007: Casino Royale Collector's Edition first Blu-ray Disc to double-dip
Studios just love to re-release older titles just before a follow-up film hits the silver screen, and Sony's making darn sure it milks the 007 franchise for every dime it's worth prior to Quantum of Solace landing in theaters. Not only are six Bond classics slated to hit Blu-ray on October 21st, but now one of Sony's best-selling 007 BD titles will be joining 'em. Yep, 007: Casino Royale will be re-released in a Collector's Edition with seven hours of new material, free e-Movie Cash to catch the aforesaid QoS in cinemas, Bonus View picture-in-picture visual commentary with Director Martin Campbell and Producer Michael G. Wilson and a "Know Your Double-O" BD-Live-enabled multi-player trivia game. To our knowledge, this is the first Blu-ray title to double-dip, as we're not counting the whole Fifth Element fiasco as a true double release. Prepare to spend $38.96 for the 2-disc Blu-ray set or $29.95 for the 3-disc DVD package.[Thanks, Chris]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
bry2an @ Aug 14th 2008 1:17AM
Not the first the Kubbrick movies where.
bry2an @ Aug 14th 2008 1:19AM
Full Metal Jacket to be more specific.
therpham @ Aug 14th 2008 1:22AM
Depends on if you count the remastered Full Metal Jacket as a double dip.
Grapist @ Aug 14th 2008 1:36AM
Full Metal Jacket is more of a double dip than this, since this has more material and a second disc. FMJ was just the movie with a proper transfer.
Also, if collectors editions are considered double dips, what happens when both the regular and collectors editions are released at the same time? (Batman Begins comes to mind).
Alex @ Aug 14th 2008 1:36AM
I would think Full Metal Jacket would count with the not-count of Fifth Element.
Andy Anonymous @ Aug 14th 2008 2:17AM
Just the first (or rather, second) of many. After all, there's a reason so many Blu-ray discs are pretty barebones: the studios fully expect to take "multiple bites from the apple" on Blu-ray.
Mark @ Aug 14th 2008 7:52AM
I doubt many people who own the first would be interested in double dipping. The first version was excellent quality even if it lacked some of the extras. More likely Sony are aiming the reissue at Quantum of Solace cinemagoers and the crowd of people who are buying their player this holiday season.
WB did it with the Dark Knight too, using the occasion to issue Batman Begins blu ray. Clearly it paid off because it's been selling extremely well. Maybe Sony even intend to copy WB and slap 10 minutes from QoS onto the disk to whet appetites.
Andy @ Aug 14th 2008 9:15AM
I am waiting on Man on Fire and a number of other movies to release on Bluray properly (with at least what the DVD release had).
squiggleslash @ Aug 14th 2008 7:37AM
Yes, it's just awful when a studio replaces an unimaginative disc that doesn't make full use (any use?) of the technologies available with one that does.
This release will probably outrage the "Blu-ray should be as crap as possible, I need to justify paying $1,500 for a Profile 1.0 player when HD DVD fell below $300" contingent (which, presumably, includes Darren Murph) but to everyone else it's welcome.
If you want Blu-ray to succeed, you need it to be more than a less reliable DVD with a higher quality picture.
GhostDoggy @ Aug 14th 2008 7:55AM
I do not see the problem with multiple-dipping. No one is forcing cowsumers to buy the same titles repeatedly. Its a cowsumer decision. And if you are a cowsumer doing this, it is your own fault, not the seller or the studio.
This is about individual wants, and the cowsumers buying the re-releases want it, so they are buying it.
TrentD @ Aug 14th 2008 11:25AM
The studios should do it right the first time around, instead of intentionally holding back features to entice double-dips. It's not about consumerism, it's about the right way to do things.
Jeebus @ Aug 15th 2008 8:50PM
Realize that it often is too expensive to do it right for every single title. By releasing a title on the cheap, a studio can see how well it did, and if it did well, it will be less of a risk investing more money in a better edition.
