Is Disney Done with DVD? (The Never Ending Blu-Ray Debate)

[Goliath]

And the subtle message the average Joe consumer will get from seeing all these BD reviews and no DVD reviews is that DVD is dying.

It IS dying. DVD sales are contracting, HDTV is the new standard, good luck trying to buy a non-digital TV, Blu-Ray sales are increasing exponentially...the Average Joe can't get that message enough, as far as I'm concerned.

Thank you for exactly proving David's point. You have already been duped.

[Elladorine]

We just picked up a couple of HD TV's, thanks to the sales at Circuit City. And now that I've seen how DVD looks on them, I'm really curious to see the difference Blu-ray will make.

I'm willing to bet it will be substantial enough to hold my interest, but it's still low on the priority list for now (I'd rather plan on a vacation to Disneyland than fuss over buying a Blu-ray player at the moment).

[I am the Doctor]

I don't post very often here, much more of a lurker, but I just had to weigh in on this whole Blu-Ray vs. DVD debate.

I bought my first Blu-Ray player in 2007 (I now have two players), and have enjoyed many movies on the format. I also still continue to buy DVDs and enjoy movies on the DVD format.

However, I won't berate fans who are satisfied with DVD. I still buy DVDs, even though I've got two Blu-Ray players. Cost of Blu-Ray is a factor (both players and discs, along with the need for an HDTV). Many just cannot afford to jump into Blu right now.

If you can afford Blu-Ray and get a benefit out of it (aka, you've got an HDTV), the higher picture quality is nice and some of the extras can be fun. The D-Files on Enchanted was quite fun to play, along with Scoundrels of the Sea on Pirates 1.

Blu still has some faults, though. The need for firmware (aka software) updates to players is annoying. Who wants to go through the hassle of updating your player simply to watch a movie. That's something that Blu definitely needs to work on.

And yet even with the improved picture quality on Blu, I still buy DVDs. I bought Fox and Walden Media's City of Ember on DVD because Fox chose to not release a Blu version. I suppose I could have waited to see if Fox would release a Blu version, but that could be several months (years?) down the road. I decided it was better to enjoy the DVD version than wait for a possible Blu release, at least for me, content is what really matters, not format. Or to take another example, should I have not bought Dr Syn because as many Blu fanatics like to say, it's only available on the inferior DVD format?

I buy movies/tv shows because I want to watch and enjoy them. While I agree with many Blu fans that the format has superior picture quality, I don't think even Blu fans should completely abandon the DVD format, because if you do you're missing out. There's still a lot of material out there that's not available on Blu, and may never be. I still have VHS tapes of movies that have never been released on DVD (let alone Blu!)

For DVD fans who can afford, and get a benefit from Blu, you're missing out by not buying into Blu-Ray. The better picture quality, along with some really spiffy extras on some discs (particularly some of the Disney discs) is really nice.

And for those who believe that one format must die, so the other may survive, all I have to ask is this:

What's more important to you, the content of the discs or the format war?

[ajmrowland]

DVD isn't dying, but some people in the industry sure are trying to kill it!

You're right, and that's also one of the reasons I refuse to 'convert' to BlueRay (besides the obvious reasons about it being a marketing gimmick, of course). Sometimes I suspect new members like Beast and Rudy Matt of being employees of BlueRay, or getting paid for what they post in one way or another by the industry. Because this extreme kind of pushing the format by a regular consumer isn't healthy.

Blu-ray being a gimmick? Sure, I see the booklets replacing actual DVD booklets as a gimmick, but the format is so real, it's more real than "Hanna Montana". Well, not much of a comparison, but can't honestly say that the product, itself is a gimmick. You want a gimmick? Try looking at that tv infomercial that advertises a "plan" to get your teens to behave better. what a joke!

Also, I, for one don't normally push the format this extreme outside this forum. It's the debate that puts me in Defense Mode.

[David S.]

And yet even with the improved picture quality on Blu, I still buy DVDs. I bought Fox and Walden Media's City of Ember on DVD because Fox chose to not release a Blu version. I suppose I could have waited to see if Fox would release a Blu version, but that could be several months (years?) down the road. I decided it was better to enjoy the DVD version than wait for a possible Blu release, at least for me, content is what really matters, not format. Or to take another example, should I have not bought Dr Syn because as many Blu fanatics like to say, it's only available on the inferior DVD format?

