Sermon said:
One would think that Universal (who do have a great back catalogue of great TV-series) would actually put a lot more care into their releases, but they're clearly only in it for the money.
Sermon, I agree with your basic point, though I'm going to quibble over some phrasing just for the heck of it.
Of course Universal is in it for the money. All companies, whether studios or not, are in it for the money. I'm not expecting Universal to run a charity operation.
But Warner Bros. is also in it for the money. And what they do? They release a "Wizard of Oz" box set that's so comprehensive, it includes all previous filmed versions of the story. When it's time to release old Hanna-Barbera cartoons, they contact the fans to try to track down some old footage that they know exists but that they don't have in their archive. They include linking segments from the cartoons, some of which are being seen in color for the first time
ever.
Warner's gets Joel Schumaker to record a commentary for the travesty that is "Batman and Robin," actually
apologizing for the wreck he made of the movie.
Warner's is releasing a Superman box set in June, which includes the original theatrical cuts of all the movies, Richard Donner's director's cut for Superman II (as opposed to Richard Lester's theatrical cut, which is the released version), etc., etc. All in all, the box set is crammed with so many goodies, it runs
16 discs long.
Universal is in it for the money. So is Warner's. But Warner's realizes that the way to make money is to give the consumer a quality product. And this is precisely why Warner's
will get my money. And why Universal won't.