Jon @ Aug 14th 2008 8:57AM
On a side note great movie , but what the hell happened at the end
XDragon @ Aug 14th 2008 9:30AM
Honestly, I'm not impressed with double dipping in the 1st place but more so that its happening so quickly on Blu-Ray. Common, the standard hasn't gone main stream and you actually think people would repurchase a "better" Blu-Ray version? Right now, Blu-Ray needs to be the "version" of the movie with all the features the special dvd edition has plus some Blu-Ray exclusives. Don't get me wrong, if its your fav movie, then you might make an exception but they should be focusing on making it more attractive to go Blu then double dipping Blu, not to mention that they could spend their time releasing good movies that aren't on Blu-Ray before double dipping. At the end of the day, double dipping is bound to happen but its selfish to start this early in the format's life considering DVD's dominance.
NewGalactic @ Aug 14th 2008 3:29PM
Couldn't agree more. You want to get consumers to embrace BD? Then give them more features to justify the higher price point. Add multiple versions of the film (.mp4, divx) for loading onto your iPhone or streaming to your media center. For the higher price point, consumers expect to get all the extra's thrown in. And I'm sorry to say, for the average consumer BD's improved picture and sound doesn't justify the price when compared to up-converted-DVD, or even standard DVD for some.
It's really up to Sony and the BD consortium to decide if BD fails or not. There's now no longer any direct competitor. It's really only a matter of how much profit they want to make. If they don't let go of their misconceptions about the dangers of piracy, or relax a little bit on their usually accepted profit margin, then it will be no one's fault but their own when BD fails to be adopted by consumers at large.
DEEZNUTZ @ Aug 14th 2008 9:49AM
Studio's are risking the format's success by pulling all this double-dipping BS. They need to treat the BD release as the ultimate edition, and barebones the DVDs. That way you entice folks to upgrade to BD if they want the best of a movie. For BD, they need to do it once, and do it right for both the transfer and the audio.
Worst type of double-dip is the remastering of a poor transfer they rushed out. I am much pickier with BD movies than I was with DVD's, and I make sure I read several reviews to get a sense of what the transfer quality is like. If they BD 25 it with a shit transfer, I'll pass regardless of the movie, knowing that a re-release is in the horizon.
TrentD @ Aug 14th 2008 11:30AM
DEEZ, we've disagreed a lot in the past, but I'm 100% with you on this comment. The studios can't serve two masters - pushing customers to buy DVDs with special editions, exclusive features, etc., while saying that Blu-ray is the ultimate experience.
I'm also holding off on a lot of BD purchases because of rushed or poor transfers, or 25 GB sizes. Terminator 1 and 2 are perfect examples - I'd own them now, but I know a new version is going to come when T4 comes out, so I'll wait until then.
NewGalactic @ Aug 14th 2008 3:38PM
Allowing a poorly transfered BD to enter the market should be the #1 thing studios dread. The WHOLE thing going for BD is improve picture and sound, there is NO other reason to invest in this new technology. If consumer's opinion is tainted by poorly transfered BD's into believing that the picture/sound quality isn't as good as advertised, then no one will line up to spend the money for a BD player. Transfers need to be consistently of BD quality (first rate), anything less breads uncertainty, which will keep people from making the investment and possibly tainting their impression of the media forever.
The saying "you never get a chance to make a first impression" is even more true when there's a $400 purchase attached to it.
Vic @ Aug 14th 2008 10:11AM
Hopefully this will drop the price of the original BD release, as I have yet to pick it up. Not too interested in all the extra features, just want the best PQ and audio offered for a reasonable price.
ImmortalThree @ Aug 14th 2008 11:21AM
Well thats cool and all, but I just bought Casino Royale on BD a couple days ago. Just my luck lol.
chefgon_ign @ Aug 14th 2008 1:02PM
The original release contained the movie on it. That makes it the "ultimate edition" by default. Everything else is just menu filler that you will probably never watch. Even if you do watch some of it, you'll probably only watch it once, and even then you're likely to regret the wasted time.
LiqwidZero @ Aug 14th 2008 2:09PM
The original release had a 5.1 PCM track. The new release will have TrueHD. Get the original release, it's the better version.
squiggleslash @ Aug 15th 2008 8:34AM
How is PCM "better" than TrueHD? They're both "lossless" (PCM is uncompressed, TrueHD decompresses into the original PCM stream, bit-for-bit. I use the term "lossless" in quotes because I believe the term is misleading, but essentially there should be no difference in sound quality between TrueHD and PCM.)