Remo Williams DVD - MGM screws up BIG TIME! (1 Viewer)

[Gordon McMurphy]

So when is the widescreen Chitty going to be released?

[vague]Next year.[/vague]

No official announcement by MGM has been made... yet.


Gordy

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Me three.

 

[Dave Moritz]

I enjoyed that movie as well and will not purchase it as long as it is full screen only!

 

[Gary Tooze]

I have purchased a Widescreen Japanese release and can do a comparison page to the Region 1, perhaps applying more pressure to MGM. I can guarantee it won't look too flattering for their product.

I require some screen caps of the Region 1, if someone can contact me at [email protected] . Thank you.

Regards,

 

[Cassy_w]

Guys, I saw the HBO HD version. It just blows the DVD out of the water. It was so clear that the wire work became laughably obvious. I was also surprised by how corny the movie was compared to my memory of it being good fun.

 

[Gary W. Graley]

Got the same email, also by now I would have thought that DeepDiscount DVD would have sent me a notice of it's shipping out in order to make the street date of next week, I know, I know, most are not buying it but my vhs version has long since given up the ghost so I have nothing to watch, nor even cable tv so dvd's are what I live by for movie entertainment, so I am worried it will be delayed longer???

G2

ps
Edited to add, that not even 2 hours later, I received an email from DeepDiscount DVD that Remo has left the building...cool, even though it's not what I ultimately wanted, maybe a new release later on but for now...

 

[Aryn Leroux]

You know what i think, with remo williams being in the top sales at ddd and dvdempire, i think alot of people are saying they will not buy it and are ordering it. I guess they don't wanna admit there buying a p&s title. Either that or remo williams is more popular than i remember.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Remo Williams has been one of the most requested
titles on this forum since we opened shop in 1997.

I can understand why sales are good.

On the other hand, I hope thsi doesn't send out
a signal to MGM that sales are good because this
was released Pan & Scan.

 

[stephen^wilson]

That would be all we needed,I can see MGM starting to release all their new movies in pan and scan and telling us that was the best they could do with the available material(i shouldn't really joke about joke about this,I'd be the first one lynched if the actually started this),but seriously I don't believe for one second that a pan and scan(or open matte as Remo appears to be)version was the only version that that could come up with.What,are they strapped for cash or something?.Hopefully if Remo is released in region2,YES I know there is a japanese region 2 disc available,but I mean europe,we will be treated to a lovely anamorphic widescreen version in the same way MGM did with The Dark Half and Delta Force 1 and 2.

 

[Gary Tooze]

Dude, take a look at my location file, the day I buy a foolscreen transfer will be the day hell indeed freezes over.

Truly, I think this attitude is silly.

MGM - Region 1 - NTSC




Japanese - Region 2 - NTSC




The Region 1 version is not totally 'Open Matte'. You are still losing a small amount of information on the sides of the picture as you can tell by the images HERE . BUT, as you can also plainly see you get more information in the Full-screen version that in the Region 2 widescreen ( almost 20% more ). The Region 1 is also sharper than the Region 2 DVD. For those that have widescreen TV's they can simply zoom in and miss a little more than when most studios anamorphisize a picture from 1.85->1.78 (approx 4%). Both these images show some good film grain and limited Extras (none really - aside from a trailer).

There is quite a following that are defiant against Full screen DVDs, but like "Anatomy of a Murder", this film appears to have been shot in Open Matte. There are not encumbrances above (or below) the screen in the Region 1 version. No booms or tech equipment are visible. Guy Hamilton saw this entire image as he, the director, made this film. Personally I think the fetish of widescreen has eclipsed its true purpose in this case: to maintain original aspect ratio... the artistic integrity of the production. In this particular case I don't see "composition" as an argument either. We should remember how it was shot and also that it is not an art film by any stretch of the imagination. I am satisfied to own the sharper Region 1 version and that is my recommendation. - Gary W. Tooze


My Complete comparison is at http://www.compare.dvdbeaver.com/

P.S. I couldn't confirm that sound in the either edition is 5.1. Can someone let me know. I am at work now and don't have access to the DVD.

 

[Steve Christou]

Hmmm interesting post Gary, I put off buying Remo so far, lazily waiting for it to appear over here in London, but I think I'll be opting for the region 1, the film was never made in widescreen and we're not talking Ben-Hur here, yup made up my mind, thanks.

