'Catch-Up' titles - Released HD-DVDs that have yet to get a Blu-ray release (US Only) (1 Viewer)

[Brandon Conway]

Thanks Jesse. Just saw that as well. A personal favorite of mine, too.

The list has been updated.

 

[Carlo_M]

Let's hope they do 12 Monkeys justice in the A/V department because it certainly doesn't look to have many extras...

 

[Paul.S]

Quality over quantity, Carlo: the commentary is good and "Hamster Factor" is an outstanding production docu.

 

[Carlo_M]

Yes but I believe those extras are already on the DVD, and I doubt that they'll be re-done in HD for this. For me, rehashing old DVD supplements =/ quality. Of course for those who have never owned the film on DVD, that is another story, but I'm going to wager that for the majority of purchasers of this BD, they will already own those extras.

 

[Paul.S]

There are of course other perspectives on the supps issue. Personally, I'm happy that USHE is releasing such titles on BD at all given the low sales figures for some of even these perennial/evergreen deep catalog titles. The sales of some such titles were in the low four figures (for both formats combined for some Par and WHV titles).
I'm also happy that USHE is so far not behaving like Fox and failing to include supps that we know exist (Ronin and Rocky come to mind) and for which there appear to be little to no rights clearance issues on (insofar as the copyright tags at the end of some of these supps says the studio owns it). I'd prefer to sell my Cast Away DVD now while I can still get a wee bit of coin for it than "have" to hang on to it for those times when I want to re-watch Charlie Rose's terrific interview of Hanks in connection with the movie that Fox failed to put on the BD.
In the case of the fourteen year-old 12 Monks, I doubt "Hamster Factor" was shot HD. The nature of the footage (lots of Gilliam sitting around discussing the production problems he's facing) doesn't lend itself to, say, USHE doing here what MGM did on Bond: re-purposing all those John Cork docus using HD sources where possible. This title is not going to move enough units to merit that kind of expense.
I disagree that "rehashing" supps inherently means lesser quality (if that's what you meant by "=/ quality"). This is a poor example though: IMO "Hamster" is a rare production docu of a quirky, unique film that stands up to repeat scrutiny. I understand the point that, for supps of lower what I call Repeat Viewing Quotient, some may feel the inclusion of such legacy content is passe.
I just disagree. The way you make a release definitive is to include that legacy material. I had the 12 Monks DVD and sold it in prep for the HD DVD; sold that HD DVD last year knowing USHE would release the pic on BD sooner rather than later given their past behavior on this title. Now I'm looking forward to the BD and want that docu on there because at some point I'll revisit it. Maybe even the Chuck Roven commentary, too, now that he's gone on to such mad grandeur as The Dark Knight.
I understand that not everyone has such academic/cineaste/anal retentive leanings. But the bottom line for me is that I shouldn't have to port supps content over to a hard drive for a rainy day or put the DVD of a title I already own on BD in one of my Netflix queues just to access excluded supps that the studio should bring forward to BD if they own them free and clear or it's not cost prohibitive to negotiate a new icensing agreement with whoever owns the content.
Btw, I think it's very unlikely we'll see tons of new/HD supps on catalog titles unless it's a cash cow franchise entry or a director who cares about such things and has the clout to make is happen is involved.

 

[Paul.S]

Minor correction/clarification re "In the case of the fourteen year-old 12 Monks, I doubt "Hamster Factor" was shot HD": looks like the docu was done in 1997 although the pic was released in 1995. Shot 1.33 on video.

