DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Martin (1 Viewer)

[Joe Karlosi]

Well said - right on the money!

 

[Michael Elliott]

Why do people keeping using examples that just aren't in any way possible? Perhaps had MARTIN been filmed in 1896 it would have all been in B&W. Perhaps if GWTW had been filmed in 2004 then we would have gotten it 2.35:1. What's the point? The bottom line is that this film was shown 1.85 and that's what it is here. I support Kubrick 100% but at the same time I understand people wanting THE SHINING, FULL METAL and EYES WIDE SHUT shown the way they saw it in theaters.

While we're at it, since Romero prefers all his early films shown 4:3, let's attack Anchor Bay for their matted DAWN and Blue Underground for the matted THE CRAZIES. Since he prefers these open matte, why aren't we upset? That e-mail wasn't the first time someone has told me Romero prefers these to be seen open matte. The other guy (who we all here have heard of) also said this several years ago. The next e-mail I'm going to post is going to say the same thing. If Romero is "supporting" the release not to burn any bridges then perhaps Anchor Bay didn't want to burn any bridges by releasing these open matte in a day and time when people want widescreen.

If Romero and Co. were really upset over the film being matted then they would have refused to work on it. Again, listen to the commentary where this stuff is talked about. The producer says the film was a "nice, surprise hit" so perhaps more people saw it in theaters than we thought. And when does the box office have a say in how the film should be presented?

 

[Joe Karlosi]

If the director made a film in 4:3 and prefers it to be seen this way to show his intended vision, that's precisely how it ought to be seen. This is really the bottom line, whether the film played in theatres for 1 week or 6 months. Unless you're talking sheer nostalgia value or something.

 

[Jim Peavy]

Yeah, remember the "old days" when they had a film open matte on one side and cropped/letterboxed on the other?

This seems the perfect opportunity for both versions (since both have their advantages). Those screen shots, not to mention Romero's preference, would make me shy away from this release.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I think tomorrow I'll check out my favorite USED DVD store. People are always unloading their "old" versions when they get the "new" disc.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Not nostalgia but the fact that it played theaters that way. Once again, I don't blame a single person for wanting the 4:3 version. There's the out of print AB dvd, 2 or 3 R2 discs as well as the VHS for this. Out of all of these versions, the LG release simply offers the film the way it was seen in theaters.

If Warner releases the Kubrick titles 1.85 only, I'll be hanging onto my current discs. As with MARTIN, to me the Kubrick films were meant to be seen 4:3. I've seen them matted and there are some issues just like the screenshots show for MARTIN. However, I will not blame Warner for releasing them that way or blame anyone who prefers the matte to 4:3.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Which was the wrong way in this case. I'm just trying to understand why you feel it's somehow a valid excuse.

 

[JeffMc]

I'm still waiting for Paramount to put out PHASE IV on DVD. When I first saw that one theatrically back in 1974, the film broke halfway through and the projectionist never got it back on the screen. I sure hope Paramount recreates that experience for me when they finally put it out on DVD. I only want half the film because it WAS projected that way and people saw it that way. Sure, it was projected improperly due to faulty equipment and a theater unequipped to show it the right way, but since it WAS theatrically shown that way, it deserves to be on DVD in a half-film presentation. I'm sure Paramount will do the right thing and present it that way!

I've also seen tons of films projected with poor framing (eg, where foreheads are slightly lopped off and there's too much leg room - or vice-versa). I hate it when DVD companies release them correctly framed. I want these films mis-framed on DVD because that's how I saw them in the theater! What is wrong with these companies!

We must preserve cinema history here and recreate the authentic theatrical experience! So many theatrical experiences are not being duplicated on the home DVD format! We need DVD companies to recreate all the mis-framings, bad sound, incorrect aspect ratio screenings, and film splices. That's the way they were originally shown in theaters and I'm getting sick and tired of these pristine presentations!

