Open Discussion – December 05, 2012

Published 1 year ago by

sr open discussion Open Discussion   December 05, 2012

As usual – talk about whatever you like as long as it’s related to movies, TV or Screen Rant itself – just remember to play nice. icon smile Open Discussion   December 05, 2012

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:

90 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. What is your opinion on dvds in regards to
    Price & Extras/special features on regular to bluray, like how you get none when you just buy a regular dvd.

    • I feel it’s unfair. Before Blu-Ray, they had 2 disc special editions usually for people who wanted to see extra stuff. In fact, “Spider-Man” had a TON of extras. There isn’t any excuse as to why things can’t be put on both discs except for putting more money into Sony’s pocket.

      This is coming from a guy who owns a Blu-Ray player

    • A regular DVD is a lot cheaper. I think almost $5-10 in some cases. One of those you pay for what you get.

      • That’s all they sell anymore though. There is no more special or collector’s editions for regular DVD’s, thats the stupidest thing about it.

        • So do you want a special or collector’s edition VHS tape?

          • No, but DVD’s aren’t even close to being out dated yet. That’s why they sell the combo packs of Blu-Ray and DVD

            • This is a simple technology shift. Happened to a number of products before it, records, 8-tracks, VHS, tapes, floppy disk and the list goes on and on.

              • I own a Blu-Ray player, but I can see where everyone else is coming from. Some people can’t afford another player and your response is likely going to be “Too bad for them”.

                I’m just saying it’s pretty stupid when regular DVD’s are still made today as a common product and haven’t come close to dying out

                • Bluray players are not priced like what they used to be 2-3 years ago. I just looked at walmart, they have one for $70. If I recall right my family spent more then that on a DVD player back in the day.

                • You can get a Samsung BDP-D5500 for $63, which is a pretty darn good player. I’d say if you can afford to buy DVDs, you can afford a player like that.

                • Odd, Case in point on evolution. I been looking at a new car for myself. I want a Camaro, so when I went out a couple of weeks ago and test drove one. I asked, matter of fact” Where is the CD Player?” Guy said ” CD, Camaros do not come with CD Players, instead you plug your smartphone into the PDMI Interface or Stream music with bluetooth.”

                  What is next?

                  • Bull! Real Camaros come with 8-track players!

                    • Damn right!

                    • Absolutly!!!

                  • That’s awesome…wish my mini-van had that option. That’s right, I rock a mini-van. I use one of those old cassette adapters that people hooked their portable CD players up to back in the day. I plug it into my smart phone and listen to my favorite podcasts.

                    • Nothing wrong with a mini van, we had one till we needed more space for our kids.

                  • Another point, digital is a higher evolution because it transcends physical form so blu rays are already in the past, but that doesnt really make it better.

                    • Cody, soon as with select movies, you wont have to leave home to see the newest blockbuster. Charge the same price as you would a ticket, and movie theaters will go the way of the drive in.

              • but “blu-rays” are still dvds
                its like saying dvds and Hd dvds “Hd’s” are completely different.
                Its nothing like comparing vhs(huge rectangle hunks of plastic that use tape) to discs, they are essentially the same product but one is perhaps clearer or slightly better.

                • Blu-rays and DVDs are both silvery, shiny discs that (usually) come in plastic cases. The picture (and, often, the sound) quality is DRASTICALLY different. Also, Blu-rays can contain a lot more information than DVDs.

                  MY irritation with Blu-rays comes from something different than just product evolution (because that’s really all it is):
                  Blu-rays are an improved format; they hold such potential in terms of what can be put on the disc. WHY, then, is the Blu-ray single disc (no bonuses, no extras, no exclusives) in existence? If I am buying a Blu-ray, I want SOMETHING more than what I can simply buy a DVD for (if I have a player that can upconvert DVDs). For example, I bought “The Avengers” in the Blu-ray combo pack so I can have the two formats for a negligible price, but I ALSO got some of the interesting Blu-ray features included. I would have no interest in getting the (fill in the blank) store exclusive Blu-ray single disc (or DVD single disc, if I can avoid it), even though I also did not need or want the Collector’s, Super-packed, Exclusive, Many-Disc, Mega-Ultra, God-blessed, Boxed edition (otherwise known as the Best Buy exclusive), so I did not get that one.

                  • Im just saying the jump from vhs to dvd was drastic and a matter of convenience, you average joe may not even notice care about sticklers such as improved sound/motion or may not even notice.

