Oh well - I will still wait for a desent combo player that will hopefully have hte ability to be upgraded as each format upgrades itself in time....

Bah! Curse you Paramount and your HD exclusivity!!

NOW THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE.

no floating heads.
no big celebrity mugs staring you down so that you can't finish your meal.
no cast list to impress all the morons that only see films based on who's in them.
and best of all, no dumbass "edge of your seat" critic blurbs to convince people that can't form opinions without checking rotten tomatoes.

...To make money off of suckers?

it looks kind of ugly. i'll still buy it though. it's what's on the inside that counts.

Interesting artwork like the "Snuff" artwork Blue Underground put out a few years ago.

Fabulous artwork - I love it, HD DVD for me

Didn't see the movie, so I don't really understand the artwork, but it's pretty damn bold of them to go with that design, so kudos to them.  I've always been a champion of interesting artwork.

Great job.

 I wish I held off buying the c**ppy first release, I'll probably cave and buy this since it's among the 3 best films of '07.

I love the art, but anyone else think the concept is a little too much like Se7en?

Atlast i can comment on the cover, i wanted to comment on it in DVDEmpire but i had no way... the cover has to be the sleekest cover ive seen all year.

by the way the DVDEmpire provided us with the cover before dvdactive, just thought i let you know.

I was probably going to but this anyway, but that cover art made it a sure thing.  That is awesome.

Although, it would be cool if that art was on the cardboard sleeve and on the actual plastic case was one of the Zodiac's cyphers or something like that.

Yes, an O-Ring/Slipsleeve would've been a good idea, I believe as well.

Wow, That is some nice coverart. Best movie of the year so far (until I see No Country for Old Men. Cant wait to see the features too.

Love The Artwork, but I Think an Added Slipcase Would Be Perfect For It

That artwork is effin incredible! Much love to the package designers right now!

At least the artwork's pretty damn nifty.

Brad Pitt wrote: ARGH!!! IS THIS GOING TO BE ANOTHER AMARY CASE!!!! F**K U Paramount!!! CHANGE IT TO DIGIPACK PLEEEEEEEZ!

Are you mental? lol.Digipacks are the spawn of the devil.They're almost as bad as the dvd snapper cases.I've never had a digipck that wasn't bashed when I bought it.Amaray cases for everyhting I say

ARGH!!! IS THIS GOING TO BE ANOTHER AMARY CASE!!!! F**K U Paramount!!! CHANGE IT TO DIGIPACK PLEEEEEEEZ!

that may be the best artwork I've seen all year. can't wait for January!

We all knew this was coming. Glad I waited.

Lucky everyone who held out.
I rented this but have not watched it yet.
5 minutes longer is nothing, so SCREW YOU PARAMOUNT!

Garrett TheMovieGuy wrote: I wish one format would win soon. Im tired of people getting hostile about these things.
True although I'm not convinced either format is going to "win." That said, I do have a problem with the backers of one format paying off a studio to stop being neutral. Let consumers make the decision based on the strengths & the weaknesses of each respective format. Corporate bribery doesn't sit real well with me regardless of where it happens.
I've got to say at this point I'm pretty happy with my up-converting region-free Oppo....at least until I upgrade my TV to something big & 1080p.
As for ZODIAC, yeah, easily one of the best films of the year and probably Fincher's best movie. Anyone who owns a SE for any Fincher movie not named THE GAME know how truly special those DVD sets are. Fincher gets what movie fans want out of a DVD. Looking forward to this set.

Yesssss!!!!!
So glad I waited!
This was a great film, I didn't want it to end. It was one of the few times in the past several years that I was glad that a movie had a long running time.
A definite buy for me.

Nick402 wrote: Whew. Thank god I put off buying the original version.

Garrett TheMovieGuy wrote: I wish one format would win soon. Im tired of people getting hostile about these things.
Yeah, it's very annoying. I own a PS3 and I could very easily start buying movies on Blu Ray. I choose not to because I refuse to pay twice as much fora movie. I can get the DVD when it comes out for about $15, whereas the Blu Ray and/or HDDVD costs about $30. I have a Samsung HDTV and I rented the movie Speed on Blu Ray just to see why so many people are speaking so highly of HD movies. I can honestly say it's not worth it to me. Maybe I'll start buying HD movies when the prices go down, but I refuse to pay the prices they're charging right now. It's just not worth it to me. I'm perfectly fine buying DVDs for now.