 

[Michael Elliott]

How was it supposed to be shown? Please keep in mind that most theaters couldn't show 4:3 films or more director's probably would have shown the films this way.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Yes, but I don't think you follow what I'm asking.
In the case of theatres being unable to show films in 4:3, you're correct and I understand that -- but now that we have television with 4:3 capability, what's the point of showing a 4:3 film like MARTIN the wrong way (1.85)? It's not necessary.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Jeff, I know you're probably kidding but this is a silly argument. I saw THE WIZARD OF OZ on a B&W TV so perhaps it should be released this way as well? Just because a projectionist shows the film the wrong way doesn't mean the DVD should be that way. The film should be presented the way it was meant to be seen in theaters.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Actually, Michael, Jeff is making a very good point. You're the one who seems to think a film should always - beyond anything else - be presented on DVD exactly as it was in theatres, even if it's the wrong ratio. "Why", however, is a question you still cannot answer.

 

[Matt Rexer]

Arg!

Well, a few months after selling my AB version on eBay, I just repurchased it (it's not hard to find -- I got it for $12). I should've learned my lesson when I unloaded the LE Halloween in anticipation for the 25th Ann. Edition.

Never sell something until there's a review of its replacement! I've gotta remember that...

 

[Michael Elliott]

The only problem is the examples people are using.

1. A 4:3 GWTW matted in the 60's.
2. A 4:3 KANE matted in 1997 because the theater couldn't show 4:3 films.
3. A projector eats the print causing damage.

These are the examples being used. A better example would be your A HARD DAY'S NIGHT, which fits better here than the rather scarecrow examples being used above. My example?

Martin was shown 1.85:1 in theaters. That's how it is on this DVD. If you or anyone doesn't want it looking the way it did in theaters then there are alternatives to this. There is no issue here. There are two versions of this film and the readers here have the option to get the one they want. The same will be true if future Kubrick discs are matted.

I've got three people who say Romero is fine with the matte so the rest is up to the people buying it. All three also said Romero prefers these films 4:3 so what do we do? He prefers one and doesn't mind the other. It's up to the one spending the cash.

None of us are going to budge and we're just going to keep going around and around so again, buy the version you want. If there was no alternative then I'd understand this battle a little more.

 

[Mattias_ka]

Michael have a BIG problem with his way of thinking. The theater presentation is NOT the reference! If so, then you should be worry of ALL the movies that have been released UNCUT that was cut on US theater, like Planets of the apes, etc etc.

One really need to LOOK at the pictures and see that the matting is WRONG.


Well, this is the main reason I have not got the Anchor Bay's Dawn of the dead. I have the Japanese laserdisc set, and THAT is perfect to me. Crazies are released open-matte (or a small 1.55:1 matting) in Japan on dvd.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

But Michael, you still haven't answered the "why" you personally feel a film's AR should be represented as it was in the theatre. What's so sacred to you about how any movie was originally projected that you must have it that way on DVD, even when it was projected incorrectly?

 

[James Lambert]

Joe, I don't think Michael has said that he MUST have the film projected the way it was in cinemas, he's just saying that it's an option that some people appreciate. Michaels arguement seems to me that if Romero isn't yelling blue murder about it, then neither is he (I don't agree with the "keeping quiet just because he doesn't want to make enemies" theories). Personally if this was the only version available then I would be much more upset about it, but the option for 4;3 is there and shall be taken by me. Nevertheless I doubt that Lionsgate released this with the "original theatre experience" in mind, rather the fact widescreen TV sets are more popular these days, and the dreaded black bars still frighten people. This is indeed annoying, but when an alternative is available I don't see the harm. It's the same arguement as if a widescreen version is available, then the studio can release as many pan&scan releases as they like.

Apologies to all non-multiregion owners who can't get the AB copy. You guys can complain all you want!

 

[Joe Karlosi]

James, the thing is, Michael and I have known each other for a while now. Not only from movie boards during the last few years, but we've discussed film issues at more length via telephone This is just one detail I've never understood, and though MARTIN may be an exception, I believe Mike does indeed feel that way about original theatrical showings as a rule (he can correct me if I'm mistaken).

 

[Charlie O.]

Maybe instead of saying Original Aspect Ration we should be using Director's Intended Ratio.
I would rather have what the director intended than what was shown in theaters. This is why I don't mind the 50 cuts of star wars. If a director wishs for a DTS 6.1 remix of a film that was shown mono in theaters should we flip if the mono isn't included? I can forgive this because the 6.1 is how the director wants it to be shown and I have a habit of only watching films the ways the director wants if possible.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Ask me this when studios start matting CITIZEN KANE.