Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen

[TJ Spyke]

If I wanted to own a digital copy of my movies, I'd purchase the digital copies.

But the point here is that you still have the physical discs, but you also have the option of having digital copies.

[broodwars]

If I wanted to own a digital copy of my movies, I'd purchase the digital copies.

But the point here is that you still have the physical discs, but you also have the option of having digital copies.

Which is fine and all, but like I said it forces me to pay for something I'm not going to use, and (at least in the case of Back to the Future's set) it hampers/jeopardizes the useability of the more important contents in the set because there is one more piece of added fluff within to account for.  At least if they're going to do digital copies, have them be internet links with one-use passwords where you download the film and be done with it.  I've seen sets that do this already.  I don't want to have to pay for the manufacture of (to me) a useless disc that the rest of the set also has to be designed around.

[ThePerm]

how much does the price of a bluray without a digital copy cost compared to one with one? If they are the same then its a lame argument not to include one. Remember Bluray will be obsolete faster then DVD was, so plan ahead.

[Morari]

At least if they're going to do digital copies, have them be internet links with one-use passwords where you download the film and be done with it.

Or, you know, let people have control over their own media. Then you could just rip the film to whatever format you wanted and be done with it.

[NWR_insanolord]

At least if they're going to do digital copies, have them be internet links with one-use passwords where you download the film and be done with it.

Or, you know, let people have control over their own media. Then you could just rip the film to whatever format you wanted and be done with it.

That's the thing, even if I'm given a Digital Copy with a movie I won't use it, and will instead rip my own file from the disc if I want it.

[Halbred]

I love that a lot of Blu-Rays these days include:

1) The Blu-Ray
2) The DVD
3) A digital copy

I can understand (3), because frankly I like having lots of movies on my iPod. However, if you buy the Blu-Ray version of a movie, YOU DON'T NEED THE DVD. It's like buying the DVD and they throw in the VHS which you'll never watch BECAUSE YOU HAVE A DVD PLAYER.

[NWR_insanolord]

There are definitely times when I'd use the DVD even if I had the Blu-ray. I only have one Blu-ray player, so if I wanted to watch the movie in another room I could do so without moving my PS3. It would also be handy if I wanted to take the movie to go watch at a friend's house who didn't have a Blu-ray player. It's not enough for me to buy both, but it's nice if they're throwing it in for free.

[broodwars]

I love that a lot of Blu-Rays these days include:

1) The Blu-Ray
2) The DVD
3) A digital copy

I can understand (3), because frankly I like having lots of movies on my iPod. However, if you buy the Blu-Ray version of a movie, YOU DON'T NEED THE DVD. It's like buying the DVD and they throw in the VHS which you'll never watch BECAUSE YOU HAVE A DVD PLAYER.

I don't mind companies throwing the DVD copy in there, because it encourages people who don't own a Blu-Ray player to buy the Blu-Ray version.  More people buying the Blu-Ray version = more Blu-Ray releases for me, so it's an acceptable compromise from my perspective.  People who want primarily a digital copy won't buy the Blu-Ray version for it, though.  They'll just pirate the movie, or purchase it off one of the many digital video stores like PSN or whatnot.

[BlackNMild2k1]

DVD copy is for those that own mostly DVD players (everyone has like 3-4 in their house whether they realize it or not) but want to grow a Bluray collection for when they eventually upgrade. Or like Brood said, only have 1 BRD player at the moment.

Digital copies are to combat piracy by making it easy to just put a copy on another device. They must figure it's just a cheap to give it away in the package instead of people just downloading the whole thing for free online. It's an added value that I don't believe they are charging you any extra for in comparison to a standalone Bluray version.

But I still find the normal price of Blurays to be too expensive regardless of the extra perceived value of the included DVD and digital copy.

[ThePerm]

hey theres a movie out called House of the Devil, theres a special edition that comes with a VHS, which is sweet because the movie is made in a retro style.

http://www.amazon.com/House-Devil-VHS-DVD-Bundle/dp/B003360JKY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1292625971&sr=8-1

[TJ Spyke]

The combo packs help sell Blu-ray copies to people who may not have a BD player yet but plan to eventually (and don't want to re-buy the title). They can also be for families where the BD copy can be for the parents and the DVD copy can be given to the kids for there room, etc.

I have not bought that many BD titles because of their cost. Why should I, for example, pay $50 for the BD version of The Simpsons season 13 when I can get the DVD version for $40?

More movies i've watched:

Josie and the Pussycats: Darker than the comics (so i'm told, i've never read them). Basically a dark look at the commercialism of the music industry and how music acts are basically created by corporations and they decide who is big.

Knucklehead: Pretty good family comedy. Stars WWE wrestler The Big Show who becomes a MMA fighter to help save the orphanage he lives at. The movie also has the great line of "Nun Up!" (instead of "Man Up").

[Shorty McNostril]

If you want to be a bit cheeky, you can sell the Disc that you don't use, and get a better deal on yours.

[ThePerm]

thoeretically you may visit a relatives house and not want to bring your bluray player, but then have a dvd to watch it on their player. I still don't have a bluray player.

[TJ Spyke]

The only reason I have one is because of my PS3. Well, technically I have two now since my new laptop has a Blu-ray Disc drive.

[broodwars]

Finally got around to seeing Inception via a Blu-Ray loaned to me by a co-worker, and in general I liked it but I can't really say that I "loved" it like most people seem to.  It's good, but nowhere near as great as the hype led me to be believed.  It's a very carefully crafted movie, but strangely enough (considering my main criticism of the arthouse movie is that there's usually too much time spent on the mundane and not enough forward momentum) I thought that the action in the movie really felt forced and got in the way of the story.  It tended to make the worlds that were being created feel fairly random, and I don't think that the writers did enough to play with the idea of being inside a dream.  Plus, the way the movie ends on a rather blatant bit of sequel baiting felt pretty tacky to me.

[oohhboy]

The entire last hour was about having a dream within a dream. Hell, the entire movie starts from that. The action and story was one and the same. Full of show, not tell. The dream worlds are meant to feel a little contrived and clean as they are constructed, artificial, not too disimilar to a level in a videogame.

There are no writers, just the one, Nolan.

[broodwars]

The entire last hour was about having a dream within a dream. Hell, the entire movie starts from that. The action and story was one and the same. Full of show, not tell. The dream worlds are meant to feel a little contrived and clean as they are constructed, artificial, not too disimilar to a level in a videogame.

There are no writers, just the one, Nolan.

Go watch Paprika (and I don't even like that movie) and then tell me that Nolan really did a lot with the concept of being inside a dream.   :   Perhaps I just imagined there being more surreal imagery, but I just found the various worlds kind of "meh" and in some cases (like the "hospital" world) I found the steady increase in action movie tropes to be kind of annoying.

[Morari]

It tended to make the worlds that were being created feel fairly random, and I don't think that the writers did enough to play with the idea of being inside a dream.

The idea wasn't played with nearly as much as it should have been. The entire plot was pretty linear, in fact. Never was there a point where you actively questioned whether or not they were in a dream. That was the film's major downfall... that and the Ariadne character worked as a very poor device for explaining things to the audience. It's still worth watching, but the lack of any real confusion was a letdown, especially from Nolan. You'd think after Memento and (to a lesser extent) The Prestige, he could have pulled it off better.

[Adrock]

The Other Guys
Pleasantly surprised. I heard this was terrible so I had low expectations. Not great, but far from terrible. I died during the "aim for the bushes" scene. Will Ferrell wasn't typical Will Ferrell which I liked. Mark Wahlberg had some great lines and played the "straight-man" well. On a completely unrelated note, I still can't see him as Nathan Drake, especially since Nathan Fillion lobbied for the role.

[TJ Spyke]

Planet of the Apes (1968 version) - Good movie, holds up better than I remember. Taylor really is an asshole and given up on his fellow humans.

Beneath the Planet of the Apes - Terrible movie. Obvious that they were just trying to make a cheap sequel to cash in on the popularity of the first movie. Charleton Heston had to basically be begged to return, and that was only for like the last 10 minutes of the movie.

[Morari]

I never thought that Beneath the Planet of the Apes was that bad. It certainly doesn't stand on its own, nor stand the test of time the way the original did, but it was an alright sequel. There are several other films that follow that as well... they vary greatly in quality.

[NWR_insanolord]

I like all 5 Planet of the Apes movies, but wouldn't consider the last 3 to be particularly good. Beneath, however, I thought was pretty good. This discussion made me remember that I bought the original and Beneath on Blu-ray when I found them really cheap and I have yet to watch them.

[TJ Spyke]

I re-watched all 5 today (as well as the documentary Behind the Planet of the Apes. If I had to rank the original five:

Escape from the Planet of the Apes
Battle for the Planet of the Apes
Planet of the Apes
Conquest of the Planet of the Apes
Beneath the Planet of the Apes

The problem with the second is that it is basically a re-hash of the first movie, but not as good. It's not a terrible movie, but I do think it is the worst of the 5.

[NWR_insanolord]

Any list ranking the Planet of the Apes movies that doesn't have the original as the best is objectively wrong. It's an all-time classic with a fantastic (albeit well-known) twist ending.

[TJ Spyke]

Haha. It may be classic (I do enjoy it), but I thought both Escape and Battle improved on it and were even more obvious with their social commentary (like how the original dealt with like race issues, political issues, etc.).