I can tell a difference between progressive scan and S-video, I like 5.1+ mixes; but I'm probably not a cinephile, especially based on RKillgore's very entertaining scene above; I like bad movies, I have bought non-OAR in the past, my entire 'home theater', counting tv and cables, probably cost less than 3000$, I only got into dvd about two years ago, I'm not willling to pay 100$ for a 'collector's copy' of Salo, and I do buy some dvd's from WalMart, if they have the product I want for the right price. I'm midway between J6P and Cinephiliacs, and I like that dvd is more mainstream, because they're easier to find/buy, *very* affordable in general, and you can find lots of people to discuss them with.
Re: inserts; to me, they're a bonus. An informative, booklet-type insert is a "Hey, cool" but not a decision rule; a scene-listing insert is pretty much pointless to me. Honestly, is there really any information that might be in an insert, that you want to read, that you couldn't find on the internet?

EPKJ
11-04-03, 10:57 AM
"I was just saying that I found it hard to believe that, given the question "Would you choose to have inserts put into DVD cases, if given if you had that decision?" that a resonable person could not come up with a "Yes" or "No" answer."

I think that you are ignoring the fact that a reasonable person might say "I don't care.". A reasonable man might say that he is only purchasing a movie, and thus only cares about the quality of the actual DVD. I also think that your question ignores the fact that all inserts are not created equal. I love the inserts in Blue Underground's Spaghetti Western Collection because they are short booklets containing interesting essays on the films. I really don't care about a piece of paper with a chapter list and a picture.

"I guess I can see how it could be taken negatively, but honestly, I just read it as, "I welcome anyone's comments.""

It can only be taken negatively. You are misreading it. Consider that he could have said "anyone" but he deliberately chose to draw a line of division between cinephiles, with whom he identifies, and Joe-Six-Packs, with whom he does not. To regard jough's comments as not negative is to ignore the deliberation of his action. Jough meant to draw that distinction or he would not have made it. As he places himself in one group, he clearly implies a negative about the other. In fact, the very term Joe-Six-Pack is, by definition, derogatory.

wago70
11-04-03, 11:10 AM
I like the original post. Now, I only wish the studios and low-budget line of DVD producers have taken notice.

talemyn
11-04-03, 12:08 PM
I give up . . .

RKillgore
11-04-03, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by dtcarson
...RKillgore's very entertaining scene...
Thanks :)

It was entertaining to find what jough's said before on other threads, especially when I find gold like this:
Originally posted by jough in I watched a full frame movie tonight (http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=4222929#post4222929)
Hey, man, I like a good open matte version sometimes. On the Kingpin (1996) disc you see more of Vanessa Angel in the full frame version.
One could argue that open-matte is not pan-and-scan, which it isn't, but it's not OAR, either. ;)

Wizdar
11-04-03, 12:29 PM
Just wondering: where on the case does it say “comes with/does not come with insert”? I guess a “cinephile” would have done his/her research before even stepping into the store, but I honestly have trouble finding reliable info on non-anamorphic releases.




BTW, had jough professed to be a DVD-phile, I doubt I would have had a problem with the arrogant nature of his posts. Go figure.

gutwrencher
11-04-03, 12:33 PM
I guess the reason I dont care about inserts is because I prefer to make my own, especially in the place of a one-sheet chapter list. a booklet is always welcome....but one-sheets I find to be a waste of paper. I'd rather construct my own booklet with reveiws and tidbits of information...custom made to fit my needs. sometimes they dont look perfect...but all I want is info that I can reflect on while watching or getting ready to watch a film/dvd. works for me anyway.:D

resinrats
11-04-03, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by jough
So you're saying that's a good thing? I'm saying that's a bad thing - and that if no one purchased the P&S version they'd have to put out Widescreen in order to make any money.


Actually it would probably result in NO additonal versions of the movie, subs, WS or otherwise. If the studio puts out Godzilla and nobody buys it, what does it tell the studio. Nobody gives a crap about Big G. Why would they put out another version if they think they will loose money on it? If I was running the company, I wouldn't put it out.

The only way for it to work is for everyone who refuses to by a P&S dubbed version of the movie to contact the studio and let them know why you are not buying. This way, the know there is a market out there for these films and are more likely to release another version.

marty888
11-04-03, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Wizdar




BTW, had jough professed to be a DVD-phile, I doubt I would have had a problem with the arrogant nature of his posts. Go figure.

Nothing to figure - I agree with that completely.

djtoell
11-04-03, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by talemyn
The UPC code, a peice of irrelevant (to the movie owner) information, is hardly comparable to an insert which (however important you deem it) does provide additional design aspects (e.g., artwork, screenshots, etc.) and related information (e.g., chapter information, movie information, etc.).

I, and apparently others, consider the insert as relevant as the UPC code. Just because you deem it more important for yourself, it doesn't mean it has some kind of objective relevance that others must take into consideration when making a purchase. Perhaps this will come as a shock to you, but your opinion does not hold the force of objectivity, and the rest of the world need not fall in line with the absurd everyone-must-have-an-opinion way you see things.

I'm not even going to touch the race question both because it is irrelevant to the issue at hand and the question itself is in poor taste to begin with

Taste aside, I believe the issue is as relevant to DVD purchasing habits as inserts.

but I do admit, without hesitation that I have an opinion on the issue just, like, I am sure, that you and everyone else, who is cognizant of the fact that different races exist, does.

It is impossible not to.

It is impossible to not care what the race of a director is? It's impossible to not make a DVD buying decision based upon the race of the director when all other factors are equal? To take a cue from your sig's Princess Bride quote: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Being cognizant of differences does not mean one must have an opinion. Not all differences are necessarily qualitative ones, and there is no law of nature that requires us to hold an opinion on every conceivable topic. It is, indeed, possible to not care about something.

DJ

El-Kabong
11-04-03, 01:50 PM
Geeze - I go to bed and the argument explodes all around me. Well, you'll have to forgive me as I jump back a page or two. . . .

Originally posted by mdm67
I'd like to ask Kabong: once you know a movie, have seen it, do you need and like to own it even when it receives a poor DVD edition? I guess you had never seen the Godzilla movies, otherwise your interest doesn't reside in the movies but in owning DVD's.

I'd seen the Godzilla movies - but not for years and years and years, and there were a couple of the newer ones that I hadnt seen yet. I used to love watching them on the Saturday afternoon Sci-Fi theater on TV, and was eagerly re-watching the films. The disc was mostly irrelevant - laserdisc, DVD - whatever. It was the films that I cared about.

Originally posted by talemyn
Let's say that there were two DVD's of a movie that you really wanted on a shelf (use your most current "must have") and you knew that one had an insert in it and the other didn't but apart from that, everything else was identical. Which one would you choose? That seems to be more like what the original post is discussing. There is no option of "I don't care" . . . assuming that you are going to buy the movie you only have the choices of with or without.

Well, no two discs will ever be so perfectly balanced like this. There will always be another outside force - price, rarity, my own desires - that come into play. What was I in the mood to watch tonight? Is my collection genre heavy of one of these discs? Is one older and likely to go out of print? Do I have enough money to afford BOTH, and that sort of thing. Does one disc have an insert would come about 98th on the list of 100 things to consider.

But you know, if not having an insert makes the discs cheaper - then suddenly I *DO* have an opinion. Get rid of them. Show 'em the door. Give 'em their walking papers. Cheaper is better in my mind, and frankly the damn things are useless, pointless and silly. If more studios emulated the MGM Midnight Movies line - good transfer bare bones releases with no inserts at an amazingly low price - I would support that 1,000 percent.

The UPC code, a peice of irrelevant (to the movie owner) information, is hardly comparable to an insert which (however important you deem it) does provide additional design aspects (e.g., artwork, screenshots, etc.) and related information (e.g., chapter information, movie information, etc.).

You know - strangely, with all the talk of UPC codes and their importance to the disc, I would say that I value the UPC much more than I value an insert. The UPC is the way that I enter the disc into my database tracking program. Discs without one (and I do have a few) are MUCH harder to input than ones with.

