Home Theater Forum  ›  Forums  ›  Entertainment and Media  ›  SD DVD - Film and Documentary  ›  Films that need DVD Releases with their Original Aspect Ratio, anamorphic if need be!
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread

Films that need DVD Releases with their Original Aspect Ratio, anamorphic if need be!

#31
Rating: 0
11/25/08 at 9:57am
  • Joined: June 2002
  • Post Count: 365

Re: Request for Sticky: Titles on dvd presented 4:3 instead of correct matted ratio

Warner also released The Witches open matte.

Universal released Charley Varrick open matte.

Isn't The Black Scorpion pan and scan?
The Stop Button: An appreciation of amusements
Export to Wiki
#32
Rating: 0
11/25/08 at 11:39am
  • Joined: July 2003
  • Post Count: 5,303

Re: Request for Sticky: Titles on dvd presented 4:3 instead of correct matted ratio

Quote:
Originally Posted by James 'Tiger' Lee
Perhaps, or maybe Warners was being cheap back then

I'm not sure. At one point Warner put a stop to their 4:3 transfers and the PA set was released beyond this point. The strange thing about the box was that 1-3 and 6-7 were widescreen with 4-5 being full. I believe it was at a chat here where they said materials weren't available for widescreen on those two.

Someone else can expand on what Warner meant by that comment.
IMDB Reviews
Export to Wiki
#33
Rating: 0
11/25/08 at 11:49am
  • Joined: August 2003
  • Location: Sunny California, USA
  • Post Count: 715

Re: Request for Sticky: Titles on dvd presented 4:3 instead of correct matted ratio

It doesn't make sense that WB wouldn't have the "proper materials" to do 4 and 5 wide-screen. Unless they were working with some sort of cropped element and not the original negatives or any contact printed elements made from that negative, why couldn't they simply transfer the 1.85:1 area like they always do?

-J. Theakston

Export to Wiki
#34
Rating: 0
11/25/08 at 12:09pm
  • Joined: July 2003
  • Post Count: 5,303

Re: Request for Sticky: Titles on dvd presented 4:3 instead of correct matted ratio

That was my question Jack but everyone bought it at the chat and threads after the chat. I for one believed them because it didn't make any sense that they'd give all the films extras but go cheap on 4 & 5 yet give 6 & 7 (both bombs to fans) widescreen transfers.

Warner could have been lying (as they did with their original Kubrick comments depending on which way you go) but it still doesn't make much sense to cop-out on two fan favorites but then give better treatment to two films even fans hate.

Bob, do you know a site I can read up on those "Z" movies Jamie mentioned? I've never seen any promotional stuff for those Ed Wood, Jerry Warren type films so I'd be interested in reading up on them. The few books I've read on Wood never really got into talk about them outside the fact that they didn't play too many theaters and that Weiss couldn't get GOG released at all. I've seen those great photos you posted in the other thread so I was curious if these no-name, no-budget studios went as far as to promote their films in that way.
IMDB Reviews
Export to Wiki
#35
Rating: 0
11/25/08 at 1:16pm
  • Joined: December 2001
  • Post Count: 510

Re: Request for Sticky: Titles on dvd presented 4:3 instead of correct matted ratio

Michael: You're not going to find any books that discuss the aspect ratios of the films you mentioned. You would have to do research in such industry trade journals as Boxoffice, Exhibitor, Motion Picture Herald, Hollywood Reporter, etc.
Export to Wiki
#36
Rating: 0
11/25/08 at 1:38pm
  • Joined: July 2003
  • Post Count: 5,303

Re: Request for Sticky: Titles on dvd presented 4:3 instead of correct matted ratio

Thanks Bob. That's a shame but according to other experts there are very little in terms of promotional stuff. I've read some nice debates on whether some of these ever played theaters to begin with.


