Obsession with Extras

Following on from the editorial in today's DVDFile I must say that I wholheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed and I have long advocated the fact that we the consumers are becoming obsessed with extras. To me extras should be looked at as 'added value', nothing more. And yet I have heard so many complaints and moaning from people if extras aren't included, as though we are all being conned - Rubbish! The whole point of DVD Films are the films, not 60 TV Spots and HBO's First Look but the film itself. It is ridiculous to start complaining and bemoaning studios for not including extras, unless of course they start charging large premiums - in which case a good moan is appropriate. I feel that DVD is being overshadowed by people going on and on and on about bloody extras!

Don't get me wrong, I love Special Editions such as The Abyss, Alien Box Set, Bond Box Set and can't wait for the Tarzan Special Edition and so on. But these are exceptions as they are billed and sold as SE's and therefore extras are an integral part of the package. I'd quite like studios to define things better by including no extras on regular releases and leaving the extras to the Special Editions.

Any thoughts?

[Movieesa]

I see your point but someone could also say that DVD movies should contain all they can. We has this great technology, use it to it's fullest. By this I mean, if a studio releases a film on DVD, it should contain the deleted scenes just cause people like me love to see them, and also learn why they were cut. A movie such as Being John Malkovich could and should have so much more but it seems like the studio doesn't really care about it. The movies sound and Picture quality is first then do the extras. Some purchases for me really have been made on the content of the disc. Three Kings is a an example of this. Or Brazil, the Criterion Collection. These extras add insight. Which bring me to my last point. Some extras are worthless. Those 5-10 minute HBO first looks can be gone for all I care. Or those little featurettes with the trailer and the stars saying a sentence. More companies should follow FOX and NEW LINE. FOX is starting to bring out some great 2 discs sets. And New Line with the 2 discs sets of Se7en and Boogie Nights should be amazing. Sorry for going on, it's been a long day. Hope this offers some insight to your post.

I think that the issue of extras SHOULD be left entirely in the hands of the director in question. Where Cameron and Costner were concerned, they WANTED longer versions of their films and thus opted to exploit the advantage of laserdisc and now DVD to present the UNCUT versions of their films. However, if the director does NOT want to include such things, that is their choice. THEY were the ones who went through the maze of Hollywood to get their film to the screen, therefore it is their decision as to what to include or leave out.

Personally, I do enjoy the extras only in that I am able to see firsthand how the creative process works from concept to the finished product. Movies from what I have observed tend to be a rather amorphous thing at the very beginnings of them and to see how the director goes from idea to final product is what I do enjoy seeing the most. Gattaca's extra scenes are very good. However, to have included them into the film would have made it a disaster in that they would have given away the suspense that makes the film great. Abyss needed the extras to flesh out the story, the DVD bonus was that you could see the before and after picture via the seamless branching technology. I only wish that Fox would have done that with Aliens. I feel that it would have done a lot to show what editing can do to and for films. It is a shame that director's don't like the commentary tracks, I do find them interesting too. To see what was ad lib and what was script makes an interesting subtext too. However, the purist side of me MUST side with the director, it is his or her decision and with them it MUST remain.

I guess the only preface I would say is, whatever decision is to be made, make it BEFORE any announcements to the public. This way, we the people are not lead to believe one thing is coming out, when the product that hits the shelves is FAR from what we were expecting. I make my case with Titanic, the reason that I won't buy the version that is out on the shelves right now is that I heard that there was to be a Special Edition with restored footage Cameron had to cut for time and due to studio pressure. When it was the standard cut, I was angry in that time is no longer a factor and I had waited quite awhile past the studio's release of the VHS. To have waited and only got a standard cut was VERY disappointing. Ever since the Special Editions of the Star Wars Trilogy the debate has rustled amongst the film cans, "What is the definition of a FINISHED film?" How many versions of Star Wars can we see, or other films for that matter? Time, debate, and technology will tell us...

Adrian - I don't mean to sound pompous but how refreshing to hear your comments and to read your post. You make some really valid arguements which, on reflection, I agree with. I too enjoy watching some of the extras but unlike Moviessa states it is not just that the studios don't care - look at the efforts that some have gone to to give us a good deal. I appreciate the disappointment but there are so many factors to take into account when releasing a DVD and one of them unfortunately is cost. Also licencing agreements, the producer's and director's wishes, time and so on and on must also be taken into account. I love DVD but it really does get to me when people start whining about things that are, essentially, superfluous to the main attraction - the film. The studios aren't trying to con us and it's not that they don't care. Do you realise just how many copies of The Abyss that Fox will have to sell to make a profit? R1 DVD is, in the scheme of things, a relatively small market and Fox will need to sell two copies per DVD owner to make a profit on the set! Credit where it's due please.
Studios are a business they are here to make money - just like the rest of us in our business dealings. I say thank you Fox, Paramount, Universal, Disney, Dreamworks etc for putting such an effort into allowing me to enjoy the films I love and for supporting what was originally a very high risk venture.