With an insert, I don’t think I've ever even glanced at it, aside from "Oh, that's nice".

kmac
11-04-03, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by talemyn
I think that the important thing to recognize is that there is a difference between cinephiles and J6P's. J6P's do not recognize the full potential of what films have to offer. They don't appreciate the intricacies that cinephiles do. That doesn't make J6P's worse people, but it does make them ignorant (using the technical definition of "resulting from or showing lack of knowledge") to everything that a film has to offer.

Yes, there is a certain level of condescention in the term Joe Six-Pack, but more than anything, it is more a playful and convenient way of saying "people who don't appreciate movies". That's the way I use it and that is the way I interpret it when other people use it. The context of it's use may show less respect, but the term in itself doesn't necessary mean anything bad (like "jock" or "techie").

I politely disagree with you. Just because someone does not choose to watch widescreen or listen to a commentary or whatever does not mean they do not appreciate movies.

My father loves movies and has for years. He doesn't watch all widescreen or listen to commentaries, but he DOES appreciate movies. He doesn't have a big TV so he would rather watch full frame.

Movies are meant for everyone. Not just people who consider themselves 'cinephiles'. Most J6Ps (like my Dad) choose to be "ignorant" (your definition above). They feel that they have better things to do in their lives than watch a movie numerous times and study film.

talemyn
11-04-03, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by kmac
I politely disagree with you. Just because someone does not choose to watch widescreen or listen to a commentary or whatever does not mean they do not appreciate movies.

My father loves movies and has for years. He doesn't watch all widescreen or listen to commentaries, but he DOES appreciate movies. He doesn't have a big TV so he would rather watch full frame.

Movies are meant for everyone. Not just people who consider themselves 'cinephiles'. Most J6Ps (like my Dad) choose to be "ignorant" (your definition above). They feel that they have better things to do in their lives than watch a movie numerous times and study film. I'm temporarily coming out of my "I give up" to clarify my point.

I think you and I are making very close to the same point . . . it is the very fact that, amongst other similar things, they do "watch a movie numerous times and study film" that is the distinguishing difference between a cinephile and everybody else. That does not make them any better or worse, just more devoted and knowledgeable about the particular subject of film.

I just noticed my use of the phrase "do not appreciate movies" at the end of my post and recognize it was a poor choice . . . what I meant was what I said in the beginning part where I used "don't appreciate the intricacies" of movies (refering to cinematography techniques, use of lighting, aristic camera angles, use of color for emphasis/symbolism, etc.).

Sorry for the confusion.

. . . returning to "I give up" mode . . .

kmac
11-04-03, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by talemyn
I'm temporarily coming out of my "I give up" to clarify my point.

I think you and I are making very close to the same point . . . it is the very fact that, amongst other similar things, they do "watch a movie numerous times and study film" that is the distinguishing difference between a cinephile and everybody else. That does not make them any better or worse, just more devoted and knowledgeable about the particular subject of film.

I just noticed my use of the phrase "do not appreciate the movies" at the end of my post and recognize it was a poor choice . . . what I meant was what I said in the beginning part where I used "don't appreciate the intricacies" of movies (refering to cinematography techniques, use of lighting, aristic camera angles, use of color for emphasis/symbolism, etc.).

Sorry for the confusion.

. . . returning to "I give up" mode . . .

I understand what you are saying.

I guess i am somewhere in the middle. Not really a 'cinephile', but not really a J6Per.

I give up too! This thread is giving me tired head.

Gyno Rhino
11-04-03, 02:58 PM
What on earth is a J6Per?

talemyn
11-04-03, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Gyno Rhino
What on earth is a J6Per? J6P = Joe/Jane Sixpack

It's a term that gets used to describe people who aren't as devoted to movies/DVD's as most of the people here. Most commonly used in reference to people who prefer full frame (FF) versions of films to widescreen (WS) (a.k.a. the people who "don't like those black bars on the screen").

Some people find it deragatory, some just use it more as nothing more than a nickname.

Gyno Rhino
11-04-03, 03:07 PM
Ahhh, excellent. Thanik you much! :)

lostatmidnight
11-04-03, 03:13 PM
Excellent thread/argument....some intelligent conversation for once.

My opinions on the expressed topics:

Yes, widescreen. I would prefer only ws releases, but in this day and age, there is always going to be ws and fs. How to do it? Seperate or dual? Not sure myself. As long as there is ws.

Inserts, the most silly argument about dvds. If it is just a chapter listing, then don't print them. They are useless. And for all those that bemoan missing one, get an f'in life. Unless they happen to be Criterion quality essay, yes, but no, get rid.

Keepcase. Please. Keepcase is the best.

No to forced trailers...but big corporate america will do it to promote their swill.

I do not have a 16:9 screen, but I would like to have a proper transfer for that future television. But if it is an excellent non-16:9, then the audience should just be content.

Promo extras are nonsense. If the studio doesn't want to spend the money for quality, then give a 16:9 transfer and the original trailer, may a director/actor commentary. That is all I really ask for.

I could care less about ROM content.

And again, we should all understand this is just dvds, this is not life, this not world hunger, war, abortion, life's struggle...these are just films on disc, which I fear is all that life gives meaning to for some on this board. If that is the case, you need to open your eyes.

Roto
11-04-03, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by El-Kabong
What a load of elitist film snob crap. By your 'definition' I'm not a cinephile because I own and enjoy pan and scan films.
Do you really want to be a cinephile? Whenever you place phile after some hobby it always sounds either elitist or perverse. I take it to mean overly obsessive rather than the dictionary definition of having a strong preference.

marty888
11-04-03, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Roto
Do you really want to be a cinephile?


You know, I've been collecting movies for many years, and have over 4000 in my collection (including over 1000 on DVD) and have never - ever - not even once - had the word "cinephile" enter my head.

I'm a movie lover. Simple as that.

gutwrencher
11-04-03, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by marty888

I'm a movie lover. Simple as that.

I keep it simple also. I'm a self-proclaimed film freak. I think that says it all....not that I care what anyone else thinks. what I'm not is an audio/vidio expert with the perfect set-up. got a long way to go in that area....but it does not mean I'm less of a film lover. I'm looking forward to my new WS TV next month....should increase my enjoyment double. I just wanted to build the base of my film library before investing thousands in gear. now I'll have over 1,300 titles to re-introduce myself to!! cant wait till the house is built!!

jough
11-04-03, 04:09 PM
Okay, with three pages in my absence there's too much to reply to. Here are a few points.

I did not coin the phrase "Joe Six Pack." It is a common term used all over these forums generally meaning people who don't really know much about film, just want something to watch while they drink beer and there's no game or sitcom on to watch, and usually buys the Full Frame version of a disc at the local supermarket (granted, this isn't usually a conscious choice - it will likely be the only version that the mass merchant stocks).

It's my understanding that a "Joe/Jane Six Pack" would be one of those who would write to a studio complaining that the movie didn't fill the whole screen, or who would take a disc back to the store complaining of big black bars at the top and bottom of the screen.

Perhaps someone else could provide a better definition. In any case, I don't believe Mr./Mrs. Six Pack would read or post to DVD Talk Forums, which is too bad, really. If consumers were more educated about widescreen maybe they'd care more about the issue, or maybe they wouldn't. But they'd be better informed about their own purchases at least.

I don't think that inserts have ever affected my buying decision - but given the option, I believe that most people would rather have one than not given the choice. You may not care one way or another, but it would affect your buying decision if there were two different versions. You would be *offered* a choice. You would have to make a *decision*. That's all I was getting at.

I think people confuse "I don't care" with "It doesn't make any difference to me." Because for people to be so incensed over the topic of an insert is absurd.

Usually those who have a violent reaction to the subject are those who claim that they don't care. They obviously care to some degree about the subject or else they wouldn't bother posting.

Anyone who's said "I don't care about _________" and then proceeded to post MORE THAN ONCE to a public forum about the subject is LYING - either to us or to themselves - or else INSANE. No one would exert the effort to post if they didn't care. Of course they care about the subject. It just may not make any difference to them.

I think the responses have been more revealing than I had intended with my initial post. I was trying to collect many of the concerns people have about DVD releases into a single thread, to see what was and wasn't really bothering people about releases. Thank you to everyone who has stayed mostly on-topic about the "cheapening" aspect of certain releases (which, by the way, have increased, not decreased, in average price over the past three years - those of you who weren't around three years ago may have missed out on all of the coupons and special sales, which is a shame).

