No need for another example. Either we take sales as they come or we go back and call on Mr. Graffeo and his antics that the PS3 isn’t a factor in the attach rates debate. Pick your poison.

Indeed. As they aren’t selling that many units high prices will be the norm for now. It was the case with their SDVD releases, it is the case with their BR discs.

I am not, but fact of the matter is FOX have put a tremendous crop of titles on the market. The quality has been exceptionally high as well. I don’t think it is a coincidence.

You are correct, I am wrong. I was running out of the office and did a typo.

Only a FOX insider could reveal why they have left off certain extras out. You are not one. And your assumption that it is a case of laziness is simply non-sense. For the record many extras change rights-owners over time (plenty of examples from LD to SDVD are available).


My answer remains the same: 2 brands whose issues will be addressed via firmware upgrade.


No such issue as perfect, a sale is a sale. Or, we go back to plan B, and dismiss Mr. Graffeo’s attach-rate theory.


And so are you, and everyone else who has jumped on the Hi-Def wagon thus far. What is your point? Criterion collectors are minority as well yet the prices Criterion charges are well in tune with the collector’s mentality used to justify them. You pick what matters for you and justify your spending. Some would spend 100$ and up on a collector’s metal tin, I choose to spend my money on a perfect transfer.


Finally, allow me to sum it all up for you - the two deciding factors for me when considering a BR/SDVD purchase are: audio quality/video quality. Everything else is just an added bonus. I have been following the rule since 1997 (feel free to browse through the international section of TALK for supporting evidence) and don’t plan on “adjusting” my criterion because of price, extras, etc.

A perfectly produced barebones disc is hundred times more valuable to me than a lavishly produced set boasting ample extras and a mediocre feature presentation!!

Ciao,
Pro-B

My thinking was that Fox may have done their own MPEG-2 encode last year after they got the rights. Surely they're not going to release that encode that Sony did. (or are they?)

Its painfully obvious what Fox is doing with Robocop - bare bones crappy encode so when the inevitable SE or Collectors edition comes out, everybody review will be like this thing looks great, great extras...instead the second release (or third if you count the recalled version) should be the disc they are releasing now. Can't wait to see what the MSRP on that puppy will be $60-$70..hello laserdisc!

Right, high prices while not even offering as much value as the other studios. Ridiculous.

Again, I wonder if their dedication to the format is as strong as they say. They dont seem to be doing anything spectacular to help the format along. Im positive the sales of Die Hard 4 will be lower due to the Unrated DVD.

They should look at Sony's release specs of Superbad and take a lesson.

Please, Pro-B, point out to me where anyone here is asking for Fox to release any movie with poor presentation.

Why is it that when people get angry over lack of extras, the automatic response is, "Extras aren't as important as presentation"? Why can't we get a fantastic presentation AND all the extras? I can point to dozens of films on both formats that do so, including Underworld and Pirates of the Caribbean, both of which have some of the best picture and sound I've ever had the pleasure of witnessing while at the same time loading the discs with extras. All for less than the price of Robocop. Why is this so hard for Fox to do?

You demonstrate your ignorance of how digital compression works. The bit rate is just a stat. It tells you nothing about the quality of the compression. A high bit rate encoding can have lousy quality, and a low bit rate encoding can look terrific. The quality of the compression work is much more important than the bit rate number.

It's easy to love both formats when you pay attention to the actual quality they provide, rather than focusing solely on irrelevant statistics like the bit rate number.

Did you volume match the tracks with a sound level meter?

There's no way to justify the high prices Fox is charging for these discs, extras or not. I really don't see how anyone can defend fox on this issue. There's no way I'm paying $8 more (on Amazon) for these catalog titles.

If the discs are "perfectly produced", as pro-b suggests, I may pick them up used. Not likely though, as these are not exactly "must have" titles.

This is an incredibly lopsided comparison to make. First of all, most retailers cary 50-100:1 single disc:multi disc on tiered releases. Secondly, the prices are much different. If they wanted to see if people cared about extras, then they would be equal in price and distribution.

