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

[Brandon Conway]

Confirmed as Apted's decision:



Quote:MattH

My review will go up later tonight, but Michael Apted in the commentary does indeed mention that he altered the aspect ratio to give the film a more intimate feel for an at-home audience. So, the aspect ratio is his idea and with his blessing.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/310193/first-major-blu-ray-release-to-have-a-mar/30#post_3798617

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by cafink



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"?

There's a vast difference between defending a Director's right to present their work as they see fit, and personally liking those choices. If Michael Apted wanted to remove Reepicheep from narnia altogether and replace him with a talking owl I would defend his right to do so for his film even if I thought it was the worst possible choice. I have the right to not like it and spend my money elsewhere if I so choose.


As far as the compositions of VDT are concerned, I've yet to read of anyone who has watched the Blu-ray and done a comparison to every shot in the trailer. So far we have one that is not cropped on the sides and one that is. No review has stated the framing is overly cramped yet. Since Apted made this decision himself it seems logical to assume that he approved all the shot compositions in 1.78 just as he did for 2.35.

 

[Mark-P]

That's all I was waiting to hear. Now that I know he purposely recomposed the imagery for this aspect ratio, I support it and will buy the Blu-ray.

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway

Confirmed as Apted's decision:



http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/310193/first-major-blu-ray-release-to-have-a-mar/30#post_3798617

 

[Arild]

Bah... So why, then, didn't he release it that way in theaters? If this is to "make the viewer feel closer to the film" or whatever when watching it on TV, I guess he's making the assumption that it's 1990 and everyone has teeny tiny TV sets. Regardless, I'm actually disappointed that Apted approved this, because it means that most likely we'll never see a proper OAR release.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Well, I can't speak for Apted, but I know Cameron's reasoning was to use up the most screen real estate in each version of the presentation. Perhaps Apted felt that 2.35 did that theatrically (and made the theatrical presentation "more intimate") while 1.78 does that better at home. Apted is a filmmaker that has had more experience with TV than theatrical product, after all, so his opinions may be biased towards that presentation.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Dirty li'l secret from the wonderful world of film exhibtion: since most megaplexes ae constant image width rather than height, scope optics in these salons actually appear sharper, since a flat image is blown up to larger than the scope; smaller overall real estate on film print blown up to larger than print that uses all reasonably available real estate = you get the picture. Both Apted and another director fond of digital shooting are aware of this (Robert Rodriguez), so they both chose to open up the frame for home releases. Granted, this is becoming less important as digital cinema becomes more common, but it may have been a consideration here.

 

[Edwin-S]

Making sure that you fill a TV screen to eliminate black bars is now called "making the film more intimate for home viewing" instead of "this film has been modified to fit your TV screen". Now, the decision to not include theatrical ratios along with MAR'd films is actually being defended on a forum that used to be all about recreating the theatrical experience at home . How times have changed. No wonder this place is dying.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S

Making sure that you fill a TV screen to eliminate black bars is now called "making the film more intimate for home viewing" instead of "this film has been modified to fit your TV screen". Now, the decision to not include theatrical ratios along with MAR'd films is actually being defended on a forum that used to be all about recreating the theatrical experience at home . How times have changed. No wonder this place is dying.

You're completely twisting the situation. Rightly or wrongly, the director has decided to alter the aspect ratio rather than the studio relasing a MAR disc because they didn't want to bother with the OAR. The fact that the director made the call is most likely why many don't seem to mind. That being said, if you want to think you're the only person who cares and the rest of us are all ignorant swine, have fun.

 

[Edwin-S]

I really don't care that it was the director's decision to do this. The fact of the matter is that this disc does not contain the theatrically released ratio and this forum used to be all about the presentation of films as they were seen in the theater. It pissed me off that Cameron did not put the 2.35:1 version of Avatar out on the BD home release. It also pisses me off that Tron: Legacy was released with only the "IMAX" version of the film; however, at least the BD releases of those films contained some version of the film that was actually seen theatrically. This one doesn't. This release contains only a modified version that never saw the inside of a theatre. Whether it was approved by the director or not doesn't matter a whit to me. If he wants this piece of shit composition out there, fine. However, the theatrical ratio should also be on there, because it was the only ratio that was originally used. Now we have a director telling us that we cannot even see the actual theatrical film if he so wishes and there are people here that are actually defending that? If you or Brandon are fine with that then that's your business and you're welcome to it. I don't agree with the view that the stupid decision of a director should always be deferred to just because he was the director.