Oh and boo sucks to old Lucas who is the real villain - if you ask me...

[This message has been edited by Justin Pledger (edited 03-30-2000).]

[Chili Palmer]

I love movies. Just like everyone here. It is an escape from the mundane day to day world. When I go about purchasing a dvd title, supplements are the last factor I consider. Sure they are nice to have, but in all honesty, i only look at the extras once. skim through them, look at the trailers, which I am a big fan of. I have only listened to half of one commentary(Roger Ebert-Dark City) and I really don't have time to sit down and listen to someone ramble about his film. Now I am a hollywood nut, so i like to know whats going on with who, and who is doing what, and etc. So one would think the commentaries are a way of getting to these people's heads and see how they come up with these wonderful ideas of film. To make a long story short, I am more concerned with the audio track first and foremost, and then picture quality. And obviously the film itself. If there happens to be a spotlight on location or any added info then well bonus. But it is not a big deal, and I agree with Justin.

Chili

[micahp]

I see no problem adding additional footage to a disc. I don't understand a filmaker's objection to the including of deleted scenes on a disc as an extra. If the filmaker was happy that the scene was removed then leave it out of the cut of the film on the disc. Just have the additional footage as an extra in the special features menu.
I think that the main objection film makers have to deleted footage is when it is included in the cut of the movie without their permissions (that objection I can understand). Maybe that's what Sam Mendes thinks they are going to do to American Beauty. And that would be a tragedy.

I think that deleted scenes, outtakes, alternate endings, and commentaries are all valuable supplements that greatly enhances ones understanding of the art of film and the process of making one. I would have thought the filmakers could understand that as well.


------------------
Resident Me,
Micah P.
Digital Dreams
Home of the Spider Monkey.

[Damian]

When it comes down to it. No matter how many suppliments are added to the disk, if the movie itself stinks...it's still going to stink.
Anybody remember Wild Wild West?

------------------
-Damian

I have to disagree with Justin, and Peter for that matter somewhat. First off, the editorial was specifically talking about special editions, which by definition means extra content or else it isn't "special". I'll go along so far as some extras not being all that great, such as a half dozen nearly identical TV spots, but deleted scenes and alternate endings are a great addition for the person who wants to learn all he can about the film, the process of making it, and filmmaking in general.

I agree that the director should have approval over outtakes and alternate endings being added back into the film; but adding them as an extra content in no way changes the integrity of the original work.

My biggest disagreement here is that this gives studios an easy out wherein they can claim that it was an artistic decision rather than financial or laziness problem to produce a disc without extra content. Some studios, and we know who they are, consistently give us less for the same, or even higher price than others. Therein lies the rub; that the price doesn't go down when the extras aren't included. Sometimes, such as in a huge 2 disc set the price goes up, but that is understandable. I'm talking about your generic special edition which usually costs the same as a bare bones movie version.

Obviously, for one poster above who said he doesn't listen to commentary tracks, then extra content is largely wasted on him. Speaking as someone who watches a lot of discs I love a good commentary track, hate a bad one. Most fit in between or toward the good end. Extra content makes the difference oftentimes on whether a disc gets purchased on not for me, since there are always more films than I can afford to buy I spend my money on most return for the buck. Only a film I feel I must own gets purchased despite lack of extra content, and even then I expect to pay less for it than if it were a special edition.

This is my first post on this forum, but I felt pretty strongly against Peter's editorial and decided to write.

Norman Short

------------------
Judge/Reviewer
DVD Verdict
http://www.dvdverdict.com

My post was not exclusively about Peter's editorial but the generic subject of extras on DVDs. I refute the fact that there is any 'laziness' on the part of any DVD manufacturer - 'laziness' just doesn't make sense in a business proposition and doesn't even come into the equation. I admit that Disney charge a ridiculous premium for their discs, I assume that's whom you were talking about? But then this has been a policy of Disney since the good old days of VHS. Disney have always imposed a premium - it's a company policy and an arrogant one at that. But I wouldn't call Disney lazy - complacent perhaps but not lazy.

