I just want the original Raiders! (1 Viewer)

[Scott Calvert]

"All of this complaining seems like you feel that the studio owes you something. They are giving you something and you are ungrateful."


W-W-What??? Man, I dunno what to say about that one.

 

[MarkHastings]

W-W-What??? Man, I dunno what to say about that one.

What's there to say? The fans wanted Raiders on DVD, the studio obliged, and now the fans are complaining becuase it isn't the way they want it.

Where does it say that the studios HAVE to release movies separately? Because other studios do? That's not a good argument (IMHO). I am all up for discussing why some movies are sold individually and others aren't, but to slam a studio for doing it one way is not fair and I take offense to it. DVD's are a business. Business isn't always happy fairies and bunny rabbits

If you REALLY can't stand to have the other two movies, donate them to a charity (i.e. your local library) and take the tax write off.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Mark, we are speaking as consumers. You don't seem to understand that.

I understand business, believe me. I majored in accounting. That doesn't change the fact that, as a consumer, it's my right to desire the best possible deal I can get on the product that best satisfies my needs.

Or are we not allowed to say that here?

 

[MarkHastings]

can you imagine some boy in school that is limited to buying one DVD a month? He's be screwed until next year!

The fact that you would feel "screwed" is what got me going. How does this 'screw' you?

If they came out with the first 2, then came out with a boxed set and never produced the 3rd individually - (i.e. the only way to get #3 would be to buy the set) than I can see how someone would be 'screwed' because most people would have bought 1 & 2 and now would have to repurchase 1 & 2 to get 3. That would be considered "screwed".

By using the word 'screwed', what you are saying is, you can't afford to buy all 3. Fair enough, I don't expect everyone to be able to afford DVD's, but to consider yourself screwed because you can't afford $45????? That just doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Tony Whalen]

can you imagine some boy in school that is limited to buying one DVD a month? He's be screwed until next year!

Sorry to be self-centered here... but that really isn't my problem, worrying about OTHER people's budgets. I have a hard enough time managing my OWN.

If people want something bad enough, they'll save up for it. That's what I learned growing up. Then I found out about credit cards.

 

[MarkHastings]

Then I found out about credit cards.

Or places like Amazon that keep your card info on file. All you need to do is click and wait for the package to arrive. You credit card doesn't even need to leave your wallet.

 

[Tony Whalen]

All you need to do is click and wait for the package to arrive. You credit card doesn't even need to leave your wallet.

(cheezy-announcer-voice)

Yes friends, with just a few single clicks of your mouse, you can join hundreds of other folks just like you, and ruin your finances for months...nay...YEARS at a time!

(/cheezy-announcer-voice)

 

[Lew Crippen]

Or Paramount could have released each of the three separately, in basic editions. The next year would see the release of the boxed set special edition ‘Raider’ collection with bonus disks.

Now that approach (not unknown) would have caused an outcry of a different sort.

Or if Paramount were to later release individual editions, we would be seeing posts from those who bought the boxed set, but only wanted one or two of the three.

Or if all possible combinations were released at the same time, the per unit cost to produce and distribute and retail would be greater.

Basically I don’t think that Paramount (or any studio) can satisfy all of their consumers all of the time.

But that does not mean that individuals such as Scott should not try to persuade Paramount and their brethren to provide product in the manner that they prefer.

In the end, as long as attempts are made to limit production costs, not all consumers will be satisfied.

 

[Jaime_Weinman]

Kinda OT, but I'm one of the weirdos (Pauline Kael was another) who thinks "Temple of Doom" is the best of the three: The funniest, the cheesiest, the scariest and the closest in style to those old-fashioned serials. I could do without the voodoo stuff, and "Raiders" unquestionably has a better script, but ToD is overall my favorite to watch. Last Crusade is by far the weakest IMO, though I don't mind getting it with the other two. But, on-topic, I sympathize with anyone who objects to being stuck with two movies he/she doesn't want.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I liked the film enough to pay $40 for it as my first ever laserdisc purchase, so if you like it that much, you can buy the box and pawn off the stuff you don't want via e-bay or a used disc shop, and probably make out better than I did in the early 90s.

Regards,

 

[Darrell Bratz]

Like it or not...Fair or unfair, if you can't afford the $60, then you should really examine the hobby you're in and not the price, because you're really not in the key market.