Also nowhere did I refer to anyone on here as an "ignorant swine" or even infer that people here were "ignorant swine". I also don't think that I'm only that cares. I have read comments on here from others who also have concerns about this release. However, I do think that there are a lot less people on this board that care than there used to be.

 

[Mark-P]

I guess we can expect the OAR in about 19 years. That's how long it took to reverse the decision of the both the cinematographer and director of Apocalypse Now.

 

[Chris Farmer]

Taking such a hard-lined, fanatical approach while also insulting the director isn't going to do much to win anyone over to your position. It only serves to alienate people that take even a slightly more measured approach than you do, because you've made it very clear there's no common ground with anyone that disagrees with you, full stop.


In any case, I'm not sure that in 2011 the theatrical version of a film necessarily needs to be held up as the definitive version of a movie that must be preserved at any cost. 15 years ago the theatrical presentation was the standard by which any other presentation was held up against and something to try and be replicated as closely as possible in the home by knowledgable people. But even then there were discrepencies. Kubrick famously wanted his films to be released in the 1.33 aspect ratio for home viewing. In any case, currently films are made with the knowledge that some or even the majority of their revenue and experience will come in a venue other than a theater. Filmmakers have to consider that a movie will be seen on anything from an iPhone to an IMAX theater and those different presentations do have different needs. This extends beyond something as simple as aspect ratios as well. Peter Jackson has said that his preferred cut of Lord of the Rings in theaters is the theatrical version but for home viewing the extended editions, where pacing is less of an issue, are his favorite. Homes aren't theaters, and if the filmmaker says that he he different priorities and intentions in the two mediums I can understand that. I may not agree with the decision in any given case, but I do think that a filmmaker can reasonably make decisions to give what he thinks is the best presentation in any given situation and doesn't need to be forever held to exactly the movie that was seen in theaters.


Is it unfortunate for people who have done their work to replicate a true home theater experience? Yeah, it is. But I'm also aware that such consumers are a tiny minority of the market and if the person behind the movie (not a studio marketing head making a business decision, but the person ultimately responsible for the movie) wants to create an experience he feels is better for the majority of experiences then I'm not going to hold it against him. And I certainly won't say that he's not a filmmaker anymore or a "f#$%ing idiot" because of this decision.

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by Chris Farmer


Taking such a hard-lined, fanatical approach while also insulting the director isn't going to do much to win anyone over to your position. It only serves to alienate people that take even a slightly more measured approach than you do, because you've made it very clear there's no common ground with anyone that disagrees with you, full stop.


In any case, I'm not sure that in 2011 the theatrical version of a film necessarily needs to be held up as the definitive version of a movie that must be preserved at any cost. 15 years ago the theatrical presentation was the standard by which any other presentation was held up against and something to try and be replicated as closely as possible in the home by knowledgable people. But even then there were discrepencies. Kubrick famously wanted his films to be released in the 1.33 aspect ratio for home viewing. In any case, currently films are made with the knowledge that some or even the majority of their revenue and experience will come in a venue other than a theater. Filmmakers have to consider that a movie will be seen on anything from an iPhone to an IMAX theater and those different presentations do have different needs. This extends beyond something as simple as aspect ratios as well. Peter Jackson has said that his preferred cut of Lord of the Rings in theaters is the theatrical version but for home viewing the extended editions, where pacing is less of an issue, are his favorite. Homes aren't theaters, and if the filmmaker says that he he different priorities and intentions in the two mediums I can understand that. I may not agree with the decision in any given case, but I do think that a filmmaker can reasonably make decisions to give what he thinks is the best presentation in any given situation and doesn't need to be forever held to exactly the movie that was seen in theaters.


