I get it. Nicely played.

DJ,

I think you understand my point quite well. I'm not here to play games, troll... I am simply trying to generate some discussion about DVDs and quality. Obviously my taste (education and interest) in film is a bit more refined than yours. That's not to insult you, it's to state an unfortunate fact.

I, for one, will not watch this film until someone releases it in color. I mean, I don't have a black and white 53" DLP, do I? -ohbfrank-

rotfl

I do? What the heck is it?

Then you're failing miserably. You haven't made a single cohesive argument in any of your posts.

Bravo.

Guy, if you think that modifying films to have sound blaring out of all speakers is what is needed to have a film realize its full potential, your taste is about as refined as feces.

DJ

I'm sure the studios are pleased, to say the least, that a post criticizing their sometimes dubious DVD practices has degenerated to this point. Sad - we all lose.

I really have to agree with djtoell on this matter.

People on here make a *HUGE* deal about how they want thier movies presented the same way they were in the theater...yet bitch the moment these movies aren't in full 5.1/DTS mix on DVD. The orginal theater experience didnt include surround sound...so wouldnt this 5.1 business take away from the "orginal theater experience"

The exact same thing happened when "Back to the Future" came out. I remember someone saying something like "Well, if they had surround sound at the time they would have shot the movie in it." Then someone else said that by that reasoning all B&W movies should be colorized because, had the ability to film in color been affordable/availible, they would have shot the movie in color.

You obviously don't get it, if you refer to those who prefer original soundtracks as J6P. Do you not understand that they can't create 5.1 channels from 1 or 2 channels very well? Please search for threads on Godfather soundtrack for all the complaints about NOT having mono available since the pseudo-5.1 is questionable on the DVD. I often find that using the stereo tracks on 80s movies decoded with DPL II is more engaging than the crap 5.1 tracks the studios foisted on us. Or just the stereo in stereo.

Well, I doubt they give 2 shakes for anything here or anywhere else that fanboys like us chat. But it's again a J6P issue. Most people don't give a damn about what the cover looks like or anything else. You're right, the multiple versions are a ripoff in some ways. On the other hand, it often gives those who care the product they want. Eventually...

The most important aspect of dvd is the presentation of the film itself.

Extras are the least important factor in purchasing a dvd. So it does NOT matter if a film is released bare bones now or not.

If you want to purchase a newer film and it is released bare first,then loaded later. You have a choice,pick it up now and rebuy later,or wait and buy later. NO one is 'forcing' you to purchase either version!

So complaining about it is pretty lame and pointless.

Also most extras on newer releases(especially those lousy 'commentaries') are pretty worthless. Studios are killing the appeal of extra features but basically 'requiring'(or forcing) the cast and crew to participate immediately after filming.

Being so current,the commentaries are pretty lame and lack the 'charm' of most older films being discussed years later(when they have plenty too look back on). "hey I remember when I was filming this..."..you don't get that on 'current' commentaries..and most of the participants seem disinterested,just going through the motions. Just one of many examples how studios 'requiring' dvds too be loaded with 'features' is killing them in general. So much so,that I don't give much care about extra features today,unless they are truely something special and worth my time.



On the audio front,you know how I feel about that:)

I appreciate original audio mixes over revamped versions. The majority of 'updated' audio mixes sound lame,less atmospheric and just not 'right' at all. They completely change the tone and feel of a film,when they go out of their way to 'update' the sound. Even when the new mixes are largely mono,but spread out abit with the music. They still don't sound 'right'.

The Godfather remix sounds atrocious. The voices don't sound natural now and have this tin can echo effect. Some reviewers proclaim "it is a 'limitation' of the original sources' attempting to say "The film was never recorded 'properly'. When I have seen and heard the original mono mix of The Godfather a few times and not once did the dialogue sound as unnatural as on the 5.1 remix! Yet the 5.1 lovers living in their fantasy land of ignorance think all 'bad' dialogue sounding 5.1 remixes are '"limitations of the original sources which were never recorded properly. Afterall,mono means subpar quality!"


Also replacing sound effects just to 'update' the audio does'nt always work well.

The 'transmission' sequence in the 'alternate'(the so called 'directors cut') version of Alien is ruined with the new 'updated' sound effects replacing the 'alien transmission signal'. Viewing the original deleted scene on the original dvd release. Not only is the signallouder,but far more disturbing and creepy sounding! Meanwhile the remix/replaced effect is lower and sounds lame with uncreepy sound effects and sounds pretty generic.

