Jump to content

Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


CHARLY aspect ratio?

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 of 6 OFFLINE   cafink



  • 3,045 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999

Posted May 14 2008 - 03:42 AM

Can anyone tell me whether the currently-available DVD of the film CHARLY contains the widescreen version of the film? I searched through previous threads about the disc, and as best I can tell, MGM was originally going to release it as a full-screen-only DVD, but delayed it for several months and eventually released it as a dual-sided disc containing both widescreen and full-screen versions. However, both Amazon and IMDB list the DVD as containing only the full-screen version of the film, and some of Amazon's user comments complain that it indeed contains only the full-screen version, while others say that it contains both. I know that several dual-ratio DVDs have been reissued in full-screen only, though I believe that Sony has been the chief culprit. Is MGM guilty of this as well? If I order CHARLY from Amazon right now, can I expect to receive the widescreen version of the film? Thanks for your help.


#2 of 6 OFFLINE   Simon Howson

Simon Howson


  • 1,779 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 18 2004

Posted May 14 2008 - 04:11 AM

My copy is is the dual sided widescreen & fullscreen version. The full UPC code (all the numbers) is 027616912015. It clearly states that it contains widescreen and full screen versions at the bottom left hand corner of the back cover. It has the number "1007059" printed at the bottom right hand corner, I assume this is the catalogue number and it may possibly be different for the pan and scan only version. It was shot in Techniscope and includes some split screen sequences that are incredibly grainy because it is half of a two perf frame. They should've shot those sequences in 4 perf, because the quality degrades a great deal in those scenes - it really must've been a low budget production!

#3 of 6 OFFLINE   Stephen_J_H


    All Things Film Junkie

  • 4,246 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 30 2003
  • Real Name:Stephen J. Hill
  • LocationNorth of the 49th

Posted May 14 2008 - 04:16 AM

I'd check the B&Ms if I were you. MGM has released several dual sided discs as single sided versions, without even changing the menus in the case of some special editions (IAMMMMW, for one) and has released several films shorn of their extras in P/S only versions (West Side Story and Dances with Wolves come to mind). I like Amazon, and their return policy is great, but I just wouldn't take the chance in this instance.
"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player."-- Roger Ebert

#4 of 6 OFFLINE   Chuck Pennington

Chuck Pennington

    Supporting Actor

  • 888 posts
  • Join Date: May 11 2001

Posted May 14 2008 - 09:27 AM

The version I got out of the local library was anamorphic widescreen. I thought this was the only version that has been released on DVD. I didn't notice if a P/S version was also included.

#5 of 6 OFFLINE   Chuck Pennington

Chuck Pennington

    Supporting Actor

  • 888 posts
  • Join Date: May 11 2001

Posted May 14 2008 - 09:29 AM

Posted Image

#6 of 6 OFFLINE   Gordon McMurphy

Gordon McMurphy


  • 3,530 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 2002

Posted May 18 2008 - 09:39 AM

I watched this film again recently for Cliff Robertson's brilliant, prophetiv "a TV in every room," speech. It was shot in Techniscope. It must looks like faeces in pan and scan - it's grainy in 2.35:1 and the elaborate split-screen mosaics would have to be aborted in 1.33:1 pan and scan. Techiscope was a weird choice for this film, come to think about it.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users