A Few Words About A few words about...™ Carrie -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

By George I think you got it!

You have to wonder how many similar titles have the same problem that haven't been released yet? We can beat the studios up over this, but can we make a good business case for them to stop this practice?

 

[Bleddyn Williams]

Boy, Robert, that's a scary question! I had thought that by this stage, a disc like Carrie was an aberration, but who knows? There could be other old encodes just waiting to see the light...

 

[Robert Crawford]

You have to wonder about it as I've heard whispers of them existing from my sources.





Crawdaddy

 

[dpippel]

You can purchase the 3-disc Blu-ray special edition of Speed Racer on Amazon for $19.95. Am I comparing the two films? No. But that's value, and WB knows it. Fox could have EASILY thrown the existing extras for Carrie onto a second BD25 and included them with this release, especially considering the exorbitant MSRP. They made a deliberate decision to not do that. If it bothers you, do as I did and vote with your wallet. Maybe the bean counters there will eventually get the picture.

Mr. Harris, thank you for your comments on the technical aspects of the Blu-ray transfer of Carrie. I found them to be valuable, as always.

 

[Travis Brashear]

I did, but I'm always fearful that, instead of sending the message, "this release wasn't good enough, so get it right next time" to the studios, they interpret it as "no one is interested in this title anymore, so don't bother double-dipping later".

 

[PerryD]

I rented this and was a bit disappointed by the picture quality, definitely looked like the brightness of the image was cranked up, at first I thought something was wrong with my projector. The detail was there, just washed out.

 

[Rob LoVerde]

I watched this last night and I must say I'm happy with the presentation of the film. To me, it looks like an "un-futzed with" transfer. Of course, I have no idea what the original negative looks like.

On the subject of missing supplements, sure, I would have liked to see the supplements from previous editions included in the Blu-ray Disc, but I really think that in some ways we've gotten spoiled about that. If there had never been extra material, we wouldn't miss it now.

I buy DVDs and Blu-Ray Discs for films. Even if you don't give me gravy on my mashed potatoes, I still have my mashed potatoes.

 

[Travis Brashear]

I...I...I don't even know how to begin a response to that...

 

[Rob LoVerde]

Hi Travis,

I can understand your bewilderment.

I made my above statement to play a bit of devil's advocate. Like I said, sure, I would have liked the Blu-ray Disc to include all previously available supplements. I'm only saying that the fact that it doesn't isn't the worst thing in the world.

I remember walking into a store one evening in 1988 or so and seeing the newly-released VHS of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" selling for $100. A VHS of a film presented in "pan-and-scan" with no supplements whatsoever. In a paperboard box, to boot. Fans of the film bought it and were happy to have the film at all.

And so, to shell out around $30 for an excellent 1080p transfer of "Carrie" doesn't seem beyond the pale to me.

Just my mild opinion...

 

[Jim_K]

I like Carrie though it's not what I'd consider a favorite film which made my decision easy. I would've bought this but barebones and overpriced? = no sale.

For me the Blu-ray version should be the definitive presentation of any movie, especially since we're paying premium price compared to SD. Not only PQ/AQ quality (that should be a given) but bonus content as well.

There're plenty of other releases to spend my money on.

 

[Robert Harris]

Attempting to compare a "fair" selling price of a DVD or BD, versus VHS doesn't quite tell the complete story. While millions of DVDs have been sold, and BD numbers increase along with the base of players, VHS was not originally set up as a sell-through market. Early in the format, prices were oriented more toward rentals. If someone wished to own, so be it, but at a price.

From the outset, DVD was organized toward sell-through. Some of the studios, along with independent publishers, have chosen to market their products at very low, attractive prices, while other seem somehow stuck in the laserdisc era. IMHO, the ultimate success of Blu-ray is dependent upon two functions. Reasonable player prices and software prices within relative means.

 

[Rachael B]

Fox is now using a "priced not to sell" pricing scheme. I'm sure there's an ingenius motive here. I just have not figured it out yet. I'm working hard on it though.

 

[Rob LoVerde]

Thank you for your insight, Mr. Harris. I was unaware of the idea of a "sell-through" market.

 

[Rob Willey]

I didn't realize how much this title was selling for. Fox gave it to us free during the Hollywood meet.

But I can back up RAH's comments on the pq. It looks fantastic. Probably the best I've seen since 1976 (or perhaps ever).

Rob

 

[Felix Martinez]

Just saw Carrie and was really impressed. I've seen this on every other home video format - broadcast, VHS, Criterion laserdisc, DVD. Unfortunately, I never saw the film in theaters.

What I saw on Blu-ray was glorious. Finally, finally, I can see the detail through the fog filters and split diopter photography. I was so pleased to see the grain intact.

Correct me if I'm wrong, or if this was mentioned by RAH or earlier in this thread, but I don't believe the opening credits were window-boxed as has been before on home video.

Once again, looked *wonderful* on my 92 inch screen.

Alas, this title is simply not priced to own for me at this time, especially with the MIA exras. However, if this shows up on a 2-for-1 or some other sale, I'm in, because A/V-wise, this is a winner.

 

[Darth Lavender]

I'm actually not quite qualified to comment here, since the shift in economies has put a stop to all my Blu-Ray purchases (imports are too expensive and Australian prices are, I assume, intended as a joke ($50 for one disk?)