Is it unfortunate for people who have done their work to replicate a true home theater experience? Yeah, it is. But I'm also aware that such consumers are a tiny minority of the market and if the person behind the movie (not a studio marketing head making a business decision, but the person ultimately responsible for the movie) wants to create an experience he feels is better for the majority of experiences then I'm not going to hold it against him. And I certainly won't say that he's not a filmmaker anymore or a "f#$%ing idiot" because of this decision.

But Peter Jackson at least gave us the option, both cuts are released. If you want to buy this movie in its OAR, it's impossible. I never understood why people see wanting the original movie (in any way, shape or form) as being difficult.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S

I really don't care that it was the director's decision to do this.

So, Michael Apted is now a terrible filmmaker and should never be trusted to present his own work how he sees fit.


Got it.

 

[Chris Farmer]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst




But Peter Jackson at least gave us the option, both cuts are released. If you want to buy this movie in its OAR, it's impossible. I never understood why people see wanting the original movie (in any way, shape or form) as being difficult.

But Lord of the Rings also was a massive box office success that could justify multiple releases. Dawn Treader didn't bomb, but it wasn't a massive hit either, especially in the US. It's quite possible that this will be the only BluRay release of this movie, and so given only one chance Apted made the choice he did. Again, I'm not defending this decision. I wish this was being offered in the OAR as well. But I'm not going to say that it's an indefensible choice that makes Apted a hack or incompetent idiot.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S



But Peter Jackson at least gave us the option, both cuts are released. If you want to buy this movie in its OAR, it's impossible. I never understood why people see wanting the original movie (in any way, shape or form) as being difficult.

I certainly understand the desire of people for the film they experienced theatrically. What I don't understand is why this standard is applied inconsistently, to the point where the suggestion is advanced that anyone who doesn't agree in condemning a title like Dawn Treader has betrayed the forum's raison d'etre. The fact is, just about every Blu-ray out there, and certainly every one that I've reviewed, does not accurately convey the film as it played theatrically. And yet I don't see the same outcry over most of them.


Most Blu-rays contains lossless audio tracks. I have yet to be in a theater that plays such tracks. Most play lossy Dolby Digital, at a bitrate lower than that of even standard DVD and roughly half that of the rate commonly found on Blu-ray compatibility tracks. Other theaters use DTS, and theatrical DTS uses an entirely different codec than the one used in the home. IOW, the Blu-ray soundtracks just aren't the same. (And that's not even getting into the question of older films that have been remixed for 5.1.)


In addition, most soundtracks for home video are remixed for "near field" listening. Sometimes this is disclosed (as it was on Seven), but more often it isn't. Nevertheless, the sound mix that you're hearing at home is almost never the theatrical one, and there have been some famous occasions when the differences have resulted in major controversy (including Star Wars and Alien).


Should we care? Should we object? Sound is half the motion picture experience, according to many authorities, and I can think of arguments both ways. But I'm curious to know why the protesters of image modifications feel so confident in cloaking themelves with the mantle of true HT enthusiasts when they're apparently willing to let other departures from the theatrical experience slide without comment. It seems to me that, if you're going to impugn other people's lack of HT purity, you should look to your own first.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

So I watched this for the first time last night with the kids and thoroughly enjoyed it. I think time will be far kinder to this instalment in retrospect than it may be to some other films. As someone who tried and failed miserably to read the Narnia books at a very young age, I have enjoyed the films thus far, and will likely continue to enjoy them. Unlike most films that are not displayed in the theatrical aspect ratio, I never felt like the frame was cramped or that I was missing a substantial portion of the image. There were a few shots that were obviously designed for 3D, but I don't think that 3D is a make or break for this film as it is with others. I noted that the colour design is also somewhat different, but also didn't detract from the viewing experience. The sound was impressively immersive, and the performances were solid all around. I've been a fan of Will Poulter's work since Son of Rambow, and Georgie Henley and Skander Keynes have grown into their roles quite nicely.


People always point to Peter Jackson as some sort of standard by which to judge other filmmakers' ability to control the releases of their works on home video. While Jackson was able to get extended version of the LOTR films released, don't forget that the theatrical versions were released in both MAR and OAR formats. I doubt if that was his call.