I still say leave the extras to special editions and release movie only discs - I just hate all the bitching that goes on. Reading many magazines, websites and other's posts all I hear is extras, extras, extras, extras and nothing about the film, the sound and picture quality, the encoding and so on. This site is not guity of that thank goodness, which is why i enjoy it so much - it's very rounded but many, many people say that if a DVD has no extras - then it's not worth buying - how silly is that? It worries me because studios are dammned if they do and dammned if they don't and, believe me, some executives are getting weary of it all. Therein lies the danger.

[This message has been edited by Justin Pledger (edited 03-30-2000).]

You say that laziness is not a factor in any studio? I simply can't agree. I see far too many discs given very indifferent treatment; not just in extra content but in picture and sound quality as well. None of this is limited to Disney.

When you say leave extra content out of all but labelled special editions you are simply giving license to studios to provide less for the same price. Warner has a budget line that at least is honest in giving less, and charges less for them. I've never complained about getting less when I paid $9 at Wal-Mart for it. But studios who do not routinely provide much extra content charge as much or more than the studios who do. This is inherently less value.

Do all films deserve extra content? Not really. But movie only discs should cost less than the ones with extra features and they don't. And oftentimes we are talking about great films that don't get extra features; ones that most of us really wish had them.

My biggest disagreement with Justin and with Peter remains that it is giving credence to those studio execs who would go to less trouble and still get the same price for a disc, all the while having an "out" of claiming it was done for artistic integrity.

Norman Short


------------------
Judge/Reviewer
DVD Verdict
http://www.dvdverdict.com

Just had to hit on one more point..."therein lies the danger". What danger? Are these executives going to not release DVDs anymore because they get tired of hearing about extras? Are they going to quit and go back to whatever job they had before? There is simply no danger at all in the public voicing their opinion for more value for their movie buying dollar. And when you have studios that routinely provide great picture and sound, AND extras all for the same price as those movie-only editions you want, then it simply doesn't hold that the studios shouldn't compete in all of the above arenas, including extras. The sad fact is that Paramount is the only studio that competes on the picture and sound quality but doesn't do much with extra content. The others who don't give extras don't compete well with the film's technical quality either.

Norman Short


------------------
Judge/Reviewer
DVD Verdict
http://www.dvdverdict.com

The danger lies in the fact that as I have said, the studios feel that they are dammned if they do and dammned if they don't. Of course they won't stop releasing DVDs but it is tiring to hear that they are 'lazy', something I must, I'm sorry, continue to refute. Do you honestly think that there is some executive sitting in an Ivory Tower somewhere rubbing his hands with glee and saying, 'Oooooohhhhh, look at all those lovely extras we could include to please all those wallets out there but to hell with them, I'm just too fat and lazy to include them. I can't be bothered and I just don't care!! Ha! Ha! HEEEEEEHHHHHHARRRFFGGGH!' It's just not the way it works. R1 is a small market, as I've said before, and ultimately it is about things other than laziness and greed. Yes, sometimes budget is a factor - of course it is but R1 discs can only be sold legally in America, don't forget that. If a disc is to be sold in the UK or another region the cost to the studio is huge - especially when they have to get everything checked by the BBFC - a process costing a minimum of £50,000! That's $78,000 minimum!! And that's just for a rating!

I'm not saying that the studios are angels and that there are no exceptions, of course there are - I'm not that naive! But the general rule is that we should be celebrating what we do have a little more instead of berating what we don't! A balance would be nice!

The studios are the one's in control - we can make a difference but we musn't and they musn't over/under estimate our strength. It's all about balance. There is a danger that companies will stop making the effort because of all the negative press - I am seeing it happen now in my professional life.

[Chili Palmer]

Hey Norman i like your reviews. You do a good job. But..I assume this is your main job, so when you review a disc, you need to do it thoroughly. So that is why you need to listen to the commentaries because you can either give a good or bad word of mouth to us consumers. I am very greatful for that. I guess i'm impatient and can't sit still to listen to one of these, plus I have a 40hr work week and time is a factor.. But i can sit still for a three hour fun fest like Titanic I'll admit, I am missing out on a lot of the fun and unique atributes of dvd. I'm in it for the film itself. Now if directors would release their directors cut on every dvd, that would be cool. Like mix it back into the movie, instead having to watch the deleted scenes one by one. Keep up the good work!

[Will Munney]

Laziness doesn't exist in the DVD extra realm? When plenty of feature content exists on lasers and even VHS that isn't ported over to the DVD versions? Warner has special edition VHS's of Outlaw Josey Wales and Midnight Cowboy, but bare DVD's. There is all kinds of content broadcast on Turner Classic that they could use, and this is just one studio's example.