Yes, I admit that my argument for liking two films "the same" is a white elephant. I always have an opinion of one DVD purchase over another and generally have at least a mental, if not physical, list with me when I shop for DVDs. But last week I decided not to buy the Hulk (which I was on the fence about anyway, having thought the film had two endings and action sequences too many) and two factors that influenced my decision, that pushed me over to the "not buy" side of the fence were the forced trailers and lack of insert.

And I wrote a letter to Universal telling them why I wasn't buying their product.

Will it make a difference? Probably not.

The main point of this thread for me was to gauge how important these factors were to the folks who post on DVD Talk.

The membership of this forum tends toward the cinephile, the dvd-phile, the film enthusiasts more than just people looking for something to do on a Friday night. People that don't care about DVDs or films generally don't post to online forums devoted to the subject.

By my way of thinking, if DVDphiles don't care about these things, then the studios are right. Why make two transfers when one FF transfer will do? Why include an insert if no one reads it or cares about it? Why not use the cheaper cardboard packaging? Why spend money producing compelling documentaries about a film if even those people who are the core early-adopter cinephile purchasers don't care if a supplement includes only the promotional HBO's "First Look" featurette, which has already been produced?

From what I've read over the past few years on these fora, people here in general do care about at least SOME of these elements. Good DVD SEs are expensive to produce, and studios are right to question if the extra expense and effort is warranted - i.e. will these things help sell a title or will it not make any difference?

The only company that I know of (although I'd love to hear of others) whose decisions to produce excellent DVD packages of extremely niche films is the Criterion Collection. Note that they do not do ANY of the above (see my first post) "cheapening" of their product to try to increase their profits, because their core audience of cinephiles really does care about not only the film, but about its home theatre presentation.

Someone quoted a post I made in another thread, taking my sarcastic reply to someone else's post complaining about how the popularity of DVD is ruining it, as sincere.

No, I don't miss the days of LD where high-quality work was done for a niche audience.

I LIKE that DVD is cheaper, more easily available, and even higher-quality for the most part. And I agree with those who post that there's MUCH to like about DVD, and how the quality of many releases has improved greatly over the years.

But that's not what THIS thread is about. Besides, post a thread examining the virtues of the format and no one replies to it. ;)

People sure seem to love to complain. Even the very best releases will leave *something* out that people will complain about (i.e. the Lord of the Rings Extended Versions - people have kevetched that they don't have the features on the Theatrical Version on them as well - is their complaint valid? Perhaps, perhaps not, but when people can find fault with what are considered to be the best DVDs ever produced so far in the format, everything else is fair game as well).

DVD fans and cinephiles tend to be passionate about their hobby, as most other people are about whatever it is they find interesting.

I'm happy to hear even dissenting voices. My opinion on these issues is not inflexible. I'm only commenting on the sub-text of people's posts - sometimes this tends to anger people who shoot back with irrelevant and irrational diatribes (which puts an end to any rational discussion about the issues with them), and sometimes it opens up further discussion.

Either way, I'm game.

davidvp
11-04-03, 05:48 PM
Hmmm . . . I thought that he meant that if, given the option between the same movie, either with or without an an insert, he would choose one with the insert. Clarification, jough?
And this situation has cropped up how many times in the 6+-year history of DVDs? About...I'd say...Zero would be accurate. :lol:
(Surely, jough meant "different" movies.)

You basically state that you don't have an opinion . . . the only people who don't have opinions are the ones who are dead.
I'd have to definitely disagree with this rather curious observation. There's obviously a plethora of matters/subjects that EVERYONE here no doubt has NO opinion on. Such as: Do you care who's elected the next dogcatcher in Walla Walla, Washington? ... Or: When you're in a retail store, do you have any opinion/preference whatsoever as to what color/style shoes the woman standing next to you should purchase? Of course you don't give a flying Philadelphia....! (With the possible rare exception of the 1 person here @ DVD Talk who just might happen to run a kennel in Walla Walla. :))

...nor would how many stars Roger Ebert gave the film, ...
I'd have to admit, that this one just *might* affect my purchasing decision greatly (or not so greatly). I place a decent amount of faith in Mr. Ebert's vast movie-going/movie-reviewing experience. I generally agree with most of his observations. Of course, YMMV (as with everything in this fascinating thread :D).

Just wondering: where on the case does it say “comes with/does not come with insert”?
Yeah! I'd like to know this myself! :)
Similar to the "multi releases out at the same time -- one w/insert & one w/o", I've yet to ONCE encounter a DVD package that proclaims "Sorry, kids, no insert inside". Many times the opposite is true, in that the specs might say "8-Page Booklet", or something of this ilk, which obviously indicates there IS an enclosure.

But, apart from researching each & every DVD you want to buy (here @ DVD Talk and other places), how can you tell that a release has NO paper enclosures? (Esp. right smack on street date? -- Which is when most all "cinephiles" simply HAVE TO HAVE THEIR DISCS OR DIE A FIERY DEATH AT MT. SAINT HELEN'S, right? :D )

I'm looking forward to my new WS TV next month...
Hey Wrench....how big a "unit" are you acquiring? What are you watching all those myriad of titles on now?

I'm a bit surprised at all the invective being hurled at the DVD makers (and studios) for placing Trailers at the beginning of some DVD titles nowadays. I guess I'm in the itty-bitty minority on this issue....because I'm in favor of these (unadvertised) trailers. Now the "forced to watch" portion of the argument is a valid one, I must admit. Being able to bypass the things would be nice -- whether it be by using the Menu/Top Of Menu/Chapter Skip keys, or by using the FF key.

But it seems many people just HATE the trailers on there, PERIOD (forced or otherwise). Why?? I look at them as an unexpected "extra feature", or "E. Egg".

I always enjoyed seeing the many trailers we're "forced" to watch in the theaters as well. You can't very well make an ass of yourself, stand up in the theater, and turn to the projectionist and shout "Get on with the G.D. movie, ya bum!!" :) (I don't know, maybe some people here DO do this. :))

So, does this mean many people also hate with a passion these "forced" trailers in movie theaters as well?? Or is this one of those "I bought the DVD for MY own home viewing, and don't want ANYBODY forcing me to watch one second of programming/trailers/FBI disclaimers/Interpole messages/ads that *I* don't have full control over" kind of dealies?? :)

jough
11-04-03, 06:12 PM
David,

I think the pre-menu trailers lose their zest the 17th time you put the disc in the player to view a scene and have to wait upwards of 15 minutes to try to look up a 30 second piece of dialogue.

Of course, I'm against long-loading menus, too. There's a review site somewhere that I've seen once and didn't bookmark that lists the total startup time for a DVD - from the time the player closes until the time you can actually start watching the film. Ideally this should be less than 30 seconds.

I don't always want to make popcorn or go to the bathroom every time I put a disc in my player, just to address some of the suggestions by people who "don't mind" or are in favour of forced trailers.

For me, even having to skip past them every time is an annoyance (albeit a minor one for now). But how much would have to be on the front of your disc before you found it annoying? Would having to sit through a half an hour of trailers, ads, and other "bonus" content be annoying to you? I think it would to most people.

I won't even get into the space these advertisements are taking up that could be used to increase the picture and sound quality.

It's all a matter of degree. My point is that if we don't try to hold back the flood gates now it will get worse instead of better.

To play on a famous and far more serious poem:

"They started releasing only FF transfers, but as I didn't have a widescreen TV I said nothing. Then they removed the inserts. Since I didn't care about the inserts I said nothing. Then they added forced trailers, advertisements for other products, and political propaganda to the front of the disc, but I could skip past it easily enough, so I said nothing. Then they started showing ads DURING the film, and I was annoyed, but no one else seemed to care or notice when they came for me..."

I'm not comparing forced trailers to the rise of Hitler, but I am saying that it's a similar complacence that allows much evil (i.e. studio marketing) to prevail over good (films, art, etc.).

davidvp
11-04-03, 07:16 PM
...pre-menu trailers lose their zest the 17th time you put the disc in the player to view a scene and have to wait upwards of 15 minutes to try to look up a 30 second piece of dialogue.
Point taken. Unless, of course, it's a trailer for the fetching "Barbarella". :D
There's a review site somewhere that I've seen once and didn't bookmark that lists the total startup time for a DVD - from the time the player closes until the time you can actually start watching the film. Ideally this should be less than 30 seconds.
That "start-up" info would seem to be worthless, IMO (unless it actually breaks it down model-to-model)...seeing as how EACH player loads a disc at varying speeds. Some take much longer to load than others. Probably as much as up to 50% longer.

