Is Donnie Darko coming to Blu-ray?

[babsadoodle14]

OK
THE BEST FILM OF ALL TIME
MUST
BE ON BLU-RAY SOON!!!!!!!!!!!!
PLEASSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
I NEED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Scorxpion]

IT IS Going to be released on BD and SONY is going to release it dont worry

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/donniebrasco.html

OK Sorry for my mistake here

[phloyd]

Donnie Darko is not the same as Donnie Brasco.

I would also like to have DD on BD

[Maximus]

DD is a Fox picture, so it will get a BD release eventually. Especially given the cult status of this film.

[Chad Varnadore]

I hope Fox opts for the directors cut or both via seamless branching rather than settling on just the theatrical cut for now to do a double dip that may never come or at least won't for many years. The DC made some things a lot clearer, enhancing the story IMO.

[Josh]

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

I hope Fox opts for the directors cut or both via seamless branching rather than settling on just the theatrical cut for now to do a double dip that may never come or at least won't for many years. The DC made some things a lot clearer, enhancing the story IMO.

I disagree completely. Where the theatrical cut actually forced the viewer to think and dig deeper, the "Director's Cut" (which was really just a money move to re-release the title - much like Sony's "Extended Cuts") simply fed the information to the viewer. The "Director's Cut" was an embarrassment to film in general, and is a great example of how money corrupts Hollywood.

As you can probably tell, I am very passionate about this title.

[RichiPuppy]

I do have to agree that I liked the theatrical cut better, but the directors cut did have a few things that the director did want in the original movie that got cut, and no not just the parts where it directly told you what was going on. If I had to choose though I would deffinatly choose the original cut.

[Banjo]

I agree about the original version being better. Though I wouldn't mind if both were included.

Like Josh said, the original forced us to think more and explore it on a deeper level.

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by joshd2012

The "Director's Cut" was an embarrassment to film in general, and is a great example of how money corrupts Hollywood.

I've not seen either cut.

Seeing that there are polarized views on both cuts, I'd have to say that Hollywood money corrupts both cuts. The shorter cut corrupts because Hollywood wanted to save money by not allowing the director to have a better say in his movie. The longer cut because it was in response to the cult status of the movie.

But what do I know?


fuad

[onyxx]

I have seen it on HD cable, it does not look good. You have to remember that this was a low budget flick, so I don't exactly expect it to be HD material.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by onyxx

I have seen it on HD cable, it does not look good. You have to remember that this was a low budget flick, so I don't exactly expect it to be HD material.

it would be almost like buying 'Clerks' in HD....kind of pointless I think as they were low budget films.

..especially Clerks because it was shot in black and white.

[Josh]

Originally Posted by onyxx

I have seen it on HD cable, it does not look good. You have to remember that this was a low budget flick, so I don't exactly expect it to be HD material.

The HD version on TV was the SD version stretched and upconverted. There has been no true HD version of this film anywhere.

[Chad Varnadore]

Originally Posted by joshd2012

I disagree completely. Where the theatrical cut actually forced the viewer to think and dig deeper, the "Director's Cut" (which was really just a money move to re-release the title - much like Sony's "Extended Cuts") simply fed the information to the viewer. The "Director's Cut" was an embarrassment to film in general, and is a great example of how money corrupts Hollywood.

As you can probably tell, I am very passionate about this title.

I don't think the DC was just another opportunity to exploit the DVD market. It wasn't a simple unrated cut or extended cut commissioned by the studio, it was done at the behest of the director. These are changes that Kelly wanted to see and were done with director supervision and approval.

As for making you think more: at some point that becomes making you develop your own interpretation based on limited information in the actual film. That may or may not be what the director was going for. Sorta like everybody that reads a poem or looks at modern art, you're forced to create your own meaning due to the vagueness of the medium. If the DC conflicted with some of your initial interpretations, I can see why you wouldn't like it. But, when I watched it, I personally enjoyed the DC more. I didn't feel it spelled out too much. Rather it elaborated on things I wanted to know more about the first time. But, it's been awhile since I reviewed it, so my memory isn't as passionate any more.

