Return of the Joker: Uncut AND Letterboxed (2 Viewers)

[Adam Tyner]

Thanks for the kind words, David. This was a constant source of debate on the http://www.toonzone.net

These should be available on both DVDs under the 'Animatic' header.

 

[Geoffrey_A]

Speaking as an animator, simply because there *may* be information outside of the matte does not neccesarily mean it was intended to be seen. It is very common omongst animators to animate more than what may be seen in the final version. For example, say we're animating a person walking, but the shot will only be from the chest up, we may very well draw in the rest of the torso and possibly even the hips in order to work out a realistic range of motion to make the animation look better. That doesn't mean that information is meant to be seen, it is merely and aid to the animator. In the case of RotJ, I suspect that they were smart enough to realize that, while they intended and wanted a widescreen release, that WB marketing execs are not the brightest apples in the bunch and may very well force a pan scan release on them. Such being the case, they animated it, intedning it for widescreen, but making it fullscreen safe, as opposed to the notion of animating it for fullscreen, but making it widescreen safe. Just a little insight from a sleep deprived animator

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

David: Good man about television! At least you stick to your guns on EVERYTHING. I respect that.

As for the ROTJ release, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I'm basing my opinion on Justice League, which is also framed for widescreen, yet body parts are lobbed off quite frequently in the matted version.

 

[TonyD]

well my thought on the OAR with this movie is that since the ROTJ uncut has never been shown or seen or released anywere in any AR, then wouldn't the wide version of this be it's OAR?
and then wouldn't the edited version dvd also be the OAR because that is essentially a diferent movie and has only been released on that dvd and was never shown or appeared anywere else.
also are we really discussing OAR or director's intended aspect ratio for these movies?
and one more thing in case anyone wants a very detailed list of the cuts with pix go
here

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Technically, Tony, it has. Screeners were sent to various awards shows in the 1.33:1 aspect ratio. These, of course, are where the bootlegs come from.

 

[Adam Tyner]

Thosee screeners that were sent to various retailers some time ago were on VHS, though.

When the original disc was announced on various comic news sites -- well before any edits were considered -- among the specs was a widescreen presentation.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Wasn't a full screen presentation also listed though? That's all I'm asking for is a choice.

And if a film's origin is on VHS, does that make it any less relevant than a theatrical origin?

I've just had bad experience with Timm and and widescreen. I may check out the widescreen release... see what I think of it. But chances are, I won't be buying it.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I hate to bring this up, but I simulated 1.78:1 matting with some stills and they do NOT look right.

It's one thing to have a little cut off (for intentional tightness), but I'm talking about awful compositions.

Perhaps this is non-anamorphic because it'll be 1.66:1?

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Adam,
I've watched the letterboxed director's cut (screener) back when the original was released. The widescreen composition seems much better than Justice League, which is even more of a mixed bag.
I would not let this keep me from buying the disc, no way.
All I was ever saying was that if they weren't going to do 16:9 enhanced, they should have presented it both ways (which can be done with player-generated mattes using subtitle code.
The truth of the matter is, you cannot really effectively compose for two aspect ratios, and this is one case where I don't think choice is a bad thing. I happen to know that Mike Knapp agrees with me (that you cannot compose for two ratios), and he is an artist. I'm just a film (and 'cartoon') nut.
Funny how I've not proposed a release where you cannot view the letterboxed cut, but people still get mad.
Oh, and I watch everything in Original Aspect Ratio, including 'cartoons', TV shows, video games, etc. Even sitcoms like 'Friends' and 'The Simpsons' get watched 4:3. The only time I ever watch open-matte is when the material has been 'composed' for both ratios (certain animation is the only thing that counts for me so far...not even 'The Abyss'), then sometimes I watch both ways and make my own judgement. I guess that probably makes some people mad. :rolleyes
Oh, and as for the storyboard, I think the first shot looks at least as good in 4:3 as in 'wide', and I think the latter shot looks compromised due to trying to 'compose' this way. I think if they were only doing wide, or only doing 4:3, that the shot would probably have ended up being composed differently...and better. But that is just my opinion.
To be honest, my first choice would be for all of these productions to be composed for one ratio only, and only released in that ratio, ever.

 

[Adam Tyner]

Wasn't a full screen presentation also listed though?

Yes, the disc was slated to include both full-frame and widescreen versions, according to an interview with Bruce Timm in the first issue of Comicology from June 2000. He says, by the way, in the interview that the movie was intended to be seen in widescreen.
[edited to include the Comicology bit...]

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

If the disc had both, then I'd happily buy it. And it's clearly established that Bruce Timm prefers the widescreen presentation. And your animatics seem to prove that it was composed for widescreen. But I will like this to Kubrick and fullscreen (only in reverse). Timm prefers the widescreen presentation of Justice League, and I personally feel that the framing is awkward matted for that. I will, as I have said, give the matted version a try. However, I'd still rather have this particular title in full frame as it stands now.