I was wondering if anyone had seen Romero's MARTIN and had any opinions on it. The AB disc was 4:3 and the Lionsgate was 1.85:1. The funny thing is that this was the perfect example of what I'm curious about. You can find screenshots that show various issues with the 1.85:1 version but this is how it was shown in theaters. Fans threw a fit because there was one very big gore scene (by Tom Savini), which is completely cut out of the frame. Fans said this was proof that it was shot 4:3 and by using your eyes it appears to be the case. However, as has been said, it had to have been shown widescreen. With that in mind, Romero claims that they knew the effect would be "chopped off" because the cinematographer was new and simply "screwed up" to quote Romero. Now this is an interesting case because I'm sure Romero and Savini wanted you to see the money shot of the gore effect but the only way to do this is with the open matte version. Both were aware of it being "cut off" theatrically and the reason it wasn't fixed when shooting is because the budget was too low.

I could also name a few examples were the director thought the film was going straight to VHS but got lucky and it ended up in theaters where it had to be matted. What's the correct thing to do here? It was shot for VHS but ended up going theatrical.
IMDB Reviews
Export to Wiki
#37
Rating: 0
11/25/08 at 1:55pm
  • Joined: May 2003
  • Location: NYC
  • Post Count: 492

Re: Request for Sticky: Titles on dvd presented 4:3 instead of correct matted ratio

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
I could also name a few examples were the director thought the film was going straight to VHS but got lucky and it ended up in theaters where it had to be matted. What's the correct thing to do here? It was shot for VHS but ended up going theatrical.

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm would fall under this category. Thankfully both the open matte and the 1.85.1 version of the disc.

There are also a number of films were the directors have stated they prefer the open matte version of the films. Jade and Martin come to mind.

(

Export to Wiki
#38
Rating: 0
11/25/08 at 1:57pm
  • Joined: June 2002
  • Post Count: 365

Re: Request for Sticky: Titles on dvd presented 4:3 instead of correct matted ratio

Is Jade really open matte? I thought it was pan-and-scan (it looks pan and scan) and I thought Friedkin just liked 4:3 (Sorcerer, for instance).
The Stop Button: An appreciation of amusements
Export to Wiki
#39
Rating: 0
11/25/08 at 3:25pm
  • Joined: May 2003
  • Location: NYC
  • Post Count: 492

Re: Request for Sticky: Titles on dvd presented 4:3 instead of correct matted ratio

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewWickliffe
Is Jade really open matte? I thought it was pan-and-scan (it looks pan and scan) and I thought Friedkin just liked 4:3 (Sorcerer, for instance).

GENERAL NOTES:
"Jade" was filmed in an aspect ratio of 1:85:1, but at the request of Director William Friedkin, all home video, DVD, and Laserdisc versions of the film are presented full frame, approximately 1:33:1 in aspect ratio

TAKEN FROM
Rewind @ www.dvdcompare.net - Jade (1995)

(

Export to Wiki
#40
Rating: 0
11/25/08 at 4:48pm
  • Joined: August 2006
  • Post Count: 497

re: Films that need DVD Releases with their Original Aspect Ratio, anamorphic if need be!

Head (1968)
Export to Wiki
#41
Rating: 0
11/25/08 at 5:13pm
  • Joined: August 2003
  • Location: Sunny California, USA
  • Post Count: 715

re: Films that need DVD Releases with their Original Aspect Ratio, anamorphic if need be!

I've never run a print of HEAD before, but doesn't it have hard mattes in it?

-J. Theakston

Export to Wiki
#42
Rating: 0
11/25/08 at 5:44pm
  • Joined: July 2000
  • Post Count: 892

Re: Request for Sticky: Titles on dvd presented 4:3 instead of correct matted ratio

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie O.
GENERAL NOTES:
"Jade" was filmed in an aspect ratio of 1:85:1, but at the request of Director William Friedkin, all home video, DVD, and Laserdisc versions of the film are presented full frame, approximately 1:33:1 in aspect ratio

TAKEN FROM
Rewind @ www.dvdcompare.net - Jade (1995)

For years, Friedkin had resisted letterboxing because he worried most people's televisions were already too small and they would dislike watching an ostensibly "smaller" image (even though it would be the proper aspect ratio). It is a reason why he almost never shot in 2.35 scope. Friedkin has since changed his mind and approved 16x9 masters of his films, and supposedly the remaining films of his that initially got 1.33 releases (SORCERER, BLUE CHIPS, JADE) will be revisited in the future.

