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

[Peter Apruzzese]

And... is the matte balanced (equal on both ends), for those that don't hard matte, or is it flexible... so who determines it if the director is not , say, in the projection booth ?

The matting is standardized in theatres, it is supposed to be the center 1.85 area of the frame, with an equal amount matted off on the top and bottom. A recent exception (the only one I've ever seen in 25 years of film handling) was Lynch's Mulholland Drive, where he asked that theatres give it a little more headroom than usual (frame it down so that less was matted on the top), since it was framed for HDTV at a 1.78 frame and theatres would run it at 1.85.

 

[Gary W. Graley]

I still haven't gotten my copy from DDD yet, they said they shipped it out but figured it should have been here by street date at least, maybe tomorrow...I hope, seeing the screen captures makes me all the more anxious, yeah I know, but I like the movie! and the books of course, the older ones not the recent ones as much...

Anyone gotten theirs from Deep Discount yet?
G2

 

[Aryn Leroux]

Mine is yet to even ship from DDD. I wonder if it's on backorder.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Is this a North American thing Peter ? I have never heard of any directors film productions throught the world using this technique.

The technique is the same in every country. It's how 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 films are shot on 4-perf 35mm film. Remo is nothing special or weird, it's perfectly normal. You've called this an unusual circumstance, but it's far from it.

DJ

 

[Gary W. Graley]

Mine arrived today, no inside papers, but glad to have it delivered...

G2

 

[Mike_Richardson]

I think the full-frame version works perfectly on this film. Guy Hamilton shot most of his films in a non-anamorphic format and REMO looks better suited in 1.33 than 1.85, IMHO, judging from the overseas matted release.

Obviously that wont please the 16:9 crowd, but in this case MGM made the right call.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Obviously that wont please the 16:9 crowd, but in this case MGM made the right call.

What??!!

 

[Dan Rudolph]

I'm with Ronald. Guy Ritchie may not have used anamorphic lenses, but that doesn't mean the movie shouldn't be 16:9 enhanced. In fact, the two have nothign to do with each other. Most 16:9 DVDs are of movies that were shot spherical.

 

[Gary Tooze]

Guy Ritchie may not have used anamorphic lenses

When did he come into it ?

My gripe now after reading through this very informative thread, is those that keep referring to the MGM Region 1 as "Pan and Scan". This is not the case.

I really doubt that this film warrants the amount of discussion put into it. It's actually kind of funny... I mean we are not talking about Citizen Kane here. For me the composition looks great in 1.33. I am against cropping and pan and scanning of images, but not against full screen. I loved Anthony Minghella's "Truly, Madly, Deeply". It was shot in full screen and the DVD is in full screen... and I like it as is.

Regards,

 

[Randy A Salas]

I loved Anthony Minghella's "Truly, Madly, Deeply". It was shot in full screen and the DVD is in full screen... and I like it as is.

But that is its OAR. Minghella shot it on 16mm film and says on the commentary track that that was the film's OAR.

 

[Gary Tooze]

People have different tastes.

Thanks Randy I wasn't aware of this. I thought we all had the same taste. :rolleyes

I think the line between OAR kind os gets hazy when you bring in "Open Matte"... especially when virtually no image is lost in the Full Screen. If the makers of this film were so artistically adamant ( Citizen Kane was my example... not for personal preference, but for artistic integrity. I guess the reference as too subtle for some. ) then I would expect it not to be shot in Full Screen... and if they expect me to believe a director is capable of framing two aspect ratio shots from the same scene.. well, I just don't believe it. You may believe as you wish.

If you view film as art, as I do, then it would be like an artist painting two canvas' of the same painting for two different galleries. One tall and one wide to suit their clientel. Rubish. That is not art... and this film is really not either. It is a fun lark that I'm sure even Guy Hamilton doesn't care as we do about its aspect ratio.

Regards,

 

[Malcolm R]

They don't "frame two aspect ratio shots from the same scene." We've explained this repeatedly. You're just not comprehending, willfully or otherwise, the difference between composition and protection.