                    • I agree Cody. I’m an average joe who likes convenience (and could care less about extras or clarity…I’m lucky to find an hour and a half to watch a movie at home) that is why I stopped buying DVDs and now I only buy digital downloads for movies. Next time I move, no more boxing up the VHSs or DVDs…except the plethora of films that I already own.

                  • BETA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                • blurays are more than “slightly better” than dvd’s, especially the picture quality. i did a comparison of the pixar shorts collection. got the dvd/bluray combo, and bluray beats dvd hands down. i was skeptical at first, but when i saw the difference right there, well it was money (sort of ) well spent. i wish i had done more research on bluray players before i bought mine. it does not support bd live, but i don’t even know if thats still a thing.

        • Only partially true…Vendor exclusives DO still come out. Walmart, Best Buy, and/or Target often come with bonus discs for the DVDs. Now, it IS true that it doesn’t happen a LOT, but there are some great extras out there for those who just get DVDs.

          Of course, those extras always are included in the Blu-ray combo or Blu-ray single of the respective film. I don’t see a problem with that personally, since I HAVE adopted the Blu-ray format. Also, keep in mind that this is how business of this type ALWAYS works: My older car does not have the very convenient outlet for an iPod/digital player that many newer cars have as a standard feature. Older apartments must be UPGRADED (if even possible) to feature the touches that are currently considered the “it” things (the “must-haves”) in the real estate market. DVDs have MANY more extras than VHS tapes had. Once the next format comes out, producers and distributors will include features on that format that are not on just the respective Blu-ray disc (or whatever bonus disc), and people will complain then, too.

          You can be upset, but it’s simply going to keep happening.

          P.S. Reading this, I realize the tone MAY seem snarky…That is NOT my intent. I am merely trying to be blunt.

          • This is what Happened to me. Did not need a Blu ray player. DVDs were just fine. Wife Buys a bunch of movies on Blu Ray, and I am looking at her like she lost it..I mean she went out and bought 20 movies on Blu Ray…so I say to her. “All These Blu Ray movies and you forget all we have is a standard DVD Player?”

            Her response,” My God, you are sometimes a ditz. Question? How long have you had your PS3?”

            I said ” 2 Years. Why?”

            “Well, then you have had a blu ray player for 2 years!” was her response. And boy did I feel stupid!

            • Yep, thats why you always read the outside of the box first. Elsewise you foolishly open a creat marked Do Not Open to find it had a small man eating yeti inside…And all they’ll ever find left of you is your boots. lol

              • Darn it, misspelled *crate*
                stupid uneditable posting system.

            • …smh!

          • …huh? someone say blunt?

    • I do not buy DVD’s any more. And it’s not even for the extras. I barely watch those. But for $5 more, you can get a blu ray and it is better quality. I can’t speak for everyone but that $5 more isn’t a big deal for me.

      • Same here.

        • Oh the heck with all of you…DVD…BLU RAY…BLAH BLAH BLAH!

          SUCKERS!…MY SONY BETAMAX IS STILL GOING STRONG!

          Just got the Complete Star Wars SAGA on Beta just last week!…BETA RULES!

          LONG LIVE BETA….LONG LIVE BETA…LONG LIVE BETA!

          • I remember my dad calling me out to help him bring in our first VCR. Darn thing weighed a ton. When it died, the next one he carried in under his arm. Then DVD Player came and he went out and replaced all the VHS and Beta Tapes (Medical Tapes were done on Beta for the better quality.)

            Our First TV was a beast, and needed two adults to carry it in the house, because it came in a box and weighed 200 lbs. iT LASTED 20 Years. My dad died before The TVs we have in our home, where I went to a store, bought a tv, folded down the rear seats, slid it in and called one of the girls to come out and help me with it. Now, I can buy a TV, grab it by the carry handle and bring it in alone….Now we have a 85 Inch beast that took two people to bring in, but that was because it was awkward to carry alone. It is roughly 3 inches thick…thats progress.

    • Oh man, I can rant about this subject forever… :D
      I just think that if they’re gonna get people to pay extra for BD, we should at least get more stuff!

      The amount of special features on most BDs can easily fit on DVDs. A while back I watched all the Bourne movies again and I was shocked at how many extras were on the disc. Whereas with BD lately, you’d be lucky to even get as much extras as on those discs.