I have been waiting for the DC.  I wonder who will be producing the dVD extras.  Only 5 minutes longer for teh DC?!  hmmm.

nefilim wrote: lee09 wrote: p.s Lets face it, Blu is already a dead format, to have Paramount a major motion picture company drop on Blu-ray, it is saying something. Blu-ray is a flaw.

we all know whats the deal with paramount, don`t we ? but you could explain how blu-ray is flaw, to us who haven`t made up our minds about next gen players, or it seems you just had $ for one player and that was HD-dvd ...

lol, no i actually own both players. But anyhow, you want facts? You may want to check out DVDTown and look at their headlines.




movieguy85 wrote: Is that a long enough list for you? Like I said, I own both Blu-Ray and HD DVD and I can honestly say that it has been my experience that HD DVD offers consumers the best overall package for the least amount of money. From the day it was launched, HD DVD has had its act together, which is more than I can say for the Blu-Ray Association. What the BDA is doing now is merely spinning their webs of propoganda to get consumers to believe that the higher cost of the players mean a better product, which in this case, I'm sad to say, is very far from the truth.

Psssttt see... HD DVD is the way to go, this people just cant take it in. Thank you though

TheMacLennan wrote: lee09 wrote:

p.s Lets face it, Blu is already a dead format, to have Paramount a major motion picture company drop on Blu-ray, it is saying something. Blu-ray is a flaw.

Are you serious? Do you read the news or just make wild assumptions based on no fact at all? Paramount Dreamworks got paid off by the HD-DVD camp because Blu-Ray was out selling them almost 3-1. Word has it Microsoft had their hand in the money. The contract for exclusivity ends in 1 year, I will bet you money Blu-Ray wins when companies stop messing with the market and just let it decide for itself, because it has already decided on the superior blu-ray.

I read alright, i just dont have so 'much' time in my hands to go deeper into that you just mentioned. So what? If HD DVD camp payed Paramount? I will always back HD DVD, mainly for the mere fact that Ive never had any trouble with it, now if you look at my Blu-ray from Samsung costing me 799, it dropped the image/lagged the motion of films, and i have changed it twice now. There has also been a major flaw from Blu-ray coming from the first Sony Blu-ray player, it would not even play Pirates Of The Caribbean even with the latest firmware uploaded. Go to YouTube and see what i mean.


p.s I had to go back and add this up because i hate it when people argue to support a format that it really is bogus... you remember saying that HD DVD Camp payed Dreamworks? Here you go kid...

http://www.dvdtown.com/news/microsoft-we-did-no...

Thanks Movieguy.

It's much easier to expand on an existing technology than create a new one. The first DVDs weren't exactly steller, flipper discs anyone? Dodgy non-anamorphic transfers maybe? What about Snapper cases?

I'm mostly annoyed about Blu-ray regional coding than anything else BD related, which I appreciate regional coding isn't considered an issue in The States. It's a big thing to Europeans.

5 mins is a bummer for me, but the extras will more than make up for it.  Might ebay my theatrical cut, or just hang on to it.

acrophobe wrote: SYNTAXerror wrote: can someone please tell me if it's so cheap, then why is the media (the actual HD DVD) so expensive
because it's HD-DVD, and people are suckers. they'd charge $250 per dvd if people would pay it.

That made no sense.

SYNTAXerror wrote: I have one serious stab against HD DVD though.  

I heard all this stuff about it being the cheaper format to produce and what not making it ideal for studios to side with, etc etc, well can someone please tell me if it's so cheap, then why is the media (the actual HD DVD) so expensive, and at times $5 more than BluRay (and I'm not talking about the awful combo's here, and this is from Amazon and Best Buy).  I want to support a HD format and I love having them, but this just seems fishy to me...


Which titles other than combos? Everywhere I look, I notice that the prices of both are about the same. In fact, New Release HD's are usually cheaper than Fox's and Lionsgate's BDs. The only titles that are dirt cheap on BD are the ones they came out with around launch time which were on BD-25s and had MPEG-2 compression...

SYNTAXerror wrote: can someone please tell me if it's so cheap, then why is the media (the actual HD DVD) so expensive
because it's HD-DVD, and people are suckers. they'd charge $250 per dvd if people would pay it.

Bradavon wrote: Tom wrote: Sorry - yeah a HD DVD release same day. Not got the specs for that though yet.
Thanks Tom. Sweet!

