PDA

View Full Version : Multiple Sets of Same Movie-Good or Bad Thing?



SirSteve
08-29-2002, 02:46 PM
I am just wonder how many people like the multiple sets of the same move? Collectors Edition, Special Edition, Limited Edition, Directors Edition, Put-my-hand-up your butt edition. Movies like Pearl Harbor, Speed, Resevior Dogs with 4 different covers, widescreen/fullscreen versions (come on, should include both versions! (even though I only buy widescreen), Memento, Total Recall, etc., etc.... Then you have sequels... They release the single movies then release them in a 2 or 3-pack with little or no changes shortly after. (I am not referring to movies that have yet to be made, just ones already made). Personally I don't like it. I think the movie industry is just trying to milk you our of every dime. What are your thoughts?

Beast
08-29-2002, 02:57 PM
I do, but only if it's an improvement on the original version, or it's somthing completly different like in the case of the LOTR's Theatrical and Extended Cuts. I had to have both versions, because the extras are totally different. :D

Movies with different covers are a rip-off though. Like the recent Resevoir Dogs 5 different covers bullcrap. They should have just packed all 5 of the slip cases flattened with the DVD and you could choose. Then by making Mr. Brown limited, they created an artificial demand. :greedy:

I prefer that if they are going to release a Fullscreen or P&S version, that they make it a seperate release. Why should I have to lose out on special features, just so that someone can watch a cropped and cut movie. No thanks, if J6P needs his Fullscreen, they can have it seperate from the proper film presentation. :p

Movies that were originally released barebones, or with a few minor special features I always appreciate a double dip. Discs like Memento, Total Recall, Basic Instinct, that were originally little more the movie only discs, I am glad to see the upgrades. :)

Sometimes like in the case of Resident Evil, the studio wants to rush out the DVD, and only gives the director a month or so to get the suppliments ready. So you get a semi-Special Edition, but with plans for a bigger and better release later. I don't mind those as much, because like LOTR's, the extras are usually different. :)

The real problems are releases like The Mummy, MIB, etc. That make themselves out to be new editions, but are little more then re-releases of the original versions, with a small EPK's (Electronic Press Kits) and Trailer for the sequel. :rolleyes:

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

good shot jansen
08-29-2002, 03:13 PM
it actually drives me crazy, they do the same thing with compact discs.

i can't tell you how many times i've been forced to buy the who live at leeds for this very reason.:rolleyes:

i've gotten to the point where i now only rent movies. nothing makes me feel more cheated than purchasing what i think is a good difinitive version of a movie, to only find that they're re-releasing it a year later in an even more difinitive version. :frus:

Pendo
08-29-2002, 03:21 PM
I don't mind as long as the other version is completley different. If I have a DVD with just the movie on, I will look forward to getting a new release with more Special Features on (like True Lies (love that film)). Like JJB said, I can't stand it when the same DVD is released with different covers, what IS the point :zzz:.
I don't really buy fullscreen versions of movies, but they should be different releases and not that double sided (or sometimes single sided) DVD crap :rolleyes:.

PENDO!

icatch9
08-29-2002, 03:23 PM
Steve You hit it right on the money. Pun intended. They are after our money. I hope that's not surprising to anyone. After all Hollywood only exists because it makes money. They (movie exects) know that some people will buy six copies of the same movie if they change a little bit. Also, they probally want to put the best possible product out there. They also want to cash in on what little bit of popularity they have, when they have it. Such is the case with Pearl Harbor and Resident Evil and maybe even LOTR.

On the other hand maybe they do this to help out all kinds of fans. I know some to most people would care less about 72 hours of bonus material on the LOTR 5 disc set, but other plan to buy it. Just selling a $50 set would alienate 95% of people who buy DVDs. Sorry Jar Jar, but avg. people don't care about widescreen or extra features. Some just like the movie in any form (pan & scam included).

So, movie companies do this for a couple of reason. MONEY $$$$$$ and to make all kinds of fans/customers happy. It's a win win situation. Unless you have a completest problem, then it's a pain in the butt.

Beast
08-29-2002, 03:38 PM
What company isn't after your money? Seriously there are very few movies that have been released multiple times on DVD. Evil Dead and Army of Darkness probably hold the titles for releases. But some of those were warrented. Look at Evil Dead, each release has been a major improvement on the others.

As for Army of Darkness, there is the theatrical and director's cut of the film. The director's cut has been released 3 times, but they have all been the same disc. So you don't have to buy the re-issue because you aren't missing anything new. All that it was was different cases, and getting the previous Limited Edition Director's Cut out to a larger number of people.

