|
|
Posted by Jay G. on 04/12/07 00:59
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:11:31 -0400, boodybandit wrote:
> "Jay G." <Jay@tmbg.org> wrote in message
> news:jb8puqh15dlb$.pki96luuc5dr.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:12:21 -0400, boodybandit wrote:
>>
>>> "Jay G." <Jay@tmbg.org> wrote in message
>>> news:12e8e15jtssug.1uzqdp27j3mba.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 08:14:18 -0400, boodybandit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Wake me when the price of the movies drop to a reasonable price range.
>>>>> I can't see paying $25 to 30 bucks for something I most likely will
>>>>> only watch once.
>>>>
>>>> What's the point of buying a movie that you're likely to only watch
>>>> once,period?
>>>
>>> I hardly ever purchase movies at all.
>>
>> So why are you complaining about the purchase price? As far as I know,
>> rental costs are the same.
>
> Exactly my point.
No, it's not, you're point was:
"Wake me when the price of the movies drop to a reasonable price range."
Considering that the "reasonable price range" here is "less than the cost
of a rental" and even *then* you might not buy it, I don't see how the cost
of the discs factors in to your decision to not buy in the HD formats.
> I think it's a waste of money to purchase a movie that I can simply
> see on cable a month or two down the road.
That argument holds for DVDs as well, yet I assume you bought a player for
that format.
> Unlike shit for brains MP I could care less about it
> being 1080p or 720p. Regardless if it's true HD, 1080i or 720p.
I don't think that MP was arguing over resolution. Cable and satellite are
notorious for overcompressing digital HD signals, so what you're getting
over your cable is not near the same quality as the HD disc formats, even
if both are in the same resolution.
-Jay
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|