 

[Carlo_M]

Paul, I believe you have extrapolated something from my post inappropriately. It reads:

I never originally voiced a negative opinion towards the lack of extras. I only stated that since there was so few of them, they better make the A/V presentation fantastic.
You then responded with "quality over quantity" implying that these extras were of, I'm assuming, good quality. While I agree that the doc was good, from my memory of last watching it, in this day and age, the least a studio can do (and I realize some don't do this) is to include the already existing extras.
To me, that's like scoring a "C" on a test. It's not bad, but it's not great either. It's passing. And that's my view on it. Those who don't even do that score a "D" or "F".
As to the rest of your post, I'm not even sure you're replying to me. Because I've now written like 4 sentences on it, and I'm not sure it warranted such a long response, since my only point was this, and I'll re-summarize:
They better make a great A/V presentation since they didn't put that many extras on there.
I don't think we have a beef with each other unless you're going to argue that 1) you don't want them to make a great A/V presentation, or 2) you're going to argue that there are a lot of extras on the BD -- which judging by sheer numbers, I don't think can be argued. Is the quality of what's on there good? Sure, I can agree to that.

 

[Brandon Conway]

To be fair to Fox, all titles lately have included all the DVD supplements, except those titles that were delayed from the 2007 / early 2008 era.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Btw, I think it's very unlikely we'll see tons of new/HD supps on catalog titles unless it's a cash cow franchise entry or a director who cares about such things and has the clout to make is happen is involved.

Or a brand new anniversary release like the upcoming Woodstock.

 

[Paul.S]

Brandon:
Re "To be fair to Fox, all titles lately have included all the DVD supplements, except those titles that were delayed from the 2007 / early 2008 era."
It's a good point about fairness. I just don't think we're outta the woods yet with them on this issue. I hold my breath whenever I see new Fox catalog announcements of interest to me because I don't doubt that there will be some more catalog titles that they release movie-only when their spreadsheets tell them to. It would be different if they announced re-releases with all supps of I, Robot, Cast Away and other (semi-)naked titles. No dice yet. We still haven't gotten all those titles that were announced but then "postponed." Dances With Wolves is a huge concern of mine in these regards.
Carlo:
Yeah, I'm tawkin' ta you.

"Beef" intimates some personal animus. There's no "beef." Again, I just have a different perspective on the supps issue. I understand now how I misconstrued your post 121. But, 1) your explaining of that post reveals some further differences of opinion; and 2) the lion's share of my responsive comments concern your post 123. Perhaps your intimations were unitentional, but I don't think I'm 'inappropriately extrapolating' more from that than simply your bolded one sentence above.
1) That's an interesting approach--that there's some kind of yin-yang relationship between supps and PQ/AQ in terms of how you rate a disc. I think they're horses of different colors and deserve to be treated somewhat separately. One need go no further than HTF to find folks who don't care at all about supps and who just want great PQ and AQ. Conversely, I don't think wonderful PQ/AQ should be thought of as somehow compensatory for a dearth of supps. The studios should be doing both.
And then there's the messy issue of the rampant disagreement over the PQ of the 12 Monks HD DVD: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/ht-software-high-definition/244059-few-words-about-12-monkeys-hd-dvd.htmlhttp://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf...244059-few-words-about-12-monkeys-hd-dvd.html
But again, this is a contemporary catalog title: of course there are exceptions but unless it's Blade Runner we typically did not see/have not been seeing new supps created for catalog titles hitting HD DVD/BD. And I don't think that necessarily should be held against the studios.
First, if the quality of the existing/legacy supps is good as is the case here, I think it is perfectly fine for the supps package to consist of that content being ported over. I don't think it's fair to limit the ranking of such titles to "C" grade level. Sure a new Brad Pitt commentary could be nice, but the studios generaly don't wanna pay for that and talent like BP is off making money doing other new projects. The studios' motivation is to get that SKU out there generating revenue, not paying a producer to, say, create a new docu that is not going to compel a purchase by probably 80% or more of the possible buying audience for a 14-year old title.
Second, insisting upon new supps may very well motivate some of these misguided home vid departments to take existing content and present it in lame, new- fangled, "next gen" "interactive" ways instead of spending money to actually create new content. What USHE did on the The Thing BD is an example: they took the terrific "Terror Takes Shape" docu and sliced it up for presentation as a PIP stream. That's "new" in the minds of the home vid marketeers who came up with that IMO lame idea, but it's certainly not inherently better than presenting the original docu as is (including its wonderful isolated score track, which they dropped and can now only be found on the original DVD release). Therein lies part of my motivation for wanting studios to understand from "opinion repeater" communities such as this site that on some titles it's perfectly okay to simply bring forward the legacy supps, not gimmick them up and not feel as though they are going to be criticized by the enthusiast audience for doing so.
2) Perhaps you can/should explain "=/"--as in "old DVD supplements =/ quality." I think you used those characters because it's as close as we can get on a standard keyboard to an equals sign with a slash through it? So basically you're saying 'old supps do not equal quality'?
By now I hope I've explained why I disagree with that (and the relevance of my earlier comments). I think it depends on the quality of the supps. For instance, I'm not lamenting the exclusion of actor filmographies on BD--we have IMDb for that now. On the one hand, you agree that the doc is good but, on the other, say that its inclusion along with a wonderful commentary only merits a "C" grade. The heavy thumb that tipped the scale in the direction of my reading your comments as negatively critical was the word "rehashing," which I took as a mildly perjorative way of characterizing th re-presentation of legacy supps on a catalog disc (along with the "those extras are already on the DVD" comment about those supps). IMO whether the supps have appeared previously on DVD is not dispositive as to whether they should be included on or excluded from the BD. We're enthusiasts/collectors here: just because many of us likely "already own[ed] those extras" at some point doesn't mean a) we haven't sold those LDs, DVDs and/or HD DVDs; or b) that those supps shouldn't now be presented on the BD.
Again, no "beef," just a difference of perspective/opinion. I personally don't think that any concerns over the purported slimness of the legacy supps package on 12 Monkeys should translate into greater consumer expectation for or motivation on USHE's part to do a wicked A/V presentation that I'm sure we all optimally hope they would do in the first place anyway.