\"As I looked back over my life, I realized that I enjoyed nothing--not art, not sex--more than going to the movies.\" -- Gore Vidal

Export to Wiki
#43
Rating: 0
11/25/08 at 5:48pm
  • Joined: May 2001
  • Location: Georgia, USA
  • Post Count: 7,216

Re: Request for Sticky: Titles on dvd presented 4:3 instead of correct matted ratio

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
That was my question Jack but everyone bought it at the chat and threads after the chat. I for one believed them because it didn't make any sense that they'd give all the films extras but go cheap on 4 & 5 yet give 6 & 7 (both bombs to fans) widescreen transfers.

Warner could have been lying (as they did with their original Kubrick comments depending on which way you go) but it still doesn't make much sense to cop-out on two fan favorites but then give better treatment to two films even fans hate.

Bob, do you know a site I can read up on those "Z" movies Jamie mentioned? I've never seen any promotional stuff for those Ed Wood, Jerry Warren type films so I'd be interested in reading up on them. The few books I've read on Wood never really got into talk about them outside the fact that they didn't play too many theaters and that Weiss couldn't get GOG released at all. I've seen those great photos you posted in the other thread so I was curious if these no-name, no-budget studios went as far as to promote their films in that way.

1. Warner didn't quite mislead on the Kubrick titles. The circa-1991 transfers of his Warner Bros. films were approved by him. He simply OK'ed going unmatted on all of the films. This resulted in the hard-mattes being visible on A Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon, with The Shining and Full Metal Jacket being full open matte. Eyes Wide Shut was made open matte based on the presidence. We'll never know exactly what Kubrick would have suggested for new 1080p transfers meant for 16x9 televisions. However, he did always intend theatrical presentations to be matted. Some filmmakers changed their mind between formats. Richard Lester was fine with open matte on A Hard Day's Night and Help! on the old Criterion, MPI, and AMC transfers. The 1.66:1 16x9 enhanced transfers on the current DVDs were approved yet again.

2. In the case of the Police Academy sequels, it's likely WB had only remastered those two films in 4x3 and didn't want to spend more money re-doing them. I assume the rest of the films had 16x9 masters created already. The great majority of their early 4x3 open matte releases are films simply not high priorities. I think any follies of 1997-1999 DVDs from any studio can be generally forgiven. There's isolated cases of excellent work from the period like American Graffiti, Amadeus, and The Third Man.

Tell The Weinstein Company to release Richard Williams' animated masterpiece The Thief and the Cobbler on DVD in Panavision widescreen and uncut! See and hear what you're missing from their Bitsy Award winner of Worst Standard Edition DVD of 2006 on YouTube!
Export to Wiki
#44
Rating: 0
11/26/08 at 9:48pm
  • Joined: April 2004
  • Location: Arizona
  • Post Count: 570

re: Films that need DVD Releases with their Original Aspect Ratio, anamorphic if need be!

Disney has a lot, but The Country Bears is near the top of my list that I would get if it was available in widescreen.
My DVDs
Export to Wiki
#45
Rating: 0
11/27/08 at 4:46am
  • Joined: August 2006
  • Post Count: 497

re: Films that need DVD Releases with their Original Aspect Ratio, anamorphic if need be!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Theakston
I've never run a print of HEAD before, but doesn't it have hard mattes in it?

There are some effects shots that do. That makes the case for me.
Export to Wiki
#46
Rating: 0
11/27/08 at 9:15am
  • Joined: December 1998
  • Location: Michigan
  • Post Count: 17,142

re: Films that need DVD Releases with their Original Aspect Ratio, anamorphic if need be!

