THE RECRUIT to be a MAR (Modified Aspect Ratio) release only. (1 Viewer)

[Inspector Hammer!]

Amen Carlo, amen!

Steve,

were bustin on your package a little, don't take it seriously. But in all seriousness Steve, what Carlo said is very true, it's how you choose to use the chosen ratio for a given film. All the films that Micheal listed are at 1.85:1, would you consider these to be lesser films becuase of their ratio? Nah.

 

[Patrick McCart]

just hope to god that he didn't pull the ol "the film will be seen more on home video than on theater screens so..." routine, that line of reasoning turns my stomach.

Well, it's beginning to be more true. There are films on DVD that made more money on this format than they did in theaters. Lots of them.


Ace Ventura I was shot flat at 1.85:1. The sequel was shot on a mix of Panavision and Super-35.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Patrick,

that's not what bothers me. Obviously a film will be viewed at home more than at the theater, and yes, will probably be more successful.

However, it's when they start fooling with a film's OAR for this reason that put's cheese in my shorts.

LEAVE A FILMS THEATRICAL DIMENSIONS ALONE!

That's all i'm saying.

 

[Michael Reuben]

It's what is "in the frame" and not the dimensions of it that matters.

Well said. I cringe when people celebrate the "epic" quality of 2.35:1. Obviously they've never seen Gone With the Wind (as epic as they come at 1.33:1) or Blue Velvet (so intimate it's terrifying at 2.35:1).

That 1.85:1 list was off the top of my head. I knew I could count on others to supplement it. In fact, you guys came up with better examples.

M.

 

[Carlo_M]

And yes, just to add to the thread topic (though it was an enjoyable side-trip! ), if this is a case of studios pandering to the HDTV crowd who don't want black bars, then this is a very, very bad thing.

But we don't know that is true (other than some people here guessing).

If it is a case of the director preferring this aspect ratio, then I'm going to wait until the finished product to judge it. Actually, I probably won't because I didn't see this movie and probably won't blind purchase it. I just think it's premature to think "wow, 2.35 to 1.78, that *can't* be good" and then cast aspersions based solely on that thought and without seeing any actual finished results.

PS - duly corrected on Ace Ventura I. I knew the DVD was P&S and that II was in 2.35, so I just thought that I was that way too. So it's only Ace II that's epic.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Nowhere has it been said to be changed because of the easier fitting for 16x9 TV. Now, if Mr. Donaldson says that, that's fine. It's still his call.

 

[George_W_K]

Ok, I am confused. How does changing the aspect ratio from 2.4 to 1.78 show more than in theaters? I guess I don't understand this whole matte thing.

I want what the OAR of any movie. And I don't understand why the black bars annoy anyone with a tv bigger than 27". Just my opinion, of course, but black bars never bothered me.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Ok, I am confused. How does changing the aspect ratio from 2.4 to 1.78 show more than in theaters? I guess I don't understand this whole matte thing.

The Recruit was filmed at 1.33:1. For theaters, it was enlarged and cropped to 2.35:1. For video, the 1.33:1 image will be matted to aproximately 1.78:1.

2.35:1 crops more from the 1.33:1 frame while 1.78:1 crops less.

 

[George_W_K]

The Recruit was filmed at 1.33:1. For theaters, it was enlarged and cropped to 2.35:1. For video, the 1.33:1 image will be matted to aproximately 1.78:1.

Isn't 1.33:1 the same as a 4:3 television? Then why do they chop off the sides for a fullscreen version?

 

[Steve_Tk]

Yes I wish all those movies you listed were in 2.35 and not 1.85. What's your point?

When did this board stop allowing people to have opinions, and become over run by movie snobs.

Also, I hated Saving Private Ryan. But I'm sure you all will have some joke or something on why that's wrong, right?

 

[Jon Martin]

Fans who paid to see this movie, or intend to buy it on DVD have a very legitamate complaint that it won't be in the theatrical 2.35:1.

95% of the people out there won't care.

I saw the film theatrically, it didn't use the widescreen framing to any effect. In fact, if you watch the clips of it shown on TV interview shows, they were all at the standard 1.78 rate.

They are just opening up the picture for this one. If you want to see the original ratio, tape up some black cardboard to your TV, that will do the trick.

Again, this is THE RECRUIT, a fun little B movie. It isn't like Greedo shooting first or something.

 

[Carl Johnson]

There are widescreen fans and fullscsreen fans, fewer than 1% of the widescreen crowd takes the time to make sure that what they are watching is OAR. I'm in that 1% and I still don't care. How many people who saw and enjoyed The Recruit @ 2.35-1 will complain about getting a DVD thats 1.78-1? Not very many.....

 

[YANG]

This re-framing practise reminds me of TURBULENCE.
I have TURBULANCE 1 in WS2.35:1 laserdisc,didn't re-purchase DVD version when i found out the the aspect ratio changed to WS1.85:1.

Like others...i will most probably wait for other region release with correct theatrical aspect ration presentation.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I disagree. IMHO you can't shoot a film to look equally good with respect to shot composition at both 2.4 and 1.78. One of them is going to be compromised.

I agree with Jeff's assertion here. You can't "intend" a presentation for two different ratios, at least not if shot in this manner. If you used two sets of cameras each with different ratios and composed the shots appropriately for each, then that would work.

