Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DVD' started by Michael Allred, Aug 25, 2003.
According to www.dvdfile.com;
I was disappointed that Remo Williams wasn't widescreen, but I'm furious that Real Men isn't widescreen - and I don't care about it possibly being filmed open matte. When is MGM going to realize that the biggest fans of these non-mainstream hits won't buy full-frame/pan-and-scan? That has to put a huge dent in sales, relatively speaking.
I'm the nut who truly, deeply loves Once Upon a Crime, though, so on an upnote, anamorphic widescreen and $14.95!
I'm not sure if Cops & Robbers is the 1973 crime caper film but if it is, I'm bitterly disappointed as this is one of my favorite films and I've been waiting almost 20 years for it to arrive on Laser or DVD. The only reason I see MGM doing this is $$$$$, it's probably cheaper to release it full-screen than wide. I'm going off to my corner & cry now.
Is there anyway we can petition MGM to get the titles that we want in OAR or will our voices fall on deaf ears? Just a thought.
I always thought MGM was one of the studios that frequently did put both versions on DVD. Why has this practice stopped? There are several MGM titles I'd love to buy, but will NOT buy full-frame releases. I'll spend my money on another studio's product. It's a shame a studio with a library like MGM's is apparently being run by a bunch of ___________ (
Well terrific this just adds another title to my list of wants but can't get thanks to FF only! The list is now Real Men Johnny Be Good Hot Dog No Man's Land Remo Williams And these are just the ones I can think of the top of my head. MGM why do you do this?? Thanks for nothin' MGM! Greg
To quote the film in question... "Who are those clowns." Is there nothing we can to do to get MGM to listen to us? If it's not in it's OAR...then it doesn't exist on DVD as far as I'm concerned...
Guys, Continue being polite in your replies. Have talked to MGM recently and they seem to take great offense to anything mean spirited (don't worry - it all came from me). If I can clean up my act in how I talk about these things, I am sure everyone else can, too. So please talk freely (no namecalling), because MGM is reading this thread.
Ron, That was a very fair and judicial reaction, one I know I couldn't muster if films I was salivating for were released in an altered state from how they were intended. It's a shame, too, considering how nicely MGM has treated other films. I just picked up a slew of MGM titles for $5 each at Circuit City, and was impressed with the quality on films like Kingpin, which was treated very well, despite being a lesser catalogue title. Robocop, though not the vaunted director's cut, was well handled and looked great (though I was still waiting for the bad guy to call Robo a "dumbass"). These movies, though not top-tiered films, look and sound great. But would the casual consumer pick up a random title staring Ritter, or a movie like Remo Williams? I would argue not. I have a collection of over 300 dvds, and I know I am an abberation. Most people buy Lord of the Rings. They buy Spiderman. They'll buy Monsters Inc. They have 20, 30 DVDs. Maybe more, maybe less. But the bottom line is that these movies aren't going to be bought by the, as some on this forum would say, "unwashed masses" who buy full-screen DVDs. They would, at best, glance at the cover and maybe have a memory of the film, often not, and move on. I add my own personal feelings at this grave mistake, and I truly hope reactions like this can assist in the abatement of future marred transfers being released to the home video market.
Dear MGM, As has been suggested, providing the casual consumer with a full-frame transfer without "black bars" can be accomplished while at the same time providing the film-fan with his/her 16x9 WS presentation. If you only have space/expense to provide one version, please encode the 16x9 WS version and utilize the p/s on the fly feature of DVD. It very nicely can follow the center of action and works well with a 1.78-1.85:1 16x9 encoded movies to render a very watchable 4x3 picture for folks who don't understand the concept of widescreen and prefer to see their 4x3 TV filled. While I've got your attention, please allow me to express my displeasure at MGM's continuing trend of releasing all 1.66:1 titles in a 4x3 frame. Other than WB, every other major studio is now properly encoding 1.66:1 movies in a 16x9 frame with mild vertical "pillar boxing" to maintain aspect ratio. Most consumer 4x3 sets have more than enough overscan to hide these "side bars" and 16x9 viewers...who are the most critically conscious...now have a significant increase in resolution. Disney has mastered almost all of their recent 1.66:1 titles this way with great success--ensuring the satisfaction of both the videophile and casual viewer. The worst problem associated with 4x3 encoded 1.66:1 titles is how to view them on a 16x9 high-def TV or projector. "zooming" the image to fill the screen (as one would normally do with a non-anamorphic 1.85:1 title) crops of a significant portion of the top/bottom of the image and often leaves actors with their heads cut off. Similarly, trying to watch Babette's Feast on my 16x9 display makes it impossible to read the subtitles. I either have to watch it in 4x3 mode with black-masking on all 4 sides or decide how to shift the picture and choose between cutting off heads or cutting off subtitles. Your studio ought to be mastering DVD product so that it is viable on the display systems of your most demanding consumers...namely the growing consumer base with 16x9 hi-def displays. 16x9 encoded 1.66:1 titles will garner praise from your most demanding consumers and no complaints from the more casual DVD viewers wherease 4x3 encoding 1.66:1 titles only aggrivates the serious DVD collector who purchases your DVDs and offers the casual viewer no greater benefits that he/she can recognize. Why then do you choose the latter? I can't tell you how many MGM and WB 1.66:1 DVDs that I earnestly wished to buy but chose not to purchase due to lack of 16x9 encoding. I've heard many others with 16x9 displays say the same thing. (A success story, I had cancled my pre-order for "My Beautiful Laundrette" on the basis that I heard it would be 4x3 1.66:1. I later found it on a store shelf where I discovered it was in fact 16x9 encoded and bought it instantly!) In the future, please do what you can to ensure that film-fans will have the option to purchase DVD product that presents films in their original aspect ratio (with an option for full-frame 4x3 viewing for select titles) and please encode all aspect ratios 1.66:1 or wider in a 16x9 frame. Hopeful in the future, David Boulet
What a shame. I guess the four people who were going to get Car 54, Where Are You? will not purchase now.
Perhaps, but it's important for MGM to realize that those lost sales (whatever the number) are not due to lack of interest, but instead a refusal to buy pan-and-scan transfers.
I wasn't being insensitive... I'm just pointing out that they're not doing much help for low-demand movies by shutting out a lot of the potential customers.