# Osage at the Cineplex on his Birthday: GODZILLA (Warner Bros./Legendary Pictures)



## Osage_Winter

[img]http://www.godzilla-movies.com/media/godzilla2014_fan_poster.jpg[/img]*Theatrical Distributor(s): Warner Bros./Legendary Pictures
Director: Gareth Edwards
Starring Cast: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, Bryan Cranston, Ken Watanabe, Carson Bolde 
Running Time:  123 minutes
Rating:  PG-13


A KING'S ARRIVAL IS NEVER SILENT.*


I know you have all been waiting for my thoughts on the much-anticipated second remake of this much-beloved story (after the one helmed by Roland Emmerich and which starred Matthew Broderick bombed so badly back in the late ‘90s, mainly because Emmerich and his team mistakenly made the feature creature look more like the T-Rex from Spielberg’s _Jurassic Park_), but I have to report, after returning on my birthday night from seeing it, that I truly don’t know what to make of it. The trailers were super-promising, what with their suggestions that Gareth Edwards was finally taking a dark, brooding, serious angle with the material; but like what has happened with so many films over the past few years – summer blockbusters to boot – _Godzilla_ 2014 includes moments that are hinted at “incorrectly” with the trailers…for example: Remember when we get glimpses of the Las Vegas Strip being torn to pieces by what presumably is the main title creature? Godzilla actually wasn’t responsible for that mayhem in the film. Remember when the trailers kept hinting at a true, honest-to-goodness “origin story” of how the beast came to be with black-and-white photos of his scales rising up from the ocean surface off the coast of Japan? This actually was not an origin story – it takes the assumption that audiences already know the Godzilla mythos and runs with it, instead concentrating on pitting the beast against two malevolent creatures that “consume” radioactive weaponry for food. Aside from a slimmed-down Ken Watanabe, who is expertly cast as a Japanese scientist studying the reptilian beast but who otherwise isn’t given many lines of dialogue to work with, Edwards went with a cast of pretty much nobodies, which was a smart move in my opinion (it seems whenever a director stuffs a film, especially one as quasi-high-profile as this, with top-tier stars it’s always a recipe for disaster and disappointment). But in the end, I was actually expecting more from this follow-up-to-the-summer-theater-season-opener after _Amazing Spider-Man 2_…

Let’s get the “plus column” elements out of the way first – the creature effects utilized in this new reimagining of the legendary giant beast that rampages through the Pacific were spot-on and absolutely perfect. THIS is the way Godzilla should look. It more than makes up for the disastrous effects used by the aforementioned Emmerich film that came before it, and everything about this Godzilla is just downright cool…from his scales, his slow yet calculating movements and iconic roar/scream that can rip rooftops off on its own, everything here from a production standpoint worked. Add in the reimagining of his “fire breath” – updated here as a blue/white radioactive laser-like weapon – and you have a monster film that will remain in our memories for some time. The biggest problem with this version of _Godzilla_ was the plot – the trailers promised, the way I saw it, a serious take on the origin story and how the creature came to be by way of radioactive experiments off the coast of Japan. In Gareth Edwards’ version here, the film assumes we know all about that, suggesting the world already knows of “Godzilla” (and has even named him such) and that he has been “hiding” in the Pacific for some time, instead concentrating on the release of these mechanical-looking beasts that are also fueled by radioactivity. Now, I do realize, of course, that the old _Godzilla_ pictures always included legendary fights between the reptilian beast and creatures such as Mothra and even King Kong – and I totally applaud the filmmakers for including a fight between Godzilla and some sort of adversary in this, but the problem is that most of this film didn’t have much to do with Godzilla at all…it was more about these mysterious “things” that are “hatched” beneath the radioactive power plant in Japan that has been studying them. I also hoped for a slightly stronger opening sequence, perhaps one with more “mystery” behind it along the lines of the original _Jurassic Park_; what we get is a somewhat rushed and campy opening title sequence that recalls overtones of _The Hills Have Eyes_ remake and its flashing visions of radioactive explosions, accompanied by a kind of corny soundtrack. The opening wasn’t “darkly ominous” as the trailers led us to believe the actual film was.

The reimagining of Godzilla as told by Gareth Edwards focuses on the studies of Joe Brody (Bryan Cranston) who works for a corporation in Asia that delves into radioactivity matters. The film opens in the 1960s era when Brody’s company, who also employs scientist Ichiro Serizawa (Ken Watanabe), discovers a labyrinth-like underground cavern in the Philippines, apparently belonging to some kind of prehistoric species of animal – or so they think. We are led to believe, this whole time, that the scientists are tracking our title creature but in reality this is leading to the discovery of something else that crawls out of the ground. When some kind of seismic “accident” unleashes a poisonous, radioactive gas that kills Brody’s wife, who also works at the plant, the film’s plot fast-forwards to present-day San Francisco, where Brody’s now grown-up son Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and his own wife Elle (Elizabeth Olsen) are enjoying spending time together now that Ford is on leave from the U.S. Navy. Their lives are turned upside down when Ford gets a call that his father has been arrested in Japan, and that he needs to fly out there to take care of the situation because it has something to do with his studies from years ago. 

Ford arrives in Japan to find his father a paranoid mess, still obsessed with discovering whatever it was his company was hiding in that cave in the Philippines and desperate to decipher the “seismic mystery” his research has been tracking. Though Ford wants his father to return to the States with him to leave this life behind, Joe convinces the kid to come with him to a quarantine zone his company set up years ago and where supposedly radioactive tests were taking place (this all gets a bit hokey and unnecessarily thick, and should have been replaced with more focus on the Godzilla creature). Once there, Joe discovers they don’t need to wear the protective helmets because there is no radiation leakage after all – apparently, it was a story cooked up by the government to keep people out of this city at the heart of which was the radiation company he was working for. Eventually, Joe and Ford are arrested for snooping around this restricted area, and are soon let in on strange goings-on in the Philippines and Japan.

Joe knows something is up, though; he rants and raves like a scientist gone mad about how he knows “something has been unleashed” and that the government has been hiding something all along (as well as the company he was once employed by) while he’s interrogated in an isolation cell and Ford is taken somewhere away from him. At this point the film gets a bit weird, as the “thing” they have been studying at this secure location near the old radioactive plant from the ‘60s, Watanabe’s character included, suddenly “wakes up” in the way of radioactive power surges; again, we are lead to believe this is Godzilla, but we quickly learn it is not as the creature that breaks free of its cocoon-like coating is mechanical in nature, looking like a weird variant of the “thing” from _Cloverfield_. As this thing with glowing red eyes breaks free of its confines at this base and begins smashing everything in its wake with its lumbering, gigantic robot-like legs, it’s up to Brody Junior to get involved in whatever is going on here.

Meanwhile, we learn that the U.S. military forces, led by Admiral William Stenz (David Strathairn), have known all along about this “Godzilla,” and have even been tracking him underwater via stealth submarines. What they were not aware of was the fact that some strange “hybrid” creatures have been unearthed and hatched, one of them boasting bat-like wings that allows it to fly, until they track them heading over the Pacific Ocean and towards the West Coast of the U.S. Brody Junior is attempting to make his way back to the States by way of Honolulu Airport in Hawaii, but his trip is cut short when these metallic-looking creatures attack the airport before having a standoff with Godzilla himself, who rises from the Pacific to challenge the creatures (apparently). These action setpieces are exciting and visceral enough, but we have to wait too long to even get a glimpse of the main character we have come to know and love; in the meantime, Godzilla’s first tussle with the creatures leaves them hungry for more devastation, as they make their way to the U.S. coast and begin smashing everything in sight…including the iconic Las Vegas Strip. As Brody attempts to join back up with U.S. military forces who are planning a counter-strike against the creatures, scientist Serizawa and his assistant figure out that these creatures may be implementing a mating ritual based on their seismic “talking” (as I said, this gets a bit silly after a while) and concur that they need to “consume” radioactive material in order to get stronger and survive. This is confirmed when we witness the beasts actually picking up gigantic nuclear warheads the military was planning on using against them and eating them as if they were sausage and pepper heros.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/WETw7VW.jpg[/img]The concluding frame of the film gets a bit confusing and implausible, suggesting the military is going to set up a massive detonation of a bomb in San Francisco to kill all these creatures once and for all – including Godzilla himself – but will do so using paratroopers who must drop in quietly and locate the warhead that the mother creature has encased in an embryotic-like sac under San Francisco’s streets. I didn’t get this, either. But if you can hold out for this final scene you’ll be treated to the best moments of the film, as Godzilla arrives on the shores of California to do battle with the two massive beasts that have staked a claim in San Francisco. The fight sequences between our title creature, as he roars and bellows and shoots his nuclear breath at the creatures threatening the world, are as taut and exciting as any “Godzilla Versus…” film that has come before this one, as we watch our gigantic lizard smash, fling and burn up his adversaries. Of course, the creatures get their licks in as well, at one point teaming up to pummel Godzilla until it looks like the creature is outmatched. He doesn’t stay down for long, even after appearing to be killed by a falling building, and it’s suggested that Godzilla has saved mankind from these malevolent beasts, our “hero creature” retreating into the Pacific Ocean again after a mighty roar of victory.

What this film does similar to Emmerich’s take on the material is to leave us with an overwhelming sense of pity for Godzilla – there are close ups of the creature’s face as he’s struggling to stay the victor in the battle against the creatures he’s fighting, as well as when he’s trampled by a building, and we actually feel sorry for the poor beast. It’s almost as if we’re supposed to think here’s this giant, lumbering monster that doesn’t really want to hurt or kill humans…but he can’t help it because he’s so massive and just destroys everything in his wake. The film also sets up the possibility of a sequel – or maybe a franchise – suggesting that there will in fact be more adversaries that threaten us in which Godzilla will return to battle with (maybe Mothra?). But this is speculative and would have to be handled very carefully to avoid teetering on “overtly cheesy.”