 

[TonyD]

Adam, I've watched the letterboxed director's cut (screener) back when the original was released. The widescreen composition seems much better than Justice League, which is even more of a mixed bag.

michael,...the letterboxed dir cut screener? i thought the only screeners sent out were the full screen vhs tapes that went to video stores and assorted retailers.
if a movies' first appearance(public or retail)is on vhs then doesnt that make that appearance the OAR?
Those who have downloaded a copy of that unedited version from a couple years ago onto their computer will be able to compare the wide version and the full version so lets hear what thiose people have to say. i will be able to do this myself so i'll let you know what i see. .

 

[Joseph Bolus]

Well ... Anamorphic or not, I'm picking this puppy up.

Haven't we been screaming for the "uncut" version of this movie ever since it's initial release?

Now, WB gives us what we've been yelling for, and we have to have discussions about its OAR and lack of anamorphic enhancement.

As to the OAR: I agree with the poster above that stated that this can be considered the first official release of this movie. This was a straight-to-video release; there was never a theatrical release intended, and the first iteration was not what the director and the producer wanted. Besides, VHS screeners are rarely provided in OAR, so it means nothing that the screeners were 1.33:1.

As to the lack of anamorphic enhancement: While I would have preferred to have had it, non-anamorphic DVD can still provide plenty of resolution for a 1.78:1 animated feature.

I'll be purchasing this title and will be very happy to have it. It may just be the second best animated Batman feature made to date. That's a lot more important to me than anamorphic enhancement.

 

[David Lambert]

Someone broke street date. I now own this puppy.
Thoughts:
1) It's definately labeled "Standard" on the back cover bottom.
2) It's defiantely non-anamorphic widescreen...all except for the opening credits and closing credits. It goes full screen (4:3) for those! Weird. For the closing credits it doesn't matter, since they scroll. For the opening credits, it will matter only when the title card itself comes on; if you have the pic zoomed you ought to see the film title matted. Otherwise, the rest of the opening credits are letterbox-protected.
3) It was enjoyable...my wife and I put the young 'un to bed and enjoyed the whole damn thing. When it was over, I said to myself "that's the best friggin' Batman movie they've made yet!".
4) I went to the website that lists all the edits between the previous DVD release and this Unedited version. The new DVD is the bona fide real deal; all edits are removed and everything is as it should be.
Perfect. Warner, I have a big wet kiss for you. Mmmmmwah!
[c]THANK YOU![/c]

 

[Michael St. Clair]

michael,...the letterboxed dir cut screener? i thought the only screeners sent out were the full screen vhs tapes that went to video stores and assorted retailers.

Well, I saw a VCD on a widescreen set (not my own). He zoomed it to fill up the screen...I assumed the disc was matted, as he doesn't usually zoom 4:3 stuff...I could have been wrong.

 

[DeepakJR]

I just say this DVD at BB. Anyone whos got it and a widescreen TV, plz fill me in on the looks. Ex.picture quality when zoomed in. I have a the 47" WideScreen Panasonic which model number i cant recall.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

How in the name of Hades can they Provide a WS transfer and not enhance it, what up with you Warner ?

 

[David Lambert]

How in the name of Hades can they Provide a WS transfer and not enhance it, what up with you Warner ?

Um, because of the credits maybe?
I guess those brief two times it goes to fullframe mode during the opening and closing credits is enough to get it slapped with the "Standard" moniker on the back of the box!

 

[Calvin Watts III]

David, thanks for the review!
Like an earlier poster had stated,youalways stick to your guns, & that is a good thing! Don't ever change
Robert, so what it if is not Akira?? Not everything is a Citizen Kane.
Personally, I want the OAR on everything that I buy - & that is what I do most of the time.
But if something comes out that isn't anamorphic, or that isn't just perfect in anyway, but I determine that it is something that I want (ex: The Abyss Sp.Ed.) than I'll buy it.
[rant]
Sometimes I think that the "elitist " attitude that some people have will only hurt us HT lovers overall in the long run[/rant] Just
look at the "Better Off Dead" recent thread for a great example of this....
Ok,enough ranting...
I have seen the bootleg edition of this, & while it was great, the most annoying thing was the ' Property Of...' that kept flashing on the screen. This release takes care of that, & its on DVD to boot.
Instant sale for me!
Period.
Calvin

 

[Steve Felix]

This entire long-running fiasco seems to be an elaborate practical joke on principled animated Batman fans. We've had editing issues, AR issues, murky director intent, and no clear "original release" to judge by.
I think it's clear that it was primarily designed for widescreen. This is based on all the evidence I've seen in the last couple years, going back to the original WS teaser trailer. However, we must prepare to deal with the concept of true dual ratios considering that in the switch to 16:9 we'll likely see a lot of this.
It's maddening that this release is not enhanced, but I'm going to give up this battle and give in to the non-anamorphic evil. I could rationalize, but I'll just say: Forgive me.