Well BR fans lets the double dipping begin. Recently Paramount announced the Star Trek Movies " original versions only to be available on BR- You know what this means buy one set...then they will DOUBLE DIP YOU DOWN THE ROAD. In reality, they should put both the director cuts on the same disc..no not them....GREED my friends...and after this wall street BS....lets play games with BR, lets release 10 versions of the same film...with slightly different material( see evil dead, evil dead 2 etc).
This is real bad trend, I think 20th century fox did this early with wide screen releases on dvd, how they came out later after a "EXEC" thought he could sucker us on a double or triple dip......So what can we do about it??????:mad::mad::mad:

Damn OP with that post you would think Warner is a brand new studio to you.:p
Uni and Fox have been good at seamless cuts so far.

This kind of stuff has been going on for like a decade, so I can't imagine this being a big shocker all of a sudden.

This kind of stuff has been going on for like a decade, so I can't imagine this being a big shocker all of a sudden.

lol, I know, this seems to shock people some how. Not only that they are angered being that the studios are beating them over the head to buy this version now and then buy the other version later. Hell I had a studio exec with a 9mm to my head telling me that If I didn't buy every version to T2 that comes out my wife and child would be getting it :rolleyes:

lol, I know, this seems to shock people some how. Not only that they are angered being that the studios are beating them over the head to buy this version now and then buy the other version later. Hell I had a studio exec with a 9mm to my head telling me that If I didn't buy every version to T2 that comes out my wife and child would be getting it :rolleyes:

I had that happen too and i don't even have a wife and child ( wow what a coincidence )

lol, I know, this seems to shock people some how. Not only that they are angered being that the studios are beating them over the head to buy this version now and then buy the other version later. Hell I had a studio exec with a 9mm to my head telling me that If I didn't buy every version to T2 that comes out my wife and child would be getting it :rolleyes:With me it was my cats. I love those cats. Those cruel bastards know how to get at you where it hurts.

I know I can just say 'vote with your wallet' but truth is there will always be idiots or people with too much money buying these things, we live in an unparalleled age of consumerism. So what can you do, just give up on it and move on.

Damn OP with that post you would think Warner is a brand new studio to you.:p
Uni and Fox have been good at seamless cuts so far.

Warner actually wasn't a big double-dipper until recently. I remember wishing and waiting for them to re-release some of their early fullscreen/non-anamorphic titles. They would go several years between versions. I think Goodfellas took 7 years.

Now, I realize that a rebuttal would be that they should have done it right the first time, but the fact is that every studio had relatively lackluster discs early on (and one reason for that was that compression was still maturing). Only Warner and Columbia were doing some anamorphic titles from the beginning, and even those discs generally don't hold up well today. The well-respected Criterion was one of the last to adopt anamorphic.

i bought the fifth element 2 or 3 times on DVD and then again on blu ray. that's what usually happens when you buy a movie on day one it's released. there is always going to be newer version down the road. you either buy it now and re buy it if you want to get the newest version or wait a while before buying it.

I know this is a rehash of a past discussion...but I'll say it anyway...

If not enough people buy the discs, the studios might think that the movies/shows no longer have "legs" in the format and thus aren't worth the effort to remaster or otherwise make better in a future release.

For that reason, simply sitting on the sidelines without telling the studios why could lead to no better product being released down the road.

"If you don't buy, at least tell them why."

SCD

"If you don't buy, at least tell them why."

SCD

I would love to. Exactly how do I do that?

You've never bought a DVD before?:confused:

I would love to. Exactly how do I do that?

Howard Beale: 'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!' I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!... You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis and Blu Ray double dips. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it:

Howard Beale: [screaming at the top of his lungs] "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

I was thinking more like writing a letter to a studio, calling the studio's customer support line, or participating in an interactive chat when an online site sponsors one with a particular studio. But if enough people do it, the Beale thing could work, too. :)

SCD

Howard Beale: 'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!' I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!... You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis and Blu Ray double dips. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it:

Howard Beale: [screaming at the top of his lungs] "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

I just tried that...I hear police sirens in the distance...Ok gotta go...Gotta run...Be back later.

Here is my beef with the double dip. The price of BD's is mega inflated on the basis that the studio spent $$$$ to make the BD super awesome. But they didn't. So why are they charging us mega bucks for the the original crap release before the double dips. They might have a case to higher prices on the double dip where they actually did spend some money on the movie but the first release on BD should be basically the same as the DVD as they obviously have not done the work they should have on it.

Here is my beef with the double dip. The price of BD's is mega inflated on the basis that the studio spent $$$$ to make the BD super awesome. But they didn't. So why are they charging us mega bucks for the the original crap release before the double dips. They might have a case to higher prices on the double dip where they actually did spend some money on the movie but the first release on BD should be basically the same as the DVD as they obviously have not done the work they should have on it.Are you talking about the Star Trek movies here? Because that certainly doesn't seem to be the case. Between the remastering, the additional extras, and the $20/movie pricing (at MSRP, even!), there doesn't seem to be either charging "mega bucks" or releases that are "basically the same" as the originals.

I'm happy we are getting catalog in the first darn place.