It's not that I can't afford $60. Certainly I have bought sets costing more than that, and fistfuls of Criterions. It's simply management of resources. There are over a hundred titles on my "want" list (a few are boxes). Some on that list were released years ago and I've never gotten around to getting them, some were recently added as I've "discovered" them through rental or other means.

"Raiders" is on that list. The other two aren't. I could use $60 of my available resources on the Indy box and take one off my want list, or I can use the same resources and take three off.

Pretty simple decision, really. I'd like to have "Raiders" in my collection, but I can certainly live without it. There are plenty of films I want more that don't require me to buy titles I'll likely never see again (Not that it would kill me to see them again, but that gets us into the "movies I want to see" list - that one has nearly 400 on it, so I doubt I'd get to the other indy movies any year soon even if I did want to give them another chance).

 

[Andrew Bunk]

Darrell's post made me realize that maybe the difference in opinions here is between those who are casual fans of Raiders and those that are die-hard fans of the series. I can understand how someone who likes but can live without Raiders would not care about the other two films. For me, it's those that love Raiders but hate the others that baffle me. To me they all have the same magic and spirit, which ultimately draws me in the most to these films.

 

[Dick]

I have a problem with the Middle chapters of both the RAIDERS and BACK TO THE FUTURE series. TEMPLE is so-o-o obvious in its attempts to be a gross-out comedy in places that I found it to be a terribly dumbed-down entry; BTTF2 is a strange and creepy film that lacks the exuberant spirit and exilharation of the first (and, as it turned out, the third) chapter. If I could buy the first and last RAIDERS and the documentary disc separately from an online retailer, I would. Part 3 of BTTF, unfortunately, doesn't make any sense with out the inferior part 2.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Darrell hit that right on. If you only want Raiders because of a limited budget, there isn't any way out - it is either all, or nothing.

As for box sets, I have the Jurassic Park box set - with the extras disk. I got them one by one and sent in for the box and the extras, so don't tell me that it can't be done.

I am getting all three of these, because I liked all of them. I have Raiders at #1 and TOD at #2 - to each his own, but I am wondering why they it this way. What would the sales figures have looked like if they were not in a box? Would the sales for Raiders be like 30 times the other two, together? Could they not figure it out?

Even better, why couldn't they have sold them for $25. each or $60. (retail) for the set?

What I really fear is that they will keep on going with this, and put everything out in sets. Like the YIJ movies. There are 24 - 2 hour movies. $480.00? (That was for those who want it).

What if THG came out all at once. Yep, you'd have to buy all seven seasons all at once! Let me know when your wallet/credit card says ouch!

How about every Star Trek movie and series episode - all wrapped up in one huge - and great-looking box set - We'll give this to you special - only $3500.00.

Glenn

 

[richardWI]

To those who comlain about not having a choice, I'm just thankful that we have the option of getting all 3 movies on DVD.

And it's quite possible that studios bank on the fact that most people set such low standards for the studios and don't care if they have many choices or not. That kind of attitude is what created this whole anti-consumer mess.

 

[richardWI]

"All of this complaining seems like you feel that the studio owes you something. They are giving you something and you are ungrateful."

What nonsense. The studio is not "giving" us anything. The studio has never "given" us anything. The studio is SELLING something. There's no room for feeling or acting "grateful" or "ungrateful" or being "owed" anything. It's a business transaction, pure and simple. I can't agree to the terms so I'm passing on it.

I can't understand this attitude of studios being these great kingdoms and we are just lowly peasants who should somehow have gratitude as we BUY things from them. The truth is, they need us more than we need them. If any grattitude should be fostered, it should be from Paramount's camp towards us, as we're putting their kids through college or whatever.

 

[MarkHastings]

What nonsense. The studio is not "giving" us anything.

????? They are giving you the opportunity to buy Indiana Jones DVD's and you don't like the way they chose to do it.

 

[Steve Christou]

It's simple, Paramount quite rightly assumes that everybody wants to own all three Indiana Jones films, and you get a nice 4th disc of extras, it's not the first time something like this has happened and it won't be the last.