As I said, I didn’t know what to make of _Godzilla_; the creature effects were awesome and the fight sequences between the monsters were kinetic and exciting…but the film concentrated more on these other creatures that “feed” on radioactivity than on Godzilla himself, which was very disappointing. My wife actually enjoyed it and wants to buy the Blu-ray when it comes out, but I’d be very interested in hearing what you all have to say about it if you have seen it (or when you do). 












_*Additional Screenshots:*_


----------



## Mike Edwards

I had some qualms with the movie myself, but ended up giving it a 4/5 rating. 

1. I knew we weren't going to get a giant monster mashup film from the beginning since Gareth mentioned months ago that he was going to do a movie much more similar to the 1954 "Gojira" rather than the monster mashup cheese fests that ended up being a lot of the sequels... In some ways it worked. in some ways it didn't. I loved that you almost never SAW him till the end. It added some more suspense that way, but it also felt a bit dragged out after while. I think 20 minutes could have been trimmed down a bit.

2. characters. Ken W. is fantastic and so is Bryan Cranston, but there was a little too much focus on the younger gen this time around. As a result the performances could be lack luster at times.

3. while I really like that they made it a slow burn film instead of the cheese fest action junkie Emmerich film, I wish there was just a few more minutes of Godzialla on screen. his fights with the MUTOS at the end is epically awesome (his atomic breath literally had the audience cheering when his back plates started lighting up), but about 10 minutes more would have done better.

4. I'm not sure what to think about him being "natures balancing tool"... I kinda preferred the rampaging beast rather than Alpha predator hunter who was just hunting some prey in our backyard. they worked a little too much of the sympathy angle..

5. but holy moly, they made him LOOOK and act just right this time. He looks and fights like a giant beast, instead of the good ole lizard thing we got in Emmerich's cheesey nightmare (although I have to say there's a guilty part of me that likes the 98 version lol )

oh... to address your confusion on the whole bomb in San Fran issue 
*Spoiler* 



they weren't bringing the bomb to san fran. they were bringing it THROUGH san fran and were going to lure all 3 beasts 20 miles off the coast with the radiation from the bomb as "bait", then detonate out there in the ocean killign them all. What happened is that the MUTO found the bomb first and to it into the heart of San Fran to feed it's babies (where it made it's nest). The paratroopers were going in to transport the bom OUT of the city and back to the bay, or if that failed used Ford to defuse the bomb so it didn't blow up in city


----------



## Osage_Winter

Nips and tucks made to theatrical review; thank you...


----------



## Osage_Winter

Gee...thanks a lot for the "happy birthday" wishes my friend...:sarcastic: :neener:



Mike Edwards said:


> I had some qualms with the movie myself, but ended up giving it a 4/5 rating.


Wow...four outta five? That's more than I would have given it... 



> 1. I knew we weren't going to get a giant monster mashup film from the beginning since Gareth mentioned months ago that he was going to do a movie much more similar to the 1954 "Gojira" rather than the monster mashup cheese fests that ended up being a lot of the sequels... In some ways it worked. in some ways it didn't. I loved that you almost never SAW him till the end. It added some more suspense that way, but it also felt a bit dragged out after while. I think 20 minutes could have been trimmed down a bit.


Indeed, again there were elements that were studied here by the filmmaker in which they based their foundations for the story (like with the modern takes on the superhero adaptations) and I am somewhat aware that he was going back to the "Gojira" mythos for some of this -- but I still didn't like the fact that it didn't really concentrate on the main title creature as much as it did the secondary creatures. We were lead to believe this was going to be a reimagining of the origin story what with all the photo shots of the radioactive bomb and the snapshots of Godzilla's scales rising from the surface of the water...



> 2. characters. Ken W. is fantastic and so is Bryan Cranston, but there was a little too much focus on the younger gen this time around. As a result the performances could be lack luster at times.


Totally agreed; Ken was perfect to play a Japanese scientist studying the whereabouts of this beast, but Cranston is depicted in the trailers as "knowing something devastating has been unleashed" et al and in my opinion his character wasn't given enough development or time. And where was Ken's dialogue? He just murmmered a couple of lines here and there (as bad as his English is) and is seen lumbering around looking frightened or concerned for the most part...



> 3. while I really like that they made it a slow burn film instead of the cheese fest action junkie Emmerich film, I wish there was just a few more minutes of Godzialla on screen. his fights with the MUTOS at the end is epically awesome (his atomic breath literally had the audience cheering when his back plates started lighting up), but about 10 minutes more would have done better.


I indeed pointed out the excitement of those final fight sequences and the fact that his atomic breath was uber-cool, and I do agree that a slow burn approach was definitely the way to go -- I just felt like the focus of the narrative was more on the Mutos and not on our beloved radioactive lizard. 



> 4. I'm not sure what to think about him being "natures balancing tool"... I kinda preferred the rampaging beast rather than Alpha predator hunter who was just hunting some prey in our backyard. they worked a little too much of the sympathy angle..


Agreed; I neglected to mention Ken's character's obsession with this "nature balancing" theory and the way in which he wanted all the creatures to "just fight"...but even in Emmerich's version, Godzilla was seen as a sympathetic character, just surviving the way he knows how but getting missiles launched at him for it. 



> 5. but holy moly, they made him LOOOK and act just right this time. He looks and fights like a giant beast, instead of the good ole lizard thing we got in Emmerich's cheesey nightmare (although I have to say there's a guilty part of me that likes the 98 version lol )


Absolutely agreed (though not about Emmerich's take on the icon, which looked more like the T-Rex from Jurassic Park than what he was SUPPOSED to look like...and hatching eggs in Madison Square Garden? Give me a break...). 



> oh... to address your confusion on the whole bomb in San Fran issue
> *Spoiler*
> 
> 
> 
> they weren't bringing the bomb to san fran. they were bringing it THROUGH san fran and were going to lure all 3 beasts 20 miles off the coast with the radiation from the bomb as "bait", then detonate out there in the ocean killign them all. What happened is that the MUTO found the bomb first and to it into the heart of San Fran to feed it's babies (where it made it's nest). The paratroopers were going in to transport the bom OUT of the city and back to the bay, or if that failed used Ford to defuse the bomb so it didn't blow up in city


Oh, I got it for the most part...I was merely saying it seemed rushed and confusing at that point, whereas they should have simply concentrated on Godzilla battling these creatures in the City by the Bay...:T


----------



## tripplej

Happy Belated Birthday!

Thanks for the review. I have been a fan of Godzilla ever since I saw the black and white movies when I was a kid. I liked the trailer and I will check this movie out on blu ray.


----------



## Osage_Winter

tripplej said:


> Happy Belated Birthday!


LOL...thank you, Joe! :T



> Thanks for the review. I have been a fan of Godzilla ever since I saw the black and white movies when I was a kid. I liked the trailer and I will check this movie out on blu ray.


Thanks for reading, my friend; we can reconnect on the film when it arrives on Blu...:T


----------



## Mike Edwards

lol, happy B-day!, sorry I didn't see it sooner, I was exhausted from getting my rear end handed to me in my workout not 5 minutes before posting..


ooooooooo, one little side note. did you notice young Ford's insect tank in the old "quarantined" house? he had labeled one of them "Mothra" ... Nice little nod to the fans


----------



## Osage_Winter

Mike Edwards said:


> lol, happy B-day!, sorry I didn't see it sooner, I was exhausted from getting my rear end handed to me in my workout not 5 minutes before posting..


LOL...that's alright...was kiddin' around...but thank you! 



> ooooooooo, one little side note. did you notice young Ford's insect tank in the old "quarantined" house? he had labeled one of them "Mothra" ... Nice little nod to the fans


Naw, I didn't notice that...good catch, and good nod to fans indeed...I bet you that's the adversary that's introduced in a sequel...:heehee:


----------



## Osage_Winter

Just wanted to add to this thread some bits of info I came across on Yahoo news today; in the context of what we were discussing, take a look at this interview conducted with an authority on the subject by the authority's own spouse (I have underlined areas which I pointed out myself in the review or which was discussed with Mike and others):

_*The newest attempt at reviving Godzilla opened on Friday, and early signs show it being a big hit. (Notice the self-restraint in not using the phrase “monster hit.” You’re welcome!) But how will Godzilla purists feel about it? The giant beast has a 60-year on-screen history (with some parts of its 31 previous films more respectable than others), and deeply invested fans may be tougher critics than casual moviegoers who just want to see a giant lizard trash a city.

To see how respectful and faithful to the Godzilla mythology the new film is, I spoke to one of the franchise’s most knowledgeable followers, Steve Ryfle, author of the Godzilla film history Japan’s Favorite Mon-Star and currently at work on a biography of Ishiro Honda, the director of the original 1954 Godzilla, Rodan, and Mothra. (It was easy to track him down: He is my husband.) 

Do you consider this version a sequel or an origin-story reboot?

The interesting thing is it’s essentially a sequel and an origin story. As far as the origin, they don’t exactly tell you how it came to be — Godzilla just exists, an ancient sea monster that started to surface in the 1940s to feed on nuclear material. At the same time, the new film is like the second movie in a series because it’s more about the secondary monster MUTO, the Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism.

How much is the movie like one of the Japanese-produced Toho films?

It has a big fight at the end, and that’s a big Godzilla trope — the big fight with another monster in a big city, à la the Godzilla movies of the 2000s, Godzilla vs. Destoroyah, Godzilla vs. Megaguirus. Those aren’t really the iconic, old-school Godzilla movies, but the battle in the new movie resembles something out of those films.

Another trope is Godzilla’s entrance scene. In the ‘54 film, Godzilla raises its head above a mountain ridgeline, and everyone is startled and runs away. It’s the big reveal. That was a standard Toho thing to do, and this one has a version of that.

Are there any callbacks to the earlier films?

