A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[NetworkTV]

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.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

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

 

[NetworkTV]

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.

 

[cafink]

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.

 

[Ensign Eddie]

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?

 

[NetworkTV]

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.

 

[cafink]

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

 

[Keith Paynter]

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...

 

[NetworkTV]

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.

 

[Brandon Conway]

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

 

[Keith Paynter]

I thought I said that...

 

[Robert Harris]

Actually "full screen" is a meaningless term.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

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.

 

[JulianK]

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!

 

[Ethan Riley]

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.

 

[Ensign Eddie]

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".

 

[compson]

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.

 

[JulianK]

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?

 

[CraigF]

^ 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.

 

[WilliamMcK]

In the end we're still left with a mutilated version of Gulliver's Travels on Blu-Ray. The semantics are less important to me than the possibility of the future cropping/distorting of academy ratio movies. For now, it's probably best to heed Mr. Harris and consider "full screen" a meaningless phrase and talk about the specifics of a movie's intended AR and its presentation on home video.