 

[Carlo_M]

Paul, I feel like I've walked into some kind of personal vendetta you have (not against me, but against something else) and you've decided to misinterpret, or assign some sort of hidden intent/agenda to my words.
My remark clearly meant this: since they didn't put a lot in terms of quality, they better make this a good A/V presentation.
There is no implied relationship or intimations. This is my purchasing habit. If there aren't compelling new extras I at least want top notch A/V. I really don't know how you've spun it off into this diatribe you've unleashed. I'm really clueless.
I want to respond more, but I'm just afraid I'll spark something even larger and to be honest, I'm just not into this. This isn't an argument I was even interested in having. Heck, to me, there is no argument. You can feel however you want!

 

[Paul.S]

After multiple re-reads, I think I've been fairly even-handed in my comments. I've taken care to acknowledge when I misconstrued, explain both what was and what is my understanding of your position, and my different perspective--all with some smileys and no personal rancor.
I think part of the disconnect is some of your loaded language: in the same way I took issue with "rehashing," I also take issue with "personal vendetta" (there is none), "decided to misinterpret" (to the extent I misconstrued, I've acknowledged that and then explained the how and why of my understanding; there has been no proactive decision to misunderstand or assign a "hidden agenda"--frankly, I think my comments themselves belie that charge) and "diatribe [I've] unleashed" (again, perjorative; just because I express myself at length doesn't mean my comments are overheatedly polemical).
Re "My remark clearly meant this: since they didn't put a lot in terms of quality, they better make this a good A/V presentation." Herein lies the crux of the rub: we have different perspectives on what constitutes "quality." For you, porting over legacy supps inherently means the disc is of lesser quality. I just disagree. What if those DVD supps got stellar reviews? Are they all somehow tired now? When Sony releases Taxi Driver on BD, will you be unhappy if they "only" include the supps from the 2007 CE DVD that was and remains a terrific package? (Mind you, these are largely but not exclusively rhetorical questions.)
Indeed, this is not an "argument"--it's hopefully an exchange of perspectives and personal buying habits. Perhaps you've misconstrued my "tone" as argumentative. It wouldn't be the first time that's happened here but in this case I don't think it's warranted. My point was and is to bring a different collector's perspective to your attention. I respectfully acknowledged and continue to acknowledge where you're coming from. It would be refreshing if the/your response to my comments was either bringing something different to my attention or something along the lines of, 'hmmm interesting--hadn't thought of it that way . . . here's hoping we'll both be happy with both a killer A/V presentation and the inclusion of legacy supps.'
Instead I feel like you have largely taken general issue with the length of my comments rather than their specific content.

