Ebert & Roeper Highlight Wonka

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Michael*K, Sep 2, 2001.

  1. Michael*K

    Michael*K Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Wonka DVD was Ebert's video pick of the week. Among his comments:
    "...it's unfortunate that the film was done in widescreen and the sides have been chopped off to TV size"
    "...the disc is double-sided. Couldn't they have provided both versions on the disc?"
    I assume this show was filmed before the announcement of a widescreen release. If he knew about it, I wish he would have mentioned it's upcoming release to viewers.
    ------------------
    --Mike
    Amazon Hot 100 DVD's
     
  2. Bruce Hedtke

    Bruce Hedtke Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 1999
    Messages:
    2,249
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am certain this show was done before the Wonka uproar, or they would have made it the center-piece of the show to acknowledge the victory. But, it certainly doesn't hurt for them to get in a few more nationally televised whacks at Warner (and any other like-minded studios) at such shameful business practices.
    Bruce
    ------------------
    [​IMG]
    Welcome aboard the Satellite of Love
     
  3. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,525
    Likes Received:
    126
    Location:
    Alpharetta, GA, USA
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    For the last time...
    Wonka is 1.85:1 open matte. It's not hard-matted and there isn't any CGI, so the stuff you're losing in open matte is just RESOLUTION. NOT picture.
    I'm surprised that Ebert didn't know this.
    ------------------
    P.S.: There's no P.S.
     
  4. cafink

    cafink Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 1999
    Messages:
    3,047
    Likes Received:
    36
    Real Name:
    Carl Fink
     
  5. Tim Holmes

    Tim Holmes Extra

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2001
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    >>Wonka is 1.85:1 open matte. It's not hard-matted and there >>isn't any CGI, so the stuff you're losing in open matte is >>just RESOLUTION. NOT picture.
    >No, you also lose the original composition of the film. If >you lose that, who cares how it's done?
    This point will likely never be remembered. There have been too many references to it being Pan&Scan by too many people.
    That said, I agree that the original aspect ratio is the main point here. We all agree that an originally 4x3 film should remain that way, and a 16x9 should remain that way. It's not an attempt to make the world widescreen, but in this case the director chose that, and the film should be presented that way (in addition to 4x3 if the studio chooses to...).
    tim
     
  6. Sean Oneil

    Sean Oneil Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2001
    Messages:
    936
    Likes Received:
    0
    He only made a mistake by saying that they "Chopped off the sides".
    He should have just said that they altered the original composition of the cinematography. (NOT OAR)
    Oh well, at least it warns some people to stay away from that release. I wonder if this means that there will now be a giant 'WIDESCREEN' logo on the front of the WS 'Wonka' DVD to alert people to the presence of the WS version?
    A lot of people will not know about the re-press otherwise.
     
  7. Jason Whyte

    Jason Whyte Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    1,442
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  8. David Lambert

    David Lambert Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2001
    Messages:
    11,386
    Likes Received:
    38
    Patrick McCart, I'm convinced that Ebert knew very *well* that what he was saying wasn't entirely correct. However, he is a smart man and would follow the principal of "K.I.S.S." (Keep It Simple, Stupid).
    Perhaps one day he'll devote an entire show to the subject of OAR. Then maybe he'll have time to discuss Pan & Scan vs. Open Matte, and educate everyone as to the complexities of this issue.
    In the meatime, we should be grateful that he brought up the issue of modified aspect ratios at all, shouldn't we? I'm glad he mentioned this concern, and found a way to do it (the "pick of the week") that didn't come off as just plain bashing...but as a problem that the studio can easily solve on the next release (of Wonka or any other title they thought to do this to).
    Ebert knows his business, and I am glad he's on our side. [​IMG]
    ------------------
    DAVE/Memphis
    Widescreen is Family Fun!
    [​IMG]
    [Edited last by David Lambert on September 02, 2001 at 06:49 AM]
     
  9. Patrick Larkin

    Patrick Larkin Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    1,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree that Ebert's comments were wrong and he should be embarassed by them. If you're doing a nationally syndicated show, Roger, at least get your facts straight.
    I could almost go for the "Keep it simple Stupid" explanation if Ebert would have called Wonka Pan and Scan (incorrectly of course) but saying they chopped te sides off Wonka is just plain false. Ebert should just know better.
    (Note: I don't endorse what WB did.)
     
  10. Glenn Overholt

    Glenn Overholt Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 1999
    Messages:
    4,207
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just saw it last night, and it was nice knowing what to expect. Saying the word 'chopped' might have been wrong, but it got the point across for EVERYBODY.
    Let's face it, when he said 'chopped' I knew what he meant, and other OAR followers knew too. It was the rest of the population that he was talking to. Hopefully they'll look into it and find out that they did hack the film up, and we'll end up with more OAR supporters.
    Glenn
     
  11. Rich P

    Rich P Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2000
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm surprised that no one has commented on the more insidious part of Ebert's Video Pick of the Week.
    Despite being "pan & scan" didn't Ebert suggest that this is still a DVD worth picking up and viewing? In essence didn't he advocate the purchase of a film in non-OAR?
    That certainly was the impression I got from the segment when I watched it last night. After all, the Video Pick is a DVD (or video release) that warrants a "second look". So despite the flaw of "having its sides chopped off", Ebert is still suggesting that everyone go out and support the non-OAR version of this release.
    It is most unfortunate that the show couldn't have had a quick voice-over (redub) to indicate that a widescreen presentation would also be available for those who wish to see the film in it's original presentation.
     
  12. William Ward

    William Ward Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2000
    Messages:
    705
    Likes Received:
    1
    I mentioned this in the DVD talk forum a week ago.
    [rant on]WE KNOW IT'S OPEN MATTE. There is no pointing in trying to correct someone else when they are just quoting what a third person said. Everytime a reference to WW being chopped up or P&S someone always chimes in with the open matte semantical issue. If you're so infuriated by what Ebert did, email it to him that the DVD is open matte. Quit crying about it to people who know. There is nothing we can do for you.[end rant]
    Sorry folks...The all caps were for emphasis, not for shouting.
    Personally, defending the semantics of open matte vs P&S is missing the big picture: The movie is changed from what was shown at theaters.
    ------------------
    William
    Go Bucs!!
    MyDVDs
    [Edited last by William Ward on September 03, 2001 at 02:54 PM]
     

Share This Page