Wizdar
11-04-03, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by jough
I think the pre-menu trailers lose their zest the 17th time you put the disc in the player to view a scene [agreed] and have to wait upwards of 15 minutes to try to look up a 30 second piece of dialogue. Umm, 15+ minutes? You must be thinking of Disney vhs, even the longest of which is ~11 minutes.

If you have to exaggerate to make a point, perhaps you’re using the wrong tactic?

Don’t get me wrong: I dislike pre-movie trailers and ubergeek menues. When I put a disc in, I want to go straight to the movie [Warner] and know pretty darn well how to find the other stuff when I want it.

It’s sufficient for me to express an opinion about a like or dislike without having to make stuff up to support my preference. If you have a different preference, that’s fine by me. The fact that you’re wrong doesn’t bother me in the least. :D

jough
11-04-03, 07:50 PM
Aren't the Lion King trailers and animated menu about 15 minutes?

fakemadrid
11-04-03, 08:33 PM
If I like the movie, I am going to buy the first release that comes out, and upgrade accordingly. Take LOTR Two Towers for example. I knew there was going to an Extended Edition coming out a few months after the 2-Disc Edition, but I went ahead and bought it anyway. I'm all about the movie I guess. Inserts are great, No-inserts can still be great films. I'd like to see snappers done away with, but if it's a choice between a snapper or nothing, hell, give me the snapper. Forced trailers piss me off so much though. I guess years of "DVD Freedom" have spoiled me a little.

Wizdar
11-04-03, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by jough
Aren't the Lion King trailers and animated menu about 15 minutes? I suppose it would depend on your definition of “about.” But, no.

Disney is an extreme example anyway. They have never been home video friendly, and rank just under Lucas on my flip ‘em the bird list.

Universal is a more appropriate example, averaging 1-3 minutes before the title menu. Add to that their disdain for upgrading previous releases to anamorphic and they get a casual bird, flipped in half-hearted manner.

Warner, on the other hand, has a majority of their titles that will fire up directly to the movie. However, their past history with snappers, whilst providing all but American customers with keep cases, and it’s a wash.

Paramount likes to have many of their titles start after the menu runs its audio track once, but they are the biggest offenders on the bare bones front.



But then, a “cinephile” shouldn’t have to load a disc just to catch 30 seconds of dialogue. S/he should have that dialogue happily committed to memory, n’est çe pas? ;)

jough
11-04-03, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Wizdar
But then, a “cinephile” shouldn’t have to load a disc just to catch 30 seconds of dialogue. S/he should have that dialogue happily committed to memory, n’est çe pas? ;)

Even a cinephile can't remember every line of every film exactly.

But my problem with long start-up times has mostly to do with using DVD in the classroom to teach a film - having to fast-forward for a few minutes is a bit of an annoyance - right now it's easy to start with the film that has a long start-up time and have it pre-queued before class, but what if every dvd started adding forced trailers?

See my point?

gutwrencher
11-04-03, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by davidvp


Hey Wrench....how big a "unit" are you acquiring? What are you watching all those myriad of titles on now?



I almost feel "dirty" from what I'm about to say. I've mentioned it a few times before...but it's a bit of an embarrassment and I've been ashamed somewhat. we are having a home built. it's taken MUCH longer than expected. it had been in the planning stages for 3 years....working through various problems and set-backs. in fact....we started planning this just before I got hooked on dvd. anyway....there was no way in hell a nice WS or any other tv over 36" would fit/look right in our current and very small home. this is why my dvds are in the walk-in closet vault...theres just no room. so I've been watching most of my films on a standard 36" HD Toshiba. my half-brother has a WS room....and I've spent many, many nights over at his place! but for the most part...I've had to settle with what I have. I figured that I might as well continue to build my film library. my thoughts were by time the house was finished....I'd have a great collection to re-discover. the good news is....all should be ready by the end of December. of course...were trying to get in by Christmas!!!!

I've narrowed it down to 2 models(although this might change as well), and both are 65". keep in mind...I'm still very much researching my set-up.

hope nobody comes down too hard on me. I'm not proud of what I've been watching on. some will say I'm not a real/true film lover...thats ok. I'm trying real hard to improve!!!:D

jough
11-04-03, 09:21 PM
I don't think anyone's been snobbish here about the equipment you watch your DVDs on (that would be the Home Theatre Forum). No need to be embarrased.

EPKJ
11-04-03, 09:25 PM
"Anyone who's said "I don't care about _________" and then proceeded to post MORE THAN ONCE to a public forum about the subject is LYING - either to us or to themselves - or else INSANE. No one would exert the effort to post if they didn't care. Of course they care about the subject. It just may not make any difference to them."

This argument is deliberately misleading. For example, I don't care whether or not inserts are included. I do care about you making an absurd claim that this should have any sway in purchasing one DVD over another.

By the way, jough, in your original post you state the following:

"I prefer to buy films that have nice inserts, and given that I want to buy a lot of movies on DVD, I'll choose those that have inserts before those that don't."

You are obviously referring to different DVD's not an insert version vs. a non-insert version. So, why do you now say the following:

"I don't think that inserts have ever affected my buying decision - but given the option, I believe that most people would rather have one than not given the choice. You may not care one way or another, but it would affect your buying decision if there were two different versions. You would be *offered* a choice. You would have to make a *decision*. That's all I was getting at."

You obviously could not have meant this originally as no company has ever manufactured insert and non-insert versions of the same DVD. So, you are now denying that you would make a choice between two DVD's based on which one had an insert. That seems like, dare I say it, "lying".

davidvp
11-04-03, 09:25 PM
standard 36" HD Toshiba.
Why would anyone be "ashamed" of watching a 36-inch HDTV??
Sounds pretty decent to me. :)

Now....If you were watching your discs on this .........

http://www.canadianheritage.org/images/large/20585.jpg

.... then I'd be forced, by law, to "point & laugh hysterically". :) :D

gutwrencher
11-04-03, 09:34 PM
jough....thanks:thumbsup:

davidvp...:lol: that tv makes me feel a lot better!

jough
11-04-03, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by EPKJ
This argument is deliberately misleading. For example, I don't care whether or not inserts are included. I do care about you making an absurd claim that this should have any sway in purchasing one DVD over another.

You care enough to post multiple times on the subject. You can claim not to care, but your actions say you do.

And why do you care about my purchasing decisions? Think about it.


You are obviously referring to different DVD's not an insert version vs. a non-insert version. So, why do you now say the following:

Those quotes refer to two different, but related, arguments. I know 5 pages is a lot to read, but much has been said since my original post.

So, you are now denying that you would make a choice between two DVD's based on which one had an insert. That seems like, dare I say it, "lying".

I would call it "misreading," but feel free to go back and read over all of the thread. I think you'll gain a better understanding of the issues at hand then. I don't think I could explain my position any more simply except to talk down to you as if you were a child, which you may be.

Revoltor
11-04-03, 11:57 PM
I did not coin the phrase "Joe Six Pack." It is a common term used all over these forums generally meaning people who don't really know much about film, just want something to watch while they drink beer and there's no game or sitcom on to watch

Oh, you mean normal people.

marty888
11-05-03, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by jough

And why do you care about my purchasing decisions? Think about it.


If you're surprised that someone "cares" about your purchasing decisions, then why are you even posting and defending them? Think about it.

talemyn
11-05-03, 12:22 AM
So . . . many . . . inane . . . comments . . .

Urge to . . . get . . . jough's back . . .

Must . . . . . maintain . . . . . "I give up . . ." . . . . . . . status . . . . . . . . .



:brickwl:

jough
11-05-03, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by marty888
If you're surprised that someone "cares" about your purchasing decisions, then why are you even posting and defending them? Think about it.

Because I care about my own purchases and the reasons behind them. But some people here seem to take an odd interest in my personal life (I say this based on some of the off-board e-mail I've gotten more than the posts here regarding this thread).

