4 Stars

Martin Dew submitted a new blog post

Avengers: Endgame disc release comes under media attack
[​IMG]

Published by

Kevin Collins

administrator

Jake Lipson

Executive Producer
Premium
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Messages
10,047
Reaction score
5,254
Points
9,110
Age
31
Real Name
Jake Lipson
It's worth noting that the lack of support for IMAX ratio footage is nothing new. Several of the Marvel films have featured shifting aspect ratios in IMAX and none have been duplicated on their disc counterparts in 2D. (I don't have 3D so can't speak to whether or not any of the 3D discs have contained this feature.) Infinity War was also shot entirely with IMAX cameras and only received a 2.39:1 Blu-ray disc. So while this may be disappointing for some people, it's certainly not without precedent or inconsistent with how Disney has treated these films on disc in the past. What they announced this week is exactly what I was expecting from them to announce.

It's also important to note that all traditional theaters throughout the world screened the movie in 2.39:1, and the Russo brothers knew this was the plan when they were making the film So while 2.39:1 is not the only correct aspect ratio for the film, it is not an inappropriately compromised one either and is a valid way of releasing the film which represents the way that the vast majority of people who saw the movie in theaters experienced the film.

This is not to say that there shouldn't also be a release with the IMAX ratio footage -- I agree that there is value in releasing that -- but releasing it in 2.39:1 is also correct. In effect, the film has two separate and equally valid original theatrical aspect ratios because of the differing presentations in IMAX versus conventional auditoriums.
 
Last edited:

Jason_V

Lead Actor
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
7,472
Reaction score
2,486
Points
9,110
Age
41
Location
Bothell, WA
Real Name
Jason
There is one legit complaint here. Everything else is manufactured click bait using the Endgame name.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian Kidd

Paul Hillenbrand

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 16, 1998
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
739
Points
1,610
Real Name
Paul Hillenbrand
Isn't there a pattern?
Disney uses high-end technological bells and whistles on media they want consumers to buy.
Blu-ray 3D titles lack ATMOS, and now the latest UHD physical media title lacks DV.
 

Colin Jacobson

Lead Actor
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,730
Reaction score
3,481
Points
9,110
It's worth noting that the lack of support for IMAX ratio footage is nothing new. Several of the Marvel films have featured shifting aspect ratios in IMAX and none have been duplicated on their disc counterparts in 2D. (I don't have 3D so can't speak to whether or not any of the 3D discs have contained this feature.) Infinity War was also shot entirely with IMAX cameras and only received a 2.39:1 Blu-ray disc. So while this may be disappointing for some people, it's certainly not without precedent or inconsistent with how Disney has treated these films on disc in the past. What they announced this week is exactly what I was expecting from them to announce.

It's also important to note that all traditional theaters throughout the world screened the movie in 2.39:1, and the Russo brothers knew this was the plan when they were making the film So while 2.39:1 is not the only correct aspect ratio for the film, it is not an inappropriately compromised one either and is a valid way of releasing the film which represents the way that the vast majority of people who saw the movie in theaters experienced the film.

This is not to say that there shouldn't also be a release with the IMAX ratio footage -- I agree that there is value in releasing that -- but releasing it in 2.39:1 is also correct. In effect, the film has two separate and equally valid original theatrical aspect ratios because of the differing presentations in IMAX versus conventional auditoriums.
It really would be nice if these IMAX-shot movies came out with both versions, and it's not just Disney/Marvel that drops the ball - movies like "Sully" were almost entirely shot IMAX digital but not released that way.

It doesn't seem like it would cost them much to put a second disc in the package with the IMAX version as well - or the non-IMAX in cases like "Aquaman" that do use the alternate ratio...
 

Ethan Riley

Producer
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,026
Reaction score
761
Points
4,110
I just think Disney isn't giving full service to the 4k community. We all know the release could be a little bit better. I kinda think they'll revisit this title in a year or two with the alternate cut. Anybody's guess whether they'll address the Dolby situation. Might have been a licensing or cost effectiveness problem with Dolby.
 

dpippel

HTF Premium Member
Premium
Joined
Feb 24, 2000
Messages
9,031
Reaction score
5,760
Points
9,110
Location
Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems
Real Name
Doug
Cost effectiveness? This is on it's way to being the highest grossing film of all-time.You'd think that Di$ney would put a little more effort and treasure into making it stand out from the rest of their Marvel releases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AaronMK

Jake Lipson

Executive Producer
Premium
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Messages
10,047
Reaction score
5,254
Points
9,110
Age
31
Real Name
Jake Lipson
I kinda think they'll revisit this title in a year or two with the alternate cut.
That would be highly unusual for Disney at this point. Double dips on high-profile titles like this have not been Disney's pattern for a while. The last time they double dipped later on a big title was when The Force Awakens and The Jungle Book got released in 3D later than their flat Blu-rays. I really don't think it's very likely that they are holding back the IMAX ratio for a different release. I just think they're going to release it in 2.39:1 and have that be it, which is what they normally do.

