Another fullscreen disaster: Iceman (1 Viewer)

[PaulaJ]

ARRRRGGGGHHHHH! That is my caveman cry of frustration.

Universal is releasing Iceman (1984 -- Timothy Hutton and John Lone) on DVD on December 28. And (according to Amazon and Link Removed), it will be 4:3.

This movie was filmed in Panavision -- 2:35:1 anamorphic.

WHY? Why do they do this to me??? (And everyone else who wants this DVD.)

No OAR = No sale!

 

[Michael Bailey]

I agree. NO OAR = NO SALE!

 

[Christian P]

NOOOOOOOOOOO! :frowning:
Good thing I haven't sold my LaserDisc yet...

 

[Bryan Tuck]

I read about this a while back. I guess they figured it wouldn't be a huge title, but I would think those would be the ones that they'd want to make sure were presented properly. The few people who are going to buy this film on DVD are probably going to want it presented in the correct aspect ratio. I know I do.

Sorry, Universal. Lost sale.

 

[Bradley-E]

I agree. This title I included under the COLOSSUS, FORBIN thread. It is a scope film that HAS TO be widescreen. But UNIVER$AL does not really care that they are treating their product and the film buffs with NO RESPECT. They should have licensed these titles out if they had no intentions to do any justice with them.

 

[Jay E]

As I posted in the Colossus... thread, go to http://homevideo.universalstudios.com/ and e-mail your complaint about this & other full screen DVDs that Universal is releasing. The more complaints they get, the better the chance that Universal may open it's eyes to their sorry decision.

 

[Patrick H.]

Oh, this is crap. I caught this film on TV when I was a youngster and thought it was intriguing. It'd be an excellent rental candiate, but I won't touch this with a ten-foot pole now. An open-matte flat film I can sometimes rationalize, but hacked Panavision?! Damn them!

 

[TheBat]

Here is a better e-mail address to write to Universal. e-mail address: universalstudios&[email protected]

JACOB

 

[walter o]

this is just so odd, like COLOSSUS, they ALREADY HAVE a widescreen master, plus why do pan and scan on these two, but waste their time releasing widescreen of SPLITTING HEIRS, GHOST DAD, CLOAK AND DAGGER when those titles the fullscreen fans wouldnt mind (as family films to comedy seem to always get fullscreen treatment from mGM for example)

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

This shit never ends does it? It's a shame that this still goes on, and from Universal no less! Well, its not the first time they've done it, Twins and Happy Gilmore to name two. Even though 'HG' was later given proper treatment with the Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison two pack.

Patrick,
you should be equally as upset when an open matte film is not in it's OAR, their is no distinction.

Pan-and-scammed = Destroyed composition.

Open-matte = Destroyed composition.

Don't take any shit from the studios by thinking that one is ok and the other isn't. That's not the kind of message we want to send to them.

 

[Ira Siegel]

Patrick, I have it on good authority that you should not necessarily be upset with an open matte transfer.
In response to my question: "Do you mean John that if a theatrically shown movie was protected for a full frame transfer, it is presented wrong in the theaters?"

John Williamson wrote,
"Ira,
"I assume you mean a film was composed for 1.33:1 but shown at 1.85:1 in theaters? If so than the answer is yes. I would skip that film until I could see it as intended, at 1.33:1.

"I believe in preserving the filmmakers original intent and composition."

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Ira,

sure Patrick should, if he believes in supporting the OAR's of the film's he watches, which I believe he does or he wouldn't have posted, and wants to send the right message to the studios.

What exactly is the difference between an open matte butcher job (and that's exactly what it is) and a pan-and-scan butcher job? None.

NEITHER of them are the intended composition, so what authority are you referring to?

Bottom line, a mis-represented presentation of a film or tv show is just that, a mis-representation. Their is no gray area. I accept absolutly nothing less than the OAR's, I am without waiver on this issue.

 

[Mike_Richardson]

That's absurd. There's a WORLD of difference between a 2.35 movie being cropped for full-screen, and a 1.85 film being opened up to 1.33 without losing any information off the sides.

Granted, I would rather see OAR, but open matte gives you on screen EVERYTHING THAT WAS SHOT originally. You're not missing anything in the frame. If you're that annoyed by the added area on whatever side of the frame (top and bottom most often), you COULD theoretically mask it out with something (construction paper?) to simulate the OAR.

With pan-and-scan, you're MISSING picture information that cannot be recovered in ANY circumstance. Try recovering what was lost there. Sounds like a world of difference to me.

I certainly understand about this forum's foundation and want to see OAR whenever possible too, but please, even the most militant-OAR fan HAS to admit there's a gigantic difference between those two situations.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Mike,

to be honest here, i've read posts like yours above so many times over the past 5 years i've been a member here, it hurts my eyes.

In response to your advice for me masking off the areas myself with paper to achieve the OAR, no sir!

It is not MY responsibility to bend over backwards and simulate something that a studio botched up. I will not give my money to a dvd that isn't presented correctly, to do so tells the studio's that it's alright to give us open matte titles because they assume we'll just fix it ourselves with construction paper.

Nope, it is the STUDIO'S responsabilty to get it right, not ours.

Besides, have you ever tried masking off a 96" screen? That's alot of paper dude!

Seriously though, to buy a dvd in either pan and scan or open matte is to support those vile practices and I would rather find another hobby than do that. Won't happen.

And indeed, I make NO distinction whatsoever (and I KNOW many others here don't either) between the two methods of reformatting a film or tv show to fit a 1.33:1 screen. They're both wrong and they both corrupt what was intended and composed for. You may lose more picture with pan and scan, but you lose composition with open matte, they are both the same crime in my eyes. Same shit, different method.

So no, I don't consider it absurd, I consider it normal practice actually, as an OAR purist.

Mike,
what you and Ira are implying, that one is not quite as bad as the other, is the wrong way to look at the issue. One IS as bad as the other, and yes, it DOES bother me, and if your part of this forum and a lover of movies, which you probably are or you wouldn't post here, it should bother you too.

I KNOW that their are others here that feel the same way I do, will one of you help me out here, please.

NO OAR = NO SALE! That statement can never be truer for me.

 

[Patrick H.]

Whooooa...didn't mean to start a fight here! I said I could "sometimes rationalize" open-matte transfers, not that I ever preferred them! However a film was projected in theaters is, for the vast majority, the way I want to see it on disc. If a filmmaker requests an aspect ratio modification, or protected for variable ratios, those are rare exceptions. From what I understand, Warren Beatty used the whole 1.33:1 frame on 'Dick Tracy,' allowing some vertical room for in-projector mattes. On DVD, that film is 1.78:1 widescreen, and it looks fine. However, if Beatty had requested an open-matte transfer of it, that also would've been fine. Nick Meyer opened up the Super35 frame of 'Star Trek VI' slightly for video, and Paul Verehoven made an on-the-spot decision to broaden 'Robocop' from 1.85:1 to 1.66:1 for it's Criterion disc. (Then there's the whole issue of the Kubrick films, of course, but that's another five threads somewhere.) Like I said, though, these are RARE exceptions. OAR is OAR, I agree with you there John. But, if a studio is going to screw us viewers with a full-screen transfer, unintended by the filmmakers, I can at least watch one that's open-matte. I wouldn't buy it, but I could at least rent it to get the sense of what the film is like. Something pan-and-scanned from 2.35:1, though, is just mutilation, plain and simple.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

It's alright, Patrick, we weren't fighting, it's just a very passionate debate.

On the subject of switching AR's, I don't buy it, never did. It is impossible to compose for two different ratios, either a film is composed for 1.85:1 or 1.66:1, it can't be both. I want the one that came first, meaning the one that was envisioned and conceptualized, drawn-up for story boards and finally composed for by the director and DP for theatrical release.

Yeah, I saw the Robocop CC dvd, the framing looked horrible IMO. The 1.66:1 was obviously not it's intended AR.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Oh man, how to put this... you're nuts!

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

quote...
"...you're nuts!"

Yes I am, Rich, when it comes to this subject, i'm positivly certifiable!

But that doesnt mean what I said isn't valid.

 

[walter o]

so would you buy a DVD if the filmmaker's OAR is fullscreen for a theatrically released film? Just curious, as I am working on a film right now in which the director told me the OAR is fullscreen, as the film was meant for direct sale to TV in the 70's, but he decided to play it theatrically anyway in test markets, but if presented in letterbox, he said it would mask out areas he wanted you to see?.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Walter,

if said film was presented on the dvd in the intended 1.33:1 than absolutely yes, I would buy it.

I would have on the other hand, skipped it's theatrical release if it was indeed masking over intended content in the frame.