Is it the studios or directors?

[mikejet]

When just a regular average BD comes out for a movie that doesn't have any bells and whistles comes out, do you think it's the studio, the director, or a combination of both dropping the ball?

I mean if a studio really cared about making a good release they would put the effort into it. Look at Disney.

If a director really loved his work, they would go that extra mile and do commentaries and help facilitate the creation of the disc. Like what Smith wants to do with Chasing Amy.

So who do you think is at fault for those bare bones average discs?

[Blu-Benny]

i'd lean towards the director on this one.

if a director wanted to go the extra mile, do a commentary, keep a video journal, something.

as far as the studio, they can only put on what they have avail. if there is nothing extra, they can't really add it.

[DealsR4theDevil]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

i'd lean towards the director on this one.

if a director wanted to go the extra mile, do a commentary, keep a video journal, something.

as far as the studio, they can only put on what they have avail. if there is nothing extra, they can't really add it.

What about all the Blu-rays that come out with almost no extras when the DVD version has plenty?

Its the studios man, trying to save money or planning for a double dip.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by DealsR4theDevil

What about all the Blu-rays that come out with almost no extras when the DVD version has plenty?

Its the studios man, trying to save money or planning for a double dip.

that i will have to agree with. look @ the punisher and #'s 1 & 2 of spider man.

i was not happy when my spider man trilogy showed up and had NO extras for either of the 1st 2.

[neo_reloaded]

I would mostly blame the studios.

For movies that came out before DVD was even around, there was no concept of "extras." The directors for those projects have long since moved on to other things (or passed on), and those movies being released on DVD (and now Blu-ray) is really a studio initiative. So it's up to the studios to hire people to create extras for these films.

For modern movies, it's a bit more complex. There are some directors who just truly don't believe in things like deleted scenes and commentaries. Paul Thomas Anderson is one, I believe. Other directors are very gung-ho about extras, but the studios don't always agree to finance them. Darren Aronofsky wanted to do many special features for The Fountain, but WB would not fund them so they were never completed. He actually recorded a commentary on his own and uploaded it to his website for free.

And that's just for the CREATION of extras. There are some movies that have plenty of extras out there already created (evidenced by previous DVD releases), yet the Blu-ray somehow magically has none. See movies like Carrie, Amityville Horror, and Jarhead. I think some are to make the movie fit on a BD25, but others are already on BD50s and the absence of the extras is just baffling. In these cases, I would definitely blame the studios.

[Blu-News]

The studios, there are many times when extras did not make the cut for another future release while the director/writer's wanted it or were interested in having it on the disc.

[Red Hood]

Studios

[FlipperWasIrish]

It is not a matter of fault. It is a matter of money and sometimes time.

While I like some extras, I desire the film itself more.

And I do not USUALLY want to pay more for the cost of adding extras. Only in rare cases is it worth it to me.

To each his/her own, but be careful what you wish for, as you may have to pay for it.

[JessR]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

i'd lean towards the director on this one.

if a director wanted to go the extra mile, do a commentary, keep a video journal, something.

as far as the studio, they can only put on what they have avail. if there is nothing extra, they can't really add it.

yes this makes sense, the director is the one that creates the content.

[Sky_Captain]

Studios. Movie makes little or no money = Sh!t blu-ray release.

[snoman_99]

Yeah sometimes i get *****y about extra's... but for me, if the Transfer is remastered and touched up perfectly in ways i've never seen the movie before then i will buy. growing up through the 80's when it was all beta and VHS. Well we never had all the cool stuff that some of these films have now, and the PQ wasn't really all that hot, nor was the AQ either then hahahaa.

I'm just happy if the film when released has great PQ & AQ quality, then thats a really big plus for me!!!! I can live with that because thats why i'm buying the film in the first place is to enjoy the movie, i mean at the movie theater we are not seeing additional deleted scenes or a commentary or making of the film. WE are all going to see the movie for what the movie is intended to do, which is too entertain us and thats what i feel about the subject.. nice thread too peeps!!!!

OH and i hope everyone has a great weekend!!!! and thanks to you all for helping with all the threads you all have posted over the months coming into the blu-ray format, because its really helped me make proper decisions when purchasing players and movies!!!

Much respect always,

J :-P

[Moefiz]

Studios...

They have a way of milking a movie for all its worth.

[Jeff Kleist]

Originally Posted by JessR

yes this makes sense, the director is the one that creates the content.

The director has nothing to do with creating the content in terms of what's there. The production hires a DVD producer who then figures out how much space he has to work with and how much money he has to create that content. While the studio may hold back certain material for a future double dip or because of space issues (not wanting to go to 2 discs), it is very very rare that the director steps in and squishes something.

The director also has a lot more to worry about than doing his diary, unless it's a personal passion,and then someone still has to be paid to put it together, assemble and author it. That's why DVD producers shoot this stuff

[Canada]

I would say it's the studio, one word, Fox/MGM.

[DroothR]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

i'd lean towards the director on this one.

if a director wanted to go the extra mile, do a commentary, keep a video journal, something.

as far as the studio, they can only put on what they have avail. if there is nothing extra, they can't really add it.

Originally Posted by JessR

yes this makes sense, the director is the one that creates the content.

Incorrect.

The director is focused on making the film, it's upto the studio to finance, arrange, and produce extra content.

Sure, some directors have ideas for stuf they'd like to have on the home release, but (a) it's not their call, and (b) they too busy with the job at hand to go personally overseeing ancilliary tasks.


Oh, someone's already beat me too it...

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

The director has nothing to do with creating the content in terms of what's there. The production hires a DVD producer who then figures out how much space he has to work with and how much money he has to create that content. While the studio may hold back certain material for a future double dip or because of space issues (not wanting to go to 2 discs), it is very very rare that the director steps in and squishes something.

The director also has a lot more to worry about than doing his diary, unless it's a personal passion,and then someone still has to be paid to put it together, assemble and author it. That's why DVD producers shoot this stuff

[Variable]

I can say with confidence that it's the studios. for The Fountain, Darren Aranofsky wanted to do a commentary but the studios didn't want to waste the time or money since the movie didn't do all that well. he ended up recording it himself and putting it up online.

on some level I'm sure the director can add mostly what he wants as long as features are being put on but when a studio doesn't feel it's worth their money nothing the director says or does will matter.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

It's the studios' fault.