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

[Steve_Tk]

I can see the problem some people are mentioning here. That as WS TVs sell more and more, directors and studios will release a movie in 2.35 ratio, then put all the DVDs as 1.78 for the WS TVs (just to make joe blow happy without any black bars).

I hope this does not become a common practice. But this is probably going to happen. Maybe someone will get ballsy and release a 2.35 TV some day. By that time burn in technology wouldn't be a problem, you could still watch standard HDTV with small black bars on the sides.

 

[Michael Reuben]

When did this board stop allowing people to have opinions

You can have whatever opinion you want. But if it's uninformed, expect to be challenged. Keep an open mind, and you might even learn something. I certainly have over the last five years.

M.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Steven,

I certaintly wouldn't kick a 2.35:1 HD monitor out of my home theater! Raise a glass with me and let's toast to dreamin.

 

[Jerry Gracia]

Hey, Steve...

Don't worry bud, don't take anything on these boards personally, just have fun with it.

 

[Jon Martin]

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.

But I don't see this being a problem. This is the first time it happened. Filmmakers who use the 2.35 framing to its most won't allow for this to happen. You won't see them going back and making LAWRENCE OF ARABIA 1.78.

As mentioned, if Donaldson did this before with NO WAY OUT, it is probably what he had in mind from the beginning. Like I said, all the clips shown on TV were 1.78. I liked the film but didn't even notice it was widescreen since it barely used it.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Jon,

that's my point, if he wanted these films at 1.78:1 all along, why didn't he compose them that way for theatrical exhibition from the start?

Thank goodness Donaldson's the exception and not the rule, if every director pulled this crap i'd seriously consider finding another hobby other than movies, it would drive me insane.

 

[Jeff Kohn]

But I don't see this being a problem. This is the first time it happened. Filmmakers who use the 2.35 framing to its most won't allow for this to happen. You won't see them going back and making LAWRENCE OF ARABIA 1.78.

I do see it as a problem, because the decision is not always going to be up to the director, but rather the studio putting out the DVD. And if they think that HDTV owners will be happy with open matte 16:9, we will probably be seeing more of it.

 

[Jeff Kohn]

Like I said, all the clips shown on TV were 1.78.

Clips on TV are almost always 16:9 LBX, not 2.4. That doesn't mean anything, except that they know people with 4:3 sets find the larger lbx bars of a 2.4 AR more objectionable than the smaller 16:9 lbx bars.

 

[Mitch Stevens]

Maybe the director realized that there is important information that has been matted, and therefore, wants to correct this by releasing it with less matting.

Or maybe (and this is a huge stretch of the imagination) he realized that some TVs have close to %10 overscan, and with that in mind, 1.78:1 will in fact be just perfect, so that people who have tons of overscan on their TV won't miss any important information.

I don't know. I think that if the director wants to open up the film a little bit, there must be a really good reason for it. I'm excited to find out what this film will look like in this aspect ratio.

 

[Patrick McCart]

n/m

 

[AaronMK]

Who knows, maybe the film was shot with 1.78:1 in mind (in that case, you'd think it would have been presented at 1.85:1 in theaters).

It doesn't matter whether 2.40:1 or 1.78:1 was the intended AR, I still think this sets a bad precedent. It is saying that proper presentation is not important, since they pushed it aside either at the theater or on the DVD.

In regard to it being shot for both ARs, I'll say this:
Choices in frame composition (both what is included and what isn't, as well as positioning) can have a great impact on how a scene affects the viewer, many times without the viewer being directly aware. A really great director or DP will take full advantage of this, and if they can change the AR that drastically and be satisfied with both versions, I have to wonder if composition was used as effectively as it could have been.

Also, is it so far fetched for studio execs to say "Donaldson, The Recruit is going to be a 1:78:1 release on DVD so people won't complain as loudly about the black bars. If you put your stamp of approval on this so the enthusiast will still buy it we'll (put your incentive here)."

So in any case, such a drastic AR change is questionable at best.

