Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

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


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
189 replies to this topic

#1 of 190 Peter Apruzzese

Peter Apruzzese

    Screenwriter

  • 2,574 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 20 1999
  • Real Name:Peter Apruzzese

Posted March 31 2003 - 01:32 PM

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:
Quote:
Director's Original 1.78 Aspect Ratio Shows More of the Film Than Was Presented In Theaters.


I'd be very curious to find out why the director wanted a 'scope theatrical release and a 1.78 video release. Roger Donaldson isn't exactly Kubrick, so I can't imagine what his reasoning is.
"What we're fighting for, in the end...we're fighting for each other." - Col. Joshua Chamberlain in "Gettysburg"

 


#2 of 190 Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,453 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationBlairsville, GA, USA

Posted March 31 2003 - 01:49 PM

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 of 190 Peter Apruzzese

Peter Apruzzese

    Screenwriter

  • 2,574 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 20 1999
  • Real Name:Peter Apruzzese

Posted March 31 2003 - 01:53 PM

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?
"What we're fighting for, in the end...we're fighting for each other." - Col. Joshua Chamberlain in "Gettysburg"

 


#4 of 190 Dave H

Dave H

    Producer

  • 5,217 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 13 2000

Posted March 31 2003 - 03:02 PM

So, the theatrical was 2:40? Now at 1:78? Ouch.

#5 of 190 Scott L

Scott L

    Producer

  • 4,466 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 29 2000

Posted March 31 2003 - 03:07 PM

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 of 190 Tony-B

Tony-B

    Producer

  • 3,768 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 2002

Posted March 31 2003 - 03:12 PM

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.
DVD Collection/Video Game Collection/Music Collection
"The Weighted Companion Cube will never threaten to stab you." -GLaDOS

#7 of 190 Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,453 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationBlairsville, GA, USA

Posted March 31 2003 - 03:22 PM

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 of 190 LennyP

LennyP

    Supporting Actor

  • 587 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2002

Posted March 31 2003 - 03:24 PM

Yeah, fine, if he wants to open it up on top and bottom, we get to see more, I'm always OK with that.
Top: 1-10 | 11-20 | Complete Archives | Discs: 1397
New R1: Cube SE | Cube² | Noir Vol.1 | .hack//Sign Vol.1 | RahXephon Vol.1 | Assassins | Judge Dredd | One Hour Photo | Unfaithful

#9 of 190 WillG

WillG

    Producer

  • 5,213 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2003

Posted March 31 2003 - 03:34 PM

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
STOP HIM! He's supposed to die!

#10 of 190 Chad Ferguson

Chad Ferguson

    Supporting Actor

  • 926 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 31 2000

Posted March 31 2003 - 04:15 PM

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 of 190 Richard_D_Ramirez

Richard_D_Ramirez

    Second Unit

  • 439 posts
  • Join Date: May 21 2001

Posted March 31 2003 - 04:20 PM

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
A Casualty of Casual Causality: My casual blog on the 'net.

#12 of 190 Tim_Prasuhn

Tim_Prasuhn

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 206 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 08 2002

Posted March 31 2003 - 04:51 PM

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.)
My DVD Collection Exposed!  which hasnt been updated in about two years

#13 of 190 Brett C

Brett C

    Second Unit

  • 269 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 23 2000

Posted March 31 2003 - 04:52 PM

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 of 190 Jeff Kohn

Jeff Kohn

    Supporting Actor

  • 680 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 29 2001

Posted March 31 2003 - 05:00 PM

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?
Jeff Kohn
http://home.houston.rr.com/jeffkohn
My DVD Profiler Collection

#15 of 190 Brett C

Brett C

    Second Unit

  • 269 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 23 2000

Posted March 31 2003 - 05:15 PM

Quote:
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?

If this is true it sounds more like a decision on the studios part to please DVD viewers ticked off by widescreen,specially when it comes to the much tighter 2.35:1 ratio. But I guess we'll see what actually happens, as the release of the DVD gets closer.I just hope it doesn't turn out to be the case and it is released in its proper aspect ratio of 2.35:1. I enjoyed this film a lot and scope is my fav ratio. And for the record the DVD screeners of this film are in the scope ratio...

#16 of 190 Bryan Tuck

Bryan Tuck

    Screenwriter

  • 1,451 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 16 2002

Posted April 01 2003 - 12:23 AM

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.
"Flying a plane is no different from riding a bicycle; it's just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes."

#17 of 190 Steve_Tk

Steve_Tk

    Screenwriter

  • 2,833 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 30 2002

Posted April 01 2003 - 02:31 AM

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 of 190 Carlo Medina

Carlo Medina

    Lead Actor

  • 9,536 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 31 1997

Posted April 01 2003 - 03:48 AM

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.

Quote:
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.
I'm not sure what to make of this? Are you saying you want all films at 2.35 and not 1.85 (1.78 is the HDTV standard but the most common aspect ratio of movies in that ballpark is 1.85)? So films like Saving Private Ryan, The Shawshank Redemption, The Godfather I & II, those all feel awkward because they aren't 2.35?

I think directors use each aspect ratio to suit the film, and thus create a different feel and look from film to film. I can't say it actually bothers me when I go and see a movie and it isn't 2.35.

#19 of 190 Jeff Kleist

Jeff Kleist

    Executive Producer

  • 11,286 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 04 1999

Posted April 01 2003 - 04:30 AM

Had he shot anamorphic and done it properly, it never would have been an issue.

Quote:
Shooting it in 2:35 is sure a very expensive way to get 1:78

Actually it's cheaper to shoot Super35 than anamorphic, but you get what you pay for

#20 of 190 CraigL

CraigL

    Screenwriter

  • 1,863 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 16 2000

Posted April 01 2003 - 04:40 AM

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. Posted Image


Back to DVD



Forum Nav Content I Follow