Avengers: Endgame SPOILERS ALLOWED THREAD (1 Viewer)

[Jake Lipson]

A newly released deleted scene from the home release:

 

[Jake Lipson]

This is a genuine surprise.

BIG NEWS for anyone who bought the physical CD release of the Endgame soundtrack from Amazon.

As I noted in May, the physical CD contains 28 tracks and runs 1 hour 18 minutes. The MP3 download version runs 1 hour and 56 minutes and has 35 tracks. As yet, CD buyers have been gypped out of 38 minutes of music.

Back when I first bought it, Endgame did not qualify for Amazon's AutoRip program where they give you the MP3s for free with CD purchase. I was surprised to find that it does qualify now; the MP3s were been automatically placed in my Amazon music library at some point between the CD's original release date and now. I found them there tonight when I logged in to retrieve other MP3s I recently got.

The version of the Endgame soundtrack given to me via Amazon AutoRip contains ALL tracks from the MP3 release, including the tracks that do not appear on the physical CD. I did not pay extra to get this; Amazon just gave it to me as a result of my previous CD purchase.

I still think it's ridiculous that the #1 film of all time doesn't have a complete CD release -- even the 1 hour 56 minute running time of the MP3 version can't be the full score for a three-hour movie. But I am very happy to have the full released version now.

If you also bought the physical CD from Amazon earlier, check your MP3 library. You might (probably do) have extra music in there that you didn't know about.

 

[Sam Favate]

I think this is one of the bonus features for Endgame: A brief history of Steve Rogers and Peggy Carter.


Swoon All Over Captain America and Peggy Carter in this Exclusive Featurette from Avengers: Endgame

https://d23.com/d23-video/swoon-cap...6bA2HkO_Ln3mUID_bfAkxZW0HxAlyabRwy4gdvSBT0dE4

 

[Jake Lipson]

I think this is one of the bonus features for Endgame: A brief history of Steve Rogers and Peggy Carter.

That is the dreaded digital-only bonus feature that should not exist. At least it's not as big of a loss as the commentary on Mary Poppins Returns, the directors roundtable on Infinity War or the scene breakdowns on Guardians 2.

 

[TJPC]

It’s a total loss if you want 3D. Digital codes from Britain do not work here.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

That is the dreaded digital-only bonus feature that should not exist. At least it's not as big of a loss as the commentary on Mary Poppins Returns, the directors roundtable on Infinity War or the scene breakdowns on Guardians 2.

So you'd rather the material didn't exist at all, rather than being freely available to purchasers of the physical media version who can simply redeem the code included at no extra charge?

That sounds unusually snobbish. "If it's not available in my preferred format, it shouldn't exist."

 

[dpippel]

I don't think Jake is saying that the material shouldn't exist; he's saying that it shouldn't exist exclusively as an extra that's only available online. At least that's what I took his comments to mean.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I used to preface these comments with "I hate to say it" but I'm not sure why I should hate to say it.

In 2019, it is unrealistic to expect studios to treat the physical media release as the most important component in the product line. And it is especially unrealistic to expect a studio that has been offering bonus content digitally for several years to suddenly stop doing it.

It's starting to feel a little bit like those posts we used to see where people would write "No 3D, no sale!" after every 2D press release. There was a time when our voices carried weight with the studio, but that time is over. And since this content is being provided for free to everyone who purchases the disc (with the statistically insignificant exception of those who order a disc copy from another region other than their own), this really doesn't seem like it's the hill worth dying on. This certainly seems better to me than the day of physical media retailer exclusives, where, for instance, if you weren't one of the first 500 customers to purchase a disc from Target, you'd simply never, ever, ever have access to that content. Here instead, everyone purchasing the disc will get the content.

At any rate, I'm much more interested in a discussion on how good or bad the content is vs a discussion on whether the content is invalid because it was presented in a format that wasn't the first choice of some viewers.

 

[dpippel]

Everyone with internet service that has high enough bandwidth to make it watchable, you mean? There are still large swaths of rural North America without access to broadband. I don't disagree with you though. Just playing devil's advocate here.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Everyone with internet service that has high enough bandwidth to make it watchable, you mean? There are still large swaths of rural North America without access to broadband. I don't disagree with you though. Just playing devil's advocate here.

If Disney felt that they were losing a measurable portion of business because of areas without good broadband access, I imagine that they wouldn't have moved forward with this method of releases or would have reconsidered. That they haven't suggests that either the segments of the population that aren't covered by broadband are either small enough to be statistically insignificant, or that they weren't doing enough business in those areas to justify maintaining an older form of delivery that's rapidly being abandoned by both consumers and industry.

Any time there's a shift in how we consume media, there's always an adjustment period, and some people do get left behind by certain movements forward. And I don't mean to make light of that. But what's the solution? Never innovate on broadband or the internet until 100% of the population has 100% perfect access?