In any case, to say "I don't care about X" and then write 20 paragraphs about it is specious, at best.

Joel
11-05-03, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by marty888
I'm a movie lover. Simple as that.
:up: Hear hear.

And jough,
I did not coin the phrase "Joe Six Pack." It is a common term used all over these forums generally meaning people who don't really know much about film, just want something to watch while they drink beer and there's no game or sitcom on to watch, and usually buys the Full Frame version of a disc at the local supermarket (granted, this isn't usually a conscious choice - it will likely be the only version that the mass merchant stocks).
That's me. Only without beer, and I don't like watching game or sitcom on TV. I buy movies from everywhere that sells them .. supermarkets, disc stores ..

It's my understanding that a "Joe/Jane Six Pack" would be one of those who would write to a studio complaining that the movie didn't fill the whole screen, or who would take a disc back to the store complaining of big black bars at the top and bottom of the screen.
That's not me. Hell I'm too lazy to raise complaints. And what's wrong with the black bars? They look nice, and the movies can still roll with or without it ;).

Perhaps someone else could provide a better definition. In any case, I don't believe Mr./Mrs. Six Pack would read or post to DVD Talk Forums, which is too bad, really. If consumers were more educated about widescreen maybe they'd care more about the issue, or maybe they wouldn't. But they'd be better informed about their own purchases at least.
I read and post here. So what that makes me then, considering all the definitions above?

My little bro used to call me a J6P, I never really know what it means literally (six pack?? why not four pack, or ten pack? *looking back at my dumb question about Pete's sake*). I assume that he was referring me as someone who didn't know much about DVD and all its technical aspects or formats. DVDs. Not the movies. (My assumption could be wrong though, I am just trying to think positive).

See I maybe care less about all that, but I think it's kinda ridiculous to argue over the titles. I love movies, that's all that matters. You might say that if we love movies, then we should see it in a perfect way (for instant, ws iso fs, with good extras, etc.). But then, there are always some considerations needed by certain people in purchasing it. And I find it is not really fair to judge their love of movies based on their preferences. At least we should give it a little respect, for these people don't take bootlegs :D.

And while inserts and all the extras are still on the hot seat, let me quote ..
Originally posted by gutwrencher
.. the film is priority. anything else that comes along is just a bonus. I'm no idiot though...of course I love extras! but if it's barebones, like the recent Dragonslayer, so be it. for now.:D
That's all for now.


p.s.: talemyn and the "I give up" mode :lol:

mdm67
11-05-03, 03:55 AM
just for the record, Marty888 and Joel:
the french word "cinephile" in american english means "movie lover"
cine is for cinema, while phile - comin' from the greek verb fileo - is for "to love". So if you are a cinephile, you are a movie lover and, if you are a movie lover, you must be a cinephile, otherwise you have to find a different definition to describe your hobby.

<A HREF="http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=mdm67">My Collection</A>

Joel
11-05-03, 04:18 AM
Aha. Finally some enlightment from this thread. Thank you, mdm67 :).

marty888
11-05-03, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by mdm67
just for the record, Marty888 and Joel:
the french word "cinephile" in american english means "movie lover"
cine is for cinema, while phile - comin' from the greek verb fileo - is for "to love". So if you are a cinephile, you are a movie lover and, if you are a movie lover, you must be a cinephile, otherwise you have to find a different definition to describe your hobby.

<A HREF="http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=mdm67">My Collection</A>


Thank you for the obvious (and to me, at least) unnecessary lesson in entymology.

The point is a question of pretentiousness and context - so declasse!

Wizdar
11-05-03, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by mdm67
just for the record, Marty888 and Joel: I'm really hurt that I wasn't included. :(

Tres declasse indeed.

mdm67
11-05-03, 11:11 AM
it wasn't my intention to hurt you, Wizdar and I'm happy to tell you that you're in time for the french lesson

très declassé :beer:

<A HREF="http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=mdm67">My Collection</A>

Wizdar
11-05-03, 11:32 AM
:lol:

Vous avez confondu français avec la dactylographie, mon ami.

:beer::beer:

EPKJ
11-05-03, 11:46 AM
"You care enough to post multiple times on the subject. You can claim not to care, but your actions say you do."

No, you are still attempting to mislead. I do not care whether DVD's as a rule contain inserts or not. That has nothing to do with my caring about you posting absurd claims that people are incensed over whether or not inserts are included with releases. Neither do I care about your purchasing decisions. I care about you posting your reasoning for those purchasing decisions and attempting to make absurd rationales sound reasonable. You posted your opinions. They are now fair game. My responding in no way means I care about anything other than the fact that you posted certain views. Had you never started this thread, I would not have posted on these matters. I am responding to you and your expressed views, not the underlying issues you address.

"Those quotes refer to two different, but related, arguments. I know 5 pages is a lot to read, but much has been said since my original post."

No, they clearly are addressing the same issue. Now you are just lying.

"I would call it "misreading," but feel free to go back and read over all of the thread. I think you'll gain a better understanding of the issues at hand then. I don't think I could explain my position any more simply except to talk down to you as if you were a child, which you may be."

I am 46 years old. I have read all of the posts in this thread, and fully understand that you made absurd statements which you are now attempting to deny.

By the way, the term Joe-Six-Pack is a derogatory term used in society to refer to the uneducated common man. It is not specific to this forum. Your use of that term coupled with your statement about needing to talk down to me speaks volumes about your elitist views.

jough
11-05-03, 12:48 PM
I've tried to explain my views in the simplest way I can, and you still don't (or refuse) to understand. I don't know what to tell you, except to try to re-read my previous comments.

Wizdar
11-05-03, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by jough
I've tried to explain my views in the simplest way I can No, the simplest way would be to come out of the closet and admit you're better than the rest of us.Originally posted by EPKJ
Your use of that term coupled with your statement about needing to talk down to me speaks volumes about your elitist views. Pretty much sums it up for me, too.

Yakuza Bengoshi
11-05-03, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by jough
I've tried to explain my views in the simplest way I can, and you still don't (or refuse) to understand. I don't know what to tell you, except to try to re-read my previous comments.

I'm amazed you continued as long as you did. I think you expressed yourself well and I congratulate you on keeping cool despite being baited.

Spiky
11-06-03, 11:36 AM
Hey, Jough. Looks like I'm late, sorry. Damn J6Ps everywhere. God knows they aren't as good as us.

Why do people who don't give a damn about the correct shape of a movie, or calibrated TVs, or NOT seeing stupid artifacts created by a questionable DVDp come into these threads? (I won't even start into audio quality) These are the J6Ps, and their apathy is why Jough's opening post exists. LD pretty much did not go through this garbage because everyday folks who don't care didn't want to buy them, they were happy with the far cheaper VHS format and P&S s***. But now we have DVDs that are more or less the same price as VHS, and everybody wants them. This is what this thread is about.

If you don't fit into the J6P viewpoint (Kabong, and others), then stop being offended by this type of thread. If you do fit in, why are you even here? I'm not being facetious (except the first paragraph), I'd really like to know why the amazing amount of threadcrap that has been introduced here is allowed. Coming into a video/cinephile thread if all you want to do is bash those who do care about this stuff is threadcrapping. Get rid of it.

Spiky
11-06-03, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by jough
I don't think anyone's been snobbish here about the equipment you watch your DVDs on (that would be the Home Theatre Forum). No need to be embarrased.
Nope, not even me. And I can be a real pain. ;)

I currently have a 27" Mits. Haven't been able to afford the big screen, yet. Maybe this winter, tax return and all. Now, how you hook it up and calibrate it, that's another story.

EPKJ
11-06-03, 12:20 PM
"Coming into a video/cinephile thread if all you want to do is bash those who do care about this stuff is threadcrapping. Get rid of it."

That was not the nature of this thread, and you well know that. Anything put forth in the original post in a thread is fair game. Jough's elitist attitude, as evinced by the Joe-Six-Pack comment laid him open to comments about this.

EPKJ
11-06-03, 12:23 PM
"I've tried to explain my views in the simplest way I can, and you still don't (or refuse) to understand. I don't know what to tell you, except to try to re-read my previous comments."