I have to completely agree with Norman. I don't have a 1000+ DVD collection. I can't afford to buy 5 DVD's a week. I want value for my dollar. So what am I going to buy, a $24.95MSRP packed SE from New Line, a $26.95MSRP packed SE from Universal, or $29.95 featureless movies from Paramount and even more expensive versions from Fox and Disney. I don't abstain from buying featureless DVD's if it's a must-have movie (I even shelled out for Last of the Mohicans), but featureless DVD's should have a featureless price, like the Warner budget line (of which I own a few).

I don't complain about laziness with new releases. If they don't want to add features, fine, I just probably will not be purchasing that movie. What I object to is when feature content is available and not used.

You're annoyed by whining about features Justin? Well I'm annoyed by audiophiles that buy crap movies like The Haunting, just because it sounds great on their home theater. I'm also annoyed by anyone with a 16X9 bigscreen display, because I don't have one

[reeltime]

OK, so I have to say up front: laserdisc and DVD "extras" are a big part of my business. Without them, I'd have a much harder time finding material to populate my Web site (and convincing the IRS that the Wild Wild West DVD was a valid tax deduction!).

That said, I've loved extras for years, before I had the Web site. As an amateur filmmaker with designs on going pro, I find the information provided by commentary tracks and "behind the scenes" info exceedingly valuable. Every good DVD I watch adds new insight and gives me a better handle on the filmmaking business. Plus, they're fun, and they sometimes justify a purchase of a title I'd have otherwise passed on (I think Wild Wild West qualifies as a "guilty pleasure," but I still wonder if I'd have bought it without all of the goodies packed on to the disc).

That said, I respectfully disagree with Mr. Mendes. I don't think seeing alternate endings and deleted scenes detracts from the finished work. In fact, I think it often heightens the contributions of the director and/or editor, who make decisions to remove interesting scenes in the interest of improving the movie.

Fortunately, DVDs aren't my only source of information; I have quite a bit of material on the changes and omitted scenes from American Beauty on my site:

http://www.fromscript2screen.com/vau...auty_1999.html

I've got some stuff on Wild Wild West, too, but there's probably less of a market for that info (though some of it is interesting and, to a screenwriter, useful to know).



------------------
Best,

Dave Kramer
http://fromscript2screen.com

Will Munney brings up an excellent point, and one I think has been missed on the whole. From my perspective, DVD folks seem to belong to two different groups.

The first group had the means to buy players before the prices came down as well as the means to set up nice home theatre/sound systems. For this group, the quality of the transfer, anamorphic, and 5.1 sound seem to be a priority when they consider buying a new disc.

The second group are those (like myself) who only purchased players after the prices dropped. For this group, their televisions are unlikely to be widescreen, and perhaps unlikely to have a better sound system than the TV's own speakers or having the sound from the TV going through a simple 2 speaker stereo system. For this group, the quality of the transfer, anamorphic, and 5.1 sound probably aren't a priority. The one thing this group can take advantage of is DVD's ability to include lots of extras. So, this group tends to be frustrated at a lack of extras on their favorite films.

Personally, I try pick discs that have anamorphic and 5.1 sound because, even though I can't take advantage of these features yet, I hope to do so in the future. But meanwhile, movie buffs like myself are going to continue bemoaning a lack of director commentary, alternate angles, and other goodies when the it's a film we already enjoy, but want just a little more

Concerning this post, I don't mean to imply that folks in the first group are all rich or don't care about extras, or anything other else. Or to imply that folks in the second group wouldn't know good video or sound if it bit them on the nose, or anything else. Just that DVD fans have inadvertently fallen into two different groups, and that these groups have different priorities where disc content is concerned, in my opinion of course.

Peace,
AB

A few replies here...Chili, thanks for the complement. My life isn't like a lot of other folks, so reviewing discs has become a big part of my life. I run rather than work a farm as my primary income, and that leaves me time for my big hobby home theater. Yes, I have to watch extra content on every disc I review and there are times when the movie didn't rate my giving it the time that required. Fortunately I do that work for you and try to tell you if a commentary or feature is worth spending your more limited time on. Not just me of course; I too follow this site as well as my own and get other opinions. I wouldn't go so far as to wish they would just put all the extra scenes back in; that should be a director's choice and many such scenes had good reason to be cut. I still like seeing them though to get a better feel for what went into making the film.

Will had a point I forgot to make as well; when extra content is right there for the taking and not used. THAT is laziness often enough. Yes, there are lazy studio execs. They don't revel in their laziness; the fact that they are lazy precludes them from putting forth the effort to revel in it. "Good enough" is the byword for such execs, and the discs they are responsible for show it, often in a halfhearted picture and sound as well as no extras. I also agree that a day-and-date release need not be a full special edition; often they will come back later for that and I can buy or not buy the disc based on the whole package. This is why I also rent discs; to determine if a featureless day-and-date I've not seen is worth buying.

