The Sting SE on 09/06/05 See Post #133 (1 Viewer)

[Mark-W]

I agree with Scott of this one.

I did buy The Sting on DVD, but it along with Death Becomes Her are the only MAR DVDs I've bought (and even those I waited and waited), and when I get ready to play them I do think that I have contributed towards MAR-only releases selling and it frustrates me.

If I had a DVD recorder, I would do what Scott has done: I would rather record an OAR copy off of broadcast television, knowing the picture quality will not be as good as Universal's DVD than contribute to MAR DVD sales.

Benedict-Arnold-at-large,

Mark

 

[GlennH]

Is this one of those chicken-egg dilemmas where Universal foolishly doesn't think a SE would be a good seller because of the disappointing sales of the current lackluster MAR release?

Some studios can't seem to understand that many people who care about quality will forgo purchasing a movie they really like if the product isn't up to snuff.

Surely Universal knows that there is a demand for this? Warner seems to have it figured out, with their tremendous 2-disc SE packages.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

Still doesn't make sense to me.

In other words, while you admit that the current R1 DVD has absolutely better PQ and sound then your copy of TCM's letterbox presentation, and that by masking the open matte DVD to 1.85:1 it will give you the same framing as your copy of TCM's letterbox presentation, then why in heavens would you prefer to watch the lesser quality copy?


Not only that, but there are some in the film industry who firmly believe George Roy Hill originally intended this film to be seen in academy ratio (1.33) to reflect the era of the film, and that it was a coupe that Universal, in respect to Mr. Hill’s wishes, released the original open-matte print on DVD prior to his death.

While no official announcement was ever made (at least none that I have seen), there was an extensive thread on AVS discussing whether or not the open-matte presentation was in fact how this film was originally intended to be shown, and the consensus from the experts and film historians was that the intended OAR was in fact 1.33.

While I am not intimately familiar with the back story of this film’s production, there have been those that claim to have first hand knowledge of this production and that Universal insisted that the theatrical release be widescreen as they feared an academy presentation would hurt box office sales.

If true, this is hardly surprising as this happened quite often, especially in the 60s-80s and even still goes on today. Many times widescreen presentations where used as marketing gimmicks and were nothing more than chopped down versions of the director’s 1.33 OAR!

You might even say that the so-called Widescreen Advocates are partially to blame as the studios are simply trying to give a product that will be purchased by the largest audience, even when it might not be what the director originally intended.

So when folks scream about having a widescreen version, they may end up getting a presentation that was not intended to be seen and not an official OAR.

I guess the proverb, Be careful what you ask for, because you might just get it." certainly rings true here.

Intersting stuff.

Unfortunately Mr. Hill recently passed away, but if it is true, and from what I’ve read it sounds like it is (and also makes the most sense) and that the actual OAR for The Sting is an academy ratio 1.33, then not only do you have a poor quality broadcast copy, but because it is possibly cropped to 1.85:1 you are also missing about 40% of the picture!


The things that make you go "hmmmmmm..."

 

[Mark-W]

Nils-

You don't understand how buying a MAR copy contributes to the studios thinking, "People will still buy a film on DVD, even if we only offer it to them MAR."?

I have watched this film MAR and OAR, and it looks much more "composed" to my eyes 1.78: 1. In fact, all you have to do is watch the credits which are CLEARLY showing just "dead space" on the top and bottom of the frame.

Maybe the film itself doesn't betray this MAR/OAR compromise, I would need to go back and look, but I do have to say, having recently watched the film with the top and bottom of the frame cropped on a widescreen television, and then seeing it again open matte, the shots looked MUCH better framed to my eyes OAR/OTR (Original Theatrical Ratio).

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

It is the consistent thinking that anything but widescreen must be MAR is the issue that I am raising.

Mark my words, ten years from now when 16x9 HDTVs have saturated the consumer market place you'll be seeing posts refusing to by 1.33 versions of such great classics as Casblanca and insisting that a widescreen edition be released.

Like this thread, its already happening. I remember the outcry when Warner released the so-called full screen edition of Full Metal Jacket. Many widescreen advocates posted that they would absolutely refuse to buy the DVD and wrote to Warner insisting that they release it in 1.85 - even though that was not the OAR. Stanely Kubrick is one of many director's who preferred to present films in 1.66 or less aspect ratios, but who unlike many of his colleagues had the clout and control over the distribution of his films such that for the most part they were presented in true OAR. Unfortunately this is not the same for many other fine films that were subsequently chopped down in order to present them as widescreen films.