Art

lol, I know, this seems to shock people some how. Not only that they are angered being that the studios are beating them over the head to buy this version now and then buy the other version later. Hell I had a studio exec with a 9mm to my head telling me that If I didn't buy every version to T2 that comes out my wife and child would be getting it :rolleyes:

Speaking of T2... (http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Lionsgate/High-Def_Box_Sets/Disc_Announcements/Lionsgate_to_Launch_Skynet_Edition_of_T2_this_May/2517)

I'm happy we are getting catalog in the first darn place.

Art

I know many of you will disagree with this - I rather have a catalog title done perfectly, else don't bother at all. Life is too short to watch something that isn't as perfect as can practically be.

Also, when I chose not to buy a BD, I dont' think I need to inform them why (movie itself vs unacceptable PQ/AQ). My guess is that they have highly paid people whose job is to know those things.

I know many of you will disagree with this - I rather have a catalog title done perfectly, else don't bother at all. Life is too short to watch something that isn't as perfect as can practically be.



My feelings exactly....Take your time studio's and do it right and thats why i'm happy waiting on Lawrence Of Arabia and other classics and wish they had delayed the release of The Silence Of The Lambs.

Still there's the twentieth anniversary of Silence in 2011 when hopefully they will finally do justice by this great film.

I know many of you will disagree with this - I rather have a catalog title done perfectly, else don't bother at all. Life is too short to watch something that isn't as perfect as can practically be.

one might counter that life is too short to not watch something because audio/video quality isn't perfect. years ago when hdtv was still mostly a neat idea nick negroponte pointed out most people don't care about the visual/audio quality all they want is better stories, better acting, better directing, etc... i think the advent of youtube/hulu/itunes has largely borne this out.

of course it shouldn't be a question of content or quality and i'm a fine one to talk as i stopped buying dvds altogether until i picked up my blu-ray player. unfortunately people enthusiastic enough about movies to post on an internet message board are the minority.

still i doubt there are many people out there who would choose the technically superior "the day the earth stood still" over the keanu reeves version. doesn't matter how cleaned up the audio/video is of the original it will never approach the newer version. yet the newer version sucks.

I know many of you will disagree with this - I rather have a catalog title done perfectly, else don't bother at all. Life is too short to watch something that isn't as perfect as can practically be.
Funny, if you're going to use the 'life is too short' argument I would've thought it would've been along the vein of 'life is too short to be so anal about movies, just enjoy the movie's content'.

I see by the post above mine that I'm not the only one that thought this no surprise there since it's so obvious.

Funny, if you're going to use the 'life is too short' argument I would've thought it would've been along the vein of 'life is too short to be so anal about movies, just enjoy the movie's content'.


Agreed.

When they redo these movies just wait awhile and the price will come down.
One of my first dvd's was the T2 ultimate edition I paid full price at that time.
When the extreme edition came out I wanted it but instead I waited and waited and finally picked it up at Target for $5.00. The same thing will happend to blu rays will all these older versions.

I know many of you will disagree with this - I rather have a catalog title done perfectly, else don't bother at all. Life is too short to watch something that isn't as perfect as can practically be.

Also, when I chose not to buy a BD, I dont' think I need to inform them why (movie itself vs unacceptable PQ/AQ). My guess is that they have highly paid people whose job is to know those things.

I agree do it right. If not then why do it. I would wonder though if the sales are low if they know why.

My example of In Cold Blood though looks like there may be very very little interest in great older films irrespective of the quality of the transfer.This has scared me somewhat since this accounts for a good part of my viewing and I won't live forever.

Since DVD was released to now it seems like fewer are interested in the older films.



Art

For me it depends on the purpose of the double dip:

A. higher quality transfer (such has The Fifth Element)

B. additional bonus features or special packaging

I'll buy again if we are talking about situation A.

If we are talking about situation B however...please...if you are a sucker for that you deserve to pay again IMO. They saw an opportunity to make more money and you're the reason why. Good for them. I buy BD's for the film itself. I never choose whether or not to buy based on bonus features or packaging.

For me it depends on the purpose of the double dip:

A. higher quality transfer (such has The Fifth Element)

B. additional bonus features or special packaging

I'll buy again if we are talking about situation A.

If we are talking about situation B however...please...if you are a sucker for that you deserve to pay again IMO. They saw an opportunity to make more money and you're the reason why. Good for them. I buy BD's for the film itself. I never choose whether or not to buy based on bonus features or packaging.

That is the whole point of my post--directors cut or what the cut should have been but for RUN TIME adjustments to get more moive showings per day...lets take an example such "kingdom of heaven" with almost one hour of additional footage(thank god the br is that edtion) and studio exc's changing the ending to make more box office. This is star trek the original movie directors cut, this is a special edition created by the director and paramount because of the rushed nature of the film(no test screenings)...they know you will buy both of them, they force you to buy first version which is inferior and them probably will stick the directors cut in a box set to make you double double dip....this is simply not the way to start a format..sometime supplements are VERY mportant for example the second ending or unused ending to army of darkenss....I disagee, give it your best such as "Blade Runner" 5 different cuts of the movie and VERY strong sales...and WE will come and WE will buy, much more than if you try to Trick and Steal from US.

I really don't believe in the big bad corporation stuff that people are always going on about. A business exists to make money. If a company can sell it's product multiple times to the same person and make money, why wouldn't they? Vote with your wallet.

I am buying the Star Trek set, and I will not be buying a new version down the road, it's that simple.

I really don't believe in the big bad corporation stuff that people are always going on about. A business exists to make money. If a company can sell it's product multiple times to the same person and make money, why wouldn't they? Vote with your wallet.

