1. Guest,
    If you need help getting to know Xenforo, please see our guide here. If you have feedback or questions, please post those here.
    Dismiss Notice

THE RECRUIT to be a MAR (Modified Aspect Ratio) release only.

Discussion in 'DVD' started by Peter Apruzzese, Mar 31, 2003.

  1. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,028
    Likes Received:
    521
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
    The 2003 film, THE RECRUIT starring Al Pacino, is to be released on May 27. In theaters, this was a 'scope presentation (2.40, derived from a Super 35 negative) and looked very nice. But check out this ad copy from Touchstone regarding the DVD release:
     
  2. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,513
    Likes Received:
    116
    Location:
    Alpharetta, GA, USA
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    Well, if he prefers the image to have less matting, what is the problem?

    I don't see why a director has to be noteworthy for his decisions to be acknowledged.
     
  3. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,028
    Likes Received:
    521
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
    No problem at all - I certainly wasn't going to buy or rent it, anyway - but I'd like to know the decision-making process. Was it at the studio's behest to modify the film for the theatrical or the home video release or was it purely the director's call?
     
  4. Dave H

    Dave H Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2000
    Messages:
    5,438
    Likes Received:
    132
    So, the theatrical was 2:40? Now at 1:78? Ouch.
     
  5. Scott L

    Scott L Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2000
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hmmm, I'm not understanding. So the film is filmed in 2.40 but the DVD is 1.78:1.. doesn't that mean that some of the sides are chopped off? I guess I'd have to know what the meaning of 'scope is.

    Sorry but I plan to buy this DVD and I'm curious to know how it will differ from the theater.
     
  6. Tony-B

    Tony-B Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, if he WANTS it that way, then I'm not going to complain. But if it was the decision of studio executives, then I'll complain.
     
  7. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,513
    Likes Received:
    116
    Location:
    Alpharetta, GA, USA
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    If it's Super-35, that just means it has less top and bottom matting. You won't lose any more information on the sides.
     
  8. LennyP

    LennyP Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, fine, if he wants to open it up on top and bottom, we get to see more, I'm always OK with that.
     
  9. WillG

    WillG Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    5,304
    Likes Received:
    29
    Sad if this is true. I happen to like the 2.35:1 Ratio a great deal, and am worried that more directors will open up matting for Super 35 films like this on DVD. If 1.78:1 is what the director was going for, why use Super 35 and not just do a flat 1.85:1 theatrical. I mean, it's not like Kubrick did a 2.35:1 theatrical and then stated his prefered ratio for the film on video was 1.33:1. From what I understand, he wanted full frame for his flat films but he had no control over how theaters matted them. The director must have wanted 2.35:1 theatrical or why use Super 35? I have a bad feeling other factors might be involved
     
  10. Chad Ferguson

    Chad Ferguson Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2000
    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    0
    Shooting it in 2:35 is sure a very expensive way to get 1:78, could this just be a typo of some sort? Was I the only one here to enjoy this movie and was thinking about buying it?
    Thanks
     
  11. Richard_D_Ramirez

    Richard_D_Ramirez Second Unit

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    0
    By going 1.78, will the composition be screwed? Or was the composition of an 2.4 aspect ratio all ready messed up? Does anyone remember if the theatrical version looked "off" composition-wise?

    8^B
     
  12. Tim_Prasuhn

    Tim_Prasuhn Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2002
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    0
    the ratio of unmatted Super 35 footage is 1.68:1 so having it opened up to 1.78:1 (the exact ratio of 16:9, btw) will not lose any picture information. Effect's shots may lose some, but since effects shots for Super 35 films are starting to be rendered fullframe and matted like the rest (look at some of the docs on the Pitch Black and LOTR:FOTR discs), theres a chance even those shots will lose nothing.

    Still, it is the framing that counts. If it looks good at 1.78:1, and was what Rodger Donaldson wanted, then I'll be happy with it.

    (on an somewhat related note, I always though the Super 35 framing for Dante's Peak (a Donaldson film) was awfully tight in some places. I...almost...want to see it opened up.:b , almost.)
     
  13. Brett C

    Brett C Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2000
    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    0
    The film was very well composed for the scope ratio, if this is indeed true that they are making it 178:1 for the region 1 DVD, I'll be personally holding off to see if its released in scope in another region...
     
  14. Jeff Kohn

    Jeff Kohn Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2001
    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess the thing that doesn't make sense is why it would have shown as 2.40 in theaters if he wanted 1.85. It's not like theaters aren't equipped to show 1.85, so why matt it down to 2.40?
     
  15. Brett C

    Brett C Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2000
    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  16. Bryan Tuck

    Bryan Tuck Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    158
    Real Name:
    Bryan Tuck
    I'm also in the camp that if it's truly what Donaldson wants, then so be it. But it sounds awfully fishy. Like others have said, if he wanted a 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 ratio, he could have just filmed the movie with spherical lenses. Or, if he filmed in Super35 with the intention of framing it for 2.40:1, and then changed his mind, he still could have framed it at 1.85:1 for theaters. Super35 has been used on a few flat films, and on the TV series Babylon 5, which is intended for 1.78:1.

    Once again, if it's the director's choice, fine, but it just seems weird.
     
  17. Steve_Tk

    Steve_Tk Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will not buy it that way.

    I hate watching movies now that are not widescreen. When I go to the theaters and see a movie in 16x9, and not 2.35 I usually wish it was 2.35. Just feels awkward now to watch a movie in 1.78.

    This was a "will probably buy" but now is a "nope". I could care less what that director wants. If you show a movie one way in the theater, then release the video that way. Or make up your damn mind before you release the movie.
     
  18. Carlo Medina

    Carlo Medina Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 1997
    Messages:
    10,344
    Likes Received:
    563
    This reminds me of the original Austin Powers DVD release, where the film was opened up except for that shot with the 8 split screen where people in the U.S. Gov't were calling each other, and that was in 2.35:1. The original DVD packaging said it was in 2.35 (I think) and then they started pressing new packaging which indicated it was at a ratio of "2:1 as specified by the director" so even in the infancy of DVD there were some people who knew something was up with varying aspect ratios.

     
  19. Jeff Kleist

    Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 1999
    Messages:
    11,286
    Likes Received:
    0
    Had he shot anamorphic and done it properly, it never would have been an issue.

     
  20. CraigL

    CraigL Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2000
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is similar to what happened with Life As A House no?

    Except that was actually a scope film that was trimmed whereas this is Super 35. Either way it's REALLY upsetting. [​IMG]
     

Share This Page