Fox's covers claim "Beyond High Definition". Shouldn't we get the total experience related to the movie? Top notch picture, sound, and extras? Is that too much to expect? I'm not sure how some can defend Fox's pricing...er...actually, I can. Some will defend BD no matter what the topic is. An example of Fox's ridiculous catalog pricing: Chain Reaction has a higher list price ($39.99) than Pirates of the Caribbean 3 ($34.99). Something is not quite right there. Should Chain Reaction really be one of the most expensive Blu-ray titles?

They are the ONLY studio who prices ALL of their catalog titles the same as new releases. How come Sony and Disney, who are as vocal as Fox about BD, can price most of their content between $29.99 and $34.99, but Fox can't? How come Sony and Disney have been more consistent on extras, but not Fox? Don't they all pay the same fees for these extras, etc.? Is Fox so low on cash that they can't provide a few documentaries on a WHOPPING 50gb of space for their releases?

FOX IS BACK ..to kick you in the nads....

I don't blame them. The market hasn't reached mass consumption..people buying stinkfests like Chain Reaction are few and far between, you might as well gouge them...you can pick this DVD up in the bargain bin probably for $4.99 (or lower) new or super-hi def for $28. Yeah that makes sense.

Plus isn't high prices a staple of Sony-backed media ventures???

Has Fox or any other studio ever expressed concern over putting non-HD extras on an HD release? Other than disc space, that would seem to be the most likely reason some studios don't put the extras on their high-def discs.

That was my theory after Fox's first batch of titles last year, but since they have now been putting some dvd extras on BD, then I think that theory goes out the window.

Could be... SD extras really do look like crap compared to the HD feature. Maybe their research indicates that a majority of people are turned off by them. It does appear to me that those who are upset by their absence are in the minority (though very vocal).

I think Pro-B really hit the nail on the proverbial head with regard to Fox's pricing BD scheme being identical to their early days of DVD. They were the same company then that they are now, and we should all pretty much brace ourselves for their inevitable onslaught of double and triple-dip releases over the coming years.

As for these craptacular barebones $40 MSRP releases, should BD fully trounce HD DVD by the New Year (Panasonic) and overtake SD DVD within the 2.5 years following (Sony), you will surely then be able to find them in a $5 bin at Wal Mart . . .

Yeah but I think it is a big mistake by Fox. Putting aside laserdisc for a sec, DVD was an revolutionary technology, it required all new media to play on them, and therefore high MSRP on DVD media made sense in that - in order for you to watch the movie you needed new discs.

Although HD DVD and Blu look nice, they still play DVDs, and DVDs are still being produced by ALL studios, and I don't see that ending ANYtime soon. So right now you can go out and pick up Chain Reaction for $5 or Chain Reaction for $40 and it will play on your Blu or HD DVD player.

Why do I need a sound level meter when my ears tell me everything I need to know? I played with audio tracks on at least 15 different discs and on each disc there was an audible difference between lossy 5.1 and uncompressed.

I just love the irony of this war.

If either of these formats wins over the other, then they will have to face DVD. The hardware not only plays DVDs, they make them look near-HD. Thus inevitably keeping some people from purchasing the HD or BD version.

It is implied in GizmoDVD comment here:

...which is far and away from the truth.

Pro-B

ps: edited for misplacing Chanster with GizmoDVD.

Pro-B, still waiting for your response to my last comment to you.

See post # 826.

Pro-B

Actually that wasn't my quote, I guess you jumped the gun on blaming me for something else.

You are very against lossless tracks. Why is that? I mean for someone like yourself who seems to be a purist your view against lossless is somewhat baffling.

Have you yourself heard the difference between lossless tracks and non-lossless tracks? Reading your reviews, doesn't seem to indicate that you have so how can you be against lossless when you haven't made your own determination?

If you have a problem hearing them, then just come out and say that otherwise you need to stop this continuous opinion that lossless is not different from the regular track.

You are correct, I meant GizmoDVD.

Pro-B

I would put blame on the player manufacturers for this "near-HD" stuff. They were the ones saying "buy our upconverting dvd player, it makes your movies near-HD quality". These same companies are now producing HD players and are finding out that maybe they shouldn't have spouted off the "near-HD" comments. HD Standalone sales aren't spectacular and I think part of the reason was their push of upconverting players. They have successfully convinced people that upconverting dvd players was the way to go.