I buy movies/tv shows because I want to watch and enjoy them. While I agree with many Blu fans that the format has superior picture quality, I don't think even Blu fans should completely abandon the DVD format, because if you do you're missing out. There's still a lot of material out there that's not available on Blu, and may never be. I still have VHS tapes of movies that have never been released on DVD (let alone Blu!)

Well said!

Content is what's important to me too. The whole point is to watch material I enjoy, not what format it's on!

This is the exact reason I make sure I always have a working VCR, for all the stuff I have on VCS (official releases and taped off TV) that has never been released on DVD - much of it I'm sure never will be.

Anyway, thank you for such a balanced, thoughtful, and level-headed reply

Imagine if the world did that for everything.

Well, a horse is good enough. Who needs a car.

Well, wax cylinders are good enough. Who needs better.

Well, black and white is good enough. Who needs color.

Well, silent films are good enough. Who needs sound.

And so on, and so on.

That's a very dishonest argument, and it has been debunked already early on in this thread. The list you sum up consists of technical innovations; inventions that really made a huge difference in the world we live in. The minimal gain in picture quality between DVD and BlueRay is not, I repeat, not in any way comparable to anything you listed above. It doesn't deliver any earth-shocking differences in our way of life. I's basically a nice gimmick for the audio- and visual 'geeks'. But saying it's anything like the move from silent films to talkies, is ignorant.

Well said Goliath, good to see you

I have nothing against people who enjoy the improved picture BD will provide on an HDTV, but comparing it to the invention of the car vs the horse, etc., and the equating of people happy with DVD as sticking with the horse, or b/w film, etc., is really over the top, IMO!

[Goliath]

I have nothing against people who enjoy the improved picture BD will provide on an HDTV, but comparing it to the invention of the car vs the horse, etc., and the equating of people happy with DVD as sticking with the horse, or b/w film, etc., is really over the top, IMO!

I have nothing against people enjoying BlueRay, either! If people are happy with it: more power to them! Why would I want to deprive anyone from their enjoyment of films? I'm a film-lover myself. What I do hate, however, are posts like the one made by Beast. And I hate the way BluRay is indeed shoved down our throats. I don't recall who it was, but somebody in this thread said about WB and the Dark Knight DVD that there wasn't an evil scheme behind it to try to push people to get BlueRay. Well, I wouldn't put it past the movie industry.

I have seen Pinocchio on BluRay on a HDTV. I won't deny it looked very good. It really did. But it didn't "make my jaw hit the floor" (or whatever the expression is). It looks good, yes, but so does my DVD of the same film. One reason why I'm suspicious about BluRay, is because it comes with so many strings attached. When you put in a DVD, it always looks great. But when you put in a BD disc, people say you have to have a certain type of TV, and that TV has to be calibrated (?) a certain way, or else it won't look good, and a dozen more measures have to be taken before it looks like it's supposed to. That annoys me to no end.

What also annoys me, is when people insist DVD is going todie, so we better all buy BluRay. Er... if we all buy BluRay *because* we are led to believe DVD is going to die, aren't we ourselves fulfilling our own prophecy? Of course, that's what the film industry is counting on. Hence moves like Disney's, to only provide a BluRay disc for review.

Oh, and one final thing about the spelling of the name: yes, I get it wrong often, but that's because English is not my native language, so I try as hard as I can to spell every single word correct. And to me, 'b-l-u-e' is the correct way of spelling it, so this is ingrained in my memory. That's the reason I will ocasionally misspell it. There's no cinspiracy behind it.

[ajmrowland]

I have nothing against people who enjoy the improved picture BD will provide on an HDTV, but comparing it to the invention of the car vs the horse, etc., and the equating of people happy with DVD as sticking with the horse, or b/w film, etc., is really over the top, IMO!

I have nothing against people enjoying BlueRay, either! If people are happy with it: more power to them! Why would I want to deprive anyone from their enjoyment of films? I'm a film-lover myself. What I do hate, however, are posts like the one made by Beast. And I hate the way BluRay is indeed shoved down our throats. I don't recall who it was, but somebody in this thread said about WB and the Dark Knight DVD that there wasn't an evil scheme behind it to try to push people to get BlueRay. Well, I wouldn't put it past the movie industry.

Yeah, WB tends to hit below the belt in even blu fan's eyes. Note the lack of HD Audio on many WB releases.

I have seen Pinocchio on BluRay on a HDTV. I won't deny it looked very good. It really did. But it didn't "make my jaw hit the floor" (or whatever the expression is). It looks good, yes, but so does my DVD of the same film. One reason why I'm suspicious about BluRay, is because it comes with so many strings attached. When you put in a DVD, it always looks great. But when you put in a BD disc, people say you have to have a certain type of TV, and that TV has to be calibrated (?) a certain way, or else it won't look good, and a dozen more measures have to be taken before it looks like it's supposed to. That annoys me to no end.

