Not so fast. I'd say the majority of HD/BD discs out there have far fewer features than the SD counterpart and in a lot of cases even lose features from a packed SE when coming to BD. In other cases, (Die Hard 4, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Narnia) we are downgraded to the theatrical cut while our SD bretheren enjoy the Unrated/Director's cut. There are exceptions of course(Lost: S3, Heroes: S1) that are packed to the gills, but for the most part these are rare occurrences.

Also my 5.1 setup could give two shits about lossless audio. For the minority that have it, enjoy it. It's just annoying seeing it pimped as a huge draw when most people can't take advantage of it without another big investment.

I love my BD & HD players but I don't think for a second that any release is worth paying $10 more for fewer features and in some cases only a minor visual upgrade. Netflix will continue to get 95% of my business until prices are more in line with SD OR feature-wise, on par with the highest SD counterpart.

You say you get more switching to HD but I'd have to argue that you get less. Far less. Sure the picture quality is #1 on the priority list but that alone can't justify the high costs the discs. I could pick up I, Robot on sale for $5 or buy the BD on sale for $28. Seriously? :wtf:

I truly love movies but I don't want a collection entirely comprised of big-budget studio films which is pretty much the only things available on a hi-def format. Yes there are a few classics but I guess they didnt sell very well or something cause it doesnt appear to be a whole bunch more classics and catalog releases on the schedule.

Better yet, why would you pick up "I, Robot" at all? ;)

Yes, you're paying that $5-$10 more for the BD version, but you're getting the best A/V quality and unless (like "Live Free or Die Hard") the BD disc doesn't include the Unrated or Director's cut of the movie (if one is available), I'd always buy BD over DVD if you really want the best.

Honestly, I really don't care about the "special" features that much anymore. I'll usually pick up the 2-disc of the movie if it's available (mainly because it's only $2-$3 more than the 1-disc, barebones), but most of the time I don't even get around to watching any of it. I guess I've got a little "J6P" in me, but I just want to enjoy the movie.

I don't believe there were tons of classics during DVDs first 2 years either. You can't expect the studios to somehow match the entire DVD catalog in less than 2 years. More classics will show up. We have several Kubrick films, 1 from Spielberg, and several others. Bonnie and Clyde was just released today. North by Northwest, Gone With the Wind, Ben-Hur, and The Wizard of Oz are all coming in 2009.

That's an issue with Fox, not the BD format. Their prices are just as high as when they first started releasing DVD. I, Robot on DVD has been out for, what, 3 years? It should be $5. I, Robot on BD has been out for a week. I don't think it'll cost $28 in 3 years.

I think it's difficult to compare pricing of a format that's been out 11 years vs one that's been out 2 years. I'd rather compare pricing of DVD during the first 2 years, not 11.

i agree with this 100% and with your point about classic films, but you have to realize that a lot of these people probably didn't get into DVD in the first two years either for similar reasons, so the point is moot with them.

I was an HD-DVD adopter first (purchased the 360 add-on and got Heroes free). To date, I have around 20 titles, but most of those I bought used or for under $15.

In early February, I picked up a PS3 for Blu-ray. To date, I have 2 discs (Spiderman 3, which came with it, and Gone, Baby, Gone). Yes, they are expensive.

I have Netflix, which I use for my Blu-ray watching. I'm past the point where I'm padding my shelves with movies sight unseen.

= J

This is a chicken-and-egg scenario. You won't buy into the format until there are more classic movies available, but there won't be more classic movies until more people who want them buy into the format.

The reason that there are so few classic titles on Blu-ray, and that those available sell so poorly, is that the format's demographics are still dominated by PS3 gamer kids who only want to buy new big budget movies. Change that demographic, and the studios will release more titles to meet the consumers' needs.

?
 

Why was this thread resurrected? (I am the OP).

This was designed to take a pulse point at the one year mark. The earth-shaking developments which have occured since then render this thread moot.

Perhaps a new thread with a similar theme would have been more appropriate. :hscratch:

No it's not. I go in a store and see two discs with similar features(or even less in BD's case) only one has a slightly better picture there shouldn't be a $10-$20 difference. It's the same movie, on disc based media, in a colored plastic case instead of black. Especially new releases. I walk in and see Dan in Real Life on SD for $15 or BD for $30. Where's the incentive?

The incentive on DVD was more than just improved picture quality(480p, 5.1, size, format, extras, etc). None of which you got with VHS. Not to mention in 97-98 we were still in the $100 VHS "rental window" so $30 for a new release was actually a steal. Even outside the "rental window," widescreen VHS routinely went for $25-$30, sometimes more which was the same price as new release DVDs at the time. DVD was a no-brainer.