Ken Watanabe’s character is named Dr. Ishiro Serizawa. In the original Godzilla film, Dr. Serizawa is the scientist who creates the Oxygen Destroyer, which is the weapon that is ultimately used to kill Godzilla. Ishiro is a reference to Ishiro Honda, who directed that first Godzilla and started the kaiju craze.

Does this version feel more authentic to its roots than Roland Emmerich’s 1998 Godzilla?

This movie is more faithful. The ‘98 one was made by people who weren’t really interested in making a Godzilla movie. That movie is essentially a remake of [1950s sci-fi classic] The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms. I think the ‘98 Godzilla is very much a film of its era, and I think the ship has sailed on that kind of jokey science-fiction and action film: Independence Day, Armageddon. We’re in the post-Christopher Nolan phase where everything is dead serious.

Why haven’t we seen Godzilla in a Toho movie in the past decade?

They made a 50th anniversary movie [Final Wars in 2004], and then they put the character in retirement because frankly it isn’t all that popular in Japan anymore. I think most people there view it as a retro, pop-culture icon. I think Japan will start making them again eventually. This movie will probably stir some interest.

What about the report that cited Japanese fans complaining that the new Godzilla is too fat?

Other than the ‘98 Godzilla, the monster’s never been svelte. All the Toho Godzillas from the 1990s are bulky, and even the original one from ‘54 is kind of bulky.

In the beginning, it had to be, because it was a man in a costume, and you had to build the foam and the rubber around [him,] so the legs become trunk-like and the midsection becomes stout. The irony of the new film is they’re designing a digital creature that looks like a man in a suit.*_


----------



## Osage_Winter

Anyone else see this yet?


----------



## B- one

Osage_Winter said:


> Anyone else see this yet?


From the box office numbers no.


----------



## Osage_Winter

B- one said:


> From the box office numbers no.


LOL; I really meant any of _our_ members...

You won't see it because of box office numbers, Bran? The last time I checked it was doing pretty good...:scratch:


----------



## B- one

Osage_Winter said:


> LOL; I really meant any of our members... You won't see it because of box office numbers, Bran? The last time I checked it was doing pretty good...:scratch:[/QUOTE
> 
> I don't care about numbers, just still to cheap! The numbers I seen for the box office off 77% from last week. Just seemed like a big drop to me!


----------



## Osage_Winter

onder:


----------



## Tonto

Happy Birthday Osage, just reading your thoughts. Nice review. I will wait for it to come out on disc, don't go to theaters much anymore....has to be something special. I think Avatar was the last one I wanted to see on the big screen. That was worth it, if you know what I mean.


----------



## BeeMan458

B- one said:


> The numbers I seen for the box office off 77% from last week. Just seemed like a big drop to me!


...:scratch:

Box Office Mojo


----------



## B- one

BeeMan458 said:


> ...:scratch: Box Office Mojo


Just what I read on Imdb. Thx for the link looks interesting.


----------



## BeeMan458

It's a fun link to check out favorite contemporary movies.


----------



## Osage_Winter

Tonto said:


> Happy Birthday Osage, just reading your thoughts. Nice review. I will wait for it to come out on disc, don't go to theaters much anymore....has to be something special. I think Avatar was the last one I wanted to see on the big screen. That was worth it, if you know what I mean.


Thank you, Tonto, for the birthday wishes! :T

Indeed, we can revisit the discussion when Godzilla arrives on Blu-ray...

And let's hope it does in fact arrive on any kind of optical disc, what with all these rumors about the death of physical media being just around the corner, as well as Redbox making the announcement that it is closing 500 of its stores around the U.S...:rolleyesno:


----------



## BeeMan458

To get rid of physical media, the industry is going have to wipe us oldsters out as we like something we can hold in our hand as that's how we grew up.

I've seen the death of mono, Hi-Fidelity, stereo and pseudo multi-channel surround sound in the 70's. I've seen the death of reel-to-reel, 4-track, 8-track, cassette, Beta and VHS. I saw DVD come and go as it was run over by Blu-ray. Now we have download services and watch commercials with Gary Busey hawking Amazon "Fire TV" streaming services. 




I'm not like Gary Busey, I like talking to my wife and putting Blu-ray disks in the tray of our universal Blu-ray player.


----------



## Mike Edwards

I could go on for PAGES on why the "demise of phyiscal media" is so overstated it's not even funny. long story short, we don't have the internet infrastructure for it. It's the new "fad" so it's gaining some ground from phsyical media, which is why you're seeing less from physical media and more numbers for streaming lately. the users had to drop on one for the other to increase, but that's tapering off dramatically. Huge portions of the U.S. don't have speeds capable of delivering streaming video very well ,and over 40% of the populatin would be left out if streaming takes over. not only THAT, but the U.S. is the ONLY nation where it's really catching on. why you might ask? well most of the nations in the rest of the world just don't care (like Asia) and the rest don't have the bandwidth.. they're LITTERED with intenet caps and with the destruction of Net Neutrality we in the U.S. are looking at caps out the yin yang. I work with people who are deep in the ISP's pockets (mostly comcast) and those "test caps" places were doing in the U.S. last year or so that went away.....yeah, they're coming back and in full force nationwide. it was just a test run and they REALLY want the cap system that Canada and Australia has. low caps (less than a hundred gigs or so a month) with overage charges. they're losing cable and satellite subscribers left and right to netflix, hulu, and amazon prime and they have to shoot up caps etc to compensate for the lost profits (anyone who thought the cable and satellite providers were going to just shrug off all the people leaving them in droves as they "cut the cord" are in for a shock)..

to make it worse, the U.S. internet backbone does NOT have the power to support the increase... the U.S. ISP's have squandered so many resources and just patched the old system instead of investing heavily in upgrades and the U.S. is one of the WORST 1st/2nd world countries in terms of internet capabilities. the CEO's took HUGE profits home and just sat on it instead of putting it back into the future of hte company. it's why Japan, Korea, Europe etc has INCREDIBLE speeds with no caps, and low monthly costs. It will take BILLIONS upon BILLIONS to upgrade our backbone at this point in time and the costs WILL be passed on, or there will be heavy caps. Also take into effec that NETFLIX AS IT IS... takes up 32% of the ENTIRE bandwidth in the U.S... and that's with TONS of SD quality streaming and some 720 and 1080p thrown in for good measure. we haven't even TOUCHED 4K...which all the streaming sites are touting as the next big thing... if eveyone dumped physical media the U.S. network would LITERALLY crash. ....and that's only taking into account the 480p, 720p standard that makes up the bulk of their library, let alone all the upgrades they're looking at.


----------



## BeeMan458

Your above makes me happy I'm hanging with Blu-ray disks that are purchased used on Amazon.


----------



## Osage_Winter

BeeMan458 said:


> To get rid of physical media, the industry is going have to wipe us oldsters out as we like something we can hold in our hand as that's how we grew up.


Indeed, Bee; I too grew up with "something you held in your hand" to be played back either via a VHS deck or, then of course, DVD...but this is, unfortunately, the way we're going as most of the current, younger demographic wants EVERYTHING downloaded to say nothing of the mom and pop video stores that are dead and gone as well as big chains like Blockbuster...



> I've seen the death of mono, Hi-Fidelity, stereo and pseudo multi-channel surround sound in the 70's. I've seen the death of reel-to-reel, 4-track, 8-track, cassette, Beta and VHS. I saw DVD come and go as it was run over by Blu-ray. Now we have download services and watch commercials with Gary Busey hawking Amazon "Fire TV" streaming services. Gary Busey
> 
> I'm not like Gary Busey, I like talking to my wife and putting Blu-ray disks in the tray of our universal Blu-ray player.


Not really following you too well here, as I don't really think "stereo" ever died (it's still the primary format on audio CD) nor did Blu-ray "run over" DVD as they still put out DVDs right beside the Blu-ray counterpart on release days...

But, like you, I totally enjoy dropping a disc into our universal Blu-ray deck as well to watch a film...the WAY it was intended to at home! I TOTALLY agree with that one...


----------



## Osage_Winter

Mike Edwards said:


> I could go on for PAGES on why the "demise of phyiscal media" is so overstated it's not even funny. long story short, we don't have the internet infrastructure for it. It's the new "fad" so it's gaining some ground from phsyical media, which is why you're seeing less from physical media and more numbers for streaming lately. the users had to drop on one for the other to increase, but that's tapering off dramatically. Huge portions of the U.S. don't have speeds capable of delivering streaming video very well ,and over 40% of the populatin would be left out if streaming takes over. not only THAT, but the U.S. is the ONLY nation where it's really catching on. why you might ask? well most of the nations in the rest of the world just don't care (like Asia) and the rest don't have the bandwidth.. they're LITTERED with intenet caps and with the destruction of Net Neutrality we in the U.S. are looking at caps out the yin yang. I work with people who are deep in the ISP's pockets (mostly comcast) and those "test caps" places were doing in the U.S. last year or so that went away.....yeah, they're coming back and in full force nationwide. it was just a test run and they REALLY want the cap system that Canada and Australia has. low caps (less than a hundred gigs or so a month) with overage charges. they're losing cable and satellite subscribers left and right to netflix, hulu, and amazon prime and they have to shoot up caps etc to compensate for the lost profits (anyone who thought the cable and satellite providers were going to just shrug off all the people leaving them in droves as they "cut the cord" are in for a shock)..
> 
> to make it worse, the U.S. internet backbone does NOT have the power to support the increase... the U.S. ISP's have squandered so many resources and just patched the old system instead of investing heavily in upgrades and the U.S. is one of the WORST 1st/2nd world countries in terms of internet capabilities. the CEO's took HUGE profits home and just sat on it instead of putting it back into the future of hte company. it's why Japan, Korea, Europe etc has INCREDIBLE speeds with no caps, and low monthly costs. It will take BILLIONS upon BILLIONS to upgrade our backbone at this point in time and the costs WILL be passed on, or there will be heavy caps. Also take into effec that NETFLIX AS IT IS... takes up 32% of the ENTIRE bandwidth in the U.S... and that's with TONS of SD quality streaming and some 720 and 1080p thrown in for good measure. we haven't even TOUCHED 4K...which all the streaming sites are touting as the next big thing... if eveyone dumped physical media the U.S. network would LITERALLY crash. ....and that's only taking into account the 480p, 720p standard that makes up the bulk of their library, let alone all the upgrades they're looking at.


