[�]

Since the introduction of the DVD I have noticed that people are building their own 'libraries' of DVD movies. What a waste of money !
Like books, you can save a lot of cash burrowing it from public or commercial libraries. How many times are you going to watch and closely examine a scene in a movie over and over again? What a waste of time.

What drives a person to spend literaly hunderds of dollars to create a bookshelf that with each 20 $ spent will increase 1 centimeter in width? Is it for friends? When I say, "hey, I always wanted to see that movie you have in your collection" I usually can take the DVD with me to my house to watch it there.

And what is also really annoying : Collector Editions of DVD's.
All that cheap material they add to an outdated title can only be aimed at morons who don't know what else to do with their $$$$$
djeez, how commerciallly influenced can you become?

[hytek]

I don't buy or rent DVD's when I can download them instead.

[KellyHogan]

I have to say that as much as I love DVDs I also hate them and feel that people are being cheated. I will always side with those who want to rip their CDs and DVDs simply because one scratch on a DVD can render the disc completely useless.

If people like Eisner don't want people 'backing up' their DVD collection then they have to provide discs that either don't scratch or are made of a self-healing material. Simple. Then we won't have an excuse. But as it stands here in the UK we pay �20 for a DVD. That is $30!!! I paid even more than that for 2001: A Space Odyssey and after one scratch the disc became useless.

How much does it cost to produce a DVD? The cost is literally nothing since machines are doing the work and they are basically just copying data. The profit is enormous.

[scaught]

actually having a friend with one of those "annoyingly large collections" is good cause you can borrow them for free!

[C33]

i only buy music dvd's cause i can watch those over and over again. yesterday i got the Cure's greatest hits on dvd. you can also get trance and techno dvd's which have wild, hypnotic visuals along with the music.

[G4ME]

I got plenty of money around and like movies, so kill me. I have literally watched all of my DVDs about 50 of them four times each. That right there saves me money. Plus right now I am going for the cheap weekly specials at best buy, circit city, they usually have two or three good dvds foraround 12 bucks and I can live with that.

[dawho9]

I have about 150 DVD's. But I can say that I have watched each and everyone of them at least 5 times (an average). Some movies like the Matrix and Star Wars I, I would have to guess I have watched them at least 20 times!

Sometimes it makes more sense to purchase the DVD then to rent it everytime I would like to watch a movie.

Secondly, what else are you going to spend your money on? You live once, so go buy things you like. Its a hobby for some. Just as I am sure "Mr. �" that you have a hobby that you spend a ton of money on. Maybe snowmobiles, motorcycles, glass figuarians, golf clubs, porn, etc.

Just my thoughts,

dw9

[ReggieX]

He posted the exact same thing in the "How many DVD's do you own?" thread and was summarily ignored. This is just a grab for attention.

To each their own.

Oh, Kelly, don't forget: it may only cost 2 dollars to *duplicate* a DVD, but creating the content costs a hell of a lot more.

[xi_hyperon]

I am pretty picky about which movies I like, but the ones I do favor I buy on DVD. I'm one of those guys that will watch my faves several times, often on impulse, and renting or borrowing one doesn't lend itself to this (no pun intended, honestly). I may not even watch the entire movie, just my favorite part or parts.

[ringo]

Where I live, the price of two movie tickets at night is about the same as a DVD. So when I buy one, its more me deciding that I'd rather watch a film I may not be able to see any other way v/s shelling out twenty bucks for some cookie-cutter hollywood sh*t.

If I can rent, I do, but most of the DVDs I've bought are international releases or obscure movies that I know the local video store won't stock. Great for loaning to other people with similar tastes in exchange for one of their obscure movies.

By the time I'm done trading around, I can usually see 4 or 5 movies for my twenty bucks, plus I get to keep the original that I bought in the first place.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by ReggieX:
<STRONG>
Oh, Kelly, don't forget: it may only cost 2 dollars to *duplicate* a DVD, but creating the content costs a hell of a lot more. </STRONG>

The content has already made moeny before it even reaches the video stores. Movies make millions in the theaters, baby.

