First of all, the instant obsolescence factor comes into play even in the case of double and triple dips on standard DVDs, albeit usually without the need for upgraded hardware.
That being said, the web-enabled "Blu-Ray Live" functionality built into the latest profile players actually has the ability to alleviate this issue for BD double-dips. If a swanky new special edition is released with a new audio track, commentary track, or featurette, the studio could make these materials available for download to the owners of the previous edition. Of course, the studios could also refuse to do this and use it as nothing more than a device for providing the latest promotional materials, but we shall see.
London recordings have union rules...they just also offer buyouts that the Local 47 in Los Angeles and the US musician's union does not offer. But, were the London recordings done as a buyout? I don't know. Maybe...maybe not. But as I mentioned...there are other factors in play as well. Composer agents and lawyers have successfully made the case that isolated scores should be compensated as a separate use of a film's music that was not negotiated under the original terms of the agreement. Most have soundtrack clauses in their contracts and one could make the argument that this would be akin to that. And those negotiations (in the case of these older films) were made back when contracts did not even have language that foresaw isolated scores on DVDs.
When the technology was new...the feature was included on DVDs. But then composers, songwriters and performers began to speak up and make a case for additional compensation with their work was taken out of context of the film's original soundtrack (dialogue, fx, music)...and that is what has pretty much stopped the practice of including the feature. What made the Blu-Ray disc in question here have the feature? Not sure...no one knows for sure.
But the overall point I was making is that the reason the isolated score feature has stopped for the most part...is not due to space limitations. It is not a simple decision to include it or not. It is that studios, who are trying to squeeze every penny out of these releases to ensure the best chance of profitability, that don't want to incur the extra cost to them due to compensating the participants involved.
Yes I agree with what your saying here. And I'll go farther and say that Unions are making it almost impossible to make a movie in Hollywood anymore. It's no wonder that so many films shoot in Canada and record their scores with the Moscow Symphony Orchestra.
True...but union rules have started to change for the better. And with the value of the dollar falling...shooting in another country and recording with the Moscow Symphony is not always the cheapest anymore. It all depends on the overall budget of the film. Any film under $40 Million is considered low budget by the new musician union rules. Anything under $10 million is ultra low budget. The rates for low budget are competitive with recording music overseas when you factor in travel and other expenses. And the rates for ultra low budget films make is actually cheaper to record union in LA any more.
The canadian dollar and the US dollar are almost equal. not quite, but close enough that shooting a film there is no longer a financial benefit. Not when a production company can take advantage of some of the agressive tax incentives of US states like NY, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, etc...
I know a writer who does articles on the industry in the trades and he wrote an article on the recent influx of films from Bollywood that were being shot here or at least post production was being done here instead of in India. Why? Because it was actually cheaper for them to do Post here in Los Angeles with the devalued dollar than it was for them to do it in India like Bollywood use to. Times are changing. Just a couple years ago shooting in Canada was all the rage and recording an orchestral score in Prague or Moscow was where one could save thousands. Now...today...that is not really the case any more.
I frankly don't blame Fox (or any company) for providing exclusive features to Blu-ray. As others have stated, it's just the name of the game. They want people to opt for a certain product, and by doing so, providing them with features not available anywhere else. It's the same with anything really. This one singing site I'm on for example has a basic free membership, which is limited. Then there's a Gold membership with all the bells and whistles. They want people to opt for the Gold, therefore providing them with features not available to others. The concept works since I plan on going Gold next week. lol
I personally have no intention of adopting the Blu-ray format at this time, even though I own a 55" HDTV. I have watched a few DVDs upconverted on my Xbox 360 which looked pretty damn good so if anything, I'll buy a standalone upconverted DVD player. This way I can enjoy my existing collection with increased quality.
I'm not knocking the Blu-ray format. I've yet to see it in action with my own eyes, but I do have high-def television which looks quite nice. Just not nice enough for me to invest in a new format all over again.
This thread is pretty childish-- yeah, I know it doesn't seem fair that some Blu-Ray discs have extra features, but at least the OMEN series is a reissue, not like the exclusive commentary track on new release like RATATOUILLE. What's irritating about some studios is that they dump features previously seen on SE DVDs -- from HELLBOY to KINGDOM OF HEAVEN to INDEPENDENCE DAY, etc. (Fox is by far the most egregious offender) -- despite having 50 GB worth of capacity on a single Blu-Ray disc.
