Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

It appears most do not really watch anymore anyway. A few months ago a survey was done that showed 80% of viewers were doing other things when watching (texting, gaming, talking, etc.).

yeah that is one thing I will never understand.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Well, considering how anal people here are about the packaging, she probably didn't want to have the smaller Blu-ray case and was willing to pay $3 extra for the DVD packaging.

To me it sounded more like what I have come to call stupid person syndrome.

thecalm_7: hey look the combo is 3$ cheaper than the DVD
the lady: (thinking) man that guy pointed out that I could save 3$ with the combo, he is making me look stupid
the lady: screams at him because he made her look stupid and so tries to dismiss it because it was "by choice" and not a bad move.

[partridge]

For me the whole argument boils down to price; 3D blu-ray's are stupidly expensive compared the 2D blu-ray which are similarly too expensive compared to the DVD. Most DVD players will upscale and that gives the majority of consumers out there a perfectly good experience for their money.

Sadly, films are following in the footstepts of music. Music has gone from high quality CD to "ok" MP3 and only now, well over a decade since the MP3 arrived, are high quality digital music options arriving for mainstream consumers (but will they care?)

Convenience always wins over quality. When films cost sometimes over 100 million to make, it's no mystery why the studios are throwing the retail version at consumers in a multitude of ways to try and make a profit on their investment (and why the blu-ray is becoming more and more vanilla - they don't all come with a digital copy anymore, some don't even have much in the way of extras)

Say what you like about Netflix but their top quality stream looks and sounds amazing; does it rival the blu-ray? probably not, but honestly, I'm not seeing much difference and that's the killer. There isn't enough of a difference to persuade most consumers that BR is worth getting into.

For about 70 quid a year I get access to a selection of great tv and films. For the same money I could only pick up 4 or 5 blu-ray movies!!! 4 or 5! What a joke.

Studios MUST wake up and considerably lower disc prices. But they won't, we know they won't. So the collector suffers, the film fan suffers. Do any of the big releases get as many extras as they used to? And only the really big franchises get a special collectable edition these days.

Studio's don't care, they just want to shovel the goods in our direction and get whatever cash they can.

Blu-Ray should be the very best way to enjoy films. But more and more people are going digital and watching films on tablets and phones simply because it's convenient.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by partridge

For me the whole argument boils down to price; 3D blu-ray's are stupidly expensive compared the 2D blu-ray which are similarly too expensive compared to the DVD. Most DVD players will upscale and that gives the majority of consumers out there a perfectly good experience for their money.

Sadly, films are following in the footstepts of music. Music has gone from high quality CD to "ok" MP3 and only now, well over a decade since the MP3 arrived, are high quality digital music options arriving for mainstream consumers (but will they care?)

Convenience always wins over quality. When films cost sometimes over 100 million to make, it's no mystery why the studios are throwing the retail version at consumers in a multitude of ways to try and make a profit on their investment (and why the blu-ray is becoming more and more vanilla - they don't all come with a digital copy anymore, some don't even have much in the way of extras)

Say what you like about Netflix but their top quality stream looks and sounds amazing; does it rival the blu-ray? probably not, but honestly, I'm not seeing much difference and that's the killer. There isn't enough of a difference to persuade most consumers that BR is worth getting into.

For about 70 quid a year I get access to a selection of great tv and films. For the same money I could only pick up 4 or 5 blu-ray movies!!! 4 or 5! What a joke.

Studios MUST wake up and considerably lower disc prices. But they won't, we know they won't. So the collector suffers, the film fan suffers. Do any of the big releases get as many extras as they used to? And only the really big franchises get a special collectable edition these days.

Studio's don't care, they just want to shovel the goods in our direction and get whatever cash they can.

Blu-Ray should be the very best way to enjoy films. But more and more people are going digital and watching films on tablets and phones simply because it's convenient.

Bluray IS the best way to enjoy films. People watching on smartphones are never going to be the same people that watch on bluray. Two different customers. I don't even class those people as movie lovers. How can they be? It's not the same experience.

Streaming isn't going to be the golden goose that some think. The market will be fragmented and will have some very frustrated customers as standards continue to be messed up.

[Nick The Slick]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Bluray IS the best way to enjoy films. People watching on smartphones are never going to be the same people that watch on bluray. Two different customers. I don't even class those people as movie lovers. How can they be? It's not the same experience.

