Kung Fu - Season 1 (March 16th) is not OAR - Page 5

Lou Sytsma · 03-31-2004, 09:18 PM

Sorry if one says they want a tv show or movie presented on DVD exactly the way it was originally shown then ANY change is unacceptable. Therefore changed aspect ratio or scene additions/alterations should not be tolerated.

george kaplan · 03-31-2004, 10:29 PM

Sorry if one says they want a tv show or movie presented on DVD exactly the way it was originally shown then ANY change is unacceptable. Therefore changed aspect ratio or scene additions/alterations should not be tolerated.

Well if you replace the word "want" in your first sentence with "demand" then you are correct. However, most of the people on this thread complaining about Kung Fu being MAR did NOT state that they demand the show with no changes whatsoever, even if they stated they wanted it that way. What they said (for the most part) was that a particular change (namely a completely unnecessary MARring of the picture) was unacceptable.

Lou, you seem very much to want to tell other people what they are saying. You may disagree with the idea that someone can be completely opposed to MAR but be OK with a director's cut of a film in OAR, but that doesn't mean that other people can't feel that way. And if they feel that way, while you can disagree with it, it doesn't automatically negate their criticism of buying an MAR dvd.

Lou Sytsma · 04-01-2004, 08:46 AM

...and that line of thought works the other way as well.

Randy A Salas · 04-01-2004, 09:55 PM

Well, I have a statement from Warner. I had gotten one a few weeks ago, but it didn't address all the concerns I had, so I asked for another one. This one still doesn't do that, but it does elaborate some on the first one.

Here it is:

Quote:

Warner's statement on the Kung Fu DVD's framing

Warner Home Video decided to use the 16x9 remastered version of KUNG FU: THE COMPLETE FIRST SEASON to take advantage of increased horizontal resolution and provide a full screen image for consumers who have wide screen displays at home. We chose this format because consumer research shows that people prefer wide screen format when available, therefore we wanted to give consumers what they were requesting.

This does not represent a new overall direction for WHV in releasing television series on DVD. Current plans for future releases are expected to be in their original aspect ratio, however we evaluate and determine product strategies for each series on an individual basis.

What's still missing is a comment about any artistic reasoning--positive or negative--behind the widescreen framing. But this appears to be Warner's final word on the matter. I asked to be put in touch with series creator Ed Spielman, but was told he's unavailable for interviews. I'll have to track him down myself to confirm that's true.

Note: This statement was solicited on behalf of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, which must be credited if reposting.

george kaplan · 04-01-2004, 10:19 PM

Well that statement pretty much confirms some of my fears, and somewhat allays one of them.

Pretty much they've said that they are under the mistaken assumption that widescreen tv owners want our screens filled up, even if that means screwing with OAR.

The only good news is that they're apparently not automatically moving in this direction on all future releases. However, the bad news is that they're still going to 'evaluate' it on a case by case basis.

This still worries me, cause frankly, if your motivation is that you think customers want MARred releases to fill up their screen, then how does that change from release to release? I can only assume that they think Kung Fu fans are more likely to own widescreen tvs. So, I guess we'd better pray that they think fans of other 1.33 tv properties still own predominantly non-widescreen tvs.

Bottom line: WARNERS! We do NOT want our tvs filled up, no matter what shape they are. We want OAR. Period!

David Stone · 04-01-2004, 10:19 PM

Quote:

...to...provide a full screen image for consumers who have wide screen displays at home... We chose this format because consumer research shows that people prefer wide screen format when available, therefore we wanted to give consumers what they were requesting.

What's scary is that there are people this like in positions to make these kinds of decisions.

Using this logic, I guess we can expect new matted-for-fake-widescreen 16:9 releases of "Citizen Kane", "Casablanca" and all those other obsolete Academy ratio films and TV shows that were obviously shot in the wrong aspect ratio. Thank goodness Warner Home Video is here to correct those mistakes and re-format them all correctly for my new 16:9 TV. Bah!

OAR means both horizontally and vertically.
Matted-for-fake-widescreen = NO SALE!

Randy A Salas · 04-01-2004, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Using this logic, I guess we can expect new matted-for-fake-widescreen 16:9 releases of "Citizen Kane", "Casablanca" and all those other obsolete Academy ratio films

I doubt it--or, at least, that's not a logical assumption. Different people at Warner govern its movie output on home video than its TV output. Part of the reason it took me so long to get some kind of statement was that I first approached the movie folks but then was bounced to the TV folks, who issued the statement. Note that at the recent Warner chat, all the TV questions went to pot after the "TV person" had to leave.

george kaplan · 04-02-2004, 12:28 AM

Note that at the recent Warner chat, all the TV questions went to pot after the "TV person" had to leave.

Yes, although at that point, I had no questions for them about their tv product. God, I wish we were having that chat now. I'd have a lot for that guy.

Al.Anderson · 04-02-2004, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Using this logic, I guess we can expect new matted-for-fake-widescreen 16:9 releases of "Citizen Kane", "Casablanca" and

This viewpoint, which seems to be the unspoken rationale behind most of the OAR complaints about KF, is what drives my amazement at this thread. Most TV isn't art, heck most film isn't art - but some achieve that level, like Citizen Kane and (maybe) Casablanca*. It's freakin' Kung Fu - they were pumping thirteen for a season. It was "originally" broken up by commercials (do the OARers want these inserted too- call it Original Temporal Ratio) and mostly watched on poor (by today's standards) 25" screens.

And don't get me started on the Shakespeare comparisons. Shakespear like most of the artists of the period (print and visual) altered their creations numerous times after the initial "release". Which is why I have no problem when directors go back and and remove guns or add aliens - it's their baby, go at it. (There, now I'm totally off topic.)

I think we're losing perspective.

* BTW, I love Casablanca, it one of my top-10 films, not sure it's high art though.

george kaplan · 04-02-2004, 09:38 AM

Most TV isn't art, heck most film isn't art

Well that's your opinion, but many disagree about what is or isn't art. For myself it's all art, though some is good art and some is bad art.

However, while the threat that this might spread is definitely a concern, it is NOT the primary problem people have with this being MARred. The primary problem is that people don't want this MARred.

If your favorite movie came out only in a horribly edited and modified dvd, with guarantees that it wouldn't affect any other movies, and besides, lots of us think your favorite movie is crap anyway, so who cares if it's pan & scanned (or cropped & dropped), I can assume you'd be OK with that?

stewart borland · 04-02-2004, 02:43 PM

The big majority of my DVD's are OAR, and (because I don't have many old films) widescreen too.
Like some have said before, there are some titles, some people will buy, even if it goes against their own personal standards.
I have to admit if there is a title released that I really want, I'll buy it regardless. I've bought Kung Fu, I've watched it, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Sorry! :b