I rate them as an entire "package", so I think the score I awarded it was deserved, but I must admit I'll be easier on a disc on the extras front rather than poor audio or video (or film) - all of which are unforgivable imho
Say a film is low budget, so they can't afford to produce extras, generate an stupendous soundtrack or the soundtrack is dialogue heavy with no exploding helicopters etc and is only shot on a DV cam, but is an exceptional film.
Interesting question. From my own personal point of view, regardless of how good the extras, sound and picture quality are, if the movie sucks the big one then I can't justify giving it a good "overall" score. However it doesn't quite work the other way; if a movie is good but presentation is sloppy, it will still get a poor overall mark. BUT, the exception is...if there's an extremely low budget movie - say a 2004 Blair Witch Project - and due to the nature of how it was shot it has a grainy picture etc, but which is an excellent movie, the overall score will take its "budget" roots into account.
Does that make sense? Not sure if I've explained it correctly, but as you can tell from what I've written, it's not straightforward! (scoring can be difficult sometimes).