A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray - Page 2

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

Again, I'm asking for sources.

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

Only he knows...and he ain't tellin'!!!

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

"Full Screen" is strictly (or at least very widely considered in the industry) a 4x3 television term, for those who don't like the 'black bars' taking up their screen space. The image is either zoomed and panned & scanned as needed, or in the case of open matte production, exposing unintended areas. "This film has been modified to fit your screen..."

My 16x9 television and BD player is always set to show all programs in their correct aspect ratio. My dad, on the other hand, likes to have his image set to stretch the outer edge. Is that therefore considered full-screen to you?

"Widescreen" and "Anamorphic Enhanced Widescreen" are 2 different beasts. We're still hoping for an AEW version of "The Abyss", not like the current Widescreen version which letterboxes the film within the 4x3 frame, which can give both letterboxing and pillarboxing on a 16x9 set.

Sadly, I've seen studios take 4x3 classic films like "Treasure of the Sierra Madre", and make zoomed 16x9 HD transfers for HD broadcasts - I saw it this way on Treasure HD. Hollywood still lives in fear of the "black bar backlash", regardless of whether the set belonging to the uneducated/unwilling consumer costs $500 or $5000.

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

MGM HD channel did this to THE RED SHOES, and it was maddening to watch.

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

I've seen the term "full screen" used to describe a 1.78:1 image on a 16:9 display as far back as 2000, on Artisan's initial DVD release of Stir of Echoes.

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

This whole thread has me extremely worried about the future of academy ratio films. I've been toying with subscribing to MGMHD, but after reading that they butchered The Red Shoes, I'll pass. I guess the problem is that the average viewer is not concerned with the aesthetics of what they're watching (and this isn't meant as some kind of elitist put-down... we all have our various passions... for the average viewer, movies are entertainment of the boredom-killing variety--and there's nothing wrong with that). I suppose it's possible that a company or network (such as Turner) could sponsor an education blitz that explains to the viewer how films come in all different shapes and sizes, and that one shouldn't expect a properly shown movie to truly fill a 16x9 screen (except in rare cases: but I, for one, advocate the very slight opening up of open-matte 1.85 film to 1.78--as long as there's no cropping; but I realize I could get horse whipped for this in certain circles ;-)). The problem with the education campaign (and I'm thinking of something along the lines of an update of TCM's "letterbox" short) is that I think it would fall on deaf ears.

I'd like to think that when TCM eventually broadcasts in HD that they will continue to show films in the correct ratio regardless of where the "black bars" may fall (but I assume MGMHD is run by the same people who run TCM... so I'm more than a little nervous).

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

To toy with this even further...TCM once aired "On The Waterfront" at a 1.85:1 ratio, but Columbia's recent DVD release made it clear that it was shot and intended for 1.33:1 Academy ratio. Count me as one person who won't be buying the new "Gulliver's Travels" blu ray issue...

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

Which just makes it that much more maddening that we don't have a good release, and have had to settle with trying to pick the best of the worst.

Outside of WB, I hate the lack of treatment for Fleischer.

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

The situaion with the Republic library licensed by Lionsgate is terrible.

You now how The Quiet Man has an absolutely terrible DVD? UCLA apparently restored and preserved the film years ago from the original negatives and other elements. High Noon is the only film out of this library that has been remastered and it's only because it was for a R2 Paramount DVD. That was the basis for Lionsgate's 2-disc SE. I'm guessing no one has gotten around to a new transfer of The Quiet Man since it's just as ugly in R2.

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

Don't even get me started on The Quiet Man. I expect a pristine Blu-ray one day. I find it amusing that in the front of Leonard Maltin's Classic Movie Guide he lists The Quiet Man as one of the movies that he "wants to call your attention to...that have been given the kind of special presentation they deserve." Ha! It's the worst DVD I've ever seen!

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

Where did you see that? The DVD cover only states "16x9 Widescreen Digitally Restored". And, BTW, that would be 1999, not 2000. I have the DVD in front of me.

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

Buena Vista Social Club. States fullscreen transfer, but also indicates that by fullscreen, it means 16:9.

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

If you're referring to the 2000 Lionsgate DVD, that's 1.33:1.

The OAR is 1.78:1.

There are two Region 2 versions that are 1.77:1 and 1.78:1, but I don't know how the aspect is described on them since I don't own them. However, there is also an OAR Region 2, as well out there.

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

As I said, that verbiage is on the back of the original Stir of Echoes DVD. Are you sure you aren't looking at the later "special edition" release? You can see the cover of the original version here. In the upper-left-hand corner, it states: "16:9 Fullscreen Version."

Also, although Stir of Echoes was a 1999 theatrical release, it was not available on DVD until February 2000.

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

I think we have all seen weird, non-standard stuff on DVD covers.

But come on. Does anyone REALLY think that a DVD marked "FULL SCREEN" is going to be anything other than 1.33:1? Really?

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

Your link isn't working. Either way, the only "Full Screen" listing I can find for that movie is a 1.33:1 edition.

If you are referring to the 1.78:1 Region 2 release, that's Europe's problem, not ours. Gulliver's travels lists it incorrectly in the US release.

Absolutely.

There are plenty of discs that incorrectly claim to be anamorphic, plenty that don't say - but are, and plenty that have the wrong aspect listed all together.

