Mikael79

Shouldn't DVDTalk have a system in place where you have to have a decent amount of meaningful posts before you can start threads?

I've seen some of this guys other threads, and I believe he's from Texas, so the Pidgin English is pretty annoying.

whotony

texas, heh i thought he was french.

GreenMonkey

Agreed.

For some people, $20 is fine and say "hi-def is so much better, it is worth it". What if the BD was $50? What about $100?

To me, $30-$40 is the same as $100 would be for some of you. I'd pay that for LOTR on release date. I reluctantly paid $23.50 for 300 on release day. That was my most expensive HD-DVD/BD purchase to date.

Once they strip out the special features off the DVD in a blatant attempt to double-dip on it some day in a few years, it becomes worth virtually nothing to me. I'll wait, thanks. Thank god LOTR isn't a Fox property.

It's the same movie on DVD...the hi-def is just prettier on the 106". I still get to see the same movie, in OAR, on DVD.

Viper187

Anything over $25 is bullshit for catalog titles. That's the problem with Fox. Of course, there are rare exceptions like that Steelbook T2 HD-DVD. I'm not paying more than $35 for that though. I won't even pay over $25 for new releases unless I really want them. I'll be sick if Mrs Doubtfire isn't under $30 somewhere on release week. I've been waiting to replace my VHS of it forever and I couldn't see the point in grabbing the SE DVD knowing that the BD was scheduled for release.

thecrackedjack2

Everyones on a budget, be they rich or poor. For some that means not buying a multinational corporation, while others it mean not spending 2.5k on speakers, others not buy HD discs etc.

So, there's a limit to the value people place on everything. Frugal is a relative term. All in all, I don't think anyone's to say what's frugal for anyone but themselves. Not that I disagree with much of what your saying...just saying.

bunkaroo

I guess my personal philosophy on home theater is it's silly for me to spend thousands on a beautiful display and audio system, spend money annually to have it professionally calibrated, and then not get the best version of a film available in terms of PQ/AQ. It's not about looking prettier, it's about getting as close to a film-like presentation as possible. HDM has been a revelation in that regard.

Moopher

Mostly off topic, but i just wanted to thank everyone for the advice on amazon's 30 day post-price guarentee. I had bought 6 movies on their recent B2G1 sale. Because of their recent price fluctuations on all of the movies i purchased, i'm getting 26 bucks back. That's a steal right there.

PerryD

I'm not sure why the option here is spending $28 for a Fox Blu-ray or buying the much cheaper DVD. Why not just rent the blu-ray version? I could never justify spending a dime on DVD anymore for anything other that a few non-HD TV shows or some old foreign films.

lizard

That's perfectly valid. In effect you are paying for convenience. For me, my time is essentially free. And some of us consider bargain hunting a "game". There are a number of people here who spend a lot of time playing video games; I play a different sort of game: finding a good deal.
You are not alone in preferring your home theater to a regular theater. I think I made it to the movie theater three times last year (it is a 60 mile round trip). But I still would like to save money on my disc purchases if I can; for me it is necessary because my income is meager (albeit by choice).I would like to think that almost everyone in the HD forum thinks that HD discs are superior to SD DVDs, save for the occasional troll who feels he has to drop by and loudly proclaim that DVDs are good enough and that we are all fools for buying BDs (and HD DVDs). The point I was trying to make is that it does not follow that because BDs are superior one MUST pay much higher prices for them. It is possible to get them for fairly little with patience.

What bugs me, and this is NOT directed at you, are those who choose to assume that if one is not willing to pay $20 to $30 for a Blu-ray Disc then one is somehow against High Def.

Michael Corvin

That was my point. It's not that I'm going to rush out and buy that $5 SD version of I, Robot, it is what value is the quality difference. Is the BD really worth $25+ more than it's SD counterpart? Not a chance. So I play the waiting game.

While I play the waiting game Netflix is the way to go. Having bought hundreds of DVDs over the years, most of which only got 1 view, I'm not repeating history in hi-def. I'll wait and be frugal. Just my two cents.

lizard

I disagree. In my experience, which is considerable in this area, "budget" is a foreign concept to many.
Again, I disagree. While I will accept that "frugal" can be a relative term to some degree, there are those to whom it can't possibly apply. For example: someone who goes into debt to buy things other than basic necessities (food, clothing, shelter, health care, and the like) can't by any stretch of imagination be considered "frugal".

While I would guess that there aren't many here in the HD forum who go into debt to buy shiny discs, I can assure you that at DVD Talk in general, there are many such people. I have seen their posts repeatedly over the years. Such people can't be considered "frugal". Yes, it is JMO, but I am sticking to it.

bunkaroo

I actually do rent a fair amount of titles. However, I usually only do it for catalog titles I haven't see or don't need to see more than once.