      And it’s not a question about space either. Most BD discs have well over 50GB of usable space.

      A good, recent example would be Marvel’s The Avengers. No one can argue that it was a huge movie and that the expectations for the home release was massive, but I for one was hugely disappointed with what we got (and even if the region B version came with the extra featurette and commentary track, I’d still have been disappointed with the end product).

      But if you look at Prometheus, that came out with a 3 disc edition with hours of extras that costs basically the same as Avengers’ measly 1 disc.

      Even TDKR’s list of special features aren’t as impressive as Batman Begins’ from a few years back…

      It’s such a shame because I remember that when BD was first released, it had so much promise and all the movies that came out on BD a few years ago were packed with extras… Now you’re lucky to get 1 hour of extras per movie.

      I still buy BD for the most part though because there’s no denying that the visual and audio quality is much better, and the actual disc has a longer shelf life and doesn’t easily scratch.
      Plus, most BD players come with DVD-upscaling which improves the quality of DVDs.

      • That is exactly why I converted to a Blu-Ray player a few years ago. Once I bought the big screen plasma, I wanted to be able to take advantage of it. So once the Blu-Ray players broke the $200 barrier, I went out and bought one. I loved that I was able to play my favorite DVD’s on the player and they LOOKED better due to the upconverting through the HDMI cable. Granted, the sound from the Blu-Ray is superior, but for most movies I don’t even notice the difference. As a matter of fact, unless it’s a big action blockbuster like The Avengers or TDK, I will probably just buy the DVD because I rarely watch the extra features. Makes no sense to me to purchase a comedy movie on Blu-Ray.

  2. the host, city of bones and spook’s apprentice are following Twilight next years

  3. So I bought the Dark Knight Trilogy Blu Ray yesterday and my wife and I watched Dark Knight Rises. She did not see it in theaters so it was her first time. It baffles me how people still think that this is an “amazing” movie. There are so many plot issues. I think it’s a 6/10 at best. They could have done so much more with this.

    • Ok Kyle, what are the plot issues you have a problem with? I hear this all the time but never get any solid answer back.

      • Ill give you ever answer he will say, how did they get motorcycles inside the stock exchange, how did bruce back grt heales cause a punch so quickly, how did bruce get back to gotham, how did he survive the explosion. There ya go, there is a fair share of plot conviences but they arent holes. But the how did he get back to gotham is rediculously simple to solve. Isnt wayne manor across the river anyways, and he did the same thing for years in batman begins. And i have my own theory about the ending

        • Imo the biggest and only problem I have with the dkr is it poorly handles fitting the multiple time jumps over almost a year span. that nolan thinks you could handle.

        • Very well said. I didn’t say plot “holes” I said issues. And conveniences is a better way of putting it. I think we just expect more from Nolan so it’s a disappointment. And maybe that’s my fault for holding it in such high regard but because it doesn’t meet those expectations, I feel it’s an average movie.

          • I just think its time for nolan to stray away from spectacle and go back to smaller films. His batman films dont have near as tight of a narrative as memento and insomnia. You werent the only one dissapointed, i was not but i see how. Their was far lesa conviences and time jumps in begins and the dark knight.

        • I also didn’t see anybody in the movie use the restroom.

          Never heard of the motorcycle issue. But I can assume that he had people outside that brought them in during the hold up. Just staged them in the lobby.

          As for the back, yeah, that was difficult to process but at least his batsuit didn’t have nipples. One of those he is Batman in a comic book story situation.

  4. What is your favorite cult classic?

    • I have three equals
      Night of the Living Dead, Rocky Horror Picture Show and Toxic Avenger

    • Does “The Princess Bride” count? after all, it is the best movie ever… :)

      • It absoultely count….It is not a cult favorite so much as it is a Classic. IMHO.

      • I would throw that more into the classic category, but it works for me!

    • Dead Alive, The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

  5. Anybody sick and tired of hearing that the sequal or follow-up to a movie is going to be, “darker, more grounded, or grittier”? I swear, The Dark knight rises, The Amazing Spiderman, Star Trek 2, Iron Man 3, and countless others do this.

    Query: If the original movie did fine with a lighter tone, why change?

    • They say that Star Trek 2 will not be dark and gritty (to which i am glad) and the Dark Knight Rises comes after two already dark and gritty movies.