Just because a film was made in 2.0 stereo,or mono in the 70's or 80's(or any time) does not mean 'updating' the audio to 5.1 will sound 'better'. In fact many times the remixes sound pretty lame.

New Line Cinema's 5.1 mixes of 2.0 stereo films sound beyond terrible. They always come out lower sounding,and very shrill compared to the more atmospheric natural sounding original mixes.

Ocasionally an 'upgrade' from stereo to 5.1 doesn't sound 'too' bad. But too many times,the mixers screw it up with attempting to 'update' the audio in the first place. So it is better to just leave original audio mixes alone. Restore them to perfect clarity and they will kick as much ass as any 5.1 mix. It is not about how many speakers are being used,but how well the film sounds in it's original form.

So a true film fan would appreciate both the original aspect ratio and original audio mixes of a film. Since they appreciate the actual work and effort put into the film by the makers.

Meanwhile a less caring person has no problems with a piece of art being altered to suit their needs.

If the studios manipulate you, it could be that you're a gigantic pu... I better stop. :) Seriously people need to live with multiple releases and realize the studios are meeting a demand. Sadly one version of American Pie won't cut it.

Julie,

Thank you for your response. You've convinced me that The Karate Kid will sound fine in its original 2.0. After the Star Trek mono to 5.1 conversion, I have to admit I've always thought conversion was the best way to handle audio on older film/TV. Even though my setup at home is limited I do notice some differences. For example, the 5.1 mix on BTTF sounds great! The 2.0 surround on Can't Stop the Music (guilty pleasure movie) is a muffled mess. My soundtrack CD actually sounds better!

With regard to the "big head" cover art, what do you think? At first I didn't care. Now it's getting to be obnoxious - from my perspective.

My keeper is asleep... I don't have much time. The bad news is that the studios are, in fact, vigorously manipulating us. The good news is that it's with release. There, now I

I think it's JULIE who's manipulating us!! That was the first coherent and intelligent post i've read from her. Go Julie! :) :up:

Wait, so Julie's a girl again? Now this thread's really got me confused. http://www.cloudchaser.com/images/smilies/crap.gif

Great post, Julie.

Your welcome and thanks everyone:)



...and Joe,yes 'she' is how you refer to me;)

It's the last thing I'm worried about since it's whats inside thats important. Unless all the dvds in your collection are faced out and thats the main reason for display...who cares? They can present every dvd in a paper bag for all I care. as long as it plays....and it has a long shelf life because of proper manufacturing....it's all good. I want the disc to last. Big heads, snapper cases, triple-dipping, lock-tabs....it's nothing but a waste of time for me to dwell on these issues. Building my library is fun, educating and full of enjoyment. I'd have nothing but a headache if all I did was focus on that other crap.

That's the only thing that really pisses me off about it.

I mean at this point, most people should be able to look at a DVD release, and, based on the specs, be able to figure out how likely it is another version will be released later.

But I find it very annoying when a movie comes out on DVD that I already know I love, saw it in the kickass THX theater, but have to settle for an inferior audio and visual experience (Spiderman was a somewhat recent example of this for me). I don't really care if they release multiple versions (it's only $15 or $20 after all), just release the better versions right away so I can at least have the quality the film deserves and the format is capable of.

Its all about greed from the studio's and they know we'll buy them :(

People love their favorite movie. The studios know this. They can release it over and over, each time with a little more extras than it had before, and they'll buy it again. I am guilty of this myself.

I think it sucks the way studios treat Americans. Other countries get beautiful cover art and sometimes way more extras on first time releases. Here we get insulted with huge floating heads and tons of critical praise pasted all over the covers and then they hold back extras for a potential re-release. Because studios know people will buy anything! Its sad, I wish studios would give more credit to people. They insult them with stupid movies and continue to do so with poor DVD releases.

The big-head issue you are referring to is a marketing thing, plain and simple. Big names and marketable faces sell, so obviously the studios are trying to kill two birds with one stone. I'm sure they realize other cover options look better, but it is tough to explain that to the top brass when a marketing guy is running around with some research report on how the people at Walmart are 20 times more likely to buy a movie if it has the big name actor's face plastered all over the cover than if the cover is a teaser or theatrical poster. They are going to take the option that makes them the most money every time.

To be fair, studios do this because many DVD fans demand it. Nearly every time a DVD of a new film is announced sans a commentary track someone in these forums will complain. Almost every barebones release receives the comment "the least they could've done is done a commentary track." If studios wait until a later release, they get accused of double dipping and manipulating us.