Don't really know where to start with this one Mike, as some of it was a bit hard to follow in places; while the economics and subsequent elements don't seem "in place" to support a streaming takeover, the marketplace sure does point in that direction -- it seems NO ONE under 40 years of age wants to do anything with a piece of film than download and stream it to their portable device and there are people my wife works with that can't BELIEVE when she talks about a "special edition" DVD she wants of a particular title that she is considering a physical DISC to put in a player of some kind...they simply don't UNDERSTAND the concept of HOLDING a physical keepcase of a DVD and putting it up on a collection shelf...I'm NOT kidding...

Further, the rental outlets for optical media formats are dropping faster than an adult entertainer's outfit in a champagne VIP room...our local Blockbuster shut its doors a few months ago, Hollywood Video is gone and now I read a full report about Redbox going the way of the Do Do Bird...do people like you and I receive physical media from the studios to do reviews? Yes. But what about the masses out there...and what happens when we feel like we don't wanna do this any longer and just want to RENT something? Where are the outlets going to be? We're going to be forced to BUY everything in a store such as Best Buy (if THEY survive), Target or Wal Mart? No more renting? 

I understand the limits of bandwidth and all that, but seems to me the government channels in charge of online structuring will simply open these lanes up so more streaming can occur because that's what, it seems, the "driving" generation/demographic (i.e. YOUNG people) want. I hope I'm wrong because I, for one, will NEVER give up on physical media and will NEVER watch a feature film on my cell phone's screen or on a computer monitor or some such nonsense; it just seems like that's the unfortunate road we're going down...:rolleyesno:

I haven't even given up on physical music media, refusing to download my music via horrible sounding compressed MP3 files and the like; I will always sit in front of my two-channel stereo system and enjoy the terrestrial radio, a CD or a vinyl LP played back via full size audio components such as a stereo receiver or integrated amp, CD player or changer and turntable...


----------



## BeeMan458

Based on your above, we seem to be in agreement as yes, agreed, streaming is the future. When one can WiFi a drive to their system and download at will a movie, then physical media will become less relevant. 



Osage_Winter said:


> Not really following you too well here, as I don't really think "stereo" ever died


Hopefully, I can clarify. As far as Home Theater is concerned, my opinion, stereo is as dead as the Dodo bird and there are still tens of millions of us oldsters around. The majority of which like to hold the physical media in their hands. Don't write us old folks off as dead, we're very much alive and buying. Yes, the young like streaming but my understanding, currently, due to bandwidth restrictions, HD streaming is not there yet and there's a huge viewing population that want the HD experience.



> (it's still the primary format on audio CD) nor did Blu-ray "run over" DVD as they still put out DVDs right beside the Blu-ray counterpart on release days...


Regarding VHS and DVD, we watched the death of combo units and now we have combo Blu-ray/DVD/CD units.....because that's what people have on their bookshelf. It's a transitional market. The thread is about the movie "Godzilla" and my comments are intended to reflect Home Theater, not music CDs. In the meantime, Blu-ray is the way with Home Theater as less and less, DVDs are seen on the shelves in existing video stores and more and more Blu-ray disks are being seen. And yes, I'll give that in saying Blu-ray has run DVD over is a bit enthusiastic or premature but suffice it to say, as folks replace CRT televisions with HD flat screens, more and more are moving to Blu-ray as Blu-ray sales are definitely catching up to Blu-ray and poised to overtake/overrun DVD sales.



> But, like you, I totally enjoy dropping a disc into our universal Blu-ray deck as well to watch a film...the WAY it was intended to at home! I TOTALLY agree with that one...


...:T


----------



## asere

First of all Happy Birthday! Thank you for the pictures I love the poster one. I have not read your review because I am afraid to find a spoiler and want to see the movie first. I will get to reading later and once again thank you for sharing


----------



## Osage_Winter

BeeMan458 said:


> Based on your above, we seem to be in agreement as yes, agreed, streaming is the future. When one can WiFi a drive to their system and download at will a movie, then physical media will become less relevant.


Perhaps...it just seems like it's happening faster than is being suggested by some, such as Mike Edwards... 



> Hopefully, I can clarify. As far as Home Theater is concerned, my opinion, stereo is as dead as the Dodo bird and there are still tens of millions of us oldsters around.


Yes -- with regard to HOME THEATER, there aren't any more feature films being put out that boast "stereo" (i.e. two-channel) soundtracks as was popular in the '80s and early '90s, and which would then be decoded by our receivers or processors via Dolby Pro Logic to spread the stereo signal into surround based on the center channel matrix technique. I have a TON of stereo soundtrack-equipped DVD titles in my collection, so I'm very much aware of the workings and history of these audio applications; so, yes, when we're talking HOME THEATER, stereo is pretty much a dead and buried concept...as far as formats prior to stereo, such as, well, MONO, only Woody Allen was really quasi-interested in continuing to accompany his films with mono one-channel tracks up until recently, as I don't think he still feels that way if I recall an interview I read with him...

But, with mono too, I have a ton of mono soundtrack-encoded DVDs of older titles that I continue to watch on a somewhat regular basis, decoded by my receiver also via Pro Logic II so the track gets steered to the center channel position...I suspect most of this young generation do not even know what "mono" is or means...:rolleyesno:



> The majority of which like to hold the physical media in their hands. Don't write us old folks off as dead, we're very much alive and buying. Yes, the young like streaming but my understanding, currently, due to bandwidth restrictions, HD streaming is not there yet and there's a huge viewing population that want the HD experience.


Yes, as Mike explained, the streaming bandwidth is a quasi-serious issue right now and I'm right there with you about not writing us Depends-dependent old folks off yet (am I really getting ready to be put into a nursing home so I can share my reviews with you guys from the senior citizen clubhouse's computer center?)...I just fear what is COMING as it doesn't look good for physical media enthusiasts such as us...:blink:



> Regarding VHS and DVD, we watched the death of combo units and now we have combo Blu-ray/DVD/CD units.....because that's what people have on their bookshelf. It's a transitional market.


Good point, and I can concede...



> The thread is about the movie "Godzilla" and my comments are intended to reflect Home Theater, not music CDs.


:scratch::scratch: Here's where you lose me a bit...I understand the thread is about the theatrical presentation of Godzilla -- Jimmeney Crickets, I wrote it! -- but I don't get the direct correlation you're making to stereo music CDs...I was merely saying that STEREO is NOT dead in the hi fi/audio world (not home theater) because traditional music releases are STILL being made in two-channel stereo...



> In the meantime, Blu-ray is the way with Home Theater as less and less, DVDs are seen on the shelves in existing video stores and more and more Blu-ray disks are being seen.


That's somewhat true -- yet it always amazes me when I see these statistics put forth by the Blu-ray Disc Association or other groups that compare the way in which Blu-ray had barely begun making market penetration up until a few years ago, yet manufacturers want us to throw away our dedicated DVD players while looking to 3D and now even 4K...incredible. What should we do first? I mean, if Blu-ray media is just beginning to take hold in certain households -- according to these reports that is -- why would DVD be considered dead and buried and why would formats like 3D and 4K be rammed down these people's throats? 

Further, I have to say...I still own and watch a TON of standard DVD media and will continue to buy older titles that never saw high definition transfers (there are actually a lot of them) so long as the format continues to hang around...to be honest, while there are issues of compression and noise and the like, there really isn't anything wrong with the DVD format especially when a well-mastered disc is played back on a good player...my OPPO BDP-83 Blu-ray player's Anchor Bay processor does an OUTSTANDING job of upscaling standard DVDs and they look great on my display, some even looking very Blu-ray like if the transfer was done properly...



> And yes, I'll give that in saying Blu-ray has run DVD over is a bit enthusiastic or premature but suffice it to say, as folks replace CRT televisions with HD flat screens, more and more are moving to Blu-ray as Blu-ray sales are definitely catching up to Blu-ray and poised to overtake/overrun DVD sales.


Again, perhaps...it is definitely MOVING in the "demise of DVD" direction to say nothing of what may become of Blu-ray...I just don't think either of these optical disc formats should be counted out and buried. Many people say the jump from DVD to Blu-ray was as monumental as the jump from VHS to DVD in terms of picture quality...I don't agree in the least bit. The jump from VHS to DVD was TREMENDOUSLY better when looking at the artifacting problems, tape degredation issues etc. associated with the cassette format and then comparing that to the widescreen DVD platform...were many DVDs poorly encoded and do many of them look just like their VHS counterparts? Sure. I own some. The Sylvester Stallone/Rutger Hauer thriller "Nighthawks" comes to mind...the Goodtimes Home Video version of that DVD looks incredibly HORRIBLE, much like it was recorded from a staticky broadcast station...but for the most part DVD was a big jump from VHS.


----------



## Osage_Winter

asere said:


> First of all Happy Birthday!


Thank you, asere! Where have you been? 



