or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › WHY is Alexander split onto 2 discs?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WHY is Alexander split onto 2 discs? - Page 2

post #31 of 116
A few boycotts will not shift them. Remeber they stil sell WAY more BD disks than they do HD-DVD.
post #32 of 116
Isn't it exactly the same encode as the HD DVD version? Maybe 20GB of the first disk is empty and the 2nd disk only has 18GB of content?
post #33 of 116
Is there any studios that do seperate encodes?
post #34 of 116
Paramount did (and better ones) until the 18month bribe.
post #35 of 116
well. I would be pissed if I am watching 3 hour movie, and audiences have to wait until they swap the film rail or some sh*#. If it's 2 discs on 50GB, sure.. But they are splitting into 2 25gb? That's just being lazy..
post #36 of 116
The bigger BS is that they didn't relese the movie on time. Once again with the delays.
post #37 of 116
Thread Starter 
The delays have to do with WB changing their system. They shipped stores pretty much everything through yesterday back at the beginning of Aug, so anything that did not arrive then had shipping delays (like Smallville on HD and BR) and will arrive this week if it did not arrive by the time I type this.
post #38 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachael Bellomy View Post

So, having the designed intermission goes against your personal desire. How long can you go without visiting the wet closet?

My Blu-ray player has this pretty cool function called pause, so I can go to the restroom whenever I want (no need to wait for an intermission.)
post #39 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachael Bellomy View Post

I wonder if that was optional? I don't recall it from my cinema experience. Titanic had an optional intermission. I called every theatre in town till I found one using the intermission. Some theatres want to treat us like cows...herd us in and out as fast as they can.

It could have been optional. A projectionist just had to snip out the 12 minutes of black film and then reattach it when they shipped the reels back. I didn't know about the optional intermission on Titanic, though. Where was the break?
post #40 of 116
This release provides an interesting case study...

I'm an HD DVD supporter and I am not here to bash BD.

But...

Here's my two-cents read of it:

FIRST
If the director or the producer thinks the film goes better with an intermission, IT WILL have an intermission. No disc - no matter how big - will change that. Some consumers may hate that, but that will not make this release to be a commercial failure. Studios would not be raking in the cash they make with 2, 3, 4, 5 disc sets (costing up to $80) if people did not like those editions. Proof? DAWN OF THE DEAD 5 DISC SET and the upcoming BLADE RUNNER. In fact, I'd say all studios would love to be able to pull that off with every film they've got if they could. LOL

BD supporters keep bashing HD DVD saying it does not have enough space. Well... depending on what you want to do, there's never enough space. I don't like to change discs either. But changing discs (like changing VHS tapes) is minor detail as old as home video itself. It happened with Betamax, VHS, Laserdiscs (I remember movies split across four sides in two discs!!!) and it will be happening in both HD DVD and Blu-ray too. I know it should not make sense... but there you are... the market...

Abnormally long films of 4 almost hours are not the rule. They are exceptions. And no format (not even Blu-ray) was build for those exceptions. Add the fact that 90% os consumers expect to find extras on their movies and even BD50 won't be enough.

Kingdom of Heaven is a great example: (according to Hi-def digest) one BD50. 190 minutes. One soundtrack. No extras. So we'll keep seeing releases like this split in two discs. 100 minutes of film + the usual amount of extra material PER DISC.

This the Industry practice and nothing can change that.

SECOND
I have a hard time believing this BD release is getting hurt by the supposedly oh-so-weak HD DVD specs. And HD DVD disc "currently" goes up to 30Gb. If the studio really wanted the highest specs preserving the compatibility with the "weaker" format, that would be no problem: just take full advantage of 2x30 and it's ok with Blu-ray since you'll have 2x50.

Only then the argument that the full glory of the BD edition was being cut by HD DVD would be acceptable.

