A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Patrick McCart]

Rosenberg is either a liar or a lunatic. I'm hoping for the latter since I've never seen people at studios be this pathetic.

From what I can find, Gulliver's Travels is owned by Republic, so it's in the package currently licensed to Lionsgate by Republic's parent company Paramount (or Viacom, whichever is the official one).

UCLA holds original film materials, along with tons of other elements to the Fleischer library owned by Republic. This includes original negatives, positives, soundtrack negatives, original nitrate prints, etc. Not just Fleischer, either. It's funny how studios like Warner are proud to mention they were able to restore films from the camera negative, yet even when those prime materials are available they're left on the shelf. I'm fairly sure UCLA restored The Quiet Man years ago, despite the same elderly transfer from the 1980s is all that appears on TV and video. (or was it only preserved?)

 

[Jo_C]

Thank you, Patrick! That's what we want to know. BTW, I'm no liar or lunatic.

 

[iDarren]

Jason, I'm currently reading through your blog, and want to respectfully point out that YOU are at fault in your analysis of FULL SCREEN. FULL SCREEN is a term used to describe an image that completely fits the screen, so in the case of a 16x9 TV FULL SCREEN is 1.78:1, NOT 1.33:1, as you allude.

I'm not saying that Mr. Rosenberg is correct in defending his product, but your analysis of it is also flawed.

You confuse full screen with 1.33:1. They are not one and the same when viewing on a 16x9 TV. And that makes me question your overall analysis, as some of your key starting points and statements on and in which you assess and analyse Mr. Rosenberg's comments are flawed and simply incorrect.

 

[Jason_V]

Which is fine. Then you should also disagree with RAH above, the people over at AVS and the reviews at DVDTalk and DVDBeaver. The fact remains the picture was butchered by Koch and whoever else. The fact remains this is a sub-par release. The fact remains this should be a fullscreen or, if you prefer, 1.33:1 picture.

I find it odd you’re the first person to point this out when I know for a fact people here at HTF and at AVS have read the e-mail’s. I also find it puzzling you have one entire post here…this one.

 

[iDarren]

Think what you want. I am a fairly prolific poster on many HD forums and found this thread via a link from another forum. You might also note that I have been a silent member here since Jun 2008, so please don't start entertaining any conspiracy theories - I am not a Koch "plant".

 

[Jason_V]

I'm entirely too trusting of a guy, but if you say so...rock on.

 

[iDarren]

At least we can AGREE on that.

 

[Fritz Nilsen]

The term "Fullscreen" is commonly used when describing a 1.33:1 or 4x3 image. I would even dare say it is an established term in the industry. Jason is not the one being confused here.

It is odd that Mr. Rosenberg should misinterpret the term "full screen", I wouldn't expect that of someone in his position.

In light of the nature of the ongoing debate, the fact that "iDarren" appears out of nowhere to confuse the issue, is suspect. The "lawyer-speak" phrasing also raises alarms. There are already indications that the studio are using schills to promote this release, and you, "iDarren" must realize you appear as one too. (Justified or not.)

 

[iDarren]

Commonly used - YES. But it also refers to images that FILL a 16x9 set in modern analysis.

Schill - funny schill that says the Blu ray in question is TERRIBLE

 

[Jason_V]

Again, I'm asking for sources.

 

[John Sparks]

Only he knows...and he ain't tellin'!!!

 

[Robert Harris]

The problem here is that a term is being used that has no real meaning, and if it did, that meaning has changed over time.

My suggestion is to eliminate the term "full screen" from the discussion, and be more precise.

Gulliver was created in the classic Academy ratio production, which is 1.37:1, also referred to as 3:4.

It was never a 1.78 film, and to discuss any of this in terms of "full screen" gets you nowhere.

Monitors come in two basic shapes 4:3 and 1.78:1.

Gulliver should neatly fill a 4:3, and should be matted on a modern widescreen monitor.

You're being led into a morass taking you away from the main event. The slight bars that you see on the side are meaningless.

And that's the least of the problems. I would move on.

RAH

 

[Keith Paynter]

"Full Screen" is strictly (or at least very widely considered in the industry) a 4x3 television term, for those who don't like the 'black bars' taking up their screen space. The image is either zoomed and panned & scanned as needed, or in the case of open matte production, exposing unintended areas. "This film has been modified to fit your screen..."

My 16x9 television and BD player is always set to show all programs in their correct aspect ratio. My dad, on the other hand, likes to have his image set to stretch the outer edge. Is that therefore considered full-screen to you?

"Widescreen" and "Anamorphic Enhanced Widescreen" are 2 different beasts. We're still hoping for an AEW version of "The Abyss", not like the current Widescreen version which letterboxes the film within the 4x3 frame, which can give both letterboxing and pillarboxing on a 16x9 set.

Sadly, I've seen studios take 4x3 classic films like "Treasure of the Sierra Madre", and make zoomed 16x9 HD transfers for HD broadcasts - I saw it this way on Treasure HD. Hollywood still lives in fear of the "black bar backlash", regardless of whether the set belonging to the uneducated/unwilling consumer costs $500 or $5000.

 

[Matt Hough]

MGM HD channel did this to THE RED SHOES, and it was maddening to watch.

 

[cafink]

I've seen the term "full screen" used to describe a 1.78:1 image on a 16:9 display as far back as 2000, on Artisan's initial DVD release of Stir of Echoes.

 

[WilliamMcK]

This whole thread has me extremely worried about the future of academy ratio films. I've been toying with subscribing to MGMHD, but after reading that they butchered The Red Shoes, I'll pass. I guess the problem is that the average viewer is not concerned with the aesthetics of what they're watching (and this isn't meant as some kind of elitist put-down... we all have our various passions... for the average viewer, movies are entertainment of the boredom-killing variety--and there's nothing wrong with that). I suppose it's possible that a company or network (such as Turner) could sponsor an education blitz that explains to the viewer how films come in all different shapes and sizes, and that one shouldn't expect a properly shown movie to truly fill a 16x9 screen (except in rare cases: but I, for one, advocate the very slight opening up of open-matte 1.85 film to 1.78--as long as there's no cropping; but I realize I could get horse whipped for this in certain circles ;-)). The problem with the education campaign (and I'm thinking of something along the lines of an update of TCM's "letterbox" short) is that I think it would fall on deaf ears.

I'd like to think that when TCM eventually broadcasts in HD that they will continue to show films in the correct ratio regardless of where the "black bars" may fall (but I assume MGMHD is run by the same people who run TCM... so I'm more than a little nervous).

 

[Jo_C]

To toy with this even further...TCM once aired "On The Waterfront" at a 1.85:1 ratio, but Columbia's recent DVD release made it clear that it was shot and intended for 1.33:1 Academy ratio. Count me as one person who won't be buying the new "Gulliver's Travels" blu ray issue...

 

[WadeM]

Which just makes it that much more maddening that we don't have a good release, and have had to settle with trying to pick the best of the worst.

Outside of WB, I hate the lack of treatment for Fleischer.

 

[Patrick McCart]

The situaion with the Republic library licensed by Lionsgate is terrible.

You now how The Quiet Man has an absolutely terrible DVD? UCLA apparently restored and preserved the film years ago from the original negatives and other elements. High Noon is the only film out of this library that has been remastered and it's only because it was for a R2 Paramount DVD. That was the basis for Lionsgate's 2-disc SE. I'm guessing no one has gotten around to a new transfer of The Quiet Man since it's just as ugly in R2.

 

[WadeM]

Don't even get me started on The Quiet Man. I expect a pristine Blu-ray one day. I find it amusing that in the front of Leonard Maltin's Classic Movie Guide he lists The Quiet Man as one of the movies that he "wants to call your attention to...that have been given the kind of special presentation they deserve." Ha! It's the worst DVD I've ever seen!