> Thank you for the pictures I love the poster one. I have not read your review because I am afraid to find a spoiler and want to see the movie first. I will get to reading later and once again thank you for sharing


Fair enough; please tell me what you thought of the film after you see it, if you do theatrically...:T


----------



## Mike Edwards

I've seen that Redbox write up about their "demise".... it's a joke. Redbox isn't hurting in any way shape or form. they've over saturated the market with Kiosk's and had to cut back just a FEW (if you look at the stats they are closing 500 kiosks............out of over 45 THOUSAND of them... less than 1%)... they got to the point where they had just too many kiosks overlapping. I can pull of over 20 within a 3 mile radius of my house and several of them are in gas stations where each of the 4 corners of an intersection has 1-2 kiosks per gas station + the walgreens, the safeway across the street and the bashas.... people don't need that many kiosks within a 50 yard radius. they're just cutting down the redundancy. These "tech sites" that are forshadowing doom and gloom have been doing this for DECADES... the death of DVD has been decried every year since it's inception. same with blu-ray... yet 17+ years into DVD and almost 10 for Blu-ray they're doing quite well and DWARF the profits made from digital distribution. These tech sites have a weird fetish for decrying physical ownership and how everything is doomed.. but the ACTUAL profits don't lie

and for those saying "but Blu-ray hasn't caught up to DVD"... well, it never will. DVD was an explosive boom that will most likely never be replicated again on any medium, physical or streaming. it was the first of it's kind back when owning a collection was difficult and space consuming... LD's were HUGE and was VERY MUCH a niche product (Blu-ray has eclipsed it in every way), VHS was bulky, they wore out and were cost prohibitive, especially in the early days. DVD came out in a great economic time for us, they were easy to use, no rewinding or wearing out easily and they took up a fraction of the space. They built up their collection and boom... the bubble burst... now they don't NEED to re-buy everything. But blu-ray is doing excellent considering the horrible horrible economy, competing with streaming, the MASSIVE rise in popularity of video games (consumers only have a certain amount of time to spend on entertainment so with the rise of one, the the rest have to take a hit). 

As for "if everyone can just rent"... well that's been available for a VERY long time. the thing is that a lot of people are NOT renters, never will be. Humans have an innate desire to for acquisition and being able to physically hold something. it's why SALES of digital media is horrible. renting is the only demographic where streaming is taking a foothold and even then, it's not increasing in the leaps and bound that the twisted stats are trying to prove. many of these "stats" that prove that digital streaming is just growing at obscene rates are padding their stats by including youtube usage, streaming links on reddit etc in a way to prove that they are the "future"... the studios would LOVE to cut out distribution costs, but they can't seem to gain traction when the only ones willing to buy into it are netflix subscribers who are only there because it's cheap $8 a month buffet. why do you think you don't see all the major new releases on netflix? because if they DID that, they'd be forced to charge $100+ a month cable style pricing for it for them to make a profit. the physical media industry is a multi BILLION dollar industry that is on a downward curve from the gigantic DVD era boom. a boom that HAD to decline...it couldn't sustain itself and never could.

now, off topic... have you seen Days of Future Past yet?


----------



## Osage_Winter

Mike Edwards said:


> I've seen that Redbox write up about their "demise".... it's a joke. Redbox isn't hurting in any way shape or form. they've over saturated the market with Kiosk's and had to cut back just a FEW (if you look at the stats they are closing 500 kiosks............out of over 45 THOUSAND of them... less than 1%)... they got to the point where they had just too many kiosks overlapping. I can pull of over 20 within a 3 mile radius of my house and several of them are in gas stations where each of the 4 corners of an intersection has 1-2 kiosks per gas station + the walgreens, the safeway across the street and the bashas.... people don't need that many kiosks within a 50 yard radius. they're just cutting down the redundancy. These "tech sites" that are forshadowing doom and gloom have been doing this for DECADES... the death of DVD has been decried every year since it's inception. same with blu-ray... yet 17+ years into DVD and almost 10 for Blu-ray they're doing quite well and DWARF the profits made from digital distribution. These tech sites have a weird fetish for decrying physical ownership and how everything is doomed.. but the ACTUAL profits don't lie


I see the ones in my particular geographic area already beginning to close up shop, just like Blockbuster and Hollywood did...I understand that "merely" 500 kiosks out of 45,000 or so are being closed, but my point was that the ARTICLE made it SEEM like Redbox was going the way of Blockbuster and all rental outlets for that matter...



> and for those saying "but Blu-ray hasn't caught up to DVD"... well, it never will. DVD was an explosive boom that will most likely never be replicated again on any medium, physical or streaming. it was the first of it's kind back when owning a collection was difficult and space consuming... LD's were HUGE and was VERY MUCH a niche product (Blu-ray has eclipsed it in every way), VHS was bulky, they wore out and were cost prohibitive, especially in the early days. DVD came out in a great economic time for us, they were easy to use, no rewinding or wearing out easily and they took up a fraction of the space. They built up their collection and boom... the bubble burst... now they don't NEED to re-buy everything. But blu-ray is doing excellent considering the horrible horrible economy, competing with streaming, the MASSIVE rise in popularity of video games (consumers only have a certain amount of time to spend on entertainment so with the rise of one, the the rest have to take a hit).


I agree that the DVD format was a massive, inalienable turning point in our society in terms of entertainment mediums -- finally, here was the less bulky, less degradable format that we could carry around easier and which would, to boot, carry much-upgraded (in theory, in the beginning) picture and sound...it's the same phenomenon which categorized the compact disc format. But the way in which these "reports" go on and on about how Blu-ray "just pretty much started" to take hold in most mainstream households, all these years later, yet the manufacturers want to ram down our throats concepts such as 3D and now 4K and beyond is just mind boggling to me. I hope you're right about physical media, especially DVD (because I for one have not given up on the format and think it's still fine for new releases) but the propaganda suggests it's not going in that direction (though I know that's the POINT of propaganda :sarcastic. 



> As for "if everyone can just rent"... well that's been available for a VERY long time. the thing is that a lot of people are NOT renters, never will be. Humans have an innate desire to for acquisition and being able to physically hold something. it's why SALES of digital media is horrible. renting is the only demographic where streaming is taking a foothold and even then, it's not increasing in the leaps and bound that the twisted stats are trying to prove. many of these "stats" that prove that digital streaming is just growing at obscene rates are padding their stats by including youtube usage, streaming links on reddit etc in a way to prove that they are the "future"... the studios would LOVE to cut out distribution costs, but they can't seem to gain traction when the only ones willing to buy into it are netflix subscribers who are only there because it's cheap $8 a month buffet. why do you think you don't see all the major new releases on netflix? because if they DID that, they'd be forced to charge $100+ a month cable style pricing for it for them to make a profit. the physical media industry is a multi BILLION dollar industry that is on a downward curve from the gigantic DVD era boom. a boom that HAD to decline...it couldn't sustain itself and never could.


Interesting...you continue to suggest sales for digital downloads and such are in decline, but report after report all I read is about how the physical optical disc format is just about dead in most consumer circles...and how DVDs and Blu-ray Discs are really of a "collector's niche" market now; perhaps the reports are in fact put out to make people "panic" into some kind of buying frenzy because they think discs are disappearing but there's no way to confirm this theory. 

I just know I HOPE and pray physical media doesn't go away in our lifetimes; I cannot see sitting in my theater/media room and streaming a film (even if it claims high definition characteristics and specs) via my PC/online or anything of the kind, or, worse yet, watching one on a three-inch cell phone screen, as so many young people chose to do because entertainment is merely something to indulge in while "moving about" in their so-called "hectic lives"...:sarcastic: :sarcastic: :sarcastic:



> now, off topic... have you seen Days of Future Past yet?


Not a fan of the X-Men books or stories -- and haven't really been able to get into any of the other previous films though I've seen them all, including Wolverine -- but this one looks good; a classic hero group versus end-of-the-world adversaries story a la Avengers...but I haven't gotten around to seeing it yet...

Have you?


----------



## Mike Edwards

Osage_Winter said:


> I see the ones in my particular geographic area already beginning to close up shop, just like Blockbuster and Hollywood did...I understand that "merely" 500 kiosks out of 45,000 or so are being closed, but my point was that the ARTICLE made it SEEM like Redbox was going the way of Blockbuster and all rental outlets for that matter...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that the DVD format was a massive, inalienable turning point in our society in terms of entertainment mediums -- finally, here was the less bulky, less degradable format that we could carry around easier and which would, to boot, carry much-upgraded (in theory, in the beginning) picture and sound...it's the same phenomenon which categorized the compact disc format. But the way in which these "reports" go on and on about how Blu-ray "just pretty much started" to take hold in most mainstream households, all these years later, yet the manufacturers want to ram down our throats concepts such as 3D and now 4K and beyond is just mind boggling to me. I hope you're right about physical media, especially DVD (because I for one have not given up on the format and think it's still fine for new releases) but the propaganda suggests it's not going in that direction (though I know that's the POINT of propaganda :sarcastic.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting...you continue to suggest sales for digital downloads and such are in decline, but report after report all I read is about how the physical optical disc format is just about dead in most consumer circles...and how DVDs and Blu-ray Discs are really of a "collector's niche" market now; perhaps the reports are in fact put out to make people "panic" into some kind of buying frenzy because they think discs are disappearing but there's no way to confirm this theory.
> 
> I just know I HOPE and pray physical media doesn't go away in our lifetimes; I cannot see sitting in my theater/media room and streaming a film (even if it claims high definition characteristics and specs) via my PC/online or anything of the kind, or, worse yet, watching one on a three-inch cell phone screen, as so many young people chose to do because entertainment is merely something to indulge in while "moving about" in their so-called "hectic lives"...:sarcastic: :sarcastic: :sarcastic:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a fan of the X-Men books or stories -- and haven't really been able to get into any of the other previous films though I've seen them all, including Wolverine -- but this one looks good; a classic hero group versus end-of-the-world adversaries story a la Avengers...but I haven't gotten around to seeing it yet...
> 
> Have you?



oh yeah, the article was wildly sensationalistic. it and many of these "woe is physical media" is just pure sensationalist journalism... the numbers don't back it up. they have an agenda (many of these "articles" are written on blogs and medium that are DIRECTLY owned by studios and media conglomorates... you can see that they might not be the MOST unbiased sources. Plus, they make BILLIONS from physical media and as said before, if they do away with it, they lose a HUGE portion of their user base. they can't afford to leave that, as such I seriously doubt we'll see the death of physical media anytime in our life spans. And remember, the ONLY country where this whole "streaming is the future" mantra is being chanted....is the U.S., the rest of the world has faster internet that we do and couldn't care less about it. It's a media push for it, not really a real consumer push for streaming. I mean I think it's going to seriously dip into the rental market, because renters are much more willing to go with the ease of use methodology, but the effort to get people to BUY digital streaming or digital downloads is literally DOA. like I said. these same news sources have LITERALLY been decrying physical media since before DVD. 

as for rental shops closing shops...yup, Kiosks and online renting have destroyed the standard rental store, everything's switching to online, just like how many brick and mortar stores are not going to be around much longer, if they will, they will only survive as a 'showroom" where you order what you want in store and have it drop shipped. it's a shift in purchasing and delivering habits more than anything. 

and back to redbox.....If you read the source article you see the CEO labels it as shutting down their less profitable locations in the U.S. and they are now opening up 250 MORE locations in Canada this year.

as for DOFP... yeah, I watched it. I think it's been over hyped, but it's still better than First class. I'd put it in the middle of the series in the quality chain.


