Alexander split on two discs due to inferior HD DVD encode associated storage problem

[krinkle]

The movie, Alexander, was split on two disks on Blu-ray because Warner couldn't fit the whole movie onto one HD DVD 30GB disk, and had to put it on two HD DVDs.

So instead of re-encoding the film to fit on a single BD50, they just shoveled the HD DVD crap onto two BD25s.

I own more Warner movies than most people on this site, but simply will not buy this crap.

WTF is Warner's problem?

You would think by now we would be getting optimized BD50 encodes with lossless audio, but instead we are still getting hand me down HD DVD crap.

/rant

I wonder if Warner is just doing this so they can double-dip later on Blu-ray?

[JadedRaverLA]

Now normally I call people out for bashing any studio who releases films on Blu-ray disc, as I think we need to cut the studios that support our format some slack... lest we anger them into pulling a Paramount on us.

In this case, however, that is simply ridiculous. If the movie is actually split between multiple discs (and not just extras on a second disc) then this will most definitely be a title I DON'T pick up... and I hope others do the same to let Warner know that this is taking things too far. If, on the other hand, the film is all on one disc, then I see it as just annoying and something I can live with.

[Beta-guy]

why couldn't they, IF they were going to give us the HD DVD encoded version, put it on 1 BD50 disc? this inconviences BD supporters without need, we have the space we need to fid an HD movie on 1 disc! :P

tough though it for now I guess if Warner get enough sales 4Q we may not have to worry about an HD-DVD encoded movie on our discs!

[ben7ben3]

uhhh, the movie is on one disc, and its the same in hddvd

what r u people smoking? these arent vhs tapes, they are high definition high capability discs

it is split the same as the pirates movies, the same as ghost rider, etc

if you would actually think that a movie couldnt fit onto a disc, then i think u need to look into what blu ray is all about a lil more

[krinkle]

Originally Posted by Beta-guy

why couldn't they, IF they were going to give us the HD DVD encoded version, put it on 1 BD50 disc? this inconviences BD supporters without need, we have the space we need to fid an HD movie on 1 disc! :P

tough though it for now I guess if Warner get enough sales 4Q we may not have to worry about an HD-DVD encoded movie on our discs!

Lets all hope this happens.

[krinkle]

Originally Posted by ben7ben3

uhhh, the movie is on one disc, and its the same in hddvd

what r u people smoking? these arent vhs tapes, they are high definition high capability discs

it is split the same as the pirates movies, the same as ghost rider, etc

if you would actually think that a movie couldnt fit onto a disc, then i think u need to look into what blu ray is all about a lil more

I don't think so. Why don't you do some research?

Everything I can find on the title says that the feature film is split between two discs.

Also, I own over 200 movies on Blu-ray, something which I doubt that you can say.

[BLU-tooth]

that movie really, really stinks anyway. i would never buy that.

[Canada]

What the hell, I have to get up to put the second disk in reminds me of the Goodfellas flipper DVD I just got rid of.

[msallaq]

i hate warner

[krinkle]

Originally Posted by Canada

What the hell I have to get up to put the second disk in reminds me odf the Goodfellas flipper I just got rid of.

And this is the saddest thing about the format war. On Blu-ray you should not have to!

The only reason Blu-ray got the movie on two discs is because of HD DVD's storage problems and Warner for some reason will not do a separate Blu-ray designed edition!

[krinkle]

Originally Posted by msallaq

i hate warner

I don't hate Warner. I really like Warner!

But I am upset about some of the decisions they have made during this format war.

I will continue to buy great Warner releases like 300, Blood Diamond, and others where we get lossless audio, and they use BD50.

I have always hated messing with flipper discs etc. This is one release I just can't bring my self to buy, even though I want to support Blu-ray.

This type of stuff just makes me appreciate Sony/MGM/Disney/Lionsgate even more.

[gand41f]

Originally Posted by krinkle

And this is the saddest thing about the format war. On Blu-ray you should not have to!

The only reason Blu-ray got the movie on two discs is because of HD DVD's storage problems and Warner for some reason will not do a separate Blu-ray designed edition!

If that's true, it's pretty ridiculous. I can understand them not having to do a complete re-encode, but they can't even splice the two files together?

I guess the VC-1 tools that M$ is providing Warner make sure that's a hard thing to do.

sheesh
gandalf

[jw]

Originally Posted by krinkle

Also, I own over 200 movies on Blu-ray, something which I doubt that you can say.

I can say

[Deciazulado]

Introduction by Oliver Stone: 3 minutes and a half

Alexander Part I: 124minutes 50 seconds
Intermission title card: 1 minute and a half

. ______ .


Alexander Part II: 87 minutes 14 seconds

Supplements

Watch the optional introduction, where Oliver himself explains why the movie is divided into two parts and has an intermission.



(Still, on a theater, in the 20th century, a patron didn't have to get up and thread the second platter into the projector )

[bluskiff]

wow that is kinda of a let down it's like getting a laser disc transfer on a dvd. This movie didn't do great in theatres so I understand warner wanting to redip as many times as they can.

[BluSmoke]

I think you people should be more pissed by the fact that this movie has a crappy 640k track.

[krinkle]

Originally Posted by BluSmoke

I think you people should be more pissed by the fact that this movie has a crappy 640k track.

This is another major issue.

I blame HD DVD for this as well.

Alexander needed two HD DVDs just to fit the movie with crappy DD5.1 640k.

Lossless will never be possible on long movie HD DVD unless they go with what? three disks for each film?

Blu-ray could have done the whole movie + TruHD all on a single BD50.

[krinkle]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Introduction by Oliver Stone: 3 minutes and a half

Alexander Part I: 124minutes 50 seconds
Intermission title card: 1 minute and a half

. ______ .


Alexander Part II: 87 minutes 14 seconds

Supplements

Watch the optional introduction, where Oliver himself explains why the movie is divided into two parts and has an intermission.



(Still, on a theater, in the 20th century, a patron didn't have to get up and thread the second platter into the projector )

Deciazulado, with utmost respect to you for your contribution to this site, I would just say this:

An intermission does not mean there have to be two disks. Warner could have easily put the whole thing on a BD50 and retained the "intermission"! No disk swapping necessary.

Warner has just refused to do much of anything to show off superior Blu-ray technology and its sad.

[gand41f]

Originally Posted by krinkle

Lossless will never be possible on long movie HD DVD unless they go with what?

Doesn't matter how long the movie is, or how many discs they use. Their bandwidth ceiling (30Mbps max for video + audio total) makes it virtually impossible to do lossless audio unless the most active part of their soundtrack and video are very compressible (meaning, it's probably a very boring movie ).

enjoy
gandalf

[gand41f]

Originally Posted by krinkle

An intermission does not mean there have to be two disks. Warner could have easily put the whole thing on a BD50 and retained the "intermission"! No disk swapping necessary.

Very good point. This is exactly what they did with The Battle of The Bulge.

enjoy
gandalf