Any films where you'd rather have the DVD then Blue-Ray?

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Hi.

For many years, I never bought X-men:First Class.. even though I liked it well enough, but I had a few issues with it, and I never bought it. Recently I started looking to but it on blue-ray, but, unlike the other X-films, I couldn't find it for under $15. I just didn't want to pay that much for it, but I wanted to watch it again. Then FYE had the DVD for $5, so I took it! It turns out that the film has a depth on DVD that Blue Ray would ruin, the idea that it was filmed in the style of a 60's picture.. so the the super-sharpness would take away something that is tough to articulate. Also my neighbor let me borrow Man of Steel, but he only had it on DVD. It looked fine, since there are so many grays and muted colors, and an overall handheld and rough quality about the film-making style, the DVD was actually quite good.

Thoughts?

 

[OdoWanKenobi]

None whatsoever. Blu-ray is the superior format. Yeah it can be more expensive, but it's like anything else. If you look hard enough, the deals are out there.

 

[bigdaddy]

I only have a DVD player so Blu-ray can fuck off.

However if I had a Blu-ray player I'd buy whatever was cheaper, which isn't always the DVD.

 

[RoJoHen]

For many years, I never bought X-men:First Class..

You realize that movie is only 3 years old, right?

 

[Trekker4747]

I exclusively buy BDs now. Unless there's the rare circumstance where it's an old movie and I can only find the BD. I am now, however, updating movies in my collection to BD aside from the odd "classic" here and there.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

For many years, I never bought X-men:First Class..

You realize that movie is only 3 years old, right?

Yes. Still "many" at this point in life.

 

[Sephiroth]

hell, I have a case where the VHS is more preferable, I have the original trilogy in widescreen, pre Lucas edit

 

[AgentCoop]

If I had plenty of money, it'd be Blu-Ray all the way. Right now, my wallet makes the decision. Certain things I have to have on Blu-Ray (Star Wars, as much Trek as I can afford, pretty much any movie where the main character wears a cape), but usually I still wind up going with DVD. Recently picked up Re-Animator, Return Of The Living Dead, Prince Of Darkness and the Cronenberg version of The Fly for about five bucks each. Couldn't pass that up. If they ever get around to releasing David Lynch's films on Blu-Ray for Region 1 (or Region-Free), then I'll have to really tighten my belt because I gotta have 'em.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Gigli.

 

[Gov Kodos]

You're the one who bought it?

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Well, I have a region free DVD player and PS3 is my blu-ray player, so any DVD that's not released in region 1.

 

[MacLeod]

Short answer. No

I'd much rather have the Blu-Ray Though I might consider a DVD if no blu-ray version had been released.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

Nope. Like others have said, blu-ray is superior.

The only exception might be if the blu-ray version hasn't been re-mastered and is no better than DVD (or minimally so), like Farscape.

So, not so much preferring the DVD, but not wasting money on the blu-ray, but this is hopefully a rare example.

I have several movies, etc. on DVD where no blu-ray will likely ever exist & I was lucky an official DVD was done.

 

[shivkala]

Hell, there are a few DVDs I own that I'd love to buy the blu-ray of, but I'm too cheap, Star Trek (2009) being one of them. The only ones I've actually replaced is 2001: A Space Odyssey and Star Trek: Nemesis (the latter only because it came with the other TNG blu-rays in the set I bought).

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

^ Star Trek was the first DVD I did replace with a blu-ray & I was glad I did.

Recently I replaced the Austin Powers trilogy with blu-rays, mainly because the 3 movie set was only $19 and partly because I like making my own digital copies & blu-ray is so much better there too.

 

[ACE]

If you buy it on DVD then Blu-ray, you are paying for it twice. I would rather just buy the Blu-ray, rather than the DVD. It is much better quality. Or, perhaps buy the Blu-ray that includes the DVD in the package if you want both.

 

[RoJoHen]

Honestly, at this point, almost every single movie I care to see usually ends up on Netflix at some point. I do buy Blu-Rays, but there are so few movies I even care to own anymore that it really doesn't matter.

 

[Enterprise is Great]

I just switched over to blu-ray from dvd about 6 months ago and it is just so superior that I don't see how dvd could look better. At this point I'd only consider buying dvd if that's the only format it's available in.

I've got several blu-ray/dvd combo packs and have checked out the dvds on my blu-ray player and while the picture is much improved over watching a dvd on a dvd player it's still nowhere near as good as the blu-ray disc.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I think what I was getting at is this: I agree that Blue-Ray looks superior, with picture clarity and all of that. But some movies, the way their film, might be done a disservice by having such clarity, that it almost looks like everything is too clean and too manufactured, too polished if seen in hi-definition. I brought up First Class and Man of Steel because, int he case of the former, it was filmed with a 60's aesthetic, and in the case of hte latter, it has a rough, hand-held camera documentary feel and the deep grays might seem too bright on Blue-Ray. I also would imagine that darkly lit films from the 90's, like the hunt for Red October, might not translate well to having absolute clarity, because that is not what the filmmakers had when they made it.

In other words, my question wasn't intended to ask whether people had blue-rays or not. It was more about specific films or types of films in which high-definition actually takes something away from the film by adding so much clarity. I sometimes don't mind having everything so damn sharp. It reminds me that I'm watching a movie that was printed chemically on a film and, at one point, was projected using light beams onto a screen.

 

[AgentCoop]

I think what I was getting at is this: I agree that Blue-Ray looks superior, with picture clarity and all of that. But some movies, the way their film, might be done a disservice by having such clarity, that it almost looks like everything is too clean and too manufactured, too polished if seen in hi-definition. I brought up First Class and Man of Steel because, int he case of the former, it was filmed with a 60's aesthetic, and in the case of hte latter, it has a rough, hand-held camera documentary feel and the deep grays might seem too bright on Blue-Ray. I also would imagine that darkly lit films from the 90's, like the hunt for Red October, might not translate well to having absolute clarity, because that is not what the filmmakers had when they made it.

In other words, my question wasn't intended to ask whether people had blue-rays or not. It was more about specific films or types of films in which high-definition actually takes something away from the film by adding so much clarity. I sometimes don't mind having everything so damn sharp. It reminds me that I'm watching a movie that was printed chemically on a film and, at one point, was projected using light beams onto a screen.

I had similar thoughts about older films, but once I saw A New Hope in HD, I was sold.

It's also important that whoever does the transfer to HD adheres to the original filmmakers' vision as much as possible. Sometimes even the original director gets involved, so that's a good thing.