That is some heavy speculation and major fingerpointing you've got going on there.

This is exactly what I was going to say. That being said, I also have to agree with:
More and more studios are INTENTIONALLY double-dipping though. Sometimes it is a tough call for the consumer b/c the original release may have a fair share of features. I've learned to just stay away from Columbia-Tristar (wait for Superbit) and Universal's first offerings. How many versions of the American Pie films are there now? 25? 30? I lost count.

But pirates are going to pirate. Everything else is an excuse to justify their lawlessness.

Most everyone here on the forum know by now that when current releases are double dips, it's not because the studio inadvertently didn't get it right the first time. It's because they are manufacturing a collectible, same thing as they've done with scads of other products- everything from Barbie dolls to comic books to beanie babies to Harley Davidsons....stick a few bells and shinys on it and call it a limited edition, then watch the diehards stand in line to buy it. That's no excuse for pirating the second release; besides, collectors are going to want that limited edition, not a copy of it. They don't MAKE you buy a second or third release....nobody garnishes your wages or makes you sign a contract agreeing to do so upon the purchase of the original disc. I buy a DVD for the movie, and in most cases anything that was in the theatres within the last year that's getting a DVD release is going to look and sound pretty damn good on disc.....so if I'm not concerned about the extras, there isn't a reason to double dip.

Older releases are a different story as the technology and technique has improved with the DVD genre.....in more cases than not movie lovers are screaming for a better looking and sounding re-release, and again, they're going to want it as clean and as complete as possible, so they aren't very likely to pirate that either. In any case I don't see why double dip titles would encourage pirating.

Fixed. :thumbsup:

The point is some people don't want to get screwed with the worst version of the film. If a DVD comes out, the transfer is bad, and the price is $29.99, why pay for it when in less than 2 years a special edition will be released with a better picture?

I am one of those people who does not care about extra's, but I demand good picture quality. I check reviews at different websites before I buy. If the picture quality is not at least a 4 out of 5, I don't buy unless it is an old title and the PQ is limited by the source.

What annoys many people is the perception the studio's release bad versions on purpose and withhold the good version. And I have heard that some people rip and burn DVD's just to get rid of the "FBI warning" and preview screens that can't be skipped. If the studio's listened to customers, they would know what people wanted, and everyone would be happy.

I totally believe it. Look at Columbia Tristar's release of Underworld and then just out of the clear blue release a Superbit 6 weeks later, and then a director's cut 6 months after that? I don't think so. Get it right the first time. It is completely intentional. At least tell us that a better version is in the works. The Superbit had to be in manufacturing when the original was released for that kind of time frame. And if the company doesn't want to let us know, then at least drop the SE title from it since there is a better one in the works.

Underworld: SE - DVD Release Date: September 7, 2004
Underworld: SB - DVD Release Date: October 26, 2004
Underworld: DC - DVD Release Date: May 25, 2004

Thankfully, I'm happy if the disc is anamorphic with DD sound, so a double-dip for extras pretty much doesn't effect me. But I think it could encourage piracy for people who must have every little new tidbit that comes out for a movie

:lol:

Well, today is Thurrrrrrrrrrrrsday


arrrrr :D

I totally agree. Come on, we aren't talking about a movie that was released 6 years ago and then released again with a better Tx, features etc. We are talking about studios that intentionally decieve consumers and release the movie one right after another. Yes it is their right and yes we don't have to buy it but that doesn't mean it doesn't tick people off.

I don't think it encourages piracy. I think years of paying for crappy movies and ease of use are encouraging piracy. I think consumers are tired of studios and are fighting for what they want. But I don't think it is nearly as bad as the music industry situation.