Trees Lounge fans, beware!! (1 Viewer)

[Mark Cappelletty]

That's really weird and reinforces my belief that Artisan is the most erratic of all the studios. Why bother going to the trouble to remaster After Dark My Sweet in 16:9 2.35:1 -- which they just did -- if you're going to dump Trees Lounge in a full-frame, no-extras edition that no one is going to buy? Someone's eating leaded paint chips over there.

 

[Chas_Michael]

So, What's the verdict? OPEN MATT or PAN & SCAN?...I would favor the OPEN MATT. Anyone have the facts?

 

[Robert_eb]

I wonder if the original version, that's OAR, will go up in value. Let's hope so just for spite.

 

[Mark Bendiksen]

This is pretty strange, IMHO. I can see them rehasing the same non-anamorphic widescreen transfer, but why go open matte on the re-release? It just doesn't add up.

 

[Andrew Walsh]

Mike, did you notice if any of the extras were included on it? Like the commentary or the music videos? And does anyone know if either the new one or the old one had a french track? I have a feeling that the new version may be for the canadian market, which forced them to add a french track.

 

[Tom B. Stones]

I received my pre-ordered copy of this "re-issue" the other day, but have been reluctant to unseal it in the circumstances.
Has anyone learned what on earth is going on here? Does the new disc have an open matte transfer, or is it cropped? Even if it is the former, this represents a lost opportunity for 16:9 enhancement in the transfer.
And why the hell is it devoid of the extras which enhanced the previous disc?
(Artisan's website (http://www.artisanent.com) is a farce. I was ready to fire off an e-mail, but there are no contact details for a start. Indeed, I can find no trace of "Trees Lounge" there either! They do, however, offer "The Ninth Gate" as a new release. Oh, yes, and "Ghost Dog" is "coming soon". Talk about behind the times! And yet when Artisan do get it right, they take some beating...)
Bizarre, quite bizarre...

 

[Veli-Matti Reitti]

At DVDsoon.com you may still order the widescreen edition(1.85:1) for $16.37 CAD. Unfortunately this version does not include the audio commentary and music videos.

 

[Andrew Walsh]

At DVDsoon.com you may still order the widescreen edition(1.85:1) for $16.37 CAD. Unfortunately this version does not include the audio commentary and music videos.

Okay, that makes NO sense. This would be a THIRD version, since we've currently got a WS version with all the trimmings, and a bare-bones P&S version. I'll bet it's just the bare-bones one. FS got the stats wrong on their web site too.

 

[Veli-Matti Reitti]

I suppose it might be an error. I that case they have used a different cover because you can clearly see from this snap case cover that it says Widescreen. I think this is the second version. Check it out just in case.

 

[Ben Motley]

Artisan blows.

Just a few atrocities that personally rile me...

Dario Argento's Sleepless - non-OAR

Ginger Snaps - non-OAR

Killing Zoe - no director's cut as promised, no commentary, as promised. A great transfer, but I'm still ticked.

Artisan did however get Requiem for a Dream right, but I still abhor them. This Tree's Lounge business only serves to reinforce my feelings toward this company.

 

[ShawnCoghill]

I think its an anamorphic P&S,on several new releases they have an anamorphic P&S,but simply say Full Screen on case,but it is both widescreen and full,They will no doubt change the packaging VERY soon,so yes I think it is be both Full and Widescreen.Hope that helps

 

[Tom B. Stones]

Artisan did however get Requiem for a Dream right...

And "Pi". And "Twin Peaks Series One". And "Ghost Dog". And "T2". And "Felicia's Journey". Why can't they be like this all the time???

 

[John Stone]

I can't believe all the speculation and misinformation in this thread.

1] There are two versions of "Trees Lounge" on DVD.

2] The OOP version contains the film presented in a non-anamorphic 1.85:1 transfer. It also contains a commentary track by Steve Buscemi, the trailer and a music video.

3] The "new" version, released on 3/26/2002, contains a 1.33:1 PAN AND SCAN transfer ONLY and no extras. There is NO widescreen version on this disc. There is NO "pan and scan on the fly" version on this disc.

Yes, I have verified all of this information with my own eyes. I hope this clears up any doubt about the new disc. It sucks.

 

[Tom B. Stones]

The "new" version...contains a 1.33:1 PAN AND SCAN transfer ONLY and no extras.

 

[Fredrik E]

NO OAR = No sale !
Studios, please stop the insanity ! :frowning:

 

[Andrew Bunk]

Thread resurrection...

I was looking at this in Borders, and I noticed that while the DVD does say modified from original format to fit your screen, underneath the screen grid, it says something like "Presented in 1.33:1 ratio in which it was originally shot."

Are they trying to say it's open matte after all? I'd really liek to see this film, and I'm willing to check it out if it's open matte, but not if it's pan & scan.

 

[Jon Martin]

I was looking at this in Borders, and I noticed that while the DVD does say modified from original format to fit your screen, underneath the screen grid, it says something like "Presented in 1.33:1 ratio in which it was originally shot."

I haven't seen the DVD, and barely remember the movie, but wasn't it a low budget film? Probably shot in 16mm? I would think that, if it says that, it would be open matte.

 

[Andrew Bunk]

Me too Jon, but I believe earlier in this thread and some others people more familiar with the title thought it was P&S.

 

[John Stone]

I see I replied to this thread back in 2002. Back then, my OAR zealotry was so thick that I considered ANY film not in its original theatrical aspect ratio - even "open matte" films - to be "pan and scan". This was probably because I knew there was always the possibility that the telecine operator did some zooming to hide boom mics, dolly tracks, etc.

So, just to clarify, the 4x3 version of "Trees" is technically open matte.

 

[Jon Martin]

I considered ANY film not in its original theatrical aspect ratio - even "open matte" films - to be "pan and scan"

Yes, that is one of the problems with the issue. Open matte and pan and scan are very different, yet any film that isn't widescreen is lumped in with pan and scan by some.

Not to say that widescreen isn't the best way to see a film, but there is a big difference.