 

[Ricardo C]

Michael,

It's a double-standard, for sure. But for better or worse, the average person is quicker to notice visual alterations over aural ones.

I don't like soundtrack changes, but I will readily admit that, for me, they're harder to notice, or care about, than visual ones.

I'm disappointed by Apted's choice for this release. I thought MAR died with 4x3 TVs, but it seems I was wrong. I won't go as far as calling him an idiot, but I think he erred on this one. "A more intimate experience" is relative in this era of 50+ inch TVs and home theater screens measured in feet rather than inches.

Let me try to look at the other side of your argument: A decade ago, we used to raise hell on HTF over non-anamorphic transfers and pan-and-scan releases. Hell, we used to get up in arms over Warner's snapper cases! But as the years have gone by, and Moore's Law has brought us not only affordable HD-capable hardware, but also the software to go with it, haven't we gone soft, so to speak? We don't care as much about MAR, because now it's less picture being lost (or added), and hey, look at that gorgeous 1080p picture! Better than your average theater, if you have the equipment. Even when the studios mess around with a release, we still get something that's arguably as good as, or better than, the theatrical release.

I think that as HT fans, we've gotten a little too fat and content on a steady diet of stellar HD releases. But the bounty we've been enjoying shouldn't mean that the issues of the past should get a pass in the present.

I'm a hypocrite, though. I bought the Dawn Treader BD, and MAR or not, I think it beats the theatrical print I saw (last film-based showing before my local theater switched to all-digital) by a country mile. I just wish I could have the original framing.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Audio presentation in the cinema and the home is an apples-to-oranges comparison. The acoustics are so dramatically different that even preserving the exact same mix with the exact same compression will not result in the same audio experience. While a movie like Lawrence of Arabia unarguably works better on a 40-foot screen than an 40-inch screen, the comparison remains apples-to-apples.


The goal is to get as close as possible to the theatrical experience, taking into account the technological limitations and inherent differences between a movie theater and a home theater. Remixing the audio can sometimes help facilitate that, assuming the sound design has not been changed. Cropping or re-framing a film never does.

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Chris Farmer


Taking such a hard-lined, fanatical approach while also insulting the director isn't going to do much to win anyone over to your position. It only serves to alienate people that take even a slightly more measured approach than you do, because you've made it very clear there's no common ground with anyone that disagrees with you, full stop.


In any case, I'm not sure that in 2011 the theatrical version of a film necessarily needs to be held up as the definitive version of a movie that must be preserved at any cost. 15 years ago the theatrical presentation was the standard by which any other presentation was held up against and something to try and be replicated as closely as possible in the home by knowledgable people. But even then there were discrepencies. Kubrick famously wanted his films to be released in the 1.33 aspect ratio for home viewing. In any case, currently films are made with the knowledge that some or even the majority of their revenue and experience will come in a venue other than a theater. Filmmakers have to consider that a movie will be seen on anything from an iPhone to an IMAX theater and those different presentations do have different needs. This extends beyond something as simple as aspect ratios as well. Peter Jackson has said that his preferred cut of Lord of the Rings in theaters is the theatrical version but for home viewing the extended editions, where pacing is less of an issue, are his favorite. Homes aren't theaters, and if the filmmaker says that he he different priorities and intentions in the two mediums I can understand that. I may not agree with the decision in any given case, but I do think that a filmmaker can reasonably make decisions to give what he thinks is the best presentation in any given situation and doesn't need to be forever held to exactly the movie that was seen in theaters.


Is it unfortunate for people who have done their work to replicate a true home theater experience? Yeah, it is. But I'm also aware that such consumers are a tiny minority of the market and if the person behind the movie (not a studio marketing head making a business decision, but the person ultimately responsible for the movie) wants to create an experience he feels is better for the majority of experiences then I'm not going to hold it against him. And I certainly won't say that he's not a filmmaker anymore or a "f#$%ing idiot" because of this decision.

Expecting a home video release to contain the OAR version of a film is now being an inflexible hard liner on this site. Okay, got it. Also, I guess now we are supposed to cut slack on having an OAR presentation of a film because of how it might look on someone's mobile phone screen or IPAD. Using that logic, all of the arguments that occurred on this site over P&S and full frame DVD transfers were all moot. Apparently, we have gone full circle. The only thing that should govern the look of a film on home video is how it looks on the screen of any given device.