      • Whoops, Imediatly after I posted I remembered that TDKR follows TDK and the both were better as darker sequals. If you watch it though, there are SO many of these movies which bear the aformentioned describer.

    • “The Dark Knight Rises” had a particular and very legitimate reason to say this, character in question, aside. The other three films you mention? Not really sure why THEY need(ed) to be…

    • I think that’s where “Skyfall” stands out in Daniel Craig’s era as James Bond. It is a bit more light-hearted than “Quantum of Solace”, but more obvious humor than the subtle Comedy in “Casino Royale”.

      “The Amazing Spider-Man” adds more humor to the character, which makes me very pleased because Peter Parker is the troubled teenager and Spider-Man is his escape into a world where he can have fun and let loose (unless something goes horribly wrong).

      “The Dark Knight Rises” is a dark story about a dark character so it fits, I guess. Darker than BB and TDK.

      I’m honestly not impressed by “Iron Man 3″ so far, it isn’t adding anything onto the overcoming defeat plot. The difference in each movies make those films successful and that’s where I believe IM3 is going to fail at.

    • I call it the “Twilight Effect”

      Twilight totally did awawy with the mythos of Vampires and Werewolves, made it more romantic friendly with an emphasis on Action as the secondary story.

      Directors in general want to attrack a more adult audience to their movies, they do not want to make Movies that appeal to kids, tweens and teenagers. They want to attrack a more mature audience with the adjetives and adverbs. The feeling is, it may not be suitable for children, and thus no children in attendance would make the movie more likely to garner greater attention.

      They also want to seperate Superhero/Fantasy/SCI FI from the description.

      All Movies on the line of Batman Begins, are striving for one thing. To do what Lord of the Rings : Return of the King did, Destroy everything at the Academy Awards and take home best picture, the first for a movie of its kind.

      That was the prototype movie, so that is what people are trying to do.

    • When I heard TAS was darker I was worried, but after seeing it and realizing it was not dark for darkness sake but it was more realistic, lending to it be a little bit darker, though not overly so IMO.

    • @ superedje101

      I am. I prefer CBM to be more like what Marvel Studios have done to be great. to have a balance between realistic/fantasy tone so theres less limits on what you can do with that character/characters of that particular franchise. Like Batman for example. So many characters yet haven’t been on film whether villains or supporting characters. Nolan’s trilogy although great had it’s limits because of it being grounded in a gritty realistic tone. Then theres other heroes of DC besides Superman that would be more complex to be grounded or grittier to Nolan’s tone. It’s common sense if DC/WB want to expand the DC universe. Green Lantern failed because it was a rushed film that needed a better story to it,etc. Jonah Hex failed because probly general audiences probly wouldn’t know the character, not to mention it was bad film itself i heard. I didn’t see it because Josh Brolin imo didn’t seem like he fit the part. Then there was Megan Fox.

      Anyways, Superman 1&2 were great as were Burton’s Batman films before Marvel Studio’s films came along that everyone could enjoy.

  6. So has anybody seen the fan made dragonball z saiyan saga trailer?

  7. How about that Netflix/Disney deal? Netflix bought exclusive streaming rights to Disney to take effect in 2016. But right now, they got some non-exclusive older titles. My kids will be excited for the new additions to the Netflix catalog…as am I. I don’t need to buy so many kids movies now!

    • SWEET!

    • Hadn’t heard it till now, but that sounds like good news!

      • It’s actually a pretty big deal from a technology standpoint. In 2016, the rights to movies that would normally be shown on pay-cable channels like Starz will go exclusively to Netflix’s streaming service. This deal is the first time one of the six major Hollywood studios will be bypassing (premium) cable television stations and solely using the internet for their movies after their theatrical/dvd run. For example, John Carter was released in theaters in March, then it released on DVD in June, and recently it came out on the Starz network. In four years, new releases will be airing on Netflix instead of Starz. Basically, Netflix just gave Starzplay (Starz’s streaming network) a metaphorical kick to the nuts.

        I may be overly excited…but that means Lucasfilm, Marvel Studios, Pixar Animation, Muppet Studios, and just plain ol’ Walt Disney Studios will be available via my streaming device. And that means less money spent on movies that my children will eventually grow tired of after 547 viewings.

    • I agree – this is a HUGE deal. If anything, I think the significance is being under reported. Disney – which owns plenty of its own television networks – just stepped away from pay cable in favor of an online solution. Netflix is said to be going after the Sony catalog next. Who else will follow, and what does this mean for the future of premium movie channels?