"Calibration' is the term used for adjusting your tv and/or surround sound settings to the best quality possible. Manufacturers make the settings adjustable just to make their tvs stand out on a showroom floor with harsh fluorescent lighting. But how can this be if the content being shown on multiple screens was produced to look a certain way, only?

That's where calibration comes in. It's either simple like the THX feature that's on certified DVDs, or a bit more complex like Digital Video Essentials. This kinda thing has been around since DVD's inception, so it's not new. It just means that to get the most out of your tv's Picture, you gotta either use these do-it-yourself tools to help, or call a professional. DVE is very informative, maybe even too much, and professional is considered the best.

What also annoys me, is when people insist DVD is going todie, so we better all buy BluRay. Er... if we all buy BluRay *because* we are led to believe DVD is going to die, aren't we ourselves fulfilling our own prophecy? Of course, that's what the film industry is counting on. Hence moves like Disney's, to only provide a BluRay disc for review.

Yeah, it seems a little harsh, plus it's too soon to tell. Remember what LD went through. nearly a decade of no reception until it finally went in the grave, unnoticed.

Oh, and one final thing about the spelling of the name: yes, I get it wrong often, but that's because English is not my native language, so I try as hard as I can to spell every single word correct. And to me, 'b-l-u-e' is the correct way of spelling it, so this is ingrained in my memory. That's the reason I will ocassionally misspell it. There's no cinspiracy behind it.

don't worry about it. I'm one for good grammar/spelling.

[I am the Doctor]

I have nothing against people enjoying BlueRay, either! If people are happy with it: more power to them! Why would I want to deprive anyone from their enjoyment of films? I'm a film-lover myself. What I do hate, however, are posts like the one made by Beast. And I hate the way BluRay is indeed shoved down our throats.

What also annoys me, is when people insist DVD is going to die, so we better all buy BluRay. Er... if we all buy BluRay *because* we are led to believe DVD is going to die, aren't we ourselves fulfilling our own prophecy? Of course, that's what the film industry is counting on. Hence moves like Disney's, to only provide a BluRay disc for review.

You've really hit the nail on the head, Goliath. For some reason, there's a belief out there among movie buffs that DVD and BluRay cannot co-exist, that only one can survive.

So many Blu fans are so wrapped up in defeating DVD that you've got to wonder if that's their primary motivation, rather than actually enjoying their movies or tv shows. The move by Disney to provide only Blu-Ray review copies of Pinocchio feed into this "mania:" that DVD must die, so that Blu-Ray can live.

I think many of the Blu fans out there would be better served by simply "enjoying" their films, like I do, and not worry so about when, or if, Blu will replace DVD. The studios are already pushing Blu-Ray hard anyway, unless one is getting paid by one of the studios to "promote" Blu-Ray, what exactly is the attraction for annoying those who find DVD to be "perfectly fine."

[drfsupercenter]

I bought Fox and Walden Media's City of Ember on DVD because Fox chose to not release a Blu version.

OMG, another person who was actually aware of that film's existance!

I just love the City of Ember book, and since it was a box office flop, I never had the chance to see it in theaters. But I did rent the DVD, and it's a pretty good movie, albeit kinda a crappy adaptation (since it's irrelevant here I won't get into detail)

My guess is FOX didn't release a Blu-Ray for two reasons. One, it's primarily a kids' movie. Granted, I'm 17 and liked it, but the main audience it's targeting is kids (unlike Disney movies which can be enjoyed by everyone.) Kids usually don't care about quality - my little sisters have already proven that to me by saying "What's the point of Blu-Ray? It's the same movie either way..."
And second, as I said, it was a flop. If not many people saw it in theaters, probably not many would buy it on DVD. So why waste their money making a Blu-Ray when it's probably only a small minority of people who want it in HD?

"Calibration' is the term used for adjusting your tv and/or surround sound settings to the best quality possible. Manufacturers make the settings adjustable just to make their tvs stand out on a showroom floor with harsh fluorescent lighting. But how can this be if the content being shown on multiple screens was produced to look a certain way, only?

That's where calibration comes in. It's either simple like the THX feature that's on certified DVDs, or a bit more complex like Digital Video Essentials. This kinda thing has been around since DVD's inception, so it's not new. It just means that to get the most out of your tv's Picture, you gotta either use these do-it-yourself tools to help, or call a professional. DVE is very informative, maybe even too much, and professional is considered the best.

