http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/MGM/Street_Date_Delays/Specs_and_a_New_Date_Announced_for_Red_Dawn_Blu-ray/1057

Still $40 MSRP. And not a single extra from the recent two-disc SD special edition. :mad:

Wolverines!

That's par for the course with Fox/MGM. By far the worst HD studio.

Ok, then buy it from Amazon.com for $27.95.

If extras are more important to you than the picture quality of the movie itself then get the DVD version and quit your whining.

Some people used to buy Superbit DVD releases and pay a premium for them precisely because they had better picture quality from not packing in extras.

LOL the worst HD studio would be Universal.. IMHO.. the way they threat there catalog release is AWFUL.. EE O Plenty...

At least the first 2 batch are worthy PQ and SQ Wise..

Ok, then buy it from Amazon.com for $27.95.

If extras are more important to you than the picture quality of the movie itself then get the DVD version and quit your whining.

Some people used to buy Superbit DVD releases and pay a premium for them precisely because they had better picture quality from not packing in extras.

Why on earth would you defend studios gouging us early adopters?

I nominate Paramount as the worst HD studio. Barely releasing any movies at all and for the most part, no lossless audio.

I'll take Fox any day of the week. At least they are releasing movies in hi-def and they always offer the best possible audio.

extras are useless to me, I would rather the HDM movies dont have any..

extras are useless to me, I would rather the HDM movies dont have any..

+1

I could not possibly care less about extras either.

Fox will lower their prices. They started out very high on standard dvd also. This is history repeating itself.

I'll take Fox any day of the week. At least they are releasing movies in hi-def and they always offer the best possible audio.
Best possible audio would be something most consumers could decode. dts MA is not the best possible audio when only 0.1% (if that) of your consumers have the capability to decode the lossless portion.

That's par for the course with Fox/MGM. By far the worst HD studio.

I like the Fox releases a lot. Their attention to things that matter to me PQ and lossless audio have been outstanding. Everyone would like to pay less but I every Fox BD that I have has been great.

Best possible audio would be something most consumers could decode. dts MA is not the best possible audio when only 0.1% (if that) of your consumers have the capability to decode the lossless portion.

+1

PCM fine, TrueHD great, DTS-MA? Ok....

Ho-hum....don't care about extras.

Do many people really care about extras? I have rarely watched any extras on any movies I own (DVD or Blu-ray). Every once in a while when I have finished watching a movie i'll put on some short piece about the actors or something but usually not.

I just want a top quality picture and sound.

Ok, then buy it from Amazon.com for $27.95.

If extras are more important to you than the picture quality of the movie itself then get the DVD version and quit your whining.

Some people used to buy Superbit DVD releases and pay a premium for them precisely because they had better picture quality from not packing in extras.

Clearly you have not seen Robocop on BD.

Besides why cant we have both PQ and Extras? why does it have to be either or?

FOX/MGM, they let me down on Robocop, Red Dawn=No Purchase for me, complete rip!

That's par for the course with Fox/MGM. By far the worst HD studio.

+100

This is just pathetic.

Ok, then buy it from Amazon.com for $27.95.

If extras are more important to you than the picture quality of the movie itself then get the DVD version and quit your whining.

Why do people always use the either/or argument to defend barebones releases?

There is no reason why a Blu-ray disc can't have top-notch PQ and AQ and include all of the extras found on the SD version. Again: No reason whatsoever.

To defend studios for not doing so is insane. You don't like extras? Fine, don't watch them. I do.

I agree there is no reason to not include at least SD extras and I don't understand why they don't but the lack of extras is not going to stop me from buying any movie.

I agree there is no reason to not include at least SD extras and I don't understand why they don't but the lack of extras is not going to stop me from buying any movie.For Blu-ray, my opinion is:
Top notch picture and audio quality -- Essential*

Extras -- Nice to have, for some people.

I cant imagine there will be much of a PQ improvement on this old movie compared to an upconverted DVD version. Theres no reason for me to pay $40 for this title and get less then the dvd version.

Why do people always use the either/or argument to defend barebones releases?

There is no reason why a Blu-ray disc can't have top-notch PQ and AQ and include all of the extras found on the SD version. Again: No reason whatsoever.

To defend studios for not doing so is insane. You don't like extras? Fine, don't watch them. I do.

+1.

That's why I won't purchase catalog Fox titles for $40 MSRP (or $25.15 on Amazon with my 10% discount). When they put them on clearance for $14-15 each, I'll consider it.

For Blu-ray, my opinion is:
Top notch picture and audio quality -- Essential*

Extras -- Nice to have, for some people.


Indeed. Fox's catalog pricing is obviously too high. If that was lower, I couldn't give a fig for the extras since I rarely,if ever, watch them. Amazon, Best Buy, Frys 2 for 1s are the perfect time to stock up on some Fox titles... Let the suckers double dip on the later rerelease with extras.

Ok, then buy it from Amazon.com for $27.95.

If extras are more important to you than the picture quality of the movie itself then get the DVD version and quit your whining.

Some people used to buy Superbit DVD releases and pay a premium for them precisely because they had better picture quality from not packing in extras.

We go through this same argument every time Fox releases a title. It is NOT an either/or situation. BD is not about having a choice between great PQ/AQ or extras. There's plenty of room to include both.

The standard DVD includes a fun/silly "Carnage Counter" subtitle track (that tallies up the body count in the film), 4 featurettes, and the trailer. Are you honestly trying to tell me that including a subtitle track and one hour of standard def video will have any impact whatsoever on the PQ/AQ of this title? With anywhere from 25-50GB to play with?

Give me a break.


There is zero reason to not include the extra content from the DVD. The hoops you're jumping through to rationalize this is a bit astounding.

Best possible audio would be something most consumers could decode. dts MA is not the best possible audio when only 0.1% (if that) of your consumers have the capability to decode the lossless portion.

Sounds like an upgrade issue to me.

I'll take Fox any day of the week. At least they are releasing movies in hi-def and they always offer the best possible audio.

They didn't release a damn thing for 6 months. Paramount's got their own issues, but at least they didn't go into hibernation for half the year.

And I'm really getting tired of people using their lack of interest in extras as an excuse for Fox's bare-bones $40 retail releases. If you don't care about extras, that's fine. But explain to me why a 25 or 50GB disc can't offer top notch HD video and audio AS WELL AS most if not all of the supplements from the SD-DVD version. If you can provide a legitimate answer for that question, I'll never post in another Fox-bashing thread again.

I have no answer as to why they don't include many (or any in some cases) extras. I think their prices are a bit too high - yes. Whether or not there are any extras means zero to me when deciding if I will buy a movie on Blu-ray.

So for me it's a matter of how much I would like to own a movie (I don't have very many movies on SD DVD) vs it's price and PQ/AQ.

They didn't release a damn thing for 6 months. Paramount's got their own issues, but at least they didn't go into hibernation for half the year.

And I'm really getting tired of people using their lack of interest in extras as an excuse for Fox's bare-bones $40 retail releases. If you don't care about extras, that's fine. But explain to me why a 25 or 50GB disc can't offer top notch HD video and audio AS WELL AS most if not all of the supplements from the SD-DVD version. If you can provide a legitimate answer for that question, I'll never post in another Fox-bashing thread again.

Bash away. You're allowed to voice your opinion and I'm voicing mine.

As of Oct 9th releases:

I counted 18 Paramount releases on hi-def digest since the beginning of 2007. 18 from a major hollywood studio all year so far.

Fox has 22 releases so far this year.

Now lets look at the remainder of the year:

Fox has 13 more releases coming out through year end.

Paramount has 7 more releases.


Who is hibernating? Fox took all that time off and still beat Paramount's releases.

Fox has lossless audio on every single title. Paramount has a couple at best.

Paramount is the most lame studio releasing on hi-def. Period.

I have no answer as to why they don't include many (or any in some cases) extras. I think their prices are a bit too high - yes. Whether or not there are any extras means zero to me when deciding if I will buy a movie on Blu-ray.

So for me it's a matter of how much I would like to own a movie (I don't have very many movies on SD DVD) vs it's price and PQ/AQ.

But at least you admit there is no logical explanation for why they wouldn't include extras(aside from a desire to double-dip down the road).

