lordzeppelin

With the recent thread about the Godfather films being restored for a better DVD release, the debate on double-dipping has had it's flames stoked...but is it really that bad?

I bought my first dvd player in 1998. I never owned a laser disc player because of the costs associated, and for the fact that I was "too young" to afford one (I'm 25 now, so you figure that out). But I did own a pretty healthy VHS collection, a lot of which were "widescreen" editions that I had to Special Order from suncoast. Now, that being said, DVD was exciting to me. It offered the digital clarity and special features all in one disc. (or 2).

Fast forward, here we are 6 years into the market on DVDs, and we complain about studios releasing better editions of DVDs that we know and love?

In some cases, it's warranted. The restoration on Reservoir Dogs aside, sometimes the discs fail to live up to expectations. Sometimes, they shouldn't have been released to begin with. But the same could be said for VHS and even LD, right? I can't tell you how many times I bought and and bought again on VHS tapes, either to just get widescreen or to get a director's cut or whatever. Either way, I loved it. I really didn't complain to much about it, and I still don't now with the re-releasing of DVDs.

I guess it would be nice to have a definitive version on the first shot, but how often does that happen? I love my Gladiator disc, but would it benefit from a new HD level transfer? it's debatable, but you can bet I'd jump on it.

I just don't understand how people can sit and complain about something like the Batman dvd and whine about how bad it needs a new disc, but in the same breath complain about a dvd that they bought 18 months ago that will see a new release in another 12 months, despite the improved technology and methods to create and master that technology. Sure that batman disc is 5 years old now, but the Gladiator disc is now 3 years old. You think the companies making these discs don't now have more of a clue what they are doing? So why begrudge them trying to improve upon a release FOR YOU, THE CONSUMER, NOT THEM.

Sure, they get more money out of it, but that's how it works. I don't advocate them releasing a new disc in 4 months from the release of the first, but if it's a year or more, who cares? The secondary market on these discs will get you anywhere from 50-95% of what you paid for the original disc, if not more.

I know some of you are vehemently opposed to some of the double-dips that have been announced and released, but some have to share the philosphy that it's bound to happen.

Hell, there are some VHS tapes that were released and re-released to death. Star Wars, anyone? I personally ahve every damn Star Wars release - all in both widescreen and fullscreen if they were available. I'll buy the DVDs next september, and I'll buy a new set if they were to release them again in September 2005. I don't care.

discuss.

Ralph Wiggum

I don't think it's inherently good or bad.

Double-dipping typically annoys me because it is the result of studios not "getting it right" the first time. Sometimes, there are valid reasons behind this, but it sure seems that more often than not it is a function of laziness/greed.

As long as people support the practice, the studios have no reason to stop.

Josh H

Exactly Ralph.

It pisses me off as they should have got it right the first time.

I don't mind if they put out a new SE with more special features the next time. I'll just pass on that as I rarely watch extras anyway.

But I hate it when they put out the movie, more or less with the impression that it's the best picture/sound we're going to get (i.e. with the Godfather I and II) then turn around and re-release it with a better transfer.

Generally, as longs as the original release is OAR, anamorphic and in DD 5.1 I'll pass on the re-release, and I usually won't buy the original unless it meets those specs.

But something like the Godfather, where the orignal meets them, a re-release is just ridiculous. They should have got the transfer right the first time.

Vision Society

I think double dipping is entirely justified if the studio incurred a great amount of cost in acquiring the new footage/restoration, etc. So I don't have problems with it.

Jackskeleton

Considering no one is forcing anyone to buy any dvd the first time let alone the second time, it's not a bad thing. folks are just picky and they get mad when something they already paid for comes out in a new better version. that's all.

talemyn

I don't mind double-dips in most situations. Generally, they involve improvements which I am all for. As far as getting it done right the first time goes, I think that the balance is getting it done right versus getting it done fast and I think that that really varies from case to case. I mean, there are probably a ton of people who would be quite happy with a completely barebones release of Star Wars now, and then wait until 2004/2005 to purchase a beefed-up version rather than continuing to wait for a full-bodied release with nothing to watch until then.

What gets me is the re-releases that are released relatively quickly after an initial release, but without any warning that it was coming, causing people to go out and get the first release, only to be hit with a new one 6 months later.. I find that to be fairly deceitful. I think that PJ's approach with the LOTR's EE releases was perfect. He made it very clear ahead of time what to expect with the various releases, so that if you wanted to wait for the more robust version, instead of getting the release put out fastest (as in my case), you could make that decision with full knowledge ahead of time. It's straightforward, honest, and focuses putting the interests of the customers first.

