Question About BD Release of Nixon on 8/19/08

[Clark Kent]

Doubtful that WB would pull something like that again. It will have to come on a BD-50. I seriously believe the Alexander Revisited situation was due to WB favoring HD DVD releases at the time. Warner bent over backwards to make sure their ported Blu-rays never had an advantage over the HD DVD.

[BanjoBob]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Doubtful that WB would pull something like that again. It will have to come on a BD-50. I seriously believe the Alexander Revisited situation was due to WB favoring HD DVD releases at the time. Warner bent over backwards to make sure their ported Blu-rays never had an advantage over the HD DVD.

Thanks for the response Clark...

Actually, I believe that the Alexander: Final Cut situation, in regards to the feature being split over 2 discs was at the insistence of Stone himself and not a studio decision. This was the case for the SD release and for the subsequent BD release despite the fact that the BD sported added capacity/capability to render/capture higher PQ across a single disc.

The fact that it was Stone's decision to split Alexander: Final Cut is why I am especially curious/concerned about the Nixon Director's Cut being split over 2 discs. The SD Director's Cut contained in the Oliver Stone Collection boxset was on one disc, but Stone has been rumored to have griped about the sub-standard quality of the extra/added scenes (a gripe I agree with), and so he may choose to mimic his 'Alexander strategy' for the Nixon BD release. I hope not...

[diamondfoxxx]

I never knew Alexander Revisited was spread over two discs for the BD release. There's no point in it--a BD 50 would've been enough with the capacity and as I recall there were no extras in Alexander Revisited, so there'd be no problem with compression. For the DVD release, it makes sense. But not Blu-ray when it can hold 50GB.
I checked Amazon for Nixon Blu-ray, and they say it has 2 discs. The runtime is listed as 213min.
I'm getting this along with The Doors.

[alexakajeff]

I will rent this first. Right now I have too many BDs on my list to buy.

[Darth Lavender]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Doubtful that WB would pull something like that again. It will have to come on a BD-50. I seriously believe the Alexander Revisited situation was due to WB favoring HD DVD releases at the time. Warner bent over backwards to make sure their ported Blu-rays never had an advantage over the HD DVD.

Actually, in the case of Alexander, Stone was very interested in the whole idea of an old fashioned 'intermission' and encouraging audiences to take a few moments between parts to actually think about the story, were it was headed, etc.
Remember, Warner did release 'A Clockwork Orange' around the same time taking advantage of the blu-ray capacity (HDDVD had movie on one disk, extras on another. Blu-ray put it all on one 50gig disk)

Speaking for myself, personally, I prefer having the intermission 'between disks' but that's purely a matter of taste, like boxed-sets vs plastic cases, but it's a pity Warner didn't do that more often (Mutiny on the Bounty, 2001, Grand Prix and just about every other Warner movie with an intermission was all on one disk)

[BanjoBob]

Now that a couple of reviews, generally positive, have trickled in from the likes of DVD Beaver and Robert Harris, we may get confirmation on this issue.

Anyone out there yet know whether the feature film is spread over the 2 discs a la the similarly lengthy Alexander (213min.) or contained on the first disc? The DVD Beaver mentions it being 'spread over 2 discs,' but this is confusing as it goes on to say the film is feature like it is on the previously released SD 'Collector's Edition,' which incidentally, has the film all on one disc. Is the 2 disc statement in reference to the film + features?

Again, a favorite of mine, and one i've been looking forward to since its announcement 3 months ago with just this one issue bringing pause. Thanks again.

[Darth Lavender]

Why pause, just for this one issue? Are you really going to stay with the old DVD just because the Blu-Ray is on two disks?

I could understand (and, frankly, applaud) boycotting a blu-ray because of an actual 'flaw' Something that unquestionably reduces the quality of the disk, just to get a wider audience or save a few dollars (censored version ($ony's Casino Royale) conspicuous lack of Lossless Audio (I mean on something like Speed Racer, not Casablanca were it truly isn't needed) edge-enhancement, DNR, or plain old-fashioned stupidity (the omission of the overture, etc. from 'Kingdom of Heaven,' or Universal's "Dune" only including the Theatrical Cut and those few deleted scenes NOT in the extended cut)

But, being spread over two disks isn't even a 'flaw,' it's just a minor matter of preference.

Just my 2c

[diamondfoxxx]

Don't worry, the film is in one disc.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...on_blu-ray.htm

RAH also said the film is in one disc when I bought up the question at HTF.

[BanjoBob]

Originally Posted by Darth Lavender

matter of preference.

You hit the nail on the head with just those 3 words. You answered your own query.

Having the film presented uninterrupted, if that is the original intention of the director, is definitely a major concern of mine and one of my criteria used in deciding whether to purchase a movie in its home media format. Deviation from this, in my mind, is certainly a 'flaw.' Why tolerate an intermission if there was never meant to be one? I don't see my concern as being any different, or needing to be more qualified than trepidation over the transfer or audio mix, which also happen to factor into my decision to purchase. Like you said, it's a matter of personal choice. Just my 2c.


That said, it seems to be a moot point thanks to diamondfoxxx's confirmation. Again, thanks for the help.

[ClaytonMG]

Isn't Nixon from Disney? I don't think what WB did applies to them.