This is one thing about HDTVs that really irks me. From what I've been told, most companies intentionally make their factory presets on the TVs not very good... and also not very efficient. You get it out of the box, and it looks snazzy, but not often ideal settings. I didn't pay anybody to come out and calibrate our TV since I'm fairly competent myself, but I did have to change all the "game" or "cinema" settings back to normal as they just look horrible (and my Panasonic's "normal" mode isn't too shabby)

So many Blu fans are so wrapped up in defeating DVD that you've got to wonder if that's their primary motivation, rather than actually enjoying their movies or tv shows. The move by Disney to provide only Blu-Ray review copies of Pinocchio feed into this "mania:" that DVD must die, so that Blu-Ray can live.

I think many of the Blu fans out there would be better served by simply "enjoying" their films, like I do, and not worry so about when, or if, Blu will replace DVD. The studios are already pushing Blu-Ray hard anyway, unless one is getting paid by one of the studios to "promote" Blu-Ray, what exactly is the attraction for annoying those who find DVD to be "perfectly fine."

That's what I've been saying all along - it seems some people are so caught up in wanting 100% of their movies in high definition that it's just
crazy. From my first hand experience, some movies do actually look better, but others do not show a noticeable improvement - and unless it has more features (often NOT the case with FOX movies) or is cheaper than the DVD, I don't see the point of buying them on Blu-Ray.

[ZOOMBOOM0688]

I SAY since Blu-ray is the "LUXURY" item and Disney is trying to KILL DVD then they should ONLY release the 1-disc barebones version of the DVD and The BLU-ray as the 2-disc version with ALL the special features. The DVDs will stay the same price ~$15 and the Blu-ray would be ~$20.

THAT is the best way to KILL DVD!

AND ppl can't really complain because Disney can just say "The main point of your purchase is the movie, so if you want something EXTRA get the superior item"


LET THE BASHING BEGIN!

[ajmrowland]

I SAY since Blu-ray is the "LUXURY" item and Disney is trying to KILL DVD then they should ONLY release the 1-disc barebones version of the DVD and The BLU-ray as the 2-disc version with ALL the special features. The DVDs will stay the same price ~$15 and the Blu-ray would be ~$20.

THAT is the best way to KILL DVD!

AND ppl can't really complain because Disney can just say "The main point of your purchase is the movie, so if you want something EXTRA get the superior item"



LET THE BASHING BEGIN!

No.

[TM2-Megatron]

I SAY since Blu-ray is the "LUXURY" item and Disney is trying to KILL DVD then they should ONLY release the 1-disc barebones version of the DVD and The BLU-ray as the 2-disc version with ALL the special features. The DVDs will stay the same price ~$15 and the Blu-ray would be ~$20.

THAT is the best way to KILL DVD!

AND ppl can't really complain because Disney can just say "The main point of your purchase is the movie, so if you want something EXTRA get the superior item"


LET THE BASHING BEGIN!

They're probably moving in that direction. The WALL-E Blu-Ray had features that the DVD version lacked.

As for me, I am done with DVD.

[ZOOMBOOM0688]

As for me, I am done with DVD.

Me Too! HOWEVER, If others aren't that fine, I just hate that they say "DON'T COMPLAIN WHEN A MOVIE IS NOT RELEASED ON BLU-RAY" and THEY complain if the a little something is missing from the DVD!

It's a bigger problem if the BLU-RAY is not released because for like LILO & STITCH the DVD version is already out.

[2099net]

I've just read Luke's review, so I think I'll respond primarily to that rather than issues in this thread:

Firstly, the fact that Disney has only sent out Blu-ray screeners of Pinocchio is just as likely to be because the release comes with a DVD (so people reviewers can comment on the DVD quality) and all the extras from the 2 disc DVD are on the Blu-ray release too (so reviewers can comment on the content of the DVD extras) while at the same time review the Blu-ray picture and exclusive supplements. I know this may sound like a jab at Luke, but its not unreasonable for Disney to expect reviewers to have a blu-ray player at this time. UD has reviewers with Blu-rays - Aaron for example could have done a DVD and Blu-ray review of Pinocchio no problem.

I don't see it as "desperation" - just money saving on Disney's part (its much easier and there'll be lower admin costs to sending everyone the same review package).

Saying that, I'm not suggesting Disney aren't desperate to promote blu-ray - they've obviously invested money into the format and judging by their discs, invested more than most other studios. I'm more offended by Disney's "desperate" need to promote the latest Disney Channel "stars" than their promotion of Blu-ray to be honest.

