So far, the quality I have seen for HD movies has been real sporadic. The HD dvd's ON AVERAGE are not up to par with the HDTV when the shows are filmed in high def. Untill all movies are filmed in pure HD, its going to be really inconsistent. A lot of movies I have seen were just marginal upgrades. So far the older movie upgrades(2001) and nature series(Planet Earth) are major upgrades but others are just weak. To let you know what I am using. I have a 42inch LCD and have a Toshiba A3 HDDVD player with HDMI cable hooked into tv and into receiver.

My biggest disappointments are:

Good Fellas
Casino
Children of Men
Transformers(great audio though)
Mighty Heart
Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

I don't know what to say, other than you need to calibrate your TV or something (you don't mention a brand or model number, either, so it's impossible to gauge the quality of your equipment).

Several of the titles you mention are regarded as having outstanding picture quality.

I was very happy with Casino and Children of Men.

Well I agree with your Goodfellas, anyone says that's good needs to stop watching HD.

children of men and transformers are flawless to me...

I thought Transformers and Willie Wonka were both excellent.

This sounds like a criticism of the filming styles rather than the discs. Movies are not meant to be flawless windows into real life. Some will be eye candy while others won't.

All I can tell you to do is read reviews and look for titles where the reviewer says it's razor sharp and lacks much grain, tweaked colors, overcooked contrast, etc. CG animation should be "safe." Or just rent before you buy.

The colors of Children of Men and Transformers didnt look perfect and the lighting and graininess was apparent at times.

My tv is calibrated perfect. Thats the problem. I notice when movies are not up to par. I probably scrutinize the new movies more because the difference between SD and HDDVD should be drastic and its not.

My point is that there should not be releases on HDDVD if they are not up to a certain standard. I mean, how is it that a movie like 2001 Space Odyssey or Grand Prix look better than 2/3 of the hdvd's released that were from movies made in this millenium. I know some of you are myopic and defensive about hddvd. I want hddvd to work but can you honestly say the quality of your average hddvd is better than the television shows FILMED in high definition. Maybe my expectations were too high.

I am still happy with my purchase as The Big Lebowski looked amazing compared to SD and I just hope they get their shit together and make sure the releases are up to standard OR DONT RELEASE THEM.

2001 and Grand Prix look amazing because they're coming from 70mm film stock, which has more inherent detail than 35mm.

It's clear your problem is that you want everything to look like it was shot in HD, and it's not. Film has its own look and both formats have been very good on average at replicating that, and the intentions of the director. Sorry if it doesn't look like a Discovery Channel HD broadcast, but it's not meant to. If you want something like that, get the Planet Earth set. Amazing picture quality.

I find it hard to believe that your TV is calibrated "perfect" if you can't tell the difference between an SD DVD and an HD DVD. Also, calling people myopic and defensive isn't going to do you any favors.

According to whom, using what tehniques? And what was the brand and model of your TV again?

Which television shows, specifically, are you talking about?

Bram Stoker's Dracula

Goodfellas isn't good- it's VERY good. Very natural looking without the appearence of any funny business going on to artifically sweeten it.
I'm very satisfied with that release.
I'm also very happy with Willy Wonka, though I will admit it isn't perfect.
The only complaint I have with it though is the visibility of jaggies in the titles and on a couple of small objects in a couple of scenes. To me these are minor flaws and I accept them as the price for having this title out as early in the formats lifespan as it is. I thought for sure the only version of the material we would see for several years would be the Burton one.

The main release that disappointed me the most this year was probably The Untouchables. It is better than the dvd, but it looks too artificial, a little too edgy to me. I'm also suspicious about the contrast levels. I don't remember this film looking this crushed before. There is almost no shadow detail- things fall off into black precipitously. There is a clip on the Cutting Edge doc on the Bullitt HD DVD from the film that shows the same tendency towards crushed blacks, and I can't believe they are taken from the same master/transfer so this might just be faulty memory on my part.

HD Video and film are two totally seperate things. You need to learn a little more about the subject you are spouting off on. Transformers looked incredible, and Goodfellas was fantastic as well.

Yeah, I bought most of those you listed and was very happy with them. There was a definite improvement over the DVD though not every one had the HD "pop", but again that is more due to filming style than bad transfer.

The only real disappointment was a couple of the Universal discs like Meaning of Life that seemed to have no improvement over the DVD. This was much more the exception than the rule.

Also, the HD DVD should look as close to a proper theatrical presentation as possible. How many of these films did you see theatrically and then compared them to their HD DVD counterparts?

The Game - Universal really half-assed it.

1. 40-Year-Old Virgin - brutal EE
2. Face/Off - bad DNR

Just like the dvd!

Ocean's Thirteen - Yes, it is stylized, but no it doesn't look that great. Though I looked at the SD side and immediately stopped complaining...

The Game. It's worth upgrading only because the DVD has been non-anamorphic all these years.

Here's hoping Criterion gets into the HD game soon and can secure the rights to that movie.

Spider-Man 1

You're crazy pal, most of those disc look great. Compare any of them to their DVD counterparts and you will immediately see the difference. Take Children of Men and flip it to the DVD side and tell us you don't see a difference. The audio is amazing as well...

My biggest disappointment was The Game as well. At least it's anamorphic, and that's a good reason to upgrade, but the picture quality is nothing to write home about, and still not a single special feature.

Any titles that had loaded up on special features for the DVD and went skimpy on them for the HD/Blu-Ray version are disappointments. But I'm guessing it's because of the inevitable double dip.

Agreed. Film is film. Every film has to be transferred to an HD codec and then transferred to a high definition disc of either sort. All film is HD. It's the transfer that may not be as good as some others.

I don't understand how TV shows look better than HD discs since most HD discs are 1080p and to the best of my knowledge, there are no networks that are broadcasting in 1080p because of bandwidth. They usually broadcast at 720p/1080i.

You didn't mention how far away from your TV you are sitting. The farther away you are, the less difference it will make. Also, your TV is on the small side of the HDTV spectrum which will probably also make a difference in the quality ratio between HD and standard disc.

If you don't see that great a difference, save some money and buy regular DVD's.

I dunno, do current TV shows still shoot on film?

I thought Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was disappointing. It has what appears to be macroblocking and its apparent from the very start when the Warner logo appears. It's kind of strange because I thought the Prisoner of Azkaban and the Order of the Phoenix had excellent video.