LOTR's Extended Edition and Pearl Harbor Extended Edition does not fall into trying to milk the consumer for more money. They were announced at the same time the original release was, so if you didn't want to buy the theatrical, you could wait and get the extended cut. The extras are different for those hard core people that want both. It was great of Peter Jackson to care enough to create new suppliments, instead of shove the same ones on the new set.

If most people could care less about extra features, you wouldn't see such popularity in those releases. I've never seen anyone complain they want barebones discs, so that is silly to say. The Extended 4-disc set already has more pre-order sales then the 2-discer ever did. S.E. re-releases always generate more sales then their bare-bones counterparts.

And don't tell me that regular people don't care about widescreen. That isn't true at all. The problem is that some people don't understand widescreen. They think they are loosing picture at the top and bottom. If you can get those people to listen for half a second, most would understand. I know, I have explained it to people in the past.

And if you are a completist in the DVD hobby, you may as well kill yourself now. Because unless you have a fortune like Bill Gates, you will never be able to afford everything. It's the nature of the beast for re-releases. It happened with VHS in the past, and it will happen with DVD. You just need to read and be in the know, and decide if you need that re-release. Most of the time, the answer is no. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

SirSteve
08-29-2002, 03:43 PM
I agree fullscreen and widescreen discs should be separate, just included in one price. Although, this won't be much of an issue with me in the near future when I get my 84" widescreen going. :)

It just makes me mad as twice it has happened to me where I went and grabbed one of the DVD's from the widescreen bunch (I always grab one from the back) and it being fullscreen. Then I had to take it back (one after I opened it and that was fun to explain to the cashier that looked like she still used beta tapes), blah blah... I pay more attention now.

But we all know that if Star Wars 4-6 came out one at a time, we would buy each one and then buy the classic 3 pack, then buy the prequel 3-pack and then buy the ultimate 6-pack (1-6) that will probably be $150.00!

SirSteve
08-29-2002, 03:46 PM
BTW - if a movie has not been digitally mastered (audio and video), what good is a DVD? Might as well say it's a VCD because the true quality isn't there.

Beast
08-29-2002, 04:04 PM
Well, not every movie will benefit from being digitally mastered anyway. That will actually bring out the grain in older movies, so it's better that alot of them be left alone. Even if the quality for some isn't perfect, it's still a thousand times better then VHS quality.

As for audio, I prefer that they have the originally audio tracks. Those fake Stereo tracks that are made from Mono tracks, sound horrible in some instances. I don't mind if they do a Stereo mix for the DVD, but they should include the original mono tracks as well. :)

And Steve, If I may call you Steve. I prefer a seperate Fullscreen release. Because that really shows the studios how much better Widescreen sells over Fullscreen. If they start thinking people will accept Fullscreen, you will get alot more Fullscreen only releases. Infact there are some coming up, "Big Fat Liar", "Road to Wellville" and one other movie that slips my mind, is being issued only in P&S. :mad: :(

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

JediTricks
08-29-2002, 05:38 PM
Personally, I'm not thrilled with this sort of thing. With most of 'em, it feels like that besides the money issue, it's also about trying to get the bare-bones DVD out to the public as fast as possible, then let that DVD allow them to coast into "Special Edition DVD" territory at their leisure. But this is a self-sustaining problem because if the industry wasn't so quick to release films so soon after their theatrical releases, they wouldn't have to compete with each other to get the film out faster and faster. Instead of speed of home market releases, they should be concentrating on the quality.

derek
08-29-2002, 06:21 PM
sir steve,

an 84 inch TV? is that measured from side to side, or from corner to corner?

now my real question:

what's the deal with that new 12 inch anakin? it looks horrible. what have your sources told you about this one and padme? why is another jedi garb anakin being release so soon? there has got to be better photos of this up coming wave.

Eternal Padawan
08-29-2002, 06:27 PM
I agree. I'd rather they did it right the first time with an in-depth DVD then rushing to release crap.

I hate "double dipping." I appreciate it when they announce that special editions are coming out later before I buy the first version. I especially hate the Put my hand up your butt editions. ;)

And I honestly don't understand fullscreen at all. people really want that rather than Widescreen? Why? Must be a Lanny thing...

ROLLO!

El Chuxter
08-29-2002, 09:08 PM
I'm with Steve and EP. There have only been a handful of discs I got that I wanted to be improved upon. Monty Python and the Holy Grail is the only one that comes to mind at the moment. Otherwise, if you can't put it out like it deserves, wait!