There's also a steady selection of older films coming, admittedly at this time mainly through Warner and Sony, but they're coming. DVD had exactly the same release type pattern in its first few years. Also, a lot of older films haven't really been mastered or restored for HD - another reason for the slow uptake. Warners (bless them) are doing a new restoration of the Wizard of Oz especially for Blu-ray, when their last release was uniformly rated as "excellent" by DVD reviewers.

And old films can look spectacular on Blu-ray. "How the West was Won" is one of the best looking Blu-ray's available today. And based on my HD DVD of Forbidden Planet when that is released (as it will be soon) it will be another Blu-ray to challenge day-and-date releases (It's by far my favourite catalog release on Hi-Def).

(BTW, if you want fast playing movies, try a Warner Bros blu-ray which has no pre-movie previews or even menu - it just plays the movie in about 30 seconds of putting the disc in).

I also think its a little simple to suggest that studios are pushing Blu-ray just because of the difference in price. Over here in the UK, the price difference is a lot less (as I think I've mentioned before) and I found out this week that "I Am Bruce" actually has the same price on DVD and Blu-ray, and that's coming from Anchor Bay one of the smaller studios/releasers. Plus there's plenty of 3-for-2 offers or similar meaning I can regularly pick up Blu-rays for less than £10 each.



It's no secret that I invested and actually preferred HD DVD (mainly for its uniform region-free stance). By saying that I've made myself as much of a target for Blu-ray fanatics as Luke has with his editorial. But its no secret why most studios preferred Blu-ray - and its nothing to do with quality as most Blu-ray people will say. For example, when did Disney last put a DTS track on a DVD? They used to, but haven't for years. If Disney was so concerned about quality, they still would.

No, its because Blu-ray offers them a way of region protecting their releases should they choose to in a world where almost every DVD player outside the US is region free and more importantly, it offers them additional protection against ripping in a world where anyone can easily copy a DVD.

Of course even on Blu-ray there are no absolutes, but studios *ARE* losing sales on DVDs these days when it is so easy for people to copy them. If only one person out of 50 borrows a DVD or rents it and then copies it, and out of them only 1 in 10 of the copies are films the pirate may have bought either on the discs release or several months later when it was discounted, its still a lost sale.

I don't believe the hysterical figures some studios put about regarding piracy where every copy is counted as a lost sale, but common sense dictates studios are losing money. And for now, Blu-ray is the ideal opportunity for this loss of money to be reduced.

It's one of the reasons studios are so keen to give out Digital Copies these days - its an attempt to not have customers need to self-rip a disc, so hopefully ripping on this new format won't be as frequent or "accepted" by the public.

As for the price increase, somebody has to pay for the construction of the new manufacturing plants required, development of BD-Live (which I still believe 100% will grow into an invaluable resource for film-fanatics), the restoration on older films, the advertising so many people despise etc etc.

Personally, I don't think Blu-ray will ever be as big as DVD was, but as we all know and Luke acknowledged, DVD isn't as big as DVD was. The peak of DVD's popularity was due to a number of reasons, all combining - from price, to availability, to genuine physical media differences between VHS and DVD, to portable players and PCs. I doubt it will ever be duplicated.

Blu-ray's launch hasn't been faultless, Disney's handling of the format is likewise far from faultless - holding back "normal" video supplements off DVD for them to be exclusive on Blu-ray is not fair and is underhand. However, I have no problems with genuine Blu-ray exclusive features which make use of the format, and to be fair, most Disney releases also have these.

But don't forget, the introduction of DVD also have underhand tactics. DVDs were priced to sell and available day-and-date with VHS releases priced for rental, only for the VHS to sell titles to appear months later for example. At the same time DVD really was asking you to invest in a new format while at least Blu-ray players play DVDs.

[I am the Doctor]

It's no secret that I invested and actually preferred HD DVD (mainly for its uniform region-free stance). By saying that I've made myself as much of a target for Blu-ray fanatics as Luke has with his editorial. But its no secret why most studios preferred Blu-ray - and its nothing to do with quality as most Blu-ray people will say. For example, when did Disney last put a DTS track on a DVD? They used to, but haven't for years. If Disney was so concerned about quality, they still would.

No, its because Blu-ray offers them a way of region protecting their releases should they choose to in a world where almost every DVD player outside the US is region free and more importantly, it offers them additional protection against ripping in a world where anyone can easily copy a DVD.

