Ok, early on when the DVD media came out, there was ton of talk about how they will put all these fun things on DVDs, differnet angles, that u can make your own edit of the film etc etc. OK, early on this kinda happend with Se7en....

...and it ended, they have abandoned the DVD medium for a boring and formulaic features.

FF few years to the present, the current trend of DVDs is really bloody annoying, i'm not sure if many of u feel the same way as i do, but i am so dissapointed in what the studios are doing. Almost every bloody movie that comes out on DVD is the "uncensored" , "uncorked" , "un-bloody beliveably un-original". All these movies have nothing bloody to offer, "uncesored" doesnt mean crap no more, it has lost its magic. Do u know what it means when u see "uncensored" on the dvd box? It means that the bloody crap that wasnt good enough to be shown in the theater or cut for lenght has now been included. It has nothing to do with more story that adds to the overall film or violence, sex, etc. The "uncensored" has turned into nothing more then a marketing ploy to sell more copies of a particular film.

Discuss.....

I've never seen 'special' or 'super extendo' editions as a selling point. (Okay, maybe once with the "Lord of the Rings" movies.) All I care about is that the transfer from film looks good and the sound. All I want to do is be able to see again the movie that I fell in love with in the theatres. In the theatres do I regret that I can't edit the movie or see the other angles or hear the director's commentary? No. To me that adds nothing to the central experience: a good story, good direction, a world to be transported to.

I'm pretty much with Keith on this. I may even go a bit further, most of the movies I see are on DVD these days, and I'm slowly realizing that I prefer to view a movie at home despite the difference in screen size. Especially some of the really long ones that have been coming out lately.

The only thing that frustrates me with dvd's is alot of them deliver the special features, or 'the making of' pieces in 4:3.
Why not 16:9? aargh!

The only thing that frustrates me with dvd's is alot of them deliver the special features, or 'the making of' pieces in 4:3.
Why not 16:9? aargh!

Interesting niggle since I just finished an edit of a "Making of" that I shot. Even though I had an XL2 for half of the project, I shot the majority in 4:3, since the four other cameras I used don't have 16:9 (or it is software 16:9). Faking everything into 16:9 might have worked but seemed like a lot of work for something 200 hours long that is only borderline theatrical.

Cinematography-wise, I also feared that if I put the XL2 into 16:9, it would outperform the four year old video camera used for principal photography, and something about the making-of looking better then the feature seems wierd to me. I also assumed the audience wouldn't care about the ratio of a featurette, informative to know that they do!

I assumed the audience wouldn't care about the ratio of a featurette, informative to know that they do!

Well this is a pet peeve of mine also. If you watch on a widescreen TV then it's an annoyance because you'll need to change the TV setting from full screen to 4:3.

In my (modest) DVD collection I always buy the widescreen editions. Of all these disks, I think the Star Wars original trilogy is the only one that has the documentary in 16:9.

The only thing that frustrates me with dvd's is alot of them deliver the special features, or 'the making of' pieces in 4:3.
Why not 16:9? aargh!
I agree. This is also an annoyance of mine with the making of/special features on DVDs.


If you watch on a widescreen TV then it's an annoyance because you'll need to change the TV setting from full screen to 4:3.
It's annoying with our 4:3 HD television because we have to switch out of the special 16:9 anamorphic setting our television has. I wish they produced the DVDs with one aspect ratio throughout the disk.

I love DVDs, but my biggest annoyance, is the way they feel the need to release 2,3, or more versions. C'mon Hollywood... Do it once, and do it righteous the first time.

This is why I never grab the first dvd release of a movie right away. I wait it out to see or hear of any news of a director's cut (like what right now waiting on the DC of Kingdom of Heaven that was announced months ago, and is now being shown in LA in a few theaters.), or some extended or 3 disk edition with extras commentaries and what not to keep me occupied.

I usually just grab the first one, which is usually also the cheapest. Screw 'em, they won't get anymore of my cash! Hahahahaha... Sorry, I got carried away ;)

When I rent or buy a DVD, I want to see the movie that was presented at the theater if I had gone there. No commercials, no editors cut, no extra scenes, no alternate views, and no changes! Show me the movie you decided to release to the public, that is what you will be remembered for! No changing it now!

Mike

Yep, I had my fun with the "Special Collector's 4-Disc Edition" of Titanic; on the entire 3rd Disc you only find the Deleted Scenes and the parodies.

One part of my brain thought for a moment I had bought a misprint.
I had already learned before I bought the set that I won't be getting the promised all-out making-of documentary, but that day I really cursed the studios.

To be fair, DVD raised the expectations and we demand now from every DVD that definitive dramatic/funny/heartwarming making-of which covers every aspect imaginable. It just can't happen with every movie.

I was giddy to get the "Unrated, Recut and Extended Edition" of Sin City but then I learned that almost all of the 20 something added minutes are in fact Credits which appear after each episode.
So much for "Extended".
Then I learned that there is about one more gore-scene in the new version which is not any more brutal than the rest of the scenes in the standard "rated R"-version.
So much for "Unrated".

It's interesting I'm not the only one with the 4:3 niggle. I guess, as with the feature, I love the feeling of being submerged in the 'making of' and feel like I'm actually on set. That's why I have a big widescreen tv.
The Lord of the Rings special edition series is phenomenal. Then I watch the extras from War of the Worlds and ask 'why couldn't they at least fill my screen'.

Anyway, I didn't mean to offend anyone by with that niggle. In fact, I'd love to do a 'making of' doco. One of my dreams :)

I love dvd's, and sometimes a director's cut can be worth it, not always of course.
Director's cuts of Brazil, Dances With Wolves, Léon or the EE from LOTR are definately a stepup from the original movies.

I don't care that much about commentary and not a thing for different angles, but I do like good making of documentaries. I downright love them, I just love to see how a movie gets made.
Some movies (LOTR, 12 Monkeys, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Jaws, Once Upon A Time in the West,...) have really, REALLY good making of documentaries.
I hate it when a dvd features no extras and no making of's.

But, movie is the most important, and I care that it's presented in it's original aspect ratio (no pan & scan's!).
And indeed, sometimes they really overreact with their 15 different editions with 3 minutes of more footage and an extra documentary that runs over 7 minutes!

It pisses me off that there are like 4 previews in the beginning of each DVD now too.

Glen Chua
www.moonlitefilms.com

Show me the movie you decided to release to the public, that is what you will be remembered for! No changing it now!

Mike

I'm not certain this is correct in every case. For instance when I think of Blade Runner I always think of Ridly Scott's cut, not the theatrical release. Another example would be the LOTR movies. I think that most of the people who dig these will remember the exteneded versions more than the theatrical, because, it is more than likely the DVDs that will, in the end, be seen by the most people. Furthermore, not every movie makes it to theatre the way the director wanted it. For the most part I want to see what the director wants me to see, it makes no diffeerence to me if it was released that way in the theatre- a place to which I almost never go, anyway.

The previews do not piss me off; it's the one;s that won't allow you to FF through them that do.

I agree with Michael, a director ALWAYS wants his movie to end in the theatres the way he likes.
It are the producers and the studios who mostly decide different-wise, and often they have the final cut...

Look to American History X... Hey, I love the movie, but did you search about the story behind it? The director hated the cut, called Edward Norton (who I love btw in his acting) an egocentric narcist who made the cut for his own good... The director wanted the emphasis in the movie to lay on the younger brother, but the studio decided different...
Or Léon, from Luc Besson, magnificent movie. He had to cut out 24 minutes that had some violence, but especially, it hinted mor at a sexual relation between Léon and Mathilda... so they said to him: cut out those scenes... or we'll only release your movie in a handfull of small theatres...

If a director HAS the chance to bring out the director's cut, in a later moment in the process, like on dvd, I'm glad I as a movielover can look at it. Shame that it wasn't done in the first place, but mostly not the choice of the director.
Some studio's, small independent studios, still give final cut to their directors.
Big ones too, but only if you are a very big name (Spielberg, Lucas,... they don't make very controversial movies but they are big enough to make the movie THEY want).

the only thing i'll add is that i really hate it when studios dump old film negatives onto DVDs as is. i watch a ton of classics (silent films, 30s, 40s) and thus far, Warner Bros, MK, certain Fox titles and a handful of film studios release excellent cleaned up prints.

what REALLY REALLY REALLY bothers me is that a film shot in the last 30 years has WORSE print quality than a film shot 70+ years ago! that's ludicrously insane! an easy example, Forrest Gump, it's relative good, but when you start projecting that onto a 100" screen, all the dirty, grime and hair follicles start appearing in the film negatives. why couldn't they do it RIGHT in the first DVD release? *sigh*. it's very very disappointing. i don't mind paying $ for it, as long as they do it right in the first place!

another easy example is T2 Ultimate Edition, then Extreme Edition. UE print looks awful compared to EE. i wish the lowry digital process could be applied to ALL classic films! =). the results are really astounding!

with the upcoming HD formats, i should hope the studios give their classic film negatives a good clean before delivering it onto the new mediums, otherwise, a high-res dirty looking version is still bad!

i think the focus should be on the original film element that's being transferred to HD.

I have several collection of movies and classic movies on Warner home video, and I think they do the very best job as far a quality and execution goes. Especially when it comes to the extra stuff.