Return of the Joker: Uncut AND Letterboxed (1 Viewer)

[Robert George]

Warner's release of the PG-13 uncut version of Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker showed up today with a bit of a surprise. Although the notation on the box indicates this is the "standard version formatted to fit you yada yada yada", the transfer is in fact letterboxed at about 1.85:1. Not enhanced for 16:9 unfortunately, but at least it is not 4:3 fullscreen.

Pretty decent story, for a cartoon.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

You know, if they aren't going to enhance it, I'd prefer the open-matte version. You can always matte it yourself and get the exact same effect as this version.
Actually, didn't Anchor Bay release a title that used subtitle code to throw up black bars, giving you open-matte and letterboxed on the exact same video content (no double space requirement)?
Despite claimed creator's intent, on some of the WB stuff like Justice League, certain shots look better composed as 4:3. But some do not...
I'd really rather have an enhanced version than anything else.
But I'm not going to complain, unlike some people.

Pretty decent story, for a cartoon.

:rolleyes

 

[Shayne Lebrun]

Agreed; no reason not to enhance it.

Pretty decent story, for a cartoon.

Pretty decent stereotype, for a film buff. Aren't we past this one yet?

 

[Eric F]

Weird. You got to hand it to WB. One step forward and one step back. At any rate they still lost my sale.

Can someone explain why they wouldn't enhance it? Makes no sense.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

This is widescreen? Shit, they lost my sale. I have the 4x3 bootleg, and was planning on buying the offical copy for the enhanced resolution, but not if I'm not seeing the whole image.

Remember, wider isn't always better, and (IMO) this is one of those instances. A made-for-home-video release (even composed "widescreen safe") simply wouldn't be done in anything other than 4x3.

I agree with the poster who said that in many cases, the open JLA looks better composed than the matted JLA.

 

[Geoffrey_A]

I suspect that it comes down to what the director intended. To say that any direct to video content would only ever be composed for 4:3 is, well, to put it bluntly, exceptionally stupid. If the film was meant to be widescreen, but was released open matte by the studio for fear of not being family friendly (the same fear that got the content butchered in the first place) then why should the special edtion, with it's content and original artistic intent restored be shunned for it? It seems ridiculous to me that people which actually not buy this release because they feel OAR doesn't apply in this instance (hooray for hypocrits) or because it isn't enhancanced widescreen. Personally I'm happy that it's been released at all, and I can live without the enhanced widescreen as long as I'm actually getting the film in it's originally intended uncut and widescreen format.

I guess I'm just not a fan of having special criteria for some film releases over others.

 

[David Lambert]

I give up.
Adam: I thought that this feature was composed for letterboxing, and everyone wanted letterboxing.
WB gave us letterboxing, and now you say you wanted open matte.
Here's your friggin' open matte:

Just because it's an animated movie, doesn't mean that the director intended for you to see what's cut off. I can't read the minds of the director/producers, but EVERYTHING I've ever heard was that this was intended to be letterboxed, and so that is what I wanted. OAR, right?
Now you are gonna go confuse WB by asking for something else?
I'm not confused. NO OAR = NO SALE. I'll happily buy the new RotJ, thank you! Maybe JL will be letterboxed as well; it would look swell on my new 16x9 TV.
:rolleyes
Sorry for the rant; it's been a long day. I wish that it was anamorphic, but OAR is the most important consideration.
Obi, thanks for the good news!

 

[Robert George]

Pretty decent stereotype, for a film buff. Aren't we past this one yet?

Oh, please. We aren't talking about Akira or Grave of the Fireflies here.

 

[Will_B]

Batman looks a lot like John Cleese!

Anyway I'm glad they've released this, can't wait to pick it up.

 

[Chad R]

But David, we're not talking about superfluous information in the camera lenses field of view on a set. We're talking about animation where everything had to be created. If the extra info is there it's reasonable to assume that if it was actually drawn thant it was intended for the full frame at some point. It sounds like the director had framed it for 4x3 but protected it for widescreen. I agree that if it's not going to be enhaced, than give us the full frame.

 

[Shayne Lebrun]

. It sounds like the director had framed it for 4x3 but protected it for widescreen. I agree that if it's not going to be enhaced, than give us the full frame.