Can you also explain why a movie like Casablanca or some other old movie will be rereleased on DVD with no extras, no improvement to picture or sound (because in most cases that can't be done) and yet the price of the DVD will still be as high as newly released movies? It's quite clearly a con and some **** executives are making millions on material that they didn't even make in the first place. Their company simply owns the rights.

[sek929]

I only buy DVDs of movies that I absolutely love. And since most of them are only about 15$ off of amazon.com renting them 3 times would already be 15$, so I might as well have my own copy.

If there is a movie that I like, but don't love, then I'll rent it. Otherwise, I'll just keep buying my favorite DVDs, and not let anyone borrow them�

[gumby5647]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>I have to say that as much as I love DVDs I also hate them and feel that people are being cheated. I will always side with those who want to rip their CDs and DVDs simply because one scratch on a DVD can render the disc completely useless.

If people like Eisner don't want people 'backing up' their DVD collection then they have to provide discs that either don't scratch or are made of a self-healing material. Simple. Then we won't have an excuse. But as it stands here in the UK we pay �20 for a DVD. That is $30!!! I paid even more than that for 2001: A Space Odyssey and after one scratch the disc became useless.

How much does it cost to produce a DVD? The cost is literally nothing since machines are doing the work and they are basically just copying data. The profit is enormous.</STRONG>

i hear ya man, loud and clear....

I think that if a disk gets scratched or becomes unusable a person should be able to mail it in to the company and get a free replacement.

[flatcatch]

Originally posted by gumby5647:
<STRONG>

i hear ya man, loud and clear....

I think that if a disk gets scratched or becomes unusable a person should be able to mail it in to the company and get a free replacement.</STRONG>

I agree that you should be able to replace a scratched disc for some minimal "shipping and handling" charge. Certainly not for FREE - you're the one that destroyed it. It's not like these things are fragile beyond reason.

And I'm sorry, but do you guys store your CDs and DVDs in a sandbox? I have about 300 CDs and around 40 DVDs are have never once rendered a disc unplayable - and I travel all over the place with them. My brother trashes his but that is because he never uses a sleeve or jewel case and just keeps them piled up around his room, shuffling through 'em like playing cards.

(Now of course, if you happened to play a DVD in an X-Box it'd be all scratched up automatically for ya )

[Leia's Right Bun]

Oh shut up already. It is a hobby. If I want to spend $20 on buying a DVD for whatever reason I can. I am not asking YOU for money and if you don't like it you don't have to come over here and watch them (not like you are invited anyway).

You want to tell me what the point of posting this topic is anyway? Right, it is about as useful as owning 100 DVD's.

[macthelastredman]

i have alot of dvd's i dont watch that much but i know someday i'll be sitting home bored and i'll have a dvd to pop in and watch. i have sold alot of my dvds in the past and now i wish i wouldnt have. but then again i look at them somedays and think of the money i could get for them if i just sold them all

[�]

I agree, public theaters are for the "people" and should be avoided as such. I just had the worst public theater experience when watching "Black hawk Down".
Some thin, dumb, retard occupying the chair next to me, thought it was the most funniest movie he ever saw. The more blood, the more excited he became.

"WOOOOW that %&**^&% dies HAAHA, hey WOOOO thats a MINIGUN those babies fire 6000 rounds a minute WOOO look he has been HIT LOW YEAH, HAHA" if you have seen BHD you KNOW this guy got all the exitement about massacre and firearms he could wish for

Still, DVDcollections are a waste of money (and time).

[daimoni]

.

[MikeM32]

Why buy DVD's? I'll answer that with another question: Why buy music CD's? If you really only like one or two songs by a specific band then you don't buy the whole CD (most people will try to RIP the song, or record it from a friend). If you really like the whole album and most of the songs then you buy the CD. The point is you wouldn't buy the whole CD just because you liked one song on it. Well I wouldn't anyway.

