I don't see how you can take the guy seriously, let alone say he has a good point. Maybe if you're really focused on the DVD format, but collecting films isn't like other collecting. You don't watch them 5 times in a row and say you're done with them. What's great about movies is that you can come back with a different perspective or new appreciation, or new disappreciation-- the self isn't constant. None of those examples can be taken seriously-- renting works but there's not the same kind of spontaneity, and I don't know too many video stores a few blocks away that have many of the films I own, or allow you to rent the special features disks. What if you have company over and want to put something on? No one wants to be tied down to a video store.
I'd like to know what he thinks entertainment is. If it's not sitting around the living room spending time with your family while watching a movie you all enjoy, then I don't want to know what is.

His entire article is just plain funny, he uses specific, far out examples for each of his "points". And from the sound of it, he has no appreciation for films, which should stop him from being allowed to talk about them to begin with. If he's good at anything it's being able to get people to respond and waste their time like i'm doing right now.

Any recommendations on where? Casablanca is a real example for me, i've been thinking of pciking it up lately but I can't find it for cheaper than $28 (CND.).

ps. For those concerned, my main point is that collecting for the sake of collecting is stupid. I agree, movies are great to re-watch and have available whenever you want. It's when you have hundreds of dvds that you never watch but own just for the sake of owning that title that seems a bit much.

Was actually thinking this afternoon as I was cleaning out my office that my 500+ dvds seem a bit excessive. My wife and I were trying to find something to watch tonight, and it took us twenty minutes before we skipped a movie altogether and agreed to start checking out Season One of Lost.

I'm not saying the article's author makes perfect sense, but the fact that I've got SO much money invested in DVDs, CDs (3000+), Comic Books and Star Wars Action Figures, makes me stop and think "whoa, maybe my priorities are seriously out of whack". That's not to say that I'm unable to pay bills, or eat, or even live quite comfortably - but I could be saving a LOT.

It's food for thought, and the eventual conclusion from these kinds of thoughts will vary with whomever reads them, as has been illustrated in the responses.

That article opened my eyes - I never knew just how materialistic and shallow I was. Thank you, Joel Stein! I have since sold off my DVD collection, my car, the house I was renting and all my other worldly possessions to provide a magnificent feast for all my new hobo friends. These days I wander up and the down the streets yelling at the "dorks with the DVDs" trying to make them see the error of their ways. At night I hunt animals for food, the way nature intended. Of course, living in a city, I have to do that at the zoo or find dogs people have left alone in their backyards... wait a sec... no, I didn't do any that. That fluff-piece was just stupid.

It's all true though if he is talking about consuming in general. DVD collectors are no different from our parents that collected books on their shelves or tons of artwork or record collections..Joel Stein's article is only a truthful look at any type of collecting/consuming. If he sees collecting DVDs as evil, but collecting books is okay, then he's full of shit....If anyone goes to his house and sees if he has paintings hanging up all over the walls, his arguement can be used against him. Because these are all levels of expressing one's identity by having to show off something. He may be a hippocrate and have holes in his arguement or he may be consuming something different than DVDs, but he is still right with that article...How many times can someone watch "Under the Tuscan Sun?"

Heaps, I presume - Diane Lane's hot. (Note: I haven't watched Under the Tuscan sun... yet.)

Amazon has it listed for about $12 used. However, I pick up used DVD's, usually at much lower prices, at a number of places: Hastings, Hollywood Video, The Movie Gallery, Blockbuster, independent stores like Waterloo Video (Austin), and even pawn shops. I recently bought at a pawn shop that was selling DVDs for $5 each, or 7 DVD's for $20.

As to your second remark, and the others on here talking about "over collecting": please define "over collecting" for us. At what number of DVDs is one "over collecting?"

I'm also curious just how you decide when someone owns DVDs "just for the sake of owning them," and just when that becomes "a bit much?" And assuming that there are people who own DVDs "just for the sake of owning them," why is it "a bit much?" And what, exactly, do you mean by "a bit much."

What, precisely, is wrong with owning something just for the sake of owning it? Is one person somehow inferior to another because he owns something just for the sake of owing it? Is this a crime for the morality police, or should we pass an actual law against it?

It seems extremely arrogant to me, and more than a little self-righteous, to describe someone else as "over collecting" something, as if there is some "correct" size of a collection, and anything more than that makes a person somehow suspect, or inferior.

Not up to the caliber of The Onion, but mildly amusing nonetheless. If this article were a DVD, it'd be worth a Netflix rental, but I wouldn't buy it. ** out of ****

The article itself is not interesting. The reactions it engenders are.

