I have heard that the studios may be introducing a bare-bones rental version of their films on Blu-ray following the DVD model over the last year.

Not really sure how this saves the studios much money since the cost of authoring, manufacturing & distribution of two versions will cost more.

Pressing a loaded dual layer Blu-ray or a bare-bones Blu-ray is the same cost either way. When you get into two disc sets, the costs increase of course.

I guess the studios want people to get back on track to buying movies instead of renting by offering more goodies on the sell-through version than on the rental version.

Maybe they feel if a person rents a movie first and likes it, they may purchase the Blu-ray to get the extras.

I was hoping that Fox had actually given up due to the massive replacement they had to do with Slumdog Millionaire.

You pretty much nailed it. It's being done so used copies won't hurt sales (as much) and if people want to watch extras they would have to buy.

I don't really have a problem with the idea. I have a reasonably clear idea of what movies I want to buy and which ones I'll just rent, and when I rent I rarely watch extras beyond deleted scenes.

If this model results in more care being spent on developing content for "collector's editions" to help boost sales vs rentals, so much the better.

One problem I noticed when I rented Harry Potter last night is that they have forced ads and trailers that you can't skip past now - about 8 of them. Also, not all the menu options were there. I could select languages, but not between Dolby Digital and Dolby TrueHD. Not even sure which version the disc had, but it didn't sound like TrueHD. If this is the way things will be going, it will be detrimental to rent a Blu-Ray rather than buying now.

Also, the forced ads and trailers weren't even in HD. They were barely in SD. They looked like crap, and they only filled 2/3 of the screen on all sides.

Can't you change audio tracks via the 'Audio' button on the BD Remote? Sucks you can't skip through trailers...gotta be a way around that.

Tried it and only got ENGLISH and SPANISH tracks. No alternative format ENGLISH or commentary.

As long as it's a full version of the movie with the same audio it won't bother me in the least because I rarely do much with extras anyway. Especially if that means used versions will more quicly fall below $10 toward the $5 mark I'm all over it.

The Ultimate Edition has DTS-HD MA. On these discs, there is no selection between lossless and lossy, as the appropriate track just plays automatically based on what your equipment supports. TrueHD often works that way too, but Warner doesn't author their TrueHD discs like that for some reason.

If that's what you rented, you should be getting the lossless audio if your system supports it.

I guess I'm ok with it. Studios have to make money after all. And certain titles I don't need extras on, so waiting for $5 ex-rentals would be nice.

I'm bumping this to discuss what I just got recently, and see how people feel about this or any other titles that may be pertinent.

I was under the impression that a Blu-ray disc was going to have enough room to include the movie and all the special features that would normally be found on two DVDs. Purchasing Skyfall recently at Wal-Mart, I discovered that I had unknowingly purchased a bare-bones BD. I purchased this specifically because I don't like buying the stupid BR/DVD/Digital Copy packs, if I don't have to. Granted, I realized after that I could have just spent $5 more and gotten all the special features, but if I'm buying a BD, I don't have any fucking need for the goddamn DVD, and I have never had any need for the stupid digital copies. Why buy something I don't need and will never use? I feel like I'm being penalized for not buying all the extra crap.

Why do they even make BR/DVD combos at all? If you have BR capabilities, why do you need the DVD?

I really don't know. It seemed like a decent idea a few years ago when portable DVD players were more popular and BD players were so expensive that many people couldn't have more than one in the house. Now it seems like a waste, although I guess some people use them. It may still be good for kids movies, since you could let the kids use the DVD and you'd keep the BD safe.

BTW, I noticed on the copy of The Hunger Games I rented a while back that it didn't have the lossless audio track. They left it off the rental copies. I don't mind them omitting the extras, but lossless audio is going too far IMHO.

Really? I prefer BD of course, and have more BD players than 99.99% of the planet, but still find lots of occasions where I'm happy I have the DVD as well.

Most people have multiple TVs but not a BD player at each one.

Many of my friends don't have BD at all yet.

In the car.

Anywhere portable for most of us I imagine.

Lending out the DVD copy.

Selling the DVD copy.

Having combos for children's movies works well for me since my daughter usually uses them in her room.

i like the combos just so i can lend the DVD version to friends and co-workers and if my mom wants to see a movie since she is DVD only.

For home-theater enthusiasts, it's not really necessary. It's the other applications -- travelling, loaning out discs, ease-of-access on laptops, "disposable" discs for kids, use in a home's lo-fi rooms -- that give them the extra value. I've really appreciated the combo packages on more than a few occasions.

I've never had any use for the DVD disc in combo packs. I've sold or given away quite a few.

Well, my main question was why does it seem like I'm being penalized because I opted to just get the BD alone, instead of the combo pack? Why couldn't they have included the extra features on the single BD? Are there other BDs that have done this, or is it maybe just another bonehead move by Fox?

This is a marketing thing done by several companies, iirc, going back to the early DVD days. If you want the special features, you have to buy the higher priced SKU. It sucks, but you can't really blame them.

Oh, yes...I can.

But seriously...

I recall back in the early days of DVD, when you could choose between the bare-bones edition or the special edition two-disc for a few dollars more. But with the advent of both BD and the subsequent combo pack, you would think they would go ahead and give everything to the person who just wants the single BD, and save the few-dollars-more for the people who actually want the extra discs with digital copies and whatnot. I mean, there's room on the stupid BD...give me the damn doc!

Maybe the featureless Blu-ray is a single layer disc and the other has 2 layers? That might help explain.

Wal-Mart is the only chain that carries stripped-down versions of the regular retail BD+DVD copies. They also carry the normal edition at a higher price. It was to introduce Blu-rays in their stores at a slightly cheaper price point. The studios were the ones that decided to remove the extras from these versions.

The introduction of extra DVD and digital copies was largely about maintaining pricing power. The studios fully know most people don't use them.

"The food here is terrible!"

"Yes, and such small portions."

I initially felt the same way, however I do like having the DVD's for when I travel. Also my daughter does not have BR at school so when she is home the BR is fine, but when she is away at school or watching on her laptop, she needs the DVD.