I am buying the Star Trek set, and I will not be buying a new version down the road, it's that simple.

I own all of the directors cuts on dvd, they are SUPERIOR to the original cuts...so why buy an inferior product....and get stuck with it, RENT it first and wait for the good stuff if they want to pull this stuff up again

.I disagee, give it your best such as "Blade Runner" 5 different cuts of the movie and VERY strong sales...and WE will come and WE will buy, much more than if you try to Trick and Steal from US.

They aren't "tricking" or "stealing" from you. You get what you paid for. They aren't advertising director's cuts and selling you theatrical. You know what it is. Don't like it? Ignore it and wait for what you want. You seem to be well aware of what's going on.

I would prefer they put both cuts on the disc. It's either laziness or a rush job at work here. Are they intentionally holding it back for a double-dip? Maybe, maybe not.

The main purpose of the double-dip is to keep SKUs active and keep sales going for titles that sell. Wal-Mart only has so much shelf space. They can't sell EVERYTHING. If it's new, they are more likely to have it on the shelf than if it's a 3 year old title. If you want to get your title out there selling again, you repackage it, hopefully tie it to a media event, then get it out there again. Abracadabra - it's back on the shelf at Wal-Mart.

Ideally, they would just do it right the first time, then throw a different UPC/artwork on the case and release the same thing with different artwork (which I think has been done already). That keeps the title alive without getting previous owners to feel the need to double-dip.

Greed??? LOL. The studios are businesses, they exist to make money. You have the choice to buy or not.

Well BR fans lets the double dipping begin. Recently Paramount announced the Star Trek Movies " original versions only to be available on BR- You know what this means buy one set...then they will DOUBLE DIP YOU DOWN THE ROAD. In reality, they should put both the director cuts on the same disc..no not them....GREED my friends...and after this wall street BS....lets play games with BR, lets release 10 versions of the same film...with slightly different material( see evil dead, evil dead 2 etc).
This is real bad trend, I think 20th century fox did this early with wide screen releases on dvd, how they came out later after a "EXEC" thought he could sucker us on a double or triple dip......So what can we do about it??????:mad::mad::mad:


First, what is BR? Second, the entire format is based on greed. Third, don't buy it.

Sounds like the OP is under the impression that he has an obligation to double dip and ,logically, resents it. Well, you're under no obligation, don't want/ like something just don't buy it. When the director's cut of LOTR trilogy came out, I didn't feel robbed or cheated though I already had the theatrical release set, I chose not to buy the new set and that was that.

what's amusing is so many people think that the studios are hear to pander to our every whim (just our whims too, not the people who might not want a directors cut and only want theatrical) or that the studios goal is not to make money and when they act in a way that makes them the most money we are shocked and outraged. Kinda makes me chuckle, I mean, the studios are not charities, they're here to make money. If I was a stockholder and a studio was not maximizing their revenue potential by not putting out the most products they can I would ditch their stock in a minute.

what's amusing is so many people think that the studios are hear to pander to our every whim (just our whims too, not the people who might not want a directors cut and only want theatrical) or that the studios goal is not to make money and when they act in a way that makes them the most money we are shocked and outraged. Kinda makes me chuckle, I mean, the studios are not charities, they're here to make money. If I was a stockholder and a studio was not maximizing their revenue potential by not putting out the most products they can I would ditch their stock in a minute.

It is that kind of "company first, consumers last" attitude that got so many corporations into trouble. When I was young and poor and didn't know any better, I had cars from the Big 3. After the shabby treatments I received, I won't buy something from them today if it is 80% off.

It is the same reason why with very few exceptions, I will borrow Warner Blu-Rays from my friends instead of buying them. I treat corporations the same way they treat me.

It is that kind of "company first, consumers last" attitude that got so many corporations into trouble. When I was young and poor and didn't know any better, I had cars from the Big 3. After the shabby treatments I received, I won't buy something from them today if it is 80% off.

It is the same reason why with very few exceptions, I will borrow Warner Blu-Rays from my friends instead of buying them. I treat corporations the same way they treat me.

But the point is that they are not FORCING you to do anything!! you aren't forced to double dip, you can rent the regular editions of whatever movies you don't deem worthy. How is putting out multiple products or variants of a product "mistreating" the customer???? As long as they do a good job on their product each time they release it, it is up to you the consumer to decide what to buy and what not to buy. In any other stream of business this would be considered standard practice and considered very normal. However for some reason a lot of movie fans seem to think that a studios primary goal is to please YOU (not anybody else, but you ). If you think a product is worth the money then you buy it, if it isn't then you don't. Double dipping would go the way of the buffalo if people didn't repurchase the product due to them thinking it was worth the upgrade. Simple as that. There is no Devious master plan to force everyone to upgrade every single time and there's nothing you can do about it, it's simple product sales, if someone wants it then they product it.

I've purchased Dune at least four times.

This is normal. ;)



Edit: My wife adds that I have purchased Night of the Living Dead at least five times.

She asks, "Is this normal?"

first, what is br? Second, the entire format is based on greed. Third, don't buy it.

blue ray

what's amusing is so many people think that the studios are hear to pander to our every whim (just our whims too, not the people who might not want a directors cut and only want theatrical) or that the studios goal is not to make money and when they act in a way that makes them the most money we are shocked and outraged. Kinda makes me chuckle, I mean, the studios are not charities, they're here to make money. If I was a stockholder and a studio was not maximizing their revenue potential by not putting out the most products they can I would ditch their stock in a minute.