Someone looking for "Full Screen" is someone with a 4:3 TV. If they buy a widescreen TV, they would look for "widescreen". Whether that widescreen movie "fills the screen" or not is another matter.

Either way, I do believe this will go down as the worst BD release of all time. Between the print quality, the stretching and people getting cut off at the eyeballs, this is just plain bad.

I nominate "The Hideways" as the worst DVD release of all time:

Amazon.com: The Hideaways: Ingrid Bergman, Sally Prager, Johnny Doran, George Rose, Georgann Johnson, Richard Mulligan, Madeline Kahn, Bruce Conover, Mike Hammett, Donald Symington, Linda Selman, Peter Turgeon, Robert Packer, Bruce Kornbluth, Josip E

I was reminded of it when I found it via one of the reviewers of Gulliver's Travels. Since I've seen both (and actually own "The Hideaways") I agree with both reviews.

Of course, it's odd that most of the reviews for The Hideaways also seem to be 4 and 5 stars. However, none of those review the quality of the print. They only comment on the movie.

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

My apologies. Let's see if this works instead:

Follow this link, click on "Stir of Echoes R1," and then on "front" to see a high-resolution scan of the entire cover (curiously, not just the front), including "16:9 Fullscreen Version" in the upper-left corner, as promised.


I'm not referring to a Region 2 release. What difference would it make if I was?

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

The 'Stir Of Echoes' R1 'fullscreen' 16x9 may be a typo...Check the fine print: "Fullscreen:Formatted from its original version to fit your screen. Enhanced for 16x9 television." Is this a double sided disc? (along the lines of dual-sided WB titles - WS one one side, FS on other)

Sorry to keep dragging this thread off-topic...

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

Actually, the cover he directed me to does say "enhanced for widescreen TVs".

However, it still does not fit the recognized definition of Full Screen and is certainly in the minority.

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

"Full Screen" is a marketing term. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

I thought I said that...

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

They've been showing THE LIFE AND DEATH OF COLONEL BLIMP in 4x3 within the 16x9 frame, so I don't think it is their standard policy to crop 4x3 to 16x9. Funnily enough, THE BABYSITTER, a 1980 TV movie, they crop to 16x9 yet have the ending credits 4x3 within the 16x9 frame. The image quality was wonderful, but there were a few scenes where the framing was off - one shot I even saw an electric pan up so as not to crop off an actor's face from the shot. :-)

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

On its own, yes, but if it's qualified then its meaning is obvious.

In the post-production industry it's extremely common for recordings to be labelled "16:9FF" (Full Frame) or "4:3FF", which not only tells you the shape of the screen it's designed for, but also its ratio (i.e.: 1.78:1 and 1.33:1).

Letterboxed images are usually labelled "16:9LB" or "4:3LB", followed by the aspect ratio of the image within the frame (e.g.: "16:9 LB 2.35:1" or "4:3LB 1.85:1").

Anyone who thinks "Full screen" only applies to screens that are 4:3 shaped is a bit behind-the-times!

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

The phrase only meant anything when all tvs were 4:3. Every day in this country, somebody else buys a 16:9 tv, rendering "full screen" less and less meaningful. So--we're entering an era of confusion in regards to that phrase.

I wonder if--by putting "widescreen" or "full screen" on dvd covers, that the studios are trying to protect themselves from a class action lawsuit in case they print something wrong? I seem to remember MGM or WB getting sued awhile back because they had little printed images on the backs of dvd covers that supposedly showed the difference between a "full screen" or "widescreen" image. The class action lawsuit stated that the actual aspect ratio was incorrect in those images. Stupid, pointless lawsuit, yes--but I think the studios lost.

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

Actually, anyone who thinks that is being pragmatic.

And so are the studios. I can't imagine any studio taking the stance that they should label a disk that fills a 16:9 TV as "Full Screen".

Even if it can be argued that a studio would be technically correct in doing so, it would be a stupid move. To the buying public (as opposed to industry insiders) "Full Screen" = 4:3. Trying to change it now is what would cause confusion.

It is not a meaningless term to 99% of the people who buy these things. If I see a disk marked "Full Screen" I'm not buying it. I'm looking for the one marked "Widescreen".

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

The point seems terribly trivial, but I'm old enough to remember the advent of VCRs and laserdiscs. The British term "letterboxed" meant nothing to most Americans, who didn't like black bars to start with, so some marketers began calling movies "widescreen." To make the cropped 4X3 versions sound just as appealing, they were called "full screen." I can't imagine anyone calling a 16X9 image "full screen," since that would be terribly confusing. A lot of people still use 4X3 televisions, after all.

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

Well, that might be true, but we need to move on.

HD is becoming increasingly common, and it's native ratio is 16:9. Certainly here in the UK, you'd be hard pushed to find a new 4:3 set to buy. Maybe they're still commonly available in the US?

Re: A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray

^ In North America, more than 50% of TVs still in service are CRT-based. Presume a lot of those are 4:3.

"Full" or "full screen" has been used to describe 16:9 images on a 16:9 display for at least a decade. I know Sony and Pioneer did and still do it for their displays. It is the DVD descriptions that made it more confusing because it meant 4:3 for them usually.