WHV Press Release: Excalibur (Blu-ray)

Let's hope it's properly framed this time. Next up: Zardoz!

uh, where's the "Camelot" tie in WB?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Ulmer 

Let's hope it's properly framed this time. Next up: Zardoz!

I'm betting this is the same transfer that the HD DVD had. If so then you'll be disappointed.

I was hoping for some more extras on this release. At least a making of doc or featurette. Or something historical related to the book or the legend. Just something besides an audio commentary. Oh, well, hope the picture is great.

I'm disappointed in the lack of extras as well. Wasn't it hinted back when the Deliverance SE was released that Warners was working on a special edition of this title as well?

The DVD was supposed to include a making of doc. There was apparently a 50 minute doc shot during production.

For some reason I'm not excited about this release.  I saw this in the theater when it first opened and it looked okay and I don't expect the Blu-ray to look much better.

Too bad they (once again) didn't use the original theatrical poster artwork...I absolutely hate that bland cover.

Excalibur was framed for 1.66:1 (British Flat) and I really hope it isn't cropped for 1.78. Chins and eyeballs will be cut off and the image will be horribly cramped and crowded. Warners cropped A Room With a View to 1.78 from it's original 1.66, something I believe was even sanctioned by cinematographer Tony Pierce-Roberts and it's unwatchable. Sony at least had the integrity to release A Passage to India in it's original 1.66 even though nearly everyone who made the film is dead and can't be consulted. Though The Color Purple was specifically framed 1.85:1, Warners released it on blu ray cropped on the left and right for 1.78 and you can tell. Cinematographers for some reason are giving the okay to release their work truncated or reformatted and it looks awful. Do they want to reinvent their old work? Do they think we're stupid and won't notice? (Well, most of us are...).

I agree that 1.66 films shouldn't be cropped to 1.78, but the difference between 1.85 and 1.78 is so minor that you'll get far more variation in the masking from theatre to theatre.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein 

Rated PG?? Did they do a Saturday Night Fever here ;)
 

There was a PG cut released, but I'm 99% sure when I initially saw it was most definitely R just for the blood spatter and lopped off limbs.   

Surely that has to be a typo.  140 minutes is the unedited version,  119 is the running time listed for the edited version.

If memory serves me right the original release to theatres was an R with a running time of around 140 minutes.  There was later a re-release to try to bring in a larger gross and interest a larger audience and the rating was PG and about 20 minutes of sex and violence was cut out.  All home video editions have use the R rated version.

I've never seen the PG cut, but according to IMDb it runs about 21 minutes shorter than the R cut. If Warner made it available through seamless branching I wouldn't object.

1.78:1 transfers are almost always the 1.85:1 framing area except with slightly more vertical area visible. Studios aren't taking masters with exactly 1.85:1 framing and cropping on the sides. 1.66:1 to 1.78:1 is another matter, but the idea that 1.85:1 films are being cropped to 1.78:1 is ridiculous. It was an old argument in 2001, let alone 2011...

Quote:

Originally Posted by 24fpssean 

Excalibur was framed for 1.66:1 (British Flat) and I really hope it isn't cropped for 1.78. Chins and eyeballs will be cut off and the image will be horribly cramped and crowded. Warners cropped A Room With a View to 1.78 from it's original 1.66, something I believe was even sanctioned by cinematographer Tony Pierce-Roberts and it's unwatchable. Sony at least had the integrity to release A Passage to India in it's original 1.66 even though nearly everyone who made the film is dead and can't be consulted. Though The Color Purple was specifically framed 1.85:1, Warners released it on blu ray cropped on the left and right for 1.78 and you can tell. Cinematographers for some reason are giving the okay to release their work truncated or reformatted and it looks awful. Do they want to reinvent their old work? Do they think we're stupid and won't notice? (Well, most of us are...).

 

Hoorah for Excalibur on Bluray at last. Epic fail for the cover art however - I love the original poster! I'm getting VERY tired of the unimaginative cover art for 80% of todays bluray releases. Bring back the original artwork already...

Having said all that - pre-ordered!

- John

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Norman 

There was a PG cut released, but I'm 99% sure when I initially saw it was most definitely R just for the blood spatter and lopped off limbs.   

 

Surely that has to be a typo.  140 minutes is the unedited version,  119 is the running time listed for the edited version.

 

Totally forgot there was a PG version!  They better include both and not just the PG if this is not a typo...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felix Martinez 

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Norman 

There was a PG cut released, but I'm 99% sure when I initially saw it was most definitely R just for the blood spatter and lopped off limbs.   

 

Surely that has to be a typo.  140 minutes is the unedited version,  119 is the running time listed for the edited version.

 

Totally forgot there was a PG version!  They better include both and not just the PG if this is not a typo...

The only version that has been released on VHS, Laser, and DVD has been the 140 minute R-rated version.  I see no reason that Warner's will include both versions and the only version released will be the R-rated 140min.  From day one the preferred version was the R-rated one with both the director and studio.  They only did the PG version to expand the audience to include possible school groups that were under the age of 17 for a re-release.  While it is stated that both versions were released at the same time, that is a falsehood, since the MPAA has strict rules that only one rated version can be in active release at a time to avoid confusion. 

The most famous film that was released as an R then re-released as PG with major cuts was SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER.  And the PG version was one butchered film.  It was so obvious that the F-word was dubbed over.  The reason again for the re-editing was that theatre owners were having a very hard time keeping underage patrons out and the film was so successful that Paramount wanted to include the younger teens.  They recalled all the R-rated prints and had them destroyed so they could not accidentally be sent out, of course they weren't all destroyed and many ended up in collectors hands.  The PG version was the only one anyone could see until the VHS appeared and it was the original R rated version, thank goodness.