The point here is this is a NEW format, you would think the studios are in it for the Long run...with the streaming and other forms coming on strong you would think they would offer exclusives of some time....it seems you have the "wall street" mentality of get it as much as you can and rip everybody off.....this is what has got this whole country in Trouble with this great depression we are living in today..you might want to maximize profits as a stockholder but dont be surprised if it kills the format and customer loyalty at the same time as driving the price of your stock down

That argument would make a lot more sense if they provided a set up at the store so I could view the movie before I paid for it. But I have to buy it before I get to see if it is a POS transfer or not.

It's like buying a car and finding out it doesn't have an engine. You don't have to upgrade to a car with an engine, it's your choice. :rolleyes:

The arrogance to think you can continuously screw your customers and think they won't come to resent you for it is a sure ticket to a failing company. There is an old saying in sales. If a customer is mad then they have the right to be mad. Either because you have done some thing wrong or because you have done some thing to let the customer believe you have done some thing wrong.

I'm not trying to be harsh, I'm just trying to understand why people here seem to be so upset about double dips. It never has bothered me, I've always viewed it as a company puttting out a variety of products, many times its the best they can do "at the time". Just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. If you think somethings worth the money to shell out then it always is worth the money IMO. I personally know of no one in the real world (outside of the enthusiast forums) that honestly cares about double dips. Most people I know buy one copy and that's it for the rest of their film life. Only the enthusiasts seem to get upset because they feel that somehow the studio is making them do something. Not only that double dipping was common in the early days of DVD as well, people have just forgotten the million different versions of some movies that came out. I personally don't see it as harmful to the format at all, the only real people complaining are on these boards, everyone else is out there enjoying the movie (or not enjoying it if they decided not to get a certain edition).

And I'm NOT siding with the company's here in trying to screw the consumer, I'm very big about company's earning our cash and not just deserving it by default. I just don't see what they're doing wrong in terms of putting out multiple editions. It's just plain putting out product. If so many consumers hate double dipping then they would have stopped long ago if it affected them. It doesn't seem to so it will continue :shrug: ce la vie.

I think what gets to people is when material is out there, but isn't used. For example, it's understandable that when the LOTR movies came out on DVD, the extended editions weren't completed, and they needed more time to prepare the supplements, so they had to come later. However, when LOTR is eventually released on BD, it will just be the original versions, even though the extended editions are available.

A similar issue could be argued for some of the titles that don't have lossless audio. I don't think the only master they have is Dolby Digital, so it shouldn't be a complicated process to encode it as TrueHD or DTS-HD MA.

There was also word in advance that the LOTR EEs were coming, so people (at least those who follow this stuff) could decide what they wanted to do. In contrast, we had no idea that another edition of No Country for Old Men would follow a year later. I wasn't expecting it because the Coen brothers aren't big special edition guys. I realize that AVS is not a place where a lot of people like extras, but those who do would be annoyed by that.

There's also the theory that double dips may take release slots away from other films, but it's hard to say if that's true or not.

Greed??? LOL. The studios are businesses, they exist to make money. You have the choice to buy or not.

I agree.
I know I will buy the LOTR when it's released on BD and I know I will buy the BD EE also. I've done it with SD and I will do it again.

But I have to buy it before I get to see if it is a POS transfer or not.

No you don't.

So your saying I should give up buying movies all together. I am not sure how that helps the studios.

The LoTR double dip doesn't bother me as much because they have already announced that there will be a double dip and what it will be. That gives me a choice of which one to buy. When a studio releases a film and you are left with the impression that if you don't get it in this run there may not be another run, then turns around and does a double dip it is just plain sleazy. It doesn't really matter if you think it is or not. I think it is and obviously there are others that feel the same way. It's not that your opinion is any lesser than mine. It's just that yours has no bearing on how I feel.

So your saying I should give up buying movies all together. I am not sure how that helps the studios.

The LoTR double dip doesn't bother me as much because they have already announced that there will be a double dip and what it will be. That gives me a choice of which one to buy. When a studio releases a film and you are left with the impression that if you don't get it in this run there may not be another run, then turns around and does a double dip it is just plain sleazy. It doesn't really matter if you think it is or not. I think it is and obviously there are others that feel the same way. It's not that your opinion is any lesser than mine. It's just that yours has no bearing on how I feel.
You can easily sample the quality of the transfer before buying. It's your option to do so. No one is forcing you to buy without first previewing the material.

No, it isn't sleazy. You chose to make the purchase and no promise of it being the final release on the format was made. In addition to that, if you purchase a double dip item based on additional bonus features or special packaging (as opposed to an improved transfer or higher quality audio) then you deserve to pay twice in my opinion. I have no problem with companies making money off of people who purchase for those reasons.

When you purchased your last display...did you accuse the manufacture the next year of being sleazy for double dipping and releasing the next model? You know...the one just like yours, but slightly improved.

It's a common business practice and a smart one at that.

