Films that need DVD Releases with their Original Aspect Ratio, anamorphic if need be! (1 Viewer)

[Mark B]

Go to the bottom of the screen; skin chooser.

A couple more:

Casanova's Big Night
Paramount
April 17, 1954

Young at Heart
WB
December 1954

Divorce American Style
Columbia
June 21, 1967

The Prince and the Showgirl
WB
June 13, 1957

Marjorie Morningstar
WB
April 24, 1958

 

[Matt Hough]

Look at the bottom of your page, and you'll see "skin" where you can try some other color combinations that might suit you better.

 

[WadeM]

That was what this thread was initially, but I think that changed during posts 47-52, at which time non-anamorphic presentations were brought up (which were in correct aspect ratio), and the title of the thread was changed to include "anamorphic if need be".

 

[Michael Elliott]

Is 1955's DIABOLIQUE in its original ratio? I watched it last night via TCM (from Criterion's print) and it was 1.33:1.

 

[BillyFeldman]

Pretty sure it is - France was slower to go widescreen - perhaps Jack or Bob know more on this, though. It may have been shown in the US in 1.66 or 1.85 because many theaters couldn't show Academy by that time. However, since it played art houses, maybe it was shown correctly.

 

[Jack Theakston]

LES DIABOLIQUES is 1.37-1.

 

[BillyFeldman]

I thought so - actually, do you know what the first French widescreen film was? Not scope, but 1.66 or 1.85? Breathless is obviously Academy, so would it be after that?

 

[Jack Theakston]

The typical French ratio was 1.66-1 or 1.85-1, depending on who was footing the bill, but primarily 1.66-1 during the '60s.

 

[BillyFeldman]

This I know - I phrased my question poorly - what was the first film made in France in 1.66? Breathless was in 1959, I think, and that was Academy, so would it have been after that? If so, I'm just wondering which film it was? Or would it have been pre-Breathless?

 

[Gary Couzens]

Louis Malle's Lift to the Scaffold (L'ascenseur pour l'échafaud) was made in 1958 and is 1.66:1. It's released as such on Optimum's Region 2 UK DVD.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Thanks to Billy and Jack as I didn't think Criterion would screw that film up.

So I'm guessing many foreign films were released in America under the wrong ratio? Or were theaters, outside those showing Hollywood blockbusters, still able to show 4:3?

 

[Jack Theakston]

Most theaters could run multiple ratios up until the late '50s/early '60s. Art houses, that would run foreign films, could run multiple ratios, since they were also running repertory films, too.

Many Italian, French and British films by the early '60s I find were composing for 1.85-1 in case they were picked up by an American distributor, even if they weren't being shown that way in Europe.

 

[Harry-N]

Warner needs to re-release a better version of Roman Polanski and Harrison Ford's FRANTIC. The current DVD is a mess, porting a crappy transfer that wasn't even good enough for LaserDisc.

Two letterboxed titles that need better anamporphic transfers are OUTLAND and THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1..2..3

Harry

 

[Rob P S]

Funny Farm
Running on Empty
Memphis Belle (not 16x9)
Yours Mine & Ours (original)

 

[Matt Hough]

And let's not forget DEATHTRAP or THE WITCHES.

 

[MatthewA]

Unavailable OAR:
Tom Sawyer (1973, United Artists) — 2.35:1, OAR from Amazon download
Casey's Shadow (1978, Columbia) — 2.35:1, OAR from Amazon download
84 Charing Cross Road (1984, WB) — 1.85:1
Sesame Street Presents Follow That Bird (1985, WB) — 1.85:1, supposedly OAR on iTunes!
Matilda (1996, TriStar) — 2.35:1

Need anamorphic reissues:
I Want to Live! (1958, United Artists) — 1.66:1
Inherit the Wind (1960, United Artists) — 1.66:1
The Happiest Millionaire (1967, Walt Disney) — 1.66:1

Disney's list of shame:
Pan & Scan Releases - Ultimate Guide to Disney DVD

A more comprehensive list that may be out of date but is still useful:
Widescreen Advocate - We Believe in OAR

 

[Mark Pytel]

I agree with all of the ones mentioned above. Here's my list which includes some previous mentions
titles with 16:9 have been done in widescreen on dvd just non-anamorphic

-Frantic needs a widesscreen dvd release badly,
-Funny Farm
-Lionheart (van damme) being re-released in a set as fullframe...still no new transfer.....everyone should contact universal and tell them to do a widescreen transfer

- Nothing But Trouble
-Guilty By Suspicion
-Spies Like Us
-Caddyshack II
-Boiling Point
My Blue Heaven
-Man With Two Brains
-All of Me
-Tango and Cash (16:9)
- Madigan (16:9)
- Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (16:9)
-Yours Mine Ours
-Fortress
-The Sicilian
Heavyweights
-Blank Check
-Operation Dumbo Drop
-Ernest Goes to Jail
-Ernest Scared Stupid
-First Kid
-Man of the House
-Honey I shrunk the Kids
Honey I Blew up The Baby
Three Men and A Little Lady
-Farewell my Lovely
-The Villain
In Country
Action Jackson
-A Goofy Movie
-Cant Buy Me Love
Computer Wore Tennis Shoes
The Strongest Man in the World
-Follow Me Boys
Tom and Huck
Clean and Sober
Deathtrap
Fearless
Wagon's East
An American Tail
An American Tail Fievel Goes West
Balto
Colossus Forbin Project
Iceman
The Shadow
Death Becomes Her

 

[Raymond lee Leggs]

Mean guns needs a NEW 2:35.1 DVD, all thats availible is a fullscreen bare bones edition, most of the films shot in Full-2:35.1 scope by Albert pyun are only fullscreen, you can tell too, everything looks so zoomed in, which is why i hate fullscreen versions of widescreen films.

Another one that NEEDs a widescreen release is Sidney J. Furie's Under heavy fire/Going back, only the last 10 minutes is in the origianal 1:85.1 aspect ratio

 

[Michael Elliott]

Thanks Jack. Everyone knows Chaplin was against sound films so I'm curious if any director's were against a wide ratio. If a director was against the wider ratio I guess he really didn't have any say if he was working in Hollywood.

Both DON'T LOOK BACK and GIMME SHELTER are 4:3 so is this because they were basically art movies or would the director's ratio be matted when played theatrically? I'm sure there are many more cases where the director wanted 4:3 but might not have had the option so I personally don't see this any different than a director wanting 1.85:1 but the studio releases it open matte on DVD.

 

[BillyFeldman]

Don't Look Now, presuming you are talking about the Nick Roeg film, is a widescreen film - always was, always has been, and always will be, and the DVDs reflect that.

Chaplin had his own studio and was his own boss. He was a very particular case and you cannot compare other directors to him. Directors, no matter how much they are though of as "auteurs" today, were working for studios and the studios were paying for the films and called the shots.