Warner Brothers: For the love of God stop using those snapper cases! (1 Viewer)

[Dan Hitchman]

Start listening to your customers, please!

The majority of us DO...NOT...LIKE...THESE...CHEAP, NON-REPLACEABLE...CASES...AT...ALL!

Come up with your own version of the keep case. At least that would be an improvement.

Thank you!

Dan

P.S. And if you won't include DTS or DTS-ES Discrete 6.1(although it would help sales, and New Line isn't afraid to use it), at least use the improved 448 kilobits/sec Dolby Digital. There is no excuse why at least this can't happen.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Warner's DVDs are usually inexpensive. I'm willing to bet it's because they use snap cases and digipacks.

Having said that, I want WB to do whatever they can to make their discs cheaper. Their 2-disc Chaplin DVDs are going to cost less than the 1-disc original editions by Image when they were on sale! You can get many of their DVDs for under $20 and they're full special editions.

If using snappers keeps costs down, please stick with them!

 

[alan halvorson]

Warner has always gone cheap in their packaging. While MGM, Fox, Criterion and some others nearly always used gatefold jackets for their 2-disc LD releases, Warner simply modified their already thin-walled jackets to accomodate an extra disc. It just cried out, "We don't give a damn".

 

[Robert Crawford]

Again, which marketing study confirms that assertion? Furthermore, forums such as HTF do serve a purpose to the studios, but they are only a small part of the mainstream market in which many consumers might not give a hoot about the packaging. It would seem likely to me that Warner has conducted a marketing survey on this matter and only they can confirm whether the data supports their continuation in the snapper packaging.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

If you read the chat transcript from last week, you will see their answers.

Haunt your local video stores and if you make friends you can probably get keepcase slicks from them for new titles

The Snapper is basically gone everywhere but here, and given that Ivy Hill is possibly being sold, that would eventually lead to the death of the Snapper hypothetically. If you do a search, you will find an address to send broken snapper trays to for replacements

 

[Dan Hitchman]

It's not just the plastic part, the cardboard covers wear out too!

I'm also not so sure about these so-called "market tests" that keep being bandied about. You can cook the numbers to say anything you want them to. Happens all the time.

The whole red laser HD disc---cropping all 1.85:1 movies to 1.78:1---non anamorphic 1.66:1---low bitrate Dolby Digital---no DTS---snapper case thing starts to add up to the possibility that Warner Brothers just doesn't listen as well as they should to their die hard customer base. We have some pretty good ideas for the taking.

I hope someone will heed the call!

Dan

 

[Mary M S]

I am always disappointed when I see a snapper case. Has not stopped my purchases of this packaging.
But I have passed over sales bins, several times, which were full of them, preferring to browse the bin, which had hard cases. So psychologically, I do perceive them as ‘cheap’ and applied possibly to less desirable titles.

In addition, - hate it when the center keeper tab on a hard case is one which is difficult to release the disc without flexing it, or when it breaks and you hear your disc rattling around the case sliding over what’s left of the tab.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

I say for the love of God STOP putting those "SECURITY DEVICE ENCLOSED" stickers on the cases!! Put them on the OUTSIDE of the shrinkwrap!!

 

[Cees Alons]

It's not just the plastic part, the cardboard covers wear out too!

I've said it before, and I say it again.
NONE of my more than 5000 books are made of plastic, all of cardboard and paper. Most of them are older than 10 years, some much older. NONE are "worn out". Matter of care.

The same applies to my snappers. None is worn out, none brought me a defective or even scratched disc.

I like those snappers and I don't understand why some people hate them. I believe everyone who says so, but I honestly don't understand it.


Cees

 

[Patrick McCart]

Dan:

Warner Bros. doesn't crop 1.85:1 movies on the sides to 1.78:1. They simply matte a little bit less. Viola. That's how Paramount, Disney, and Universal does it, too.