We understand. Your elitist comments are indefensible and your attempts to deny them didn't work. So, now you are left to tell people to reread your posts. I think that we have read them quite enough as it is. Perhaps you ought to go back and read what you actually wrote. That is what seems to be the problem.

Wizdar
11-06-03, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Spiky
If you don't fit into the J6P viewpoint (Kabong, and others), then stop being offended by this type of thread. So, what you’re saying is that unless we agree with what is being said, we have no business posting? Hmmm??

There are many of us who agree with points made in the original post. What we don’t agree with is the way they were presented.

And if you don’t agree with that, you’re a J6P. -ptth- :)

kmac
11-06-03, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Spiky
If you don't fit into the J6P viewpoint (Kabong, and others), then stop being offended by this type of thread. If you do fit in, why are you even here? I'm not being facetious (except the first paragraph), I'd really like to know why the amazing amount of threadcrap that has been introduced here is allowed. Coming into a video/cinephile thread if all you want to do is bash those who do care about this stuff is threadcrapping. Get rid of it.

You are being too black and white. Alot of us who read this board may not exactly agree and we have opinions of our own. Jough even said in his intial post that he looked forward to hearing the comments.

Sometimes posts on this board seem very elitist. Almost as if DVDs and movies were created for the sole purpose of the so called 'cinephiles' on this board.

Again, I enjoy movies and only buy widescreen DVDs. But, I am very happy with DVD releases within the past couple of years. They have gotten alot better! Almost all are anamorphic now, which was my main concern.

I do not mind full frame versions being release as long as they have a widescreen also available. I know that many of my friends or family members would choose it over widescreen since they cannot afford a large TV and even care that they are missing part of the movie. THEY ARE NOT J6Ps!

Choice is very important! I am glad that we have many options now! The studios have produced alot of wonderful DVDs lately. Lets enjoy it.

Deke Rivers
11-06-03, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by jough
That's right. You're not a cinephile by my definition. You got it.

See, by definition a cinephile is someone who loves cinema. The composition of a shot, camera movements, framing, these things are all part of the FILM itself. They are as much content as the dialogue and music.

.
Is this websters definition or your own? Next you will be syaing that to be a cinephile requires that certain titles be in your dvd library?
I was an early adopter but could not wait for Joe Six Pak to embrace this format. That was the guarentee that the format would survive.
If the dvd's were so great early on then why are we buying new transfers of the same movies we bought back in the early days of dvd??
The acceptance of this format by the masses is whats helping improve dvd's ..not lessen them.
Ill gladly fast forward or go get a snack while the forced trailer is playing and take the extra time to make sure I picked up the widescreen box instead of the full screen if it means this format will stick around awhile.

jough
11-06-03, 01:44 PM
I don't understand why people think the word "cinephile" is elitist. Is it because of the French word roots?

It just means lover of cinema, people. Generally it's used in terms of people who revere, respect, and take cinema seriously. VERY seriously at times.

For a while there, in the middle of the thread, I forgot that some people are physically incapable of "lightening up".

Deke Rivers
11-06-03, 01:47 PM
dude...you start a thread like this then ask people to lighten up when they call you on your own whining? you been staring at the glare of the 19 inch Admiral too long

kmac
11-06-03, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by jough
I don't understand why people think the word "cinephile" is elitist. Is it because of the French word roots?

It just means lover of cinema, people. Generally it's used in terms of people who revere, respect, and take cinema seriously. VERY seriously at times.

For a while there, in the middle of the thread, I forgot that some people are physically incapable of "lightening up".

You may not have meant it to be elitist, but alot of people took it that way.

Basically, from the first post, it was as if you split it among two sides. Cinephiles (those who agreed with your initial post) and Joe Six Pack (everyone else)

Maybe that was not your intention, but the written word is easy to misinterpret.

Spiky
11-06-03, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Wizdar

And if you don’t agree with that, you’re a J6P. -ptth- :)
Dude, I thought that made me an elitist. You must make up your mind. :)

Choice is very important! I am glad that we have many options now! The studios have produced alot of wonderful DVDs lately. Lets enjoy it.
This is PRECISELY the issue. The worry is: choice will go away and the sh***y P&S will rule because nobody cares. Just like it did for 2 decades. I never found it worthwhile to purchase many VHS movies. I have a few, but in almost 3 years of having DVD, I have probably 2-3 times as many DVDs already. Whydidn't I buy VHS? Because they are 4:3 (regardless of OAR), they wear out almost instantly, and they looked like crap from day one due to low technological standards.

I don't want to go back to having no choice. It is obvious when releases are for those of us who care. LOTR:EE is a great example, there is NO 4:3 version of this. Why? Because there shouldn't be. If I was the director, there wouldn't have been a 4:3 DVD release at all.

And I might add....if anybody wants the 4:3 version of a movie, get it on VHS, why bother with DVD in the first place just to get a hacked, crap version of a movie? At that point, why would you care about the pic quality when it has already been altered?

Spiky
11-06-03, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Deke Rivers

The acceptance of this format by the masses is whats helping improve dvd's ..not lessen them.
Ill gladly fast forward or go get a snack while the forced trailer is playing and take the extra time to make sure I picked up the widescreen box instead of the full screen if it means this format will stick around awhile.
Wrong. 100% wrong. So insanely not right I can't believe it.

It is the opposite. Some things that are improving DVDs:
-Massive outcry against snapper cases. Don't think the "masses" have anything to do with that.
-New technology, like 6.1 sound. Bound to happen no matter what.
-Advent of HDTVs. Before there were so many sold, anamorphic and correct progressive flagging just didn't matter nearly as much.
-Other complaints from cinephiles (or whatever word you like) on things like low bitrate and barebones releases.

Why do you suppose the Criterions are discussed so much? It ain't for "those who don't care". (that's my little phrase since nobody likes the other one)

Spiky
11-06-03, 03:13 PM
This hasn't been quite a perfectly rounded fight/rant thread, though. We didn't have the ones who say, "How can you care about DVD content when there is [insert horrible problem here] in the world?" Or, "Don't you ever spend time with your kids instead of worrying about DVDs?"

What happened to those people?

talemyn
11-06-03, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Spiky
This hasn't been quite a perfectly rounded fight/rant thread, though. We didn't have the ones who say, "How can you care about DVD content when there is [insert horrible problem here] in the world?" Or, "Don't you ever spend time with your kids instead of worrying about DVDs?"

What happened to those people? &lt;talemyn comes out of "I give up . . ." mode to make a joke&gt;

&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; They have been assimilated . . .

&lt;quickly goes back into "I give up . . ." mode before breaking into a rant&gt;

Deke Rivers
11-06-03, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Spiky
Wrong. 100% wrong. So insanely not right I can't believe it.

It is the opposite. Some things that are improving DVDs:
-Massive outcry against snapper cases. Don't think the "masses" have anything to do with that.
-New technology, like 6.1 sound. Bound to happen no matter what.
-Advent of HDTVs. Before there were so many sold, anamorphic and correct progressive flagging just didn't matter nearly as much.
-Other complaints from cinephiles (or whatever word you like) on things like low bitrate and barebones releases.

Why do you suppose the Criterions are discussed so much? It ain't for "those who don't care". (that's my little phrase since nobody likes the other one)

you're cracking me up there Spiky...how long you been around?

Companies will always cater to the masses (ie JP6) thats where the bucks are . If you think the small minority of movie lovers are a major concern to thses companies you are very disillusioned. how long do you think DVD would have lasted if sales of players didnt climb in the last few years?

Are you old enough to remember beta vs vhs vs laserdisc? the movie lovers embraced laserdisc. Which format did the major companies embrace? VHS

I stand by my original statements. JP6 drives the industry

kmac
11-06-03, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Spiky
This is PRECISELY the issue. The worry is: choice will go away and the sh***y P&S will rule because nobody cares.

Wrong. 100% wrong. So insanely not right I can't believe it. Choice is good. Widescreen format is growing and isn't going anywhere. It does not take people like you complaining or worrying. It takes us spending money on the format.

Originally posted by Spiky

Just like it did for 2 decades. I never found it worthwhile to purchase many VHS movies. I have a few, but in almost 3 years of having DVD, I have probably 2-3 times as many DVDs already. Whydidn't I buy VHS? Because they are 4:3 (regardless of OAR), they wear out almost instantly, and they looked like crap from day one due to low technological standards.

