Any news / reviews for V: The Final Battle ? (1 Viewer)

[Steve Phillips]

No, because we know from the director that the original mini series was shot with possible cropping in mind. I still think the OAR is better, but I can live with the cropping since the director is OK with it.
The second one was a 6 hour mini series shot by others and shown on TV all over the world, and clearly was not framed with theatrical distribution in mind. It might not be completely devastating cropping in each scene, but where does it end?
I guess some people aren't always in favor of OAR. I say to them; crop with your TV remote if you need to, but let me see old TV shows the way they were intended to be seen.
Maybe when they start cropping "Saved By The Bell", it will register? OK, that is a shot. Sorry. I can't resist.

Seriously though, I don't understand why you are all against panned and scanned movies if you think cropping square TV shows is fine. One is as bad as the other. OAR is OAR.

 

[Matthew Chmiel]

Seriously though, I don't understand why you are all against panned and scanned movies if you think cropping square TV shows is fine.

But were talking about a different thing here.
The VHS/Laserdisc of the mini-series has more information on the top and bottom.
The DVD loses that information on the top and bottom, but somehow includes more information on the left and right sides.
Now if it was like V and just matting, now I could see a problem... but what print was Warner using for this DVD release that there was more info on the left and right sides? Does anybody have a VHS/Beta copy of the original broadcast from 1984 to compare that to the DVD?
As I said, I want to know what Richard T. Heffron or Stevan Larner were originally aiming for, 1.33:1 or a wider ratio.

 

[PhilipG]

The second one was a 6 hour mini series shot by others and shown on TV all over the world, and clearly was not framed with theatrical distribution in mind.

Obvious to you, perhaps, but not to me. Have you seen it and compared it to the 4:3 version (as I have)? Or are you just saying that "it was made for TV 18-odd years ago, therefore OAR is definitely 4:3"?
I watched V: The Final Battle over the past couple of days, and the composition looked very good to me at all times. Nowhere did it seem overcropped to me (and I was paying close attention). I should add that I always watch 4:3 OAR material pillarboxed on my w/s tv because I can't stand loss of composition from zooming (and it's obvious and distracting on 99.9% of my 4:3 stuff, even on 14:9 zoom).
I think the director protected for 1.85:1, or was simply so incompetent/lucky that shots turned out fine when matted. There are no eyes cut off at the top of the picture, no mouths cut off at the bottom (okay, one or two chins, but whoever said the lower chin needs to be in frame at all times for good composition?).
Overall, a very nice transfer indeed - and I can honestly say that I prefer the 16:9 composition - aside from one or two Faye Grant shots of course...

 

[PhilipG]

OAR is OAR.

I should just say that it's really not that simple, all the time. IMHO.
What is OAR?
1. The Aspect Ratio of original transmission/exhibition?
2. The Aspect Ratio the director/cinematographer originally intended? (provided they agree)
3. The Aspect Ratio the director/cinematographer says is best for the home, or the cinema? (cf. Kubrick, Cameron)
4. The Aspect Ratio the director/cinematographer now claims to be correct? (cf. Apocalypse Now)
5. The Aspect Ratio of the prior/remastered IMAX release? (cf. Fantasia 2000)
6. The Aspect Ratio of original transmission/exhibition overseas? (cf. The X-Files, Buffy)
7. The Aspect Ratio of the recomposed version? (cf. A Bug's Life)
8. The Aspect Ratio that effects were composed for? (cf. Harryhausen's 4:3 composition, and also the Harry Potter F/S release)
I'd say that many HTF members - 0AR supporters, mind - have different opinions on the above. As for V, considering how well it mattes (to my eye), I classify it as belonging to that rare "intended-for-and-works-for-two-OARs" category.
BTW, V: The Series, does not matte well at all (I tested it with my ropey VHS copies), so OAR is "clearly" 4:3 only! Warner should expect to lose a sale if they crop that...

 

[Steve Phillips]

Please, this is getting silly. J6P could throw all of those questions back at you as justification for panning and scanning 2:35 to 1 movies.

Earlier in the thread, I stated that I think OAR is the ratio that a project was intended *at time of shooting* to be seen in on orignal release in its *original* venue.

Therefore, a 1:37 to 1 theatrcal release should be presented on DVD at that ratio, its OAR.

A 1:85 to 1 theatrical release should be presented on DVD at that ratio, its OAR..