I think you've hit on a point there, 2099net. I think there are a lot of Blu fanatics that feel that, having slayed the HD-DVD beast, it's now time to go after the DVD monster.

By the time the HD vs Blu war was over in early 2008, I was quite weary with it and frankly glad that a "winner" had been declared.

Even as a Blu fan, I'm not ready to start up a whole "DVD vs. Blu" war, as many Blu fans seem quite ready to do. A DVD vs. Blu war is going to be much longer, and probably even more nasty than the whole HD vs. Blu war ever was.

Besides, what exactly is wrong with Blu co-existing with DVD? I've got no problem with it, why push the issue? That's where the studios and many Blu fanboys are making the mistake. Many consumers just aren't ready to make the jump to Blu, and attempting the "hard sell" I don't think is the best way to get them to jump on board.

[Marky_198]

at least for me, content is what really matters, not format.

Exactly.

If you prefer an image of a canlde with no effect, source of light, no depth whatsoever (completely unacceptable) over an image with a candle that glows, actually creates a source of light, and you actually get the idea that there would be a difference on the face of the character in the scene if you would blow the candle out, you should really start to think what it's about for you.

The content or the format?

[Flanger-Hanger]

I find the comments on "content" laughable. What substantial new content has Disney included on it's pointless re-issues of movies like Robin Hood, Fox and the Hound it's crappy DMC exclusive titles that recycle laserdisc transfers or don't have chapter stops, the dumbing down of Tarzan's and Emperor's New Groove special editions etc. Disney DVD content and output number isn't what it used to be, there's no denying it. Sure I buy the Treasures, but what else is there? Hanna Montanna compilations and yet another edition of HSM? I'm supposed to spend money on that?

With Blu, Disney is actually putting effort into their titles, all of them, even crap like the chiwawa flick are getting all the belles and whistles. It should not come to a surprise to anyone that a new format should try and be the best it can to get people to buy it. It's just logic from a business standpoint and has happened in the past before. If it truly bothers you, just remember that DVDs had stuff your VHS tapes didn't (chapter stops, no need to rewind them, bonus content etc). I support Blu-ray because it is the best that many studios offer today. I personally will never go back to watching a title like How the West Was Won on any other format because it looks so amazing on Blu (and because there I can watch it smileboxed).

[drfsupercenter]

(BTW, if you want fast playing movies, try a Warner Bros blu-ray which has no pre-movie previews or even menu - it just plays the movie in about 30 seconds of putting the disc in).

I hate that though... I'm all for the movie just starting up but I actually LIKE the menus. I find pop-up menus annoying, as they distract from the movie and when it's the ONLY option... meh. I don't own any WB Blu-Rays, but I've rented them. (And I know they did the same for their HD-DVDs)

Of course even on Blu-ray there are no absolutes, but studios *ARE* losing sales on DVDs these days when it is so easy for people to copy them. If only one person out of 50 borrows a DVD or rents it and then copies it, and out of them only 1 in 10 of the copies are films the pirate may have bought either on the discs release or several months later when it was discounted, its still a lost sale.

I think that's blowing it way out of proportion. A statistic just came out a few days ago showing that movie ticket sales have *increased* by 17.5% last year alone. If piracy was really hurting the movie business, why are their profits and sales going up? And despite the economy, too!

And, with today's copy protection there really isn't any casual copying. The average user who knows about one or two DVD decrypters will find them not working on the newer ARccOS schemes. It actually takes some research to find the newest software to get around the copy protection. And that software will also rip Blu-Rays. So I think that's moot point.

At the same time DVD really was asking you to invest in a new format while at least Blu-ray players play DVDs.

Tell that to the Blu-Ray fanatics... they seem to not like DVDs anymore

[PatrickvD]

I could post something really long and boring here, but 2099net summed it up brilliantly and I am in complete, 100% agreement.

[geniuswalt]

Well, I think the whole DVD vs Bluray is misdirected and should instead focus on High definition and the fact the it is going to be the future standard of broadcast, satellite, and home entertainment, period.
And since DVD cannot in any way display high definition, than Bluray IS the future.

And, fulll disclosure here. I do not own a bluray player but I am buying only bluray going forward knowing that I'll be glad I did once I finally switch. What's more, Disney including a SD DVD during this transition period only reinforces my decision.

So, again, it's not DVD vs Bluray but Standard Definition against High definition. And the jury is no longer out on this.

Also, nobody said people must throw their DVDs in the trash because of Bluray. They'll play just fine and continue providing enjoyment to those who love them.