I am raising this issue because if the word does not get out, once HDTV becomes the norm, we are likely to see a great deal of glorious 1.33 films being butchered to meet the demands of misinformed 16x9 TV consumers. :frowning:


Be a Full Screen Widescreen Open-Matte OAR Advocate!

 

[Frank M]

The german DVD has the 1,85:1 aspect ratio, but the transfer is not anamorphic. The cover information is wrong. The DVD is identical to the disc from the U.K.

 

[MaxR]

they just released a new DVD for The Sting here in Sweden, like maybe two months ago. i don't own it yet, but from what i've seen it has a 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen picture, english mono sound and a commentary track as an extra. doesn't say on the back who participates though.

 

[James David Walley]

Do you happen to have a link to that discussion?

 

[James David Walley]

You mean like what they did with Chariots of Fire?

 

[dannyB]

No, like they did with Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Once Flew Over the Cuchoos Nest, Around the World in Eighty Days, etc.

See this thread: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...=&pagenumber=1

 

[Todd Phillips]

--Which is coming in the first half of 2005, according to the last Warner chat.

 

[Nathan*W]

Since George Roy Hill is not around to ask and no OFFICIAL record of his intent exists, (ie GRH memoirs, papers etc.) we have to go by the documented aspect ratio as it was originally shown.

The current 1.33:1 DVD release of The Sting may very well fit George Roy Hill's intent, but nobody knows that for certain. It doesn't make it OAR.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

Nathan, first of all, didn't you leave out the "T"?
Original Theatrical Aspect Ratio. = OTAR

And if you want to play a game of semantics, "Original" means the first. Such that the ratio used by the director during the editing process would certainly be more original than the one altered by the studios for the theatrical/broadcast/video release. In fact, if you really want to get technical, I suppose you might even say that the original aspect ratio is really the original negative.

But I'm sure you already understood that OAR (not OTAR) as used in my post refers to the original aspect ratio reportedly used by Mr. Hill, but which subsequently got cropped for the theatrical release.

It is funny you bring this up because it is the grosse attachment to a term, or worse yet an acronym (Full Screen, Widescreen, OAR, DIR, OTAR, etc) which causes all the confusion and can have unwanted effects on the way films are shown theatricaly, and most certainly on video.

Oh well. It seems this horse isn't going to get any more dead. Time to move on.

 

[AndrewWickliffe]

This debate, if it is even that, reminds me of "Young Frankenstein"'s restored laserdisc announcement.

Many argued the film was intended to be shown in 1.37:1, just like the old Universal horror films. Low and behold, the film was released (with Mel Brooks' blessings) at 1.85:1.

As for Kubrick, I think it's Jan Harlan who said old Stanley didn't like black bars. I've read arguments if he'd known about HDTV, he'd have allowed for anamorphic transfers. Regardless, it's obvious "The Shining" was composed for at least 1.66, though I've read 1.85 frames it perfectly.

That is, unless those helicopter blades are supposed to add to the experience . . .

This debate is most disturbing because I usually expect a bit more "adult" discussion here at HTF . . .

 

[Nathan*W]

You're right, Nils. After I submitted that post, it sounded all wrong to me, hence the edit. (which I stand behind)

 

[James David Walley]

I suppose that means you have no intention to provide the link I requested. Sad.

:rolleyes

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

(edited my post)

James,

I'm sorry for my original post, I read your remarks at the worst possible moment as I had just returned from the hospital regarding a family emergency (my wife appeared to have gone into early labor).

Any way, I reread my post and I didn't like my tone.

I'm sorry about not having the link saved (it was several years ago when the DVD came out), but I'm fairly confident that you'll be able to find it by doing some searching on AVS. When I have the time I'll try and find it as well.

Even so, as I pointed out, the best source would be from Mr. Hill's personal estate and I expect a well written letter will get the kind of response you might be looking for. In fact now that I think about it I might just do that myself, if only to express my sympathy for their loss and show my tremendous appreciation for their father's contributions to the film industry.

Please accept my apologies for my original post, it was completely uneccesary of me to react the way that I did.

(I do however enjoy the pic - so unless no one minds, I'll keep it in my post)

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

(edited my post above - caught me at a bad time and my remarks were unnecessary)

 

[Douglas Bailey]

Just to add insult to injury, Universal is releasing The Sting II in anamorphic widescreen on 3 August of this year.

No sign of a matching widescreen re-issue of The Sting itself, though. Come on, Universal!

 

[Dan Rudolph]

It's Universal. I'm sure there will be several re-issues, at leats one of which should be widescreen.