I don't want to go back to having no choice. It is obvious when releases are for those of us who care. LOTR:EE is a great example, there is NO 4:3 version of this. Why? Because there shouldn't be. If I was the director, there wouldn't have been a 4:3 DVD release at all.

You are very paranoid my friend. Is anyone REALLY afraid of losing widescreen format? I guess they will just put all those 16x9 HDTV televisions in the dumpster. I will do that to mine when I get home.

Originally posted by Spiky

And I might add....if anybody wants the 4:3 version of a movie, get it on VHS, why bother with DVD in the first place just to get a hacked, crap version of a movie? At that point, why would you care about the pic quality when it has already been altered?

Who are you to tell someone whether they should buy VHS or DVD? FF or WS? Here again is an example of someone thinking that the DVD format was made especially for them.

Spiky
11-06-03, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Deke Rivers
you're cracking me up there Spiky...how long you been around?

Companies will always cater to the masses (ie JP6) thats where the bucks are . If you think the small minority of movie lovers are a major concern to thses companies you are very disillusioned. how long do you think DVD would have lasted if sales of players didnt climb in the last few years?

Are you old enough to remember beta vs vhs vs laserdisc? the movie lovers embraced laserdisc. Which format did the major companies embrace? VHS

I have Beta, I have VHS, I have LD. I also have CD, cassette, reel-to-reel, 33/45 TT, MP3 capability (eewww), SACD, and DVD-A. I really ought to look into some other formats. It's a collector thing.

VHS is a good example to prove MY points, thanks. The above is exactly my fear. I wasn't "around" in the Beta/VHS fight as I was a little young at the time and it didn't take place in my household, but it has certainly affected me. There really is no way to say it other than VHS SUCKS. I've purchased more LDs and DVDs than I ever did VHS.

kmac,
What? You say 100% wrong, then restate my points back to me as a correction? You guys are both fighting for me, great! Choice is good, yes. We have choice now. My point is, I fear choice going away. As it did with VHS vs Beta and other things.

Paranoid? I guess it does sound that way. Maybe I've been coming across too strong. I tend towards realistic and cynical in my viewpoints. And I feel my viewpoint is realistic as to what direction the movie industry is taking.

I said
The worry is: choice will go away and the sh***y P&S will rule because nobody cares.

I should restate that to a new version of P&S. I can easily see 2.35:1 movies reformatted to 1.78:1 just because WS TVs are that ratio, once WS TVs are the norm. While technically not as hard or detrimental to the movie as cutting/panning/etc. to 1.33:1 ratio, this is still a bad idea. Color me paranoid if you wish, we'll see what transpires. Paranoia is only crazy until it becomes true. And I AM crazy.

Oh, and I do spend money ONLY on OAR.

I stand by my original statements. JP6 drives the industry
This is what worries me. Because many parts of the high-end industry has come down to J6P price levels (which are my price levels, too), and now there is starting to be a dumbing down of equipment and media to match. It is possible the good stuff will go away. I find myself looking at only the top brands these days for equipment and still finding stupid omissions of important features, not to mention ever-weakening amplifier specs. And keep in mind, this is because of people who JUST SIMPLY DON'T CARE about these products. Why they should affect the whole industry is beyond me.

Spiky
11-06-03, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by kmac
Who are you to tell someone whether they should buy VHS or DVD? FF or WS? Here again is an example of someone thinking that the DVD format was made especially for them.

kmac,
They DON'T CARE, I DO. Yes, it was made because people like me (probably us, if you are honest) wanted better quality than VHS, the defacto standard. Do you honestly think the everyday Joe, who thinks Best Buy sells the best electronics, wanted something better than VHS? Or knew it was coming before the "neato" ads showed up on TV? Or would be buying it now if it was priced like LD? DVD is an upgrade for the LD lovers and movie lovers. That's where it came from. That's for/because of me, not "them".

And, for the record, I saidif anybody wants the 4:3 version of a movie, get it on VHS I didn't say "they should buy this because they are J6P".

Wizdar
11-06-03, 04:42 PM
I don’t believe for one second that J6P is going to spoil DVD for the rest of us. Far from it, I believe the appeal of the format to the masses has allowed a whole buncha titles to find space on my shelves that would never been considered otherwise.

Further, there are quite a few shows being broadcast in WS these days, in spite of J6Ps whines.

And, most importantly, the hardware industry is supplying more and more 16:9 equipment. Just as you cannot find a B&W TV these days, there will come a day when 4:3 will be just as obsolete. The elitist fear that they will someday be deprived of OAR holds about as much water as racists rationalizations for ethnic purity, paraphrasings of Hitler notwithstanding. (http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=4226007&highlight=hitler#post4226007)



Originally posted by Spiky
Dude, I thought that made me an elitist. You must make up your mind. :) :) For a second there, I thought you had developed a sense of humor :)

kmac
11-06-03, 04:46 PM
I disagree that J6P completely drives the industry.

Go to Best Buy or any electronics store on release day and you will see almost everyone buying WS. I went to Best Buy yesterday and they were sold out of their WS Indy sets.

Also, I think there are too many people like us who control the DVD industry. They love DVDs also! Even the director's of movies have say now.

I know that Peter Jackson, Tarantino and Bryan Singer are big fans of DVD and would not settle for anything less!

J6Ps (i still dont like this name) are slowly being converted as WS TV prices are coming down (and the older generations are dieing off). Like VHS is now, FF will one day be the minority and eventually extinct.

Most of the people that I know (around my age and younger) are buying WS movies and televisions.

Wizdar
11-06-03, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Spiky
And, for the record, I said I didn't say "they should buy this because they are J6P". You’re absolutely correct. What you said was, “They should buy vhs because they aren’t cinephiles.”

:D

kmac
11-06-03, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Spiky
kmac,
They DON'T CARE, I DO. Yes, it was made because people like me (probably us, if you are honest) wanted better quality than VHS, the defacto standard. Do you honestly think the everyday Joe, who thinks Best Buy sells the best electronics, wanted something better than VHS? Or knew it was coming before the "neato" ads showed up on TV? Or would be buying it now if it was priced like LD? DVD is an upgrade for the LD lovers and movie lovers. That's where it came from. That's for/because of me, not "them".

And, for the record, I said I didn't say "they should buy this because they are J6P".

I just disagree.

I think the DVD format has attracted people to the format and THAT has caused the success. Not, previous LD buyers (they were the pioneers, but there were not many of them). DVD would not have survived or flourished if it had not been picked up by the majority.

I am one of those people who DVD sucked in (never bought a LD in my life). I bought a DVD player in 1998 and a WS TV in 2000. Most of my friends have done the same.

Was DVD made any less for us than those loyal LD buyers? Absolutely not.

I am excited about where DVD is going and I am not worried that studios will take away our OAR movies.

Spiky
11-06-03, 05:05 PM
Here's another difference. I call LD a success, too. Don't know why people don't see that. Lasted over 20 years, eventually developed tech as good as DVD in most respects, CREATED videophiles when there COULDN'T have been any with the VHS-only world so many lived in, and (the kicker) created the desire in consumers/companies/studios/directors for an even better format.

But anyway, you are talking about why so many DVDs are sold. I was discussing why it EXISTS. Different topics.

ChrisHicks
11-06-03, 05:12 PM
I haven't read every post in this thread so if this was previously mentioned, I'm sorry.

the thing that really bothers me about the whole DVD becoming as popular as it is, is the fact that the early adopters have pretty much been disregarded since J6P has jumped on the "this is cool" bandwagon.

if it wasn't for us the format would have never reached the heights that it has today.

and to top it all off, the public just isn't informed. my dad has a 57"widescreen tv but still buys FF movies because he wants the whole picture. now all he does is complain about the bars on the left/right side of the pic.

I know I could have the set stretch the image but I will not do it. I have told him since the beginning to purchase WS because when he gets the new tv he will be upset. did he listen, NO. now he can suffer with the bars.

Spiky
11-06-03, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Wizdar
I don’t believe for one second that J6P is going to spoil DVD for the rest of us. Far from it, I believe the appeal of the format to the masses has allowed a whole buncha titles to find space on my shelves that would never been considered otherwise.