Well BR fans lets the double dipping begin. Recently Paramount announced the Star Trek Movies " original versions only to be available on BR- You know what this means buy one set...then they will DOUBLE DIP YOU DOWN THE ROAD. In reality, they should put both the director cuts on the same disc..no not them....GREED my friends...and after this wall street BS....lets play games with BR, lets release 10 versions of the same film...with slightly different material( see evil dead, evil dead 2 etc).
This is real bad trend, I think 20th century fox did this early with wide screen releases on dvd, how they came out later after a "EXEC" thought he could sucker us on a double or triple dip......So what can we do about it??????:mad::mad::mad:
you can try getting a list of names and let paramount know were not stupid and can see how greedy they are,or something to that affect.
remember who your dealing with.Heres a company that canceled startrek enterprize after 4 seasons,cbs wants to take over and do season 5,paramount says no! fans protest in front off paramount studios...paramount say f-you.When company's get greedy,they don't see it that way,their consumed in it.nobody's going to tell them different.
i suppose you could boycott paramount,but to get that many people to do it and cause an effect is slim....sorry.
They won't learn until you hit them where it hurts....there wallet

That argument would make a lot more sense if they provided a set up at the store so I could view the movie before I paid for it. But I have to buy it before I get to see if it is a POS transfer or not.

It's like buying a car and finding out it doesn't have an engine. You don't have to upgrade to a car with an engine, it's your choice. :rolleyes:

The arrogance to think you can continuously screw your customers and think they won't come to resent you for it is a sure ticket to a failing company. There is an old saying in sales. If a customer is mad then they have the right to be mad. Either because you have done some thing wrong or because you have done some thing to let the customer believe you have done some thing wrong.
no you don't...rent it first
or read reviews[large S].you don't have to buy first.
with blu-ray i read reviews first.after many reviews and they say the pq sucks,i won't waste my money,i won't buy it.paramount spent a year on startrek,the movies and tv show.will see how good they really are.

Wasn't the issue with Star Trek specifically that the director's editions were created in SD?

Regarding double dipping, it sucks that so few movies are "done right the first time", but fortunately the shovelware is easily identified. The worst thing is that it takes so long for the double dip to occur, I'm already waiting for better editions on a lot of movies.

My .02 on this one...

1) If it's a catalog title, it better damn will have EVERYTHING including the kitchen sink in it. That's it. Done. Don't bother with it EVER again on the same format. Release it, and be done with it. What else is going to change over time? And do we really care about 10 year "reunions" with the cast? Nope. Give us all that's to date, and move on. And if people do care about the reunions, then slap BD-Live on the title and do it as a download. Case closed.

2) If it's a new release, then this gets interesting. Most people seem to shoot extras in HD and are prepping for the DVD/Blu-Ray releases. Put that all on there. Don't release a movie and then say, "oh, we have behind the scene footage here for you" and make it a special edition. That **** don't fly! The ONLY exception I can see to new releases is if the Director was unhappy with the studio cut of the film. THEN, I can see a Director's cut coming out at a later date once it's been re-edited, re-mastered, etc. Anything else is just pointless.

Again, my .02 ;)

I can see where some people are coming from, but I do feel some of the anger here is misplaced.

Almost every product under the sun will have an "improved" version down the line, I don't care if it's a bloody broom, vacuum, DVD, or TV set. That's just the way things work. Companies have to keep their items fresh in peoples minds and once something gets old, it's time to repackage and get it out there again.

It may not be always right, but its the best system we have and you have realize you have a choice in what and when to buy. If nobody out there wanted it, it wouldn't exist for very long. But, obviously that's not the case. So choose the version you want and be done with it.

Although, I do agree that older catalog titles should include stuff that has already been made for it previously. Because there's probably not a big market for it in the future, if it's been released enough times.

In my decade on this forum I've seen this thread subject atleast 50 times. It's just so, so, so what as far as I'm concened.

Now, what bugs me is multi-pack dipping. It really does suck that you have to buy all 3 Matrix films to get any. Having to buy a flock of Harryhasen films in a set to get the one you want sucks. Having the 4 Batman films locked into a set sucks....ditto for Dirty Harry besides numero uno. Having In Cold Blood glued to Capote sux. The giant sized Neil Young set for hundreds of dollars is absolutely, positively, beyond sanity! :rolleyes:

If ya wanna whine about studio practices, multi-pack eclusivity is the thang to be justifiably miffed about.

In my decade on this forum I've seen this thread subject atleast 50 times. It's just so, so, so what as far as I'm concened.

Now, what bugs me is multi-pack dipping. It really does suck that you have to buy all 3 Matrix films to get any. Having to buy a flock of Harryhasen films in a set to get the one you want sucks. Having the 4 Batman films locked into a set sucks....ditto for Dirty Harry besides numero uno. Having In Cold Blood glued to Capote sux. The giant sized Neil Young set for hundreds of dollars is absolutely, positively, beyond sanity! :rolleyes:

If ya wanna whine about studio practices, multi-pack eclusivity is the thang to be justifiably miffed about.
I agree with that 100%.

I for one hate the Casablanca release. I want the film. I could care less about packaging or bonus features. Just give me the freakin' film and stuff the rest. That price is just ridiculous.

Could just buy Casablanca on HDDVD :-) And yes I hate double dips but you know what I do like it because when I want the new version I will get it and pass along my other version to a friend so he will have something to watch. No point in keeping multicopies for me might as well pass it forward to someone. And I am a huge Star Trek fan I still have my SE DVDs and my Letterbox VHS only VHS I still have. I am just pissed that Paramount wont do a william shatner cut of Star Trek 5 when Shatner wanted to do his cut.

