darmok

noticed recently that the Dark Crystal got another edition (a cheapie version with blue border) but without the extras and a non-anamorphic transfer. this is similar to the Cutting Edge reissue. why does Sony do this? doesn't it cost more money to author a new disc, etc. rather than use the existing transfer, which is already superior than the P&S letterbox?

rw2516

Just suspicion. Sony may be trying to "cheapen" standard dvd in order to make Blu-Ray more appealing. The upcoming format war will get nasty and Sony will do whatever it takes to win. They probably figure those that really want the 16x9 OAR are the same consumers who will jump to hi-def. Standard fullscreen in the Wal-Mart bargain bin/Blu-Ray 16x9 OAR 39.99 at Best Buy and online. It won't happen with a new release from the theaters because of the money involved, but eventually there will be a catalog title that has never been on dvd, something relatively popular, that will be released on Blu-Ray only, no standard dvd version.
In general I'm amazed at how cheap a commodity dvd has become. I've never seen this with other media. VHS never became this cheap, you don't see back catalog novels for $1.50, buy 2 get 1 free or bargain bins for cds.
I'm reminded of the ballpoint pen. When first introduced in the 40s they sold for $50 in the jewelry depts. of upscale department stores. Now they are just given away free or you can buy 10 Bics for a buck.

mzupeman2

That's a great point but the people who are informed enough to want 16x9, jump to hi-def... also want the best from their current DVD's as well and if Sony are cheapening their standards to make Blu-Ray look fantastic, there's going to be a backlash.

Filmmaker

Damn, how old are you?!

ThatGuamGuy

Angering potential customers isn't generally considered a great way to win them over, though. Also, people generally prefer cheap; setting Blu-Ray up as an elitist technology wouldn't accomplish much, other than the other format winning. If Sony were jacking up prices on regular DVDs while lowering those on Blu-Ray, then I'd smell a conspiracy similar to yours.

I'd like to argue with you on this, but given that studios still believe in fullscreen at all, it's certainly possible they'd be that narrow-viewed.

But those consumers are the same people who bought the movie they wanted when it first came out, before the format wars stuff was really an issue.

That sounds really paranoid; I think they're doing it as a marketing thing, maximizing the people who'll buy a given title. People who frequent sites like this will buy the Collector's Edition or the Superbit Edition (depending on what they want from a disc), but the so-called Wall-Mart crowd won't be interested in those expensive bells and whistles, so they'll buy the fullscreen transfer. [I'm guessing they didn't actually pay for a new transfer, but went back to a previous one, but I could be wrong on that.]

What "relatively popular" catalog title has never been released on DVD? Unless you think Sony is going to somehow acquire 'Song of the South', I don't see what you're afraid of here.

I frequently see back catalog novels for $3 or less (without even getting into used discs) ... and I suggest you search a little harder for CD stores, because I see sales like that all the time.

As for VHS, buying VHSes never became as mainstream as buying DVDs, but I've never seen a store that previously sold VHSes which now sells DVDs in which the sales aren't more-or-less the same.

But, then, I've never seen a catalog DVD going for 1.50 [I'm assuming you mean new], so maybe I've been going to the wrong stores.

One other thing -- did it ever occur to you that all the stuff you're describing has at least as much to do with the Internet's rise coinciding with that of DVDs, rather than anything to do with DVDs themselves *or* the HDVDs that are coming?

I'm reminded of that old chestnut regarding the goose what lays golden eggs. The studios should look into it - they're going to have that problem in the next few years as they desperately scramble to keep profits as high as they were during the peaks of DVD sales.

Peep

Maybe the new, inferior releases are DVD-5's (single layer) instead of DVD-9's (dual layer). I'm not sure how many pennies that may save a studio, though.

Matthew Chmiel

Regardless, Sony could still fit an anamorphic transfer on a single-layer disc. It would just be more compressed, but it is possible.

darmok

now that you mention it, i think that makes sense. i only saw the cheapie version at sell-thru chains like walmart and bb. could be retailer-specific requests for fullscreen versions.

compulsive dvd

I think it's awful on Sony's part to do full screen only. Even though most of them end up in the $5.50 bin at Wal Mart, I highly doubt that the fullscreen only dvds sell more than the widescreen only paramount titles in the same bin or the fox dvds with both. It would be more considerate to make titles compatible with the 16:9 tvs they're trying to push so hard.

Giles

I'm still waiting for a widescreen version of Matilda - I'm hoping the eventual Blu-Ray edition will correct that.

rw2516

Not quite that old. The ballpoint pen is a textbook case. Learned about it in college economics. There was a picture of a 1940s Macy ad in the textbook.