If Spielberg and Lucas had their way only Raiders would have been out this year,
followed by Temple of Doom next year, and Last Crusade the year after, Paramount wanted a box set of all three out this year. But it won't be the last we see of those films on dvd, in 2-3 years they will each come out in seperate 2-disc special edition sets, with commentaries (prob Lucas and the screenwriters) and packed with fantastic extras and deleted scenes that have been accidently 'discovered' in a vault somewhere, just wait and see.

 

[Terry H]

What nonsense. The studio is not "giving" us anything. The studio has never "given" us anything. The studio is SELLING something. There's no room for feeling or acting "grateful" or "ungrateful" or being "owed" anything. It's a business transaction, pure and simple. I can't agree to the terms so I'm passing on it.

Nicely stated, I agree completely. I am also going to pass on Raiders and the two steaming piles of crap the studio insists on including with it. I would love to have Raiders of the Lost Ark but there is no way I'll pay $50 for one movie. They can keep it.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

To clarify, I wasn't protesting the Indiana Jones set. As a consumer, I do prefer to have as many options as possible, and I would have preferred to have the choice of buying the films I wanted. As it turns out, I enjoy all three films and was going to buy the boxed set anyway. My complaint with Paramount was having to buy Godfather III in order to get I & II.

I like how Warners has released their new "Legends" set. Of course, it's nowhere to be found, but that'll be resolved soon enough. If you only want Robin Hood, you can buy it seperately. If you only want Robin Hood and Yankee Doodle Dandy, you can buy those two seperately. Or, for a little bit more, you can get all three in a set that includes a bonus documentary. To me, that's the most pleasing solution. And it helps them; I probably would only have bought Robin Hood and Yankee Doodle Dandy and settled for renting Sierra Madre, but Warner, through their marketing and packaging of the set, was able to convince me to purchase all three. That's wonderful for me. Meanwhile, my friend who only wants Robin Hood can get Robin Hood without having to get two other films.

I understand Back To The Future being released as a set, because it is a trilogy that fits very well together. While the Indy movies are great, there's little relation between the three other than a few characters. The stories are different, and you don't need to see one to understand another. I'm sure it wasn't an accident that they made the films this way. Rather than likening Indy to BTTF or the Godfather, I would liken that more to the James Bond films, or even the Jack Ryan films. Those films share the same characters but the stories themselves aren't really related. MGM and Paramount, respectively, were wise to give fans the option of purchasing those films as a set, or seperately.

OK, I know I'm ranting here, I'm sorry. I'm almost done.

What really bugged me, and what led to my comments in earlier posts was Universal's Scarface deluxe set. I loathe DePalma's movie and would rather sit in a movie theater bathroom for three hours with a crossword puzzle than sit through that film again. On the other hand, I do like the 1932 film. Why should I have to spend $50-60 for this "deluxe gift set" to get a classic film that shares very little with the film that's actually being marketed? At least when Universal put Charade in a set with The Truth About Charlie (why would anyone try to remake Charade? you can't improve upon perfection), Charade had already been avaliable seperately, so fans had the option until that time of just buying that one film. Even when Universal did put out the Charlie DVD, Charade was packaged as a "bonus" and the price of the set wasn't raised because of it. It's probably the only DVD I can think of where the "bonus" disc was far more important than the actual film that was being sold. If Universal had issued the 1932 Scarface in the same set as the DePalma Scarface in the regular package, so I could grab it for $20, then I really wouldn't object. Or if Universal put 1932 Scarface out seperately as well. Or even if they said that the 1932 film would be avaliable individually after Christmas.

To sum up this overly long tirade, I can understand the business decisions that lead to box sets. Most of the time, I like box sets. I also understand why certain titles are packaged together; as Back To The Future cuts together as three parts of one continuious film, it makes sense to offer it that way. As I recall, it was also cheaper than Indy. Since the Indy movies each stand alone, they should be offered that way as well. The Godfather III isn't really a "sequel" to I&II even as Coppola has pointed out on the commentary! He mentions that he felt it was a seperate film and shouldn't have even been called Godfather III! I'd say that's a good indication that consumers shouldn't have had to buy it to get the other two films. To be fair (and to give credit where credit is due), Paramount did issue the Jack Ryan films as a set and individually, which was a win-win for casual viewers (or fans of only one film) and for die hard fans of the entire series.