A 2:35 to 1 theatrical release should be presented on DVD at that ratio, its OAR.

A TV series which was broadcast in 4X3 should be presented on DVD at that ratio, its OAR.

A TV series shot in 16X9 should be presented on DVD in that ratio, its OAR.

NOTE: I do understand we are in transition at this time.
Therefore, many shows are being shot with widescreen presentations in mind, yet still broadcast in 4X3. I would define the OAR of these as 16X9 and expect them to be on DVD that way; because we know at AT TIME OF SHOOTING; they were definately thinking of the future. Saying the same about I LOVE LUCY is ridiculous.


The director of the original V has stated that he shot the original mini series with possible cropping in mind. Does that mean it looks best when cropped? No. It was intended at time of shooting to be seen square. However, if the director can live with it, I'll live with it, even if I don't prefer it.

I have seen no evidence that the 6 hour sequel (or heaven help us, the 19 TV episodes) were shot for possible widesreen showing 20 years later.

If you start accepting the idea that someone can tell you you can start safely cropping stuff from the intended ratios; then you also have to accept that stuff can be safely panned and scanned out; or that an open matte MUPPETS movie is OK, and I see people screaming bloody murder all the time over those examples.

What if Columbia took an old THREE STOOGES short, intended to be seen, and originally released to theatres in square ratio, and then presented it theatrically at 1:85 to 1 in a venue or two in Europe. By the logic I am seeing in some of these responses, they could then state that nothing vital was missing with the cropping and put it on DVD at 1:85 to 1, enhanced for 16X9, and claim it's presented in a theatrical ratio. They could even state the the director 70 years ago was thinking about widescreen presentations in the year 2002 and shot it with than it mind, right? Would you all agree? Not me.

By the way, the OAR of IMAX is square.

STAR WARS II has an ratio of 2:35 to 1 in wide release; yet reformatted for a few select IMAX showings at 1:33 to 1. So what's the OAR of STAR WARS II? I would say 2:35 to 1. Has the director stated either is OK?

Yes, it can be a mess, can't it?

 

[Matthew Chmiel]

Quote:

Phillip nailed this in his post, I tend to agree with 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 instead of 5, 7, and 8.
I don't like it when TV shows being framed in 1.33:1 and being matted to 1.78:1 or widescreen movies being pan and scanned, but with V: The Final Battle nobody knows what the director and DP was intending (unlike the first mini-series).
I'm also sure Warner won't release V: The Series in widescreen as I'm sure they're not going to pay money for 18 low-budget episodes to be remastered in anamorphic widescreen.

 

[Damin J Toell]

but with V: The Final Battle nobody knows what the director and DP was intending (unlike the first mini-series).

Well, presumably someone knows (e.g., the people involved and perhaps people currently at WHV). However, no one in this thread apparently knows (including me), although Steve Phillips makes definitive statements concerning the intended AR ("It was intended at time of shooting to be seen square." (an especially odd statement given that 1.33:1 isn't a square, anyway)). So, one question, Steve: what's your source?

DJ

 

[Steve Phillips]

OK, so 1:33 isn't exactly a square...but close enough to make the point.
And...someone is paying to crop HOGAN'S HEROES, CHEERS and others into widescreen HDTV, so don't think it can't or won't happen on a widespread basis.
I still don't understand why all the people with the "fill the 16X9 screen" mentality just can't crop with their remotes. A new breed of J6P is being born...
I really don't have much else to say on the subject. I guess some of you will be glad to hear that, right?

 

[CamiloCamacho]

Warner has included films over three hours on one side like The Green Mile, so why not have the first two parts of V: The Final Battle on one side?

But Green Mile was one of the biggest warner movies of that year, so there was no need to clean the print (pristine, giving is age) and there were more money to produce / encode / compress the disc.

But in the case of V:

1. You have a lot of artifacts by the age (and probably not budget to fix them)

2. You don't have much time on the "compress" machine, because this is a low profit movie.

So you need more space to mantain equivalent quality....

 

[Mike Miskulin]

I still don't understand why all the people with the "fill the 16X9 screen" mentality just can't crop with their remotes.

Higher resolution. An anamorphic 16x9 image simply looks better than a zoomed non-anamorphic one.

Again, this would be a different story altogether if The Final Battle was simply matted, which appears to not be the case.

mike.