Why do people buy DVDs?

In a word, yes. Partially this is just me -- like I muttered in my bad movie essay, while I'm not a filmaholic per se, what I like I tend to love, thus the DVD purchases (and videotaping and so forth). I don't watch the same movie everyday, like I don't like to the same music everyday -- but you get that itch, and there you go. :-)

I don't know, dammit - it's a slippery slope from liking and then owning to QUOTING and BORING. Nobody sits round in pubs and quotes cool lyrics (OK, untrue, but rarely do they), whereas many a fool sits around in pubs and quotes cool bits from films in a way which is to a greater or lesser degree more uncool than the original film was. DVDs with their horrible edit facilities increase the ability to do this.

Also DVDs encourage directors etc. to get precious about their ART rather than see it as the cranked-out eyefodder is generally is. As a rule the more entertainingly middlebrow the original film (i.e. Bladerunner), the greater the cult of wank that will surface post- release and on Director's Super DVD Specials etc. thus completely ruining said entertaining original.

As an avowed cinema buff I do not understand owning films at all. I tend to dislike even watching films on video. Its all a medium thing, I I like the immersion theory of cinema, the big dark room (be it full of screaming kids or containing me and a tramp keeping himself warm). To give a film a fair shake of the stick those distractions have to be removed.If I really like a film on TV or video I usually cannot rest till I see it in the cinema to confirm if it actually is any good. (Like I did with John Sayles "Lone Star").

This leves me with the scenario tha most of my mates don't ask me to go watch videos at their place (cos odds are I've seen the film), and the films I do occasionally see are usually ones I missed - because I didn't fancy them. There are films which positively work in the slagging off group dynamic of video watching - but as Ned would probably agree - these are bad films (stuff like Stigmata, End Of Days and Double Jeopardy spring to mind of recent examples). And would I want to own such a dud - even to see the director try and justify the nonsense.

So the only reason to own a DVD is for the extra's, and the extra's are interesting to someone like me - but only for films I really like. Then only in an anal film studies sort of way. And once I've seen a documentary piece on the making of a film I will not need to see it again. Its a thing to own, something to prove how much you like a film rather than the role that music plays (which to be fair the music industry often play down) of background noise.

I don't own any hardware so I haven't bought movies in a while, but if I had a DVD player I would start buying things up. I've recently acquired the habit of watching films multiple times, even when rented - usually ones I like, just to get more out of them, understand them better. Owning them makes this all easier - I think it's like books in a way. I don't use most of mine all that often but find it beneficial to be able to jump up and get them, reference them, whenever. The same with movies; e.g. I often want to re-watch the lunch scene in _Hannah and Her Sisters_ or the pot-argument in _Eyes Wide Shut_. Also, buying DVDs is a way to see movies unavailable in my area (which is many of them).

Or the war room scenes in "Dr. Strangelove" or every single shot of "Citizen Kane" or "The Magnificent Ambersons" (which is probably not on DVD anyway). Speaking of extras, the audio commentary that accompanies the DVD of "Detroit Rock City" is absolutely hilarious, more so than the actual movie.

I do think the best movies often require multiple viewing. I have a DVD player, didn't buy it myself, but I enjoy it immensely, especially after my regular audio cd player pooped out recently. You can play audio cds on DVD players backwards. Now that is cool. And original aspect ratio, so damned important to most great films, is usually reserved on DVD (not always though!) I agree with Tom though about the endless director's cut releases ultimately doing more bad than good.

Oh yeah - thanks Lee. Playing CDs backwards. Maybe I'd get tired of it but I don't think so; if I had a DVD player I'd listen to CDs backward ALL THE TIME.

Owning a video/DVD is so much better than renting. I know it takes a while longer for them to be released to be bought, but thats aginst the point in the long run.

The reason why I have upwards of 150 videos is because I watch them over and over, and I have many of them because I've bought them in sales at HMV for prices in the region of #5. I make a point of watching something like "Grosse Point Blank" and "Beautiful Girls" at least once a month.

Of course, I have a few duds that I thought I was going to like, but ended up being let down by. But, I've never paid full price for one like that.

Okay, I can understand the scholarship end of it, but watching the same movie repeatedly for entertainment purposes escapes me. Why do films fail to hold up to repeated listens unlike records? An aside -- Didn't Brian Eno once try to make a film that was meant to be seen many times (I think you actually had to turn your TV on its side to watch it), with "Thursday Afternoon" as the soundtrack?

The idea of wanting to "own" a piece of art or entertainment that you enjoyed is something I've revised my thinking on. I used to enjoy buying and keeping books, but as I moved from place to place, the time and expense of having to pack them up, ship them, buy more bookshelves, etc. got to be too much. And then of course the tiny places I lived in felt even smaller when packed with books. So, I started giving them away and it felt great. Each of my last three moves I've sold or given away more than 100 books, and I don't regret a one. At this point in my life, it's enough to have the information I've retained in my head.

Well, film is primarily a narrative form, whereas music isn't, and it's generally the case that forms of art in which the narrative is crucial don't really bear up to frequent repeated exposure. If you know what's going to happen next the work loses much of its power.

That's exactly what I was going to say, Richard. Also, don't forget that if there's enough time between viewings, it can still be pretty good; cf. television reruns.

I began thinking like that when I recently moved, Mark - faced with the prospect of lugging lots of heavy boxes around, I ended up selling ($5 for the lot I think?) an enormous stack of old sci-fi stuff from high school that I never intended to read ever again. But once I moved I found that even the stuff I _wanted_ didn't seem that important. Like, do I really need a copy of _Tale of Two Cities_ just because I'd like to read it someday? No. No. No.

In the end, the nub of the matter is does owning stuff make you happy? I can argue about the tons and tons of records which may have been the straw which broke the back of the lift in my flats (you can't trust Schindler Lifts). But I am a library user for books, and as I said before I own no videos (though I own a video player which in a fit of good taste chewed up my flatmates copy of Easy Rider at the weekend).

So I like owning records, on the understanding that I may play them again some time - and on the even more spurious line that I DJ occasionally. I feel comfortable buying a record without knowing if its any good. I would not do that with a narrative form (or at least very rarely) and would feel stupid about buying a book or a film that I had already read/viewed.

All that said, to Josh's point above, I know I am in a very privilged position living in london in as much as I can see pretty much any film when it comes out, and the National Film Theatre and rep cinemas pump out an awful lot of good - ahem - back catalogue.