What incentives does BD have? 1080p and lossless audio. Everything else is a wash and available on a similar disc based format. So paying twice as much on a new release is asinine regardless of what year of the format we are in. BD is a tough sell at the markup they are at now, even with only one format remaining.

You don't have to "realize" anything. I had a DVD player in '98. Back to the drawing board on that stance. See my paragraph above. Hint: check register dates

<------

before assuming anything. :)

Hint: I didn't say "Michael Corvin" or even "all of these people." I said, "a lot" which leaves rooms for exceptions, such as you. Furthermore, my comment did not apply strictly to pricing, but also to availability of classics.

Finally, your statement that 1080p and lossless audio are the only incentives that Blu-ray has is incomplete. Blu-ray also has PiP, BD-Live and other interactive features that are not possible on DVD. I think you're overstating the lack of extra features on BD when compared to DVD. That really only applies primarily to a subset of Fox catalog titles, not Blu-ray discs on the whole. In most cases, the BD has the same features (sometimes in Hi-Def) or even has additional features that are not possible on DVD. Virtually every day-and-date title has the same or more features.

Mallrats (1999) had PiP.

BD Live is what, a week old? How many current titles have it?

What interactive features, right now, can't be done on DVD(other than a pop up menu)? There may be some generally cool ones out there, but is it worth the extra dough?

So how much should BDs cost then? You do realize they cost more to manufacture than dvd.

You're also wanting BD to get to DVDs price point in much less time than DVD got to the current price point. I very clearly remember all of those Fox dvds which had a list price of $34.99, were non-anamorphic, and had 0 features. Paramount was the same way. The pricing structure is no different than it was when DVD started. Prices will drop, but not when the format has been out less than 2 years.

Also, not every BD sells for $35. I Am Legend BD is $18.95 on Amazon right now. There's plenty of new releases which are $23.99. Pirates 3 BD is that price, which is about the same as the 2-disc DVD. If you're close-minded however, then all of our posts are meaningless.

the PiP on Mallrats is light years behind what BD can do and is only possible on DVD titles that have the disc capacity for it (how many other DVDs have had PiP)? maybe i should put it another way: BD has the ability to process two different audio and video streams simultaneously.

how are these questions relevant? it's a feature of Blu-ray technology that DVD does not have. that being said, there are two existing titles and at least three upcoming announced titles that have BD-Live features, with many more on the horizon.

PiP (as described previously), bookmarking, enhanced navigation (see youtube videos of Independence Day), various in-movie games (see Cars, Enchanted, Pirates of the Carribean, etc), among others. whether or not they're worth the extra money, in combination with the better A/V quality is really up to each individual. personally, i haven't paid more than $15 for any BD and i feel like they've been worth every penny.

First point, what does that matter to the consumer? Like I said, I, or anyone walking into a store sees two identical movies on the shelf, similar format and packaging, similar extras with wildly varying prices isn't gaining a sale. Sure there are exceptions like I am Legend, but they are few and far between. Deals where you have to buy more than one movie to get a lower price don't count. If I want to buy X movie I shouldn't have to buy Y along with it to get a decent price on X.

Second, :lol: I'm far from close minded. This thread is in the DVD forum. The only posts from BD/HD owners in here praise the format like its the best thing since toilet paper. I own both and am merely sharing my opinion, i.e. the other side of the coin. What's the problem with that? Merely a discussion. Both formats are great, but disc prices are overpriced for the features you get, IMO.

Re: Interactive features... I remember when studios were lambasted for listing interactive menus, games, and multi-language tracks as features and now we are applauding them for it? :lol: Nice. As for PiP, I was merely pointing out that it can be done on DVD if studios really wanted to. It's not something new.

no, you're confusing different issues. we were discussing what capabilities Blu-ray offers that DVD cannot offer. we're not talking about what studios decide to list as 'special features' on any individual release, but rather, what Blu-ray technology can do that DVD cannot do. that's a significant distinction. additionally, i wasn't applauding anything or assigning any particular value to them, aside from pointing out that they set Blu-ray apart from DVD.

that's not accurate at all. since DVD players can't process two A/V streams simultaneously, implementing PiP on DVD requires significantly more capacity on an already capacity-starved format. it is the technical limitations of DVD that prevent studios from doing it, not simply their personal choice not to. PiP on Blu-ray is significantly more robust and flexible. perhaps the idea is not "new" but the format's ability to implement it is far more advanced and does set Blu-ray apart, whether you're willing to admit it or not.

