Late Reviews

[TripleHBK]

I'm not sure if this is feasible, or if it'd really be all that helpful, but a suggestion I thought of may be to place a disclaimer on the home section of the main page linking to an actual section of the site (Much like the HD Advisor articles do) that specifically addresses how and why certain movies are reviewed over others. Placing the disclaimer right near the "High Def Disk Reviews" heading should (In theory) be noticed by site visitors and would hopefully reduce the number of people that ask the question of how and why movies are reviewed. Using something along the lines of.. "Curious as to how HDD chooses it's movie reviews? Then Read On..." should work.

Also, it wouldn't be a bad idea to provide a main "Home" page link to a list of all the HD advisors as these are usually quite educational and interesting reads. Enough have been completed now that I think a small sub section on the site would/could be beneficial.

[Attebery]

The HD Advisor columns are all collected here:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/hdadvisor.html

Not a bad idea to put up an answer to this frequently asked question about reviews.

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by Attebery

The HD Advisor columns are all collected here:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/hdadvisor.html

Not a bad idea to put up an answer to this frequently asked question about reviews.

That's in last week's column.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/3213

[Gators300]

You guys mention that there are other ways to review some movies, such as readers mailing you copies to review. Obviously this wouldn't benefit the person who already purchased the movie, but it would undoubtedly help many others who are perhaps on the fence.

My question is this: how do we know what movies to send you? Maybe you could have a running thread updated each Tuesday with movies listed that you did not receive from studios. At that point, users could send you there copy to evaluate if they chose to do so. Just an idea.

[Arkadin]

I just can't help but wonder why HDD seems to have so much difficulty obtaining some titles is a timely fashion from some of the studios--namely Warner Brothers, Criterion, and Disney.
This isn't a criticism of HDD at all.
But something needs to change imo.
When I just take a brief glance at Blu-ray.com and see that Wizard of Oz got reviewed on Sept 26th, and is still mia over here, I just don't get what is going on.
HDD is one of what I would consider about 5 MAJOR blu-ray review sites, but continues to have this problem of being behind these other sites--dvdbeaver, blu-ray.com, etc. etc. in getting these screeners sent to them
It almost seems at this point that perhaps there a personal vendetta on the part of Warner Brothers against HDD.
Perhaps Criterion also has a vendetta.
I see reviews for "Monterey Pop" and "Monsoon Wedding" up elsewhere also.
I mean what else could it be?
imo IB Brands really needs to get some letters sent to whoever at Warner and Criterion might be able to address this issue.
It is getting ridiculous that such screeners as one of the most anticipated titles of the Fall--Wizard of Oz--are not being sent to HDD in a timely manner.
HDD is absolutely suffering due of this because everyone on here knows that people like to talk about releases right as they come out.
By the time the next weeks' releases come out the older releases have already been posted about a ton in threads containing reviews from other sites.
I know I would be frustrated as hell as a reviewer to know that when my review finally gets posted that it will not get nearly the response it would have had a it been ready a week before.
This isn't necessarily the way it should be, but I think we all know that this is what happens.
I just would like to know that IB is making sure it is doing absolutely everything it can to address this situation with Warner Brothers and any other studio that this is occurring with.
IB owes it to HDD to get some answers regarding this imo directly from Warner's home video department.
It is too late in the bd game for this to be still happening to HDD.

[project-blu]

Criterion has been sending us titles, Ark. not from their start, but they are now. they take much more work than a regular release, so sometimes they get pushed back to be given the proper HDD treatment. I have Monterey Pop in my hands, but I have to balance my review schedule so that I can do some small stuff amongst the biggies, so that we can still have reviews 2-3 times a day. POP will get some attention from me this weekend.

Warner doesn't send most catalog titles out to ANY site. Some studios send ANY title they release. Oz is another story, I'm not touching with a ten foot stick, despite knowing the circumstances.

as for beaver, they don't get most screeners. they get early titles from RETAILERS like stores or rental houses. that's all i'll say about that site.

Ark, as someone who runs a site, i can disprove one perceived notion: not all sites get screeners at the same time. it may used to have been that way, but i see reviews get posted at some sites before others even get the title. do sites that shill get preference? i couldn't say. but i do see some curious patterns on some sites (not naming names), that bother me when you figure studio support and timeliness.

[Jester217300]

Along the lines of current discussion I have quite a few imports that other users might like to read a review of. I wouldn't mind sending them in to Nate or Josh with no questions on my end but I would be a little less comfortable with other reviewers since I don't know them as well from the forums.

All in all I think it's a moot point. HDD seems very busy with domestic releases.

[Arkadin]

thanks for the reply project-blu.
sounds like there is more to the story with Oz.
Glad to hear Criterion is doing better.

[cardpetree]

Where's it at?!!!

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by cardpetree

Where's it at?!!!

Call Paramount and yell at them for not sending advance screeners. We had to go to the store and buy a copy on Tuesday, same as you.

The review is in the works. The movie is ridiculously long and the disc has a lot of bonus features to dig through. Unlike some other "review" sites, our articles are more than just a plot recap copied from the back of the disc case and three sentences about the A/V quality. These things are a lot of work and take a little time. We'll have it up soon.

[project-blu]

indeed. to paraphrase South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut:

BLAME PARAMOUNT! BLAME PARAMOUNT!

[GizmoDVD]

You guys just need to sticky a thread that has all these answers "where is x review, why did x get reviewed and not x".

My favorite is always "why did you review x and not y? y is a better movie then x!"

[project-blu]

Originally Posted by GizmoDVD

You guys just need to sticky a thread that has all these answers "where is x review, why did x get reviewed and not x".

My favorite is always "why did you review x and not y? y is a better movie then x!"

the threads still happen, just like wtb threads in bd exchange, so it'd really not matter. we could have a "post in here to ask where x review is and get $20 free" or some shit (no, don't ask, won't happen), and people would still create "where's X review" threads.

on that note, let's merge a few, just to show there'll still be more made.

also, brad, surprised you didn't comment on the screener situation for this title like you did in the other thread. much more appropros.

[GizmoDVD]

Originally Posted by project-blu

the threads still happen, just like wtb threads in bd exchange, so it'd really not matter. we could have a "post in here to ask where x review is and get $20 free" or some shit (no, don't ask, won't happen), and people would still create "where's X review" threads.

on that note, let's merge a few, just to show there'll still be more made.

also, brad, surprised you didn't comment on the screener situation for this title like you did in the other thread. much more appropros.

I made a few comments regarding screeners. Was it "that this site didn't get TF2 (like many others)" or "why did you review x and now y"? Very few people even read this feedback forum (which is a shame) while just about everyone and their monster are probably reading the various TF2 ones.

[kaliphonia]

Originally Posted by Josh Z

The movie is ridiculously long

AGREED!

It actually wasn't too bad though - and I was quite happy with the transfer... although I thought things seemed a bit more "CGI-y" to me than the first one. Of course, I haven't watched the first one on my projector yet, so it's possible that the increased PQ of my projector vs. my TV is to blame.