      Smart move by Disney, and by Netflix.

  8. This will never ever happen, but do you guys think Jim Carrey would’ve fitted The Joker perfectly? Personally, I believe he was born to play him

    • Jim carrey as joker, especially after ledger raised the bar……god no.

      • He’s the living version of Mark Hamill’s Joker, IMO. He’s proven he can play a psychopath killer at one point and then be hilarious at another. Jim has really matured over the past decade to the point where he doesn’t want to be off the walls bonkers, but still be really funny. So he is a good balance of funny and insane

        • So, you want to give Jim Carey the distinction of having played both Riddler and Joker?

          • That’s why i said it will never ever happen

        • He cant do seriousness, and he doesnt sound like hamill.
          this is what youll get
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrRPLlF4PBc

          ugh….

          • He can do serious. “The Truman Show”, “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”, “The Number 23″ (I thought he was the only good thing about it)

            • yeah exactly, when he does serious it just comes off as sad, he has no weight.

              • Maybe because the serious films he has been in basically put his character in the same position all the time. No one has ever really given him the chance otherwise so we don’t know for sure if he can do anything besides that type of drama.

                Who knows? We may never because he just turned 50 this year ;\

    • Nah. I think Nicholson was already too over the top to be really enjoyable. Carrey would have downright wrecked the part (can’t stand The Mask). Ledger nailed it.

      • Hugo Weaving could play The Joker.

    • Honestly, I dont really like Jim Carry much. The only movie I liked him in is Batman Forever where he played the Riddler. Did he make a good Riddler? Not really, but that was a fun movie!

      • He’s my favorite actor, the reason I got into acting (yes I am an actor in training). The 90′s may have jump started him, but I’m more into the late 90′s to current day Jim Carrey, where he has settled down and gone into more dramatic roles.

        • *went (instead of gone)

    • @ ACW 007

      I liked Jim Carrey but hasn’t made any films lately i liked. I can see him a candidate for the Joker perhaps but my first choice would be Tom Hiddleston.

      • Maybe if he wasn’t already Loki. I thought Christian Bale would make a good James Bond, but there’s no way he can do that after already being Batman, a major film icon.

        Same thing with Jim, he can’t be The Joker because he was already The Riddler

        • Why would that matter if he played Loki? Chris Evans played Johnny Storm in FF films & turned out just as great as Captain America when people had doubts about him. When i thought he was one of the better candidates,even i deep down was skeptic about Evans being playing Steve Rogers but he pulled it off imo & im glad.

          • Because, unlike FF, Thor and Avengers is actually embraced. Hiddleston IS Loki so why make him another big villain like The Joker? IMO it’s the most unfair type of casting I’ve ever seen

    • I would rather put Hamill on P90X and just have him play Joker.

  9. Just watched the ‘Top Gear: 50 Years Of Bond Cars’ special and I highly recommend it to any car fans, or Bond fans… or fans of both… or just someone looking to watch something interesting and entertaining.

    Not only was it done in a usual (brilliant) Top Gear fashion, but I was very surprised at how much it delved into the production of making Bond movies!
    There were some really interesting behind the scenes facts & stories and quite a few interviews from the 007 cast & crew as well.

    I never knew the old Stig was a stunt car driver for Daniel Craig’s chase scenes!

    • I was a stunt driver.

      Ok I was the crash test dummie. I was the stuntmans’s stuntman. STRICTLY USED IN HEAD ON CRASHES…GOING OVER THE SIDE OF THE MOUNTAIN…GETTING STEPPED ON BY MEGATRON….The such.

      Gave it for something far more dangerous…MARRIAGE!

      • @Jeff W

        Speaking of marriage:

        The phone rings, and the wife answers.

        A pervert, with heavy breathing, says, “I bet you have a tight arse with no hair?”

        Woman replies, “Yes, he’s watching TV – who shall I say is calling?”

        • Pedrosaurus….Damn.

          Someone is bugging my phone????

    • I am pretty sure that guy who did craig stunts also did the tumbler/bat pod stunts.

  10. Watched both saftey not guarenteed and fantastic mr fox for the first time yesterday. Thought saftey not guarenteed was pretty flat, and i loved FMF

  11. if you raised in the late 80′s early 90′s you should checkout this live action fan made trailer for dragoball z