Harry Potter: Goblet Of Fire, Which Version? (1 Viewer)

[RogerH]

I think if I can find the 2 disc for a decent price I'll get it if not I'll have to settle for the 1 disc.

 

[Matthew Clayton]

The 2-disc edition for me. I don't like this policy the studios are pulling with the single and double-disc simultaneous release either, but it forces people who prefer pan-n-scan to buy the widescreen-only 2-disc version in order to get all the extras. Plus, I like continuity with all of my Harry Potter DVDs.

Plus, aside from being a single-disc edition the first disc is barebones - just "play movie", "scene selection" and "languages" options. Not even the theatrical trailer is included.

 

[Matt Czyz]

Continuity was thrown out when they went to a keepcase for Vol. 3. Having two digipaks next to two keepcases would probably look more consistant than two digis, a keepcase, then another digi anyway, right? (Unless you mean the number of discs per set, which is understandable.)

 

[Matthew Clayton]

I meant the latter, yes. But the 2-disc edition is not a digipak, it is just a 2-disc Amaray case with a silver foil embossed slipcover. (See DVD Empire if you don't believe me.)

 

[seanOhara]

I'll rent it, then wait five years for the Ultimate Harry Potter boxset, with extended cuts and commentaries on each movie, a retrospective on the series' cultural impact, a biography of J.K. Rowling, and a feature-length documentary on each film.

 

[Nathan A]

I'm boycotting this one. I have the previous three, all of which were released as 2-disc SEs only. Why should I pay more for the same amount of product this time around? Or pay the same amount for less product?

And if I rememeber correctly, wasn't at least one of the previous three available for $9.99 when it was released? Regardless, I know I paid $14.99 or less for each of them. Please studios, stop trying to squeeze money out of us in this way! If they'd just do it like they did with the first three, I'd buy it. It's that simple.

If no one purchased these overpriced sets, they'd stop releasing movies this way. Please consider this before buying this movie.

 

[Andrew Bunk]

Unless it was some special Toys R Us or Walmart thing I've never seen these offered at 9.99 on release day.

14.99 is likely the lowest you'll see the one disc, possibly 13.87 or so if Walmart is feeling competitive.

 

[Matt Czyz]

Matthew,

I was under the impression the 2-disc was a digipak, based on art I had seen earlier. So uh, never mind that last part!

(and $26.95 at DVDempire? Do people really pay that much?)

 

[DavidPla]

In Canada we do. (of course that would be in Canadian dollars!)

 

[Elijah Sullivan]

I'm suprised there is such a price difference between the two sets... at work, our video rental distributor is listing a $.69 difference between the two: $20.99 versus $21.68. I think it's more likely that it's the single disc version that's been discounted, rather than the two-disc one marked up. I imagine it's because retailers are getting bigger discounts on their orders for millions of single-disc copies versus a handful of double-discers.

Just a theory.

 

[Chris Minogue]

I'm pretty sure CompUSA did one of their "prices so low we must be CRAZY" dealies for Chamber of Secrets the day it came out. Around $9.99. They used to do that once in a while on big releases. I haven't seen them do that for any title in years though.

 

[RogerH]

I just hope the 2 disc holographic at Future Shop is not bilingual (something like Future Shop version of Batman Begins).

 

[PerryD]

Paying a $5 premium for the 2-disc is that much harder knowing that this movie has already been announced for HD-DVD and I believe Blu-Ray also. As much as I love to have the definitive version of this movie, I may just pick up the single disc version this time.

 

[Matthew Clayton]

If you looked at the back art, you can clearly see that it's just a slipcover (the square hole lets us see the UPC symbol on the actual DVD cover).

 

[John-Tompkins]

b

 

[MarkHastings]

I just looked up Harry Potter 2 and Harry Potter 3, and according to what I paid from Amazon, this latest release is only $2 more (for the 2 disc version) than the last 2 versions.

Not much to bitch about.

 

[Matthew Marino]

I'm a sucker for limited cover art so I'll be getting the Target exclusive version.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Yeah I've said that before the studios are basically charging us a premium for what they offered with the set before. I'm mainly concerned with the Feature so I'll probably go with the single disk

 

[Lane_S]

I'll be getting the 2-disk. Even though the Potter extras are normally pretty soft, I like the idea of consistency with the other films by having the two diskers across the shelf. Also - I'll bet that by the time the next Potter film hits the DVD market, the single disk version will be the only choice for people who don't buy it now.

I too hate what I see as price gouging for those of us who want the full package. To me, a $2-3 step up for the second disk is fair, but $14.99 single vs. $22.99 double is nothing more than a profit game. They've made more money on me for Batman begins, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and others, but they've also lost in that my DVD spending is close to half of what it use to be. If I have to pay that much more for a disk I want, I'm much less likely to pick up a second title at the same time that's more of a blind buy (which means I probably won't ever buy it).

 

[MarkHastings]

I don't see it as gouging when it's only a few bucks more than previous releases. The single disc being significantly lower shouldn't equate (IMHO).

In other words, I don't see it as $16 more for the 2nd disc...I see it as $2 more than previous editions.