But if you shoot something with one format of camera, you can't compose two ways. You can PROTECT for a modified ratio, but you can't give the same visual interpretation to both. One will be compromised - whether you screw with the wider one to keep things safe for the cropped presentation or if you film wide and then chop it up later, you can't satisfy both masters.

Patrick, I must admit I don't get your constant defenses of open matte presentations. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I get the impression that you think they're just as acceptable as OAR...

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

quote...
"What's your point?"

The point is it would get really boring seeing 2.35:1 all the time for every film ever made.

Steve,

We respect OAR here, I would think that being a member here for a year now, you would know that. Were not snobs Steve, we are just sick of pan and scan and open matted films and are passionate about trying to put an end to, or at the very least, control the flow of this garbage into the market as best we can.

Bottom line, The Recruit is not being presented on dvd in it's OAR, regardless of what Roger Donaldson states, and were expressing our displeasure or, strangly enough, our approval with that, that's what were here for.

Patrick,

I realize it hasn't been said officially, but as I asked earlier, what is the reason? Can someone explain what could possibly be the reason for this change other than to format the film for 16x9 televisions? If this isn't the case, than why did he choose 1.78:1 and not 1.85:1, or 1.66:1? No, my money's on the 16x9 theory, if someone can tell me otherwise, i'll humbly step aside and zip it.

I keep thinking about the whole process of the making of this film and the more I try to figure it out, the more perplexed I get by this whole thing...

There's Donaldson in pre-production and he's reviewing the storyboards with his DP that are all most likely drawn at 2.40:1, then we move on to the actual principle photography of the film, he's shooting and composing the shots just as they were storyboarded...at 2.40:1, after that the film is canned and the prints are made...at 2.40:1 albeit squeezed anamorphically onto the film for projection, the prints are then shipped to theaters and projected...at 2.40:1.

Now he's saying "Whoops! Sorry, I actually wanted THIS ratio instead." Sorry, it just doesn't add up folks.

 

[Jeff Kohn]

Again, this is THE RECRUIT, a fun little B movie. It isn't like Greedo shooting first or something.

Surely you can't be so short-sighted as to fail to see that this could set a dangerous precedent if it is indeed driven by the studios wanting to give HDTV owners a full-screen presentation. HBO already does this with all their new transfers, and as HDTV's get more affordable and become more popular, I can see studios starting to do this more an more if we let them get away with it.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Jeff,

that is PRECISLY what i'm afraid of here and why it's so important to try and nip this shit in the bud before it becomes a problem. I'm glad to see i'm not alone.

 

[Jason Whyte]

I was not a fan of "The Recruit", but I will offer my opinion on this matter without that in mind:

The odd thing about all of this is how the film WOULD look compositionally in 1.78:1. I remember months ago seeing a theatrical trailer for this in the "flat" format, without the anamorphic upconversion done at this point. Almost all of the frames felt empty.

Now, the REAL question will be this: will the 1.78:1 transfer be a correct reframing of the spherical negative, or will it be re-positioned frame by frame (sort of like a full frame transfer of a 1.85:1 film)? This film benefits from it's 2.39:1 aspect ratio, and it should be like this on the DVD.

A while back while I was in a projection booth, I got to take a look at this trailer by hand, and noticed how even emptier the fully exposed frame (1.37:1) was. It's a different looking film!

I'd really like to hear Roger Donaldson's thoughts on this. He isn't my favorite filmmaker, but I have noticed how he literally jumps from format to format ("Thirteen Days" at 1.85:1, "Species" and "No Way Out" at Super 35, etc). I'm sure he has his reasons.

Jason

 

[Patrick McCart]

Isn't 1.33:1 the same as a 4:3 television? Then why do they chop off the sides for a fullscreen version?

It varies from film to film. Films with CGI will likely get more cropping like Terminator 2.

However, many films are customized for 1.33:1 instead of being scanned fully open matte. T-2 had each scene re-framed totally.

Most open matte films are simply centered (1.66/1.85:1 films), which is unlike how Super-35 can be presented.

If you were to make a fullframe transfer of The Usual Suspects, you'd find it to be almost entirely centered. Because of the difference of the film frame and your TV screen, ribbons on all 4 sides will be cropped. In theaters, all 4 sides would be cropped depending on how it's framed.

Nearly all Super-35 films need their original matting to look right. Any time it's been changed for video like The Abyss (LD) or Austin Powers, it's usually by the reccomendation by the director. If it looks fine with less matting, that usually means it was shot to allow that.

And it's still not confirmed that this is being done just to pander to the masses.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I'd love to hear his thoughts as well Jason, perhaps an explanation from him will be in the liner notes of the disc, I hope so. As for his jumping around from ratio to ratio with his different films, that doesn't strike me as particularly strange, a lot of directors use different ratios from film to film depending on the material and what they're trying to show us.

What I DO find strange is that he seems to get cold feet when it comes time to release his films on home video, he did pretty much the same thing with No Way Out that he's doing here. Again, if there is dead space above and below the 2.40:1 area, why is he opening it up to reveal things that he worked to keep out in the first place?

Great scott, i'm getting a headache, time for the OAR snob to hit the sack.