Josh H

That's why I usually don't have a problem with it.

The Godfather is a rare exception. They were anamorphic, DD 5.1, and being that they were older movies I was under the impression that we got the best transfers they could do.

Now they come out and basically say they suck and they're going to release better ones. That's ridiculous IMO. If they could have made better transfers, they should have got them right the first time.

Other cases I don't care. It's your own fault if you wasted money on a non-anamorphic DVD or something that's just screaming re-release.

gutwrencher

I resemble that comment. I've double-dipped, triple-dipped and if needed...a quad-shot. yes...they should get it right the first time. there is no perfect world here. does it make me cry and beat fists? nope. I deal with it when it happens. until then...I'll enjoy a current edition just fine.

DVDHO

I dont mind at all,I mean Scarface for instince,I couldnt wait to get a better version of this film.

I only double dip on movies I really like and it has to be much better then the last version like True Romance,Pulp Fiction,Rez Dogs etc.

Some of these DVDs that are getting double dipped need it bad like NLP Vacation and soon Goodfella's,but if they came out with a new version of Gladiator I wouldnt run out and buy it since everything I need is on the one I own,you can tell if there doing it for a cash cow.

And alot of these new releases coming out are Directors cuts of the movies that where released before like Apacalyps Now,Alien Quadrilogy,Day of the Dead etc.

TomOpus

Yeah, if/when it happens I just deal with the situation. I've double-dipped very very few times... but I've had my reasons.

I can understand people who don't have a lot of $$ being upset with re-releases. Knowing how these things go, it can be tough for some to decide whether they should wait or take the plunge.

MJKTool

This is how I feel most of the time...BUT the supposed Godfather release annoys me a little bit because it was such an expensive set that was released not that long ago. And seeing as it was a Paramount release (who are usually great at transfers) I thought, at the time, it would be the only release until HD, since Paramount rarely re-releases dvd's. So in this instance I do feel a little cheated.

JoeyOhhhh

What pisses me off with new transfers in particular is that there are movies out there that go through these extensive restorations and look great, and then studios take a film they know will sell, and give it a half-ass job.

I wouldn't be surprised if Scarface is redone again somewhere down the line.

indycohiba

I don't mind it on older releases when the media had not become mainstream and the transfer/restoration process was just gaining legs, but now there is not a good reason for new releases as far as a consumer is concerned. I have really become more selective on upgrading unless there is a substantial increase in value justifying a repurchase. And it has to be a really good movie.

danwiz

Only thing I've ever felt compelled to double-dip on was "Seven", the original, released in 1997 left a lot to be desired, so when it was re-released I anted-up for it without complaint. For all of the others I just ignore the 2nd dip.

With LOTR, as many people have mentioned - Peter Jackson told us what was going to happen right from the start, so we could make informed purchase decisions based on full information. I really appreciate his honesty, and have doube dipped on both of the now released LOTR movies - and most likely will also double dip on the 3rd one!

To answer the specific question - NO, it's not that horrible of a thing!

kedalto1

I personally don't care on way or another, in most instances. Now, there are a lot of them out there that I am basically waiting on SE's before I make my purchases, because I know they will eventually come. Batman (89), Days of Thunder, The Shawshank Redemption, Top Gun...movies like that are all in that list.

However, some movies I am just happy with the version of the film that I already have. We're all pretty sure that The Matrix will be double dipped, but I have the 2 Disc box set w/ Revisited. I doubt very seriously that the new dip will be anything more than the Revisited disc as the second disc. In that case, I'm happy with what I have.

To be, it basically depends on what is on the disc as to whether it needs a second dip. Some movies I just won't buy because I know they're too big to just have one release before it's all said and done. I'll gladly hold off buying the bare bones Batman because there's the inevitable SE when Intimidation Game comes out.

Double Dipping is only important if you plan to buy / ignore certain releases. Don't want a new disc, don't buy it...

kedalto1

Also, since Godfather is being double dipped, hopefully I will be able to find the set out now for hella cheap when it happens. From what I've seen, nothing wrong with that set...

ctyankee

So when a DVD producer has to buy the the rights (rather than own them) to a film and then restore/clean the film, purchase special features etc. and transfer to video - you think they are "justified" if they choose to double dip the title? Interesting.

