Tangled DVD/Blu-ray Discussion (March 29)

[SWillie!]

David S. - Sorry, but to be honest I couldn't take your post seriously after your first sentence about having no desire to own an "I-Pod". Digital music is obviously a superior option to to physical media, with the exception of the "collectors" value of a physical CD. Even that will disappear in time.

And yes, I realize there are plenty other formats that tried to take over their previous incarnation, but to no avail. But the difference between those formats that didn't make it and Blu-ray is the fact that, like I said, studios and other companies involved have already put millions and millions of dollars into blu-ray. At this point, it isn't an option for it to fall behind DVD again. It's hardly "slowly" gaining ground... the gap between DVD and BD sales gets closer and closer WEEKLY it seems.

IF for whatever reason people stopped switching over to blu-ray and DVD started gaining back that advantage, guess what would happen... DVD would stop being released. Studios would stop playing nice and they would only give the option to buy BDs, thus forcing people to upgrade. If you think the movie companies would back down and start pumping up the DVDs again, you're sadly mistaken. This is a business, and a blu-ray makes more money than a DVD. And the faster they can get people to switch, the better - they'll do whatever it takes, as shown by the combo packs.

[Patrick]

I don't think that's a perfect analogy, as "digital download" music is hardly "superior technology" to CDs. CDs have better sound quality, packaging, artwork, etc. I don't have an "I-Pod" and have no desire to ever get one. CD is fine for me.

That simply isn't true. Music is widely available online at 320kbps (and lossless). For the most part, the difference in quality isn't noticeable by the average consumer considering the products they listen with. Unless you have a nice set of speakers or headphones, 128kbps vs. 256kbps vs. 320kbps. vs. lossless is nearly inaudible. The reason "digital download" is a superior technology is due to the convenience of the product - quality has nothing to do with it.

[David S.]

David S. - Sorry, but to be honest I couldn't take your post seriously after your first sentence about having no desire to own an "I-Pod". Digital music is obviously a superior option to to physical media, with the exception of the "collectors" value of a physical CD. Even that will disappear in time.

So you "can't take my opinion seriously" because I have no desire to own an I-pod? That sounds a bit snobby!

The fact is I AM a music "collector". Just having a stream of "1's and 0's" is far less valuable to me than having those 1's and 0's part of a package with the artwork and lyrics that I can put on my shelf next to my other CDs and DVDs, collectively representing my taste.

In college a lot of my friends and I would make cassette copies for each other of various vinyl albums and CDs in our collections (this was before burning CDs was as common as today). If anything I previewed this way blew me away, I would want to buy the CD anyway, to take it's rightful place on my shelf with the rest of my collection. I didn't feel like I "owned" it until I had the physical disc, with the artwork, liner notes, etc., instead of a homemade copy.

So if all the media companies want to give me is a stream of ones and zeroes with no PHYSICAL package, I'd just as soon download that stream for FREE or get someone to "burn" it for me, rather than pay for an unpackaged product.

That simply isn't true. Music is widely available online at 320kbps (and lossless). For the most part, the difference in quality isn't noticeable by the average consumer considering the products they listen with. Unless you have a nice set of speakers or headphones, 128kbps vs. 256kbps vs. 320kbps. vs. lossless is nearly inaudible. The reason "digital download" is a superior technology is due to the convenience of the product - quality has nothing to do with it.

I like going shopping and it's an "event" for me to buy a CD or a DVD. So I don't consider downloads more "convenient". For me it takes some of the excitement away from going out, finding, and buying something. And if I want a title that's hard to find in a store, I can still get the "convenience" of buying the packaged, physical disc from Amazon.com. (and OOP physical titles from their marketplace). This is FAR more valuable and desireable to me than a damn stream of digits that looks no more like an "official" release to me than those aforementioned homemade cassettes, CDs, and DVDs traded among friends!

IF for whatever reason people stopped switching over to blu-ray and DVD started gaining back that advantage, guess what would happen... DVD would stop being released. Studios would stop playing nice and they would only give the option to buy BDs, thus forcing people to upgrade.

That's a BD fan's dream, isn't it? The industry would be throwing away sales were they to do that, though, and I don't think they would.

Personally, I am MUCH more interested in catalog titles than new releases of new films, and other than tv series, almost everything I've ever wanted has already been released on DVD. So regardless of what happens in the future, I will always be able to get 99% of what I am interested in on DVD (new or, if it's ever phased out as you suggest, secondhand). Most of the only "New Releases" that interest me enough to buy of new films coming out are DACs and Pixar films, and that's such a relatively small amount of "new product" that I would just as soon get someone to "rip" those to a homemade DVD than give in and buy a BD player just for those few titles, in the scenario you suggest where the industry would kill DVD and "force" people to "upgrade" before BD has the majority of sales.

If the studios want to play "hardball", consumers can too!

But again, I don't think that will happen. As long as DVD has the majority of sales (and as long as BD needs the combo packs to keep its numbers up), DVDs will, IMO, be available.

[KubrickFan]

I don't think that's a perfect analogy, as "digital download" music is hardly "superior technology" to CDs. CDs have better sound quality, packaging, artwork, etc. I don't have an "I-Pod" and have no desire to ever get one. CD is fine for me.

That simply isn't true. Music is widely available online at 320kbps (and lossless). For the most part, the difference in quality isn't noticeable by the average consumer considering the products they listen with. Unless you have a nice set of speakers or headphones, 128kbps vs. 256kbps vs. 320kbps. vs. lossless is nearly inaudible. The reason "digital download" is a superior technology is due to the convenience of the product - quality has nothing to do with it.

Maybe, but not nearly everything is released in 320 kbps. Michael Giacchino's UP is only available as a download, and that won a fricking Oscar. But there aren't any marketable, awful pop songs of forgettable teen stars on it, so why give it a CD release?
And the bolded part is laughable. If you want to listen to music, surely you want to do it in the highest quality possible? You're not watching a Blu-ray on an iPhone sized screen either, right?
If they can guarantee that every download would be in lossless, then I might consider it. But of course they're not going to do that, since most companies want to do it as cheaply as possible. And the masses won't know the difference right?

[David S.]

It seems to me that the only time Blu-ray vs. DVD wars start are when DVD stans bitch about blu-ray.

Except, of course, when a catalog reissue is announced as DVD-only. Then it becomes a BD-fan whine-fest. Such as in the thread where DVD fans could finally rejoice that the long-awaited, much-delayed, Lilo and Stitch 2-Disc DVD was finally coming out, and BD fans turned it into an all-out, full-scale bitch-fest featuring a litany of "No blu, no buy".

Personally, I think you have the right to want everything on your preferred format and the right to state your opinion. But likewise, WE have the right to be dissapointed when bonus features get left off the DVD in an attempt to strongarm us into giving up our preferred format, without constantly being antagonized by the BD crowd for our preference of DVD and our desire for the DVD release to be as good as possible feature-wise.

[David S.]

That simply isn't true. Music is widely available online at 320kbps (and lossless). For the most part, the difference in quality isn't noticeable by the average consumer considering the products they listen with. Unless you have a nice set of speakers or headphones, 128kbps vs. 256kbps vs. 320kbps. vs. lossless is nearly inaudible. The reason "digital download" is a superior technology is due to the convenience of the product - quality has nothing to do with it.

Maybe, but not nearly everything is released in 320 kbps. Michael Giacchino's UP is only available as a download, and that won a fricking Oscar. But there aren't any marketable, awful pop songs of forgettable teen stars on it, so why give it a CD release?
And the bolded part is laughable. If you want to listen to music, surely you want to do it in the highest quality possible? You're not watching a Blu-ray on an iPhone sized screen either, right?
If they can guarantee that every download would be in lossless, then I might consider it. But of course they're not going to do that, since most companies want to do it as cheaply as possible. And the masses won't know the difference right?

ALL great points, Kubrick Fan! I thought the whole point of Blu-Ray was to get video and audio quality as close to perfect as possible. It seems to me that people into BD would also want the same for their audio collection, such as CD, Super Audio CD, or championing disc-based, audio-only DVD or BD releases of favorite albums. I've heard some head-to-head comparisons of downloads vs CD, and I could definitely hear a difference in favor of the CD. And I don't have super-expensive equipment!

[KubrickFan]

ALL great points, Kubrick Fan! I thought the whole point of Blu-Ray was to get video and audio quality as close to perfect as possible. It seems to me that people into BD would also want the same for their audio collection, such as CD, Super Audio CD, or championing disc-based, audio-only DVD or BD releases of favorite albums. I've heard some head-to-head comparisons of downloads vs CD, and I could definitely hear a difference in favor of the CD. And I don't have super-expensive equipment!

Me too. If I rip one of my CDs in 320 kbps, and in FLAC, I can definitely hear a difference, even on the subpar speakers I'm using. It's even worse when it's 192 kbps, and isn't that what downloads are in iTunes?

[Patrick]

Maybe, but not nearly everything is released in 320 kbps. Michael Giacchino's UP is only available as a download, and that won a fricking Oscar. But there aren't any marketable, awful pop songs of forgettable teen stars on it, so why give it a CD release?
And the bolded part is laughable. If you want to listen to music, surely you want to do it in the highest quality possible? You're not watching a Blu-ray on an iPhone sized screen either, right?
If they can guarantee that every download would be in lossless, then I might consider it. But of course they're not going to do that, since most companies want to do it as cheaply as possible. And the masses won't know the difference right?

I'm not speaking for myself, I do download 320kbps and lossless. I was speaking to the average consumer, as I said. For the average consumer 128kbps is more than fine. And actually, itunes is now 256kbps.

Either way, I'm confused about this entire argument. I'm sure there were some people upset when VHS went out even though it was obvious that DVDs could hold more information and support better quality video. It's the same with blu ray. It's really that simple.. If you don't like the bonus features you're getting, spend $50 and get a player. I personally have not spent more than $15 on a Disney blu ray since they started releasing them.

[pinkrenata]

Either way, I'm confused about this entire argument. I'm sure there were some people upset when VHS went out even though it was obvious that DVDs could hold more information and support better quality video. It's the same with blu ray. It's really that simple.. If you don't like the bonus features you're getting, spend $50 and get a player. I personally have not spent more than $15 on a Disney blu ray since they started releasing them.

This whole discussion bores me because, frankly, I don't really care. BUT, I just have to add that the difference with video and DVD was that there really <i>wasn't</i> any room for extras on a video cassette. I mean, once and a while they would throw some bonuses on at the very end of a tape, but that's legitimately all they had room for. The "stunt" mentioned in the review, the one that started this whole argument in the first place, is that there is typically plenty of room for more bonus features on a DVD release, but the studios are choosing to put them on Blu-ray only, in hopes that it will "force" the masses to upgrade.

As far as I could tell in the review, Luke was not dissing Blu-ray itself. In fact, he makes it clear just how good the picture and sound are for <i>Tangled</i>. No matter what side you're on, though, it's still hard to ignore Disney's Blu-ray pushing tactics.

[dvdjunkie]

Note to SWillie!:

I happen to agree and side with David S. about CD's. I don't agree about his stand on DVD's, however.

I don't own and will never own an "iPOD", for one I enjoy my CD collection which is in excess of 2400 CD's at the moment. I enjoy being able to create my own CD's using these CD's I own on my computer. If I want to make a greatest hits of the year I was born, I don't have to go and pay out money hoping that I get an "Original Hit" by the "Original Artist", which has been a problem when I did try to download some music to my computer.

I would rather listen to a burned CD that I created from my own collection than go to a website and hope for the best that they can offer.

I can say according to Billboard Magazine, I own the Top 100 tunes of each year from 1954 until present day. I don't buy a lot of Soundtracks or Classical Music, but I do buy a lot of "greatest hits" CD's that feature 10 or 20 hits by the original artists. I won't stand for a re-recording "by one of members of the original group" that some CD's offer.

Besides today's music for the most part is aimed at too young a crowd for my taste. I cannot stand some artists like Lady Gag-Gag (misspelled on purpose), and the trollop that some like named Britney Spears.

Of the newer groups I really like Foo Fighters, The Black-Eyed Peas, Christina Aguilera, and Ne-Oh. But roll back the clock to the 50's-early 90's, and I am in music heaven.

I have never owned an iPOD and probably never will. So David is right for wanting the physical Cd in his hand to look at and have in his collection.

[PheR]

Well, I think the load time on Blu-rays varies at my place. Whenever I play a Blu-ray on my PS3, it usually only takes about two to seven seconds to load, but that's probably because it has wi-fi. On my first Blu-ray player, it takes ten to twenty seconds.

Yeah, I own a PS3 my self and I can tell everyone that it is the best BD player out there, it actually plays 3D titles with just a free software update.

And about not being able to resume a movie where you left it, don't Disney blurays have this feature? every time I pop one, the disc asks me If I want to play it from the beginning or the last scene I saw.

for me, there's no other option to watch this movie than HD, I simply could not see it in standard definition, that forest is like Pandora from Avatar, and her hair, wow.

[MJW]

And about not being able to resume a movie where you left it, don't Disney blurays have this feature? every time I pop one, the disc asks me If I want to play it from the beginning or the last scene I saw.

Yeah, I think all of the Disney Blu-rays I have have that feature, which is really nice. Not sure if this is the same with all players, but I have a PS3, and it even remembers where I last left off even if I take the disc out and don't watch it for a month.

...But back to the topic at hand, I think I've decided to just go ahead and get the 3D combo of Tangled. Since I'd be paying $19.99 for either the 2D or the 3D combo, it makes more sense to just get the 3D as it is the better value (I want the digital copy, even if I don't ever use the 3D disc). Since I already have a PS3 and it can play 3D movies, maybe sometime in the future, all HDTV's will have 3D playback as an option and I can watch it then.

[gardener14]

And about not being able to resume a movie where you left it, don't Disney blurays have this feature? every time I pop one, the disc asks me If I want to play it from the beginning or the last scene I saw.

Yeah, I think all of the Disney Blu-rays I have have that feature, which is really nice. Not sure if this is the same with all players, but I have a PS3, and it even remembers where I last left off even if I take the disc out and don't watch it for a month.

Maybe the resume feature is a benefit of having a PS3 to play Blu-ray discs. My Blu-ray player does not have this feature on Disney Blu-ray discs, and my understanding is that most others don't either. My player's manual claims to have this feature, but it doesn't work with Disney Blu titles, only standard dvds. It's when looked into this after I got the player, that I discovered it's the disc, not the player that determines if the resume feature will work.

[MJW]

Maybe the resume feature is a benefit of having a PS3 to play Blu-ray discs. My Blu-ray player does not have this feature on Disney Blu-ray discs, and my understanding is that most others don't either. My player's manual claims to have this feature, but it doesn't work with Disney Blu titles, only standard dvds. It's when looked into this after I got the player, that I discovered it's the disc, not the player that determines if the resume feature will work.

Yeah, I am not sure as the PS3 is the first and only BD player I have so far. Just to clarify further what I said about the resume feature: even with the PS3, you still have to load the Blu-ray to the menu, and then select "play" before you are given the option of resuming the movie where you left off (it asks "yes" or "no"). It's not like a DVD player where you can just hit power and the movie loads right to the point where you last stopped it.

[WaltDisneyFanBoy]

I got my copy of the Tangled Blu ray last saturday. Here in holland the movie is named Rapunzel, haha

[The_Iceflash]

Well, the four-disc set would still be MARGINALLY more expensive because I'm pretty sure tax is applied to the $24.99 price, but I mean... it's like pennies.

I think the prices are being misread by many here. The Best Buy ad says "DVD: 14.99" ; "Blu-ray + DVD: 19.99" ; 3D Blu-ray: $24.99 with Disney Coupon | $29.99 without Disney Coupon

Basically we got a very bum deal with the coupon.

[DisneyJedi]

^I have the Target ad right in front of me, it says the regular DVD is $15.99, Blu-ray/DVD pack is $19.99, and the 4-disc pack is $24.99.

Now, for the latter of the three, it doesn't state whether or not that's the price if you use the coupon. Plus, I checked by the Target website, and the 4-disc pack is just about $24.99. But I'm gonna check by with them when I go to Target tomorrow.

[ajmrowland]

Yeah, I think all of the Disney Blu-rays I have have that feature, which is really nice. Not sure if this is the same with all players, but I have a PS3, and it even remembers where I last left off even if I take the disc out and don't watch it for a month.

Maybe the resume feature is a benefit of having a PS3 to play Blu-ray discs. My Blu-ray player does not have this feature on Disney Blu-ray discs, and my understanding is that most others don't either. My player's manual claims to have this feature, but it doesn't work with Disney Blu titles, only standard dvds. It's when looked into this after I got the player, that I discovered it's the disc, not the player that determines if the resume feature will work.

It's a kind of teamwork thing; the hardware and the software have to be enabled for it.

[SpringHeelJack]

^I have the Target ad right in front of me, it says the regular DVD is $15.99, Blu-ray/DVD pack is $19.99, and the 4-disc pack is $24.99.

Now, for the latter of the three, it doesn't state whether or not that's the price if you use the coupon. Plus, I checked by the Target website, and the 4-disc pack is just about $24.99. But I'm gonna check by with them when I go to Target tomorrow.

I was indeed referring to Target in my earlier post.

The ad states that the four-disc combo pack is on sale this week for $24.99, which is without the coupon. With the $5 Disney coupon, the four-disc set is thus $19.99, the same weekly sale price as the two-disc Blu-ray / DVD combo.

So at the end of the day, if you shop at Target with the coupon, you'll pay $19.99 for either the four-disc or the two-disc combo packs.

[DisneyJedi]

^Which leaves me to wonder which is better to get. I want to future-proof the movie, but it'll probably be eons before I go 3D.

So..... which should I get?