I have thought about this phenomenon a lot, in conjunction with my own collection habits and those of others, and what interests me most is the logical gap between loving film and owning DVDs. I completely respect the love of film that most forum members here obviously have. What I think is interesting is the desire to own the DVDs of films that one loves. To some this seems obvious, but to me it's not. Film is an experience whereas DVDs are a commodity (that allows one to have a certain type of experience). The fact that we seem to equate the two to me is an interesting phenomenon. It'll be sad to me if film becomes completely commodified, so that it's no longer a social experience. I mean, didn't most of us develop our love of film years ago in movie theaters, rather than on home video?

You're putting words in my mouth. You used "over collecting" in quotes multiple times when I never said that. Nor did I ever say someone was inferior or was it some kind of crime.

How do you decide when someone's buying something just for the sake of buying it? When you buy something knowing you probably won't use it for it's intended purpose. When you buy Casablanca because people consider it a classic, but personally you know you will either never watch it, or maybe pop it in once.

"A bit much" is when you cross the line of buying something because you want to use it and buying something just to own it. "A bit much" is when you own something for it's materialistic value but not because it has any use to you. Regarding the "correct" size, there is none, I never said there was. It's the motive behind buying something, not how much you buy.

I know it was just a fluff-piece, and I'm not going to organize anti-dvd rallies or anything, i'm just saying that some of what he says is true to a lot of consumers today. I do it too sometimes, tons of people do.

I would say owning over 30 DVDs is over-collecting...There is nothing wrong or immoral or a question of superior versus inferior with collecting or consuming, it's just a waste of money and a bad compulsive habit. I spent at least 5000 dollars on DVDs. Sure, it's better than spending money on DVDs then on gas/car, cigarrettes, and drugs, but it's still a waste of money overall...Looking back now, I see my situation like this:
1. Would I rather of spent that money on a sweeter home theater set up (maybe a plasma or projector) and just rent DVDs.
or
2. Have a decent HDTV and buy over 300 DVDs.

I did choice # 2, and I feel like I made a mistake, because the more DVDs I buy, the less I watch...It's easier to watch a smaller collection over and over. What's the purpose of having a huge collection that isn't watched. It's the same thing though of having books in a book shelf. I mean how many times does one read their novels over and over...but anyway, there is still nothing really wrong with it - I just think collecting is a bad habit and a waste of money, yet it's almost impossible to control and break the habit...I guess it bugs me more than other people, because I wish I was a minimalist - I can't stand having crap, garbage, unused things collecting dust (such as the majority of my dvd collection), or too much of one thing in my place...

Geez, it's a lame article. But everyone getting all pissed off about it and whining about it on the internet kind of reaffirms his point.

As for over-collecting, I'd define it as people who buy stuff just to have it. Not because they want to enjoy it as part of their hobby. There's no set number of movies that's too many. But if you're buying movies you don't enjoy just to have them or raise the number of titles you own, then that's over-collecting IMO.

The dictionary defines "commodity" as: "Something useful that can be turned to commercial or other advantage." Film fits into this definition just as well as DVD does. Before there were DVDs, film also existed in the form of prints that were distributed to movie theaters for the purpose of making money. I think your distinction is false. In the past, plenty of rich people owned films and had their own "home theaters." DVD is just an economical means of distributing films that has enabled people who aren't rich to do the same thing.

What distinction marks theater going as a "social experience?" The presence of strangers? The number of people in attendance? I rarely watch movies at home by myself. I often watch movies at home with family and friends. Is this not a "social experience?"

Personally, I love the big screen, but I would be unable to see most of the movies I watch if it wasn't for DVD. How would I ever have the chance of seeing "Les Vampires" or "Grand Illusion" or "Sunrise" in a theater? None of these movies has ever played at a theater anywhere near any place I've ever lived. Even new releases would mean an expensive four hour round-trip, since all the local multiplex shows is the standard Hollywood crap.

I didn't develop my love of film years ago in movie theaters because the nearest theater was 30 miles away: and it never showed independent or foreign films. A trip to even this theater was a rare experience. Most of the movies I watched I saw on a tiny TV screen, broadcast from one of only two TV stations, and I had to take whatever I could get.

And I'm not even considering the fact that today, even some new releases can only be viewed by the vast majority of people on DVD.

No, I didn't. I said "others" used the term "over collecting" and I asked you specifically about what constituted "a bit much."