Star Trek....having to buy 3 or 5 films together means I'll be buying no Trek....till they seperate them. No triple or 5X dipping for me....an' I have a Vulcan fetish.... ;)

Almost every product under the sun will have an "improved" version down the line, I don't care if it's a bloody broom, vacuum, DVD, or TV set. That's just the way things work.

IMO it is not about having an improved version down the line, but rather about producing an intentionally inferior product today in the hopes of double-dipping.

Wasn't the issue with Star Trek specifically that the director's editions were created in SD?

The CG effects for the Director's Edition of ST:TMP were rendered at 480p; but its also common knowledge that the original elements still exist and while they would need to be re-rendered, its not as if they would need to do them from scratch.

I share the OP's sentiments on this. I know the studios exist to make money but in the case of the Star Trek movies, Paramount has a history of being especially greedy. The additions to STII and STVI are minimal - we're talking a few minutes of standalone footage in each, none of which involves special effects - so it would not have taken much effort at all to offer a seamless branching option for those two films. In the case of ST:TMP, Paramount and director Robert Wise said all along that the Director's Edition was the preferred edition and the one that would have been released back in 1979 if the studio had had more time to finish the film. That was the whole point of the project, to give Robert Wise a chance to release the movie he wanted to release in the first place.

Also, why is the studio releasing these films only in 3- and 6-pack configurations? Why not let people buy them individually if they so desire, as Fox did with Planet of the Apes and as Paramount itself did with the Jack Ryan fims?

So in this case at least its not a question of artistic integrity but simple greed and/or laziness on the studio's part. They're trying to get you to buy what they themselves considered an inferior, unfinished product only a few years ago and on top of that they force you to get all of them or none of them.

No thanks. If they release complete editions of these films I'll take the plunge but until then, I'll stick with my standard-def DVDs.

Dodgeball is apparently getting a double-dip in the form of a rated version (link (http://thehdroom.com/news/A_Dodgeball_Blu-ray_Double-Dip_Already/4338)). This will surely infuriate the one or two people in the world who bought the unrated BD and somehow prefer the few (and much less funny in my opinion) differences in the rated version. :D

The CG effects for the Director's Edition of ST:TMP were rendered at 480p; but its also common knowledge that the original elements still exist and while they would need to be re-rendered, its not as if they would need to do them from scratch.

I share the OP's sentiments on this. I know the studios exist to make money but in the case of the Star Trek movies, Paramount has a history of being especially greedy. The additions to STII and STVI are minimal - we're talking a few minutes of standalone footage in each, none of which involves special effects - so it would not have taken much effort at all to offer a seamless branching option for those two films. In the case of ST:TMP, Paramount and director Robert Wise said all along that the Director's Edition was the preferred edition and the one that would have been released back in 1979 if the studio had had more time to finish the film. That was the whole point of the project, to give Robert Wise a chance to release the movie he wanted to release in the first place.

Also, why is the studio releasing these films only in 3- and 6-pack configurations? Why not let people buy them individually if they so desire, as Fox did with Planet of the Apes and as Paramount itself did with the Jack Ryan fims?

So in this case at least its not a question of artistic integrity but simple greed and/or laziness on the studio's part. They're trying to get you to buy what they themselves considered an inferior, unfinished product only a few years ago and on top of that they force you to get all of them or none of them.

No thanks. If they release complete editions of these films I'll take the plunge but until then, I'll stick with my standard-def DVDs.

Thats how i feel and i won't buy any of them until they allow me to buy them separately and the original has the directors cut with improved pacing and improved music score ( I love Jerry Goldsmiths score - Very Epic feel )

Like others here have already said if it's a catalogue title and alternate versions exist and extra materials exist and they don't give them to us then they are just being greedy. No reason why they can't use seamless branching and give two cuts of some movies on the disc.

I'm happy to wait until they release editions i care about and everyone else is welcome to rush in and buy the editions i don't care about and that includes the theatrical editions of Lord of the Rings when they come.

IMO it is not about having an improved version down the line, but rather about producing an intentionally inferior product today in the hopes of double-dipping.

Honestly, I think it's the same thing. You don't think car makers, TV makers, etc intentionally hold back things that could be implemented today so they can charge again tomorrow?

Unfortunately, I think the same thing happens regardless of whether your talking about Mr. Clean's new enhanced floor wax or a double dip of a BD.

Greed??? LOL. The studios are businesses, they exist to make money. You have the choice to buy or not.


Totally agree. There is no such thing as greed.

Greed??? LOL. The studios are businesses, they exist to make money. You have the choice to buy or not.

Totally agree. There is no such thing as greed.
Well, I can't deny the existence of greed. The whole point is when does "greed is good" (thanks Gordon Gecko) cross the line and become a bad thing? Without some hint of what greed represents, most people and companies wouldn't be motivated to do anything. So without that drive for the reward associated with publishing shiny round disks, I doubt we'd see much interesting if only true volunteers and philanthropists were the ones making them available.

Greed is good - it causes someone to want to do something they might not normally do in return for a reward, usually cash or equivalent. And anyone who gets that reward will try to increase the reward:work ratio as a positive feedback on the greed factor.

It is the natural reaction of the providers of that reward to eventually say "no more - enough is enough - you are getting too greedy". But if you say it too harshly or punish too swiftly, the accused stops doing the work altogether, and then no-one benefits. So we need to throttle back on the feedback loop while still providing a usable signal.

