Why Blu-Ray only reviews
 

The review for National Treasure 2 is for blu-ray. According to the latest release information (today) only 5% of DVD's are watched in Blu-Ray, which leaves 95% for SD. Why would you not give picture and sound quality for the version that 95% of us watch?

Maybe they didn't get a copy yet, chief.

blu-rays aren't DVDs.

Then I guess DVDtalk shouldn't be posting it on their site.

That makes sense... if you're seven.

I'm not sure I understand, but are you asking why the review doesn't cover the DVD as well?

DVDs and BDs are reviewed by separate people, and the reviewer only looks at the version he's assigned. They don't get copies of both. So there are separate reviews for each format.

I happen to be.

The same thing happened with the new version of "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" and I ended up going to a different site for a review.

It's regrettable when relatively important new releases like these don't get covered in the format that the majority of the market buys them in. I certainly hope it doesn't become a trend. I like trusting DVDTalk as my main review source.

Because DVD's are passé, and those who watch them are clue-less Luddites who're out of touch with reality and are desperately clinging to the past with its hopelessly obsolete technology out of some innate sense of inadequacy.

At least thats what Blu-Ray fans keep telling me. :)

As one of the earlier posters said, we can't review a title until we get a screener copy. After taking a brief look at the "View All Upcoming Reviews" list in our reviewers' database, it looks as if Kurt Dahlke has been assigned a copy. Whether or not he's received it yet is another matter entirely, but I'd image that it'd be posted in the near future.

Do you know if studios read the reviews you guys post? If so, do they ever comment on the ratings you ultimately give?

A neat commission?

I don't know if the Hollywood studios check the reviews regularly, I assume they do, but the smaller and independent distribs most certainly follow up to see how their product is evaluated.

Pro-B

Here you go: http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/33310...ok-of-secrets/

Here's an idea - instead of relying on some stranger's opinion of a movie, view it yourself.

Reviews are incredibly unimportant.

Reviews are a tool to help viewers make an informed decision...nothing more, nothing less.

Great idea - are <i>YOU</i> gonna send them all to me?

For a day and date title like this one, I usually check out the star rating of the review to make sure everything seems up to snuff but I assume most new titles will be handled right and I don't hesitate to buy them sight unseen (I see everything theatrically beforehand, so I'm not reading the 'movie review' bit usually) - However I read the entirety of reviews that are double dips or older flicks to see if the discs are worth an upgrade/decent transfer etc.... of course, I mostly read the blu-ray reviews, so I didn't have your particular problem :)

Blu-Ray isn't a digital video disc?

In that sense, yes, but DVD is a trademarked term, not a generic term.

Blu-ray is not a compact disc either.

You sure about 'trademarked term'? Other than the logo/graphic?

Hmmm, you may be right. IIRC it could just be the logo.

However, I still think it's important not to refer to BDs as DVDs in order to reduce confusion.

Nor is it a laserdisc, although it is a disc that is read by a laser.

DVD is owned by the DVD Forum, and it's why Blu-ray doesn't have DVD in its name. The DVD Forum backed HD DVD and licensed the nomenclature accordingly.

I do just about everything in my DVDs. I mean BDs. I mean. Nevermind.

It is.

But it's not a Digital Versatile Disc. :D