Streaming isn't going to be the golden goose that some think. The market will be fragmented and will have some very frustrated customers as standards continue to be messed up.

I was going to say the same thing lol. Does Netflix and the like even stream surround sound or is it just crappy stereo mixes? Sure I could find the answer myself but, you know, the laziness

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by partridge

For me the whole argument boils down to price; 3D blu-ray's are stupidly expensive compared the 2D blu-ray which are similarly too expensive compared to the DVD. Most DVD players will upscale and that gives the majority of consumers out there a perfectly good experience for their money.

Sadly, films are following in the footstepts of music. Music has gone from high quality CD to "ok" MP3 and only now, well over a decade since the MP3 arrived, are high quality digital music options arriving for mainstream consumers (but will they care?)

Convenience always wins over quality. When films cost sometimes over 100 million to make, it's no mystery why the studios are throwing the retail version at consumers in a multitude of ways to try and make a profit on their investment (and why the blu-ray is becoming more and more vanilla - they don't all come with a digital copy anymore, some don't even have much in the way of extras)

Say what you like about Netflix but their top quality stream looks and sounds amazing; does it rival the blu-ray? probably not, but honestly, I'm not seeing much difference and that's the killer. There isn't enough of a difference to persuade most consumers that BR is worth getting into.

For about 70 quid a year I get access to a selection of great tv and films. For the same money I could only pick up 4 or 5 blu-ray movies!!! 4 or 5! What a joke.

Studios MUST wake up and considerably lower disc prices. But they won't, we know they won't. So the collector suffers, the film fan suffers. Do any of the big releases get as many extras as they used to? And only the really big franchises get a special collectable edition these days.

Studio's don't care, they just want to shovel the goods in our direction and get whatever cash they can.

Blu-Ray should be the very best way to enjoy films. But more and more people are going digital and watching films on tablets and phones simply because it's convenient.

Sigh. You get what you pay for. If you want the best, you pay more simple as that. Should gourmet food be priced the same as Taco Bell? Go enjoy your lower quality streaming movies but be aware there are those who will gladly pay for something better because they can appreciate the difference in quality. If there weren't such people then Blu-ray or 3D wouldn't exist, wouldn't it?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Nick The Slick

I was going to say the same thing lol. Does Netflix and the like even stream surround sound or is it just crappy stereo mixes? Sure I could find the answer myself but, you know, the laziness

5.1, not that it makes any difference to me. I want the best and I have always been like that.

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by partridge

For me the whole argument boils down to price; 3D blu-ray's are stupidly expensive compared the 2D blu-ray which are similarly too expensive compared to the DVD. Most DVD players will upscale and that gives the majority of consumers out there a perfectly good experience for their money.

Sadly, films are following in the footstepts of music. Music has gone from high quality CD to "ok" MP3 and only now, well over a decade since the MP3 arrived, are high quality digital music options arriving for mainstream consumers (but will they care?)

Convenience always wins over quality. When films cost sometimes over 100 million to make, it's no mystery why the studios are throwing the retail version at consumers in a multitude of ways to try and make a profit on their investment (and why the blu-ray is becoming more and more vanilla - they don't all come with a digital copy anymore, some don't even have much in the way of extras)

Say what you like about Netflix but their top quality stream looks and sounds amazing; does it rival the blu-ray? probably not, but honestly, I'm not seeing much difference and that's the killer. There isn't enough of a difference to persuade most consumers that BR is worth getting into.

For about 70 quid a year I get access to a selection of great tv and films. For the same money I could only pick up 4 or 5 blu-ray movies!!! 4 or 5! What a joke.

Studios MUST wake up and considerably lower disc prices. But they won't, we know they won't. So the collector suffers, the film fan suffers. Do any of the big releases get as many extras as they used to? And only the really big franchises get a special collectable edition these days.

Studio's don't care, they just want to shovel the goods in our direction and get whatever cash they can.

Blu-Ray should be the very best way to enjoy films. But more and more people are going digital and watching films on tablets and phones simply because it's convenient.

See, you say all this, and this year is the best bluray release year since it launched. There's no end of titles coming out, every time I check in here it seems something new is announced I want.

I'm certainly not suffering as a collector (apart from a sharp, stabbing pain in the wallet) and, for example, my work colleague who watches everything on a tablet as his wife hogs the TV, isn't suffering either as he streams everything. There seems to be room for both of us.