By your position, every film that isn't shot specifically with widescreen anamorphic lenses should be projected in theaters and displayed at home in a 1.33 full screen ratio. That would probably be 95% or more of today's films.

 

[Gary Tooze]

Perehaps disbelief is more appropriate.

For any creative process to be established one would hold rights to their development. How anyone could allow a basterization of their creative development, unless of course they did not view it as such. This whole idea of creation of two films for two mediums (theater and TV) smacks of economics... a money making ideal. No true artist would allow themselevs to be apart of this. The process you speak of was not devised around the films of Antonioni, Kurosawa, Bergman or any director with a true artistic vision... (yes they have all made films since the mid-50's). The two process' do not go together. You seem to be inflicting protection of artistic origin where one is not worthy of existing. That is my point. You are holding a beacon of rightousness for a lost cause. If Hamilton did not want the Full screen shown anywhere... why did he allow it to be created?

Regards,

 

[Malcolm R]

I doubt he had a choice. He was working for Orion Pictures and they were seeking to maximize profit potential on their films (i.e. theatrical exhibition followed by eventual pay cable and broadcast airings (fullscreen) and home video (VHS fullscreen at the time).

Given the choice, I'm sure most would prefer that full screen versions NOT be released. After all, they are "film" directors, not TV directors. But the final choices are made by the financiers and studios who wish to maximize profits (the film industry is a business, after all).

Even Stanley Kubrick, a director some would argue fits your definition of "artist," is known to have preferred the 1.33 ratio but even he had to live with the demands of the studios financing his films that they be projected widescreen in theaters (though I believe the DVD's are full screen with Kubrick's blessing).

However, Kubrick is the exception to the rule. Most choose to work with widescreen ratios and would probably prefer that their movies not be available in any other format.

 

[Steve Christou]

What a turnaround for this thread eh? People now clamoring to order the region 1 copy, make your mind up fellas!

The bottom line is, either buy an inferior quality matted copy of Remo, or a superior quality unmatted copy, or stick to your glitchy vhs copy, for myself until the definitive OAR version pops up in some new digital format in 2013 I opted for the r1 unmatted, and yes and I'll sleep like a baby tonight.

 

[Gary Tooze]

Kubric..."artist," is known to have preferred the 1.33 ratio

It is my understanding that he only went to 1.33 to prohibit his films from being pan and scanned for TV. Once the BBC cropped 2001: A Space Odyssey, he was furious. His intention was to not allow that to happen again.

That is one way, I suppose, of exhibiting control over your creation.

Regards,

 

[Steve_Pannell]

If Hamilton did not want the Full screen shown anywhere... why did he allow it to be created?

And if he intended us to "see what he saw" when filming it then why did he allow it to be shown at 1.85:1 in theaters.

A volley like this could go on forever.

 

[Gary Tooze]

I doubt he had a choice

Then I wonder how much control he had over the vision of Remo Williams. He must have acquiesced ... as you are expected to do if you live in Region 1.

It was Kubrick who said (paraphrasing): One man writes symphony, one man paints a work of art and one man should create a film.

If you are really concerned about artstic integrity in cinema then you *must* own a Region Free player.. I have about 100 examples on my website of maintaining this ideal in film. If not you must live with the consequences in Region 1.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

If you are really concerned about artstic integrity in cinema then you *must* own a Region Free player.. I have about 100 examples on my website of maintaining this ideal in film. If not you must live with the consequences in Region 1.

Except that many non-Region One PAL-system DVDs are sped up by 4%. It's very noticable to the eye and ear, so those are also compromised and not true to the artistic integrity.

Kurosawa shot a couple of films in full-frame for 1.85 theatrical exhibition (Kagemusha and Ran, IIRC). There were videos and television broadcasts that ran them full-frame. Is he any less of an artist because he allowed this to happen?

 

[Eric F]

I highly recommend people (those who can) catch it on HBO-HD next time it comes around. They run it fairly frequently, at least one month a year.