It's basically the same with movies. I'll rent movies and if something is really *that* good I'll buy it. Why? Because I know I'm just going to want to see it many more times, so I'm saving money by owning it versus renting it over and over again. I'm extremely picky about what movies I'm going to buy also, so I have (what I consider) a fairly small collection.

I haven't made the jump to DVD yet, but I do own like 20-30 movies on VHS. Each one of those movies has been watched at least 20 times.

The ex-wife on the other hand was a real nutcase with buying movies. She'd buy anything she "liked", she owned like 300 original movies on VHS. I don't even buy every movie I just "like". It's gotta be absolutely awesome otherwise it's not worth watching over and over again and therefor not worth buying. If it's just "like-able" it'll be on HBO/Starz/Encore again eventually.

But the bottom line is it's my money to spend as I choose. You know what really annoys me? People that own too many clothes.........I suppose that's a topic better left for another thread. And then there's those morons that stock up on food to eat, jeesh, what's up with that? And breathing, breathing people really piss me off too

Mike

[yukon]

afaik, these dvds will be outdated in a few. The next standard, something like 23gb per disc, is incompatible. I'm sure players will be hybred.

instead of longer movies, there will probably be a jump in quality. or, RipMixBurn and put 4 dvds on one new dvd.

[MikeM32]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
have to say that as much as I love DVDs I also hate them and feel that people are being cheated. I will always side with those who want to rip their CDs and DVDs simply because one scratch on a DVD can render the disc completely useless.

If people like Eisner don't want people 'backing up' their DVD collection then they have to provide discs that either don't scratch or are made of a self-healing material. Simple. Then we won't have an excuse. But as it stands here in the UK we pay �20 for a DVD. That is $30!!! I paid even more than that for 2001: A Space Odyssey and after one scratch the disc became useless.

How much does it cost to produce a DVD? The cost is literally nothing since machines are doing the work and they are basically just copying data. The profit is enormous.

This is one of the reasons I'm a little wary of jumping into the DVD game. Only a few years ago I made the switch from music tapes to CD's. So I went all out and replaced most of my best music tapes with CD's. I then dumped out all my old casette tapes. Now like half of my music CD's are almost un-playable due to scratches. While I'll admit that earlier on I was probably a tad careless with them, it also seems like you can scratch some of them just by "looking at them wrong". I barely even buy music anymore because of that. You have to be so damned careful with them it's rediculous. With casettes and VHS tapes I could just leave them in a sloppy pile if I want to.

What made casette tapes and VHS tapes great is that it was in a protective casing. Sure the playback wasn't as good, but at least the tape inside was protected by a covering. I really wonder why CD's and DVD's aren't in a protective casing for playback (if you've ever seen a DVD-RAM disk, I'm thinking something similar to that). I'd almost be willing to bet that the idea was brought up at some obscure board meeting when CD's were first invented and it was denied because "they" knew they'd sell more CD's and DVD's if they could be easily damaged. Sure it's a conspiracy theory, but it's not too hard to believe if you think about it.

I too think that a person should be able to get a free replacement on CD's and DVD's when they become un-usable. It's not that a person shouldn't be careful when handling them, but they're rediculously easy to damage.

Mike

[Metzen]

Originally posted by MikeM32:
<STRONG>I too think that a person should be able to get a free replacement on CD's and DVD's when they become un-usable. It's not that a person shouldn't be careful when handling them, but they're rediculously easy to damage.

Mike</STRONG>

Riiiiiiiiiiight...

Cars are easily damaged too, does that mean I should get a shiny new one if I wear out (damage) my car within a few years of getting it?

I think not!

If I made a product for people... Let's call them "lightbulbs"... and the light bulbs are easily damaged by imcompentent users, well... That's not MY problem. Your right though, it would be nice if money grew on trees and we could just "GIVE OUT" free things like DVD's.