But that's not what it seems to have happened. They opted to keep things squeezed under 2x25 and throwing away the 2x5GB extra found on HD DVD - meaning the one who got hurt here was HD DVD because of the inferior specs of the BD discs used. that's an interesting (and very overlooked) trend: squeeze it under 25 so you don't have to go for 50. I believe that does not need to happen with HD DVD since the relationship 15Gb to 30Gb somewhat mirrors the 5Gb to 9Gb relationship when we think of the usage in average films (90-120 minutes long).

THIRD
But "who gets hurt by the other's specs" is not the important issue.
The important issue is that BD supporters really believe we live in a world disconnected from economy. It seems strange to me that there is enough BD50 discs to high profile under 2-hour titles and NOT to this title (who could really use BD50) since it would be using two discs.

And why not use 50+25? - Like some future releases are being announced.

FOURTH
If you ask me, what I think about BD50, I'd say it is a great thing. But sometimes, even great things do not get widely adopted even if they are great.

The BD50 yields have been covered on the insider's threat many times and - I may be wrong - BD50 has the risk of falling into a big catch22: if left to the market, it's too expensive to justify it's use... and because it is not that used, it's price does not go down (as much as BD25).

FIFTH
The odd choice of discs on this edition does not seem puzzling for me. On one side it shows that BD50 is still an expensive commodity. On the other side, it shows that HD DVD is not inferior.

Thanks.
post #41 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by bferr1 View Post

It could have been optional. A projectionist just had to snip out the 12 minutes of black film and then reattach it when they shipped the reels back. I didn't know about the optional intermission on Titanic, though. Where was the break?

I don't remember the location of Titanic's intermission anymore. It's not like it was just yesterday at this point. We had a long discussion about this in the DVD Forum here years ago. I'm not positive but I think you could order the film either way.
post #42 of 116
Slightly off topic (but also slightly on topic)...

Speaking of movies on two discs, any idea if Gangs of New York will be released on Blu-Ray? My DVD is split onto two discs and I have lost the second one so I can't even watch the movie anymore! lol I would hate to buy a DVD version again if it is going to come out on BD at some point...
post #43 of 116
Can anyone comment on the movie itself ? Is it worth bling buy ?
post #44 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachael Bellomy View Post

Somebody else mentioned the Superbit plan which is just not relevant. Superbit was a fraud as far as I'm concerned. You had to study screeshots to detect the minor improvements. Furthermore, they wasted space on 2 soundtracks instead of giving one higher bit one, brilliant! NOT!

I've seen you mention this before.

It's not the same exact model. The HDM superbit model calls for one full rez lossless audio track in the original language. No other audio tracks are included. Every subtitle imaginable should be included. After that, ignoring mux overhead, all available bandwidth should be used by the compressionist on the video encode. For us PQ/AQ enthusiasts even differences only noticeable by studying screenshots are well worth it. This ain't grandpa's superbit!
post #45 of 116
I like how ignorant fanboys automatically blame HD DVD -- for their information, Troy - DC version is 15 minutes shorter WITH True HD...if they wanted to, it would fit VERY easily on a single HD DVD 30.

It is Director's intent -- it even explains it on the disc.
post #46 of 116
have you checked the video bitrates?

I'm willing to bet the peaks are matched to HD DVD's specs.
post #47 of 116
Who has a "superbit" model for HDM? I wasn't aware of one. It would lend to the idea that somethin' was bein' held back so there could be one. Warner this time? I hope not. You'd expect that from Sony but.....
post #48 of 116
Has anyone confirmed if this is two bd25's or bd50's?
post #49 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachael Bellomy View Post

Who has a "superbit" model for HDM? I wasn't aware of one. It would lend to the idea that somethin' was bein' held back so there could be one. Warner this time? I hope not. You'd expect that from Sony but.....

It's my superbit model. I claim the copyright now. TSB's HDM superbit model.

Basically it's the way I feel every release should be approached.
post #50 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsb View Post

It's my superbit model. I claim the copyright now. TSB's HDM superbit model.

Basically it's the way I feel every release should be approached.