Sony is already crapping on their customer base by discontinuing widescreen versions in favor of full screen or releasing titles fullscreen only in the first place. The format war will be over players not dvd titles. Sony is betting that by having a more attractive selection of Blu-Ray only exclusives(James Bond, Terminator) people will get a Blu-Ray player, and once someone has made a format choice they will buy titles in the format they can play. One thing I've read over and over is "is the increase in picture quality enough to get people to upgrade to hi-def". For some yes. Some will never upgrade unless forced too. For others aspect ratio, special features, etc. can push them over. Not all movies that are full screen only have a SE or SuperBit version. I ignored laserdisc until I discovered all the widescreen titles and immediately went out and got a play for that reason alone. I believe that if Sony releases a title that is full screen only on dvd it will be 16x9 OAR on Blu-Ray. I can't see them releasing a 2:35 film only available cropped to 1:78, at least not until the format war is over, if they win.

DVDs would be as cheap as they are even if hi-def wasn't on the way. Likewise hi-def discs would be more expensive regardless of the difference, if any, in content with the stardard version of the title.

As for DVD becoming a cheap commodity. Most major films can be gotten for less than $10, tons for $5-7. Saw Total Recall in a $5.50 bargain bin. Where are these stores that sell older catalog cds by Tom Petty, Aerosmith, ZZ Top, etc. for brand new, factory sealed for $6-7? I can think of a few hundred I'd like to get. Factories are popping out DVDS like M&Ms, cds too.

I used $1.50 as an example for books only because they have a lower($7-8 for paperback) when first released as opposed to $19.99-29.99 for a direct from theater dvd release, which will eventually fall to $6-10. I've never seen brand new catalog paperbacks(King, Ludlum, Koontz, Clancy, Grishim) fall in price over time, respectively, like a DVD title will.

Alan Smithee

Sony can kiss my ass- they've proven that they'll sabotage any format to promote the next one- they manufactured laserdiscs that rotted really fast right before DVD was about to come out, and they'll probably find some way to screw up Blu-ray when they decide to put out yet another format. When DVD started out they were one of the best companies, but they've quickly become one of the worst. I hope Ben Feingold dies of testicular cancer.

milo bloom

Like you said, it's more money to do that, did you actually play the new disc? Or does it say something about it on the packaging?

I've been meaning to pick this up for ages, I guess I need to get on the ball and grab one of the good ones?

ryuryu2949

He is a SENIOR member. Need I say more?

bhpaul

I believe Sony/Columbia is the worst studio when it comes to stuff like this. I agree with rw2516. I can't think of any good reason to remove OAR that previously existed. Sony is also on a kick to rehash many titles with "extended cuts" to freshen up their catalog or at least spruce them up with new cover art. I noticed several new ones last week (casualties of war, windtalkers, the Patriot, Replacement Killers, etc...). I haven't seen any reviews praising the extensions as being noteworthy (are they even director approved?). I find Sony/Columbia very annoying and these are some of the main reasons I am supporting HD DVD over Blue Ray. As a film fan I can't reward Sony for this behavior.

darmok

no, it caught my eye when i first saw it. picked it up and looked at the specs. was simply the movie and i think the trailer. no extras. and the little icon said "widescreen", and nothing about anamorphic/16x9. put it right back on the shelf and moved on. the previous versions are superior in every way.

Drexl

Well then, it's probably still anamorphic. I don't know how much space they used for the movie on the original disc, but considering it's only around 90 minutes, it would probably still fit on a single layer if they dropped the documentary.

mzupeman2

Just another reason to make me feel glad that I'd rather eventually get the cheaper players from HD-DVD. Another reason to make me feel happy that I'm waiting out this format war to see who wins.

dvd_luver

All you need to do is go look at the Wal-Mart dump bin to really see how moronic Sony is with these watered down FS reissues. If you look hard enough you will find sometimes the older version with the Sony WS/FS version. It really makes you think why the hell they went ahead and spent more money on a reissue with 1 side that is FS. It looks really silly.

compulsive dvd

I realize by reading these posts that there are titles that never even got a dual sided release. I ended up getting Mo' Money on laserdisc because it's widescreen. It's 16:9 in region 2, but I can't handle the PAL speedup. Even to be 4x3 letterbox is better than full frame. The widescreen master existed for the laserdisc release, it's not like they would have to go back and do it again. Same with Warner's initial dvd releases.

bunkaroo

Gardens Of Stone seems to be another that has gone the way of Cutting Edge and Dark Crystal. It used to be a 16x9/4x3 flipper. Now it's a non-16x9 disc only disc.

milo bloom

Has anybody actually confirmed the new issue of The Dark Crystal is not 16x9? I grabbed it at WalMart last night cause it was so cheap, but it's still in the shrinkwrap so I can take it back if I need to.

thanks

ernestrp

Sometimes, Even though the packaging says WS and FS you end up with the disc contained therin only having FS on it. I guess Sony wants to use up already printed disc cover art. I dont shop the WM DB anymore.

Peep

Yes, but the question was why go through the expense of reauthoring? If they were going to compress an anamorphic version to dvd-5, they'd still have to reauthor.

Drexl

Maybe they dropped the documentary because of some rights issue that's come up, or they didn't want to keep paying royalties on it for the cheap discs?