Good Quality or Good Savings? (1 Viewer)

[Joe Karlosi]

Every so often I'll read someone saying how weak a DVD transfer looks, and then the person will add: "but for $5 (or $7 or whatever) I can't complain. What do you expect for five bucks? I'm happy."
-- But what would he think if ALL companies one day decided to skimp on making films look great, so long as they could sell them for a few bucks?

So my question is, if you had to pick only one, what do you prefer - a good transfer, or a cheap price? For me, it's a no-brainer; while I'm always looking to get a great deal, I'd gladly pay $20 - $25 for a DVD movie, if that was the only way to get a film looking and sounding as polished as possible.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Those of us who started with this hobby often did just that. And those of us who go back to the laser disc age know what it means to spend $100 and more for multi-disc special editions.

M.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I know what you mean, Michael! I recall paying $60 in 1982 for a used, pan and scanned, dark as midnight, dupey rental copy of AMERICAN GRAFFITI on MCA VHS! I think we're getting spoiled (I feel it too), but there are members who will tell you: "that was then, this is now" when it comes to being grateful for DVDs priced only at $19.99 .

 

[Glenn Overholt]

You're talking about the 'B' movies, of course. They don't have as large an audience as the 'A' flicks, and the studio knows that they can just crank them out without spending too much time on them. Or any at all, for that matter.

Personally, I wish they'd get more of these out, as about half of my want list HAS 'B' flicks. It does make me wonder, though. If a new flick comes out with no extras, they still charge $20. for it (ok, most of the time). Talk about making a profit. Wow!

Glenn