You should get your own name like Maxi-Bit and hope that that Max Baer or the tampoon folks don't sue over it....
post #51 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by iceperson View Post

My Blu-ray player has this pretty cool function called pause, so I can go to the restroom whenever I want (no need to wait for an intermission.)

Don't take too long. Last night I paused Troy the Director's Cut to look at e-mails and post to this thread. I was using the Sony 300 on my small system. When the screen saver had run it's course, I lost my place. I'm gonna put the disc in my A10 and see if Resume functions for the disc in it. The 300 didn't have Resume for Delta Farce for me either recently. I don't like this trend of losing resume.
post #52 of 116
It's really an atrocious movie anyway (IMHO), so it wouldn't matter to me whether it's 2 discs or 10 discs.

The best part of the Final Cut version is the Intro by Oliver Stone. In it, he proclaims that this is indeed the cut he wanted to do in the first place, but cheerfully admitted that anyone who didn't like the earlier versions would probably not like this version either. Truer words were never spoken.
post #53 of 116
why did everyone hate this movie so much?
post #54 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaylisJayP View Post

why did everyone hate this movie so much?

Because it was awful.
post #55 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaylisJayP View Post

why did everyone hate this movie so much?

I'll take a wild stab, well, educated quess and say homophobia.
post #56 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvine2000 View Post

and this why a lot of people who know there stuff have been trying to tell you this bd 50 crap is a farce.
studios want to make money,if they can do 2 discs and charge more they will.
do you really think hdm is out there for your sake and there gonna do what you think is better for you[us] think again bd50 was just to sucker you in.
on the other side paramount flat out said bd50 is over-rated and if they need the space they will do 2 discs set.,hd 30 is good enough. if you dont belive that tuff thats what they said.

I chose NOT to believe Paramount and their $150M HD-DVD incentive. Many movies are taking advantage of BD50 format as you can see for yourself on the bluray.com site where of the list of top 10 sellers has only 1 in BD25 and the rest are BD50.

While it’s true BD50 has a higher manufacturing cost and fallout rate than BD25 so does the dual layer HD-DVD vs BD25. It’s only reasonable that two layers will have a higher fallout rate. The good news is the cost of the media is very low (how many free dvd’s did you get last year) for either format and is only a tiny faction of what we pay for a movie.
post #57 of 116
Back in olden times (mid-50s to early 60s) huge epic films like Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments, Cleopatra, and Spartacus were initially released only to huge theaters in large cities on a reserved seat basis and all had musical overtures, intermissions, and exit music. I think Stone's intention was for this version of Alexander to imitate this viewing experience, hence the two disc release. Troy extended cut, though it's about half an hour shorter, fits on one BD-50 with a space hogging pcm audio track and about an hour or more of SD extras so I don't think the decision to put Alexander on two discs has anything to do with technical limitations of either BD-50 discs or HD DVD.
post #58 of 116
I wonder what those screaming "director's intent" would think if they were to recieve a disk that had the main title crippled from start to finish like the anti-pirate warnings are. I mean the director's intent was surely not to skip, pause, fast forward throught their films.

Oh, and if this was truly about "director's intent" then why not simply put a 10 minute still frame chapter in the middle of a BD50? I used to run a projection booth and when a film had an intermission is was included in the reel, I didn't have to change platters.

If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it's probably a duck (even if the guy who took the video of it calls it a dog because he was paid to.)
post #59 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsb View Post

Warner needs to do separate encodes, everyone knows it except HD DVD fanboys.

Why should they cut their profit margin by doing that? It's just not good business sense.
post #60 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by angrypolarbear View Post

I won't buy it if the movie itself is cut into two disks. One of my dvd pet pievs was having to swap movies and one of the reasons I bought bd first (before paramount madness) was because I figured that I'd never have to swap disks again with 200gb disks.

Perhaps you won't have to swap discs if and when that comes about, but you probably will have to swap players.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › WHY is Alexander split onto 2 discs?