Paper Snappers are Dead! ...now lets work on Flipper DVD's! (AKA: Wake Up Universal) (1 Viewer)

[RobertM.Fleming]

OK...first Casino, then Blues Brothers...Mallrats and now Frighteners. those are just four titles that Ive been totally jazzed about this year only to be disappointed by the Universal handling of these releases.

We know they can do it, Universal has the ability to create great two disk non-flipper special editions (The Sting, To Kill a Mockingbird..etc.) why then why are they giving us these sub-par editions? why keep using something that for all practical reasons is the biggest bane of the DVD consumer? do they delight in ticking us off this much?

I know I'm neglecting some other releases that have been screwed up in this fashion. so feel free to mention them...lets get it out there nice and clear that we hate flipper DVDs.

Universals love of such an horrible disk makes me cringe at the thought of future special editions they are working on....a Flash Gordon flipper doesn't sound like a good special edition to me.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

I LIKE 2-sided DVDs- in fact I HATE bloated multi-disc sets (where the content could have easily fit on one) MORE than the biggest snapper-case hater ever hated snapper cases! (That stupid flappy-thing in the cases makes me cringe, and I'm COMPLETELY sick of hearing "X-disc set!" advertised as a selling point when most of the time none of the discs actually have the maximum amount of content on them.) DVD is a 2-sided medium for a reason, and when they work DVD-18s represent the pinnacle of the technology. Granted there have been some defects (though I haven't had any problems with the ones I've gotten), but that's no reason to give up on them completely- just look how bad many of the first laserdiscs were.

Having said that, I have no idea why Universal puts their discs out with NO printing whatsoever on side 2- that just looks really cheap. Most of the complaints about 2-sided discs are the small printing on them, but that could be solved easily if they would just print on the entire center of the disc.

Take a look at the cases some sets now come in where the discs overlap one another, so you have to take one out to get to the other- anyone who prefers THAT to 2-sided discs is insane!

 

[Matt Birchall]

When I hear the term "flipper," I think of the older versions of movies like Goodfellas and Se7en where half of the movie was on one side of the disc, and vice versa. Gotta get up and flip the disc to finish the movie, hence the term.

I don't consider discs like the new Blues Brothers and Mallrats releases to be flippers. I consider them to be "two-sided discs."

And I much prefer two-disc sets to two-sided discs, and I'm actually sitting on the fence about upgrading the two latter releases--well, I won't say for that very reason alone, but I do know that if they were two-disc sets, I'd be much more inclined to double-dip.

 

[Cees Alons]

A flipper is a disc where part of the movie is on the other side. ONLY if it's necessary (long film or miniseries), I don't see any disadvantage over a second disc I'll have to put in.

If there's other content on a two-sided-used disc: ditto.

So why be against two-sided-used discs in general?


BTW, I LOVED the snappers. :frowning:



Cees

 

[JerryKILL]

I don't mind "2 sided-discs", as long as they are not DVD-18s, with which I've had mixed results. Universal definitely needs to drop those. As for snappers, I have already developed a fond nostalgia for them, sort of like LPs.

 

[Paul Arnette]

Perhaps someone can help me here, but is it DVD-18s that are, inherently, the problem or the way that DVD-18s, particularly Universal's, are being authored (e.g. seamless layer changes) that are causing the trouble?

And for the record, I too agree that what the topic starter is describing is a two-sided disc, not a 'flipper', which is commonly associated with a film where the movie itself is spread over more than one side of the same disc.

Snappers were never more than a minor annoyance to me due the didn't match the rest of my DVDs packaging. While I could've lived with all my DVDs being snappers, I'm glad they seemed to have settled on keepcases, for the most part, which I prefer more.

 

[Shawn Perron]

I believe the big problem people have with 2 sided discs is when using a multidisc changer. Unless the changer has the ability to play both sides of a disc, once loaded the 2nd side is unavaiable.

Personally, I don't like 2 sided discs. Reading the tiny writing around the hub in the dark is a pain in the ass when changing movies. Being anal retentive about finger prints, I never feel comfortable handling them. If and when I ever get a changer, side 2 of all those discs will cease to exist. Also as has been pointed out DVD-18s aren't the most reliable discs on the market.

 

[Ruz-El]

Actualy, the big problem with 2 sided discs are the ones manufactured by "Digital Solutions", the studio that Universal uses. Every run has had problems, and not player specific. Exchanging them has resulted in different problems on different parts of the discs, again in different spots on the film, on multiple players, so buying a DVD-18 authored from this studio is a real crap shoot. DVD packaging in general doesn't show who manufactured the disc, so you find out after you have a problem. Also, it is my understanding that DVD-18 is more expensive to manufacture, and seeing as you can easily fit 2 DVD's in a standard size case, I don't see the benifit at all in using them, outside of mutli disc box sets.


I too liked the paper snappers, but I really miss the 2 disc digi-packs in a slip case that Warner used to use on the 2 Disc SE. They were really classy on the shelf, and made them look more special.

