MGM: THE PAN & SCAM OUTRAGE CONTINUES!..I COULD GO ON SINGING Foolscreen ONLY! (1 Viewer)

[Malcolm R]

I think that's rather unfair to Joe. As far as I know, all he did was make a phone call and report the results to us. That's what this site is about, sharing information. He has made no request that we bow at his feet.

 

[David Lambert]

Malcolm is right about that. Joe was just passing stuff on, and I dont' think he ever asked for credit. On the other hand, I don't see where Bruce Kimmel's reported rant was specifically against Joe. I'd read the rant myself, but I must admit I can't find it. I don't see it in his columns (I see the "Terms of Endearment" rant about DVD websites run by kids, but it doesn't mention the MGM stuff). And I searched through the discussion forum there the best I could, but it's like a frickin' huge "After Hours" there, talking about recipes and posting photos of beds and boasting every day about how many posts are made to the board. Yay. Where's the "rant" supposed to be at?

 

[Christian Preischl]

David,

the MGM stuff is in the second half of his Jan 10th column titled "Shazam!".

Chris

 

[DaViD Boulet]

So...is this just the Judy Garland films that are getting OAR or are any others in the list being rescued as well?

dave

 

[Nick Graham]

Dave, here's the meat of it:



Nice dig at Ron there...what a jerk. And I think it goes without saying the "Nick" he refers to isn't me.

BTW, I didn't mean anything as a slight against Joe, I was just trying to say regardless of how it happened, I was happy it did.

 

[Robert Ringwald]

Well, looks like I'm not getting LITTLE MONSTERS now...

 

[Mark Cappelletty]

Just found this thread (been AWOL for a spell) and, while not surprised about Bruce Kimmel's departure, it's too bad because when he could keep his mouth shut, he had some good observations.

About MGM, what I don't understand is the studio's inconsistencies. MANY of their titles are done right, look great and are cheap to book. "How To Get Ahead in Advertising" was given a nice 16x9 transfer that beats the 4x3 lbtx Criterion transfer at a significantly cheaper price point. But for every good transfer, we're saddled with non-16x9 1.66:1 transfers or these P&S jobs. How many copies of "Remo Williams" went unsold because of these seemingly arbitrary decisions? How many copies of "Miracle Mile" (one I desperately want to buy but have held back)? How many?

With Warner Bros., the reality is we probably woudn't see many of these titles to begin with. But if we did, you know that they'd be done right.

 

[Joe Caps]

the widescreen pan scaninformation madness continues, again around Miss Garland. After the announcemnt of I COuld GO On Sionging in flat only, now Digitalb BGits announces that Meet Me in St. Louis ( a flat film) is being released in anamorphic widescreen. Do these people ever check their information or know film history. If they did they would know this is impossible.

 

[David Von Pein]

Joe...
Where did you see this WS info for this film? The blurb I saw said FF ......

>> "Warner has officially announced the Meet Me in St. Louis: 60th Anniversary Special Edition for 4/6 (SRP $26.99). We've been waiting for this one here at The Bits for a while now. The 2-disc set will feature the film presented in its original full frame aspect ratio, with video remastered using the studio's "ultra-resolution" process. ..."

 

[PatrickL]

I saved a post he made a couple of months ago in which he called Robert Harris a sham, saying that all the restoration that "My Fair Lady" needed before Mr. Harris got to it was clean-up of an otherwise perfect negative. Clearly not one of the "good observations" you're talking about.

 

[Mark Cappelletty]

Patrick, I didn't read that one. There were some points made in the gargantuan ALIEN thread that I remember as being strong, however. His site is nuts, however.

Regardless, it's still odd how MGM goes about things. At least with Artisan, you expect them to botch things up. MGM surprises and disappoints in equal measure.

Good to know that Joe Caps was able to make some headway on this issue. Keeping my fingers crossed about the Elvis title.

 

[Joe Caps]

Digital BIts amended thier notice about Meet Me in St. Louis. It now says full frame wheras last night it said 16:9 anamorphic.

 

[Keith E]

Still no word on the Elvis - Follow That Dream release?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Except of course that WB would be encoding their 1.66:1 transfers in 4x3 also. Seems this is a (strange) area where both WB and MGM are still living in a 4x3 world while all the other studios have figured out that 16x9 offers advantages for 1.66:1 as well.

-dave

 

[Mattias_ka]

Well, it's your lose if you don't buy non-anamorphic WS DVD's. I rather see the movie.

And why sacrifice 33% potential resolution? Well, why buy DVD at all when HDTV and D-theater has better resolution?

I think that this Home Theater thing has gone too far. In the beginning it was to see the movies on great quality but these days it seems more to have DVD's with superb quality is more important than the movies.
My 0.02$

 

[Thomas T]

I agree 100% Mattias! For me, it's all about the movie! I'm pissed (and would have obviously preferred a wide screen presentation) that Columbia released a non wide screen Divorce American Style but between a full screen version or not having the movie at all, I'm not about to deny myself the pleasure of having the film on DVD. If they release a wide screen version I'll be first in line but until then I'll have the film to enjoy.

You rarely hear complaints about films altered to suit the home theatre enthusiasts. Columbia abandoned the original mono track for In Cold Blood for a brand new 5.1 (which I absolutely hate) but you don't hear the HTF "purists" complaining or threatening a boycott. Columbia should have also included the original mono track.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I guess you missed all of the fun here when the JAWS DVD came out with the altered 5.1 and no original mono...

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I agree, Mattias.

While there are certain things that are essential, there are things that I generally think are less worth getting frustrated over.

I only want to see movies in their OAR - I'm not going to (knowingly) buy any MAR DVDs. That holds true 99% of the time. If it's something like "The Recruit" or "Apocolypse Now" or "The Shining" where the director has decided he would like the film to be seen in a certain way on TV, that's good enough for me.

I don't have a 16x9 TV, so anamorphic enhancement doesn't matter much to me at the moment. I do keep an eye out for which DVDs are enhanced and which aren't, and if there's one 16x9 version out there and one that isn't, I'll still buy the 16x9 version, but I won't go crazy if the only way a DVD is avaliable is in non-anamorphic widescreen.

I prefer that DVDs include the original theatrical sound mix, or as close to that as can be gotten. Which means I don't really care about a 5.1 remix of a mono track. There are exceptions, of course, but generally if a film was originally in mono, I want that included on the disc, and that's usually what I'll watch. If there isn't the original mono track, I'll probably still buy the DVD.

There are some things worth having in your collection, even if the DVD isn't perfect. I'd rather have the Image releases of the Marx Brothers films in not-so-perfect condition than not have them at all.

 

[Mark Cappelletty]

Well, it looks as if MGM is taking the Universal tack and releasing "Good Boy" -- as a special edition no less -- in full-frame only on March 9.

I read the script for work (it's terrible) and the movie got scathing reviews, but jeez, as a major release, wouldn't you think that MGM would release it in both 16x9 and full-frame versions? Sheesh.

 

[Roger Rollins]

Nope. MGM thinks "FAMILY" = Pan and Scam. Stupidity reigns there!