Garandomatic Posted January 26, 2015 Share #2001 Posted January 26, 2015 I am just indignant that when I finally get everything replaced on DVD that I had on VHS, I have to buy some other stupid format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzerbait Posted January 27, 2015 Share #2002 Posted January 27, 2015 The beauty of a blu-ray player is that it will play both blu-rays AND dvd's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kammo-man Posted January 27, 2015 Author Share #2003 Posted January 27, 2015 My Blu-ray pays LPs at 33rpm. owen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garandomatic Posted January 27, 2015 Share #2004 Posted January 27, 2015 Won't work for me. I converted all of mine to 78rpm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kammo-man Posted January 27, 2015 Author Share #2005 Posted January 27, 2015 My wifes Blu-ray plays C-30 tapes that have been in an old box in my attic for years.......... perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willysmb44 Posted January 27, 2015 Share #2006 Posted January 27, 2015 My wife says I have a one-track mind. I always reply that I have an eight track mind, but I can't find the tapes for it anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kammo-man Posted January 27, 2015 Author Share #2007 Posted January 27, 2015 The avocado green ones are in your army box ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willysmb44 Posted January 27, 2015 Share #2008 Posted January 27, 2015 Special features are on bluray only. darn it. Just saw them on a store this morning. God knows when I'll get to see that extra 50 minutes. They don't even offer a set of a bluray disk and dvd together. Gotta get one or the other. I'm extremely disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ww2imp Posted January 27, 2015 Share #2009 Posted January 27, 2015 I just hope they don't limit the goodies to just the blu-ray like I've seen in several other films. I'll be getting a blu-ray player eventually, I guess. I am buying sets with both disks when they're available, but the bonus stuff only gets onto the blu-ray. I'm not there yet with one of those players... You can get a blue-ray player at Sam's Club for $40. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willysmb44 Posted January 27, 2015 Share #2010 Posted January 27, 2015 Also, Target advertised a 'steel case' version of the container for the disks. My local target even had the mention of them on the displays. But I confirmed with one of the employees this morning that they didn't get one of them with the cases, only the normal ones. Not that big a deal for me, but I was a little ticked as that was the primary reason I went there to start with as Wal Mart was much easier to get into and out of on my way this morning... You can get a blue-ray player at Sam's Club for $40. I can easily afford even a higher-end one. But you missed what I wrote earlier on the subject: The players aren't really all that expensive and the disks aren't all that much more. The primary reason I'm not into blu-ray yet is because they never made one that would record. I don't have room in our entertainment center for two players of the type and I want to the capacity to record something as the idea that 'everythin I want is on demand somewhere' is downright lunacy. I always record what I want to keep, though in all fairness I haven't recorded anything off that DVD recorder in a very long time... And that's not even the point, you pay roughly the same money for each kind of disk, so I'm left with the conclusion that the movie companies are trying desperately to wean the public off DVDs by making all the 'goodies' for extras on Blu-ray only. I can only assume that as DVD sales are still going pretty well (much better than the movie companies thought they would be, so long after blu-rays came one, I've read, something they didn't think would happen, and they can't just ignore that revenue stream), they're still making them but not putting any of the bonus material on them that they're putting onto blu-ray. Obviously, they want you to buy blu-ray instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonewaller Posted January 28, 2015 Share #2011 Posted January 28, 2015 Standard definition is a thing of the past. Everything I/we shoot is in HD. So why wouldn't people want you to see it the way it was shot, not some low quality, grainy DVD that contains less than a quarter of the original image information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ww2imp Posted January 28, 2015 Share #2012 Posted January 28, 2015 I can easily afford even a higher-end one. But you missed what I wrote earlier on the subject: I completely understand and it makes sense. I was just throwing it out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danangdave Posted January 28, 2015 Share #2013 Posted January 28, 2015 just because its a blu ray disk does't mean that they have more extras than a dvd. there's more extras on we were soldiers, and the deer hunter, dvd than there is on the blu ray version . also some blu ray disks arent the full version dances with wolves and tears of the sun are just two exampes. the blue ray version of rambo has a few cuts compared to the dvd version. it pays to check first amazon reviews is a good place to start. dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willysmb44 Posted January 28, 2015 Share #2014 Posted January 28, 2015 just because its a blu ray disk does't mean that they have more extras than a dvd. Maybe not in every case (thanks for the examples, i had no idea of them), but 'Fury' has the goodies only on Blu-Ray. So did, "Gravity" which really ticked me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danangdave Posted January 28, 2015 Share #2015 Posted January 28, 2015 a blu ray recorder from curry's in the uk set you back £200 plus. a blu ray player about £50 from same shop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khe Sanh68 Posted January 29, 2015 Share #2016 Posted January 29, 2015 Well, I was able to rent the movie Fury. I thought the movie was bad as far as the actors go. The tanks and gear where great. My wife's grandfather who watched the movie with me said what took place with the 5 crew members did not happen at least in his tank. He also said that they would not just send a person to replace another that never saw combat in a tank with no tank training. He said those soldiers would have been issued a rifle. He said that they would have found a single crew member to fill the spot if his tank was destroyed or his crew members were wounded or killed. Any green troops would have been a whole new tank crew that trained in the states or overseas. Will I buy the movie or watch it again. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
