Anyone else clearing out their SD-DVDs?

While not every HTF member or every movie lover has moved to Blu-ray, the new format certainly is getting the majority of attention from packaged media collectors.  Because of that, the DVD format has very little resale value.  

 

Exceptions seem to include box sets, TV on DVD sets, foreign films, rare films, family films, black & white films, horror and sci-fi classics & other films embraced by film enthusiasts.  

However, films that have lined the "New Release" sections of Blockbuster and Hollywood Video in the last decade... forget it.   They have about as much resale value as rotten cheese.  I checked ebay for the going rates of some films and some have dozens of listings without a single bid (with starting bids starting at $0.01 !!).  

Bulk trade-in is not a bad way to go.  At least you get something and you aren't dealing with 1 offs.  

If I upgrade and trade in a DVD I usually wait until I have 10-15 and then go to Amoeba Records in Hollywood. Otherwise it's not worth the effort.

But I don't ditch my DVDs until I have the Blu-ray in hand. That's how I avoid tragedies such as my friend who sold his Criterion DVD of Ran before news of the Blu-ray's cancellation hit and the DVD going out of print hit. Ouch.

I pretty much decided that unless the DVD version of a movie I like looks and/or sounds like shit then I won't bother buy them again on BD.  Having said that there are some I will certainly buy since the DVD versions are crap.  Examples are The Right Stuff, Stargate and Outland.    
When I buy new titles or old titles that I didn't already have on DVD I will buy those on BD.  Examples are The Fly, Gran Torino, Batman Dark Prince, etc.

There are some that don't seem to be availble on BD at all such as Taking Chance. 

Scott you don't care for the The Right Stuff:  Two-Disc Special Edition?

***

My collection culling and watching/listening to supps in preparation for Amazon sales gets more aggressive every quarter if not every month as I continue to watch industry trends.  Some of the only major catalog sticking points precluding a near complete DVD purge save OOPs, signed copies, music discs and titles with unique supps are concerns about Fox' stewardship of the MGM catalog (Where's Dances With Wolves, dammit?), why Disney has been so slow with Miramax releases (Is there wrangling goin' on between Harvey & Bob and Disney?  Where's Swingers, dammit?) and whether Par will release non-Steven/Amblin DreamWorks titles before their distrib rights expire next year (I want me some Chicken Run and Road To Perdition, dammit!).

It's been interesting to learn of titles that, unbeknownst to me, have "quietly" gone OOP whilst sitting on my shelf over the years--  Madonna's Truth Or Dare, for instance.  Who knew?  (Not me at least.)

That's my strategy too. You generally get a better return on your old stuff before the Bd is released, but in so many ways this still seems like a not-ready-for-prime-time format to me.  Too many goof ups, too many delays, postponements, and cancellations. Too much  to take a chance losing access to any given title I care about if I jump the gun.

And then there are things I just hate to sell off cheap because the packaging is beautiful- so much more so than the Bd version. The Towering Inferno is a good example. The Lenticular cover on the Final Countdown SE is another. I don't need and won't watch the sd versions again, but doggone it- I hate to let those cases go for pocket change.

Re ". . . but in so many ways this still seems like a not-ready-for-prime-time format to me.  Too many goof ups, too many delays, postponements, and cancellations."

Curious as to which goof ups you're referring to, Paul.  Yeah, the tardy codification of the Profile 1.1 and 2.0 standards was frustrating but-- some banal PIP and online content aside--we're past that now.  DVD saw/sees delayed and canceled titles, too.

I think one of the things you might be referring to is the recurrence of discs that don't play or have glitches on some players, one of the latest examples of which is 12 Rounds?  That's a Fox title and they're notoriously aggressive about BD+.  I think much of such current glitchiness has to do with content providers tweaking their DRM strategies, which is a studio issue not a format one.

 The goof ups I was referring to were things like the sub-titles on Sony discs being formatted solely for 16:9 screens (and in the case of The Professionals- they shouldn't be there at all and are non defeatable to boot); the closed captioning  tracks used as subtitles on something like Paris Je T'aime; the use of a pre-exisiting master with color timing or  gamma changes that are 'off' (as is the case with Ghostbusters where the changes seem to have been made to  elicit more detail in darker areas, and give it more contrast and pop (which I will admit seems like an exception to the rule considering how reverent and faithful some of Sony recent catalog releases have looked); the red-filter-less Do The Right Thing, which I do not think was the revisionist prerogative of the filmmakers, so much as them currying a little goodwill with the studio by not making it a big issue. The last is supposition on my part, but it is influenced by what I understand is the cost of Bd production (a vanilla Bd is 5 times that of a standard dvd according to reliable sources), the state of most Bd catalog sales, and the fact that Spike Lee is no Spielberg in terms of making Universal money. Outside of Spielberg and Lucas, I don't see many filmmakers having the pull to make a studio voluntarily recall a disc, create a new master and bully their way back into the line and press a new one.
Even if you ignore all the examples I just gave, I don't think it is far fetched to say that if a given release did have 'issues' with it's look or sound, that wouldn't be noticed a majority of it's purchasers, but were nonetheless incorrect- that the studio would be disinclined to admit a problem and correct it because it not only involves the monetary outlay for the new pressing- it means juggling other releases to get another place in line for replication- unless we are already at the point where production capacity has outpaced need. 

This is on top of the frequent firmware updates needed by some players when the JAVA nonsense or DRM gets too extravagant.

Sony isn't the only one who puts their subs in the black bar, Warner does it as well. Sony is the only one who actually asks the consumers if they want it any different. I can't find a fault with that. Closed captioning happens on a lot of titles, which isn't the most ideal thing for foreigners like me. But it's only noticed by others when it's not spoken (entirely) in English.
Ghostbusters' transfer was approved by the DP and the director, so I'm going to trust them on that. Sony also has a very good track record when Blu-rays are considered, so maybe (in the case of Ghostbusters) the earlier dvd version was wrong?

There is a possibility of that, of course. However looking at both, the earlier release looks to me (and some others on AVS) to be absolutely consistent with the tenor of a mid 80's film. The newer release (and the Bd which shares the same master) look more like a typical digitally graded 2000 era film. There is a thread on AVS comparing the two and it is clear that newer transfers clip detail in the high and low ends. I went to a lot of movies in the 80's- blown highlights and crushed blacks was not the look in vogue back then, like it has been for the last 10 years or so. There are other people in that thread with a better grasp of the technical details and history that back this perception up as well.

I'm getting kind of past the point of caring whether one of the filmmakers signs off on a new release or not. There is too much revisionism going on- sometimes just for the sake of making some old and familiar look new and different (i.e.- more exciting). The Exorcist release will be blessed by Friedkin and that is a perfect example why I'm getting sick of this shit. It's almost as if they are manipulating these classics in a misguided effort to be seen as 'relevant' filmmakers again .

It's not new.  Renaissance painters (and earlier, as well as later, ones--but the Renaissance ones are among the most famous) would frequently "spruce up" a canvas.  Composers would revise symphonies (and other compositions).  Art is not nearly as "static" as we tend to think.  To me, as long as it is the creator (or with the creator's blessing), changes, in principle, are acceptable.  I may not always prefer the changes, but I will support creators' rights to do with as they please their creations so long as they hold rights to them.

I don't buy this at all.  Inside Man was another Spike Lee film.  Universal discovered that one of the surround channels had no data  for the last approx 20 minutes of the film.  Universal fixed that title. Assuming DtRT did not look how Spike Lee wanted it, that would be a major thing makiing the audio problem on Inside Man seen minor in comparison.  If the look of the film was an issue it wouldn't have made it past the check discs... 

But you're still comparing it to a dvd that's ten years old. Who's to say that one is correct?
By the way, The Exorcist will also be approved by the DP, who hated the look of The French Connection, so I think that one will turn out all right. Or at least less drastical than TFC.

Adam, I will admit my memory is imperfect. What I remember though is DTRT having a very stylized look and the heat being palpable (and yes, I did see it at the theater back in '89). I'm pretty sure The DP or Lee also signed off on the Criterion version which also had that quality to it.
I can think of  several reasons a definite change here could, if not initiated by Lee, at least be excused by him. That wouldn't change the fact that for some (many?) of us, the film seen on Bd is just not the film we know and the one we wanted to own.
This strikes me as very much like Halloween. Again, you had a specific look that was earlier endorsed by the filmmakers for a Criterion version, and a look that seems to be pretty well substantiated by other evidence such as the original 78 TV spots, and now it's radically different.
It could just come down to these creators figuring 'what the hell, there will be 10 more versions of this cranked out for home video formats before I'm dead. I've been curious if I didn't make a mistake originally in being too radical with the look. Let's change it this time for the hell of it and if I don't like it, I'll make an issue of it the next time it gets released."

Some filmmakers may be viewing these releases as an opportunity for experimentation that can always be reversed later on down the road.

All I know is both the DP and Spike Lee approved the transfer for the 20th Anniversay release. 

Thanks for the reply re goof ups, Paul.  And thanks for your comments, Adam.

My issue with saying that those goof ups are emblematic of BD not being ready for prime time, Paul, is that none of those isues are BD format-specific.  The subs location and captioning debates are not new.  Neither are the color timing discussions in connection with certain movies' transfers.  The DtRT 'hotness' debate (and thank you for mentioning this as I was unaware previously--I recently read the entire HTF review thread) reminds me of the debate over the early The Silence Of the Lambs DVDs.  Some felt the Orion/Image transfer was more accurate; some felt the Criterion was.  These are largely studio- and title-specific concerns, not something plaguing all BDs.

IMO the most legit criticism is the one you spent the least words on, namely player firmware upgrades.  But 1) I understand that these are a function of the digital revolution impacting so many of the HARDWARE devices we use on a daily basis--I expect late model fridges to one day require fw updates; so again, this is not fairly a format-specific criticism; and 2) the fw upgrades are usually issued to correct nettlesome playback issues on some software due to STUDIO decisions.  I get the sense from some folks that it's damned if you do, damned if you don't:  if those glitches weren't/aren't addressed, some folks would/do bash the format.

I had a negative visceral reaction to the Spike is no Spielberg comment.  I think artists should generally be critiqued on their own (de)merits.  But when clearer heads prevailed, I understood you were making a comparative comment about box office mojo.  But then an irony struck me:  for all his clout, Steven has frequently disappointed me and other collectors in the DVD department and/or used said clout to drive folks to more expensive DVD options:  the 1941 transfer; the problematic Collector's Schindler's List packaging (the arguably pretentious gray plastic case with metal pegs that frequently cracked the plastic during shipping); the Raiders box packaging with the cheap paper wraparound (yes, I know this is a Par title, but Steven could use his clout to address both this and make the Steelbook Indy Adventure Collection available in the U.S. instead of just Canada); the original omission of the Jaws doc and mono audio (yes, I know both of these issues were corrected later); and, most frustratingly, his (former) stake in DTS and home vid profit participation seemingly creating a situation wherein collectors could only get DTS aud by buying the most expensive version (the 2-disc Collector's E.T., featuring problematic Digibook-like packaging with no movie title on the spine; the World War II Collection SPR in the cool ammo case . . . or you could get the standalone disc . . . with only a shadow of the Dolby Digital version's supps).

Swinging back around to the topic, the goof ups you mention simply make me a more defensive BD shopper:  I evaluate on a title-by-title basis what DVDs I'm going to keep, just get rid of, or replace with a BD as more titles get announced and released, rather than hold my opinion of the whole format hostage because of a few admittedly annoying concerns.
Edited by Paul.S - 7/23/2009 at 09:20 pm GMT

Ok. Then it would not be correct to qualify that as a 'goof up'. That would be another  'cock up'  revisionist  move. (ok...jimo)

Both of you are right that revisionist issues are not format specific. I had some other things I wanted to clarify, but I'll get to that later- just wanted to acknowledge that you guys are correct on this point-

On this point!!!  I thought I was always correct!  Then again my wife seems to have a different opinion... 

Getting back to the "Clearing Out SD DVDs" topic: I did 3 orders with DDD during their 25% off sale. One order was for 4 Blu-rays; one was for three seasons of Father Knows Best; one was for the Scott/Boetticher set plus another Randolph Scott film.

So, the bulk of my ordering was for SD DVDs.

I just placed a DDD 25% off sale order myself that included two SD-DVD sets -- Forbidden Hollywood Volume 3 and Pre-Code Hollywood. I rarely buy SD-DVD anymore, but I doubt that either of these sets will see a BD release in a long, long time (if ever).

I've been accelerating my SD DVD purchases in one genre--Westerns--lately as I'm teaching a course on The Wild West and it includes a film portion.  If the title is available on BD, I get it, but there are so many Westerns, including a number of important ones that have only recently been released to SD DVD, that I don't anticipate the bulk of them being BD titles anytime soon (if ever).

Westerns one of my favorite genre. I have bought a few SDDVD's but mostly have rented from Netflix.

I use the films (wholly or in clips) in my class, so another reason for getting them in SD DVD is because the college is not about to upgrade their stuff to BD anytime soon.

I still have some VHS and Laserdisc titles and SD-DVD titles.  Some of the LD titles I held on to just because they have a DTS track because the SD-DVD only came out with DTS, or just because I wanted to hang on to it.  I have thought about only getting rid of the titles that I have upgraded to Bluray or HD-DVD.  Now I will not get rid of a title just because it is SD because unless there is a HQ HD version to take its place there seems to be no point to it.  I am starting to think about thinning out again, but only the SD-DVD that have been replaced with HD versions!  I will admit though that I hate the fact that you end up loosing a big percentage of what those titles cost.  Another reason I have been holding off selling is, what if my HD player goes out?  My thought has been, then I can watch the SD version while the HD player is in the shop.  But if I sell the SD duplicates off then I can put that money into HD titles or into my receiver fund?  

HD has become my main format of choice no matter if it is on a disc or satellite.  I think that it is only a matter of time before I start selling off SD-DVD's just to recoup some money for HD titles and so that I do not have movies sitting collecting dust.