It's still fairly difficult to get day and dates from Netflix, and I personally choose not to patronize Blockbuster locally.

I'd say most of Fox's catalog titles are movies I like enough to own.

That may be where people differ. To, a movie I might view once every year or two equals owning for my collections. For others, a movie watched at that frequency equals renting.

As lizard said, it comes down to paying a premium for convenience.

thecrackedjack2

Even the United States of America has a budget. Budget just doesn't refer to "cheap". It's how much money you dedicate to things, relative to how much money you have. It really doesn't matter if it's a foreign concept to many. Yes, people may not follow or even recognize such things, but but its still there.

Frugal is relative to how much you make. For one person it could be buying 1 Ferrari instead of 2. For the others something entirely different. It doesn't mean a person has to be frugal, like your example. Of course many people aren't going to be frugal, don't know why you'd bring that up. But it doesn't negate it from being a relative term.

applesandrice

I don't think buying a Ferrari could under any circumstance be considered "frugal". I recognize your exaggeration there, but frugality is not as subjective as you imply. True frugality is just getting by on the bare necessities, not simply living below your means.

thecrackedjack2

I realize theres a little leverage here and I see what your getting at. But if we are talking about true frugality then buying any DVD's, CD's, hell everything on this forum is out. And thats not what we seem to be talking about here. Because HD media is pretty damn far from necessity.

So, I think think it would be frugal to buy 1 Ferrari if you could afford to buy a whole garage full of them. You and I don't think so because we don't have that kind of money. And things like DVD's are more on our level. I took frugality as discussed in this thread to mean something different than its actual hard definition, that's all.

bunkaroo

Just wanted to add that I hope people aren't taking the term "frugal" to be negative or "uncool".

My fiancee and I are DINK's (dual income, no kids). We don't have any desire to have kids, and we both have well paying jobs. That coupled with my life experience has made me adopt a philosophy of enjoying myself now while I can.

There are times when I stop and think about what I could have done with some of the money I've spent on home theater, but this is what I enjoy, so I'm going to keep at it.

lizard

You clearly do not understand the meaning of "budget".
I disagree completely. You may, of course, believe what you will.

This discussion is pretty far off-topic and I've nothing further to add to what I've already said in previous posts.

thecrackedjack2

That would be you that doesn't understand sir. I said, "It's how much money you dedicate to things, relative to how much money you have."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/budget

1.
a. An itemized summary of estimated or intended expenditures for a given period along with proposals for financing them: submitted the annual budget to Congress.
b. A systematic plan for the expenditure of a usually fixed resource, such as money or time, during a given period: A new car will not be part of our budget this year.
c. The total sum of money allocated for a particular purpose or period of time

I understand quite well thanks

Dan Average

Old Cary Grant fine

kefrank

to be fair to lizard, you also said, "Yes, people may not follow or even recognize such things, but its still there," which is contradictory to the definition you posted which calls a budget a systematic plan. if you're not following or recognizing the plan, then you don't have a budget, which is the point i believe he was trying to make.

bookcase3

The only reason I have the number of BDs that I have now is because I don't plunk down the amount that Fox charges for a BD -- even with Amazon's 30% discount bringing it down to ~$28. I wanted to blind buy Golden Compass this week, but it's just too much money! All this means is that I have to rent, or wait for a few months when the price will come down like some of their other discs. I tend to find if I can make it past the first week of release (when the impulse to buy is extremely high), I'm able to wait with relative ease.

EDIT: It appears that Paramount's pricing is going to match Fox's $39.99 MSRP, which is unfortunate.

bunkaroo

FYI, Fry's is having a 14.99 sale for many "Fox old movie Blu-Ray's" including the recently released I, Robot and ID4.

thecrackedjack2

True, but I don't think it necessarily has to be systematic, per definition 3. Take a little from each definition and I think I was correct in my saying. Many definitions also simply repeat the word they are defining, so I don't think you can take them a 100 percent face value.

My point was that each person has a something in their mind (a la the conscience or whatever) that tells them whether or not a purchase will fit in with how much money they have. That may not be the technical definition of budget, but I think the gist of it's there. And whether or not they recognize or follow that, doesn't negate that it's there.

kefrank

wow, that's a serious semantic game you're playing there. you can't just pick and choose elements from the different definitions to create your own new one to fit your argument. and if you don't think definitions are worth taking at face value, then why even post one in the first place to support your argument? someone could simply say to you, "that doesn't mean anything - you can't take definitions at face value. this is what the word really means..."

i disagree completely. the number of americans with thousands of dollars in credit card debt disproves your point. have you ever talked to any of them? they nearly always say it just happened without them even realizing it or having any inkling that they were spending too much.