It is good to see a genuinely excellent audio-visual presentation. The price, however, is silly and the only plausible explanation I can suggest is that Fox is testing the waters with a deliberately ridiculous price, just to see how well it sells. (After all, if it's a choice between selling 100 DVDs at $10 each, and 60 DVDs at $20 each.... better to sell the 60 at $20)
I suspect something similar with their bizarre decision to release an upscaled "28 Days Later" last year. Just a question of seeing how much the consumers will accept.

As for value; it's worth what you'll pay for it. That simple. Some people on this thread, I'm sure, will complain about the $30 price and then go out and buy it. Well, you really have, in my opinion, no valid reason to complain.

Speaking for myself, I would have snapped this movie up, extras or no, at a 'movie only' price, say $15AUD, and I'm not even especially fond of the movie (I think I've seen it twice)

I will agree AV is definitely the crucial thing. While I'll pay as much as $15 for a great looking blu-ray with no extras, a flawed transfer makes any Blu-Ray a must-miss for me (I passed on HDDVD releases of 'Spartacus' and 'Lethal Weapon 2' even when prices were as low as $3.95 in the firesales)

I actually have a clumsy little economic theory that overpriced blu-rays is ultimately a good thing, for the opportunity it affords smaller companies. As long as studios are charging $20 - $40 for blu-rays, any smaller distributor that releases quality product at a reasonable price-point (like 'The Proposition' blu-ray) stands to make a lot of money.

(Of course, my idea of 'reasonable' is partly influenced by the added costs of postage to Australia and currency conversion which puts even a $20USD blu-ray outside of my spending range. So, take that with a further grain of salt (beyond the 'just one man's opinon' thing))

A word against high prices, though, in relation to "DVD vs VHS"
There's two crucial ingredients to DVD's success entirely absent from Blu-Ray...
- DVDs tended to be much cheaper than VHS, with most VHS priced for rental outlets.
- DVD happened to have an indefinite time to become popular.
Blu-Ray only has until 1080p download catch on. With decreasing costs on HDDs and broadband, that will be soon. Either provided by the studios or provided by the pirates (depending on prices and how much DRM is on the studio downloads) And, yes, I can almost here every person here shouting "I wouldn't pirate a movie!" but the majority of the public certainly would, once the technology allows, if Studios don't get their act together on prices & DRM (either on Blu-Ray or downloads) My point being, Blu-Ray has a very, very finite period of time to catch on with the public (unlike DVD) and that's were waiting too long to lower prices could ultimately hurt the studios in a fairly major way.

 

[Paul_Scott]

way back in 2001/2002, when bare bones Paramount catalog discs cost $25 (retail) , and Fox routinely charged $35 for SEs, I realized that my comfort zone was $15. That was the price point that facilitated impulse purchasing.
With Blu-ray and the matter of upgrades (which make up the majority of my Bd purchases), I've bumped that up to $20. Extras sweeten the pot and lessen the resistence, but if it's a favorite film and the A/V excel, I can fork over the $20 for a better library copy without that twinge of pain.
I've resigned myself to the fact that for 99% of releases, there's just no such thing as 'definitive'. Even a release as spectacular and satisfying as last years Blade Runner could be re-jiggered in a few years offering different extras (like a fully anotated gallery of Meads work for one thing) that would no longer make the previous release the last word..

My copy of Carrie just came in two days ago from the DD sale. I've still got my old dvd for the extras, and if I didn't I'd likely be able to pick up a used copy dirt cheap...if I desperately needed to see them. After one thorough viewing of them though, my focus goes back to the feature. When it's sitting on the shelf, in anticipation of a future viewing someday, superior A/V will give me peace of mind...not a sprinkling of featurettes..
.In fact, there are dozens of catalog titles I would be ecstatic to have the opportunity right now to buy at $20 for a bare bones HD copy . The only thing that disappoints me is knowing for a lot of great stuff, I may not get that chance for years...if ever.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

All the same, I'd like to chuck my SDs for the most part when I replace them with BD. I'll tell you one thing -- if the recent James Bond Blu-ray discs did not have those extras carried over, I wouldn't be buying.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Agreed. And I think that since Blu-ray is superior to SD, it should be so in every way... not just better A/V quality, but the prime place for extras and bells and whistles. If anything, at this stage of the game the studios ought to be abandoning their extra features on SD completely and saving them for BD, thus making blu the more attractive option. High Def is here and it is the future; there's no reason to continue catering to SD over BD.

 

[Rachael B]

You'd think that Fox and the rest would notice what gouge prices did for the music business! I supose greed is an irresistable force in the mind's of Fox's executives for now though. Even though Fox has lowered some list prices $5, the local retailers I have given a look-see stille have most of their titles stamped at $35. So, I share most of your sentiments. Downloads are not as eminent here in the U.S. Well, they are, but not for everybody. The country isn't wired up for that on the whole yet.

I stille have not purchased a copy of Carrie. This past week I did buy a copy of The Big White for $12.99 . That's what films on BD-25's can sell for. I presume that The Big White is a profit deal and not a marketing experiment.

Is $50 Australian roughly equivalent to the $35 U.S. that has caused so many Fox titles to collect dust on retailer's shelves?

$12.99 is the price I'd like to pay for Carrie.....