TheMacLennan wrote: The contract for exclusivity ends in 1 year
Is this fact? I didn't know that.

No it's not. More rumors the BDA spread that the CTO of Paramount has denied. There is no time restriction on the contract, however I'm sure it's stated that Paramount can withdraw from it if they see fit.

nefilim wrote: lee09 wrote: p.s Lets face it, Blu is already a dead format, to have Paramount a major motion picture company drop on Blu-ray, it is saying something. Blu-ray is a flaw.

we all know whats the deal with paramount, don`t we ? but you could explain how blu-ray is flaw, to us who haven`t made up our minds about next gen players, or it seems you just had $ for one player and that was HD-dvd ...

Both BD and HD have their flaws, there's no doubt about it. But the big difference is,
1. Blu-Ray promises a lot but delivers little.
2. HD DVD players now cost around $220 while the cheapest Blu-Ray player is twice that.
3. Blu-Ray offers none of the advanced interactive features HD DVD does.
4. When Blu-Ray Java is finally launched to compete with HD DVD's interactivity, if you're stuck with a Blu-Ray player that does not support it (which most of them currently don't) you will have to buy a new player to get access to those features.
5. Their catalog discs leave much to be desired in the way of picture quality. I own both formats and can tell you that older films on HD DVD tend to look a hell of a lot better than older films on Blu-Ray.
6. Blu-Ray discs do not support combo functionality which means that you cannot take your Blu-Ray disc and play it on a standard DVD player, unlike the current Combo releases that are available. A lot of people hate the combo discs because they say "I've got HD, why do I want to watch the standard def version?" Well, it comes in really handy if you're visiting family who don't have an HD DVD player or you lend the movie to a friend. I've actually found this feature a nice little added bonus.
7. Blu-Ray does not offer web-enabled features like HD DVD does. And thanks to the mandatory building code of HD DVD players, all must have an ethernet port, which means that even if you bought the first generation player, it is still fully-compatible with the special web-enabled features that Universal, Warner, and Paramount has started including on their discs.

Is that a long enough list for you? Like I said, I own both Blu-Ray and HD DVD and I can honestly say that it has been my experience that HD DVD offers consumers the best overall package for the least amount of money. From the day it was launched, HD DVD has had its act together, which is more than I can say for the Blu-Ray Association. What the BDA is doing now is merely spinning their webs of propoganda to get consumers to believe that the higher cost of the players mean a better product, which in this case, I'm sad to say, is very far from the truth.

Fincher and Co were forced by Paramount to release SOMETHING for Zodiac, since the special features were not done. They reluctantly released a single disc DVD of just the film and have been promising this since, well, the DVD came out.

This is probably Fincher's best film. It's been hard waiting for this extended cut.

A definite buy for me, although I'm surprised only 5 minutes longer.  Regardless, the amount of special features added to this release makes it worth it.

This movie was fantastic. But I highly doubt a few minutes extra will really alter my universe. Im going to stick with the one disc I purchased. Thank you Paramount for sucking every cent you can out of the public.

I'm buying the HD-DVD. As I mentioned before, my second favorite movie of the year.

Bradavon wrote: Are we to assume an HD-DVD is also coming?


Sorry - yeah a HD DVD release same day. Not got the specs for that though yet.

I liked the movie. I knew a double dip was coming...
I have to ponder this...keep what I have or get the 5 minutes of extra footage and 2 commentaries..I hardly listen to the commentaries, but still someday I could..
This for me has the word "HMMMM" written all over it...
Choices choices
Well I have 31/2 months to decide

Tom wrote: For anyone wondering - the runtime is listed as being 2 Hr. 42 Min which makes it around 5 minutes longer than the theatrical cut.

Thats not much considering the total runtime...Maybe they even recut the film.

pitdeadite wrote:  This should've been released simultaneously with the single disc version. I didn't even know there was going to be a 2-disc special edition, until I bought the single disc and saw they're advertisement for it. "Zodiac: Director's Cut coming out next year."

I hate when they do that

Are we to assume an HD-DVD is also coming?

These single disc to re-releases windows are getting shorter. That really isn't on and someone should mention something. I've no problem with them per say but when the window is a reasonable one. These are pure cash ins which shouldn't be allowed.

For anyone wondering - the runtime is listed as being 2 Hr. 42 Min which makes it around 5 minutes longer than the theatrical cut.