Look, every studio supporting HD-DVD/Blu-ray has its share of issues. But Fox's are the most infuriating because they're affecting an overwhelming majority of their titles.

But explain to me why a 25 or 50GB disc can't offer top notch HD video and audio AS WELL AS most if not all of the supplements from the SD-DVD version. If you can provide a legitimate answer for that question, I'll never post in another Fox-bashing thread again.

Agreed. The Robocop thread got to multiple pages and no one was able to answer this (very simple) question. Everything was one variation or another of "I don't watch extras anyway". Which isn't an answer...

extras are useless to me, I would rather the HDM movies dont have any..

+Yep

Perhaps the question wasn't answered because we don't work for Fox. I agree there was obviously space to include the extras. I have no idea why they were left off. But expecting us to have answer is not realistic. We're not part of the decision making process at Fox.

There is zero reason to not include the extra content from the DVD.

Sure. There's zero reason for many of us to care if that extra content is gone. Write Fox and ask them... whining and pontificating about it here every time there's a Fox release to those who don't care isn't going to accomplish anything. Preaching to the choir on those who, like you, do care is equally fruitless, isn't it?

Paramount is the most lame studio releasing on hi-def. Period.

I dunno. They did a pretty good job with Transformers. Period. :D

+1

I could not possibly care less about extras either.



You're not interested in getting insights into a beloved film's creation? Making of footage? Deleted scenes? I've bought many discs solely for the extras over the years, and many, many people in my circle have done the same.

Fox leaving out supplemental material that's available on the SD-DVD release is unacceptable to me, and I won't be buying any of their BR releases until this changes. It's clearly not a question of bit space conservation so... why???

You're not interested in getting insights into a beloved film's creation? Making of footage? Deleted scenes? I've bought many discs solely for the extras over the years, and many, many people in my circle have done the same.

Fox leaving out supplemental material that's available on the SD-DVD release is unacceptable to me, and I won't be buying any of their BR releases until this changes. It's clearly not a question of bit space conservation so... why???

Because a lot of people (including those here) have money to waste and clearly don't care.

I also believe that there are a lot of people (including those here) who aren't true movie fans. They're just people that like to show off.

You're not interested in getting insights into a beloved film's creation? Making of footage? Deleted scenes? I've bought many discs solely for the extras over the years, and many, many people in my circle have done the same.

Fox leaving out supplemental material that's available on the SD-DVD release is unacceptable to me, and I won't be buying any of their BR releases until this changes. It's clearly not a question of bit space conservation so... why???

+1,000,000,000,000

Okay so I am buying a disc that retails for $40 with no extras when the dvd has extras out the a$$. Why would any consumer who is happy with dvd and possibly contemplating upgrading spend at least $500 on a soon to be outdated BD player when it is a compromise product. Gee I can get all the cool extras and save $500+. MGM sucks at this point. If Warner would not have let Sony buy MGM we would have great MGM titles on hddvd. I can't wait till the U.E. Bond films come out. Exclusive to Bluray, audio commentary and trailer. Basically a disc with less material than any Bond dvd ever released.

I don't know if this is a deliberate move by many BD studios to rerelease their titles in a barebones initial then deluxe edition later I am soaking the consumer for every penny he has got. This should sound familiar as they have done the same thing with players. Hey MGM can you kiss me first!!!

At least one format has all the extras and 1st gen players that are compatible with 51gb discs. You will see that news in a few days.

+1

I could not possibly care less about extras either.

Fox will lower their prices. They started out very high on standard dvd also. This is history repeating itself.

The bluray motto "Less Is More" and some people actually have been brainwashed into believing it.

I cant imagine there will be much of a PQ improvement on this old movie compared to an upconverted DVD version. Theres no reason for me to pay $40 for this title and get less then the dvd version.


You'd be wrong. First, movies much much much older that Red Dawn look far better in HD than the SD DVD upconverted (e.g. Forbidden Planet or Casablanca)

Second, I have a HD 1080i copy of Red Dawn on DVHS (taken from HDNET movies) and it is far far superior to the DVD. It is still somewhat grainy and shots vary in PQ, but it is in another universe from the DVD upscaled.