What's new

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

Peter Apruzzese

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 20, 1999
Messages
4,895
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:
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.
 

Patrick McCart

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 16, 2001
Messages
8,196
Location
Georgia (the state)
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.
 

Peter Apruzzese

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 20, 1999
Messages
4,895
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?
 

Scott L

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2000
Messages
4,457
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.
 

Tony-B

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2002
Messages
3,768
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.
 

LennyP

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

WillG

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
7,563
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
 

Chad Ferguson

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 31, 2000
Messages
923
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
 

Richard_D_Ramirez

Second Unit
Joined
May 21, 2001
Messages
439
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
 

Tim_Prasuhn

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
206
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.)
 

Brett C

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 23, 2000
Messages
266
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...
 

Jeff Kohn

Supporting Actor
Joined
Dec 29, 2001
Messages
680
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?
 

Brett C

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 23, 2000
Messages
266
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...
 

Bryan Tuck

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Messages
1,981
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.
 

Steve_Tk

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2002
Messages
2,833
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.
 

Carlo_M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 31, 1997
Messages
13,385
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.

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.
 

CraigL

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 16, 2000
Messages
1,863
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. :frowning:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,818
Messages
5,123,884
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top