Further, there are quite a few shows being broadcast in WS these days, in spite of J6Ps whines.

And, most importantly, the hardware industry is supplying more and more 16:9 equipment. Just as you cannot find a B&W TV these days, there will come a day when 4:3 will be just as obsolete. The elitist fear that they will someday be deprived of OAR holds about as much water as racists rationalizations for ethnic purity, paraphrasings of [b]Hitler notwithstanding. (http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=4226007&highlight=hitler#post4226007)

I hope you're right. But don't confuse the difference in FS and WS TVs with the difference in FF and OAR DVDs, 2 different topics.

Oh, you did NOT just challenge me, did you? ;) Can you say black and white TV (http://www.dealtime.com/xPO-Coby_CX_TV1)?

Spiky
11-06-03, 05:15 PM
Chris,
Amen.

Wizdar
11-06-03, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Spiky
Oh, you did NOT just challenge me, did you? ;) Can you say black and white TV (http://www.dealtime.com/xPO-Coby_CX_TV1)? :lol: Touché, mon ami. :up:

En ripost, I’ll posit that, to a cinephile, that’s not a TV. :D

No, I think it is you who are confused. FS/WS TVs and FF/OAR DVDs are in the same omelet. This is not the chicken/egg question. WS TVs are being driven by OAR discs. The DVD industry is supplying FF alternatives for virtually all new releases because there is a HUGE market for them. However, many (most?) classic titles are not offered with this alternative. [No facts to support this; shall we just take this as a given and move on?] Almost all TV sets currently sitting in consumers’ homes are 4:3, yes? So, this type of marketing just makes $ense.

BUT! The hardware industry would like to replace every single one of those TVs, and 16:9 is the only way to accomplish that goal. So, the hardware and software (if you will) industries must work hand in hand.

Eventually [and this is where it gets GOOD] the J6Ps are gonna buy them fancy WS TVs ‘cause they look kewl. At which point [wait for it!] they’re gonna realize that all their WWF titles are in the wrong aspect ratio and they’re gonna have to double dip!!

THEN all the <s>SS</s> (sorry) WS/OAR “cinephiles” will be able to thumb their elitist noses and proudly state that they were right all along.

And what a GLORIOUS day that will be. Dontcha think?

Joel
11-06-03, 10:53 PM
Jough, maybe you'd better think of changing this thread's title into:

1. 'J6P' vs. 'Cinephile': The Preferences
2. 'J6P' vs. 'Cinephile': The Definitions
3. 'J6P' vs. 'Cinephile': Fullscreen vs. Widescreen (then we can refer to this thread (http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=157608) for additional comments)

:D

Wizdar
11-07-03, 12:05 AM
Inspired by the thread you recommended:

J6P vs. Cinephile: Ignorance vs. Bliss

;)

talemyn
11-07-03, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by Wizdar
Inspired by the thread you recommended:

J6P vs. Cinephile: Ignorance vs. Bliss

;) I'm coming out of "I give up . . ." mode to officially support your suggestion. :lol:

Yakuza Bengoshi
11-07-03, 12:31 AM
J6P: The bliss of ignorance -- The picture fills the screen! :)

Cinephile: The woe of knowledge -- The picture fills the screen! :(

Joel
11-07-03, 12:38 AM
:lol: Exactly.

jough
11-07-03, 03:21 AM
This thread is currently tearing through the city and terrorizing Japanese people.

RAMPAGE!

Wizdar
11-07-03, 09:22 AM
And it's doing it in glorious 4:3

:D

With no insert

:lol:

"Oh, I crack myself up."

Spiky
11-07-03, 10:03 AM
Actually, Wiz, (referring to the WWF stuff) they'll just use stretch mode and probably never notice the difference.

And don't forget the blockbuster movies are usually 2.35:1, that is STILL a letterbox issue on a WS TV. It's not going away. Just imagine if I have J6P (say, my wife :)) over and show a European film in 1.66:1, oh the carnage, the horror, the humanity!! Bars on the side, or the top, aaahhhh, can't stand it. (and I didn't even say "subtitles")

That quote is worthy of me actually setting up:

kmac
11-07-03, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by ChrisHicks
I haven't read every post in this thread so if this was previously mentioned, I'm sorry.

the thing that really bothers me about the whole DVD becoming as popular as it is, is the fact that the early adopters have pretty much been disregarded since J6P has jumped on the "this is cool" bandwagon.

if it wasn't for us the format would have never reached the heights that it has today.

and to top it all off, the public just isn't informed. my dad has a 57"widescreen tv but still buys FF movies because he wants the whole picture. now all he does is complain about the bars on the left/right side of the pic.

I know I could have the set stretch the image but I will not do it. I have told him since the beginning to purchase WS because when he gets the new tv he will be upset. did he listen, NO. now he can suffer with the bars.

I really believe that the younger generations get it. Widescreen will become the new norm (if it isn't already in regards to DVD). I also do not believe that OAR will be scacrificed.

Does someone have the sales numbers for WS and FS DVDs?

Rypro 525
11-07-03, 12:45 PM
Does someone have the sales numbers for WS and FS DVDs

Originally posted by WillG of Home Theater Forum

Hulk WS debuts at number 1 while the P&S only makes number 16

Matrix Reloaded WS makes 2 while the P&S only makes 17

Charlie's Angels WS makes number 3 while the P&S has fallen off the top 20

Indiana Jones WS is at number 4 while P&S is at 18

Scarface WS still remains in the top 10 while the P&S has fallen off the top 20

The Italian Job is at 9 while the P&S is gone from the top 20

2 Fast 2 Furious WS is at 14 while the P&S is gone from the top 20

The Two Towers WS remains in the top 20 while the P&S in gone

I noticed that the 1st Matrix is at 12 on the charts. Interesting how a film that has been on DVD for a couple of years and has already sold like a Billion copies (it did have the top sales record at one point) is beating the P&S version of Matrix Reloaded. Not too shabby

he got his info from videobuisness.com

kmac
11-07-03, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Rypro 525
Does someone have the sales numbers for WS and FS DVDs


he got his info from videobuisness.com

Again, I am not worried about WS going away. Lets not be paranoid. Just keep buying your widescreen version movies.

markdclark43016
11-07-03, 02:29 PM
Because nobody asked for it, here are my takes on these earth-shattering "issues"...

1) Full Screen/Pan & Scan/"Standard" Ratio Transfers - The film's OAR, whatever that may be, is always preferable. However, I am willing to buy a film P&S IF that's the only version available and if I really love the film. I'm not happy about it, but I'll do it. Luckily, I've only had to do that on a couple of occasions. (I tend to prefer older films, which weren't widescreen in the first place.)

2) No insert. -- Frankly, I find this whole insert fixation asinine. I really like R2 discs, which come in transparent keep cases and have images (or text) printed on both sides of the sleeve.

3) Keepcase vs. Digipack/Snapper Cases -- Keepcases are definitely preferable, for the ease-of-replacement factor. But digipacks seem to be fairly durable. Snappers are horrible.

4) Forced Trailers -- Reprehensible. I am boycotting THE HULK and ANIMAL HOUSE DVDs over this issue. I can't imagine anything more irritating than having to sit through the same bunch of commercials everytime I pop in a DVD.

5) Double-Dipping -- Also a slimey practice, but I support it when the company is offering a significant upgrade of a previous disc. (Such as the recent 2-disc CASABLANCA SE). Carried to its extreme, however, this can become irksome in the extreme. Consider, for instance, Anchor Bay's endless repackaging of HALLOWEEN and the EVIL DEAD films. Triple and quadruple-dipping!

6) Non-Anamorphic Transfers for Widescreen Ratios -- This is really not much of an issue any more. Replacing a non-anamorphic widescreen transfer, however, is a good excuse for a double-dip.

7) Promotional Special Features -- Doesn't bother me much. I don't feel compelled to watch every single bonus on every single disc. If the supplements are boring, I just skip 'em. Who cares? The transfer's the thing.

8) DVD-ROM/Web Content en lieu of DVD-Video Content -- Couldn't care less either way, personally.

Rypro 525
11-07-03, 02:34 PM
you do know that you can fast forward the trailers in hulk 2 fast... and animal house