----------



## Osage_Winter

Mike Edwards said:


> oh yeah, the article was wildly sensationalistic. it and many of these "woe is physical media" is just pure sensationalist journalism... the numbers don't back it up. they have an agenda (many of these "articles" are written on blogs and medium that are DIRECTLY owned by studios and media conglomorates... you can see that they might not be the MOST unbiased sources. Plus, they make BILLIONS from physical media and as said before, if they do away with it, they lose a HUGE portion of their user base. they can't afford to leave that, as such I seriously doubt we'll see the death of physical media anytime in our life spans. And remember, the ONLY country where this whole "streaming is the future" mantra is being chanted....is the U.S., the rest of the world has faster internet that we do and couldn't care less about it. It's a media push for it, not really a real consumer push for streaming. I mean I think it's going to seriously dip into the rental market, because renters are much more willing to go with the ease of use methodology, but the effort to get people to BUY digital streaming or digital downloads is literally DOA. like I said. these same news sources have LITERALLY been decrying physical media since before DVD.
> 
> as for rental shops closing shops...yup, Kiosks and online renting have destroyed the standard rental store, everything's switching to online, just like how many brick and mortar stores are not going to be around much longer, if they will, they will only survive as a 'showroom" where you order what you want in store and have it drop shipped. it's a shift in purchasing and delivering habits more than anything.
> 
> and back to redbox.....If you read the source article you see the CEO labels it as shutting down their less profitable locations in the U.S. and they are now opening up 250 MORE locations in Canada this year.


Wait -- are we talking about the same Redbox story? You are referring to the one that's been all over Yahoo news, no? 



> as for DOFP... yeah, I watched it. I think it's been over hyped, but it's still better than First class. I'd put it in the middle of the series in the quality chain.


Really....interesting; it's been overhyped you think in terms of how good every outlet made it seem to be? Is it better than Amazing Spider-Man 2 would you say? Is it finally an entry in the series that can be "followed" a bit more easily than the other ones to very casual fans such as myself? I know there's a time travel element...but it just seemed like they were setting up a big, classic bad guys versus good guys matchup in this one...

You know what would be uber-cool -- but probably wouldn't make it into production because of too many people the story would "confuse" -- ? An X-Men vs. Avengers feature, as was so sensationalized in a run of the books; that would be a great showdown to exploit on film...:T 

Check it out:

http://www.businessinsider.com/x-men-vs-avengers-movies-2014-5

http://www.amazon.com/Avengers-X-Men-Brian-Michael-Bendis/dp/0785163174/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y

Even Spidey gets in on the action in the quasi-novelized version!


----------



## Mike Edwards

Osage_Winter said:


> Wait -- are we talking about the same Redbox story? You are referring to the one that's been all over Yahoo news, no?
> 
> 
> 
> Really....interesting; it's been overhyped you think in terms of how good every outlet made it seem to be? Is it better than Amazing Spider-Man 2 would you say? Is it finally an entry in the series that can be "followed" a bit more easily than the other ones to very casual fans such as myself? I know there's a time travel element...but it just seemed like they were setting up a big, classic bad guys versus good guys matchup in this one...
> 
> You know what would be uber-cool -- but probably wouldn't make it into production because of too many people the story would "confuse" -- ? An X-Men vs. Avengers feature, as was so sensationalized in a run of the books; that would be a great showdown to exploit on film...:T
> 
> Check it out:
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/x-men-vs-avengers-movies-2014-5
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Avengers-X-Men-Brian-Michael-Bendis/dp/0785163174/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y
> 
> Even Spidey gets in on the action in the quasi-novelized version!



yup, same redbox article... the original press release with the CEO's comments are a bit different than the article that's been popping up since they sensationalized it a bit and cut pieces out of it.


as for DOFP... this is probably the most COMPLEX of all the movies. it takes a running knowledge of all the other films to really get the nuances since it's a time travel movie and they are LITERALLY weaving the casts and events of all the other movies into this story. both the future and the old cast show up in different time periods and the ending of the movie hinges on your knowledge of the original 3 . Even X-men Origions : Wolverine is referenced


----------



## Osage_Winter

Mike Edwards said:


> yup, same redbox article... the original press release with the CEO's comments are a bit different than the article that's been popping up since they sensationalized it a bit and cut pieces out of it.
> 
> 
> as for DOFP... this is probably the most COMPLEX of all the movies. it takes a running knowledge of all the other films to really get the nuances since it's a time travel movie and they are LITERALLY weaving the casts and events of all the other movies into this story. both the future and the old cast show up in different time periods and the ending of the movie hinges on your knowledge of the original 3 . Even X-men Origions : Wolverine is referenced


With regard to X-Men...oh boy...didn't know there was THAT much of a connection to the others...:doh:


----------



## NBPk402

I watched it at a local Dolby Atmos theater... I thought it was good, but I didn't think it was going to be a Godzilla vs Alien movie. I guess i should have read more about it prior to watching it. :T


----------



## asere

Osage_Winter said:


> Thank you, asere! Where have you been?
> 
> Fair enough; please tell me what you thought of the film after you see it, if you do theatrically...:T


I've been reading about Redbox, streaming etc lol. I'm 41 and am old school. I much rather have the media in my hands.
Streaming sounds good and all but it's not the same thing. I simply like to look at my dvd/bd rack and say yes I own this.
Just like when my son wants to buy an Xbox game I rather have the game in front of me then in some sort of database through Microsoft.


----------



## Osage_Winter

ellisr63 said:


> I watched it at a local Dolby Atmos theater... I thought it was good, but *I didn't think it was going to be a Godzilla vs Alien movie*. I guess i should have read more about it prior to watching it. :T


My thoughts precisely when I finished watching it, ellis...


----------



## Osage_Winter

asere said:


> I've been reading about Redbox, streaming etc lol. I'm 41 and am old school. I much rather have the media in my hands.


Cannot agree more, my friend...I'm RIGHT there with cha...



> Streaming sounds good and all but it's not the same thing. I simply like to look at my dvd/bd rack and say yes I own this.


:T:T:T:T:T:T:T ABSOLUTELY agreed...


----------



## Tonto

Boy, talk about old school...I still use my trusty Yamaha DVD player. I will be upgrading soon however.

I have noticed that the last 3 out of 4 discs from Redbox would not play on my Yamy. Don't know what to make of this as all my discs play flawlessly (movies that I own that is). I had to play them on my X-box 360 (which affects sound quality quite a bit).

And I also noticed that Redbox quit accepting my Master Card/debit card. They want a true credit card now. I called to complain as I don't even own a credit card...have not heard back...don't expect to. That surprised me since a debit card is cash & if you keep the disc longer, they just add it to the card. What's the deal!!:dontknow:


----------



## Osage_Winter

Tonto said:


> Boy, talk about old school...I still use my trusty Yamaha DVD player. I will be upgrading soon however.


You still haven't upgraded to Blu-ray, Tonto? I still say, however, that there's essentially nothing wrong with the DVD format to date -- even the "lossy" Dolby Digital and DTS audio tracks are fine, especially with newer releases. I've made this argument before in magazine columns I've contributed to and conferences I have guest lectured at, and I will say it again: No matter what the "associations" (Blu-ray or HD DVD) would have people believe, high definition was NOT a "night and day difference" compared to the DVD format. I see improvements in video, yes, with many titles...but the audio gets even more hazy in that the so-called "lossless" high resolution codecs i.e. Dolby's TrueHD and DTS' Master Audio aren't nearly as "different" and "improved" versus the lossy DVD soundtracks as these studios and companies would want you to believe. 

And trust me...I've done exhaustive testing in these areas...:coocoo:



> I have noticed that the last 3 out of 4 discs from Redbox would not play on my Yamy. Don't know what to make of this as all my discs play flawlessly (movies that I own that is). I had to play them on my X-box 360 (which affects sound quality quite a bit).


Interesting -- I just had an issue with my "Pompeii" Blu-ray in which when I stopped or paused the disc it would cause a nasty crackle in my front speakers...while this was a "review" copy for me to sample direct from a studio's public relations offices, I wonder if some of Redbox's discs are being "authored" with issues too...

What specifically do you mean, Tonto, that these discs "wouldn't play"...would your Yamaha DVD player just eject them? 



> And I also noticed that Redbox quit accepting my Master Card/debit card. They want a true credit card now. I called to complain as I don't even own a credit card...have not heard back...don't expect to. That surprised me since a debit card is cash & if you keep the disc longer, they just add it to the card. What's the deal!!:dontknow:


Now THIS I haven't heard of...and it concerns me as we pick up quite a few rentals this way...I'll have to double check the next time I hit our local kiosk, as I have been using our American Express to pay for the discs, not our debit card...