 

[Brandon Conway]

The following was released today and has been removed:

Spy Game

 

[Paul.S]

Funny--more Brad Pitt!
Thx as always, BC. I dig it when the studios actually pay attention and respond to each others' release slates. I'd like to think that Spy is happening now because Tony Scott has a new pic in theaters next month.
Amazon, BestBuy.com DVD Empire and Deep Discount all show the release date as May 26 though. Are they all wrong?

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Quote:

No, the release was delayed by a week.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Bah - didn't know of the delay. It goes back up until next week then.

 

[Carlo_M]

Paul, seriously, you've taken a throwaway comment I had and made a mountain out of a mole hill. Let me show you where you've misinterpreted my comments:

the inclusion of legacy supps.'

And here's where I really get confused: that last sentence of yours is essentially my first post 121 re-worded. What are we arguing about again? Trust me, I'm a collector too (though not as much in quantity as some here in the forum, but I do have over 700 DVDs and probably now over 100 BDs).
But at least now I've rediscovered my original point of making the initial comment:
A significant percentage who buy the 12 Monkeys BD will have owned it already on DVD. So if there are no new supps, the A/V quality better be damned good. Otherwise, I stand by my original point, if all there is are ported extras, and the A/V quality is poor, I consider this to be a non-high quality release all around. I don't care how great extras are, if A/V is poor, that's the whole point of BD: to bring the best A/V experience of the movie home. And it's a double whammy when it's only got ported extras for those who already own the DVDs.
But hey, I'm hopeful we'll get that killer A/V presentation and all this will be moot.

 

[Paul.S]

Thanks for only now bothering to proffer a responsive reply, Carlo.
Re "So having already owned the extras, what is a compelling reason to re-purchase? High A/V quality."
I better understand your point now that you've taken the time to unpack your "throwaway comment." But with no acknowledgment of my earlier comments in this regard, you've seemingly blown right past the niche of consumers I represent and am trying to bring to your attention the concerns of: per my earlier comments, I may want to re-visit supps that are of the high, ahem, quality as on the 12 Monks DVD (and HD DVD). I don't generally want to have multiple copies of a movie on my shelves, especially given that the DVD market is flattening and now is the time to sell. I'm seeing stories in the trade press about how the new DVD market is off but the used market grew significantly last quarter: people are still spending money in this bitch of an economy but they are just spending more frugally. I've been aggressively selling my DVDs for a little over a year now, chastened/motivated by seeing friends in years past with hundreds of LDs dig in their heels, indignantly keep them and then end up wanting to get rid of them years later when the discs had essentially become doorstops. For someone such as myself on a budget, recouping a little coin for my DVDs is an attractive premise. (Ever take a look around Amazon Marketplace and notice how many penny CDs there are listed for catalog pop titles? I think DVD is moving in that direction.)
Again, from my perspective, inclusion of legacy supps is part and parcel of making a definitive, new HD disc release of a catalog title. Exclusion of those supps is often a strategic marketing/commercial studio choice designed to bait avid enthusiast collectors for whom A/V quality is prime into buying now, then re-releasing the title with supps later when the market is larger to get more folks to open their wallets. Perhaps some of the "vendetta" (poor word choice IMO) tone you've felt is derived from my righteous indignation over these kinds of very consumer-UNfriendly studio choices. Under that formula, by the time the studio gets around to releasing a supps-endowed BD, the DVD I might have been hanging onto to both enjoy and see if the BD release would include its supps may be worth even less than it is today. (And yes, I understand that means I have some tough choices to make regarding even more aggressive sales of even more of my DVDs now, then Netflixing the DVD later to re-grip some supps. I'm having that conversation with myself regularly. Part of my point is that I shouldn't have to!).
The more ideal situation that would meet both of our consumer profile needs would be to release the BD now with all legacy supps and then re-visit the title later doing something with next gen functionality that's more substantive than, say, some of the nonsense we're seeing being implemented in the BD-Live "space" right now. Much props to Van Ling, but crap like that keyword index on the Speed BD is simply no facsimile for the kind of content that was on the Five Star Collection DVD of that pic.
Just because I owned the supps in the past on DVD or HD DVD does not mean I don't want them on BD. If they're not on there, it doesn't mean I then train a more critical eye on PQ/AQ. It means I rent, maybe buy used, drop hints about wanting the title as a gift (