We already know that Endgame is going to appear on Disney+ in December. The audience for a double dip releasing after it is already on there included with the cost of people's subscriptions would be very small indeed. I really think they're just going to put it out in August and sell what they will sell and that's it.

Is anyone here who wants the IMAX ratio actually NOT going to buy the 2.39:1 version?

We mentioned in the other thread that digital only bonus features should not exist...but even though they do exist, we still buy the discs. Disney is going to release what they want to release and won't be motivated to change it until they lose a significant chunk of sales -- which they won't. It's going to be what Disney wants to release, and the vast majority of interested fans will take that. I know I will.
 

Adam Lenhardt

Director
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
23,002
Reaction score
8,659
Points
9,110
Location
Albany, NY
Isn't there a pattern?
Disney uses high-end technological bells and whistles on media they want consumers to buy.
Blu-ray 3D titles lack ATMOS, and now the latest UHD physical media title lacks DV.
The cynical part of me definitely thinks this is the latest strategy to try and swing consumers away from physical media. I think it's a strategic mistake.

Much like Laserdisc during the VHS era, UHD provides studios a niche market where they can get away with charging premium prices for cinephiles willing to pay more for the best possible presentation. Yes, there are production expenses with a UHD physical release that you don't have with a 4K digital copy. But if you can set the MSRP for the UHD disc at $40, while the 4K digital copy sells for $20, the UHD physical release is still going to generate more profits.

But that only works if the UHD physical release has the best possible presentation. When you take steps like not including Dolby Vision, you're killing that premium pricing market.

It really would be nice if these IMAX-shot movies came out with both versions, and it's not just Disney/Marvel that drops the ball - movies like "Sully" were almost entirely shot IMAX digital but not released that way.

It doesn't seem like it would cost them much to put a second disc in the package with the IMAX version as well - or the non-IMAX in cases like "Aquaman" that do use the alternate ratio...
Warner Bros. and Lionsgate are generally really good about including the IMAX version on their home releases -- Sully being an exception for whatever reason. Disney is consistently awful on this point.

And I do think it's a legitimate gripe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeffrey D

Colin Jacobson

Lead Actor
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,730
Reaction score
3,481
Points
9,110
Warner Bros. and Lionsgate are generally really good about including the IMAX version on their home releases -- Sully being an exception for whatever reason. Disney is consistently awful on this point.
"Blade Runner 2049" also was an IMAX-shot film from WB that only came out 2.40:1 on BD/4K...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adam Lenhardt

Malcolm R

Executive Producer
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
18,327
Reaction score
5,051
Points
9,110
Real Name
Malcolm
The 3D of Guardians of the Galaxy included the different aspect ratios. Captain America: Civil War and Doctor Strange may have, as well (based on info at DVD Compare). I know I have a handful of discs that include this, but I often don't notice it while watching. For some reason, it was quite apparent in GOTG.
 
Last edited:

Josh Steinberg

Executive Producer
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
18,394
Reaction score
22,784
Points
9,110
Age
37
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
All of the Marvel 3D discs retain the IMAX presentations (for titles that had IMAX enhanced footage) with the notable exception of Infinity War, and, presumably, Endgame.

For many of those titles, the IMAX release was exclusively in 3D, so in those instances, I believe it is proper that the 2D version does not include the enhancements.
 

YANG

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 10, 1999
Messages
576
Reaction score
29
Points
610
why cant studios stick to consistant aspect ratio?
eversince Transformer 5 with mixed widescreen presentation ratio mix,I had oredi been watching cropped visuals from other movies. M.I.Fallout and Dunkirk are 2 to mention...
 

Robert Crawford

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
47,429
Reaction score
23,462
Points
9,110
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
But that only works if the UHD physical release has the best possible presentation. When you take steps like not including Dolby Vision, you're killing that premium pricing market.
Are they really? How many people are not buying those discs for that reasoning? Most people won't even noticed about the lack of Dolby Vision. Furthermore, those that do buy the disc also get their digital with Dolby Vision.

I hate what the industry is doing with their physical disc releases as well as how they released their titles digitally. Neither home video format is being utilized to its fullest by the industry.
 
Last edited:

Sean Bryan

Sean Bryan
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
4,933
Reaction score
2,013
Points
4,110
Real Name
Sean
Maybe it’s all a thing of the past, but my impression of Dolby Vision from reading many discussions on various displays over the last year or so is that it can be somewhat problematic.

As HDR displays continue to get brighter and, more importantly, HDR tone mapping gets better and better the “improvement” of Dolby Vision over regular HDR-10 becomes meaningless anyway.

Dolby Vision seems most relevant when looking at displays that do a poor job of tone mapping HDR-10. But tone mapping has improved significantly compared to when UHD TVs first launched.
 

Wayne_j

Producer
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
3,345
Reaction score
1,695
Points
4,110
Real Name
Wayne
why cant studios stick to consistant aspect ratio?
eversince Transformer 5 with mixed widescreen presentation ratio mix,I had oredi been watching cropped visuals from other movies. M.I.Fallout and Dunkirk are 2 to mention...
In this case it would be a consistent aspect ratio. The entire IMAX version of Endgame (as well as Infinity War) was 1.9:1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adam Lenhardt