By that reasoning, studios should stop producing DVDs altogether, since High Definition releases of these films are inevitable.

Look at computers. I'm sure everyone here has bought a computer that, at the time, was top of the line. How long did it take for a newer, better computer come out? Better yet, how long did it take for your current computer to be worth "garbage"? Most of us have either bought newer PCs or have upgraded our current ones multiple times. Do any of us blame PC manufaturers for making contantly better products that render our current ones obsolete? Do any of us feel 'forced' to buy the newest, fastest one? You got what you paid for when you bought your PC, and the manufacturer isn't ripping you off by releasing a better product down the line.

This old chestnut? After all these years why this polarizing position? Shouldn't we be beyond this to expect studio releases to have the original audio and offer enhanced audio mixes if they so choose? Isn't that what we are seeing more and more in the marketplace? Then people can choose their own approach.

Btw, the new Mary Poppins has an "enhanced" mix that could only appeal to a tin gutter. In this case, thank goodness there is the "original" mix.

Back on topic, our expectations should be that marketing will try to sell you their product as many times as they can. It is our job to realize that it ain't a hug from your kids. It is just stuff. Admittedly stuff we love. So, we have to decide whether we need a new car every two years.

Standard DVD will be around for many years. I have absolutely no intention of purchasing either a HDTV or one of the High Def competing DVD formats. I'm sure I represent a rather large segment of the population - the studios know this. My guess is that HD will have a consumer penetration of about 2 million households. That's what "high-end" Laserdisc accomplished (Though it took 20 years!). HD releases will have a minimal impact on standard DVD.

Answer: Yes.

You just have to be aware of their $ games. I hold off buying when I suspect that it will get a special release at some point. How long am I willing to wait on the studio's? Well, I'm looking forward to buying 'Donnie Darko' for the first time in just a few more days.

Smurf Sex!!!

It all comes down to how you make the call and what your reasoning is. I buy DVD for the film itself. Most recently filmed movies are presented in OAR, anamorphic and look very good their first time out of the gate. There may not be scads of extras, there may not be commentaries, and the covers may not be the picture you wanted, but if you buy a DVD for the film itself then most of the time you get great sound and a very nice print to watch. If you're buying a DVD for the movie then their potential for manipulation isn't nearly as powerful as for those buyers adamant to have deleted scenes, making of documentaries, multiple commentaries and the likes. If it's a movie somewhere in my top 10-20 of all time (last years' rerelease of The Thing is a good example) then their ability to manipulate me rises tenfold because I want all those goodies, but past that I'm happy to just watch the movie and not as apt to double dip. The studios aren't dumb.....how many TV on DVD rereleases do you see? They'r pricier on the average, and studios know once the consumer has the show in his/her collection they aren't likely to buy again so they don't take the chance. Just cos something is sitting on the shelf rereleased you don't have to buy it all over again. Let that puppy sit!

I don't mind 2.0 mixes. I only have 2 very large speakers and a sub for me a 2 channel mix is adequate for me until I upgrade.

You mean, apart from the Star Trek and Twilight Zone sets? Or the sets vs. single releases of Simpsons, South Park, Highlander: The Series, Transformers, Eerie Indiana, and Friends? Or the "Family Guy: Freaking Sweet Collection"? Or the most recent rerelease of Neon Genesis: Evangelion?

I did. I thought your posts were clever. :up:

:lol: 3 different (could be considered 4) releases of Twilight Zone.

How about releasing two seasons of Mad About You and then proceed to release a best of Season 1 & 2 set.

Farscape is getting a rerelease. X-files is getting a "best of" the conspiracy episodes set this year.

Granted they[tv re-releases] are fewer, but they still do it plenty.

That just reminded me of the Married with Children "Most Outragious Episodes" DVDs that preceeded the season sets. Damn, I'm beginning to think that studios TV show rereleases may be just as common as film ones.

Oh, and Matt's posts in this thread have been very amusing.

I wouldn't be too sure about this just yet. If either of the HD formats sell as well as the new HDTVS are now they will probably ditch dvd as quickly as possible. The industry is pushing for new copyright schemes and larger files more than anything.

Here's a new one. For anyone who has postponed getting 24: Season 1 for $15, probably should get it soon. Fox is introducing "starter" DVDs. 24 is one of the first ones. A single DVD with the first 2 episodes on it for $10. The $15/season deal will be missed, but I knew that couldn't last long. So pick 'em up while you can, I'm sure once these start getting released, the first seasons will remain at full price.

FWIW, for $10, I think it should be 4 eps.