When the releases start to dry up, then I'll worry, but until then, I'm just enjoying the hobby. I really can't see a lot to be worried about. 4k will be next, it wont be a new format, it'll just be another version of bluray.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Sigh. You get what you pay for. If you want the best, you pay more simple as that. Should gourmet food be priced the same as Taco Bell? Go enjoy your lower quality streaming movies but be aware there are those who will gladly pay for something better because they can appreciate the difference in quality. If there weren't such people then Blu-ray or 3D wouldn't exist, wouldn't it?

Streaming I do think is the future for most content viewing with the ability to then buy it in a premium format (whether downloaded or on disc etc). The convenience is the biggest factor that I fell will make this happen.

Originally Posted by KRW1

See, you say all this, and this year is the best bluray release year since it launched. There's no end of titles coming out, every time I check in here it seems something new is announced I want.

I'm certainly not suffering as a collector (apart from a sharp, stabbing pain in the wallet) and, for example, my work colleague who watches everything on a tablet as his wife hogs the TV, isn't suffering either as he streams everything. There seems to be room for both of us.

When the releases start to dry up, then I'll worry, but until then, I'm just enjoying the hobby. I really can't see a lot to be worried about. 4k will be next, it wont be a new format, it'll just be another version of bluray.

It may carry the same name and be backwards compatible, but 4k blu-rays will be a new format.\

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Digital is not going to change that. And it's just going to screw over customers who lose access to their content. And piss off enough of these people by taking away what they paid for, and they'll likely turn to piracy to obtain access to the content they want, when up until that point they've paid for their content legitimately.


I'm sticking with physical media as long as it is around. I don't care if digital versions come out earlier. I'll wait for the disc.

The only way digital will work for me is if it is completely drm free. Once I have it in other words I own it as much as I do a disc. Using DRM to prevent piracy is as effective as given concrete to a starving man.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Sigh. You get what you pay for. If you want the best, you pay more simple as that. Should gourmet food be priced the same as Taco Bell? Go enjoy your lower quality streaming movies but be aware there are those who will gladly pay for something better because they can appreciate the difference in quality. If there weren't such people then Blu-ray or 3D wouldn't exist, wouldn't it?

I know this is apostasy; but most films just aren't worth $20-$30.


This has nothing to do with Blu vs. DVD vs. streaming or any of that. It's just that people are not ready to blind buy something that turns out to be terrible as some sort of sign that they're a "movie fan" or "aficiando" or whatever. Twenty bucks is twenty bucks.


Who sets these prices, and on what basis? I've been with Blu since the beginning of the HD-DVD war, and at the outset, prices were insane. Content producers had to find the maximum tolerable price, which settled out at about $20 - for no discernable reason except people would buy Blu discs.


I noted with interest the move last winter to try to slide the price up to $22 or even $23, and I knew that would fail. It did, and prices dropped again. But the biggest drag on Blu sales is the price.


Blu, and 3D Blu, had the tragic misfortune of trying to hit stride in the marketplace right at the beginning of a financial recession. Truly idiotic marketing, with market share grabs by TV manufacturers, pretty much sealed the fate of 3D (with the exclusives) along with bad technology ($150 glasses? Per pair? With record unemployment? Unreal) and players were running $300-$400. Now that they're under $100, the public doesn't want to climb on the next bandwagon from sheer skepticism.


The real problem is that there is too much content that just doesn't justify the price, at all. The idea that a movie should be anywhere from $5-$10 for a one-time viewing on Pay Per View has already been laughed off by the public, as is the idea of being the first kid on your block to see some limp rom-com or the next snide Josh Rogen "comedy". Are people going to pay a sawbuck each for his stuff, or Adam Sandler stuff, or whatever?


Compulsive collectors may do that, but anyone obsessed with getting any film, despite the quantity, for a one time view is not the common consumer. This group is full of people whose homes look like video stores - an entity which has disappeared from the retail world - but most homes are decorated in a much different way, by a much different consumer.


I have a couple hundred films, but my actual purchases have dropped drastically. I can afford to buy films, but not collect them for the sake of the shiny box - some are so bad I can't run away fast enough. I'll bet that most people who have upwards of a thousand or more films have only seen them once, if that. The general public has to by gasoline with that money, or feed the family for an evening of home cooked goodness.


