***Official ET on DVD Discussion (Gift Set, Packaging, Features, Etc) Thread*** (1 Viewer)

[David Lambert]

I too wondered at the specific lack of mention of widescreen on the 1982 version. Of course, the thought follows that it's not the "original" version unless it's in its ORIGINAL aspect ratio.

Also, for the $70 tag, this set would appeal mainly to those who demand WS.

But, you know that those kooky studio execs and how the big picture gets lost sometimes, so really I'd like confirmation before I even THINK about this.

But still, it's not TOO likely I'd pick this up at $70 for what is, for me, essentially a 1-disc set (the revision version and it's bonus disc can be coasters, I don't collects scripts, and I have the key pieces of John Williams music on CD that I could ever want...). :p)

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Still, no reason to get in an uproar about a set of DVDs with no announced specs that won't be released for three years at the earliest.

As for this limited release business for E.T. ... it makes no sense. Why do they think it will make them more money? The collectors will pick it up the first Tuesday regardless, and the public will be so misinformed the ten week window will pass before some even know it's out on DVD.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Glad I've got my ET Cav LD box set. I most definitly will not pay $70 for the original version, if this is true.

I saw a couple other comments like this, and they left me puzzled. You forked over $150 for the LD boxed set but will go nuts over a $70 DVD package? I understand that the pricing dynamics of the two formats are different, but I still don't understand the logic of this sentiment...

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Many of us picked up the ET LD boxes for less than $20 when they were being blown out. If the original version is only available in a super expensive set, I'll pass. For the number of times I'll watch it, it isn't worth the cash, especially with the LD copy having only been through the player once.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Is this a Joke. What's next if you want to see a non edited Casablanca you'll have to pay $125? Screw Speilberg and Screw Lucas with their Digital tampering of classics. Maybe an ultimate edition for $39 but for $70 you got to be kidding me. Yeah sure Lasers used to be $125 old augument, different format and capabilities.

I was going to see Minority Report, I might just skip it now.

 

[Mitty]

From IMDB - Movie/TV News 6th June 2002:

The Steven Spielberg classic has never previously been released on DVD. Among some ten hours of "extras" due to be included on the disk will be a video of John Williams conducting a 100-piece orchestra during the New York premiere of the film this year.

Of course, IMDB could be wrong, but I'm betting that the disc contains the original cut.

 

[greg_t]

Colin,

I, and many others, didn't "fork over" $150 for the LD set. I payed $35 off ebay, and it was still sealed. It includes plenty of extras, as well as a gold soundtrack cd. The transer is one of the best I have seen, and the PCM sound is fantastic. the only thing the dvd can really offer that I would like to have is an anamaphoric transer. $70 is too steep for something I already have. Maybe they have to make up for it's flop at the box office for the 20th anniversary release.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Interestingly, the TV blurbs I've heard mention both versions on the cheap set. If that's the case, I'll get it, otherwise, pass.

 

[Dave H]

Well, wasn't it reported a while back that both versions would be on ONE skew? (It didn't seem to imply the Ultimate set.) I think it's time to contact Universal about this.

 

[Matt Wallace]

I can't understand the furor. We are responding like J6P! Here we are, supposed purists and vaulted collectors, and we're now complaining that they are giving us what we want ( the original version) at a decent price? Any of you who have bought the boxed sets of Warner movies (Matrix, Enter the Dragon, Gone With The Wind, etc) realize this price is about right. I don't understand it. It's pretty simple to understand their marketing: a true fan will want this set, and it's their holy grail, so they are willing to pay. For some of you casual fans, you'll just buy the 2002 release, become another statistic, and it will be done. That's where they are coming from. Another point of view they have is that it isn't the LD buyer they are after and pricing for - it's the new DVD avid, who is buying a collector's version of ET for the very first time. This person may or may not have the CD, but most likely won't have the film cell and will appreciate having both versions. Lastly, I think that it's a chicken shit move to make the sales of the 2002 version far outgain the original, so somehow the new, updated Spielberg vision, will be legitimized by the huge margin in its favor. Pretty darn slick.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I think that the discounts we are all used to for DVD's are a blessing and not a right. This, however, is not the topic at hand, so I digress. I know when I'm being challenged to put my money where my mouth is and I intend to do it, as an OAR devotee.

Matt

PS- Begin the stoning.

 

[Oscar]

I was going to see Minority Report, i guess im going to skip it now

So i was right that nobody would see anything from Spielberg after this and A.I.

 

[Scott_MacD]

Today, I'm not sure if the movie will return those same emotions, especially with a $70 price tag.

I get the same feeling of elation, happiness, sadness, and humour every time I see the movie. Spielberg has made a sensational fable for everyone to share and love. (equal to the Wizard of Oz, in my book) Sheer cinematic joy.
I for one WILL be buying the Ultimate Limited Edition, because I dearly love the movie. And I don't mind the changes too much either, apart from the gun removal. I have my reasons, and I'm not going to argue them.

 

[Oscar]

Is it true that it will have a DTS track?.
GREAT!
I didn´t mind the changes.

 

[Larry P]

I will be getting the 70 Dolla Ultimate Edition if it's the only way to get the original cut without the awful cg mouth on E.T.! E.T. himself is what makes the movie; the creature is amazing, beyond anything that is being done today with computer animated effects.

Ofcourse, I might have to actually go out and get a job now to be able to pay for it.

But I don't have the laserdisc, if I did, I would probally just stick with that too.

 

[AaronMK]

Sorry Universal, but I'm not going to bite.
$70 may be a fair price considering what the set includes. However, forcing people to shell out the extra dough for a CD soundtrack, scipt, and a senitype if they want the greatly publicized "both versions in one package" that you know everyone was itching for is manipulative and pathetic.
A three-disc release with each version of the movie getting its own disc and a supplements disc for about $40 MSRP would have been the way to do this. If they later announce such a release, I will be all over it.
For me, the 1982 version was the movie, and the 2002 version and supplements disc were extras. Extras are not worth $22 to me, and the movie is not worth $70 to me. (and that is taking what the street prices will most likely be into account)

 

[DarrenA]

$70.00 is MSRP...when's the last time anyone on this forum ever paid MSRP for a DVD movie. Mark my word that the Collector's set will be priced at least under $60.00, and probably more like ~$55.00 at the loss leader stores.

 

[Sean Oneil]

They are getting payback for all the Jurassic Park DTS discs they had to eat
I suppose that Best Buy will have the deluxe set for ~$42-$49 during the first week, so that ain't so bad. It all depends on how much you like the film.

 

[Bruce Lennon-Jones]

I had been on the fence about buying the mangled re-release when it came to DVD, but Universal pushed me off by dangling the original as part of the $70 set. I would gladly pay more for a multi-disc set that included the original -- MSRP of say, $35 -- but twice that isn't even a consideration.
As a result, a version containing only the 2002 release is no sale, either.

 

[Travis_S]

I don't agree with Universal on this but I don't think any of this should be blamed on Spielberg. I don't think Spielberg is sitting in an office somewhere smoking a cigar and saying, "I will only release the original version of E.T. in a $70 gift set. That way they will have to pay more money! BWAHAHAHAHA!!" If there's anyone to blame in this situation, it's Universal, not Spielberg.

 

[MikeM]

Count me in as one of the few who will say things like, "There's no way I'm paying $70 for a movie" and then will ultimately cave in and buy the damn thing at Costco and tell no one.