I almost forgot one of my favorite Lancaster films "The Train" which hasn't been releases in its OAR in Region 1.
G.W. McLintock: Camille, you're on your own.
Export to Wiki
#47
Rating: 0
11/27/08 at 9:22am
  • Joined: December 1998
  • Location: Michigan
  • Post Count: 17,142

re: Films that need DVD Releases with their Original Aspect Ratio, anamorphic if need be!

There is still the question of "The Naked Jungle" which starred Charlton Heston and Eleanor Parker. Filming began in late-June of 1953 with only one source mentioning it being filmed in a widescreen format.

I have to check my DVD of "Inherit the Wind" because I don't remembered that having a anamorphic presentation?





Crawdaddy
G.W. McLintock: Camille, you're on your own.
Export to Wiki
#48
Rating: 0
11/27/08 at 10:01am
  • Joined: December 2001
  • Post Count: 510

re: Films that need DVD Releases with their Original Aspect Ratio, anamorphic if need be!

Paramount went 100% wide-screen in late March, so NAKED JUNGLE would certainly be composed for 1:66 presentation.
Export to Wiki
#49
Rating: 0
11/27/08 at 10:12am
  • Joined: February 2008
  • Post Count: 593

re: Films that need DVD Releases with their Original Aspect Ratio, anamorphic if need be!

I thought The Train and Inherit The Wind were letterboxed (but non-anamorphic) transfers. So, they are in their OARs but not enhanced for widescreen - is that what you meant, Robert?
Export to Wiki
#50
Rating: 0
11/27/08 at 12:36pm
  • Joined: December 1998
  • Location: Michigan
  • Post Count: 17,142

Re: Films that need DVDs with their Original Aspect Ratio, anamorphic if need be!

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyFeldman
I thought The Train and Inherit The Wind were letterboxed (but non-anamorphic) transfers. So, they are in their OARs but not enhanced for widescreen - is that what you meant, Robert?
Yes, that's what I mean which bothers me just as much as non-OAR because I want the widescreen presentation to fill the screen as intended without losing any resolution in the process.

To me, letterbox transfers and non-OAR are not giving us, the consumers the best that home video can offer us as we watch our favorite films at home.







Crawdaddy
G.W. McLintock: Camille, you're on your own.
Export to Wiki
#51
Rating: 0
11/27/08 at 1:29pm
  • Joined: April 2006
  • Location: Charlotte, NC
  • Post Count: 1,958

Re: Films that need DVD Releases with their Original Aspect Ratio, anamorphic if need be!

MGM went through a period where none of their 1.66:1 transfers were anamorphic. WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION, one of my all-time favorite films, isn't anamorphic and neither is THE MIRACLE WORKER which ranks as my favorite film of all time.

As much as I love these movies, I rarely watch them because I can't stand the presentation. They've gone back and corrected THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE and TWELVE ANGRY MEN. I'd love to see some of these other classics afforded equal treatment.
Export to Wiki
#52
Rating: 0
11/27/08 at 8:05pm
  • Joined: February 2008
  • Post Count: 593

Re: Films that need DVDs with their Original Aspect Ratio, anamorphic if need be!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Crawford
Yes, that's what I mean which bothers me just as much as non-OAR because I want the widescreen presentation to fill the screen as intended without losing any resolution in the process.

To me, letterbox transfers and non-OAR are not giving us, the consumers the best that home video can offer us as we watch our favorite films at home.







Crawdaddy

Totally agree.
Export to Wiki
#53
Rating: 0
11/28/08 at 9:32am
  • Joined: June 2003
  • Post Count: 109

Re: Request for Sticky: Titles on dvd presented 4:3 instead of correct matted ratio

There are a bunch of movies that fit into this category that I would love to get re-released, but due to the low priority, sales of some of these films, I have fear that they won't be re-released. I'm not entirely sure which I'm talking about are pan and scan vs open matte, but I know all of them were originally 1:85 in theaters and are not 4:3 fullscreen on dvd.