 

[Tom Brennan]

No complaints about snappers, and I agree with Jesse. DVDs can hold 18 GBs so they should. DVD can do so many wonderful things, and the studios aren't taking advantage of the format. Why do we need multiple releases of a movie when a dual sided disc can accomodate widescreen and full screen versions in addition to offering different cuts, via seamless branching? It all just seems so wasteful. I applaud the studios when they use the technology the way it was intended and not the "more discs is better" option.

 

[Cees Alons]

Being the absolute champion there, I don't allow a fingerprint on an unwritten upper surface either. So where's the difference?

Only places to touch disc: sides (using thumb and ring- or pinky finger) and possibly central hub (using index finger).


Cees

 

[Kain_C]

My question is how in the world can anyone prefer a snapper? It's mainly cheap cardboard that's going to be the first to be damaged, and when that happens, it isn't pretty. Second, it doesn't match the other, more commonly used type of case. Third, the actual snapping part can get caught on other DVDs making it difficult to make flush with the rest of the collection. Fourth, no holders for inserts which may be a moot point now considering their slow disappearance. I wish the studios let you purchase keepcases for releases that were originally in snappers.

I'm glad snappers are disappearing, and they're doing so for a reason!

As far as 2-sided discs, I have mixed feelings. I too hate the marketting crap where they overglorify 2 discs sets, when the second disc has maybe enough material to make up an hour if even. Some recent Universal Legacy Editions come to mind. One disc is nice and compact.

BUT, as someone pointed out, it's more prone to fingerprints and it's awkward to grasp.

DVD-18 is the way to go, but the technology should have long since been mastered. That and the lack of seemless branching are some of the biggest failures of DVD IMO.

 

[Matt Birchall]

In my opinion, no disc space should ever be given to a non-OAR version of a movie, regardless of how many discs are used. It would just take up valuable disc space, which could go to a better presentation or more extras. Give the non-OAR their own separate releases for the morons, or (better yet), don't put out a non-OAR version at all.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

Are you suggesting that they could have used one single-sided disc or just upset that they didn't completely fill both discs?

I don't think you'll find many, in fact you'll probably not find any 2-disc sets that could fit on one single sided disc without degrading the A/V quality from higher compression rates.

As for 'filling' a disc, the same is true for double-sided discs. Even if the 2nd disc or 2nd side only has about 30 min of material, as long as that is allowing the best possible A/V quality for the film on the 1st disc or 1st side then that is something we should praise the studios for. They could have just as well crammed it onto one single sided disc to save money.

Besides the manufacturing issues of DVD-18, or any double-sided DVD, there are some excellent advantages to single sided discs. The most obvious one is for those who use dual or multi-disc DVD players. Even for those that do not have these types of players, by only using one side to store the data it does offer slightly better protection from careless use... which is probably how the average consumer treats their DVD's. While it is obvious that there is a marketing value of “multi-disc” releases, there are also advantages.

The next generation optical discs and especially the holographic optical discs that are in development will certainly force studios and consumers to re-evaluate the value of multi-disc sets. HVD for example could one day be able to store an entire 7-year series run in HD on one disc. I suspect most consumers wont want that, and would prefer to have each year stored on a separate disc.

 

[Cees Alons]

Let's not get into THAT question again now, please - it's over.
(And just believe us, we can!)


Cees

 

[Kain_C]

Others were commenting on it so I thought I could too. That is kind of the subject. I can maybe understand it for the better appearance of the artwork (not overly glossy underneath plastic?), but that's it. But to each their own...

 

[Cees Alons]

Yes, short comments happened. And your opinion is noted.

But really going into that discussions of why and why-not again would side-track the thread.


Cees

 

[RobertM.Fleming]

My main gripe is the cheapness of the disk. as many people have stated, they are easier to fingerprint/scuff, reading a small title in the hub is annoying vs. having actual artwork on the disk. Yes I do believe that the overall cheapness is what kills it for me. You have titles that dvd consumers/collectors have really wanted better editions of (ie. Casino, Frighteners) and a "special edition" is announced and delivered with a cheap looking single two sided disk. (I wont even go into the universal lack of booklets for anniversary/special editions)

And its not like the two sided disks are any cheaper for us? they have the nerve to charge as much as a Warner two disk set.

Frighteners is being released here as a two sided disk and in other regions as a 3 disk set???? Give us the 3 disk set too!!!

cheapness of the disks, and annoyance with the choice to still use these damn things. those are my TWO main gripes with the 2 sided disk.

 

[John*D]

DIE flippers DIE!!!

 

[ChristopherDAC]

DVDs are cheap. That's what they do. That's their reason for existence -- to be cheap. You wanna complain about things being cheap, front me the money so I can buy up the rights to manufacture LaserDiscs. Nothing cheap there! Half a pound per disc, a centre label the size of one of your cheap DVDs, square feet of gorgeous box art, a demonstrated technique for recording two hours of High Definition 1125i component video on a side, and a price of, let's say, $50-75 per movie minimum.





Oh, so you'd rather go with cheap?

 

[Shane Martin]

I expect a few of the "I hate dvd-18" folks to show up soon. Personally I've never had an issue yet with them.

I didn't like snappers that is for sure but I don't mind DVD-18's. I got bigger things in life to worry about than dvd-18's.