Two words: Enlarged Prostate.😅 j/k Seriously tho dude the movie can be paused when you have a copy of it ... anytime.

😰😰😰

Though the movie was shot in IMAX, the IMAX cropping is not the "director's intended/definitive version" by any means. The standard aspect ratio is still going to look gorgeous. That is how I saw it in theaters and was not disappointed. The IMAX experience is not even going to be transferrable at home. In the IMAX theater, a lot is empty space in your periphery and not even able to be focused on.

@@alexmueller828 All I'm asking for is more image dude, Even Villeneuve said in an interview he was under the impression we were getting expanded ratio for home viewing. I agree it will look great either way, but why would I want less image for those gorgeous shots? I hope you realize I'm not asking for 1.43, just a formatting of the 1.90 ratio, same as for movies such as Tenet, Oppenheimer, etc

@@alexmueller828 that's some top tier shilling right there

who’s going to tell him lmao

Right like you can just pause the movie if you need a break haha

it's called Ebay lol

@@treewisps4085 people are asking over 100 bucks lol 🤣

I got my preorder in pretty recently on Gruv.

@@treewisps4085not with those ridiculous prices

@@TheSymbiot3Venom there cheaper then walmart and bestbuy sometimes lol

The steelbook is sold out on Amazon do you think they will restock? 😬

I paid 90 for mine dude. Sold out everywhere and found one site with 2 left for way more than it should cost. I don't regret it lol

@@johnb.shakoor2352Hopefully they’ll do a reprint.

@@johnb.shakoor2352What’s so special about it you’d pay 90 for it?

Yep me too..paid double the price but heh ..better than used

Same bro I had to get it so I paid 90 for that thing. I had to

That's just a placeholder date, someone is being lazy and hasn't updated the listing.

In most of Europe.

That's good to know, thanks. I have heard that the 4K Kaleidescape version is 89.3GB whereas the version on this 4K is only 70Gb, that seems very strange to me. I had assumed that the special features must be taking up 25GB or something but if you're saying only 6GB then it's even more confusing that the file sizes are so different. So far all the reviews on this 4K's video and audio quality are excellent regardless but it is strange.

@@tigerblue42 I don't have any insight into the process here but having known how some other professional encodes go, there are some targets they might be hitting for other purposes, like allowing for a at-the-time undetermined amount of extras and languages in different markets. Of course there is also the fact that at some point more doesn't equal better, at least not in any human perceptible way. Though I don't know why the Kaleidescape version encode would have been made to have 'more' unless they have some deal that they need a version that is bigger than the disc to help with perceived value of the service. All speculation of course. Reality is we will never know why they do these specific things. If anything, I'm more disappointed by the extras. There aren't many and they are only slightly above EPK. It is a series that deserves almost LOTR level documentation into all the aspects of creating it.

Do you think they will actually do that? Bladerunner is the only Villanueve film they have considered IMAX for.

@@EntertainingRunner-vd3bn they'd be incredibly stupid not to. Physical media lives and collectors love ⊃∪∩⪽.

Blade runner 2042 is from the same director Denis Villeneuve and WB and they didn't include the IMAX format. So I don't think they will do it for Dune

They won’t do that. If they do it will be on Max just like Disney is doing with Disney Plus for their IMAX films.

100% not gonna come as they didn't for dune part 1.

Why not VHS?

@@garyharper2943why not vcd?

​@@busuncle2006why not a 35mm film projector?

@@EntertainingRunner-vd3bn how about 8mm?

Does noone remember Betamax?

Agreed. The only reason to include the different versions is during transitional periods where folks might still have some older players. No point anymore for DVD's with BR or BR with UHD. Only exception would be UHD when they don't have extras on the UHD but do on the BR.