WB

With Honors
Made in America
In Country
Guilty by Suspicion
Boiling Point
Grumpy Old Men
Grumpier Old Men
My Fellow Americans
Action Jackson
The Witches
Doc Hollywood
It Takes Two
Clean and Sober

and a bunch by
Disney

Man of the House
Blank Check
Heavyweights
First Kid
Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey
Export to Wiki
#54
Rating: 0
11/28/08 at 12:51pm
  • Joined: June 2004
  • Post Count: 1,234

Re: Request for Sticky: Titles on dvd presented 4:3 instead of correct matted ratio

Columbia:
Bite the Bullet
Hard Times
-- originally released wide, now only full

Disney:
Johnny Tremain
Darby O'Gill and the Little People
-- region 2 editions are widescreen

MGM:
Odds Against Tomorrow

Universal:
Charley Varrick
Colossus: the Forbin Project
http://www.3dfilmpf.org/
"... little by little the look of the country changes because of the people we admire."
dialog in HUD (1963)
Export to Wiki
#55
Rating: 0
11/28/08 at 1:17pm
  • Joined: August 2003
  • Location: Sunny California, USA
  • Post Count: 715

Re: Request for Sticky: Titles on dvd presented 4:3 instead of correct matted ratio

Here are more titles (with the intended aspect ratios in parentheses)

Sony
The Stranger Wore a Gun (1.85-1)

Universal
Thunder Bay (1.37-1)

Warner HV
Kiss Me Kate (1.75-1)

Perhaps this thread should be merged with the already stickied thread?

-J. Theakston

Export to Wiki
#56
Rating: 0
11/28/08 at 1:51pm
  • Joined: April 2003
  • Location: Bolton, Lancashire
  • Post Count: 3,296

Re: Request for Sticky: Titles on dvd presented 4:3 instead of correct matted ratio

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard--W
Universal:
Charley Varrick
Colossus: the Forbin Project

The UK editions of both of these are anamorphic OAR too.
So many films, so little time...
Film Journal Blog
Harold Shand: What I'm looking for is someone who can contribute to what England has given to the world: culture, sophistication, genius. A little bit more than an 'ot dog, know what I mean?
Export to Wiki
#57
Rating: 0
11/29/08 at 7:29pm
  • Joined: September 2003
  • Post Count: 470

Re: Films that need DVD Releases with their Original Aspect Ratio, anamorphic if need be!

The Bridges At Toko-Ri
Paramount
released December 1954

The Gnome Mobile
Disney
released December 19, 1967

Red Garters
Paramount
released March 26, 1954

Babes In Toyland
Disney
released December 14, 1961

The Benny Goodman Story
Universal
released February 2, 1956

A Bucket of Blood
AIP
released October 21, 1959
Export to Wiki
#58
Rating: 0
12/2/08 at 8:00am
  • Joined: August 2006
  • Post Count: 497

Re: Films that need DVD Releases with their Original Aspect Ratio, anamorphic if need be!

Sonny Chiba's Street Fighter movies need anamorphic presentation in R1
Export to Wiki
#59
Rating: 0
12/2/08 at 3:28pm
  • Joined: March 2007
  • Post Count: 273

Re: Films that need DVD Releases with their Original Aspect Ratio, anamorphic if need be!

Quote:
Originally Posted by WadeM
Sonny Chiba's Street Fighter movies need anamorphic presentation in R1

Aren't we thinking more of films not released in their correct ratio here?
Export to Wiki
#60
Rating: 0
12/2/08 at 7:08pm
  • Joined: February 2008
  • Post Count: 593

Re: Films that need DVD Releases with their Original Aspect Ratio, anamorphic if need

Quote:
Originally Posted by James 'Tiger' Lee
Aren't we thinking more of films not released in their correct ratio here?

I think that was the purpose. How soon do we lose this awful black stuff on the site? I understand someone's paying to have it be The Dark Knight, but I really don't like it.
Export to Wiki
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread