Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader - quick review (1 Viewer)

[Arild]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway /forum/thread/306710/chronicles-of-...the-dawn-treader-quick-review/30#post_3796285

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I personally would like to know the source of these screen caps, as they may be inaccurate.

 

[Arild]

Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H

I personally would like to know the source of these screen caps, as they may be inaccurate.

The source is exactly what I said it was. The 2.35:1 cap is from the trailer. The BD cap is from the BD. They are not inaccurate.

 

[Mark-P]

I think he means where did they come from. Did you make screen-grabs directly from the Blu-ray or did you find them somewhere else?

Originally Posted by Arild



The source is exactly what I said it was. The 2.35:1 cap is from the trailer. The BD cap is from the BD. They are not inaccurate.

 

[Arild]

Originally Posted by Mark-P


I think he means where did they come from. Did you make screen-grabs directly from the Blu-ray or did you find them somewhere else?

Yes, I did them myself.

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Arild

Apparently, on the Blu-ray format, it is okay to have open matte non-OAR presentations of films. Maximizing the use of screen area with an HD image doesn't seem to draw the same level of ire that occurred with non-OAR presentations on DVD. On BD, filliing the screen up as much as possible is more acceptable than having the film in its proper theatrical aspect ratio.

 

[Mark-P]

In that case. Based on evidence of your screencapture along with this one (scroll to bottom):

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Chronicles-of-Narnia-The-Voyage-of-the-Dawn-Treader-Blu-ray/19648/#Screenshots which demonstrates a comparison shot with zero side-cropping, I'd have to say that the amount of side-cropping varies from shot to shot, and therefore the fact that any compromised shots are in evidence, I'll definitely pass on it until 1) they re-do it properly, or 2) the filmmakers say this was the way they intended the film to be presented.

Originally Posted by Arild



Yes, I did them myself.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S




Apparently, on the Blu-ray format, it is okay to have open matte non-OAR presentations of films. Maximizing the use of screen area with an HD image doesn't seem to draw the same level of ire that occurred with non-OAR presentations on DVD. On BD, filliing the screen up as much as possible is more acceptable than having the film in its proper theatrical aspect ratio.

If the filmmaker's approve it, it's always okay, IMO. The current status of such approval for this release is yet unknown, but logic would dictate they approved it, like Cameron with Avatar. Apted has a commentary on this release. Has anyone listened to it to see if he says anything in this regard?

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway

logic would dictate they approved it, like Cameron with Avatar.

This isn't apparent to me. What makes you say that?

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by cafink


This isn't apparent to me. What makes you say that?

Because it would extremely rare for a new release of this scale to not involve the producer and director, especially when the latter has a commentary, and add to that the fact that Walden Media is historically very involved in their film presentations.

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway




If the filmmaker's approve it, it's always okay, IMO. The current status of such approval for this release is yet unknown, but logic would dictate they approved it, like Cameron with Avatar. Apted has a commentary on this release. Has anyone listened to it to see if he says anything in this regard?

In my book MAR is MAR. I don't care if the filmmakers approve it or not. Not providing the OAR of the film is B.S. Also, Cameron's AVATAR is a different case, because the preferred aspect ratio was at least one of the theatrically released ratios. I didn't agree with the decision to not provide the 2.35:1 ratio;however, thanks to the mentality that the director is always right, I have to put up with Cameron's arrogance. Dawn Treader was never theatrically released in anything but 2.35:1, so releasing it on BD only in 1.78:1 is garbage. Releasing in 1.78:1 is only about filling the screens of peoples displays. Looking at that frame of Aslan and crew on the beach, clearly shows me that this film was composed to be matted to 2.35:1. Removing the mattes does nothing but harm the overall composition by adding a bunch of meaningless information in the form of sky and sand. Any "filmmaker" that would approve of having his composition destroyed like that isn't a filmmaker in my book.

 

[cafink]

Edwin, I agree with you 100%. The weird thing about this case is that the movie could have been shot & released theatrically in 1.85:1 if the director preferred that ratio (as James Cameron did with at least one version of Avatar). That it wasn't suggests that the Blu-ray's 1.78:1 ratio is, at best, a concession to those who just want their screen filled. The HTF membership used to scream bloody murder whenever a theatrical film was released in fullscreen-only on DVD, even when it was open-matte with no appreciable cropping. Remember Cats & Dogs? Or the 2001 Willy Wonka special edition?

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S



Any "filmmaker" that would approve of having his composition destroyed like that isn't a filmmaker in my book.

So Apted, the director of the Up series, if he approved this release is no longer a filmmaker in your book? Bertolucci is no longer a filmmaker in your book? Is this just isolated to aspect ratio disputes, or does it expand to other factors as well? Chaplin recutting his films for re-distribution and withholding the prior versions, for instance? Not a filmmaker too?

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by cafink

Edwin, I agree with you 100%. The weird thing about this case is that the movie could have been shot & released theatrically in 1.85:1 if the director preferred that ratio (as James Cameron did with at least one version of Avatar). That it wasn't suggests that the Blu-ray's 1.78:1 ratio is, at best, a concession to those who just want their screen filled. The HTF membership used to scream bloody murder whenever a theatrical film was released in fullscreen-only on DVD, even when it was open-matte with no appreciable cropping. Remember Cats & Dogs? Or the 2001 Willy Wonka special edition?

I'd like to think that we've matured enough to seek clarification about possible changes being sanctioned by the creators of the work before bringing out the pitchforks.

 

[cafink]

Even if the reframing is sanctioned by the filmmakers, it's a bad decision, for reasons I've already explained. If Apted preferred the 1.78:1 framing, he could have released it that way in theaters. That he didn't do so implies that the reframing is a concession, not a preference. I'm not interested in seeing an image that the director merely "sanctions." I'm interested in seeing the one he originally created & composed.

 

[Brandon Conway]

What if Apted prefers 1.78:1 for home viewing and 2.35:1 for theatrical viewing? What if he were to tell the world he wants to use the real estate of the TV screen to it's maximum without any letterboxing? What if it *is* his preference for home video? This would not be unprecedented. Kubrick, after all, preferred the 1.33:1 versions of his last three films on 4x3 TVs while he preferred the 1.85:1 version theatrically. These are the questions I like to try and get answered first.

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway

What if Apted prefers 1.78:1 for home viewing and 2.35:1 for theatrical viewing? What if he were to tell the world he wants to use the real estate of the TV screen to it's maximum without any letterboxing?

Then I would criticize him for being more concerned about "screen real estate" than about the framing and composition of the picture, just as I would anyone who prefers the pan-and-scan or open-matte version of a movie over the OAR version. Directing the movie does not make him incapable of making bad decisions.


Like you, I look forward to hearing whether he says anything about the issue on the commentary.

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway

What if Apted prefers 1.78:1 for home viewing and 2.35:1 for theatrical viewing? What if he were to tell the world he wants to use the real estate of the TV screen to it's maximum without any letterboxing? What if it *is* his preference for home video?

Even if that were the case, why would he then proceed by cutting of the sides of the picture? I didn't see him lopping off the sides from The World Is Not Enough, or Extreme Measures, or Enigma. It's just an odd thing to do, and frankly, from those comparison pictures, the movie just looks better in 2.35:1.

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway





So Apted, the director of the Up series, if he approved this release is no longer a filmmaker in your book? Bertolucci is no longer a filmmaker in your book? Is this just isolated to aspect ratio disputes, or does it expand to other factors as well? Chaplin recutting his films for re-distribution and withholding the prior versions, for instance? Not a filmmaker too?

If the modified product was inferior to the original suppressed product then, yes, I would not consider the person making the decision to be a filmmaker. In my book, he or she would be an egotistical vandal who destroyed their own work. I don't have to go along with the fiction that decisions a director makes to modify previously released work is their divine right and always the correct ones. Believe it or not, directors are humans who get old and as such they can actually lose their minds, just like us ordinary peons, and start hallucinating that the film they made twenty plus years ago suddenly isn't the film they had envisioned. It's called senility. If a director screws up his film and then demands that the superior cut be suppressed then he or she deserves to be castigated. AFAIAC, a director can fuck up his or her film all they want, just as long as the previous superior version is made available. If the changes a director makes actually do improve the film then the old version should still be made available for viewing because it was the theatrical cut and the theatrical cut should always be available for posterity and for comparative purposes.


In the case of this film, if the ratio on the BD is director approved or preferred then why is it not indicated somewhere on the cover? How expensive could it be to put the words "director approved/preferred version" on the box. Since those words are nowhere to be found on the box or in the release literature, I consider the decision to release this film in a modified aspect ratio to be purely a studio decision without input from the director. The 2.35:1 version looks compositionally superior to the HDTV-friendly version. I don't believe for a minute that the director of this film would consider the addition of dead space to the framing to be his "preferred" version. If he does approve it then I think he has fucked up his film and, yes, I think lower of him as a filmmaker, especially if he demanded that the theatrical ratio be suppressed.

Edit: Had to remove the word theatrical when it comes to the ratio on the BD.

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S

I don't have to go along with the fiction that decisions a director makes to modify previously released work is their divine right and always the correct ones.

Again, I could not agree more. It seems weird to me that we have a forum dedicated to discussion about movies, with no shortage of people trashing films and directors they don't like, but then, on certain issues, the director's word somehow becomes sacred and beyond reproach. If a director includes stupid, childish humor in his movie, he's criticized for it. If he focuses on visuals & special effects to the detriment of the story & characters, he's criticized for it. But any decision he makes about the aspect ratio, or the DVD/Blu-ray presentation is automatically deemed correct by many here. It isn't obvious to me why this should be. Why aren't the other characteristics of the film automatically defended as "part of the director's vision"?