Me? I think that if a producer can't get a good return for his investment by doing it right the first time - he should find another business. The same goes for cars, TVs, DVD players etc.

lordzeppelin

I'm a little upset with the Godfather situation myself...but I will pick up the new discs. I had 2 different versions on vhs, and 3 if you count the "epic".

Just a nitpick...what does everyone feel is "expensive"? Like what is acceptable per disc singularly and in box sets?

I generally say with box sets, the norm seems to be $10-12 per disc, and I'm fine with that (this is counting BB release week deals and such...not the MSRP). I paid $40 for my Gofather Set originally, and I feel I've gotten my money's worth out of it.

I dunno...I pretty much approach it on a case by case basis, but I'm always buying and selling DVDs on a revolving basis because that's how I am. A lot of times I end up picking up something just to watch a few times and then sell, rather than rent.

cruzness

I usually have no problem double dipping when there is a significant difference on a film I like such as a Director's cut or a significantly better transfer ,or DTS or an incredible number of Special Features. Some older releases and older boxsets needed to be rereleased (Die Hard Trilogy, Scarface, etc..) In the case of Scarface, it had a terrible transfer and weak audio. Die Hard Trilogy had a mediocre transfer and mediocre audio. Both of these were released in the early days of DVD and it was common knowledge that these would one day be replaced. Most people welcomed the excellent newer editions of these movies because the studios took their time and got them right both in audio and video quality and in extra features. The fact that Paramount took their time making the DVD's and let the hype and anticipation build up for them made it seem like these would be THE definitive Godfather set. When they came out everyone accepted that the video quality was fine considering that the original elements were supposedly in shambles. But because Paramount admitted that they did a botched job on these makes it their fault for not pushing these back to get them right. I'll have no problem if they rerelease these with a better transfer, better audio and more special features, but it had better be a substantial difference from the first release. The Alien Quadrilogy sounds like a good example of this. The original set was already a good set but the newer set sounds fantastic. Double the number of discs, special edition cuts of the films, more special features and improved transfers and audio options. If Paramount can put something together like this then most people wouldn't complain.

gutwrencher

I try not to be too focused on price....it takes the fun out of impulse and spree buying. I would never pass up a sale or deal, but if I feel a film/dvd is worth it....I'll pay whatever. if I'm willing to pay $60 for the oop Rabid Dogs dvd, and $70 for the oop Gettysburg...I dont think expensive comes into play. if I want it in the library, I'll pay for getting it fast, regardless of price. a luxury I may not always have...so I gotta stock up while I can. I also never sell, trade or loan my titles. it's a library...not a market place.

kajs

I'll agree with everything lordzeppelin said. I have no problem selling off my old copies to get improved versions.

BlackBeauty92

glad i've been holding off on Godfather original box set

the transfer was bad.... period. eve Anchor Bay's "unknown" tittles can look better than that

hopefully they got it "right" this time...

mdm67

double-dipping isn't horrible, the fact that studios are cheating on us collectors is what makes it horrible.
the fact that a lot of people - having no respect for themselves as consumers - are ready to upgrade every time studios put a new label on the case of a DVD is horrible.
I entered the DVD world 3 years ago, do you want to know why? because I wanted to avoid the waste of money that is every new technology, I'm not a pioneer, especially when to be a pioneer means that you have nothing to gain but you're only goin' to waste a lot of money.
I am a collector of movies, I have a system to do it, I don't gather randomly things, the so-called "upgrading of DVD's" is annoying especially when it involves DVD's - the Godfather series - released 24 months ago. Usually I don't need upgrading, I'm patient, I can wait, I have already seen the movies I want, while new movies always receive decent DVD editions. There is a lot of movies studios could upgrade and I am ready to double-dip: from VHS to DVD; or studios could even improve a lot of crappy DVD's edited in the beginning of the DVD era: The Sting, Midnight Cowboy and many others.
What does it mean double-dipping? I think it means: studios wnat to **** your ***, are you willling and able letting them do it?

My Collection

matome

I'll only double dip for a sound/picture improvement (e.g. new anamorphic transfer, DTS track). Extras mean squat to me, so I pass on those "upgrades".

DVDho78DTS

Thanks to this thread I now hate the phrase double dipping.

I'll buy a DVD again if I feel it is warranted.