Noble House aspect ratio?

Re: Noble House aspect ratio?

Noble House was shown a few months ago on I think CBS Drama. I only saw a few seconds of it, but what caught my eye was the mention of Pierce Brosnan in the Sky listings programme information. What I saw of the mini-series had him in it, and looking at his appearance I was trying to figure out when Noble House was filmed (and shown). It had got to be inbetween when Remington Steele originally aired in the US, and when GoldenEye was released in cinemas. Seeing now that it was from 1988 is probably about right, not long after filming of Remington Steele's shortened fifth season (I assume in 1986, the year that Pierce Brosnan nearly became Bond, before he had to film more episodes of Remington Steele).

What I saw of Noble House, I didn't think at the time to notice if the aspect ratio was fullscreen or not. I thought all US TV series/mini-series up to around the mid 90's were filmed in a 1.33:1 aspect ratio. So a 1.66:1 aspect ratio seems strange.

I checked the IMDb company credits page for Noble House, and it says it has been released on DVD in Germany by Kinowelt Home Entertainment (in 2009), Denmark by Soul media (this year) and in Austrailia by Umbrella Entertainment (last year). The IMDb technical specifications page dosen't give anything about the aspect ratio.

However....I've checked the IMDb forum for Noble House, and in one thread, where the grainy picture quality is being discussed, a poster replies saying it was matted at 16 x 9, when it was shot in fullscreen.

Sometimes programs shot for television in one country are shown in theaters in other countries, so that might account for differing aspect ratios with this title. It may have been framed "safe" for use with multiple aspect ratios around the world. Just a thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattH. 

Sometimes programs shot for television in one country are shown in theaters in other countries, so that might account for differing aspect ratios with this title. It may have been framed "safe" for use with multiple aspect ratios around the world. Just a thought.

So if it was in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio it wouldn't be incorrect? I'm thinking back to a discussion here about Stephen King's IT, where that was presented in a 1.33:1 fullscreen ratio, but it could have been shot in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattH. 

Sometimes programs shot for television in one country are shown in theaters in other countries, so that might account for differing aspect ratios with this title. It may have been framed "safe" for use with multiple aspect ratios around the world. Just a thought.

I recall that Bette Midler's "Gypsy" was supposedly shot in 16X9 for theatrical release in Europe, but it was shown on television (and Region 1 dvd) as 1:33:1. I've never seen the wider version, that is, if it exists, and wasn't just a crop job.

I am also told that "The 10th Kingdom" was shot wider, and shown on tv in fullscreen mode. That one I think I might believe, because if you notice the current dvd, the AR does make things look cramped from time to time. If it does have a wider version lying around, maybe they should put it out on bluray for us fans, huh? And Gypsy too.

Although none of this explains to me what the deal is with the original "V" mini-series from 1983. It was certainly fullscreen when originally aired, but the dvd is a little wider. Don't know if it was cropped for the dvd, and if it was, don't ask me why. Cropped tv shows, especially "Dark Shadows: the Revival," can make me literally ill when watching them.

I think the problem is is that there's always such a scarcity about spec and technical issues concerning tv shows. You can probably find online the specs for any theatrical movie under the sun, but television OAR experts are few and far between. That's a pity--I think Americans do protect the integrity of their films far far more than they do their old tv shows. And when older tv shows like Noble House or other minis start showing up on bluray, maybe they will be further scrutinized and not altered. (Ugh...that last comment just made me remember the bluray of Lonesome Dove. Umm...hmm...maybe we have a long way to go yet).

I concur about the lack of information regarding specification and technical issues about TV shows. It's so easy to find information about which company/distributor has released or owns the rights to a film on the IMDb, but in terms of aspect ratio information about TV shows, it's the opposite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaveCrest 

I concur about the lack of information regarding specification and technical issues about TV shows. It's so easy to find information about which company/distributor has released or owns the rights to a film on the IMDb, but in terms of aspect ratio information about TV shows, it's the opposite.

I'm guess the "experts" at imdb and other sources naturally assume that all shows made in the last century were 1:33:1. That makes sense. But there's these other films that must have been shot with optional ARs. Lonesome Dove is the perfect example. Its current home video version is 16X9 I think, and there's some very very weird framing, almost like it's some bizarro-world hybrid made by both cropping and then using the fuller 16X9 option from the original negative. Or something like that...nobody is quite sure what they did. The screen cap comparisons on that mini-series just sort of confuse the fans. The original "V" is almost the same way.

But as I'm guessing, once we dig deeper into these great minis for bluray release, people are going to get a lot more picky about the presentation of these films. If the studios have a really good wider AR version of some of these films--fine, let's see them on dvd. But if they're just going to crop and tinker with them, I'd rather see them in fullscreen. Hopefully some of the filmmakers will be more protective of their art in the future (are you listening, Dark Shadows producers?)