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

[Qui-Gon John]

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.

Resistance if futile!!!


Oops, wrong franchise.

 

[Randy A Salas]

This whole idea of creation of two films for two mediums (theater and TV) smacks of economics... a money making ideal.

Or reality.

Director Ron Howard, whose films are usually presented open matte on full-screen DVDs, in response to my question about presenting films in their original aspect ratios on DVD:

"I really appreciate the fact that the films can be presented in their original aspect ratio because that's how they were framed. I know a lot of people, even my own kids, they don't like that. They would just rather see a nice little screen no matter what. The nice thing here is that people can see it however they like.

I've already, in my own mind, I do keep the frame clear for TV and protect to that, when we shoot as much as I possibly can, and then when I can't, we try to block out microphones or lights or anything that might catch a frame and hard matte for that stuff. I accepted long ago that there was kind of a theatrical version and then the ancillary version, and I'm really delighted that for people who care, that the original format doesn't just vanish with the end of the theatrical release."

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Aren't there lines on the camera viewfinder that show both the 1.85 frame and the TV frame so the operator can protect for both? It's not like it's rocket science to do that. Why so much disbelief that someone could while framing for one ratio manage to keep the crap out for another one?

 

[Malcolm R]

That's precisely the reason I'm so baffled by this discussion. It's merely composition vs. protection.

The director composes the frame for the widescreen image as seen in the camera viewfinder or on the monitor. But, knowing that someday, somewhere, somebody will demand that it fill their 1.33 screen, he also "protects" the area outside the 1.85 image to 1.33 so that open matte transfer can be used. He doesn't "compose" anything in this extra space, probably doesn't give a crap about it, he simply ensures that booms and lights and such are not visible.

 

[Gary Tooze]

NEWSFLASH !

Earnest Saves Christmas has been set for re-release... anamorphic. It will move the aspect ratio from 1.85 to 1.78 by cropping the image! Ahhhhhhhh....

Zimmer you start the online petition. Salas you organize the members and start a candlelit visage for tonight in front of the studio. Heck, we'll stay all weekend if we must to defeat this abombination!

(JUST JOKING guys!)

You've made excellent points... and I am too fatigued to defend my stance any further. If anyone said I would write pages and pages about the aspect ratio of Remo Williams, I would bet them my life savings they were wrong. I lose again! Getting the Region 1 version did cost me $10 to do the screen captures. I hope someone got some use out of those.

I rememeber starting a thread once about Tran's multiple award winning "The Scent of Green Papaya" and how Columbia TriStar pan and scanned it (really) in region 1... where as the Region 2 is in OAR. One comment I think. Ahhh well... HTF rules !

Cheers,

 

[Aryn Leroux]

Time to unsubscribe from this thread. it was interesting for awhile but it's gotten to crazy now with all the bickering. :frowning:

 

[Joel C]

I rememeber starting a thread once about Tran's multiple award winning "The Scent of Green Papaya" and how Columbia TriStar pan and scanned it (really) in region 1... where as the Region 2 is in OAR. One comment I think. Ahhh well... HTF rules !

And if anyone in that thread had tried to claim that the film was meant for P&S and that it looked better that way and that that was the way the director intended it to look, there would have been more of a response.

Which is what happened in this thread, albeit with an open matte transfer, not a P&S one.

Heck, why is Warner re-releasing all the Vacation films? They were open matte, and OBVIOUSLY already in their OAR on the original discs. None of this theatrical ratio crap, I want the intended TV broadcast ratio!!!

 

[Dave Mack]

Just saw Entertainment weekly and they gave the DVD an A-... Didn't even mention it's only Fullscreen. So, once again, just what are those letter ratings for...???

 

[Joel C]

For the movie.

 

[Patrick McCart]

The sad truth is that most people think all non-OAR DVD's are pan & scan. This is hardly the truth.

First, except for a handful of titles, nearly ever title on DVD that isn't OAR is a title meant to be matted at 1.66:1 and 1.85:1. (I do NOT count alterations OK'd by filmmakers and this is besides the point)

Gary's screen shots reveal that the transfer is pretty close to being fully open matte. 1.85:1 is likely the best overall, but taking off the mattes isn't exactly the same as turning Ben-Hur into a fullframe transfer.

It's like in the Willy Wonka fiasco a couple years back. After all the claims of P&S and the image getting cropped to death, I wonder how many people were let down by seeing that the 16x9 version matted the image.

Remo Williams just happens to be a particular popular title that isn't matted. There are plenty of titles that have gotten much worse treatment on DVD, yet you don't see many people care that much. It's sort of like if Star Wars was digitally reframed (a la A Bug's Life) to 1.33:1, it would cause a huge outcry. If Raggedy Ann and Andy: A Musical Adventure came to DVD in P&S-only, you may have one or two pages at the most. (Although, Fox is better than that.)

 

[Dave Mack]

I know the ratings are technically for the movie, but since the review is in the DVD section, there should be some acknowledgement or such taken into acct. like a split review, A- for the movie, D- for the disc like some others do. Otherwise if you just took a quick glance and weren't too DVD review savvy, a "newbie" perhaps, you might just order the DVD since they don't mention the non OAR and gave it an A-. And I have read reviews where they raved about "flawless new transfer..." etc... etc... when they were anything but, showing that sometimes they might just paraphrase the press release and not even watch said discs.
And since this particular title has been so controversial in the HT circles, the fact that there is NO mention of the OAR proves the worthlessness of the section. I believe they also said re: "West Side Story" SE.... "We already had a great version out a couple of yrs. ago, but when we saw the new remastered version, (paraphrased...)" well, aside from some truly GREAT extras, it's the same transfer as the original DVD...


D

 

[Damin J Toell]

That is not art... and this film is really not either.

Even films that you don't consider to be "art" deserve to be shown in their OAR. Even directors who you don't consider to be "artists" deserve to have their films shown in their OARs. Your opinion (or mine, or anyone else's) of the artistic merits of a film or its filmmakers has no relation to OAR.

DJ

 

[Walt Riarson]

Picked up Revenge of the Ninja a few days ago and finally got around to watching it.

It is indeed the UNCUT version, despite the R rating on the packaging.

Thank you, MGM!

 

[Mark_TS]

I dont know if this has been posted elsewhere, but
I remember the fuss about this awhile ago, and then found THIS on a Korean website. just released Oct 17, 2003:
http://www.koreandvds.com./dvddetail.html?id=12273


also fell out of my chair when I saw RUNAWAY TRAIN as an Anamorphic release.

 

[Rick P]

I dont know if this has been posted elsewhere, but
I remember the fuss about this awhile ago, and then found THIS on a Korean website. just released Oct 17, 2003:
http://www.koreandvds.com./dvddetail.html?id=12273

If that really is a 16x9 version, then it's a slap in the face to the R1 consumer (since R3 is also NTSC).

 

[Damin J Toell]

If that really is a 16x9 version, then it's a slap in the face to the R1 consumer (since R3 is also NTSC).

An NTSC disc has been available from MGM in Japan for quite a while already.

DJ

 

[Greg_S_H]

I can see that the deadly full frame has done its evil work! Or, perhaps, OAR is a confidence trick invented by the Swiss. In either case, I broke down and bought the disc--my first non-OAR disc--figuring it won't be released in widescreen any time soon if at all. I know this doesn't help the cause, but I'll live with it this once.

Anyway, I know most here accept that it is supposed to be matted, but I think it becomes obvious when watching the film. You can clearly see the figures centered between invisible mattes, and in the scene where Remo is doing his balance training in the loft, you can see the harness and wires up in the "protected" area when he "jumps" up to the bird cage.

I'm considering making some mattes so I can at least see how it looks OAR. I don't know if there are any post-production effects that would have been done with hard matting--none come to mind--but I do think the disc will suffice until something better comes along (haven't watched it all the way through, so I can't say that for sure yet). I'll definitely double-dip if it is redone.

 

[Dwayne]

I caught this film for the first time on cable last fall and found it highly enjoyable. I would have bought this title...the operative words being would have.

As for some of the comments relating to whether or not the film merits this much attention...I am reminded of the time when a Two-Disc Limited Edition Director's Cut of Supergirl was released. At first, I was frustrated that there were much better films, IMO, that deserved such treatment. But then I thought about the feeling I get when a non-mainstream film that I cherish gets the star treatment on DVD. It's just one of those things that makes this hobby great and supports the greater love film.

All films deserve, at the very least, the best presentation possible. That most definitely includes OAR.

 

[Malcolm R]

Even more insult to injury when DTV excrement like "Shredder" can be presented with dual AR's, including anamorphic widescreen, but theatrical releases apparently don't warrant similar consideration.

 

[R. Kay]

16000 hits for this 'Remo Williams' outrage ??

Oy Yoy Yoy.

You guys need a new hobby.