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway



I certainly understand the desire of people for the film they experienced theatrically. What I don't understand is why this standard is applied inconsistently, to the point where the suggestion is advanced that anyone who doesn't agree in condemning a title like Dawn Treader has betrayed the forum's raison d'etre. The fact is, just about every Blu-ray out there, and certainly every one that I've reviewed, does not accurately convey the film at it played theatrically. And yet I don't see the same outcry over most of them.


Most Blu-rays contains lossless audio tracks. I have yet to be in a theater that plays such tracks. Most play lossy Dolby Digital, at a bitrate lower than that of even standard DVD and roughly half that of the rate commonly found on Blu-ray compatibility tracks. Other theaters use DTS, and theatrical DTS uses an entirely different codec than the one used in the home. IOW, the Blu-ray soundtracks just aren't the same. (And that's not even getting into the question of older films that have been remixed for 5.1.)


In addition, most soundtracks for home video are remixed for "near field" listening. Sometimes this is disclosed (as it was on Seven), but more often it isn't. Nevertheless, the sound mix that you're hearing at home is almost never the theatrical one, and there have been some famous occasions when the differences have resulted in major controversy (including Star Wars and Alien).


Should we care? Should we object? Sound is half the motion picture experience, according to many authorities, and I can think of arguments both ways. But I'm curious to know why the protesters of image modifications feel so confident in cloaking themelves with the mantle of true HT enthusiasts when they're apparently willing to let other departures from the theatrical experience slide without comment. It seems to me that, if you're going to impugn other people's lack of HT purity, you should look to your own first.

Nice straw man. I would have no problem having theatrical mixes on home video releases; although, I'm not sure what a mix for a three hundred seat theatre would sound like in a typical living room setting or whether I'd even notice a difference. The fact of the matter is that human hearing is nowhere near as sensitive as the human eye. First and foremost, we are visual animals, so changes in the visual aspect of a film are much more noticeable to the average person than changes in the aural aspect. I do admit to supporting lossless codecs, my bad. From this day on I pledge to only support the inclusion of outdated audio codecs if that is what was used in the theatre. Can I now be considered less of a hypocrite?

 

[Chris Farmer]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S




Expecting a home video release to contain the OAR version of a film is now being an inflexible hard liner on this site. Okay, got it. Also, I guess now we are supposed to cut slack on having an OAR presentation of a film because of how it might look on someone's mobile phone screen or IPAD. Using that logic, all of the arguments that occurred on this site over P&S and full frame DVD transfers were all moot. Apparently, we have gone full circle. The only thing that should govern the look of a film on home video is how it looks on the screen of any given device.

Yes, it is being an inflexible hard-liner. Tone matters as well as content, and when you abandon civility to insult the director of the movie, going so far as to say that you don't even consider him a filmmaker and calling him a fucking idiot, then you are being fanatical. Your intent clearly is not to engage in a rational discussion on the subject at hand but rather to get on a soapbox and rant at anyone who will listen. There's no consideration of the possibility that there are multiple ways to respect films, and that while an absolutist, "theatrical version or bust" approach is a reasonable point to hold, there is also merit in the position that a director can legitimately choose to optimize a film's presentation for different mediums. For some films there may not even be a definitive theatrical version to use as a standard (Avatar being a prime example: there's nothing that makes a 2.35 presentation inherently more representative of the movie as seen in theaters than 1.78, it's purely a matter of personal preference).


But in any case that's really beside the point. Your posts in this thread, regardless of the merits of your actual position, have been needlessly rude, inflammatory, and insulting. While you've targeted most of your venom at Apted himself, you've also made it quite clear by the tone of your posts that you consider anyone who thinks this decision is a valid one (regardless if they agree with the change; saying someone has the legitimacy to do something is not the same as agreeing with it) to be completely, absolutely in the wrong. And that's not an attitude that leaves much room for constructive discussion.


Edit: Trimmed back some of my harsher phrasing.