Thanks for the heads up! :wave:


----------



## Mike Edwards

try watching on a 120 inch projector... DVD becomes almost unwatchable in comparison to Blu.. a tiny 40 inch display it's harder to see the flaws but when you jump up to 50-55 inches and above it's really easy to see the artifacting, mushy textures and wiping of grain that the low resolution of DVD gives us. 

as for the audio... I wont' get into it, but lets just say we'll have wildly opposite views on that.


----------



## asere

Some dvds are grainy like War of the Worlds and Mothnan Prophecies on my 50 inch.
With Hd Master and Truehd vs Dolby I can't tell the difference.


----------



## Mike Edwards

asere said:


> Some dvds are grainy like War of the Worlds and Mothnan Prophecies on my 50 inch.
> With Hd Master and Truehd vs Dolby I can't tell the difference.


those two are gonna be grainy on both formats because of it's filming style. WotW was specifically shot by Spielberg using a very grainy type of 35 mm film to give it that hazy look (Spielberg loves the "texture" of film, kind of like Tarantino likes using a very grainy film stock for his movies)


----------



## BeeMan458

Osage_Winter said:


> And trust me...I've done exhaustive testing in these areas...:coocoo:


Then I'm going pick the door marked "Placebo Effect" as my opinion of Blu-ray vs DVD, the colors are more saturated, 1080P format is sharper and the sound has more dynamics.

If this is an example of the placebo affect, I'll take it every time.

(our screen is a 60" diagonal and we sit at ten feet)


----------



## Tonto

> What specifically do you mean, Tonto, that these disc's "wouldn't play"...


After the tray closes, it attempts to read the disc, then displays "No Disc." One time I opened & closed the tray several times, and it read the disc & I watched the movie. Paused it when my wife called dinner, came back & hit play..."No disc" again. With movies I own, no problems ever (like Lord of the Rings).

The debit card thing is for reserving the movie on line so that it will be held at the kiosk until you pick it up. Saves driving there to only find it rented. When I do go, it does still take my debit card at the kiosk. Still this is an inconvenience that I don't understand. I get charged whether I pick up the movie or not.

And yes, I still use DVD. The issue for me is space. Entertainment center will only accommodate a 32" TV. No real benefit. I am almost finished with my dedicated room however. I'm really looking forward to that.


----------



## Mike Edwards

Tonto said:


> After the tray closes, it attempts to read the disc, then displays "No Disc." One time I opened & closed the tray several times, and it read the disc & I watched the movie. Paused it when my wife called dinner, came back & hit play..."No disc" again. With movies I own, no problems ever (like Lord of the Rings).
> 
> The debit card thing is for reserving the movie on line so that it will be held at the kiosk until you pick it up. Saves driving there to only find it rented. When I do go, it does still take my debit card at the kiosk. Still this is an inconvenience that I don't understand. I get charged whether I pick up the movie or not.
> 
> And yes, I still use DVD. The issue for me is space. Entertainment center will only accommodate a 32" TV. No real benefit. I am almost finished with my dedicated room however. I'm really looking forward to that.



sounds like a laser that starting to die. try the disc in another player and if they work that's what I'd be guessing is the issue.


----------



## Osage_Winter

Mike Edwards said:


> try watching on a 120 inch projector... DVD becomes almost unwatchable in comparison to Blu.. a tiny 40 inch display it's harder to see the flaws but when you jump up to 50-55 inches and above it's really easy to see the artifacting, mushy textures and wiping of grain that the low resolution of DVD gives us.
> 
> as for the audio... I wont' get into it, but lets just say we'll have wildly opposite views on that.


I don't really consider a 40" screen "tiny" especially when you take into consideration the room/apartment/etc. it will be utilized in, and I am running a Sony 50" SXRD and do not "easily" see the "artifacting, mushy textures and wiping of grain" (on newer titles at least, and of course not all of them) mentioned. 

Indeed, I am sure we have opposite views on the audio as well. :yikes:


----------



## Osage_Winter

asere said:


> Some dvds are grainy like War of the Worlds and Mothnan Prophecies on my 50 inch.


Yes, asere, some films were filmed with an "intentionally grainy" film stock, and War of the Worlds is one of them (though its DVD's DTS track is STILL the de facto standard to me for walloping LFE)...you can see this on Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake, Daredevil, Saving Private Ryan et al...



> With Hd Master and Truehd vs Dolby I can't tell the difference.


There may be slight variations in terms of sheer clarity and detail, but I agree for the most part and for most listening sessions, there is little to no difference. It is certainly NOT the "night and day" difference the studios and aficionados would want you to believe it is...


----------



## Osage_Winter

BeeMan458 said:


> Then I'm going pick the door marked "Placebo Effect" as my opinion of Blu-ray vs DVD, the colors are more saturated, 1080P format is sharper and the sound has more dynamics.
> 
> If this is an example of the placebo affect, I'll take it every time.
> 
> (our screen is a 60" diagonal and we sit at ten feet)


I understand and respect your opinion; I was trying to say that to me, DVD is still a viable format and shouldn't be eliminated (if the associations are planning on doing so) because in my opinion it still looks more than adequate when played back and upscaled on a good player...


----------



## Osage_Winter

Tonto said:


> After the tray closes, it attempts to read the disc, then displays "No Disc." One time I opened & closed the tray several times, and it read the disc & I watched the movie. Paused it when my wife called dinner, came back & hit play..."No disc" again. With movies I own, no problems ever (like Lord of the Rings).
> 
> The debit card thing is for reserving the movie on line so that it will be held at the kiosk until you pick it up. Saves driving there to only find it rented. When I do go, it does still take my debit card at the kiosk. Still this is an inconvenience that I don't understand. I get charged whether I pick up the movie or not.
> 
> And yes, I still use DVD. The issue for me is space. Entertainment center will only accommodate a 32" TV. No real benefit. I am almost finished with my dedicated room however. I'm really looking forward to that.


I see what you mean about the reason to stick with DVD for now. As for the DVD player issues, yeah it does indeed seem like a laser problem -- have you ever tried using one of those DVD laser lens cleaners?


----------



## asere

Osage_Winter said:


> I see what you mean about the reason to stick with DVD for now. As for the DVD player issues, yeah it does indeed seem like a laser problem -- have you ever tried using one of those DVD laser lens cleaners?


Better yet have you considered a getting a bluray player


----------



## Mike Edwards

Osage_Winter said:


> I don't really consider a 40" screen "tiny" especially when you take into consideration the room/apartment/etc. it will be utilized in, and I am running a Sony 50" SXRD and do not "easily" see the "artifacting, mushy textures and wiping of grain" (on newer titles at least, and of course not all of them) mentioned.
> 
> Indeed, I am sure we have opposite views on the audio as well. :yikes:


the Sony SXRD sets? those were beautiful sets. I love the picture LCOS sets could put out and I do say those Sony SXRD sets put out an amazing picture, even by today's standards of top of the line. I wish Sony hadn't had so many optical block problems with those because they threw an amazing picture. It's one of the reasons I have an LCOS projector today because of the absolutely stunning picture they throw out. 

as for the "tiny" comment, it wasn't meant as a belittling comment, but rather just a simple "the bigger you go, the more the flaws are exemplified"... I remember watching DVD's and Blu-rays on my old 42 inch 720p plasma and DVDS looked pretty good, not as good as Blu-rays or HD DVD's of course, but very serviceable. when I went to my 55 incher it was a bigger difference and by the time I got my projector set up years ago it made a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE difference in quality... DVDS on a projector are still fun to watch, but the difference really is night and day at those points.


----------



## Mike Edwards

asere said:


> Better yet have you consisted a getting a bluray player


exactly, at the price points they are now a good blu-ray player will play all your DVDs and you can at least rent blu-rays or borrow from friends. nothing to loose really


----------



## Osage_Winter

asere said:


> Better yet have you consisted a getting a bluray player


:rofl2:

His argument was that right now he only has the room for a 32" or so screen so it wouldn't make sense to get into Blu-ray until his dedicated room is done, which to me made sense; though I hope by the time his room is finished there isn't yet another format that took over Blu-ray! :doh:


----------



## Osage_Winter

Mike Edwards said:


> the Sony SXRD sets? those were beautiful sets. I love the picture LCOS sets could put out and I do say those Sony SXRD sets put out an amazing picture, even by today's standards of top of the line. I wish Sony hadn't had so many optical block problems with those because they threw an amazing picture. It's one of the reasons I have an LCOS projector today because of the absolutely stunning picture they throw out.


Yes. I have been running a KDS-50A2020 with ZERO problems other than one bulb replacement thus far (which isn't an issue, but a reality when buying a projection based system) and haven't experienced -- knock on wood -- any optical block issues...



> as for the "tiny" comment, it wasn't meant as a belittling comment, but rather just a simple "the bigger you go, the more the flaws are exemplified"


Was just sayin'...I guess I'm more humble than a LOT of folks in this hobby...I'm happy to have just what I have, especially in these hard economic times. :blink:


----------



## Osage_Winter

Mike Edwards said:


> exactly, at the price points they are now a good blu-ray player will play all your DVDs and you can at least rent blu-rays or borrow from friends. nothing to loose really


That's a good point -- and then he can merely move the Blu-ray player to his dedicated theater when ready. Perhaps that is the best way to go if and when his Yamaha DVD player dies...