Lastly to ambushbug: surprisingly I fit into the category of person who only got into DVD after the prices dropped. I got my player in the middle of last year after DIVX had died. I have a nice audio system but still use a 4:3 television. Anamorphic still matters even to me though since I figure within a couple years I'll be looking at a new widescreen set. I have over 500 VHS tapes that are obsolete; I want as few of my discs to undergo the same fate: never getting watched again on a quality issue. But for the person without a surround sound setup you're absolutely right in that extra content sells the disc as much or more than sound quality. Of course my site and this one both rate discs according to film quality, picture and sound, along with extra content, so we try to give a complete buying guide according to what it is that makes YOU want to buy. About the only group I don't cater to are those who still want pan-and-scan; fortunately becoming a small minority now.

Norman Short




------------------
Judge/Reviewer
DVD Verdict
http://www.dvdverdict.com

I compleatly aggree with Sam Mendes thoughts on Cut material. Some directors in hollywood (Kubrik, Speilberg, Luca$, Howard) get The wonderful option in their contracts to have Final cut. When the film is finished, it is finished the way they wanted it. When you add a different ending or scene thet the director felt were too week to include in the finl cut of the film, directors sometimes feel that it would scew what the director initially wanted to say in the final cut.

However, movies like Blade Runner, The Abyss, T2, and others did get cut before the studio released them because the director didn't have that beautiful final cut option that's why those DVD's, have the deleted scenes.

I am not against deleted scenes. As a director myself, I like to look at these and see if I agree with the director to as wwhy he/she cut them. Usually I am in aggrement. But these are to movies like 'Fear and Loathing", and Ghostbsters. Not beautiful movies like, say Chinatown, Taxi Driver, and Apocalypse Now. (Which I agree with Coppola to why he cut out that ending of the destruction of Kurtz compound. Not a good image as a final thought but beautifully shot) In important movies like those, The special feature of Deleted Scenes are nowhere to be seen. Because the director had final cut and that version is his vision.

As long as I have a really good documentary (not this HBO First Look crap), Trailers, and commentary; I'm happy

------------------
See What's New at 8-Track Productions

[Will Munney]

I just reread my post and I didn't mean to come off so confrontationally. If I offended I apologize. That said, I somewhat agree with AB as well. There is a definite split between HT types based on when they got into the hobby. This is being discussed over at home theater forum as well.

I'm kind of in the middle. I was a pretty early DVD adopter (Nov. '97) but never bought LD or really very many VHS's. But I was attracted to the hobby, not only by the incredible picture and sound, but also I instantly fell in love with the extra content. I've got a middle of the road HT with Sony midrange stuff and BA speakers. I hope to upgrade in the next year or two to 16X9 and Paradigm or B&W's, so I want a great picture and sound as much as the next person.

But I'm very much into film history and I love the extra content especially on older movies. Like I said I don't really complain when new titles don't have content, but I look at catalog titles as slices of history. I love how Columbia, Universal, and indies treasure their catalogs, and hate how we mostly get junk from the others, and I don't see why we should shy away from calling them on it.

These studios have released some of these titles 5 or more times on various media, and they can't be bothered to add something fresh to a DVD release? If you don't want to call it lazy Justin, than how about calculating? That's just as bad, though more understandable since I'm used to companies maximizing their profits at my expense, it's the American Way

The studio's that do things the right way have received heaps of praise. They certainly aren't going to stop producing content when it's been a big plus for them. If content was a pain in the ass, then why are Fox and Disney (and maybe even Paramount) finally starting to release lavish SE's?

Studio's have heard us complain about one thing or the other for years. I think they're used to it. They know fans are always going to be b***hing about something. So I really don't see that we harm anything. Personally I think that the "I'm not buying anything non-anamorphic" group is much more vocal than the extras crowd.

[Dehrian]

I'm of two minds about the subject. On one hand is the film itself, and on the other are the extras. Where the two compliment one another, by all means, bring on all the extras you can. But I believe there is a point at which the extras can actually be detrimenal.

For instance, if the space given to the extras is so much that it begins to compromise the quality of the film itself, either the video or the audio, then extras need to start going. It should always be the film, first and foremost.

Second, there may be something that the director or a star doesn't want us to see, as in Sam Mendes view. Or Eric Stoltz, who would rather us not see the footage of him as Marty in BTTF. As much as we would like to see these things, they're under no obligation to provide them to us, and should they have their own personal or artistic reasons for not wanting them made public, we should respect that.

As for the extras that actually make it onto the disc, I don't want flash, or mere publicity. Give me information. Tell me something about the making of the film that I can't get from watching E News Daily. I don't care about publicity featurettes. The new Abyss disc is great, because it has actual information and not just standard publicity. That kind of stuff I'll watch more than once, or bring friends over for them to check out.

But, for the most part, almost all of the supplemental material I've seen on any disc to date consists of mildly interesting material that I'll watch maybe once. Abyss and A Bug's Life are two exceptions that immediately leap to mind. But the exceptions are few and far between.

By all means, if you're a studio planning on a full-blown SE, use a second disc to put all the junk on, and leave the first disc alone to present the film in the best possible manner. Don't try to squeeze as much as possible onto a single disc and risk compromising the film just to cut a few corners.

[Wesly Moore]

Wow, what a hot topic this has turned out to be! I really appreciated everyone's input. Without coming down on a particular side, I'll share my personal purchasing theory.

With limited, non-infinite funds available for spending on DVDs, I want to make every purchase count. I believe firmly in getting "bang for my buck." If it comes down to a choice between two discs where all else is equal but one includes a nice set of extras and the other includes only the film, my purchase that day will likely be the disc with extras.

I don't think that extras are the end-all, be-all of existence. I don't think they're required to make a good DVD title. I do think that well-produced extras with good content can help illustrate and illuminate the filmmaking process--and this is a good thing.

I don't see what harm including outtakes from any film (including "American Beauty") can do to the original film, if they are included as extras and not edited back into the film against the wishes of the director. No film should be modified for release in any form against the wishes of the writer, director, or other appropriate principals in its creation. (We can have a discussion of the director-as-auteur theory another time. )

Just my $0.02.

------------------
Wesly Moore
------------------
weslymoore@aol.com

[clortho]

I'm probably a middle of the road HT enthusiast as well. I have been following the development of DVD since it was first being rumored, but didnt actually get into it, or buy my first "player" (dvd-rom) until just about a year ago, and only bought a stand-alone player in January. I don't have a lot to spend on it, and that being said, I couldn't really care less about the extras for the most part. The things that influence my purchase first and foremost are a) the movie itself, b) an anamorphic transfer (I have a 4:3 tv, but planning for the future), and c) audio true to the original source (again, planning ahead). The only extra I really feel cheated if not included with a movie I enjoyed, is the teaser or full trailer. I think most of us have become complacent ourselves about what needs to be included on DVD. Yes, some companies charge far too much for plain-Jane releases, but most do not. Honestly, if you look at (ugh) VHS, most new releases venture in the area between $16-20. They are featureless, and offer poor resolution & sub-par audio. Most studios with featureless DVD releases offer much improved picture quality (and often times both anamorphic & pan&scan), and usually a 5.1 track that can be downmixed to 2.0 or an individual 2.0 track, and often at least one different language track or subtitle option in the $19-25 range. Personally, I don't see that as much of a raise in price for the extra quality already inherent in the DVD format. Not to mention the fact that by shopping online or pre-ordering, you can get these for up to 40% less. I think as a populace, those of us who are a bit more limited on budget have become a bit spoiled by the extra perceived value of the extras, and often overlook the extra quality of the format itself.

Clortho

------------------
I am the Keymaster
clortho@hotmail.com

[Taxi]

The first time I'd ever heard of an extra on a home video release was when a friend of mine got the LD of "Goldeneye." It had the trailer ON THE DISC. This blew me away. What a great idea to include that on the disc. I've been an extra feature lover ever since.

However, for me, the movie is still the thing. Although I hate to do it, I've even bought non-letterboxed titles when I really really needed to have the film. (The Jerk comes to mind.) Was I unhappy that the OAR wasn't used on the DVD. You bet. Am I going to send the disc back? No way.

I don't feel that extras should be a given on any disc. But as been said, I agree that if there is a significant body of extra material for a film, and there is sufficient room on the disc for it, it should be there. (Or, for discs that will sell well enough to pay for it, a second disc, as with The Abyss.)

Some of it does depend on the movie. I could live without special features if the movie didn't do much for me in the first place. Or, some movies just won't have any extra material available, or what there is isn't that interesting. But, for some movies, an SE is needed, and should be demanded. Again, The Abyss is a good example. If this came out as a bare-bones disc, I'd have been really disappointed. Would I have still bought the disc? You bet. Star Wars is another example of a film that screams for an SE, as well as my favorite The Princess Bride, which was going to be given the SE treatment, but not any more.

Remember, this medium (DVD) is still fairly new. I think we

Why do some of you insist that the studios are being lazy? Don't you guys realise the costs involved plus all the additional headaches that can come from putting extras on a disc - it is hugely expensive and time consuming. The main cast & crew must ALL be contacted re: any extras and sign them off. Many studios do not own the rights to the documentaries, outtakes etc - the production company owns them. A studio ultimately finances and distributes a film - not a lot more. For extras and so on licences must be granted, distribution deals reworked, new fees paid and so on. The list is huge! One of you mentioned the Outlaw Josey... Well there are many possible reasons for the lack of extras. Not just that the studio may have lost the rights to much of the material but also the fact that this is a low interest disc and so the cost of manufacture may not justify the end profits. DVD is not a charity you know! As I said above - the cost of a DVD is huge - believe me. I'd love to go into more detail about this but don't really have the space. Perhaps Peter could do some editorial on it.

To have the attitudes shown by some here is just plain ignorance and doesn't bode well when some people are relying on misinformation perpetuated by lack of knowledge to make their purchasing decisions. Stick to DVDFile or good quality magazines - people with an insight into the industry in other words!

I repeat - I love extra bits and bobs but really feel that they should be regarded as their name inplies - supplements. Nothing more. How many of you watch the supplements as often as the main feature?



[This message has been edited by Justin Pledger (edited 04-03-2000).]

I don't have too much money, and when I do, I have to spend wisely on my DVDs. Sometimes, even if I like a film better than another, I would buy the other if it had better extras, because it's a better value - I'm getting more for my money. And isn't the whole point of DVD to have extra stuff? I love films, and it enhances my enjoyment of them if there is added material. Otherwise, DVD is just a high-quality VHS tape.

When we talk about adding cut footage, we have to be clear what we mean. There's a world of difference between adding to the film itself and putting alternate endings, etc. in a suppliment. Okay, the scene may have been cut out for a good reason, but putting it in a suppliment isn't putting it back in the movie.

You can see some wonderful things that way. For instance, the Austin Powers:IMOM DVD has some very funny scenes that were cut because they hurt the pacing. They're still cut...they are not in the movie. But if you have the DVD you can watch them on their own.

On the Criterion laserdisc of Pulp Fiction, Tarantino introduces each of the cut scenes, explaining why they were cut. He very clearly says that this isn't a director's cut; that the movie as released is his cut and the best possible cut he could do. These are just scenes that he felt he had to cut because, even though he liked them on their own, he felt they detracted from the movie as a whole.

Hi Paratize

I have to say that I just don't get your logic at all - you say that you'd buy a film you didn't like as much as another just because of the extras?! How mad is that? And no, IMHO that is NOT what DVD is about - at all.

Concerning Justin's comments about Paratize's comments...
Here's my take on the logic of buying a DVD you like that has good extras, instead of buying one that you like as better, but has fewer or no extras. About 2 years ago I started buying widescreen VHS versions of my favorite films when I could find and afford them. Thus, I have the widescreen VHS of "Star Trek: First Contact". Now of course this film is out on DVD and I have the means to buy it and enjoy it in DVD format. But I haven't bought it even though I've had the opportunity to do so, and have in fact purchased DVD's of other films I don't enjoy as much (like "The Mask"). Why?

Because Star Trek has a fan base second only to Star Wars. And as soon as enough of those fans become DVD consumers, Paramount will re-release all the Star Trek films with decent extras to satisfy the Trekkie/Trekker hordes.

Compare that example with my situation with "Stargate", another movie I enjoy. I have the widescreen VHS of Stargate that includes the extra footage not shown in the theatrical release. I received the theatrical release version DVD as part of the rebate with my DVD player. It has little extras and is a flipper disc. Of the two, I prefer to watch the VHS, because I feel the extended version is more enjoyable, and I don't have to stop in the middle of the film to flip the tape.

And yet I'm planning on buying the Special Edition DVD of Stargate. Why? Because I'd like to experience the director's commentary by Devlin and Emmerich with hopes that it will further enrich my enjoyment of the film. Not to mention having a much better medium than magnetic tape

We all have our favorite features of the DVD medium, and I don't think that will change any time real soon. As one who loves his extras, I'm sorry to be a point of frustration or whatever emotion we're causing you Justin.
Well, that's my $.02.

Peace, live long and prosper, etc
AB

------------------
Oh Dear God! It's Growing BIGGER!!!

Look Guys

Nobody's causing me frustration, I thought this Forum was about debate? Surely my replying to comments made in a thread started by me doesn't mean that I'm getting frustrated. I am not trying to force people to see matters my way at all. This happens quite a lot here, if anyone decides to actually debate an issue a lot of people seem to think that others are getting irate or 'emotional'. Sometimes, it's obvious that they are and sometimes things do get out of hand but these instances aside, what's wrong with a good old fashioned chat eh?

It's no skin off my nose what you guys spend your money on - I am in a very lucky position of not having to pay for my DVDs, so probably see it in a different light from some. I just like to talk about how different people feel. I still say though that I don't understand Ambushbug or Paratize, I really don't. You see, I am primarily a film lover, I watch a different film 5 or 6 times a week (part of my job) and I love every minute of them - well at least some of them, depending on the film. I just don't get the fact that people don't buy a film that they love because it's got no extras, I really find that silly and a little sad. DVD was never meant to be about extras - these are added value items, not the reason for DVDs existence. Extras are fun but it's the film that's the key - I'm repeating myself now!

I'll just finish by saying, please Guys, if I reply to comments, it doesn't mean I'm getting all, 'emotional', just that I'm participating in the whole point of a forum - a debate.

See you...

Edited for spelling mistakes!

[This message has been edited by Justin Pledger (edited 04-04-2000).]

[indiephantom]

Wow Justin, you must have a cool job! If I wasn't paying for so many DVD's I'd probably be able to afford a girlfriend.
But she wouldn't get between me and my DVD players. Anyway, I'm not really obsessed with extras, but I am obsessed with Home theater and making my system as good as it can be.

I love features, but I would rather see more DTS titles than jam-packed discs. I love these 2-disc packages, where one can contain pristine versions of the film, and the second has all the supplements. I mean it all depends on the disc. I actually prefer supplements on older classic films like Criterion's THE 39 STEPS. I mean it's all relevant, educational and it enhances the experience of the film. I don't know if I could ever bring myself to watch or care about the supplements on a film like ARMAGEDDON (no offense to anyone who likes the movie, it has great moments).

But getting back to what another poster just said, here is a great example of me CRAVING extras for a particular film. When BOOGIE NIGHTS first came to home video, I still only had laserdisc. I didn't know about DTS, and I was kind of mad that DVD was the new rage. I bought the BOOGIE disc widescreen DD standard CLV edition. I was frustrated when Criterion then came out with a special edition, because there was a commentary I was dying to here. I wanted to know everything about it. Then I finally got DVD, but still couldn't bring myself to buy the disc, because I had paid a lot for my laser and it still was damn cool.

But guess what...when that BOOGIE NIGHTS 2-disc set arrives, I'm buying it. I don't if it's two copies of the same disc. I've waited long enough, and I'm a big enough fan of that film to want to have the supplements I've been starved for.

So that's it. Most newer films all have the same type of extras: trailer, commentary, featurette, yah di yah...I really just need a great looking and sounding disc to satisfy me. Because IDLE HANDS has a lot of features, it does not mean I would ever want to own a copy of this film I despised.

But, I can also understand someone buying a disc of a film they didn't love, because maybe they are interested in filmmaking. I've heard some excellent commentaries about directing on discs for films I didn't really enjoy. This is the whole thing. DVD is really multi-purpose in a way that makes it silly for us to debate in may ways. It can be more than just entertainment. I have a friend who's into music composing, and he will rarely buy a DVD unless it's got an isolated music score...and some even feature commentary by the composer. This friend told me he didn't really like BLADE the movie, but loved Mark Isham as a composer, and bought the disc to listen to his commentary. While this may seem like a minor, or insignificant feature to most of us...to him it's the whole reason he bought the disc!!

So what have I said here. I guess that there are not hard or fast rules. I don't blame a studio for not including features, but I would never condemn them for it either, as long as the quality of the film is preserved and presented as the filmmaker intended. There's no reason a disc can't have it all, look at the work by Criterion and New Line.


[This message has been edited by indiephantom (edited 04-04-2000).]

Wow. People have a lot to say on this subject. I've already written an editorial that echoes it myself, so I won't get all blow-harded here except to say that I do love extras as much as the next DVD person. HOWEVER, for me... it's always the quality of the FILM (and its transfer) that matters.

I make no bones about it. I'm a FILM person first, DVD person second. If there was an easy and inexpensive way to watch movies at home with 35mm projection, believe me that's what I'd be doing.

Supplements are still nice treats, but not as necessary to me as they have seemingly become.


------------------
Visit DVD Sewer!
"The DVD site with bite from a film fan's point of view."
----------------
Carl's DVD List (Always "in production")