268th C.A. Posted January 30, 2015 Share #2017 Posted January 30, 2015 This was ok too. I'd buy the DVD. But I think we all know how long a Sherman would last against a company of enemy SS soldiers with cases of panerfaust. I think about one minute. Other than that there were some very good cinematography in the movie. I guess all movies have good & bad after all its a movie. I'd give it a nine out of ten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38Driver Posted February 7, 2015 Share #2018 Posted February 7, 2015 Just watched it on pay for view. Obviously the detail on uniforms and the tanks was very good. As a story it was nothing special. In all honesty it immediately reminded me of Humphrey Bogart and "Sahara". Throw in the graphic detail and the story is much the same. Single tank holds important spot against overwhelming odds. Same discussion on the treatment of prisoners. In Sahara Bogart is the one saying the POW has to die. Pitts character takes that role in Fury. They went opposite directions in terms of the US soldiers response but I saw that as Fury reprising the role of the clerk typist translator in SPR having to come to terms with the brutality of war. And like Sahara the Germans in Fury seemed determined to run straight into the guns when they could much more easily have worked around behind and destroyed the tank without having taken such horrendous casualties. So in the end I was underwhelmed. I'd probably watch Sahara again first. The uniforms are not repro in that one and Lulu Belle is just as real as Fury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccmax Posted February 9, 2015 Share #2019 Posted February 9, 2015 Watched it for the second time after reading the script, it is certainly one of the best war movies ever made. Had not really liked it the first time, but I plan to see it again this week and hope to like it even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124cav Posted February 10, 2015 Share #2020 Posted February 10, 2015 I have been rewatching the film on bluray over the last week. The third act is what bugs me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaptonIsGod Posted February 10, 2015 Share #2021 Posted February 10, 2015 I definitely liked the uniforms, vehicles, etc. in the movie, but I felt the plot was lacking. Why did Wardaddy speak German? How could a fresh out of boot camp teenager be sent to a tank without any specialty training? Why would an SS soldier let him go after seeing him under the tank, and what are the odds that someone else wouldn't check after? Also, the time between when the potato mashers were dropped in the tank and when Norman dropped out the bottom seemed much longer than the fuse would allow. I also felt the gore was excessive in the movie. Did they really need to show half of a face sitting in a pile of tissue in the tank? Did they really need to show a guy's head being taken off by a tank shell? It was just too much. They could've made the movie just as effectively by scaling back the gore. At times I felt like I was watching a horror movie, not a war movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David D Posted February 10, 2015 Share #2022 Posted February 10, 2015 Just watched it on pay for view. Obviously the detail on uniforms and the tanks was very good. As a story it was nothing special. In all honesty it immediately reminded me of Humphrey Bogart and "Sahara". Throw in the graphic detail and the story is much the same. Single tank holds important spot against overwhelming odds. Same discussion on the treatment of prisoners. In Sahara Bogart is the one saying the POW has to die. Pitts character takes that role in Fury. They went opposite directions in terms of the US soldiers response but I saw that as Fury reprising the role of the clerk typist translator in SPR having to come to terms with the brutality of war. And like Sahara the Germans in Fury seemed determined to run straight into the guns when they could much more easily have worked around behind and destroyed the tank without having taken such horrendous casualties. So in the end I was underwhelmed. I'd probably watch Sahara again first. The uniforms are not repro in that one and Lulu Belle is just as real as Fury. Agreed, I liked Sahara better to be honest. -Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViewfinderGyrene Posted February 10, 2015 Share #2023 Posted February 10, 2015 I definitely liked the uniforms, vehicles, etc. in the movie, but I felt the plot was lacking. Why did Wardaddy speak German? How could a fresh out of boot camp teenager be sent to a tank without any specialty training? Why would an SS soldier let him go after seeing him under the tank, and what are the odds that someone else wouldn't check after? Also, the time between when the potato mashers were dropped in the tank and when Norman dropped out the bottom seemed much longer than the fuse would allow. I also felt the gore was excessive in the movie. Did they really need to show half of a face sitting in a pile of tissue in the tank? Did they really need to show a guy's head being taken off by a tank shell? It was just too much. They could've made the movie just as effectively by scaling back the gore. At times I felt like I was watching a horror movie, not a war movie. War is horror... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaptonIsGod Posted February 10, 2015 Share #2024 Posted February 10, 2015 War is horror... I mean that's fair enough and I agree with you entirely (as much as I can, fortunately, without having experienced it firsthand), but when I personally watch a war movie, I watch it for good plot, good portrayals of the era, etc. "Fury" filled the second of those categories. I know that in reality war looks like they portrayed it as far as the gore is concerned, but that's not why I was watching the movie. I can fill those blanks in myself. If I wanted something of that nature, I'd watch Hitchcock, a "Final Destination," etc. I think you could've alternatively title "Fury" as "Final Destination: WWII." "NCIS" is an incredible show with plenty of violence (shootings, explosions, etc.), and heads aren't exploding on that show. The show is still incredibly effective and enjoyable to watch; you don't need to show absolutely everything. For "Fury," I just really don't think it was necessary. People can disagree, that's just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vintageproductions Posted February 10, 2015 Share #2025 Posted February 10, 2015 If you have ever watched any of the other movies this director did, they are all fairly violent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now