I just bought a playstation 3 to play blu-ray movies. I never owned a Xbox 360 or HD player. I bought 11 titles mostly westerns to watch on it. With that stated, I don't plan on buying every single title that comes out and have no intention of no longer buying standard definition dvds for 5-10 dollars as opposed to 20-30 for Blu-rays. The playstation 3 will play both formats and I plan to continue buying both formats. If an exclusive comes out such as smiley box for How the West was won only on Blu-ray and it is a movie and extra I really want then I will go Blu-ray for that title. If it's an older movie that doesn't look all that much better than the SD version with nothing new for special features then I will go SD. I currently own about 2000 SD titles mostly movies from 30's to 60's and have already regretted buying some titles over again on Blu-ray. So far I have bought these titles:
3:10 to Yuma very impressive Blu-ray title for for 3D like PQ Broken Trail same as above Unforgiven not impressed enough with blu-ray PQ over SD version The Wild Bunch not impressed enough with blu-ray PQ over very good SD version The Proffessionals Very impressive picture Rio Bravo not all that impressed with Blu-ray version but don't own SD version The Searchers Very impressive Blu-ray title compared to SD version The Omega Man not as impressive but a still a good bit better than SD title Blade Runner Very impressed but don't own SD version
Of course the picture has to be a dramatic improvement over SD for me to notice it as I am not viewing the movie on some 70 inch screen. I own a 42 inch 720p plasma that I view from 8 feet away.
Out of those titles Broken Trail and 3:10 to Yuma were the most 3D like in appearance followed by Blade Runner.
I currently have Patton and Cronicals of Naria coming but after that future titles will be those that I really want and have been given excellent reviews on. My current wish list is Casablanca, Open Range, Lonesome Dove and How The West Was Won. If I only buy 5 tiltles a year in the Blu-ray format that will be alright with me as I am not out to try to get my money's worth out of my new blu-ray player. I figure I'll be getting that out of it by buying some games such as a recent pre-order for Final Round 3. The playstation 3 is the best of both worlds. My sound system is some cheapo Panasonic surround sound system that came free with the purchase of the panasonic plasma so I will not be going HD sound for some time if ever.
Is it fair that the heated seats I wanted in our most recent car purchase was only available in the next model up? Is it fair that the 1080p resolution I wanted with my most recent PJ purchase was only available in the next model up? (what did these two things have in common? Something "extra" that I did not choose to pay for at the time and so did without.)
The studios/manufacturers are under NO obligation to give equal treatment to everyone. They have the right to reserve certain privileges (in the form of features or extras or whatever) to those who choose to get a premium product. That is the nature of business in a free market. We, as consumers, are free to express our displeasure by not making the purchase--but whining about things being "unfair" does not really alter the reality that acquiring a "premium feature" requires an extra effort/expense. That's just the way it is.
Very odd thread. We have had these SEs, CEs, LEs, Unrated/Extended/Dir cut/etc-versions for several years now. They just keep on coming and many of us love them, as well as some people hate "double dipping". Now Blu-ray is starting to have more and more "exclusive content" and some people are pissed?
This is the problem easily solved. Get the BD-player. The future is here.
edit: If Blu-ray and DVD -releases are not "equal" (goes with both ways at the moment), blame the studios, not the "formats". Blame Fox for not having the "Isolated score" in new "Omen" SD DVD and blame Fox for having DNR on "Patton" Blu-ray.. In some cases, we can even blame the DVD capacity (and we all know that it can´t support BD 1.1/2.0 based extras).
That was my main point from the first post on. I am blaming the studios, not the format. They're using exclusive features to lure people into Blu-ray. And that pisses me off. Not the format itself. The same thing with retailer-exclusive bonus discs. Just contempt for the consumer.
I've owned a PS3 and 42" Panasonic Veira for a little over a year now, and have only outright purchased about 7 Blu Ray titles. But I watch Blu Ray titles all the time by renting them from Netflix, so if there's some additional content that's not on my SD version, I don't pay an arm and a leg to watch it, just one flat monthly fee and I get all the Blu Ray I want. Works for me.
Wow.. this thread has gone in a bad direction fast... from the first post in fact... heck, from the title.
One thing I don't get is why so many assume they need to buy a new library when they get Blu-ray. DVDs play on all Blu-ray players, and are up-converted too. They look great on my PS3. But the real issue is that Blu-ray costs more, and has a smaller market right now, and is a growing new product. So of course they want to get all the extras they can into it. They are trying to appeal to customers to buy Blu-ray. If they stuck everything they put on the Blu-ray onto a DVD, it would be much harder to sell (as is the case with most releases anyways).
There are really not that many titles that have that much exclusive content right now, and those that do, half of it is the same but "in HD", and half of the rest is gimmicky and not really worth it in the end. One good extra, and the whole world of DVD owners gets pissed... OI.