-

Jump to content



Photo

Lord of War: 2-Disc Special Edition 1/17


This topic has been archived.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

#1 of 144 OFFLINE   Elijah Sullivan

Elijah Sullivan

    Supporting Actor

  • 665 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 18 2004

Posted January 14 2006 - 07:56 PM

Just watched this film, a pretty good one. The DVD presentation, tho, is outstanding. The video is very, very nice... lots of EE, but still damned good...

The DTS-ES track on this disc is absolutely incredible.

A solid hit in presentation, I think.

As for the film... a good effort. I'm glad Lions Gate gambled on this project (as they did with Crash this same year) to help try to get a very political, very revisionist message to the mainstream audience. I hope millions more people see this film now that it's on DVD, because weapons trade is a major issue. And as the movie states... the United States is the biggest offender on the planet, and has been for half a century.

#2 of 144 OFFLINE   Joel C

Joel C

    Screenwriter

  • 1,635 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 23 1999

Posted January 15 2006 - 06:02 AM

What's the aspect ratio? I read on another forum that this was cropped from the 2.35:1 theatrical to 1.78:1.
Joel
woemcats@hotmail.com
"Why I laugh?"

#3 of 144 OFFLINE   Rhoq

Rhoq

    Supporting Actor

  • 734 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 01 2004

Posted January 15 2006 - 06:53 AM

I saw this in theater and can't wait 'til Tuesday to pick it up (I could of had it Christmas weekend, but I didn't want to settle for the single disc version). Excellent film both in it's message and how it plays out as a dark comedy.

#4 of 144 OFFLINE   Marcel H.

Marcel H.

    Supporting Actor

  • 553 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 2005

Posted January 15 2006 - 11:10 AM

@Joel

Unfortunately I'm not allowed to post any links until I've posted 15 times here. So look at the axelmusic homepage. There you can find a back cover scan of the DVD that says that the ratio is 1,78:1
Recently bought: Tracy & Hepburn the Definitive Coll., The Mountain, Rope of Sand, Taxi Driver (BD), Heroes of Telemark, Night of the Generals
Pre-Order: Knock on Any Door, The Outlaw Josey Wales (BD), The Man Who Would Be King (BD), Night Flight, The Hustler (BD)...
My Collection
 

#5 of 144 OFFLINE   Elijah Sullivan

Elijah Sullivan

    Supporting Actor

  • 665 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 18 2004

Posted January 15 2006 - 11:38 AM

It is 1.78, but there is no pan-and-scan action that I saw. It is 16x9 enhanced. If anything, I would suggest that it was improperly screened in theaters. At 1.78 the compositions are quite spacious, with no hint of that pan-and-scan stuff.

#6 of 144 OFFLINE   Mike Heenan

Mike Heenan

    Second Unit

  • 405 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 07 2001

Posted January 15 2006 - 12:07 PM

How could it have been improperly screened at theaters, when that's the aspect ratio the director and cinematographer chose to release it in?

#7 of 144 OFFLINE   Mark Lucas

Mark Lucas

    Second Unit

  • 497 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 2005

Posted January 15 2006 - 12:30 PM

This is a 2.35:1 Super 35 film. Maybe it was decided to open up the mattes for home video but i'll believe it when I see it.

I think I'll wait for the HD-DVD/Blu-ray release of this.

#8 of 144 OFFLINE   Jon Martin

Jon Martin

    Screenwriter

  • 2,219 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 19 2002

Posted January 15 2006 - 01:23 PM

Quote:
This is a 2.35:1 Super 35 film. Maybe it was decided to open up the mattes for home video but i'll believe it when I see it.


That is most likely the case, that it is open matte. Same thing Robert Rodriguez did with ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO.

#9 of 144 OFFLINE   Nathan V

Nathan V

    Supporting Actor

  • 960 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 16 2002

Posted January 15 2006 - 01:43 PM

That is disappointing news. I will not be purchasing this title. The 2.35 compositions in the theatre (in which I saw the film twice) were gorgeous. I actually thought it had some of the best compositions of the year. This is a real shame for me, esp as a photographer.

Regards,
Nathan
The Tree of Life / Brad Pitt / Sean Penn / Directed by Terrence Malick / 2010

#10 of 144 OFFLINE   Joel C

Joel C

    Screenwriter

  • 1,635 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 23 1999

Posted January 15 2006 - 03:33 PM

I guess if the director wants it that way I can't complain, but it is odd. Great looking film, all but ignored in theaters despite a few good reviews (for some reason, Entertainment Weekly's Owen G. gave it an F, and I usually like him).
Joel
woemcats@hotmail.com
"Why I laugh?"

#11 of 144 OFFLINE   Chad Ferguson

Chad Ferguson

    Supporting Actor

  • 926 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 31 2000

Posted January 15 2006 - 04:38 PM

That is kinda disappionting news cause the movie had a great look to in theaters.

#12 of 144 OFFLINE   Elijah Sullivan

Elijah Sullivan

    Supporting Actor

  • 665 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 18 2004

Posted January 15 2006 - 06:30 PM

Wait til you watch the DVD, guys. Looking at it on DVD gives me the impression it was composed for 1.78 from the beginning. At least give it a shot. This certainly is the OAR... you may be arguing personal preference over the director's...

#13 of 144 OFFLINE   PaulP

PaulP

    Producer

  • 3,291 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2001

Posted January 16 2006 - 01:43 AM

Well if the intended AR was 1.78:1 why not exhibit the film in 1:85:1, and not 2.35:1.

#14 of 144 OFFLINE   Shane Martin

Shane Martin

    Producer

  • 6,017 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 1999

Posted January 16 2006 - 01:44 AM

Very difficult situation regarding what really is the OAR. I'm a bit torn on it myself because I too really liked this underappreciated film.

#15 of 144 OFFLINE   PaulP

PaulP

    Producer

  • 3,291 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2001

Posted January 16 2006 - 02:01 AM

Any extras on the 2-disc set go into any OAR/IAR details?

#16 of 144 OFFLINE   Shane_M

Shane_M

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 232 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2004

Posted January 16 2006 - 03:17 AM

I haven't gotten into the extras yet. That's tonight, but I watched the movie last night and it looked and sounded great. The EE was fairly low and hardly noticeable.
Shane
EyeCraveDVD.com (Owner | Editor-In-Chief)
My Blog

#17 of 144 OFFLINE   Jon Martin

Jon Martin

    Screenwriter

  • 2,219 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 19 2002

Posted January 16 2006 - 03:51 AM

Quote:
Well if the intended AR was 1.78:1 why not exhibit the film in 1:85:1, and not 2.35:1.


I think it has to do with making it look the best for the future. They probably shot it 2.35 for theatres, since that looks the best on the big screen. But, had the safe zone, knowing the video version would be 1.78, which looks the best for HDTV (for many, I don't have a problem with 2.35). Nothing is lost, so I'm not really bothered by it. You can always create your own masking if it bothers you so much.

I liked the film, but so few saw it theatrically, they probably realized more people will see it on DVD than in theatres, so geared the DVD for them.

It is funny that this is the second Bridget Moynahan film to have this happen to it. The same thing happened with THE RECRUIT, 2.35 in theatres, 1.78 on DVD.

#18 of 144 OFFLINE   PaulP

PaulP

    Producer

  • 3,291 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2001

Posted January 16 2006 - 08:26 AM

Quote:
the video version would be 1.78, which looks the best for HDTV


Which is the same as good ol' pan-and-scan.

Shane, when you go through extras, try and see if the director mentions anything regarding this on the commentary.

According to DVDActive, the UK R2 disc features a 2.35:1 transfer...

#19 of 144 OFFLINE   Andrew Bunk

Andrew Bunk

    Screenwriter

  • 1,825 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 02 2001

Posted January 16 2006 - 09:07 AM

Geez, now I guess I'll have to check OAR on widescreen films before blind-buying them.

I'm going to watch this in the next week and since I did not see the theatrical exhibition, hopefully I'll be objective when judging the framing.
My DVD, Blu-Ray and HD DVD Collection @ DVDSpot

#20 of 144 OFFLINE   Mark Lucas

Mark Lucas

    Second Unit

  • 497 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 2005

Posted January 16 2006 - 10:16 AM

I think we'll see a 2.35:1 picture. If R2 is getting it then we'll get it. Someone was either misinformed or had their tv set up the wrong way.





Forum Nav Content I Follow