----------



## asere

Osage_Winter said:


> :rofl2:
> 
> His argument was that right now he only has the room for a 32" or so screen so it wouldn't make sense to get into Blu-ray until his dedicated room is done, which to me made sense; though I hope by the time his room is finished there isn't yet another format that took over Blu-ray! :doh:


I see but at the same time he can always watch dvds on his 32 inch and why not watch bluray on the 32 inch even if the screen is too small for detail. Bluray players are dirt cheap these days so why not start now :heehee:


----------



## Mike Edwards

Osage_Winter said:


> Yes. I have been running a KDS-50A2020 with ZERO problems other than one bulb replacement thus far (which isn't an issue, but a reality when buying a projection based system) and haven't experienced -- knock on wood -- any optical block issues...
> 
> 
> 
> Was just sayin'...I guess I'm more humble than a LOT of folks in this hobby...I'm happy to have just what I have, especially in these hard economic times. :blink:


lol, I wouldn't call a sony KDS *humble ... like I said, those threw a nice picture and almost rivaled the Kuros for the image... 

and that's not bad. Sony had so many optical block problems that it tanked that line. I'm glad you didn't have one of the lemons... 

bulb prices are the only annoying thing about a projection TV... definitely aren't cheap to replace


----------



## Osage_Winter

Mike Edwards said:


> lol, I wouldn't call a sony KDS *humble ... like I said, those threw a nice picture and almost rivaled the Kuros for the image...


Well, what I meant was, I can see a 40-inch screen being "just fine" and "large enough" based on where it's being installed...that's all. 



> and that's not bad. Sony had so many optical block problems that it tanked that line. I'm glad you didn't have one of the lemons...


So far so good...though I believe the majority of the issues were with the previous generation line, the A2000s...



> bulb prices are the only annoying thing about a projection TV... definitely aren't cheap to replace


Same thing with a front projector -- downside to this kind of technology. The bulbs are about $200-$300...:spend:

The argument by rear projection display owners, however, is that after you spend the 200 bucks, you're getting basically a NEW display...but the question becomes when does the value proposition go out the window after a bunch of lamps have been replaced based on what you paid for the set? lddude:


----------



## Osage_Winter

asere said:


> I see but at the same time he can always watch dvds on his 32 inch and why not watch bluray on the 32 inch even if the screen is too small for detail. Bluray players are dirt cheap these days so why not start now :heehee:


True, and close to what Mike suggested -- I guess that would be Tonto's best bet if his current Yamaha DVD player died and what I would recommend. :T


----------



## Mike Edwards

Osage_Winter said:


> Yes. I have been running a KDS-50A2020 with ZERO problems other than one bulb replacement thus far (which isn't an issue, but a reality when buying a projection based system) and haven't experienced -- knock on wood -- any optical block issues...
> 
> 
> 
> Was just sayin'...I guess I'm more humble than a LOT of folks in this hobby...I'm happy to have just what I have, especially in these hard economic times. :blink:





Osage_Winter said:


> Well, what I meant was, I can see a 40-inch screen being "just fine" and "large enough" based on where it's being installed...that's all.
> 
> 
> 
> So far so good...though I believe the majority of the issues were with the previous generation line, the A2000s...
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing with a front projector -- downside to this kind of technology. The bulbs are about $200-$300...:spend:
> 
> The argument by rear projection display owners, however, is that after you spend the 200 bucks, you're getting basically a NEW display...but the question becomes when does the value proposition go out the window after a bunch of lamps have been replaced based on what you paid for the set? lddude:



uggg, I WISH my JVC bulb cost $200-$300.. right now they're running from $400-$500...


----------



## Osage_Winter

Mike Edwards said:


> uggg, I WISH my JVC bulb cost $200-$300.. right now they're running from $400-$500...


Oh wow...yeah, THAT'S not cheap...:rolleyesno:

The SXRD replacements, for the rear projection displays at least, run around 2 to 300...


----------



## BeeMan458

Osage_Winter said:


> I understand and respect your opinion;...


Thanks! 



> I was trying to say that to me, DVD is still a viable format and shouldn't be eliminated (if the associations are planning on doing so) because in my opinion it still looks more than adequate when played back and upscaled on a good player...


I went to Blu-ray because of the bump in overall audio/video quality. To me, the difference is amazing and when well track sound is played, it leaves the two of us in stunned silence. The point, the format has moved forward from DVD to Blu-ray and for less than the price of a tank of gas one can have delivered to their front door, an upgrade to better image and sound quality.

Considering the price of technology, my question, why wouldn't one want to step-up to a Blu-ray player that plays both formats?



Mike Edwards said:


> exactly, at the price points they are now a good blu-ray player will play all your DVDs and you can at least rent blu-rays or borrow from friends. nothing to loose really


A suggestion, buying them used on Amazon and you're getting contemporary Blu-ray discs for less than the price of a new DVD in you local Kmart or grocery store.


----------



## Osage_Winter

BeeMan458 said:


> I went to Blu-ray because of the bump in overall audio/video quality. To me, the difference is amazing and when well track sound is played, it leaves the two of us in stunned silence.


That is terrific if you sense that dramatic difference; I have been doing this for quite awhile and I do not hear or see the "night and day" difference too often IMO used to describe the jump from DVD to high definition. 



> The point, the format has moved forward from DVD to Blu-ray and for less than the price of a tank of gas one can have delivered to their front door, an upgrade to better image and sound quality.
> 
> Considering the price of technology, my question, why wouldn't one want to step-up to a Blu-ray player that plays both formats?


That makes sense -- so long as the person in question ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY NEVER wishes to move beyond DVD AT ANY POINT, when in that case a DVD player would suit just fine. Not saying that someone SHOULD have this stance -- I'm merely stating that would be the scenario most likely imagined for creating a situation wherein a standard DVD player would be more logical than a Blu-ray player.


----------



## BeeMan458

Osage_Winter said:


> -- I'm merely stating that would be the scenario most likely imagined for creating a situation wherein a standard DVD player would be more logical than a Blu-ray player.


What I'm not understanding, today's players play CDs, DVDs and Blu-ray discs and they're cheap as dirt. Just saying, an afternoon in a bar, by yourself with snacks, tip and a couple of drinks for whomever you're yacking it up with, is going cost close to fifty bucks. In my younger days I went into the local watering hole on a daily basis. No longer do we go as we're retired and can't afford to do the above.

The point, today's players are comfortable with all video formats, DVD and Blu-ray. What's not to like?

It seems you're leaving out of the conversation that today's players are all-in-one players.....well except for lacking SACD.

(regarding what you're sharing, what am i not understanding? i know two things, you're trying and i'm failing to understand)


----------



## Osage_Winter

BeeMan458 said:


> What I'm not understanding, today's players play CDs, DVDs and Blu-ray discs and they're cheap as dirt. Just saying, an afternoon in a bar, by yourself with snacks, tip and a couple of drinks for whomever you're yacking it up with, is going cost close to fifty bucks. In my younger days I went into the local watering hole on a daily basis. No longer do we go as we're retired and can't afford to do the above.
> 
> The point, today's players are comfortable with all video formats. What's not to like?


No, there's NOTHING not to like; but if someone has made their mind up that they are NEVER going to EVER experience high definition for the remainder of his or her life (a ridiculous scenario, but I'm merely making a point) then a DVD player would suffice.


----------



## BeeMan458

Osage_Winter said:


> ...I'm merely making a point) then a DVD player would suffice.


And I now understand. 

...


----------



## Tonto

Osage wrote:



> have you ever tried using one of those DVD laser lens cleaners?


No, don't know about them. Are they expensive? I am curious why it plays all of my other movies without a hitch. I always felt like it was due to their encoding (that little barcode on the disc). Don't know though.


----------



## Osage_Winter

Tonto said:


> Osage wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> No, don't know about them. Are they expensive? I am curious why it plays all of my other movies without a hitch. I always felt like it was due to their encoding (that little barcode on the disc). Don't know though.


This is the one I use every time I run a full diagnostic check on my system (every few weeks):

http://www.amazon.com/MAXELL-190054...5&sr=1-6&keywords=maxell+blu-ray+lens+cleaner

It uses no brushes -- and is actually in the DVD format even though it says it's for Blu-ray drives -- so there's nothing to scratch the laser...

Try this first.


----------



## Osage_Winter

BeeMan458 said:


> And I now understand.
> 
> ...


You know, Bee, in thinking about this subject after we discussed it on here at some length, I started to wonder if other people use ONE player for everything they throw through their home theater setup...in other words, we are all providing the reasons we think a Blu-ray player would make sense for Tonto as a replacement because it can play both formats and then he's set for when he's ready to upgrade to high def (though I was saying he could stick with a DVD player if he KNOWS he's NEVER going to get into high def, which isn't the case in Tonto's instance)...but I'm curious as to how many other people use just one player (as I do) to play back all their media shown in their media rooms or theaters...

For example -- I'm running an OPPO BDP-83 universal player, capable of supporting Blu-ray (2D), DVD, CD, DVD-Audio, HDCD and SACD...though I'd LOVE a rack or cabinet FULL of players and gear, I use this one deck for all my playback in the 5.1 system...how many of you guys do the same?


----------



## BeeMan458

We have a universal deck: Denon DBT-3313UDCI. Very nice.


----------



## Osage_Winter

BeeMan458 said:


> We have a universal deck: Denon DBT-3313UDCI. Very nice.


And you play everything on it?


----------



## BeeMan458

Osage_Winter said:


> And you play everything on it?


Only Blu-ray but it's nice to know everything else is available should I need it. We don't listen/watch anything else.

A short story. Denon recent had a special going, buy a 4520 and they'd kick in a DBT-3313UDCI, delivered, full warranty, new-in-box, for no additional charge. How could I say no to a Godfather deal like that?

The point, I don't want you to think we blew a thousand dollars just to play Blu-ray discs.

...:bigsmile:


----------



## Osage_Winter

BeeMan458 said:


> Only Blu-ray but it's nice to know everything else is available should I need it. We don't listen/watch anything else.
> 
> The point, I don't want you to think we blew a thousand dollars just to play Blu-ray discs.
> 
> ...:bigsmile:


There wouldn't be anything wrong with that...


----------



## BeeMan458

Osage_Winter said:


> There wouldn't be anything wrong with that...


Agreed but it reads kinda bad if one blows so much and then doesn't use the potential. I love this system so I'm grateful to Denon for the freebee.


----------