The trick is to find that balance.

Personally, I'll probably pick up some stuff right away that is likely to see a re-release (the Trek films, for example), while I will wait out other stuff like LOTR because I feel the EE versions really do add a lot to those movies. For Trek, I'll double dip by picking up the Dir Cut of ST:TMP if ever released, and skip the other double-dips.

IMHO,

shinksma

Well, I can't deny the existence of greed. The whole point is when does "greed is good" (thanks Gordon Gecko) cross the line and become a bad thing? Without some hint of what greed represents, most people and companies wouldn't be motivated to do anything. So without that drive for the reward associated with publishing shiny round disks, I doubt we'd see much interesting if only true volunteers and philanthropists were the ones making them available.

Greed is good - it causes someone to want to do something they might not normally do in return for a reward, usually cash or equivalent. And anyone who gets that reward will try to increase the reward:work ratio as a positive feedback on the greed factor.

It is the natural reaction of the providers of that reward to eventually say "no more - enough is enough - you are getting too greedy". But if you say it too harshly or punish too swiftly, the accused stops doing the work altogether, and then no-one benefits. So we need to throttle back on the feedback loop while still providing a usable signal.

The trick is to find that balance.

Personally, I'll probably pick up some stuff right away that is likely to see a re-release (the Trek films, for example), while I will wait out other stuff like LOTR because I feel the EE versions really do add a lot to those movies. For Trek, I'll double dip by picking up the Dir Cut of ST:TMP if ever released, and skip the other double-dips.

IMHO,

shinksma

How hard is it really, lets take Vanishing Point which I just bought yesterday and see my post on the review of it, they included both the US and UK which had additional different footage which in my opinion made the film better and more thoughtful...no double dipping herr.....really Paramount you know the "trek" films have some of the biggest fans on the planet..so you want to soke them for all you can get....time after time

Well, I can't deny the existence of greed. The whole point is when does "greed is good" (thanks Gordon Gecko) cross the line and become a bad thing? Without some hint of what greed represents, most people and companies wouldn't be motivated to do anything. So without that drive for the reward associated with publishing shiny round disks, I doubt we'd see much interesting if only true volunteers and philanthropists were the ones making them available.

Greed is good - it causes someone to want to do something they might not normally do in return for a reward, usually cash or equivalent. And anyone who gets that reward will try to increase the reward:work ratio as a positive feedback on the greed factor.

It is the natural reaction of the providers of that reward to eventually say "no more - enough is enough - you are getting too greedy". But if you say it too harshly or punish too swiftly, the accused stops doing the work altogether, and then no-one benefits. So we need to throttle back on the feedback loop while still providing a usable signal.

The trick is to find that balance.

Personally, I'll probably pick up some stuff right away that is likely to see a re-release (the Trek films, for example), while I will wait out other stuff like LOTR because I feel the EE versions really do add a lot to those movies. For Trek, I'll double dip by picking up the Dir Cut of ST:TMP if ever released, and skip the other double-dips.

IMHO,

shinksma

I understand where you going, but there is no such thing as greed. It's something a political party has told you exists, but isn't true. It's just a way to demonize capitalism and wealth creation (which causes job creation). Your Gordon Gecko quote is the prime example of demonizing capitalism.

Studios are engaging in capitalism which is good. We as consumers are free to purchase or not to purchase. We are free to rent, buy new, buy used..etc.

Honestly, one thing I hate about the double dipping thing is when there are so many versions out, you can't figure out which one is "the one" to buy. ID4 and T2 come to mind.

Another thing I hate is when you have one crap movie that keeps getting re-released again and again, but others have yet to even be released on DVD, much less BD. I don't think we'll ever see a R1 version of "The African Queen" or (my guilty pleasure) "Amazing Grace and Chuck". I'm mean you have one featuring Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburn and another featuring William Peterson, Gregory Peck and Jamie Lee Curtis. We also may never see "Song of the South".

Finally, it bugs me when they re-release a movie with zero improvement, such as with "The Abyss" and "Ransom" (The Mel Gibson version) - or a new version with stupid improvements, like the original "Star Wars" trilogy, while the original version that really only needed cleaning up and a good anamorphic transfer is only available on VHS or LD.


Other than that, I buy what I buy. If a new one comes out that I care enough about to double dip on, I'll buy in. Otherwise, my wallet stays firmly parked in my pocket.

Unfortunately, I think the same thing happens regardless of whether your talking about Mr. Clean's new enhanced floor wax or a double dip of a BD.

Didn't they use Mr Cleans new enhanced floor wax on last years release of Patton ?

People on this forum crack me up. If you don't like double dips, don't buy them. If you are worried that if you buy a movie and "a better" version of that movie may be released down the road, don't buy it in the first place.

Just stick to renting.

I rarely double dip on a movie on the same format. But I don't get all worked up when studios release a double dip, especially for those that are fans of a particular movie. You can usually spot many titles that will potentially be double dips (ie very popular movies, movies that are void of extras, etc).

I WISH Warner would double dip some of their releases with better video encodes. I'd totally rebuy Blade Runner and 2001 if they had 30+ Mbps video. The banding and blocking in the current releases drive me up a wall.

I WISH Warner would double dip some of their releases with better video encodes. I'd totally rebuy Blade Runner and 2001 if they had 30+ Mbps video. The banding and blocking in the current releases drive me up a wall.

Huh?

Eh it's just part of the business. If you don't like it don't buy it. You're your best defense against being taken to the cleaner by these companies.

For those saying there's no such thing as greed in business. Movie studios actually used to care about quality and saw their movies as art. This is why they were so reluctant about sequels.

On the subject of double dipping this is where I lucked out. My all-time favorite film is "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind" All 3 versions are slapped on the BR disc. This is how it should be done. I don't consider myself a "Trekkie" but feel that die hard Star Trek fans will get taken advantage of, because of there passion for the series of Trek movies.

Paramount knows those loyal fans will double dip, and are going to take advantage of them. It will happen with the fans of Star Wars movies, when they come out with 20 different versions of those films. I realise it's a business, but I think it's an underhanded way of doing things. They should just release 2 versions at the same time. Example would be to release a barebones theatrical version for $20, and the Directors version plus extras for $30. That way the consumer has the choice of how much they want to spend.

For someone like me who isn't a gung ho trekkie fan, I would probably just buy the $20 version. As long as the PQ and AQ are the same.

I agree with and relate to the OP's frustration.

It's not that we are forced to double dip, it's that we are excited for a MAJOR release like Star Trek and want to watch it in Blu-ray. Then we find out that they are not including the director's cut versions. It makes us decide if we want to buy it twice (knowing that the director's cut special editions will come eventually). In general, we don't want to spend the money twice. So we are frustrated because we have to pass on a highly anticipated catalog release.

I look at it this way. Blu-ray should up the audio and video of the BEST version out there already on DVD. If there is an expanded director's cut special edition ALREADY, then the Blu-ray version should have that version as a STARTING POINT, not as a re-release double dip at a later date.

It's for this very same reason that I am disspointed with New line's decsion to release the Lord of the Rings trilogy as theatrical releases only first on Blu-ray. Because, quite frankly I really like the extended editions and don't want to buy the movies twice. So, I am bumed to have to wait that much longer for those versions to be released.

On the flipside, if they release the Star Trek movies with the director's cut version out of the gate (like I believe they should) AND THEN a few years later have a new version with more behind the scenes and new audio codecs and find lost footage never seen before then I most certainly would not be upset.

It's primarily because they have already released the better versions on DVD and I feel we should get those as a minimum out of the gate.

I know many of you will disagree with this - I rather have a catalog title done perfectly, else don't bother at all. Life is too short to watch something that isn't as perfect as can practically be.

Also, when I chose not to buy a BD, I dont' think I need to inform them why (movie itself vs unacceptable PQ/AQ). My guess is that they have highly paid people whose job is to know those things.

sorry guy films studios are more clueless than any one thinks, websites are the only hope bill hunt goes on and on about the meetings and studio events he attends so it's up to people like him to say you want to know your target audience look here! but they never will to them it's just a "movie" they are disposable and so are we if you see a BD and you like it buy it cause it will be years if at all it's re-done

You know, I find this sort of ironic. If you define a "double dip" as the studio releasing the same film with either improved quality or more extras, then wouldn't the entire blu-ray format be one big "double dip"?

You know, I find this sort of ironic. If you define a "double dip" as the studio releasing the same film with either improved quality or more extras, then wouldn't the entire blu-ray format be one big "double dip"?

No. There's a difference between a catalog release and a double-dip. A double-dip is a second (or further) release of the same title on the same format.

You know, I find this sort of ironic. If you define a "double dip" as the studio releasing the same film with either improved quality or more extras, then wouldn't the entire blu-ray format be one big "double dip"?

Of course it is. One of the key goals of Blu-ray for the studios was to get people to double dip all their movies again because they have milked them all as far as they could on DVD allready. I personally don't have an issue with the studios putting out a previously released movie on a new format and hoping that people re-buy it. If having it in a different format adds value then I will buy it. It's the down grading the movie then marketing it as better and jacking the price that bothers me.

Of course it is. One of the key goals of Blu-ray for the studios was to get people to double dip all their movies again because they have milked them all as far as they could on DVD allready. I personally don't have an issue with the studios putting out a previously released movie on a new format and hoping that people re-buy it. If having it in a different format adds value then I will buy it. It's the down grading the movie then marketing it as better and jacking the price that bothers me.

This is my point it is not JUST A DOUBLE DIP IT IS A DOUBLE DOUBLE DIP. As I replace all of my DVDs with BR they then create inferior( just look at ST1 directors cut with new special effects etc) BR to make us DOUBLE DOUBLE DIP...BR has a LOT more class than this or at should have as the prices are higher than dvd...Watch is WRONG with Paramount....they are in reality destroying what they some much want to create for short TERM profits...I have and will have no feeling of regret if BR gets wiped out by the short term thinking of studios like Paramount and the 20 different editons we will see down the road of Terminator 2........

Since DVD was released to now it seems like fewer are interested in the older films.

There is that misconception that old movies cannot be expected to look very good and profit form a Blu-Ray release. This is also is reflected in Blu-Ray reviews online that a lot of times have a sentence in it like "this movie looks very good for being 30/40/50 years old" :rolleyes: Add to that prices that are far above their DVD counterparts and older films are not exactly breaking any sales records.

So I guess that this is one area where we will not see much double-dipping...

BTW: Watched the original Pink Panther a few days ago - very watchable release by MGM/Fox.