Also, I asked what the implication of your "a bit much" remark was, which seems a reasonable thing to do when someone is describing how someone else spends their money, as "a bit much." To describe the behavior of someone else as "a bit much" is not a neutral statement. You are making a judgement, and when someone makes this kind of judgement, I am merely curious about where the boundaries lie.

I have A LOT of dvds, and while I'm a film lover (I'll take Bergman over Bay - though I like both), I still sorta wish that I didn't have so many.

It just gets to a point that it's too much, and I really don't want to have too many possessions tying me down (regardless of what I can afford, though money's never been a problem).

You just have to know your own limits, and cut yourself off before your possessions own you, instead of the other way around.

There's a certain sense of freedom that comes from saying "you know, I don't have to buy that."

What is the "intended purpose" of a DVD? DVDs are "intended" only to be watched? Who determined this? Who determines what something's "intended purpose" is? And what, it's only "legitimate" to buy a DVD if you "know" you're going to watch it more than once?

I marvel at the fact that there are people who think other people should only buy something if they are going to use it for its "intended purpose" (which, apparently, for DVDs, includes a requirement for multiple uses), and question the "motives" of someone buying something that is absolutely no threat to anyone else, like a DVD.

EXACTLY...Joel Stein used to write for Entertainment Weekly...he's a HUGE DVD Geek...err, I mean fan. So everyone take a deep breath. This piece is along the lines of William Shatner's "Get A Life" bit on SNL, and should be taken as such.

Wouldn't someone who doesn't "waste money" and lacks a "bad" or "compulsive" habit be superior to someone who wastes money and has a bad habit?

Why is spending money on DVDs better than spending money on gas, cars, or cigarettes? And if spending money on DVDs is "better" than spending money on cigarettes wouldn't the person buying DVDs instead of cigarettes be the "better" person?

After satisfying the minimum needs for food, clothing, and shelter, what, in your opinion, isn't a waste of money?

I can take care of that problem for you. Let me know how many DVDs you have and the general range of titles and condition. I may be willing to buy all of your DVD's, sight unseen, for $2 per DVD. Or, if you want to send me a list, I will negotiate prices with you. I'm not going to pay top dollar, I'm only interested in good deals, but since you say money is not a problem, maybe we can work something out.

The intended purpose is to use the dvd in a dvd player, not to take up room on a shelf. You're right though, it's not a threat to anyone, I just think it's stupid. That's how I feel. If you want something just to say you own it and to have it looking nice on a shelf, i'm not going to look down upon you. Why would you buy something if you'll never use it? I feel the same way about inserts, if you wish there was an insert with meaningful information, fine. But when you want an insert just because it completes the package than you're just falling into the trap of consumerism. Do you not think it's stupid to buy something just to possess it?

I like this point you bring up. I guess the answer is unique to the person. I understand your view is 'if buying dvds makes you happy, than why not do it?' and I agree. I just don't see why having possessions makes people happy, it seems silly.

My answer goes to how you have defined "intended purpose." I do buy movies that I don't intend to watch or ever put in a DVD player. Some of these I hold in speculation, some I resell immediately to pay for the DVDs that I buy and intend to watch and keep. Personally, I don't care about inserts, but I just might want an insert to complete the package because I can sell such a DVD for more than I can sell one that is "incomplete."

As an example, I bought 7 DVDs for $20 from a pawn shop the other day. I only wanted three of these DVDs, but I bought seven to get the unit price down, and I sold the four I didn't want, essentially getting the ones I wanted for free.

Well, if it were actually funny...

How does he explain people with large DVD collections who don't display them? That is, someone who owns 1000+ DVDs, yet keeps them out of the way (in a closet or something) and doesn't put them out for friends to be "impressed"?

I don't purchase DVDs to define myself. And I don't like "showing off" my collection to others (mainly because I don't like fielding dozens of questions about why I have so many, am I insane?, etc. -- usually followed by requests to borrow a bunch).

I'm a film buff. I enjoy watching movies, I enjoy studying films, and I do watch many movies multiple times. It's a hobby. I don't buy just to buy.

(And I actually read the books I own too. Apparently this guy doesn't. )

Speaking for myself, I don't buy DVDs to have possessions, I buy DVDs for choice and convience, and because in the long run, if managed properly, buying is cheaper than renting. Many of the DVDs I have I could not go to the local video store and rent. And like many others on here, I want to watch what I want to watch, when I want to watch it. I don't like my viewing habits being captive to video stores and rental services.