The market will win with a 33% to 50% drop in disc prices. We won't see that until real disaster looms - and the general confusion about 4K will get us there in a couple of years, with UHD and Blu and DVD all pressing for big prices, and the streaming services with the same content at much lower cost. I wonder what that will look like.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Sigh. You get what you pay for. If you want the best, you pay more simple as that. Should gourmet food be priced the same as Taco Bell? Go enjoy your lower quality streaming movies but be aware there are those who will gladly pay for something better because they can appreciate the difference in quality. If there weren't such people then Blu-ray or 3D wouldn't exist, wouldn't it?

Don't sigh, be happy. You are not getting what you're paying for, when you pay the same price for a crappy presentationi on Blu as a good presentation on Blu.


That's why we have reviews of films - to let us know (read: warn us) if something doesn't cut the mustard. Edge enhancement? Lousy sound? Maybe just a really bad movie?


Just think - no matter how opulent the theater, are all movies of "high quality"? As fans, we gladly pay more to see great presentations and films in Blu - but some content isn't worth it, or belongs to a niche of just a few people who like it. Some is the most dread of all - mediocre.


No point in eating a boring hamburger, but demanding it on engraved silver cutlery and classic china platters, along with your Coke in Waterford crystal. That's comic opera snobbery, and there has to be a limit to it.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I know this is apostasy; but most films just aren't worth $20-$30.


This has nothing to do with Blu vs. DVD vs. streaming or any of that. It's just that people are not ready to blind buy something that turns out to be terrible as some sort of sign that they're a "movie fan" or "aficiando" or whatever. Twenty bucks is twenty bucks.


Who sets these prices, and on what basis? I've been with Blu since the beginning of the HD-DVD war, and at the outset, prices were insane. Content producers had to find the maximum tolerable price, which settled out at about $20 - for no discernable reason except people would buy Blu discs.


I noted with interest the move last winter to try to slide the price up to $22 or even $23, and I knew that would fail. It did, and prices dropped again. But the biggest drag on Blu sales is the price.


Blu, and 3D Blu, had the tragic misfortune of trying to hit stride in the marketplace right at the beginning of a financial recession. Truly idiotic marketing, with market share grabs by TV manufacturers, pretty much sealed the fate of 3D (with the exclusives) along with bad technology ($150 glasses? Per pair? With record unemployment? Unreal) and players were running $300-$400. Now that they're under $100, the public doesn't want to climb on the next bandwagon from sheer skepticism.


The real problem is that there is too much content that just doesn't justify the price, at all. The idea that a movie should be anywhere from $5-$10 for a one-time viewing on Pay Per View has already been laughed off by the public, as is the idea of being the first kid on your block to see some limp rom-com or the next snide Josh Rogen "comedy". Are people going to pay a sawbuck each for his stuff, or Adam Sandler stuff, or whatever?


Compulsive collectors may do that, but anyone obsessed with getting any film, despite the quantity, for a one time view is not the common consumer. This group is full of people whose homes look like video stores - an entity which has disappeared from the retail world - but most homes are decorated in a much different way, by a much different consumer.


I have a couple hundred films, but my actual purchases have dropped drastically. I can afford to buy films, but not collect them for the sake of the shiny box - some are so bad I can't run away fast enough. I'll bet that most people who have upwards of a thousand or more films have only seen them once, if that. The general public has to by gasoline with that money, or feed the family for an evening of home cooked goodness.


The market will win with a 33% to 50% drop in disc prices. We won't see that until real disaster looms - and the general confusion about 4K will get us there in a couple of years, with UHD and Blu and DVD all pressing for big prices, and the streaming services with the same content at much lower cost. I wonder what that will look like.

Streaming services are lower cost because new content is not there. If the content is there you pay a lot more (now tv for example) streaming is for the casual consumer, we all know that. If bluray disappeared tomorrow, we would be left with films on phones and tablets, along with netflix and amazon for anyone over 40. Collectors need to collect. I wouldn't rule out another physical format beyond 4k.