Hopefully, Fox will do the best thing and release a product that supports both versions the first time on BD instead of one now, one several years later. Though, if the master looks as poor as people say the HD broadcast was, hopefully Fox will take care of it before bringing it to Blu.

[Gamma_Winstead]

I think this would sell A LOT if copies and maybe even some players. I just bought the SD about a week ago and i must say that it might be one of the best films ever. I loved it so much that I went out and bought the directors cut. On the special features there was this guy with I kid you not over 60 copies of the film on SD. All the exact same version of the film too! imagine if all those were in Blu...

[jdc115]

Originally Posted by gamma626

I think this would sell A LOT if copies and maybe even some players. I just bought the SD about a week ago and i must say that it might be one of the best films ever. I loved it so much that I went out and bought the directors cut. On the special features there was this guy with I kid you not over 60 copies of the film on SD. All the exact same version of the film too! imagine if all those were in Blu...

I loved the movie as well but I don't think it will be a one that would drive a lot of sales. It really is a cult film, though quite a popular one after its DVD release. It bombed in the theatre.

What is your opinion of the director's cut? Personally, I like the original release much better. Maybe they try to explain a little more in the director's cut but they rearranged some of the music used which I thought was placed much better in the original release.

[Gamma_Winstead]

Originally Posted by jdc115

I loved the movie as well but I don't think it will be a one that would drive a lot of sales. It really is a cult film, though quite a popular one after its DVD release. It bombed in the theatre.

What is your opinion of the director's cut? Personally, I like the original release much better. Maybe they try to explain a little more in the director's cut but they rearranged some of the music used which I thought was placed much better in the original release.

have yet to actually watch the whole film yet. I just checked out the second disk for the features. it could not have bombed that much seeing as it only cost 4 mil. to make. but seriously that dude had an entire shelf just for that movie!!!! What the heck did he do with all of those!

[jdc115]

Originally Posted by gamma626

have yet to actually watch the whole film yet. I just checked out the second disk for the features. it could not have bombed that much seeing as it only cost 4 mil. to make. but seriously that dude had an entire shelf just for that movie!!!! What the heck did he do with all of those!

Cost: 4.5M
Initial US release: 500K

Theatrical Performance
Total US Gross $1,270,522
International Gross $2,845,785
Worldwide Gross $4,116,307


So it looked liked it bombed upon release. And didn't do much better when they re-released the director's cut. I originally saw it on DVD and then watched the Director's cut in the theatre about 2 years later but I really liked the original version better. Of course, on Blu-ray, they can just release both versions and I would pick it up as long as I can watch the original.

As far as they guy with a whole shelf full of the same movie...all I can think is that he has an obsession and maybe needs help.

As far as the guy with a whole shelf of the same movie, hmm, I just must think he has issues

[crey014]

it bombed in the theater because how do you market a film involving an airplane crash exactly after 9/11?

[jdc115]

Originally Posted by crey014

it bombed in the theater because how do you market a film involving an airplane crash exactly after 9/11?

They never indicated the plane crashed, just the engine falling off of it. But this is just one of those movies that might be a little too strange for most people to go watch in the theatre but does well on DVD. Maybe like David Lynch but easier to understand.

[Gamma_Winstead]

Originally Posted by jdc115

Cost: 4.5M
Initial US release: 500K

Theatrical Performance
Total US Gross $1,270,522
International Gross $2,845,785
Worldwide Gross $4,116,307


So it looked liked it bombed upon release. And didn't do much better when they re-released the director's cut. I originally saw it on DVD and then watched the Director's cut in the theatre about 2 years later but I really liked the original version better. Of course, on Blu-ray, they can just release both versions and I would pick it up as long as I can watch the original.

As far as they guy with a whole shelf full of the same movie...all I can think is that he has an obsession and maybe needs help.

As far as the guy with a whole shelf of the same movie, hmm, I just must think he has issues

O.O serious! dang thats low....
BTW the dude went up and kissed the director and thought the book grandma death wrote was real... what a strange little boy.