It's probably not crazy to conclude that Disney includes digital exclusives as both an incentive to have their customers pay $20 for a digital preorder (where they get the majority of the payment and have low overhead) over spending $20 on a physical disc (where the studio has to split the revenue with distributors and retailers and pay relatively high overhead on the product), and as a gentle nudge to encourage more people to look at the digital version over the physical. But it's also a "chicken and egg" type situation where I don't think one side is completely driving the other side at any time; digital is winning with consumers too. If it wasn't, we would have had a "New Coke" scenario long ago where the studios would have issued a mea culpa and put their efforts back to disc. But that hasn't happened.

I really think that when it comes to how people are choosing to spend their entertainment dollars, they're generally not thinking "Should I purchase this on a disc or should I purchase a digital download?" I think most people are thinking, "I'll watch that again when it hits whatever subscription service I'm already on," or worse, "I'll download that illegally when I want to watch it." I think people have already decided to watch something, and the only decision left is not whether it's in a physical or digital format, but whether they're going to pay for it or not. Over half of all internet traffic is believed to be illegal filesharing/torrenting/bootleg streams. When Disney is offering a digital exclusive bonus, I don't think the big idea is to give the middle finger to disc buyers. I think it's a plea to the crowd that is considering whether or not to pay for the thing they're about to watch anyway to please pay for it before watching.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

In 2019, it is unrealistic to expect studios to treat the physical media release as the most important component in the product line. And it is especially unrealistic to expect a studio that has been offering bonus content digitally for several years to suddenly stop doing it.

So people shouldn't express their disappointment?

 

[Jake Lipson]

To be clear, I know it is unrealistic to expect Disney to suddenly start putting all the bonus features on the disc. Unfortunately, I know better than to expect them to do that, even though it is what they should do. Regardless, I have a problem with the practice. But of course it's not going to prevent me and millions of other people from buying the disc, so it just is what it is. As I said, at least the Steve/Peggy featurette seems less substantial than some of the other material they have withheld in the past.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

So people shouldn't express their disappointment?

Of course they should. But I think there's a difference between "I'm disappointed that this isn't on the disc; even though I have free access to the same content, I prefer it all on the physical disc so I have everything in one place in the format I prefer" and "This is the dreaded digital-only bonus feature which should not exist." I completely sympathize and agree with the first position; the second position I don't. One position expresses disappointment at an inconvenience; the second position says that because an inconvenience exists for some, none should have it at all.

 

[dpippel]

If Disney felt that they were losing a measurable portion of business because of areas without good broadband access, I imagine that they wouldn't have moved forward with this method of releases or would have reconsidered. That they haven't suggests that either the segments of the population that aren't covered by broadband are either small enough to be statistically insignificant, or that they weren't doing enough business in those areas to justify maintaining an older form of delivery that's rapidly being abandoned by both consumers and industry.

IMO it only illustrates that, at this point in the game, Disney knows that most rural customers are still going to purchase the release on disc whether they can access the exclusive digital content or not. It's simply not a factor to most buyers. The problem for these customers will come when studios start distributing feature films exclusively via streaming platforms. Infrastructure-wise, we have along way to go before a streaming only model becomes financially viable.

 

[Sam Favate]

This is a fan-made video tribute to Steve and Peggy, which I think is better than the one linked to above, which is by Marvel. However, neither makes use of footage from the Agent Carter series, which obviously didn't feature Steve Rogers, but did have a poignant scene

Spoiler

at the end of season 1 when Peggy pours the vial of Steve's blood that everyone had been chasing off the Brooklyn Bridge.

In any case, this is a nice piece and you can see how deep the final scene of Endgame is, with how far these characters have come.

 

[Jake Lipson]

 

[Jake Lipson]

USA Today has video of a deleted scene from the home release which is an extended scene immediately after Tony's death. It's nice, but easy to see why they cut this, because Tony's actual funeral serves the same function of honoring him, and they didn't need both in an already long movie.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/ente...ir-fallen-exclusive-deleted-scene/1827992001/

Notably

Spoiler: deleted scene spoiler

Gamora is alive in it, which means she did not vanish in Tony's snap. I realize that cutting this scene means it could be ignored or not considered canon,but I remember interviews saying that the Rusos weren't sure if Gamora survived or not. Now, we see that they did film a scene with her being alive after the snap. Of course Gamora is going to be in Guardians 3, so this isn't a huge surprise, but it does kind of invalidate their interview comments/mean they were hiding stuff and being cagey when they said that, even though the movie was already out.

 

[Jake Lipson]

And here's a clip from the Blu-ray blooper reel: https://www.superherohype.com/movie...ith-fake-rocket-in-avengers-endgame-bloopers/

 

[Jake Lipson]

 

[Jake Lipson]

The Honest Trailer is here: