post #31 of 209
9/1/08 at 9:18am
Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
|
Originally Posted by Robert Crawford
It's all about growing the Blu-ray market by offering features that are not available on SD DVD. You might not like it, but that's their strategy and even though it might not work on some consumers, it will push others to get into Blu-ray. It's the same reasoning behind Warner bailing on HD DVD so soon. They made a decision that to grow the HDM market, the need for only one format was necessary to make that happen.
Blu-ray is the future of video discs, otherwise, downloads here we come. |
|
Originally Posted by John Hodson
Well, not hard to understand at all, and quite logical from a business point of view. What is difficult to swallow is for them to use the title 'Ultimate Collector's Edition' when the SD version clearly is not. Of course, what they want is for us to buy the SD version AND the BD version, which is why, taken on their own, neither will truly satisfy 'collectors'. And so it goes...
|
|
Originally Posted by PaulP
And this is why Criterion, in my book, has consistently been the best DVD producer out there. They stated quite clearly that none of their DVDs nor Blu-rays will contain exclusive extras from one another.
|
|
Originally Posted by MarcoBiscotti
It's greedy, selfish and absurd!
|
|
Originally Posted by John Hodson
It's business; Warners have a policy and we'll no doubt see more of it. Ultimately, the consumer will decide.
|
|
Originally Posted by MikeGale
The fact is, watching HTWWW in ANY format other than Theatrical Cinerama is a compromise. Just accept the fact that there's no way can Smilebox or Letterbox or any existing home video presentation can possibly recreate the original experience, and live with it. Remember that Cinerama was a gimmick -- a fascinating gimmick, but a gimmick that didn't catch on. HTWWW was made to showcase this gimmick. As such, HTWWW was an interesting experiment, but was hardly a great movie. (Personally, I think some of it is pretty lame -- and I even thought so when I was 11 years old and actually saw it in Cinerama.) As an analogy, Hitchcock's "Rope" was an interesting experiment as well, and worth seeing to observe the experiment, but not a great movie either. So I'm looking forward to HTWWW for the commentary and to revisit David Strohmaier's outstanding documentary about the Cinerama process. Based on Ken's fine review, with these expectations, I'm certain I will find my purchase to be money well spent. Thanks, Ken!
|
|
Originally Posted by MikeGale
The fact is, watching HTWWW in ANY format other than Theatrical Cinerama is a compromise. Just accept the fact that there's no way can Smilebox or Letterbox or any existing home video presentation can possibly recreate the original experience, and live with it. Remember that Cinerama was a gimmick -- a fascinating gimmick, but a gimmick that didn't catch on. HTWWW was made to showcase this gimmick. As such, HTWWW was an interesting experiment, but was hardly a great movie. (Personally, I think some of it is pretty lame -- and I even thought so when I was 11 years old and actually saw it in Cinerama.) As an analogy, Hitchcock's "Rope" was an interesting experiment as well, and worth seeing to observe the experiment, but not a great movie either. So I'm looking forward to HTWWW for the commentary and to revisit David Strohmaier's outstanding documentary about the Cinerama process. Based on Ken's fine review, with these expectations, I'm certain I will find my purchase to be money well spent. Thanks, Ken!
|
|
Originally Posted by Robert Crawford
It's all about growing the Blu-ray market by offering features that are not available on SD DVD.
|
|
Originally Posted by Robert Crawford
You might not like it, but that's their strategy and even though it might not work on some consumers, it will push others to get into Blu-ray. It's the same reasoning behind Warner bailing on HD DVD so soon. They made a decision that to grow the HDM market, the need for only one format was necessary to make that happen.
|
|
Originally Posted by BillyFeldman
Blu-Ray may be the future, but a lot of people don't want to be shoved into it like this - forced to buy it or miss out on things like the Smilebox. It was consumers who put Warner Home Video on the map with DVDs and they should show a little respect for them. For now, I'm sure that some person at Warners realizes that Blu-Ray is a niche market akin to laserdiscs right now. It may grow, it may not, but there are millions of DVD consumers who are not ready to make the switch, no matter how better the quality.
|
|
Originally Posted by Robert Crawford
You're right! From my point of view, I don't have a problem with what Warner is doing with the regular dvd. However, for the ultimate edition and at that price point I think Warner is wrong not including that feature despite what they're trying to accomplish with Blu-ray.
|
| I don't consider Smilebox an extra "feature", like say a documentary, or a commentary track. Smilebox is the proper way for 3 strip Cinerama films to be presented on any home video format. Did we actually believe the studios when they counted "widescreen presentation" as a special feature? |
| I think Warner bailed on HD-DVD because consumers bailed on HD-DVD, and Warner didn't want to support a format that didn't have consumer support. |
| I don't think blu-ray will take off until the U.S. economy starts growing quickly again. People just don't have disposable income to spend on a new home video format when the cost of housing and petrol (sorry, gas) is so high, and the chance of losing their job is high as well. |
| I don't understand what you mean "trying to accomplish with blu-ray", doesn't it make MORE business sense releasing the Smilebox version on DVD, because the install base of DVD is 10000 times that of blu-ray? Don't you try and release things in a format that people can actually buy and use? |
| In the 80s and 90s i got "extras" like widescreen, digital sound, and commentaries on my LDs. Extras that tape guys didnt get. I paid a pretty penny for all that, and the best picture that could be delivered at that time. Blu-ray is the next step. Enjoy what you have, and feel free to cross over when the time is right for you. But once again, i paid a pretty penny, and i dont mind a perk or two with my Blu-ray. |
|
Originally Posted by GerardoHP
I don't know if this question has been asked or answered elsewhere and, if so, please forgive me. But, does the Blueray version include a non-Smilebox transfer of the film, or is it only Smilebox?
Thanks! |
|
Originally Posted by Garysb
Aspect Ratio: 2.89:1
The image is going to be very small on a 32 inch or smaller TV screen. Is this wider than the DVD of Ben-Hur ? |
|
Originally Posted by Robert Crawford
Evidently, Warner thinks differently.
|
|
Originally Posted by Robert Crawford
why isn't smilebox on the dvd version?
|
|
Originally Posted by AdrianTurner
hardly anything about HTWWW as a movie, as a piece of entertainment, as a work of art, as a triptych with three directors, as an expression of America in the optimistic Kennedy
|
| Bad business decision making. Repeating Warner's company line over and over doesn't mean it makes anymore sense than the first time I heard it. |
|
Originally Posted by John Hodson
I'm as guilty as anyone here, but I can imagine how Ken feels now that his review thread has been just about trashed.
Shouldn't this discussion continue elsewhere? My apologies Ken. |
|
Originally Posted by Ken_McAlinden
They have some interesting information on Cinerama audio presentations in the Cinerama Adventure documentary. There were apparently some Cinerama presentations where they used a live mixer during the showing of a film who would make adjustments to the audio based on things like whether the audience had winter or summer clothes. One other practice from early Cinerama presentations that was probably less common by the time How the West Was Won was released was that the side "surround" channels would be manually steered by a live mixer, sending the information to the left, right, or both channels.
Regards, |
|
Originally Posted by John Hodson
I'm as guilty as anyone here, but I can imagine how Ken feels now that his review thread has been just about trashed.
Shouldn't this discussion continue elsewhere? My apologies Ken. |
