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

[I am the Doctor]

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 didn't respond to this earlier, but I, for one, am frankly glad that Luke refused to do something like this. Luke's intention was to review the two-disc DVD. To me, that's about maintaining one's credibility as a reviewer and an unwillingness to take shortcuts (aka, viewing the supplements on the Blu version, and basing one's review on that.

For example, what if the situation was reversed, and Disney had sent out the two disc DVD to reviewers, with the movie disc of the Blu-Ray. According to the same logic one could do a review of the Blu-Ray disc as well. After all, the contents of the supplement disc are exactly the same, so what difference does it make that you were sent the DVD version, as opposed to the Blu version?

Another great example, I own the Sony 350 Blu-Ray player. Therefore, I'm fully qualified to review the Panasonic BD-35 Blu-Ray player. They do the same thing (play Blu-Ray discs, along with DVDs), why bother using the actual product?

I'm sure many reviewers will take the short-cut that you mention when writing their reviews of Pinocchio. As such, I would have to consider such reviews to be dishonest, as they didn't actually use the product they were reviewing. I have to admire Luke's choice not to take a short-cut with his review of the two disc DVD of Pinocchio, or to allow someone else as you suggested to do so.

Regardless of where one stands on the whole Blu vs. DVD debate, the one thing that stands out is Luke's credibility as a reviewer. Even as a Blu-Ray supporter, I have to applaud Luke's decision.

[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 didn't respond to this earlier, but I, for one, am frankly glad that Luke refused to do something like this. Luke's intention was to review the two-disc DVD. To me, that's about maintaining one's credibility as a reviewer and an unwillingness to take shortcuts (aka, viewing the supplements on the Blu version, and basing one's review on that.

For example, what if the situation was reversed, and Disney had sent out the two disc DVD to reviewers, with the movie disc of the Blu-Ray. According to the same logic one could do a review of the Blu-Ray disc as well. After all, the contents of the supplement disc are exactly the same, so what difference does it make that you were sent the DVD version, as opposed to the Blu version?

Another great example, I own the Sony 350 Blu-Ray player. Therefore, I'm fully qualified to review the Panasonic BD-35 Blu-Ray player. They do the same thing (play Blu-Ray discs, along with DVDs), why bother using the actual product?

I'm sure many reviewers will take the short-cut that you mention when writing their reviews of Pinocchio. As such, I would have to consider such reviews to be dishonest, as they didn't actually use the product they were reviewing. I have to admire Luke's choice not to take a short-cut with his review of the two disc DVD of Pinocchio, or to allow someone else as you suggested to do so.

Regardless of where one stands on the whole Blu vs. DVD debate, the one thing that stands out is Luke's credibility as a reviewer. Even as a Blu-Ray supporter, I have to applaud Luke's decision.

Well, even on Luke's exhaustive reviews, I can't recall an instance where the audio/visual quality of any supplements is actually mentioned, beyond remarks about crude quality from work prints etc, which would be visible on the Blu-ray supplements. For example, when reviewing "all new Music Videos" with Disney channel stars, he's never as much as remarked if its in a 2.0 mix or a 5.1 mix, nor has really given us information on the video quality of various "makings of" beyond perhaps remaking on older archive footage (which again the shortcomings would be apparent on the blu-ray supplement too).

If the 2 disc DVD came with a movie only Blu-ray disc then yes, people could do a Blu-ray review - they'd assess the quality of the film's presentation, which would be the bulk of the review, comment on the supplements and the extras' content - for all we know, all the Blu-ray exclusive extras could be on the first disc anyway - the most important (CineExplore) is anyway, and refer to no-doubt the press release to see which supplements were in HD and which were not - because when it comes down it to, that's all Blu-ray supplement reviews do - mark them as HD or non-HD, and sometimes give a run-time.

I've never seen anyone complain about an HD head-to-head interview supplement on HD as "looking soft" or "blacks are somewhat muted" etc. All that sort of criticism is saved for the feature presentation. Finally, the reviewer may decide to disclose the supplements were only viewed on the DVD release.

For crying out loud, lots of reviews do it with wording similar to "the blu-ray is the same, but features an additional commentary and a few more deleted scenes" etc.

Some companies (including Fox I believe) send out screener discs with watermarks and extra features totally missing, in plain envelopes. Yet these still get "reviewed" by almost every recipient, sometimes with the appropriate disclaimer, sometimes without. Many printed magazines in the UK say "not available at this time" in their reviews for this reason.

