Widescreen version of "Karate Kid" ???? (1 Viewer)

Jeff Holton · Jan 2, 2003

I really want to add "The Karate Kid" to my collection, but the only versions I have been able to find on DVD are formated 3:4 version...

Has anyone seen, or know about a widescreen version?

Jason Whyte · Jan 2, 2003

moving to software....

DaViD Boulet · Jan 2, 2003

Jeff,

we're all waiting for Columbia to wake up on this one. We're there with ya!

-dave

Walt Riarson · Jan 2, 2003

This just seems like a title that they will eventually re-release as a SE. I mean, they did put a couple of extra features on their Karate Kid II disc. Then again, this isn't the same Columbia of a couple of years ago. I hope they'll consider a SE of Karate Kid.

Jeff Adkins · Jan 2, 2003

You can get all three of them here for $17.81, all in anamorphic widescreen if you can do PAL Region 4.
Here is a review. Looks like the Australia and UK discs are the same, only the Aussie version is much cheaper.
Jeff

Gary_O · Jan 2, 2003

I've been waiting for this as well.

I'm guessing they may be holding off until 2004 so they can do a 20th Anniversary SE

Louis C · Jan 2, 2003

I too am patiently waiting. It seems ridiculous you can get Karate Kid II in widescreen but not the more popular first one.

David Von Pein · Apr 1, 2003

Is the current Karate Kid (1.33:1 DVD) Full-Frame or Pan-and-Scan?
What is the OAR of TKK? 1.85 or 2.35?
If 2.35, then (obviously) it's gonna be a P&S 1.33 DVD. But aren't MOST 1.85 AR films matted, with no P&S'ing needed/required? (Is P&Scanning even needed on a 1.85 ratio?)
If TKK is not P&S (but matted instead), I don't see any huge reason to be overly upset by a 1.33 DVD release. You won't be missing any picture information. Just like Anatomy Of A Murder, which is 1.33, but not P&S'ed.
Anatomy is just TOO good a film to not be in most people's DVD collections (FF or otherwise). IMO.

Jeff Kleist · Apr 1, 2003

It's open matte

Patrick McCart · Apr 1, 2003

Karate Kid is 1.85:1. The DVD is presented sans matting.

Anatomy of a Murder is a different situation in that it wasn't made for a lot of matting. 1.85:1 ends up making very unbalanced compositions. IMO, 1.66:1 would be the ideal matting ratio for DVD, but Columbia doesn't do anything lesser than 1.85:1 for DVD.

David Von Pein · Apr 1, 2003

Thanks, Jeff & Patrick.
I assume, then, since "Karate" is 1.85 Open Matte, this means it's NOT a P&S release? Correct?
It was shot in 1.33, but matted to 1.85 for theaters...correct?
If I am assuming correctly....then many, many DVD e-tailers (and DVD Profiler as well) are in error when listing TKK as "P&S". It makes it very difficult to figure out what's correct and what's not.
Amazingly (obviously an oversight), DVD Empire shows that "Karate 1" is the very first Anamorphic 1.33:1 DVD!

Damin J Toell · Apr 1, 2003

It was shot in 1.33, but matted to 1.85 for theaters...correct?

It was probably shot for 1.85:1 and shown correctly at 1.85:1 for theatres. That the negative probably exposes a 1.37:1 area is irrelevant.

DJ

Click to expand...

David Von Pein · Apr 1, 2003

That the negative probably exposes a 1.37:1 area is irrelevant.

Verify this again for me.....TKK IS NOT P&S. Correct?

Because if it's a FF (no P&S'ing) DVD, I can't see a big deal about the extra few inches of nothingness at top & bottom of image area. Who cares? (as long as feet & cables aren't constantly being seen).

Click to expand...

Damin J Toell · Apr 1, 2003

Because if it's a FF (no P&S'ing) DVD, I can't see a big deal about the extra few inches of nothingness at top & bottom of image area. Who cares (as long as feet & cables aren't constantly being seen).

Who cares? Probably the cast and crew of the film who spent weeks of their lives helping to set up shots and compose them for 1.85:1. Adding visual information that shouldn't be seen can utterly destroy a film's composition. Adding visual information that shouldn't be there can be as harmful as taking visual information that should be there. I'm sorry that you can't see a big deal about that.

DJ

Click to expand...

David Von Pein · Apr 1, 2003

Adding visual information that shouldn't be there can be as harmful as taking visual information that should be there. I'm sorry that you can't see a big deal about that.

That 2 inches of sky or ceiling isn't going to send me into hysterics, no.

As long as it's not that horrid moving Panning crappola, a 1.33:1 is probably going to be OK.

Take "Anatomy" (as mentioned earlier). Great film....even in FF. Looks great.

BTW...(Although it's doubtful anyone here has Anatomy on DVD, since it's in FF)...A real treat on that DVD is an animated Photo Gallery, with music from the film [Duke Ellington]. (Plus, ability to Pause on images.)

I wish EVERY Gallery was composed this way. Excellent.

Click to expand...

Damin J Toell · Apr 1, 2003

As long as it's not that horrid moving Panning crappola, a 1.33:1 is probably going to be OK.

Take "Anatomy" (as mentioned earlier). Great film....even in FF. Looks great.

Or take the hundreds of other films I've seen that were clearly composed for 1.85:1 and had their compositions destroyed with "fullframe" transfers.

It's great that you are still satisfied with films that have had their visual presentations ruined. I'm not.

DJ

Click to expand...

PhilipG · Apr 1, 2003

Columbia doesn't do anything lesser than 1.85:1 for DVD

Oh no? Well then, you must not have Columbia's excellent DVD of Curse/Night of the Demon, which is presented in anamorphic 1.66:1.

Click to expand...

David Von Pein · Apr 1, 2003

It's great that you are still satisfied with films that have had their visual presentations ruined. I'm not.

OK. Fine.

But 2 mattes being removed (with no P&S being done) does not magically deem the film "unwatchable", and (IMO) is a far cry from having the "visual presentation ruined".

Click to expand...

David Coleman · Apr 1, 2003

Yes, this one needs to be released as an SE!!

DaViD Boulet · Apr 2, 2003

Perhaps if you're just watching a DVD on "TV" it's not as serious a problem...
But if you've got a nice 16x9 HD rear-projection or front projection set up and you're attempting to project/display films in "theater" style, you not only loose the director-intended 1.78:1 framing, but you loose the resolution of the widescreen image if you attempt to "zoom" the 4x3 lbxed image to matte it on-the-fly on your 16x9 screen.
And as others have pointed out, there are very few 100% open-matte 4x3 full-frame transfers. Most involve a combination of open-matting, zooming, and PanScanng. It's never (rarely) a simple matter of them "opening up the matte" for the entire film.
In any case, it's really pathetic when you've got a 16x9 100" screen to get a hold of a DVD of a film and project it 1.33:1 when it was released theatrically as 1.85:1!
-dave

Home Theater

Entertainment & Streaming Content

Physical Media

Home Theater Equipment and Hardware

Other Diversions

Bargains and Classifieds

Home Theater Forum

Archives

Widescreen version of "Karate Kid" ???? (1 Viewer)

Stunt Coordinator

Screenwriter

Supporting Actor

Stunt Coordinator

Supporting Actor

Supporting Actor

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more

Similar Threads

Forum statistics