) or just spend my little new BD coin on titles from other studios that "get it" (usually WHV).
Re "Here again, nowhere have I said that porting over legacy supps inherently means the disc is of lesser quality (see above points)."
Fine. I'll take you at your explict word insofar as you've said (twice) that what I concluded from your comments is not what you meant. Be that as it may, it would be nice if you acknowledged that many reasonable people might agree that your use of the word "rehashing" can be be perceived as indicative of some negative bias on your part. The use of that word is rarely charitable. If an admin chimed in this thread and said we should move on and stop "rehashing" old issues/our conversation, you wouldn't think that a compliment would you?

Finally, did you watch the 12 Monks HD DVD, Carlo? Did you check out the RAH thread I linked to earlier? After all this meshugas, I think you may need to brace yourself for some disappointment based upon what you're saying about the primacy of PQ for you. I predict that USHE will use the same transfer for the BD as the HD DVD, perhaps use a different codec than VC-1 and many folks who lionize DVD/BD as a point of departure for eye-popping and pants-rustling exercises of their hardware investments moreso than vehicles for faithful reproduction of what the director wanted the FILM to look like are going to have similar problems with the PQ. 12 Monks does NOT look like M:I:iii (and that is not a bad thing).

 

[Carlo_M]

, I think you may need to brace yourself for some disappointment based upon what you're saying about the primacy of PQ for you. I predict that USHE will use the same transfer for the BD as the HD DVD, perhaps use a different codec than VC-1 and many folks who lionize DVD/BD as a point of departure for eye-popping and pants-rustling exercises of their hardware investments moreso than vehicles for faithful reproduction of what the director wanted the FILM to look like are going to have similar problems with the PQ. 12 Monks does NOT look like M:I:iii (and that is not a bad thing).

Never got into the HD-DVD format.
But here's another point: my view of high-quality PQ does not include having 12 Monkeys look like MI:3. I fully realize films of different eras, shot on different film stocks with different cameras under different conditions, yield different results. Add to that how much of a visual artist Gilliam is and it wouldn't surprise me if he used varying filters, digital (and manual) image manipulation, etc. to result in what some peoples' eyes may look like the results of a poor transfer, and trust me when I say I can take online reviews with a grain of salt.
That said, I'll now probably wait until people have seen, and weighed in on, the BD before purchasing.

 

[Paul.S]

You're "not going to . . . acknowledge" that there are other BD consumers who want the legacy/DVD supps on BD so they can sell those DVDs yet still have those supps in their collections, and that personal preference/approach to collecting therefore contributes to a reasonably different attitude than what you've repeatedly expressed about how their inclusion on BD is next to superfluous because--according to you--"the majority of purchasers of [the] BD . . . will already own those extras"?

I think that might be the most succinct way to summarize not only our difference of opinion, but this exchange. I understand and acknowledge your position, but you won't even acknowledge mine. :rolleyes