What happens if you walk into a Fry’s Electronics to see Night at the Museum BD running simultaneous with the SD display (that’s hooked-up via composite).

Surely, you would be inclined to go Blu rotfl

My local Fry’s has the same exact setup right now


I count ‘em. :D If it weren’t for the BOGO and other special deals I would probably have a tiny HD/BD collection.

Horseshit! Visit the HD forum and you’ll see me (among several others) bitch at just about everything HDM:

- Fox and their ass-raping MSRPs
- Fox and their shitty featureless BD releases
- Fox neglecting to release X-men or X-men 2 on BD

I'm guessing that the people who cringe at the price difference between the DVD and BD movies aren't the same ones who double-, triple- or quad-dip on various DVD releases? I've never understood why people are so eager to re-buy movies they already own. Especially on DVD since it's very rarely a significant update. At least with the BD version there is usually a noticeable quality difference. I'd rather get the best version the first time around then re-buy, possibly multiple times, down the road.

^Its because of special features duh.
I have no problem buying a movie a already have on dvd if there are good special features. I would choose good special features over a slight improvement in video/quality any day of the year.

Not to be captain obvious or anything, but what guarantee is there that the initial early days BR offering is the "best version" first time around? Is there anybody out there that really can't foresee the first BR double dip?

Really? Features I watch once if at all. The reason to buy Blu-ray is the significant increase in picture and audio. It is not slight it is major. I'm not excusing Fox for being lazy and cutting features because the disc has room for them, but at the end of the day picture and audio quality is my first priority.

As far as classics, I have 26 pre 1980s movies with Bonnie and Clyde on the way. Yes, there should be more classics but they will continue to increase as Blu-ray adoption increases.

The Film itself and special features are top priority for me.
I understand that is not the top priority for everyone but everyone has different opinions. Even if their were more classic or pre 90's films available it still wouldnt make me go bl-ray.
Some of my favorite sets for example are the Werner herzog sets from Anchor Bay and the Ultimate Oliver Stone set from WB. I think these are perfect sets and I dont see myself ever buying them again in my lifetime. I am 100% perfectly content with them.
It's nothing against Blu-ray but I am convinced DVD is the format for me. I dont need things like an ipod. I have a CD player and consider a CD player to be far superior and have no interest. I dont need a cell phone with video or web content. I am happy with one that just makes it possible to make a phone call every so often.
I too see these Blu-ray (and HD-dvd which I did buy late last year, mainly to get the exclusive special features on the Alexander disk) and PS3 (I own Ps2 & other older systems and could never see myself buying another game system as well.) players as just another way for the manufacturers to make a buck.
Of course they are gonna come out with new versions of the hardware that have slight improvements (or major improvements if you wanna think and believe that) will at first have high prices and then try to lower the prices so they can end up overall selling more of the players and later on their will be something even beyond HD and people will buy that and say "Oh my god I can't even watch Blu-Ray anymore because it looks blurry compared to ________" (That is assuming Blu-ray survives long enough and is accepted by the general public which it is definitely not at the moment.)
Sorry if this is rambling but my main point is like politics or religion people have thier opinions on these type of things and its almost pointless to compare/contrast/discuss/debate/argue/put-down/talk-shit about what side of the fence you our on. What works for some is not gonna work for everyone.

HD video being a major improvement in audio and video isn't an opinion though. It is a fact. If you are happy with DVD that is fine, but this is not a marketing gimmick. It is a major increase in video quality. Guess what? 4K is even better and may get released mainstream at some point. When it does and when I can afford a 4K television I will probably start replacing those Blu-rays.

The Film is what is important and seeing that film as close as possible to the way it looked projected in a theater is important to me. Regular DVD doesn't cut it for me, but I understand that some people are happy with it or don't have a budget to move up to HD video. Either way is fine, but there is no way for me a set on DVD is perfect unless it is something shot on videotape and meant to be seen low res.

I don't in particular praise HD, but it is nice to have, but you do have to pick your titles, just like DVD editions. HD is not perfect. It's in its infancy, but for a little rugrat, it looks darn good when it's done right. Can't wait until it matures.

I totally understand DVD owners who don't see much point in upgrading as well. I have several hundred DVDs, and many won't be making it to HD for years.

Television size might also dictate your HD exploration.

I'm sure others have noticed with HD you are up close and personal. You can see makeup and flaws in the skin. Any more resolution and you'll see the tattoo underneath their clothes.