Showing North By Northwest or One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest at 1.78:1 instead of 1.85:1 only adds picture information. On a 16x9 TV, the overscan probably turns it into 1.85:1 anyways.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Yes, that's what happens for open matte photography. However, what I do have a problem with is that they do this to hard-matted films as well leaving (after overscan) a much more cramped composition because the sides do get cropped. Not just for some titles like other studios, but 100% of them no matter what.

In the case of snappers the artwork and information IS the cover with no protection whatsoever (it can warp too). If something happens to it, you're screwed. At least with a keep case it has a protective sheathing over the insert. If something happens like a scratched up case or the security or ad stickers muss up the cover, a broken tab, or latch you can easily buy another keep case and put the insert into the new one. Presto! Also, have you ever had to stack DVDs? The snappers flex and makes the plastic rub up against the discs.

A piss poor design IMHO.

The same thing can be said for Warner Brother's use of the super jewel case with DVD-Audio (although, that can be said for other DVD-Audio producers too, but the biggest DVD-Audio camp is the WB). It breaks (and one of mine has) and you're up the creek. I haven't found one place that sells replacement super jewel cases (anyone?).

Dan

 

[Cees Alons]

Dan,

It's never a good idea, IMO, to pile DVDs higher than 15 - 20 pieces. Not for snappers and not for other cases.

I hate my contrariness here, but in fact I find the snapper more pleasing, more distinguished looking than those cheap shiny plastic shells. Snappers look like more related to real filmposters.

The majority of us ...

Dan, you appear to be the spokesman of an impressive group .

Cees

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Cees, you don't happen to work for WB... do you?

And I never said I stack 'em high, just that sometimes if you have to the snappers don't work very well.

Come on, I think a lot of us could agree that Warner Media could have come up with something a lot better than the snapper. Why is it then that all of their other subsidiaries dumped the snapper case as soon as they were able to?

Dan

 

[Patrick McCart]

Yes, that's what happens for open matte photography. However, what I do have a problem with is that they do this to hard-matted films as well leaving (after overscan) a much more cramped composition because the sides do get cropped. Not just for some titles like other studios, but 100% of them no matter what.

Name some titles.

Some flat (as in 1.66:1, 1.75:1, 1.85:1) films are indeed hard-matted. However, they're usually hard matted to less than what the projected ratio is. For example, Shrek seems to be around 1.66:1 or 1.70:1 on film, hard-matted. The DVD mattes a little bit more on the top and bottom. The pan & scan version actually reveals a tiny bit on the top and bottom (but of course cuts a little off the sides).

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Dan, I challenge you to, in an A/B comparison tell me the difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 transfer of the same shot

 

[Cees Alons]

Why is it then that all of their other subsidiaries dumped the snapper case as soon as they were able to?

Which proves nothing - except that there are more people like you in the other places, while there are more like me at Warner's.

Cees

 

[Dan Hitchman]

"people like you"

Good thing you had a smiley there Cees! I thought for a minute that this was turning ugly over some damn case.

In all seriousness, do you really believe that the snapper case is truly a well thought out design? Really?

Dan

 

[Cees Alons]

About that design ... I really don't know. They look slightly more complicated and clever than the Amaray shells. I've been given to understand that the same design (but bigger) was used for LD's too. Is that true?

Cees

 

[Dan Hitchman]

LD's were in big cardboard sleeves (not unlike the idea for the snapper case covers) with equally crummy plastic baggies to put over the discs (I usually replaced them with paper formed sleeves with plastic linings).

I also think the hub on the snappers don't hold the disc tight enough. While I hate the "hubs of death" on some keep case and digipacks, the amaray case's hub seems like a decent go-between.

Dan

 

[Cees Alons]

Yes, of the hubs there is "best" "good" and "terrible". I think the snapper hubs are at least "good". I never found a DVD floating around inside a snapper (or a broken snapper-hub!).

Also, the one improvement that I sometimes think of, and would satisfy many people, I suppose, would be the replacement of the cardboard artwork of the snappers by a thick plastic plate - a bit flexible - with exactly the same look and feel (not hard or polished and shiny!). I even don't know if that's possible (to get the artwork on something like that).

Cees