[partridge]

But the collector isn't being provided for. Once upon a time DVD was the greatest thing to happen to films ever, with specially made documentaries, alternative viewpoints, etc, etc. Blu-Ray promised to do much the same but with even more possibilities. But where are we now? More and more big films get released on a vanilla BR disc but at the same high price, digital is already being released a few weeks earlier than disc and it's usually cheaper too.

what's the incentive for the studio to put any effort into the disc when the digital film only version is easier to distribute and saves them money by removing the physical side of the product?

It seems to me that studios no longer see BR as the ultimate way to view a film; they know a lot of consumers are happy to watch films on a phone or a tablet, so why bother with the effort of a top BR release with all the HD audio and video bells and whistles?

I hate it, I really do, but it's what I see happening already. Not so long ago I could buy a triple play for almost every new film; DVD, Blu-Ray and digital copy all in one box. But now, you are lucky if you get a digital copy, you certainly don't get the DVD

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by partridge

But the collector isn't being provided for. Once upon a time DVD was the greatest thing to happen to films ever, with specially made documentaries, alternative viewpoints, etc, etc. Blu-Ray promised to do much the same but with even more possibilities. But where are we now? More and more big films get released on a vanilla BR disc but at the same high price, digital is already being released a few weeks earlier than disc and it's usually cheaper too.

what's the incentive for the studio to put any effort into the disc when the digital film only version is easier to distribute and saves them money by removing the physical side of the product?

It seems to me that studios no longer see BR as the ultimate way to view a film; they know a lot of consumers are happy to watch films on a phone or a tablet, so why bother with the effort of a top BR release with all the HD audio and video bells and whistles?

I hate it, I really do, but it's what I see happening already. Not so long ago I could buy a triple play for almost every new film; DVD, Blu-Ray and digital copy all in one box. But now, you are lucky if you get a digital copy, you certainly don't get the DVD

I agree with some of what you say. I have expressed my concern about the inevitable switch to watching on mobiles only. It is what i feared all along but everyone always tells me I am wrong. Our hobby will die if this trend continues. I an guessing that is what you are predicting? Almost identical to the music industry with low quality on portable devices. If the big tv experience dies in the next ten-fifteen years, so does my hobby.
I disagree with your post about bluray though. It certainly is the best way to watch movies regardless of what the industry thinks.

[partridge]

It's a really weird situation; you have tv manufacturers making amazing tv sets and audio companies bringing cinema sound to the home and yet the studios feed us sub-standard content to watch. Their view seems to increasingly be; consumers don't give a rats ass, so let's sell them crap.

I don't understand why studios, who spend so much money of films using cutting edge technology, aren't as interested as you'd think they would be, to bring that top quality experience to the home. Right now the ONLY way to do that is on Blu-Ray and it's BR that seems to be getting the cold shoulder.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by partridge

It's a really weird situation; you have tv manufacturers making amazing tv sets and audio companies bringing cinema sound to the home and yet the studios feed us sub-standard content to watch. Their view seems to increasingly be; consumers don't give a rats ass, so let's sell them crap.

I don't understand why studios, who spend so much money of films using cutting edge technology, aren't as interested as you'd think they would be, to bring that top quality experience to the home. Right now the ONLY way to do that is on Blu-Ray and it's BR that seems to be getting the cold shoulder.

I'm not sure. I would like to think that's isn't the case but who knows? All I do know is that I am extremely worried about the future of film. When we have kids watching the likes of the dark knight rises on a 4 inch screen I think we have lost hope. I hope there will always be big screens but it may be that one day, that won't be the case. All you streaming fanboys, don't say you weren't warned when you are trying to watch the latest movie on a tiny screen on you wrist.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I'm not sure. I would like to think that's isn't the case but who knows? All I do know is that I am extremely worried about the future of film. When we have kids watching the likes of the dark knight rises on a 4 inch screen I think we have lost hope. I hope there will always be big screens but it may be that one day, that won't be the case. All you streaming fanboys, don't say you weren't warned when you are trying to watch the latest movie on a tiny screen on you wrist.

Because when you stream you must be watching on a small screen. If a group of people represents 10% of your market share you really can't avoid them, to do so is essentially business suicide. That happening to physical media is a very long way off.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

Because when you stream you must be watching on a small screen. If a group of people represents 10% of your market share you really can't avoid them, to do so is essentially business suicide. That happening to physical media is a very long way off.

It's not that people must be watching on a small screen, it's more that is what the sheep seem to be moving to. Goodness knows why.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I know this is apostasy; but most films just aren't worth $20-$30.

