Is it still worth owning DVD's? (1 Viewer)

[Inspector Hammer!]

Doing research doesn't guarentee anything, either, because peoples tastes vary so much. A film can have all the critical and public acclaim in the wrld but *I* still may not like it.

I mean 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the most acclaimed films of all time but I can't stand it.

You never know, which is why I rent first, buy later.

 

[RonR]

I have about 300 DVD's myself and now only buy 2-4 a month..if that. Main reason is I have all of the main ones I want and now I rent something I am unsure of first....if it is good I will buy it then or in the future. I have watched every DVD at least once...vast majority several times so for me it is a no brainer. Also when a friend drops over it is nice to have them pick one out to watch...if I didn't like the movie it wouldnt be on the shelf!

 

[Jeff_HR]

I know my tastes pretty darn well.

It sounds like many people are doing a lot of blind rentals of new theatrical releases. If they are doing these blind rentals of new theatrical releases just because they are new theatrical releases, well that turns out to be a waste of money if you don't like it. IMO to get maximum value for your $$$ buy or rent, if you must, only titles that fit darn well into your film tastes.

 

[Jason_V]

Jeff, I think I know me pretty well too. However, if I hadn't taken a blind stab on Netlif for Zathura, I never would have seen an entirely delightful, fun and good movie. The film was marketed to kids and I passed last year.

How do you propose watching things outside your comfort zone if you don't branch out every once in a while?

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Your philosophy is a tad scewed, one will never see anything new if they avoid renting new releases.

It's the old saying, you'll never know until you try it. If I rent a new release and it turns out bad, than I only wasted a couple of bucks, but if I buy it and find out it's bad than that's $20.00 bucks that I just pissed down the toilet.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Is it just me, or does DVD often look better than what was seen in theaters? I like the idea of having a picture that looks as good as a 35mm film in a theatre does, but I always felt that even S-DVD tends to improve upon that.

 

[Michael Elliott]

DVDs look better to me as well.

I've quit buying because I'm sick and tired of all the studio B.S.. Fox, Columbia, MGM and Disney just got me a little hot so I've quit buying products from them. There are other ways to see the films I want to see and I'm tired of asking when is title X,Y or Z coming out.

I will continue to buy from Universal and Warner though. The rest of the studios don't seem to want my money so others out there are willing to take it and give me the films I want to see.

 

[Ricardo C]

If you saw a compromised film presentation (scratched, dirty film, dim projector, poor contrast, etc.), I can see why the DVD would appear to look better, especially on the average TV set. But when the image is pushed, the shortcomings of the technology become apparent, poorer color range and compression artifacting chief among them.

I've seen DVD projected on screens up to 20 feet wide, and there's just no contest when compared with HD, or better yet, true film. DVD can look very good, but it never lets you forget you're watching video.

I've trotted out this page before, but what the heck

Here is a page comparing the DVD of Fellowship of the Ring with the HD version broadcast a few years back. I think the differences are obvious, especially in the long shots, and even when comparing the downconverted HD caps to the native DVD ones.

I have a 42-inch LCD right now, modest by HT standards, and even on it I can clearly see the difference between the two formats. When I finally make the jump to front projection, I want to be able to throw as large an image as possible without worrying about the picture becoming a blurry mess when I sit at my usual 1x distance. I want the projector's light output, not the quality of the video, to be the limiting factor in how big I can go.

 

[Arnie G]

"Is it still worth owning DVD's?"

The question is a matter of opinion. To me the answer is yes. I'm collecting as much as ever & have no current interest in HD on disc. I'll probably switch over on some titles when the players drop to $100.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

But there is no concrete "taste" in art for any individual. Tastes change throughout one's life, and not just with art, of course. It has to be an adventurous experiment of discovery. Working out what the work is, or at least 'might be' is great aided by art and to fix one's tastes at a young age and stick to them throughout one's life would be folly. As we progress, redundancies must be disposed of, like bad habits. What were once sacred cows to me, are now not even prime beef. Even though I am fascinated my the medium of Cinema, I feel that very few films have sustained and affecting power. There are very few equivolents of Hamlet, Beethoven's 5th, 7th and 9th symphonies, Wagner's operas, Rachmaninov's piano concertos and a hundred other examples of Music. It is generally approached and treated as a trivial artform, purely for quick thrills and a means of diversion from boredom and even then it is not entirely effective. For a film to have power and effectively convery emotion, it takes great imagination (and if it is a play or novel being adapted, it won't be entirely novel) and a herculian effort to physically pull it off and so it rarely achieves everlasting greatness. So, from this perspective, I have begun to see that most films I owned on DVD were now not as valuable as I used to see them. These were some 'all-time classics' from all decades of the 20th Century, too, not 80s and 90s fluff. So there they were, taking up precious space and cluttering things up! So they will be sold to a good home and the experiences they give might have value to others.