[danbrew]

shoot, i've got close to 500 DVDs. I'm a nut. Figure that's about $10,000 iin movies @ $20 a pop. I've been buying them since they became available, and while I've seen lots of them many times, some of them I've only watched once. Only once or twice have I just trashed the disc as complete garbage.

Here's my take on it...

* It's my money. So there.
* It's a collection and while I may not watch them all, I'm collecting them and, maybe, just maybe, my kids will want to watch them some day. I'll still have the DVD player and the $10,000 tv to go along with them.
* It does cost about $20 for two to see a movie on a Saturday night - more often, a lot more if you include dinner and drinks.
* One of these days there will be a one-stop non-pain-in-the-ass method of ripping them and perhaps I'll put 20 of them on one of the new (yet to be invented) high-capacity discs.
* I'm still trying to figure out how to easily turn all of my laser discs into DVDs - I can copy analog out to my DV deck, but the tapes only hold 60 minutes. damn. One day soon.
* I like watching movies. Although once the kids got here, the movie watching got a lot less attention than the kid watching.
* Discs are pretty easy to care for as long as you don't leave them laying around.

So there...

[flatcatch]

Originally posted by MikeM32:
<STRONG>
I too think that a person should be able to get a free replacement on CD's and DVD's when they become un-usable. It's not that a person shouldn't be careful when handling them, but they're rediculously easy to damage.
</STRONG>

Ok. I already posted about this but I can't believe people expect a company to replace a product that YOU can't take care of properly. How hard is it to 1) keep the damn thing in the jewel case or 2) keep it in sleeve case flip/binder thing for the car and 3) not play frisbee with it over concrete parking lots?

I feel like I leave mine all over sometimes knock 'em around some, but maybe people always place them "data" side down on bookshelves or whatever and scratch the hell out of it that way (you need to put label-side down). I mean, you can stick a CD down your pants, soak in a bathtub for a while, dry off, and it will work fine. Just put the sandblaster away.

I though I heard it all, but not buying CDs or DVDs because you can't take care of them is a new one.

[Edit: I'm not trying to be a dick here, but damn man, how hard can it be??]

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: flatcatch ]

[yukon]

vd drives used to use caddys. anyone remember those? damn annoying, thats what they were. I think I damaged the cds more by moving them in and out of those things.

[poocat]

ok.
have to post this, because people don't see it.

hi kelly.
while i agree with you that movie companies make an incredible profit,
you should know that a lot of work goes into creating a dvd.
a lot of people decide what stuff should be on the dvd,
how it should be organized, what splash screens should look like, etc.

while this is not a good excuse (they should prolly cost $5, max) it does matter.

i only say this cause i met one of these guys yesterday and he told me about his job...


and man, who cares how you spend your money?

but...
hey...

if you watched star wars 1 20 times...
how do you have any braincells left to type with?

poocat.

[ford prefect]

I think optical disk media is, with the exception of minidisc, bad.
I look forward to a day where we don't have to worry about dropping a cd or dvd, and instantly rendering it useless. In this day of technology, you'd think we could come up with a better way. In fact, I'm sure there is a better way, it's just that too many companies have too much to lose if we switched media again. I just think its stupid to have to be so careful with you music. We've reverted back to the days of records. How sad.

[driven]

Originally posted by �:
<STRONG>Since the introduction of the DVD I have noticed that people are building their own 'libraries' of DVD movies. What a waste of money !
Like books, you can save a lot of cash burrowing it from public or commercial libraries. How many times are you going to watch and closely examine a scene in a movie over and over again? What a waste of time.

What drives a person to spend literaly hunderds of dollars to create a bookshelf that with each 20 $ spent will increase 1 centimeter in width? Is it for friends? When I say, "hey, I always wanted to see that movie you have in your collection" I usually can take the DVD with me to my house to watch it there.

And what is also really annoying : Collector Editions of DVD's.
All that cheap material they add to an outdated title can only be aimed at morons who don't know what else to do with their $$$$$
djeez, how commerciallly influenced can you become?

</STRONG>

Why would you worry about what other folks are buying?

Be happy that someone is keeping the economy flowing.

[driven]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

The content has already made moeny before it even reaches the video stores. Movies make millions in the theaters, baby.

Can you also explain why a movie like Casablanca or some other old movie will be rereleased on DVD with no extras, no improvement to picture or sound (because in most cases that can't be done) and yet the price of the DVD will still be as high as newly released movies? It's quite clearly a con and some **** executives are making millions on material that they didn't even make in the first place. Their company simply owns the rights.</STRONG>

Relax ... he's pushing your buttons.

[driven]

Did anyone notice that � started this thread, and has subsequently DISAPPEAERED from the discussion?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by poocat:
<STRONG>a lot of people decide what stuff should be on the dvd,
how it should be organized, what splash screens should look like, etc.</STRONG>

But this stuff is completely unnecessary, and, to me at least, completely undesirable. If they sold DVDs that just had the movie on them and nothing else, no menus, nothing, just put in the disc and it plays the movie, I'd buy those over these "feature"-laden discs every time. Obviously some people do want to be able to hear the director commenting on every single aspect of the film as they watch it, and what not. But all I want is the movie with the language track in the original language, and English subtitles if necessary. They wouldn't need nearly as much space for a disc like that, they wouldn't need to invest nearly as much in it's creation, and I wouldn't need to spend nearly as much on them.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by �:
<STRONG>Since the introduction of the DVD I have noticed that people are building their own 'libraries' of DVD movies. What a waste of money !
Like books, you can save a lot of cash burrowing it from public or commercial libraries. How many times are you going to watch and closely examine a scene in a movie over and over again? What a waste of time.

What drives a person to spend literaly hunderds of dollars to create a bookshelf that with each 20 $ spent will increase 1 centimeter in width? Is it for friends? When I say, "hey, I always wanted to see that movie you have in your collection" I usually can take the DVD with me to my house to watch it there.

And what is also really annoying : Collector Editions of DVD's.
All that cheap material they add to an outdated title can only be aimed at morons who don't know what else to do with their $$$$$
djeez, how commerciallly influenced can you become?

</STRONG>

Hire a DVD 4 times and you may as well have bought it.

[MikeM32]

Originally posted by Metzen:
Riiiiiiiiiiight...

Cars are easily damaged too, does that mean I should get a shiny new one if I wear out (damage) my car within a few years of getting it?

I think not!

If I made a product for people... Let's call them "lightbulbs"... and the light bulbs are easily damaged by imcompentent users, well... That's not MY problem. Your right though, it would be nice if money grew on trees and we could just "GIVE OUT" free things like DVD's.

If you actually took the time to read my post instead of jumping all over me you'd see that I even admitted that I didn't take proper care of them when I first enterred the world of CD's. Maybe saying the companies should replace them free of charge was a little "extreme", but my point is that they are extremely easy to damage. As ford perfect mentions, all you have to do is drop one and it could be renderred useless.

That said, I think the execs knew what they were doing when they went from Tape Casettes to Optical media. The main thing I can't figure out is why wasn't the possibility taken into consideration in the first place? Why go from a form of media that is very sturdy (okay the tape itself isn't but it's inside a sase at all times) to something where the media is completely exposed?

Mike

[ringo]

I Like optical media, even with the risks of scratching.

1. Its cheap, about $1 a blank disc for CDs, cheaper if bought in bulk. In time, DVD-R's will drop in price as the technology becomes more widespread. Until then, a VHS recording can be backed up onto a VCD format compact disc with little quality loss.

2. Small form factor. I can fit a lot more discs in a small space then cassettes or video tapes.

3. Scratched discs can often be repaired with a $20.00 gizmo that buffs the disc.

4. No moving parts to wear out

5. No degradation to the quality over time. Anyone with a tape collection will be able to see the picture and sound quality start to slide after repeated viewing.

Can they be damaged? Sure, but I've killed a VHS tape or two by dropping it on its corner and shattering the part that covers the tape. Just keep it in the case or in the player, there's no reason you're disks should get scratched up if you take care of your stuff.

[�]

Cipher, you probably don't know that a DVD in Belgium comes out about 3 months after the US. AND
Hiring a DVD costs 2 euro, buying one costs 25 euro (a blockbuster ca go as high as 40 euro).
I don't believe people see all of their DVD's (25/2=) 12.5 times.

They are building collections for nobody and nothing.

[Joshua]

One of the primary reasons DVD's are expensive is because studio's are afraid of piracy. As soon as copying a DVD becomes as simple as ripping a CD, the studio's will lose a lot of money.

That said, the price of DVD's seems to be dropping. Even places like Best Buy have large selections of DVD's for under $15.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Joshua:
<STRONG>One of the primary reasons DVD's are expensive is because studio's are afraid of piracy. As soon as copying a DVD becomes as simple as ripping a CD, the studio's will lose a lot of money.

That said, the price of DVD's seems to be dropping. Even places like Best Buy have large selections of DVD's for under $15.</STRONG>

But I'd be willing to bet that if their prices weren't so high this wouldn't be the case. If DVDs weren't so damned expensive people would be less likely to pirate them. And they wouldn't lose money, they just be making a slightly less insanely huge amount.

[G4ME]

Cipher, you probably don't know that a DVD in Belgium comes out about 3 months after the US. AND
Hiring a DVD costs 2 euro, buying one costs 25 euro (a blockbuster ca go as high as 40 euro).
I don't believe people see all of their DVD's (25/2=) 12.5 times.

They are building collections for nobody and nothing.

He speaks
Sucks to be in belgium
Were No 1

[superlarry]

i'll start with my usual response to any DVD thread/argument, then go on:
remember when the point of dvd's was to provide cheap cheap CHEAP entertainment? $5-6 each was the plan. that still gives profit.
a couple months later these "DVD's" actually come out. for $20-30. WHOA! what's up? disappointed, i didn't buy any (i now only have 3).
since then i've seen a bunch of DVD's. i'm one of those picky types who doesn't like to see pixellation and patchy colors in a movie that would be primo on VHS. so i prefer VHS still.
and a while ago i hear that DVD's have single-handedly saved the movie industry.
now i don't mind people buying them. good for them. i won't. the quality, i feel, is inferior to VHS. i'll sacrifice my "sharp edges" and "vivid colors" (the latter of which i don't feel to be true - just higher-color output from the dvd-player). sharp edges only go away on VHS after repeated viewing, and it only gets "bad" after like 10 years.
and where will DVD's be in 10 years?
in the garbage when the next thing comes out. and the fickle (in my opinion) people who ran out to buy DVD's will be buying the next step up.
and that next step had better have some real quality to it. i *know* we will not get reasonable prices - our economy doesn't work that way.
(btw, DVD's aren't saving our economy; just the movie industry. our economy is struggling.)

[G4ME]

i'm one of those picky types who doesn't like to see pixellation and patchy colors in a movie that would be primo on VHS. so i prefer VHS still

I am sorry but I guess you have never experiances The Matrix. Gladiator, Star Wars Episode One, or many of the other movies that have 5.1 plus the better picture quality compared to you cheap magnetic tape.

sharp edges only go away on VHS after repeated viewing, and it only gets "bad" after like 10 years.

A DVD will never ware out and time is not a factor in VHS its the actuall viewing of the movie.

Morron, no way can you say the VHS is better than DVD

[trebek]

Originally posted by superlarry:
<STRONG>i'll start with my usual response to any DVD thread/argument, then go on:
remember when the point of dvd's was to provide cheap cheap CHEAP entertainment? $5-6 each was the plan. that still gives profit.
a couple months later these "DVD's" actually come out. for $20-30. WHOA! what's up? disappointed, i didn't buy any (i now only have 3).
since then i've seen a bunch of DVD's. i'm one of those picky types who doesn't like to see pixellation and patchy colors in a movie that would be primo on VHS. so i prefer VHS still.
and a while ago i hear that DVD's have single-handedly saved the movie industry.
now i don't mind people buying them. good for them. i won't. the quality, i feel, is inferior to VHS. i'll sacrifice my "sharp edges" and "vivid colors" (the latter of which i don't feel to be true - just higher-color output from the dvd-player). sharp edges only go away on VHS after repeated viewing, and it only gets "bad" after like 10 years.
and where will DVD's be in 10 years?
in the garbage when the next thing comes out. and the fickle (in my opinion) people who ran out to buy DVD's will be buying the next step up.
and that next step had better have some real quality to it. i *know* we will not get reasonable prices - our economy doesn't work that way.
(btw, DVD's aren't saving our economy; just the movie industry. our economy is struggling.)</STRONG>

Are you a comedian? Have you ever tried to watch a VHS tape on a 50' HDTV? It looks like pure shit. The only way I think that someone could argue that DVD wasn't superior than VHS is if they compared the 2 on a 14' TV or something.

Have you actually ever watched a DVD?

[mathew_m]

I'm always amazed when I stumble into the MacNN Lounge how many stupid Mac users there are. Seriously if you've gone out of your way to own a Mac you would think you would be more knowledgble about other technology. I guess not.

A little refresher for the dipzoids: Only five-ten years ago the best home presentation format you could buy was the Laser Disc (yes those golden record looking things) and the average cost of one of those was $40 and this was often for just a bare bones movie only edition; Special Editions could run you upwards of $100 or more. A good example of how far we have come is in the latest Tron release. Laugh if you may but the original Special Edition ran about $120, the new DVD release is a 2 disc with everything the previous release had (commentary, stills) plus a brand new THX approved high definition transfer (420 progressive) and 5.1 dolby digital soundtrack along with an hour and half documentary. All of this for $20 bucks.

Again I try to only purchase discs that I will watch more than once and have extra features that I'm interested in (I'm a sucker for those long down and dirty behind the scenes docs).

This post is more a rant against again the idiots on these boards.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by �:
<STRONG>Cipher, you probably don't know that a DVD in Belgium comes out about 3 months after the US. AND
Hiring a DVD costs 2 euro, buying one costs 25 euro (a blockbuster ca go as high as 40 euro).
I don't believe people see all of their DVD's (25/2=) 12.5 times.

They are building collections for nobody and nothing.</STRONG>

DVD's here come out 6-8 months after the US. Hiring a movie here costs... meh, I don't know. $6 a night?

A DVD can cost anywhere from $30 to $50 here, not including imports, which can be up to $80.

In general, I'd hire a movie enough times to make it worth it...

[superlarry]

Originally posted by trebek:
<STRONG>
Have you ever tried to watch a VHS tape on a 50' HDTV? It looks like pure shit. The only way I think that someone could argue that DVD wasn't superior than VHS is if they compared the 2 on a 14' TV or something.</STRONG>

yes, i've watched dvd's. but not on a 50 (i assume you mean inch, not foot) HDTV, i admit. i can imagine that instead of VHS' somewhat blurry edges, you'll have nice big pixels that make every curvy line choppy. i'd love to be wrong, though. with your argument, though, shouldn't a dvd still look better than VHS on a 14" tv? why wouldn't it?

mathew_m.. thanks for coming in to complain and proving NONE of us wrong.

on a side not, i think it's cool how lots of people are saying "hire a movie" when stupid americans like me always say "rent a movie." ;c) took me a second to figure that out

[�]

Well, you could also HIRE the A-Team. I think RENT is for real-estate only.