This has nothing to do with Blu vs. DVD vs. streaming or any of that. It's just that people are not ready to blind buy something that turns out to be terrible as some sort of sign that they're a "movie fan" or "aficiando" or whatever. Twenty bucks is twenty bucks.

Who sets these prices, and on what basis? I've been with Blu since the beginning of the HD-DVD war, and at the outset, prices were insane. Content producers had to find the maximum tolerable price, which settled out at about $20 - for no discernable reason except people would buy Blu discs.

While I frequently don't want to spend that amount on a movie either, the reality is that movies for the home are the most inexpensive they've ever been.

One of the great anomalies of the industry is that for catalog titles, frequently the movie is less expensive than the soundtrack CD. Does that make any sense?

IMO, there's no such thing anymore as a blind buy. There are thousands of sites that review films and/or have trailers. The only blind buy is if you walk into a retailer, see a package for a movie that you've never heard of and decide to buy it without checking any websites first.

I've posted this before, but way back in 1959, Famous Monsters of Filmland magazine used to offer a 50-foot 8mm silent version of The Phantom of the Opera (and I suspect a pretty poor quality print) for $4.95 (or for $5.95 in 16mm). That works out to about 4 minutes of footage, depending upon the projection speed. That $4.95 in 1959 is $40.49 today and that $5.95 for the 16mm version is $48.67 in today's dollars. All for what amounts to a poor quality silent trailer.

Back before cable and home video, the only way to see a movie outside of a movie theatre, aside from the films that used to play on over-the-air television, was to buy or rent it on 16mm film. A used print of a 30-year-old "B" movie, was at least $200 1964 dollars (that's over $1500 in today's dollars).

A $35 laserdisc in 1980 is $101 today.

When VHS was first released, it became largely a rental market because to own a title originally cost about $90 (using 1980 as the base year, that's the equivalent of $260 today). Even after price dropped, I remember paying $25-$30 for many titles. $30 in 1985 is over $66 today.

The fact that today, you can buy many catalog DVDs for $3-$4 each and many catalog Blu-rays for $7-$8 is actually completely absurd.

So I think we've all (including myself) gotten a bit spoiled. A $25 title is actually an incredible bargain (and even though I don't want to pay it either). If you're only going to watch it once, it probably doesn't make sense to buy it as a physical format - it would make more sense to stream it, IMO, although if you live in a big city, you could be paying almost that much to see it once in a theatre anyway.

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by partridge

But the collector isn't being provided for. Once upon a time DVD was the greatest thing to happen to films ever, with specially made documentaries, alternative viewpoints, etc, etc. Blu-Ray promised to do much the same but with even more possibilities. But where are we now? More and more big films get released on a vanilla BR disc but at the same high price, digital is already being released a few weeks earlier than disc and it's usually cheaper too.

what's the incentive for the studio to put any effort into the disc when the digital film only version is easier to distribute and saves them money by removing the physical side of the product?

It seems to me that studios no longer see BR as the ultimate way to view a film; they know a lot of consumers are happy to watch films on a phone or a tablet, so why bother with the effort of a top BR release with all the HD audio and video bells and whistles?

I hate it, I really do, but it's what I see happening already. Not so long ago I could buy a triple play for almost every new film; DVD, Blu-Ray and digital copy all in one box. But now, you are lucky if you get a digital copy, you certainly don't get the DVD

DVD was released in a pre-internet age. For most films, these days, extra features are pretty superfluous when everything you could possibly want to know about a film is on the internet. Remember biographies and filmographies were once an extra feature of DVD. Pointless when IMDB is on everyone's phone and never out of date. I don't know what big films aren't getting bluray releases so cant comment there.

It's also totally incorrect - If you're seriously saying films are coming out with vanilla discs, you've clearly never bought or seen a Masters of Cinema, Arrow or Criterion release. I just paid something like a tenner delivered for 25th hour which comes with two new commentaries and all sorts. I fear you're just looking for problems where none exist. Seriously, you think Apocalypse Now, Alien films, Blade Runner, Halloween films, Twin Peaks, Sorcerer and hundreds of others were treated better for DVD?

No. Triple Play doesn't compare to the love and attention the above films have got and are getting.

There's seriously never been a better time to collect bluray. It's cheap and there's absolutely tons of collectable and interesting releases.