Yeah, I find it strange. I don't know who would buy them, but apparently, they sell really well. They still outsell Blu-ray, which makes no sense to me. Maybe a bunch of physical release buyers are boomers with old dvd players?

went to see the movie in theaters 4 times in one month in multiple formats, the last being the 70mm 1.43:1 full frame and it was almost like seeing the movie for the first time again. While I understnad why they wouldn't release this version, I can still attest that the taller frame makes a big difference, especially in close-ups and wide landscape shots. I've nearly spent 100 bucks on this movie at theaters but refuse to pay for a home release that's far from the complete movie. I agree that it's so frustrating to see black bars on my TV at home when I know there's image to fill those bars, and it's excluded for no discernable reason.

@@peccamecha Exactly. I'm not saying releasing in 1.43 was the right move, changing aspect ratios can be annoying. But why wouldn't you release it in 1.90. The entire film was shot with atleast that ratio and if the framing was good enough for the smaller IMAX theatres why is it suddenly such an issue. Honestly Directors need to get over their attachment to scope. It's not like your getting any extra horizontal image because they're just cropping the top & bottom. It's not like they have some great vision that requires 2.35. They do it because previous directors did & theatres have screens setup that way. But nowadays A movie will be on Tv's for 1000x longer than it's in theatres, why would you make that the compromised experience. And b4 anyone says 1.85 is less cinematic in consumers minds, that hasn't been true since the golden age of Tv started 15yrs ago. And if it was most Imax theatres wouldn't be using a similar ratio, no one accuses them of feeling like a TV show.

Dont worry, you will get to see it, you'll just have to pay again for a movie you already own when they release the IMAX edition.

Long story short, because you don't have an imax cinema at home - it means that imax is not simply an aspect ratio (which in imax's case is not a set aspect ratio - I know what you were thinking but you need to phrase it differently). What makes the movie good is not it's aspect ratio. You could watch it in 4:3 and it would still be a good movie. What makes you think otherwise is the amount of marketing you see. This is the reason why regular cinemas were half empty when imax was booked full (atleast around here.) Watching at home with a different aspect ratio or even in cinema won't make a difference. You see the difference side by side. Or you may notice it on various films when the f. up. Otherwise, you don't lose anything with a proper blu ray release, but you may gain! When the guy says taller is more cinematic.. I say it is subjective or the guy is simply hyped. It's not the aspect ratio that makes a movie cinematic or good, etc. Let's agree on that we all (hopefully) liked the movie :) I don't think the guy in the video is right. I don't think the movie's price is expensive. I'd pay a lot more for it. And you can be sure I'll enjoy it in my home cinema more than I did it in the cinema because I got better sound system. (Sound sucks around here in cinema. Too loud, you can hear distortion..) Imo, they should give instructions to cinemas how to properly screen a movie.

@@moo8698 I'm sorry but you absolutely are losing something by chopping off the top & bottom of the frame. The point I was making was that the film was shot in (atleast) 1.90. The only reason it was ever shown in 2.35 is because that's the aspect ratio of most none Imax cinemas. There is no benefit at all to chopping off chunks of the image. My point isn't that 1.43, 1.90 or 2.35 are any more cinematic, my point is that the best aspect ratio is the one that fills the most of the screen. And clearly the filmmakers agree otherwise they wouldn't have shown the film in different aspect ratios in different theatres. So I think we're pretty justified to be upset that they're throwing away a third of the picture for a completely arbitrary reason. I did love the movie and that's a big part of what annoys me about this. Because the Imax presentation was genuinely better and now no matter how good my home system get's I'll never be able to recreate the film at it's best.

Only 6-7 more years buddy, you can do it 😊

Or maybe not, says in stock, button didn't work to order

Given that Part One was, it is definitely a shame.

The IMAX ratio would put black bars on your TV but on the side. Almost no movies are made in 1.78 HDTV ratio so you should have gotten used to that decades ago.

If you have the attention span of a gerbil, maybe.

IMAX won't fill your screen.

@@lupolinaryou know what they meant lol

@@lvsparrowvl559 They meant that they don't understand what IMAX ratio is and made a dumb comment. Making it 1:78 is not IMAX ratio as is not an aspect ratio the movie was made in.