I also recall that M*A*S*H also went this route as a PG re-release but with little success due to the cuts and dubbing making the film almost not funny.  LAST TANGO IN PARIS was also re-rated from an X to an R in 1981 with cuts and is now back as an uncut NC-17.

Over the years, MIDNIGHT COWBOY and others have been re-submitted to the MPAA and their rating was changed from and X to an R or R to a PG without any cuts just due the change of attitudes.   

And it looks as if a PG-13 KING'S SPEECH will be made available to theaters, one hopes not to home theaters...

According to the listing on Amazon, the Excalibur blu-ray is rated PG. But the listing also says it is 140 minutes. Needless to say, I will not purchase if it the PG version.

Probably the best King Arthur movie ever made; this should be a studio's crown jewel and presented in a nice package with extras and the original (great Bob Peak) artwork. Instead, it's a catalog title, just as the DVD was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Favate 

According to the listing on Amazon, the Excalibur blu-ray is rated PG. But the listing also says it is 140 minutes. Needless to say, I will not purchase if it the PG version.

 

Probably the best King Arthur movie ever made; this should be a studio's crown jewel and presented in a nice package with extras and the original (great Bob Peak) artwork. Instead, it's a catalog title, just as the DVD was.

The Warner's announcement states the rating is R at 140min running time.  I don't put a lot of faith in what Amazon lists.
 

That Fact Sheet is a collector's item ;)

If a film was shot hardmatted 1.85:1 then in order to make it 1.78:1 there has to be slight cropping to the left and right. Any film shot open full Academy aperture to be later projected 1.85:1 can easily be opened up to 1.78:1. But a hard matte is a hard matte, there is no other image to the top and bottom that can be used.

Patrick, cropping of the original image is never an old argument so long as we have The Last Emperor recently, and disastrously, cropped to 2:1 for blu ray. You assume that "old fashioned" ideas eventually become obsolete in this industry. They do not. The original aspect ratio of many films is being altered for 1.78:1, even by the DP themselves. Don't ever assume that is "ridiculous".

What's ridiculous is comparing the two. There's a significant difference between a scope image cropped to 2:1. There's next to no difference between a 1.85 image that's opened up to 1.78.

This is a 1.85 image:

And this the same shot opened up to 1.78:

Given that so many transfers have issues with DNR, contrast boosting, revisionist colour correction etc., is it really worth getting worked up over such a minor difference? Again, you'll see far greater varation than that from theatre to theatre.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 24fpssean 

If a film was shot hardmatted 1.85:1 then in order to make it 1.78:1 there has to be slight cropping to the left and right. Any film shot open full Academy aperture to be later projected 1.85:1 can easily be opened up to 1.78:1. But a hard matte is a hard matte, there is no other image to the top and bottom that can be used.

Hard mattes to 1.85:1 are very rare these days, and have been for some time. I've lost count of the number of films ruined by open matte transfers (Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, The Princess Bride, the list goes on). However, 3-perf Super35 is becoming more widely accepted both for extracting 1.85:1 and 2.4:1. A recent example is The King's Speech, shot 3-perf, but projected 1.85:1. This is possible because 3-perf yields a native 1.78:1 ratio in production.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by 24fpssean 

If a film was shot hardmatted 1.85:1 then in order to make it 1.78:1 there has to be slight cropping to the left and right. Any film shot open full Academy aperture to be later projected 1.85:1 can easily be opened up to 1.78:1. But a hard matte is a hard matte, there is no other image to the top and bottom that can be used.

Most hard-matted 1.85:1 films are "shorter" aspect ratios at most since an exact matte on film would open up the possibilities of the matte showing through on the screen, which isn't good. Even CGI films tend to be under-matted on 35mm. Shrek was about 1.66:1 on original prints and I recall Toy Story being 1.75:1. The only exceptions I can think of are Tati's Playtime (1.85:1 hard-matted on 65mm) and compilation films like That's Entertainment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 24fpssean 

If a film was shot hardmatted 1.85:1 then in order to make it 1.78:1 there has to be slight cropping to the left and right. Any film shot open full Academy aperture to be later projected 1.85:1 can easily be opened up to 1.78:1. But a hard matte is a hard matte, there is no other image to the top and bottom that can be used

Quote:

Originally Posted by 24fpssean 

Patrick, cropping of the original image is never an old argument so long as we have The Last Emperor recently, and disastrously, cropped to 2:1 for blu ray. You assume that "old fashioned" ideas eventually become obsolete in this industry. They do not. The original aspect ratio of many films is being altered for 1.78:1, even by the DP themselves. Don't ever assume that is "ridiculous".

The only difference between a 1.85:1 transfer and 1.78:1 master is around 32-34 lines of resolution if it's in 1080p. On one, the lines are made up of extra vertical picture information on the top and bottom. The other substitutes the extra picture information for black space per a film's tech specifications. Without regarding of the million other factors that make up a transfer, there shouldn't be any difference in horizontal picture information. Even the transfer might have more picture on all four sides than is needed for a proper framing. The Last Emperor was shot in anamorphic scope and cropped horizontally, which is an entirely different type of framing issue.

I fully agree that 1.66:1 should be used when appropriate, though. The original Excalibur DVD looked tight on all four sides.

As Worth so succinctly illustrated with his examples above, there is more information at the top and bottom of the frame (more leafs in these images, etc.), so yes there is a difference. Most people are not going to care but regardless there is something off about a film shot for 1.85 and opened up to 1.78. It may not be that big of a difference at home, but try that in the theater. Of course, if a DP wants his work changed for home video, that's a different matter. The Color Purple has a bigger sense of sweep to the image in 1.85. In 1.78, it's like a TV movie. If every frame counts in editing, every line counts in image.