GSJ had a good point about CDs. How often have I gotten the complete (or mostly complete) works of a particular artist, only to find them remastered with bonus tracks a month or so later. Ozzy Osbourne, Queen, Stevie Ray Vaughan. . . . Only vintage KISS and Aerosmith really needed remastering, as the sound quality on the initial CDs was horrible! And my favorite case is David Bowie: they were remastered in the early 90s, and were re-remastered a year or so ago. . . without the bonus tracks! Talk about stupid. :mad:

stillakid
08-29-2002, 09:49 PM
JT hit upon an important point, that of speed to market. Back in the old days, when theatrical release was the rule and home video was prohibitively expensive for most, there was no rush to get a movie out on Beta/VHS/Disk because the market just wasn't there as a motivation.

Now, with the average lifespan of a theatrical release being around 2 weeks, a significant portion of the projected net is required from the home market. More often than not, it is those projected earnings that finance the picture in the first place. So with interest accruing (on amounts upwards of 50 million dollars +) time is of the essence.

EPK's are typically produced (thrown together) fairly quickly after wrap (much of that footage is made available to outlets like ET and Extra), so that's an "extra" that's easy to just drop onto the DVD. Other items, like commentary and storyboards, etc. take considerably more time and energy. Sometimes producers are very proactive with the process, as in the case with The Fast and the Furious, where the first edition DVD is extensive, but on the whole, "Hollywood" is aware that people with an interest in the movie in the first place are likely to buy just about any version that is released (which is why the pan and scan abomination proliferates to this day).

Personally, I don't buy first releases anymore unless they appear to be "finished," as with The Fast and the Furious. The Professional was one of my first purchases and imagine my chagrin when just a few months later Leon the Professional was released. Bastards! I've learned my lesson. Let Joe Six-pack watch his full screen no extras DVD. I'll just wait it out. :)

Mandalorian Candidat
08-30-2002, 10:31 AM
I want to throw in my $0.02.

I agree with SS on this one. When studios start releasing multiple versions of the same movie with different features it smacks of money grubbing. Let me explain my POV with one example: The LOTR DVD sets.

We're getting an initial set with certain features and extras that I'll call 'A.' Several months later a larger set will be released with deleted scenes and a wholly different set of features and extras, I call this 'B.' I may want to have some or all of the A features, but I'd rather have set B because I want the deleted scenes. The producers of the set could have very easily put the A features that aren't included on B on the B set. Instead they're putting different features. If I want access to all of A and B I have to buy both sets. Thus New Line or Peter Jackson or whoever is producing the sets are milking the fans for the extra $ to get all the features. They could easily put everything in one set and set it at a reasonable price so a consumer could choose to get everything in one shot rather than paying twice.



Originally posted by JarJarBinks
And don't tell me that regular people don't care about widescreen. That isn't true at all. The problem is that some people don't understand widescreen. They think they are loosing picture at the top and bottom. If you can get those people to listen for half a second, most would understand. I know, I have explained it to people in the past.


I have to agree with icatch9 in principle on this one, JJB. Of all the people I know who buy DVDs, only the hardcore videophiles make it a point to buy widescreen versions. Many of my friends couldn't care less about the wider picture over P&S. It's been my experience that they would rather have the whole screen filled rather than seeing the smaller images that widescreen produces on a conventional TV. Having the sides cut off doesn't matter, even after I've explained the advantages of seeing the whole picture on WS. It's just a personal choice of taste, like how one person opts for diet soda over regular.

icatch9
08-30-2002, 11:54 AM
Thanks Mandalorian Candidat, that was the point I was trying to make. Sure a lot of people buy DVDs and a lot of uneducated people buy DVD's. So, if they were educated on widescreen they may change there mind. Still some to most people would rather see a pan and scam just becasue the focus of the sceen is what is on the screen the most. Again, People would like to see Arogon slicing an Ork cenered and big, rather than seeing Arogon slicing an Ork slightly smaller and to the left at the same time as seeing what the 3rd Ork from the left is doing.

Remember people are stupid, a person is smart. People will always buy what they see or fell is best for them. If they don't like the looks of the black bars, then they won't be buying it. Just like I bought a black car over a blue one. It's personal choice.

bigbarada
08-30-2002, 12:10 PM
I will admit that for 90% of the movies I buy, I usually go with the P&S versions. Simply because it has little bearing on those films (who cares about a widescreen Joe Vs. The Volcano? - one of my all-time favorite films, but you're not missing that much with P&S). Now I try to get Widescreen for the big epic movies (like Star Wars and LOTR), but for the most part I really could care less whether the sides are chopped off or not.

As for the LOTR sets, I think the way they did it was perfect. If you plan on releasing a deluxe set later on then announce it before the regular version is out. This way people can plan ahead on which version they want. The standard version is the one that the casual moviegoer will buy. The deluxe version is for the movie enthusiast. Releasing both at the same time would confuse the marketplace and lose sales. The movie enthusiast tends to be more patient and will wait a longer time for the "perfect" version of the film.

Of course, the biggest offender of releasing too many versions of the same film is Lucasfilm itself. How many VHS releases of the original trilogy have we had since 1995?

I didn't know that the special features available on the standard DVD of LOTR wouldn't be on the deluxe set; but when I watch them it seems no big loss. They are simply repetetive TV specials and thinly veiled ads for merchandise.

As for me, I plan to wait for the 5-disc set and am content to watch my dad's copy of LOTR until then.

Mandalorian Candidat
08-30-2002, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by bigbarada
As for the LOTR sets, I think the way they did it was perfect. If you plan on releasing a deluxe set later on then announce it before the regular version is out. This way people can plan ahead on which version they want. The standard version is the one that the casual moviegoer will buy. The deluxe version is for the movie enthusiast. Releasing both at the same time would confuse the marketplace and lose sales. The movie enthusiast tends to be more patient and will wait a longer time for the "perfect" version of the film.


I am glad that they had the decency to announce all three versions of the movie, but my beef is that they wouldn't augment the 4-disc set by adding the exact material from the 2-disc set along with additional scenes and extras. Maybe those 2-disc extras are crap and it wouldn't make a big difference to me in the end, but if I'm buying the deluxe set, I'd like to have the options from the lesser ones.

Yes, BB, you are so right about LucasFilms blatant rereleases. I stood firm and didn't go for the latest edition of the boxed trilogy, even with the EP2 preview. At my count we've had three different boxed editions of the OT: 1)THX edition 2)SE edition 3)EP2 preview edition

stillakid
08-30-2002, 03:18 PM
While wandering through TRU in the past year, I've noticed several Batman boxed sets released one at a time, all with the same 3 (?) figures (Batman, Robin, ?) and one "new" figure. If you want to get Alfred, you have to get that boxed set. If you want the new girl villain, you have to get the boxed set. So the only way to get the newest figures anymore is to re-purchase the core characters over and over again. Now, I kind of understand the reasoning there. The company is assuming that Alfred, etc won't be a big enough draw to warrant his own "card," but on the other hand, I don't know too many parents who would spring for several nearly identical overpriced boxed sets just to get that one new figure. So depending on how you look at it, this is either good marketing (to sell lesser known characters, much like the Hasbro "exclusives" argument) or is a royal scam foisted upon "collectors."

In the above LOTR example, with version A containing things that version B won't, it is clearly a case for corporate greed. The B release has been advertised as being the more "definitive" one. But not all DVD releases are done this way. I don't think that there is a definitive one-complaint-fits-all argument for this issue. For instance, what is the reasoning behind there being no widescreen edition of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (as far as I can tell)? Arguably one of the best Production Designed films of all time can only be seen in a square box. Surely there are ample opportunities for DVD extras with that movie.

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
08-31-2002, 10:55 PM
One good thing about having multiple sets of the same movies is that, when the time comes to move out, there won't be a big fight over who gets to take what.

I can imagine it right now, when the time comes for my brother and myself to move. He knows I got dibs on the SW VHS trilogy and the Ep1 DVD as well as the SD, Stand By Me DVD, and he gets to take the Shawshank Redemption and a few others but everything else will be settled by a flip of the coin. Or by a fistfight.

My parents just picked up a second LOTR, FOTR DVD and for some reason they opened it even though I told them we had one already. After I scolded them, I realized that my brother and I will have one each for us to view. ( :

JON9000
09-01-2002, 01:34 PM
DVD can hold more than enough data to put P&S and Widescreen , DTS (which I prefer) and Dolby Digital, and Theatrical and extended cuts on the same disc. Look at the T2 disc. I was interested in seeing the extended cut (as I am with LOTR) but I prefer the shorter film. Lots of things that go on the cutting room floor belong there. I think people who buy multiple copies of movies are the reasons studios pull this crap. I love Star Trek 2, but I refuse to buy another edition. They should have put this one out originally. I do appreciate the fact that studios are packing rebate slips for upgrades, however. The worst travesty was the release of TPM on video- if you wanted widescreen on video, you had to pay $40 bucks and get the stupid box set. Ugh.

Beast
09-01-2002, 02:02 PM
JON9000, you are vastly overstating the capacity for DVD's. The T2 disc was a DVD 18, which are very very delicate and hard to make. Plus it was double sided, which most people hate.

That's why when T2 was originally released, it was a 2-disc set, because they were having problems duplicating the discs. That is why DVD 18's are hardly used. They have only ever been used on a handful of releases.

DTS tracks also take up alot of room, that is also why they are the first thing dropped when DVD's are made. I need to find the site I have bookmarked that explains the different DVD's.

There are DVD 5's, DVD 9's, DVD 10's, and DVD 18's. All of them have their good points, but the higher you get, the harder they are to make. Here is the info that I was looking for. :)

http://www.disctronics.co.uk/technology/dvdintro/dvd_formats.htm

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Beast
09-01-2002, 02:31 PM
Here's a bit more info about disc capacity. This is from TheDigitalBits, and Jim Taylor's Official DVD FAQ's. You can view them at the following addy. :)

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/officialfaq.html

[3.3] What are the sizes and capacities of DVD?

There are many variations on the DVD theme. There are two physical sizes: 12 cm (4.7 inches) and 8 cm (3.1 inches), both 1.2 mm thick, made of two 0.6mm substrates glued together. These are the same form factors as CD. A DVD disc can be single-sided or double-sided. Each side can have one or two layers of data. The amount of video a disc can hold depends on how much audio accompanies it and how heavily the video and audio are compressed. The oft-quoted figure of 133 minutes is apocryphal: a DVD with only one audio track easily holds over 160 minutes, and a single layer can actually hold up to 9 hours of video and audio if it's compressed to VHS quality.

At a rough average rate of 4.7 Mbps (3.5 Mbps for video, 1.2 Mbps for three 5.1-channel soundtracks), a single-layer DVD can hold a little over two hours. A two-hour movie with two soundtracks can average 5.2 Mbps (with 4 Mbps for video). A dual-layer disc can hold a two-hour movie at an average of 9.5 Mbps (close to the 10.08 Mbps limit).

A DVD-Video disc containing mostly audio can play for 13 hours (24 hours with dual layers) using 48/16 PCM (slightly better than CD quality). It can play 160 hours of audio (or a whopping 295 hours with dual layers) using Dolby Digital 64 kbps compression of monophonic audio, which is perfect for audio books.

Capacities of DVD:
For reference, a CD-ROM holds about 650 megabytes, which is 0.64 gigabytes or 0.68 billion bytes. In the list below, SS/DS means single-/double-sided, SL/DL/ML means single-/dual-/mixed-layer (mixed means single layer on one side, double layer on the other side), gig means gigabytes (2^30), BB means billions of bytes (10^9). See note about giga vs. billion in section 7.2.

DVD-5 (12 cm, SS/SL) 4.37 gig (4.70 BB) of data, over 2 hours of video
DVD-9 (12 cm, SS/DL) 7.95 gig (8.54 BB), about 4 hours
DVD-10 (12 cm, DS/SL) 8.74 gig (9.40 BB), about 4.5 hours
DVD-14 (12 cm, DS/ML) 12.32 gig (13.24 BB), about 6.5 hours
DVD-18 (12 cm, DS/DL) 15.90 gig (17.08 BB), over 8 hours

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

JON9000
09-01-2002, 02:53 PM
Well, that is interesting stuff. I wonder why the T2 DVD costs the same if it is so much more difficult to use a dual layer, dual sided disc? MAybe as the technology improves, we will see more like it. Anyway, it doesn't really cost much more to put 2 discs in a box. It seems almost every DVD i get these days has 2 discs! That would take away the need for dual sided, anyway. I mainly want the theatrical and extended cuts in the same disc, since I do not care for P&S. What I hate more than anything is changing discs, but Lawrence of Arabia is the only one I have that does that. Oh, and I hate discs that do not use 5.1 as the default setting (LOA does that too.)

scruffziller
09-05-2002, 09:20 AM
Yep they are definately milking us. But I don't buy into it.

derek
09-05-2002, 10:59 PM
i was at best buy today, and noticed a film released as a single disc with no extras. this happens all the time, you say? well, this film is "fight club", which was released a while back as a super 2 disc set. it's funny how they did this one kinda backwards.:)

Beast
09-05-2002, 11:02 PM
That's happening to alot of 2-disc sets, Derek. The idea is that alot of people care less about extras, so they drop the 2nd disc out and charge almost the same price for the new inferior single disc release. :rolleyes:

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks