JAWS - Blu-ray 14 Aug 2012 - Review up

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by drinnenber

your wish is granted!

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Jaws+Collector's+Series+(Best+Buy+Exclusive)+-+Blu-ray+Disc/5689983.p;jsessionid=F5B3C8F9AB35B03C35ACD218CB46D 1D7.bbolsp-app02-73?id=2481267&skuId=5689983&st=jaws&lp=7&cp=1

as we all know, this will be 5 dollars less instore.

Awesome news! Thanks so much for posting!

I do have other items that I would be willing to wish for....

Edit: I copied your post to both the digibook thread & BB exclusives thread!

[RipleyLV426]

Not sure why the online price is $29.99 when it will be $24.99 I hate when they have different in store versus online prices. I have a $20 e-gift card for Best Buy so I wanna buy it online but I wanna make sure it goes to the $24.99 price. Guess I'll just have to wait.

[drinnenber]

the Best Buy site on the JAWS page shows a 10 dollar rebate for 50 dollar orders. since i'm buying for myself and a friend i went that route. still got it for 24.99. just have to wait to redeem the rebate, which i should get in the mail on aug 19th.

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by drinnenber

the Best Buy site on the JAWS page shows a 10 dollar rebate for 50 dollar orders. since i'm buying for myself and a friend i went that route. still got it for 24.99. just have to wait to redeem the rebate, which i should get in the mail on aug 19th.

Im sure theres an answer but how does 24.99 x 2 = 50 ?

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

Im sure theres an answer but how does 24.99 x 2 = 50 ?

Perhaps it includes sales tax?

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Perhaps it includes sales tax?

Maybe.

I figured it was like a reward zone rule where if you buy something for $9.99 you still cant use a $10 reward zone card even though the tax makes it $10+.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

Maybe.

I figured it was like a reward zone rule where if you buy something for $9.99 you still cant use a $10 reward zone card even though the tax makes it $10+.

You could be right, I was just throwing that out there. Obviously one would have to look at the verbiage of the RZC to know for certain...but I think you might be correct.

Edit: Go Eagles!

[dcowboy7]

I checked the rules & tax does count.

Wierd they count it for one promo but not another.

Told ya there would be answer though.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

Im sure theres an answer but how does 24.99 x 2 = 50 ?

The price is currently $29.99. So It's $59.98 for 2, which qualifies for the $10 GC code* and makes the price essentially $24.99 each after. That's the right answer

*Assuming he did it correctly and set it up for in-store pick-up

[drinnenber]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

The price is currently $29.99. So It's $59.98 for 2, which qualifies for the $10 GC code* and makes the price essentially $24.99 each after. That's the right answer

*Assuming he did it correctly and set it up for in-store pick-up

correctamundo!!!

and yes...it's for instore pickup.

[Madman2112]

You do realize that if you place the order for the $29.99 price now and it drops to the $24.99 price or lower it will effect your $10 coupon code since you will be charged the lower price once you pick it up.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Madman2112

You do realize that if you place the order for the $29.99 price now and it drops to the $24.99 price or lower it will effect your $10 coupon code since you will be charged the lower price once you pick it up.

Does BB definitely adjust online orders with the lowest price? I've heard mixed things about that. Ultimately drinnenber may not care since he'll still be getting them for $49.98 for both, which would be better than paying $59.98 and getting a $10gc back.

[Madman2112]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Does BB definitely adjust online orders with the lowest price? I've heard mixed things about that. Ultimately drinnenber may not care since he'll still be getting them for $49.98 for both, which would be better than paying $59.98 and getting a $10gc back.

For me that has always been the case.

[shamus]

Originally Posted by shamus

Just saw the restoration at the theater. Hard to tell if it just looked better because of the restore but I felt they did some work on the sharks skin. I also thought his eyes looked surprisingly realistic.

Anyone else see this and felt the same?

[drinnenber]

i would imagine that since it was not only restored, but restored to the highest definition, there will be alot more visible to the eye than before in many respects. the shark included.

speilberg is pretty clear about his current feelings with tampering with his films. he is not of the george lucas variety.

[shamus]

You're probably right. I will say that a high restoration should of made Bruce look faker, but instead I felt it looked better then ever... except for its jowls. Also the tiger shark caught near the begining looked either rubber or more likely showing signs of decay (if it was a real shark) that I have never seen before.

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by drinnenber

i would imagine that since it was not only restored, but restored to the highest definition, there will be alot more visible to the eye than before in many respects. the shark included.

speilberg is pretty clear about his current feelings with tampering with his films. he is not of the george lucas variety.

Yes, Speilberg is much more about maintaining the integrity of the original intent. But then again Speilberg is so much better of a director that even mentioning Lucas as a director feels like I'm dirtying up Speilberg's name. Speilberg is more a "humanist" and gets it for you can see that in a lot of his directing. Speilberg is more about embracing and respecting the time at which they were filmed and pretty much leaving them alone, as is. Movies are a lot of things to a lot of people, one of which is that they are windows in time to the way we were. I think that last sentence is a concept that Lucas fails to understand and or appreciate.

[worldchmps]

Got the standard version for under $19. It was the Gold Box deal on my Amazon account. If I choose to get the higher priced BB version, I'll just cancel the Amazon order. If not, I'll be getting the regular BD/DVD/DC version for $1 less than everyone else.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by drinnenber

i would imagine that since it was not only restored, but restored to the highest definition, there will be alot more visible to the eye than before in many respects. the shark included.

speilberg is pretty clear about his current feelings with tampering with his films. he is not of the george lucas variety.

Well I'm in the minority as I'm not part of the Lucas Bashing Bandwagon!
With that said, I have to call into question Spielbergs, now famous, speech about "not even removing wires from the airplanes in 1941"*...but yet removes the reflection of the snake in Raiders. Clearly a complete contradiction.

Now before the avalanche of haters reply...I am all for changes like removing wires and reflections as they were obvious undeired elements...BUT that was Spielberg going on the record then doing the complete opposite. Just sayin'!

* Source: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=6580

[drinnenber]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Well I'm in the minority as I'm not part of the Lucas Bashing Bandwagon!
With that said, I have to call into question Spielbergs, now famous, speech about "not even removing wires from the airplanes in 1941"*...but yet removes the reflection of the snake in Raiders. Clearly a complete contradiction.

Now before the avalanche of haters reply...I am all for changes like removing wires and reflections as they were obvious undeired elements...BUT that was Spielberg going on the record then doing the complete opposite. Just sayin'!

* Source: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=6580

Raiders was a joint venture of Speilberg AND Lucas. I can see Lucas driving that wagon.