So do we go for director's intent, or released format? Same argument as going on in the Star Trek 2 thread; director's cut vs theatrical version. As created vs as intended.

Animation really does present a bit of a quandry. I don't know if this is "protected for widescreen", or "designed as widescreen, but lets go ahead and tack extra crap onto the top and bottom so they don't need to slice off the sides later."

 

[Rob T]

I'll be picking up this one as well as all the other Batman discs.

 

[Adam Tyner]

The movie was, FWIW, storyboarded in widescreen.

 

[MikeM]

To release this disc widescreen, but non-enhanced for 16x9 TVs is beyond me.

The true "OAR" for this is up for debate. The only real reason I'd like to see this in widescreen, would be for the enhanced resolution. I'll be buying it anyway though, and hope the unedited format makes up (in a small way) for the lack of enhancement. Really doesn't make any sense to me though...

 

[AndrewR]

Return of the Joker IS INTENDED to be seen in Widescreen. Just like Justice League (which is the only way I watch it!).
That's what the Directors/Producers/Creators INTENDED so that is the ONLY way it should be seen. Asking for anything else is TOTALLY hypocritical! Using the rationale that more animation is seen with an open-matte is like saying the Cameraman has more say than the Director.

Oh, please. We aren't talking about Akira or Grave of the Fireflies here.

Yeah. Those were pretty decent for cartoons too.
:rolleyes
Andrew

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Using the rationale that more animation is seen with an open-matte is like saying the Cameraman has more say than the Director.

Actually, I would generally weigh what the cinematographer has to say about intended composition more than what the director has to say.
Not kidding.

 

[David Lambert]

Why would you be kidding? Otherwise, what exactly IS the job of a Cinemaphotographer?

 

[Jeffrey Gray]

Someone selling the uncut bootleg told me the DVD is NOT uncut. Are they correct?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

David: Like Chad said, this isn't extra information picked up by the camera. In instances of live-action, I fully support anamorphic widescreen for all the reasons you've mentioned. Even theatrical animated releases, like Batman: The Mask of Phantasm, I'd support the widescreen release of.

However, everything was drawn for the 4x3. With animation, everything you see (short of edges of the panes which there are none of in the 4x3 uncut Return of the Joker) was meant to be seen. Weither everything is NEEDED to be seen is another matter, but if you prefer the widescreen frame, then simply use the zoom on your 16x9 television or paper/cloth mattes on your 4x3 television.

As I have said, I have seen the uncut Return of the Joker, and the composition is wonderful. Brilliant even.

Adam: I thought that this feature was composed for letterboxing, and everyone wanted letterboxing.

Bruce Timm has said he prefers the framing of Justice League (and perhaps Return of the Joker) in the matted form, yes. Weither it was actually framed for the matted form is debateable. And you are making a big assumption in thinking that EVERYONE wanted letterboxing for this title. There were many people who didn't... and many who did wanted it letterboxed simply for the increased resolution that anamorphic treatment would offer for the 16x9 frame. I assure you I've seen that particular example (John Cleese, A Fish Called Wanda) before. I also assure you that I am in many cases a avid advocate of widescreen. But in this case, there's no boom mikes or joke-ruiners.

You say you have a widescreen set... well this shouldn't make any difference to you anyway. Since it's non anamorphic, you'll have to use the zoom anyway. Except now it's needlessly hard matted. As an aside, since you're so conserned about intent, I hope you'll be watching your TV shows with the grey bars intact (where applicable of course). If you zoom in, you're cropping out information. If you stretch it, you're distorting information. And for many HDTV presentations, you're seeing what is essentially 16x9 open matte. There are many Fish Called Wanda instances where jokes are ruined because the full 16x9 space is opened up from the 4x3 area.

I'm sorry if you think I'm sending WB mixed messages, but as a consumer, I have to voice my opinions as to product I want.

 

[David Lambert]

The movie was, FWIW, storyboarded in widescreen.

So that settles the debate for me. Adam Tyner has proven himself over and over again on this forum to be an accurate source of such information; I'll let him present his own bona fides if you have doubts. I'll be buying this OAR disc next Tuesday.
Again, I hope JL is also widescreen.