This site even reviewed a Fox DVDs which was not 100% representive of the retail release, they just put the appropriate disclaimer in the review to retain their integrity. Should these not have been reviewed?

http://www.dvdizzy.com/hortonhearsawho.html
http://www.dvdizzy.com/thehappening.html

I'm not saying Fox et al are being dishonest in doing this (we all know Fox are crazily paranoid about copying) but really Disney is providing a package many times more suitable for reviewing, even for just a DVD review, than these companies do. I don't see anything underhand in Disney's behaviour at all.

Of course, Luke's reviews are exhaustive - which is the main reason we like them so much. But Disney is not sending out screeners for UltimateDisney. They are sending out screeners for the newspapers, magazines and other on-line media reviewers who do only write at the most five or six paragraphs on the release, where often supplements are only listed as bullet points or briefly explained. It makes perfect sense for Disney to only send out the Blu-ray (which has the movie in DVD format too) to these. It also makes perfect sense for Disney to only send out 1 package across the board to all recipients and cut down on management and administration time. I don't know if you noticed, but most companies are actively seeking to minimise costs due to the economic climate.

The point is Luke says its an attempt at desperation to talk up blu-ray, seeing a vast conspiracy, where as the only scheme I see is Disney PR simply saving money while still sending out all of the information 99%+ of reviewers would need to write their reviews (and still have integrity) - be they single paragraph summaries or half-page articles on a printed page. I think some people are looking for patterns that don't exist.

[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!

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.

You mean the cool Atari-looking games that DVD could not support? They are fun and should nostalgic for people who grew up with them. The controls are even real-time. It's not like the DVD didn't have all the better features.

[ajmrowland]

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.

It still poses a problem, as some reviewers like to critique the bonuses, whether they have blu-ray or not.

(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).

Dang! I forgot about those!:lol:

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.

That reminds me. There is a German-import for Bridge to Terabithia for HD DVD.

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.

Can you tell me why major studios dont even bother with international distribution? They'd have more control and wouldn't have to worry much about imports.

A development of BD-Live (which I still believe 100% will grow into an invaluable resource for film-fanatics)

Here, here!

Oh, and Enchanted got a DTS soundtrack.

[DarthPrime]

I liked the Region Free abilities of HD DVD as well 2099net, and I preferred HD DVD to Blu-ray too. Blu-ray just had more marketing push, and the added "security" it offered over HD DVD made more studios support it. Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if more companies had released HD DVD players, and more studios released on both formats like Warner Bros did. I honestly think if both had equal support from studios and companies making players HD DVD would have won. It did have the price advantage, and it had the lead for awhile. Ultimately support for Blu-ray overwhelmed it, and Warner Bros dropping support put the final nail in the coffin.

[Goliath]

It also makes perfect sense for Disney to only send out 1 package across the board to all recipients and cut down on management and administration time. I don't know if you noticed, but most companies are actively seeking to minimise costs due to the economic climate.

The point is Luke says its an attempt at desperation to talk up blu-ray, seeing a vast conspiracy, where as the only scheme I see is Disney PR simply saving money [...]

They want to minimize costs? Let them start by depriving their CEO's of their million dollar bonuses, and cut their salaries in half. They can't hide behind this lame excuse of 'cutting costs' when they're trying to push BD down our throats. You try to mock Luke for seeing a "vast conspiracy". In fact, that would be a compliment to Luke, for having such a fine nose for, indeed, conspiracies. He detected one and he called Disney out on it.

[ajmrowland]

Well, as an adopter of the format, you can't say that they're not investing lots of money in the format. The BD-Live, while lacking severely in worthwhile content, is presented much nicer than most of the other studios' networks. They were voted by HDD to be the "Best Hi-def Studio of 2008 for their 2008 releases, overall, almost none of which had AQ/PQ any short of 4 out of 5 stars on the site, and the BD-Live feature and other bonuses, and generally investing more "support" into the format. And I, as a consumer, have seen it.

[2099net]

It also makes perfect sense for Disney to only send out 1 package across the board to all recipients and cut down on management and administration time. I don't know if you noticed, but most companies are actively seeking to minimise costs due to the economic climate.

The point is Luke says its an attempt at desperation to talk up blu-ray, seeing a vast conspiracy, where as the only scheme I see is Disney PR simply saving money [...]

They want to minimize costs? Let them start by depriving their CEO's of their million dollar bonuses, and cut their salaries in half. They can't hide behind this lame excuse of 'cutting costs' when they're trying to push BD down our throats. You try to mock Luke for seeing a "vast conspiracy". In fact, that would be a compliment to Luke, for having such a fine nose for, indeed, conspiracies. He detected one and he called Disney out on it.

Look, I've just found out I'm getting a 5% pay cut from next month onwards. I'm pretty sure there's umpteen ways my company could have saved money rather than give me a pay cut. But it happens. We all know how big business works, and sadly, pay-cuts for those in power aren't how it works. It's always been that way, and it always will be.

As soon as Disney only send Blu-rays without DVDs, then you can complain about conspiracies. And, sadly for you, I think we're probably only about 12 months away from that point. As it was, Disney sent this site materials much more suited for doing a DVD review or a Blu-ray review or combination of both, than a company like FOX has been doing for several years with there screener copies. So where is the conspiracy again?

[wallymatters]

It also makes perfect sense for Disney to only send out 1 package across the board to all recipients and cut down on management and administration time. I don't know if you noticed, but most companies are actively seeking to minimise costs due to the economic climate.

The point is Luke says its an attempt at desperation to talk up blu-ray, seeing a vast conspiracy, where as the only scheme I see is Disney PR simply saving money [...]

They want to minimize costs? Let them start by depriving their CEO's of their million dollar bonuses, and cut their salaries in half. They can't hide behind this lame excuse of 'cutting costs' when they're trying to push BD down our throats. You try to mock Luke for seeing a "vast conspiracy". In fact, that would be a compliment to Luke, for having such a fine nose for, indeed, conspiracies. He detected one and he called Disney out on it.

You do realize that this is their product don't you? They own it and can distribute it in whatever format they wish. You are simply the consumer and have no right to the product. They give it to you when they want to and how they want to.

Blu-ray is the superior format for obvious reasons. (PQ, AQ, size of content, etc.) This is business. Their entire purpose for existing is to make money. Why is that so surprising?

Of course they sent the BD-DVD combo to reviewers. Not only is it their best version of the release, but most reviewers have already upgraded to the appropriate equipment. Luke was given everything he needed to judge the film itself and chose not to. Complaining about the other DVD not being included is a poor and weak excuse.

Also, review copies sent out for judging purposes (for awards shows and such) are also blu-ray rather than DVD. Technology is moving forward...with or without you.

[KubrickFan]

The thing Luke does wrong is he lets his personal views get in the way of the job he's supposed to do objectively. He may not care for Blu-Ray, that's fine with me, but he really should have a Blu-Ray player to review the Blu-Ray's that Disney releases. It's like a game reviewer, who refuses to review PS3 games, because he thinks the Xbox360 is a better game console.

[David S.]

Well, he did say he was sending the screener to one of the BD equiped reviewers on the staff to review for the site. So he isn't refusing to cover the Pinocchio BD on Ultimate Disney.

If UD was truly "anti BD" like some people are saying, and had an "agenda" to suppress the format, this clearly wouldn't be the case.

[ajmrowland]

Well, he did say he was sending the screener to one of the BD equiped reviewers on the staff to review for the site. So he isn't refusing to cover the Pinocchio BD because of his personal views on the format.

If UD was truly "anti BD" like some people are saying, and had an "agenda" to suppress the format, this clearly wouldn't be the case.

Actually, he is refusing because he doesn't have a blu-ray player and is sending the disc to someone else who will cover it. He DID refuse to cover the DVD because it didn't have a second disc. Not even the transfer was covered.

[David S.]

Without speaking for Luke, I would venture a guess that he may have sent the entire screener ASAP to whoever is going to review the BD so they could have the entire package, such as in case they want to compare screen caps of the 2 versions.

If so, then he would not have had time to review the a/v quality of the transfer on Disc 1, but come on, you know he will review all that, and the bonus features, when the rest of the review is finished, after he gets a copy of the 2-Disc DVD.

My point remains that UD will be covering the BD, and therefore is NOT refusing to cover it.

It's a shame that no matter how much hard work Luke and Aaron and Kelvin, etc put into the reviews (and anyone else I may have failed to mention), there are going to be those who are never satisfied. Last I checked, there was no fee to read the content or participate in the boards!

[Goliath]

Look, I've just found out I'm getting a 5% pay cut from next month onwards. I'm pretty sure there's umpteen ways my company could have saved money rather than give me a pay cut. But it happens. We all know how big business works, and sadly, pay-cuts for those in power aren't how it works. It's always been that way, and it always will be.

I'm very sorry to hear that. It's a shame, really, an outrage. Sadly, it happens, and it does because we let it happen. Where are the torches and the pitchforks? No, we just accept that's "how it works". Me too. And Disney uses 'cutting costs' to push the new format. Don't they know most people can't afford it know?

As soon as Disney only send Blu-rays without DVDs, then you can complain about conspiracies. And, sadly for you, I think we're probably only about 12 months away from that point. As it was, Disney sent this site materials much more suited for doing a DVD review or a Blu-ray review or combination of both, than a company like FOX has been doing for several years with there screener copies. So where is the conspiracy again?

No, I can complain about conspiracies *now*, because now is when Disney only sends a BluRay with disc 1 of the DVD, instead of the 2-disc DVD version. Yes, one could review that disc 1. But that's not the point. The point is, it's yet another way in which Disney tries to shove it down our throats. It's a sign. They do it step by step deliberately. They know people who complain (like me) can, will and are now being told to shut up by others because "they send disc 1 of the DVD, didn't they?" This makes it easier for Disney to go on to step 2, eliminating the DVD entirely. Then people will say: "well, why don't you have a BD-player? You saw it coming by the fact that they only send 1 DVD disc, didn't you?" Very shrewd.

[Goliath]

You do realize that this is their product don't you? They own it and can distribute it in whatever format they wish. You are simply the consumer and have no right to the product. They give it to you when they want to and how they want to.

That's funny. Last time I checked, they don't sell anything unless the consumer buys their product. So they have to target the consumer's wishes, otherwise products won't get sold. Now it's obvious the vast majority of the consumers still prefer DVD over BlueRay. So if Disney wants to sell products, they need to put out DVDs, and they have to make sure reviewers can inform consumers on DVDs, not BluRays.

Blu-ray is the superior format for obvious reasons. (PQ, AQ, size of content, etc.) This is business. Their entire purpose for existing is to make money. Why is that so surprising?

Of course they sent the BD-DVD combo to reviewers. Not only is it their best version of the release, but most reviewers have already upgraded to the appropriate equipment. Luke was given everything he needed to judge the film itself and chose not to. Complaining about the other DVD not being included is a poor and weak excuse.

Please read my answers to 2099net and others. I don't have time to debunk the same arguments over and over again.

Also, review copies sent out for judging purposes (for awards shows and such) are also blu-ray rather than DVD. Technology is moving forward...with or without you.

It's not about technology moving forward. It's about grabbing money out of people's pockets by selling them the same product twice.

[CampbellzSoup]

It's not about technology moving forward. It's about grabbing money out of people's pockets by selling them the same product twice.

uh are we not on the same board were people say their going to double dip because of new features that come out?

Point blank the Blu Ray came with a copy of the DVD...where is the review of the picture and audio quality?

[Flanger-Hanger]

Luke should have just waited until he got his actual 2-Disc DVD copy. Posting a rant on the main page of a website not only implies an agenda or bias to casual visitors it annoys the members who don't expect this kind of thing and instead want what this website is actually meant for, news and reviews. If Luke has an issue with not getting something that no one else got, he should address it to the supplier and not post some half-baked vague "review". There's no "integrity" in lowering your own standards to fulfill personal needs.

[Goliath]

uh are we not on the same board were people say their going to double dip because of new features that come out?

Where did I say I support that? And when has Disneyn or any other studio pushed a 'double dip' down our throats like they are doing with BluRay?

Luke should have just waited until he got his actual 2-Disc DVD copy. Posting a rant on the main page of a website not only implies an agenda or bias to casual visitors it annoys the members who don't expect this kind of thing and instead want what this website is actually meant for, news and reviews. If Luke has an issue with not getting something that no one else got, he should address it to the supplier and not post some half-baked vague "review". There's no "integrity" in lowering your own standards to fulfill personal needs.

Since Luke owns and runs this site, he 'should' not have to do anything. He can do whatever he pleases. And if you're not okay with that, you can leave this *free* message board anytime you like.

[ajmrowland]

This fight's getting old

[Flanger-Hanger]

Since Luke owns and runs this site, he 'should' not have to do anything. He can do whatever he pleases. And if you're not okay with that, you can leave this *free* message board anytime you like.

Of course Luke can do whatever he wants but is it really in the his best interest to post something like that? Does it add anything positive to the sites credibility or reputation? It's like a straight A student putting an F on the refrigerator. At the same time, that straight A student which I would call Luke making one mistake will not make me do something stupid and leave a board with such wonderful members (you know I loves ya Scaps, Springy, Tim, Mike, John, Amy, Panfan, the list goes on ). If Luke can't handle criticism (and he's too good to need someone to "defend" him) that's his problem, he risks it as anyone does when posting on the internet. Even if the rant was on a topic agreed with I would find it distasteful.