 

[Jeff_HR]

That's skewed.

The last new theatrical release I saw in a theatre was "The Sum of All Fears", & I own the DVD. I RARELY if ever buy new theatrical releases because IMO the overwhelming majority of them according to "my tastes" are horse manure, & I don't care to spend $$$ on films like that. My purchases of DVDs are almost completely catalog titles. I buy what I like according to "my tastes". If you wish to gamble on unseen films outside your comfort zone, it is your $$$........

 

[MarkHastings]

I agree with Jeff on the renting issue. I tried Netflix way back when I first started out, but I found that it forced me to watch the movies during their 'rental' time. I didn't like that. I actually had to return unwatched DVD's because by the time I got them, either I was too busy or didn't want to watch them at that particular moment. :frowning:

I much prefer buying a movie, then waiting for the "perfect" moment to watch it. I have to make sure I have the time, that I won't be interrupted, that I won't fall asleep, etc. etc.

I mean, I JUST watched a DVD, this past Saturday, that has been sitting on my shelf (unwatched) since 1998. I don't think Netflix could possibly fill me DVD watching requirements.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Dammit, I hate when I do that!

I can understand wanting to wait until the right time to watch a movie, but the cool thing about Netflix and Blockbuster online is that you can keep them as long as you want. Generally I find that Friday night is the night that I mainly like to watch movies, i'm not really in the mood during the week from being tired from work.

I watch on Friday and have them in the mail on Saturday.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

No, it is not the money that one is gambling that is of importance, but one's time. Life is very short and confusing, so if one is to seek deliverance in art, then one will have to be adventurous!

 

[Jacqui]

I heartily concur my friend.

I love my classic DVDs

 

[John H Ross]

Gee, has everybody become so obsessed with the shiny new toys in their living rooms (sorry, I mean "home theaters") that they've forgotten what an actual CINEMA is?

I view almost every new film that I'm remotely interested in at the cinema. If I like it I'll buy it. If I don't, I won't. If it's something I've missed at the cinema I'll catch it on satellite. Who needs to rent?

In terms of "collecting" movies, sure I collect them! I buy films for a variety of reasons. I'll buy it because I love it (e.g. Star Wars). I'll buy it because I think I should have it (e.g. Lawrence Of Arabia). I'll buy it because it was scored by Jerry Goldsmith (and lord knows he scored a LOT of dud films in his day!). I'll buy it because Keira Knightley is in it! ;-) There are lots of reasons.

I have about 700 discs and I'm happy with 98% of my titles. I also have 5500 movie soundtrack albums. Gosh, this film thing really has got a hold of me, hasn't it?

In terms of the next format... well... I'm not leaping yet. Or ever. Partly because the films released thus far are mainly crap, also I'm in England so I don't have much choice yet. Thirdly, many DVD features are bound to be lost in the upgrade (e.g. isolated scores). Those things are important to me. And finally I've already given Hollywood too damn much of my money (yes, I bought about 500 laserdiscs)

History shows us that every OTHER format is successful. VHS, DVD. So I'm thinking I might wait for the one(s) AFTER HD-DVD and BD.

John

John

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I'm just curious as to why renting is looked upon as being this bad thing? It's just another option, that's all, just like waiting for a film to come on satellite.

It may be an "old way" to see movies as people have been renting movies since the inception of the video store, but it works and it works EXTREMELY well for a lot of people.

Besides, does satellite even show movies in their correct OAR's? Every film i've rented on DVD does.

 

[Vader]

I would hardly call a 15 year run in which LaserDisc was the format of choice to many HT enthusiasts "not successful." Just because something does not catch on with J6P does not mean it is not a success....

 

[MarkHastings]

I think it's similar to owning/renting a home...most (who can afford to buy) don't see the point in throwing money away at renting a home.

For me, I'd rather take the chance on buying a $19 movie that I know will be mine to own, than renting a movie that I won't own. The thing that killed me with renting was, when I'd rent a REALLY good blind buy, I always hated that I had to return it and then go out and purchase the DVD somewhere.

Although, while I realize that the money I save in rentals, would help me to buy the ones I really do like, but of the 600+ DVD's that I own, I have a really good track record on blind buys that I like. I probably can only think of 3-4 that I really regreted buying.

Not too bad, I'd say.

 

[Jon Martin]

Mark, you might want to try it again. There is no rental time. You can keep it as long as you want, no late fees, no nothing. I've kept DVDs for weeks at a time, and still had others that I sent back the next day.

And I am also a bit surprised by how many have stopped going to the theatres. I still go to at least one, or two films a weekend. That is my primary way of seeing films. As someone else said, no matter how good your setup is, it can't match a 20 foot screen and theatre sound.

The new releases I rent are ones that either didn't make it to me, or I didn't care enough about to see in the theatre. So, for me it wouldn't be worth $20 to blind buy it when it wasn't worth $7 to see in the theatre.