Filmmaker

I proceed from the philosophy of "a difference which makes no difference is no difference."

John Sinnott

This statement doesn't follow from logically from what Adam posted. Answering some questions is a difference, and therefore better than no review.

While I agree that listing the diffeences in a re-release is best, I disagree that a review without such a listing is worthless. I think that it is infinitely preferable to no review at all. Even you've admitted that some people are not reading the reveiw to see a comparison between discs. Depriving these people of the information they seek just because you're not pleased, as you've requested, is just spiteful.

Filmmaker

Not if insufficient information is provided to place the reader in a position to know definitively whether he/she should or should not make a purchase. Whether we're given no review or half a review, the reader is left in the same neutral gear.

'Kay.

'Kay.

I believe I referred to them as a minority, so my point stands that the needs of the majority of readers aren't being served.

Draw it back a little, cowboy--I'm in no position of power here and cannot deprive anyone of anything; I can only register a constructive criticism and have it accepted or ignored.

Josh H

Have to chime in and agree with filmmaker on this one. Added footage is about the only reason I'll ever rebuy a DVD. Even in this case where the original is not anamorphic I'm not going to double dip just for a new transfer right now, as with an HD-DVD/Blu-ray release inevitiably coming down the road it's pointless to upgrade for that reason on any title at the moment IMO. Unless you're someone that has no intention of every getting into HD DVD formates I guess. I'm not buying in early on, but I'm definitely at least cutting back on double dips now.

But I do agree a review that leaves it out the new content comparison is better than none on the site, even though it's personally useless to me since that's the only question I had.

John Sinnott

Fair enough. Let me restate my point: Saying that reviews shouldn't be written that benefit a minority of reader comes across as being petty and spiteful.

That you think these reviews are less than optimal in fine, it's the "if I can't have it my way no one should be able to read it" attitude that I find unappealing.

Josh Z

Who are you to make this determination about whether the majority of readers are being served? You may not realize this, but in fact you don't speak for everyone. Your opinion is just that, your opinion, and that's all.

Filmmaker

Who am I spiting? This minority of readers? Why would I have a personal agenda against them, really? You're getting too Oliver Stone with this; I'm only making the case as to why these types of reviews fail to meet my, and I perceive/feel/get the sense of/conjecture from available evidence (listening in here, Josh Z?) a majority of others' needs. The creator of this site failed to even respond to my questions/observations, which indicates in what regard he holds me and my opinions, so I wouldn't sweat it.

Again, I see very little evidence that my feelings are any threat to those of you who feel differently.

Houstondon

A recap: A handful of members have pointed out their preferences in so-called double dip reviews. They extrapolate that the majority of other review readers want the same thing that they want (even going to the point of employing unsubstantiated net statistics of "95%"), essentially demanding more comprehensive reviews of double dip titles.

On the other hand are some of the reviewers and website owner trying to point out that they essentially agree that more is better. They then point out that there are a number of factors that prevent detailed side-by-side comparisons all the time. Some even take offense at the nasty little backhanded comments and snipes made on the subject.

I think Josh made the point best when he said how the lack of such a comparison made the review "personally useless to me since that's the only question I had". By not trying to influence others with the use of nonsensical made up BS, his point was clear; for him and him alone, the review didn't help. This is the part where the other detractors fell short, suggesting that the otherwise excellent review (and it was better by far than any I went to look at based on the negativity a few of you espoused) was a POS because it didn't address a single area that you were hoping would be addressed.

Reviews are not designed to be all things to all people. This is true here and at every other website/media outlet you can find. Some spend excessive time analyzing the objective criteria at the expense of the subjective factors that truly make the biggest difference while others produce fluff pieces making you wonder if the writer even saw the DVD in question. Some writers focus on the actors and background of the movie while others try to put the show in context and still others try to come up with annecdotes worthy of your attention. In all such cases, the reviews can be wonderful in terms of telling you something about the movie but I don't believe that a frame by frame breakdown of the new footage will tell you what you really wanted to know; "is the extra footage enough to get me to shell out more dough during a time when the high definition format(s) are about to unleash scores of newly improved versions?"

By fussing over the specifics, some of you are forgetting that the production company marketing departments are suckering you into the wrong fight. If the footage was so great, why wasn't it included in the original cut or the DVD extras on the first release? What is the motivation to buy a rehash version now when the next version may be mere months away with improved audio/video from the new formats? Companies releasing titles with really good extra footage have this incredible incentive called SALES that gets them to tell the world what the footage was (case in point: Robocop, which had a few moments of extra gore touted as the be all, end all, version when Criterion released it years ago as a double dip).

That said, no one is suggesting that a book length review of the extra footage is a bad thing, just not the sole reason to focus on when fussing about a review. Repeatedly complaining about the same thing doesn't win you points, nor does it serve to change the minds of those you'd like to influence (Filmmaker, while I can appreciate you deciding to make it your personal mission to respond to everyone in the thread, you're rehashing old ground more than anything else. Stick with what you know and sell your points softer for better effect in the future; trust me that it'll work far better than poking sticks at the unpaid staff.)

My take: Scott's review was just fine as written and reminds me of the old adage; "Those who try to please everyone will please no one".

John Sinnott

Well said Don!

Josh Z

Hear! Hear!

David Cornelius

Yay for Don!

And let me jump in to add that at least Scott was open and honest about not being able to provide a comparison. He could have ignored the fact entirely, simply mentioning only that new scenes have been added, then moving on to the rest of the review.

Instead, he apologized for not being able to compare in detail, which is a fair enough statement to make. Lets the fans know that he "couldn't recognize" the new footage, which infers: it's not enough to greatly improve or ruin the film, and it doesn't stick out in any way.

Yes, it sucks that he wasn't able to provide the same detailed run-down that he gave in his excellent Con Air:EE review, but he was honest about it. It was enough to tell me that I want to buy the thing.

GuessWho

This site is free.

If I get the info I want in the review, fantastic. If not, so what... I haven't suffered any losses because of it.

Argentoholic

REMOVED ASSHOLE COMMENT

Adam Tyner

You made your point. There's no need to keep antagonizing Scott.

GeoffK

Final warning Argentohlic. Walk away or you will be suspended or banned.

Filmmaker

Gee thanks, Dad. If I retread the same ground in my posts it's because (as is common here at DVDTalk) I receive replies that either fail to address my concerns, invent new interpretations of my concerns that are not valid or intended, or in the case of videophile, derail into near overwrought histrionics that I feel compelled to bring back to "center". In any case, my boiled down argument is this: a sizable portion (issues of majority/minority be damned) of the DVDTalk reader base is not being served by these types of reviews. That's it, that's all. Now the reviewers and "powers that be" have a choice to make: a) ignore the needs of those readers and tell them to be satisfied with what they get or b) recognize that the ultimate success and longevity of this (or any other interactive) site depends on giving the consumer what he/she wants and ensuring the quality bar is set (and remains) high. I've said all I need to say on the issue; I agree it's becoming a dead horse. If there is enough comfort here with the philosophy that "50% is good enough when it's free" then so be it; I simply consider it to be a shame...

aphex944

I compared the image quality of the old and new versions today, and I've found the new edition has a much softer image than the original release. The original release does have some edge enhancement noticeable here and there, but the contrast is overall much better in several scenes that I compared.

Also, the average bitrate of the new release is ~2mbps lower than the original one.

I was hoping it'd be at least a small improvement, guess it's all marketing. Same result with the new Ronin release-- the image quality is pretty much on par with the original release, but the print defects are double.

I don't think I'm ever double dipping again.

John Sinnott

"overwrought histrionics" Haha....I guess you're in the right profession filmmy, you do sure like drama and hyperbole, don't you?

Filmmaker

I call 'em like I see 'em.

MEJHarrison

I find it interesting that over at HTF, David Boulet reviewed the same title and also said that he couldn't compare it to the original version. Yet over there, no one is making a fuss over the issue. Make of that what you will I guess.

Anyway, those who aren't satisified with the review here might want to check out DVD-Basen to see what other reviews have to say about the new footage. I found at least two that discuss the issue.

Filmmaker

Not that DVD Talk is exactly the online version of Switzerland, but there is still a good deal more latitude given to dissention here than at HTF.

MEJHarrison

I'm not for a minute suggesting they're a better site. They're just different. My own personal opinion is this. I go there for serious, in-depth discussion. I come here for the fun. There's obviously some overlap, but that sums it up pretty well I'd say. Another interesting difference is the TV area. One Lost thread over here can get to be as large as their entire Lost Season 2 thread there. This place rocks for TV news. Their's sucks.

Anyway, I agree that this site gives more latitude. And neither site is better than the other.

My main point was if you're not getting the information you need from the review on this site, search for other reviews (DVD-Basen is an awesome review database) and find some that do give you what you want. The complaint was made. I don't see why it has to go on for three pages. There are at least two other reviews out there that discuss the differences. It's not worth beating this dead horse over.

EDIT:

Here's the reviews. Now hopefully we can move on:

DVD Movie Guide
Current Film

Filmmaker

Nor did I interpret it thusly.

I do appreciate the links; I wan't aware of that site. Having said that, as someone who values DVDTalk, it doesn't behoove me to just go elsewhere for the information I seek; I have a responsibility to at least attempt to point out where I think this site can be improved first. Whether that criticism is accepted or declined is another issue altogether, of course, but I at least feel validated in making the attempt. Of course, if the tide becomes more and more one where the "powers that be" at DVDTalk tell their readers what they need rather than DVDTalk's readers telling the "powers that be" what they need, then many of us likely will move on, but I hope to work against such a trend...

E Unit

Not to detract from all of these review comments, but I just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents about the movie itself. I haven't seen this movie since probably 2000. Does anybody else find it extremely odd that the debated issues in the movie apply to real life today? I mean in regards to wiretaps and the government eavesdroppoing and all that good stuff. Kind of amazing that this movie holds up that well after all these years. And, and to make it a bit more odd, did anybody note that Jon Voight's character - the bad guy - the charcters birthday is Sept. 11th? Weird.

Houstondon

Filmmaker: "Gee thanks, Dad. If I retread the same ground in my posts it's because (as is common here at DVDTalk) I receive replies that either fail to address my concerns, invent new interpretations of my concerns that are not valid or intended, or in the case of videophile, derail into near overwrought histrionics that I feel compelled to bring back to "center"."

Don: No, it seems more apparent that you have an issue being questioned. Your concerns have been directly addressed from the head man all the way down to the lowliest reviewer. No one has disagreed with you that adding in more information about new footage is a bad thing, most of the time reviewers doing just that (in one form or another).

Filmmaker: "In any case, my boiled down argument is this: a sizable portion (issues of majority/minority be damned) of the DVDTalk reader base is not being served by these types of reviews."

Don: No, the issue involved was your trying to marginalize anyone who disagreed with your assertion that "95%" of readers wanted/needed/demanded a specific type of material in double dip reviews. For the purpose of this discussion, you have backtracked each time the number issue came back up, now suggesting a "sizable portion" of readers are not being served. There have been a great many thousand hits on the review in question and the forum has over 50,000 members yet even in this thread the numbers of "I'm not being catered to properly" are minimal. Where you get the idea that such a large body of people exist is outside of my experience but it greatly weakens your argument which is why I specifically mentioned one member who made the more intelligent claim that he, as an individual, wanted the same thing.

Filmmaker: "That's it, that's all. Now the reviewers and "powers that be" have a choice to make: a) ignore the needs of those readers and tell them to be satisfied with what they get or b) recognize that the ultimate success and longevity of this (or any other interactive) site depends on giving the consumer what he/she wants and ensuring the quality bar is set (and remains) high. I've said all I need to say on the issue; I agree it's becoming a dead horse. If there is enough comfort here with the philosophy that "50% is good enough when it's free" then so be it; I simply consider it to be a shame..."

Don: The shame is that the hordes of likeminded folks have not ridden to your side and proved you right. I know that using arbitrarily made up net statistics as you seem apt to use looks like a good idea but it isn't. The review covers all the bases fairly well so where the "50%" comment comes from is yet another mystery. The shame is also that you've latched onto the matter so tightly that you can't see how irrational you're being by labeling those of us who contribute here ("the reviewers and "powers that be"") based on a single subject. There have been a great deal of changes over the years in order to make DVD Talk a more user friendly website and address the needs of the MAJORITY of consumers. Your complaint was heard, discussed, and you're not satisfied that just about everyone agreed with you that adding in the suggested material was a good idea (most of the time, additional material is discussed at length in reviews, though a frame by frame breakdown that might appeal to the truly obsessive fan is unlike to happen).

That you can openly discuss the matter here is only now coming up in the latter parts of the thread since almost every other review site that has a forum tends to erase such comments rather quickly and ban the user (though most do not have forums). No one told you "what you need" as you keep going on about, they've simply pointed out that this is what was offered in this one case, for better or for worse. Out of over 20,000 reviews, that's a pretty decent track record although the "bar" you speak of gets elevated all the time behind the scenes and only those of you who don't pay attention fail to notice it. Based on the lack of negative responses in this thread to the topic at hand, I'll willing to venture a guess that most consumers "get it" better than you do though I'm pretty sure you'll backtrack on your "I've said all I need to say on the issue" as you have repeatedly so far and make up another statistic to alledgedly support your next conclusion.

There's a number of reasons why DVD Talk is among the most popular websites discussing movies and DVD's, chief among them being how much G! and company care about the consumer. If you detect a bit of anger in some of their responses, it's likely due to the irony that they routinely take flack from companies for being so consumer driven.