 

[Richard Travale]

ARGHHHH I just went to see what was out today. I saw Remo and got very excited. That is until I picked it up, fullscreen only. I had no idea.
Shame on you MGM, shame on you.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Personally I think the fetish of widescreen has eclipsed its true purpose in this case: to maintain original aspect ratio... the artistic integrity of the production. In this particular case I don't see "composition" as an argument either. We should remember how it was shot and also that it is not an art film by any stretch of the imagination.

I do not understand this quote at all. To "maintain artistic integrity", the film should be shown the way it was composed to be shown. The film's original aspect ratio is the ratio that it was composed for: 1.85:1. Just because Andrew Lazslo was meticulous about avoiding equipment in the "safe" area (or because shots where equipment appeared have been zoomed and cropped -- I am assuming that you did not examine side-by-side each individual shot to determine that this was not done, but zooming individual shots for precisely this purpose is standard in an open matte transfer), that does not mean that he was composing for 4:3 and just making sure that no one's head was cut off for the theatrical showing.

As for the way that the film was photographed not being "art", well, that is a rather personal judgement, and I'm sure that Lazslo would be happy to hear your critique of his technique. Future Oscar winner Janusz Kaminski turned in some quite good work on Cool As Ice; while that film may be junk, I would not go so far as to insult his work on it. And Lazslo wasn't just some hack D.P. -- he was nominated for an Emmy for Shogun.

Now, if your argument was just that the R1 was sharper, I might accept that.

 

[Dmitry]

Whatever arguments you may make to defend the foolscreen presentation, as long as it plainly states (as this one does) "Modified to fit your screen", I refuse to buy it. It's not about "widescreen", it's about not being messed with.

 

[Gary Tooze]

I do not understand this quote at all. To "maintain artistic integrity", the film should be shown the way it was composed to be shown. The film's original aspect ratio is the ratio that it was composed for: 1.85:1

No... To maintain artistic integrirty is to show it as the director shot it. Guys I want to see what the director saw when he shot this film, not what some marketing exec thought the aspect ratio should have been for some demographic just prior to its theatrical release... I am seeing what he saw in the Region 1 version ( well, a ton closer than in the widescreen... that is obvious )... tell me why would you consider "less" of what the director saw when he shot the film the 'proper aspect ratio'? That is crazy. He shot it in 1.33 or there would have been obstacles in the top and bottom (booms, irrelevant material, etc...).... perhaps he shot it that way preparing for a TV release... and perhaps they didn't know if it would have a theatrical release (this is the most likely case). Regardless, lets respect the director and see it as he shot it... not with information cropped off the top and bottom to satisfy some Home theatres buffs widescreen fetish... With this logic I'm sure you would want all 1.85's bumped to 2.35... hey its still widescreen !

Cheers,

 

[Gary Tooze]

"maintain artistic integrity", the film should be shown the way it was composed to be shown

I'd be interested to know how it was "composed" for 1.85... yet shot with no encumbrances at 1.33 . This is either a great fluke or was shot with 1.33 in mind.

 

[Malcolm R]

I'm amazed you've been hanging out here for more than 3 years and still have such a careless attitude toward the HTF mission statement.

 

[Gary Tooze]

I'm amazed you've been hanging out here for more than 3 years and still have such a careless attitude toward the HTF mission statement.

Insulting me isn't going to make you see what Guy Hamilton saw when he made this film. Widescreen is the way to go, if it was shot in that manner... what we have here is cropping... not on the sides, but on the top and bottom. Massive cropping. No zooming... I own both editions!

Full Screen


Widescreen



By the way, I think I have done more than my part in fighting cropping and adjustment of aspect ratio. If you doubt me visit my commercial -free website.

 

[Gary Tooze]

Another thing, if you can state without a doubt that Guy Hamilton himself was in charge of croppping this film horizontally to 1.85 then the artistic integrity of the widescreen image will be intact.

I'll bet some telecine operater made those decisions, just like they would in the usual form of cropping that we see... on the sides for widscreen to fit Full screen.

Regards,

 

[Steve Christou]

I repeat this was never a widescreen movie to begin with, if I had to choose between a superior quality unmatted copy or a duff matted copy, I'll go for quality, no question.