The consolidated, all-in-one DUEL DVD discussion thread (1 Viewer)

[RobertCharlotte]

if the guy I quoted is correct

I'm pretty sure I heard that on "Inside the Actor's Studio," but Spielberg isn't on the calendar for this month on that show, so it will be a while before I can verify it.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

It was evidently shot in widescreen, because I have heard Spielberg in an interview say that when they first got it ready for it's European theatrical release, several shots of Weaver driving his car showed the director sitting in the back seat taking notes.

Then they obviously were not composing for widescreen at the time, even if they were shooting wide. If they were screwing up that much, they were obviously composing for a 4:3 frame (inside the wide frame?), even if they knew that it might be shown widescreen in the theaters in europe.

 

[Johnny G]

Michael,

This is getting to a purists views situation.

I hate full frame & will never watch a 1.85:1 film with extra height (I returned my Back to the Future LD some years ago as they sent full frame by mistake).

I also like old Academy ratio films, one of my faves being It's a Wonderful Life.

However with the advent of WS TVs & in particular 16:9 shaped screens like my 10 foot screen for my projector, I think if extra scenery was shot width wise, giving a more panoramic feel to the scene, I'd prefer to see that at the edges of my 16:9 screen than black bars, even if what's there wasn't meant to be seen as long as they cover up any obvious errors.

I guess that means I'm not a purist but I suppose I've known that for a while as I prefer a remastered soundtrack to original mono/stereo sound.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I'm admittedly being very speculative here.
But if an initial widescreen framing showed things that should not have been there, then the 4:3 framing was not 'open matte'. Open matte would show all the imagery widescreen version had and more.
This sounds more like they were composing for a 4:3 frame inside of a widescreen frame. Which is a damned strange way to make a TV movie in the early 70s (pre-HD, a small amount of HD stuff is done this way now and it makes the widescreen version lousy).
Keep in mind if this is the case, to fix these 'widescreen' shots, they'll have to crop the hell out of it, practically a widescreen frame inside of a 4:3 frame inside of another widescreen frame.
Regardless, if one version repeatedly had stuff/people in-frame that should not have been there, it sure as hell doesn't sound like they were composing for that version!

 

[Johnny G]

If it is true that a widescreen version exists with more picture on the sides, isn't the most simple expailnation that they used a 1.85:1 film stock, ignoring what was at the edges of the frame, having the intention of cropping the edges?

If so, this opened up frame will have all the 4:3 information as well as the unwanted outer edges of the frame.

I believe Friends is filmed in 16:9 with the intention of cropping to 4:3, I'd be interested to see the full frame although a studio set isn't as inspiring as the scenery in DUEL.

 

[Walt Riarson]

Man, that artwork's tacky.

Eh, I'm buying it anyway.

 

[David Lambert]

Man, that artwork's tacky.

I'm not sure what else anyone would expect to be on the cover of this DVD? A menacing 18-wheeler is what the story is all about.

Pretend you are the person given the assignment of coming up with the cover art for this release. What would you do differently?

 

[Michael St. Clair]

If so, this opened up frame will have all the 4:3 information as well as the unwanted outer edges of the frame.

And, if this is the case, then the "widescreen" version is a horizontal version of Open-Matte, as opposed to the vertical version of Open-Matte that we are accustomed to.
If Open-Matte is so bad, shouldn't it be bad regardless of whether it was opened up on the sides or on the top and bottom? Let us support OAR and not bias ourselves to support MAR if the MAR happens to be "wide" (really "short").

 

[Damin J Toell]

But if an initial widescreen framing showed things that should not have been there, then the 4:3 framing was not 'open matte'. Open matte would show all the imagery widescreen version had and more.

the 4:3 framing may have been error-free, except in a few isolated incidents (such as the one described in this thread) which were likely corrected via zooming for the television broadcast. the rest of the 4:3 presentation could therefore have been "open matte."

given Speilberg and Universal's long history together, i am confident that the framing of the disc will represent Spielberg's desires. that's the final word on the subject for me.

DJ

 

[DarrenA]

Man, that artwork's tacky.

I'd say it's a lot better than the old VHS cover art that had Dennis Weaver about to "moon" us all...

 

[David Brashear]

That VHS cover rules.

 

[David Lambert]

Sorry to disagree, David Brashear, but that VHS cover art looks awful! Did a junior highschooler waterpaint it? Ugh.

 

[Mark_vdH]

If Open-Matte is so bad, shouldn't it be bad regardless of whether it was opened up on the sides or on the top and bottom? Let us support OAR and not bias ourselves to support MAR if the MAR happens to be "wide" (really "short").

I have to agree with you on this, Michael.
However, nobody here mentioned that the 4:3 television release was only 74 minutes, and the European theatrical release 90 minutes. As this DVD-release is 90 minutes AND widescreen, I think it is fair to say that the release is a appropriate representation of the original Eoropean release. I mean, if you think the DVD-release sucks because it isn't shown in the original US-TV aspect ratio, you should have already rejected it for the fact that it isn't the original TV-cut.

 

[TheoGB]

Damn! I really want the proper 74 minute version in there. The long one's just...long. It's not like there's any extra development that comes out of it.:frowning:

 

[Herb Kane]

That VHS cover rules.

David, I agree 100%. The movie has that gritty AND 70's look to it and the old cover conveys that feeling. One wouldn't expect a movie shot 30 years ago to have it's name formed from polished diamond patterned aluminum. That looks like it was designed by someone at Tonka!

Herb.

 

[RobertCharlotte]

Personally, I hope it has both versions.

And as ugly as the VHS cover is, at least it shows the climactic face-off that takes place at the end of the movie.

 

[Johnny G]

They could have used seamless branching to give both lengths, the film is a little drawn out after a while so I don't know what an extra 16 mins is gonna do for it.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Keep in mind if this is the case, to fix these 'widescreen' shots, they'll have to crop the hell out of it, practically a widescreen frame inside of a 4:3 frame inside of another widescreen frame.

Actually...in order to give us a *new* and *enhanced* DUEL...they'd just *digially* change the notes the director is taking in the back seat to a walky-talky...

 

[Patrick McCart]

If Duel was shot on 35mm, the camera negative's aspect ratio would be 1.33:1 approx. For TV, the entire frame would be exposed. For theaters, the frame is simply matted on the top and bottom of the frame to yield a 1.66:1-1.85:1 image in the projector. If the DVD is 1.33:1, it's the correctly represented aspect ratio of the TV version. If it's matted, it's the theatrical way. Keep in mind that the majority of so-called "pan & scan" transfers on DVD are simply transfers that reveal the entire frame most of the time.

1.33:1 has the better chance of being the correct aspect ratio since Speilberg probably had the film composed for TV since that was the target market.

 

[Blake Comeaux]

I too saw the Spielberg interview on television and heard him talking about how once he prepared the widescreen version for overseas you could see him on the sides which makes me wonder just how it was shot. If the original negative was 1.33:1 in order to cut himself out for TV he would have to cut a 4:3AR from a larger 4:3 negative. I wish they'd include both the 4:3 74 minute version and the widescreen 90 minute version. I've pre-ordered it already either way. (Since regardless of the aspect ratio the framing is approved by Spielberg). If Spielberg didn't approve that would be a different story.