Back To The Future W/S Framing Issues Here- (1 Viewer)

[Ted___________H]

I don't think the average Joe will be able to tell the difference between this and the VHS.


Does the P&S version have the same flaws?

 

[Kenneth Cummings]

Dangit, I was wanting to get Back to the Future after Christmas, but now I have to wait. Thanks for scaring....*sigh*

 

[TonyD]

I don't think the average Joe will be able to tell the difference between this and the VHS.


Does the P&S version have the same flaws?

i guess that was supposed to be funny.

 

[Martin Fontaine]

Maybe it's all part of the plan to drop Widescreen...

1. They release both versions and rely on Wal-Mart only stocking P&S to skew the sales numbers.

2. They use the approach "If more than 50% of the population are going to boycott this movie if only released in P&S, then we'll do a Widescren version."

3. Fabricate "Proof" that P&S is better by blatantly misframing a long awaited release so that those that remember seeing the P&S version on TV can be fooled into believing that P&S is in fact the better version.

Since I'm not buying it Tuesday as it has a big chance of being under the tree, I have about 1 week longer to see if a replacement program will be instated.

 

[Nick Graham]

I honestly cannot believe this. WHY? WHY? WHY?!?!?!
Universal says the transfers were "filmmaker approved", did Gale or Zemeckis actually oversee them? I'm not lashing out here (atleast I am trying not to), as it appears we haven't seen all the info yet, but if all of this is true, I want some personal accountablility from the filmmakers who "approved" the transfer, especially if (as Peter Bracke is saying) Universal uses that as an excuse to not correct the problem. I might be going overboard here, but the original BTTF is the first movie I have memory of seeing as a child, and the film that started my love affair with movies to begin with. What's worse, I LOVE the sequels, and hold them as dearly as the original.

If this all turns out to be true, shame on everybody who had a part in it. The fact we all had to learn about it less than two days from the street date is a testament unto itself on the general greed and disrespect to the fans of the BTTF series this little fiasco exemplifies.

 

[MarcinL]

Damn This!!!

I hate to say this, I hate to say it, but I visited the website and it looks like PAN&SCAM is actually better for this movie than Widescreen, Damn this, and the scope that it was directed in. and the damn error is DVD making, But I hate PAN&SCAM so I will buy widescreen anyways, but it looks to me like its messed up big time part 2 and 3

 

[Thomas H G]

THis is just ludacris.

Which makes me want to throw dem 'bows.

 

[Trevor Harrison]

I saw that Harry Potter was on MovieCentral in pan and scan, and popped in the DVD, and played them in perfect sync, and noticed the widescreen (2.35) was soft matted. It seems thats they also shot that movie in 1.35.

if I hadn't done the compareson, I would have never noticed.

in watching both at the same time. I prefer the Widescreen it looks better.

I have decided I will just wait for X-mas for Widescreen BTTF from my sister instead also buying the full frame version.

I have 1 and 2 on VHS off of Movie Central anyways (when is BTTF3 ever on in Canada?). Since I am super tight for money (on perment Disability) I iwll just ask for the widescreen for Xmas.

 

[Seth_S]

If anything, this debacle proves that "filmmaker approved transfer" means absolutely nothing; Universal probably paid Gale and Zemeckis for their approval.

 

[Dave Moritz]

I am glad I heard about this problem before I went out and bought the dvd. My neighbor is looking to buy this movie also. I would not hold my breath for Universal to replace any bad transfer. They are obvisouly going to go full steam ahead and release the 3 movie set. Even though there is a framing problem on there DVD's. If it is true that the transfers are incorrect I doubt Universal will do anything but say, oh well just buy it again if you dont like the messed up framing. Also I am wondering if they messed up the framing what else is messed up on the DVD? Makes me wonder if the surround track is messed up as well? Sounds like Universal just did a piss poor job on the transfer. I will be informing my neighbor about the framing problem and recomend that he waits to buy it! I will wait to buy it as well and I hope Universal can get there act together by Feb. 2003.

 

[NickFoley]

There are other movies than can be bought with $40 bucks on Tuesday. I like many other people will take the wait and see approach to the situation.

 

[SvenS]

Let's all hope that we here some kind of official word soon...

I can guarantee that there will be no announcement until at least after the holidays because they wouldn't want to hurt holidays sales of this boxset by putting out info that the DVD's are defective in any way!

 

[Dave H]

I have decided I am going to hold off. I want to know for a FACT that parts II & III will be corrected and I don't think it's worth spending the money now and waiting weeks or months for the replacements. The way I look at it, the $36.00 cost of the set is really just for part I since the others are worth nothing to me being flawed, and I don't think part I is worth that much money. My sister was going to get me this for Christmas, so now I have to think of something else.

 

[David Lambert]

Guys, keep in mind that as this framing issue comes to light, the copies have already long left the warehouses and are likely sitting in many stores' backrooms since Friday, or are in holding areas at FedEx or Airborne or whoever waiting for drop-ship on Monday or Tuesday morning (depending on delivery agreement the retailer signed with Universal).
No way to stop this from streeting on Tuesday, short of a massive recall that will result in bad PR for Universal. No way Uni will generate that (would you, in their shoes?).
Certainly not over this subject, which not everyone will notice or care about.
So rest assured, IMHO, that no acknowledgement of the problem will occur until after Tuesday (and perhaps as late as after Christmas), and that certainly no replacement offer will be known in any detail until after the first of the year (they need time to formulate such a strategy).
Buy on Tuesday, or don't. Yes, failing to buy the WS copies on Tuesday will make P&S a clear winner. :frowning: Yes, it won't make a huge dent in Uni's profits.
Keep in mind, too, when you ask "how could Uni let this happen?": Uni and their parent, Vivendi, have had MASSIVE finanicial troubles this past few months. Layoffs and accusations (in Europe) of Enron-type book-cooking. Etc. So certainly something like this could be overlooked: with financial trouble, quality control is the first thing to be cut back on.
I'm not trying to defend Uni (I'm the last person who would do that!); but understanding the situation doesn't hurt, either.

 

[Joseph Bolus]

So ... Let's see if I've got this straight:

On the Back to the Future Trilogy WS Boxset that will be released on Tuesday:

* The 1.85:1 WS presentation of the original BTTF film is fine.

* The 1.85:1 WS framing for the BTTF 2 and BTTF 3 is seemingly the 1.33:1 P&S versions matted for widescreen?? Is that correct? That's the reason there is so much more information presented in the WS LD editions of these movies, right?

I'm a big enough fan of the original movie that I'm going to go ahead and purchase this set on Tuesday. But I'm bitterly disappointed in this release which had been delayed at least three times since the DVD format premiered in Fall 1997.

 

[fredi wiesner]

The hole thing is a plot to go BTTF and use LD's again.
:b :b

 

[Josh Simpson]

What I don't understand was wasn't this noticed in Ron's or Bracke's dvdfile.com reviews? Not knocking either of these guys, I loved the reviews. It just seems strange that no one seemed to notice it was P&S matted to widescreen, especially since people are SO familiar with every bit of these films. (Though I guess Bracke did say he wasn't as familiar with these films as some).

 

[ChrisPi]

color me dissapointed....
I really want this series! I may just get the WS versions now, and give 'em to my parents when the fixed version comes out (as much as it pains me to do so). I think I'll get my sister the P&S versions for my sis, since she'll be watching them on a 21" tv anyway....
I'm really bothered by this whole fiasco.
if it was only 1 or 3 scenes, then I'd suck it up....but all of movies 2 and 3?! That's just insane.
2 very big from me on this one.
It's like finding out the woman of your dreams is like "L-o-l-a Lola." :frowning:

 

[Nate Anderson]

Okay, I just went over Ron's reviews again and I looked closely at the screen shots for II and III and everything seems to be all right. Has anybody actually seen a R1 DVD of this, or are we all freaking over nothing?

 

[Bryan Tuck]

This is weird. When you have an open-matte film you simply take the 1.37:1 print ratio and matte it to 1.85:1. No moving around the frame is necessary. The hard-matted F/X shots should be centered on the print, so none of it should be a problem. It's hard to believe that with all the work that went into remastering the films and preparing the discs, and the involvement of Gale and Zemeckis, no one noticed this. Maybe it was simply an authoring goof.
At any rate, I'll probably write Universal about this; after the customer relations mess with E.T, they would be very wise to offer replacement discs.

Has anybody actually seen a R1 DVD of this, or are we all freaking over nothing?

Had that thought, too. I guess we'll see. If so, well.... :b sorry for the rant