 

[Robert Floto]

It's been a few days since I checked this thread...but wasn't the original topic title THE RECRUIT to be a MAR release only...?

Any reason why it now says MAY instead of MAR...or I'm just out of my mind...

 

[Alex Spindler]

Get it now while its hot!

Maybe their thiking of taking the Disney route of offering it for only a limited time only.

We'll be hotly anticipating May 2005 in the hopes of picking up The Recruit because we missed the window on the previous two years.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I'm somewhat befuddled by the change also. I've been staring at it trying to decypher it's meaning for 5 minuets.

My guess is that it's a ploy by the moderators to confuse us so that we'll forget what we were arguing about in the first place.

 

[Michael Reuben]

My guess is that it's a ploy by the moderators to confuse us so that we'll forget what we were arguing about in the first place.

You don't need our help for that.

It was simply an error, which has now been corrected.

M.

 

[Cees Alons]

My thoughts about this ahem.. disaster .. ahem.

(1) If the director really "protected" it for 2.40:1, a 16x9 picture sure will look a bit empty: all important visual information would have to be squeezed into the smaller part of the negative. This would be more pronounced even, if he actually shot it for 2.40:1.
(2) Neither the negatives, nor the DVD image will have a lesser resolution whether it be presented in 2.40:1 or 1.78:1 (and let's hope it will be "enhanced for widescreen" on DVD).
(3) Opening the mattes will NOT remove any image detail.

So, although I certainly don't like this, I cannot see it as a very bad solution, especially if the director wanted it this way. Perhaps (who knows exactly?) he was protecting his movie from being chopped down to a P&S release.

Now this is important: what remains is the discussion about what format is the best to watch this movie. But if you really think that should be 2.40:1, why not put mattes on your screen yourself? You won't lose anything, see the film like it was presented in the theatres, and in fact see it exactly like you would have when it would have been released in 2.40:1 format on DVD.

Don't forget: all they did was filling in the black bars with image content!

Cees

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Now this is important: what remains is the discussion about what format is the best to watch this movie. But if you really think that should be 2.40:1, why not put mattes on your screen yourself? You won't lose anything, see the film like it was presented in the theatres, and in fact see it exactly like you would have when it would have been released in 2.40:1 format on DVD.

But this assumes that he merely matted the film down to the 2.40 ratio from the center of the 1.78 image. What if the 2.40 theatrical version was reframed shot-by-shot (see the T2 and Seven DVD transfer demos for examples of this)? Putting mattes on the screen may not work, in this case.

 

[Cees Alons]

Peter,

Yes, what if. But, although it happened before (for a reason), it's highly unlikely. Indeed we need to find out this before we can be totally sure.

Cees

 

[T r o y]

I'm stoked! The Recruit does indeed have a DTS
track on it!!

Just read the review over at http://www.widescreenreview.com/newrelease/recruit.html
and they give the DTS track a 5.0

According to the dvd info. sites , there was no mention of a dts track on the official specs announcement.

Just thought I would spread the good word!

Later!
Troy

 

[MarcinL]

This is Fishy

I think it was studio exec. decision to go for 1.78:1 to go with widescreen, but not to piss of the JP6 people and save money and not do a dual release, I have a funny feeling that disney is testing to see if widescreen enthusiast will care if they original movie is chopped up while still being widescreen, and for J6p the bars are small so everyone is happy. Well HELL NO

I was planning to buy it, but now Disney will not get my money, I will wait for a release that has OAR as shown in theaters. I'm willing to bet it was not director's decision, why would he decide to switch now, instead of before the movie hit the screens.

Wolfgang Peterson shot AIR FORCE ONE in Super 35, he decided to go with 2.35:1, cut out some top an bottom info and released it both in theaters and DVD in 2.35:1

Don't get me wrong I don't mind 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 Like Fugitive or Under Siege, But those were originally released in that AR, but recruit was Originally released in 2.35, and why would the director messed with it on DVD, Like I said its Damn Disney messing again, Usually I buy everything, BTTF I purchased, misframing, no problem, But enough is enough. and then they try to BS us that director changed his mind, Come on....