DVD File's Review Makes it seem its no big Deal that it's MAR (1 Viewer)

[soop.spoon]

Maybe dvdfile should have the exact opionion you want them to have and should never deviate lest they receive speculative insults like:

More advertising dollars from Disney perhaps?

:frowning:

 

[MaxY]

I am really curious if you people are so unhappy with DVDfile and their reviews then why not post about this on their forum and take it up with them?

Max

 

[streeter]

The downfall of dvdfile.com continues... The DVD release of 'Snow Dogs' was promoted on dvdfile.com with a ten-question interview with the director. Although they did ask him about his take on the aspect ratio, dvdfile.com is nonetheless heavily promoting this DVD. It seems that Bracke's editorial is some kind of way to justify their promoting the disc.
If only Disney could have used the money that they paid dvdfile.com to advertise this title towards a widescreen release.

 

[MartinTeller]

Ah, I didn't realize there was an interview:

Q: "Snow Dogs is finally coming to DVD, but Disney has decided to release the film in full frame only. Did that piss you off?"

A: "I wish it were possible to just press a button and see the film in the format one prefers..."


So it seems that the director prefers that both versions be available, without actually specifying which one he sees as the "right" aspect ratio.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Geez, these accusations sound like a Communist witch-hunt courtesy of Joe McCarthy!

Snow Dogs was shot spherical (1.85:1) and very likely entirely shot in 1.33:1 throughout.

IMO, an incorrect aspect ratio transfer of an open matte film such as Snow Dogs should get at the most 1 point taken away. (Of course, true widescreen films...hard matted, wide gauge, anamorphic, etc should always get 3 points taken unless it's a special approval like AN's 2:1 cinematographer-approved transfer)

While DVDFile sometimes has mistakes (I personally ignore any reviews giving a mono track automatically 2 points at the most. They're being biased...but that's another thing) but they do need to be professional in ALL their reviews.

I hate to say this, but I think there's bigger fish to fry. We should be more worried about films which depend on the correct presentation. (All movies should get the right presentation, but Snow Dogs is doggie doo.)

 

[David Lambert]

Just adding fuel to the fire:
I am surprised noone has spoken about this editorial at DVDFile in which Peter Bracke discusses his views concerning the current state of OAR support.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

open matte film such as Snow Dogs

It didn't look open matte to me. I compared the material in the 1.85:1 extended scenes with the fullscreen film and saw that the latter cropped the sides and added nothing...

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Well Phooey to Peter M Bracke's 700 free DVD's they were bought at a time before mainstream acceptance. When DVD was a niche product. All isn't rosey anymore and to dismiss what the studios are doing , in turn getting studio advertisements and free DVD's isn't doing OAR a service. In fact it's going to be tough for major Websites to stay partial and in good graces of the studios, yet speak out against MAR for fear of losing the allmighty Review Copy of a film. It's going to come to a point that a website would have to be fully financed by itself to be fully free of the grip of the studios.

 

[Rob T]

I am surprised noone has spoken about this editorial at DVDFile in which Peter Bracke discusses his views concerning the current state of OAR support.

I was very disturbed by this editorial. It seems like DVDfile is being corrupted by the darkside. :frowning:

 

[Rob Lutter]

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-Albert Einstein

 

[LukeB]

From the "P&S situation isn't so bad" Editorial:

Yes, the "battle" is hardly over, but just remember that just a few short years ago, widescreen in the home was only available to the precious few, those with lots of extra cash and the endurance to withstand numerous laserdisc side changes.

Actually, a few short years ago, 99% of content was OAR. Warner had gotten their act together for the most part. Disney and Fox were 100% pro-OAR. Columbia/TriStar and Warner were almost ALWAYS releasing material in both formats, or if just one, widescreen. Now, Disney is releasing brand new titles in P&S-only. And catalogue titles. And even non-"family" catalogue titles with widescreen laserdiscs in P&S. "A few short years ago", the DVD format was a lot better in terms of OAR, and I only wish studios like Disney were churning out more catalogue product then, giving them 16:9 treatment.
This past January, The Adventures of Huck Finn and the live action Jungle Book both got 16:9 widescreen treatment, and with extras. Now, in their rush, Disney is just porting over the laserdisc transfers, with NO extras. Or maybe they'll use the video master, and release a film in 1.33:1. Or maybe non-anamorphic widescreen.
It pains me to think that after such a long wait for Muppet Christmas Carol and others, they're going to be worse DVDs than they would be had they come last year or even earlier this year. And MCC and many others will be P&S only. :frowning:
There's nothing good about that.

 

[streeter]

umm... weren't we already talking about that article, David? At least I was.

Patrick: I couldn't care less about Snow Dogs - I doubt that many other people here do. It's the fact that it's a step in the wrong direction. Snow Dogs now and what else later?
If we can't depend on important forces like dvdfile, HTF or thedigitalbits to be extremely critical about MAR releases, studios will be even more reluctant to continue releasing MAR product.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Please, refrain from posting comments about the individual instead of the site. One member has been suspended due to his offensive comments towards Peter Bracke. Furthermore, those comments were edited from this thread.
Robert Crawford
HTF Administrator

 

[PeterB]

Well hello there

This is Peter Bracke, editor of DVDFILE. Someone sent me a link to this thread, perhaps it was Mr. Boulet? Anyway, I'm a bit surprised, but hopefully I can shed some light on our approach and stance towards OAR.

First off, more than one person writes the reviews on the site, so it is not all from one person. And we have discussed it amongst ourselves and all of us at the site feel the studios should solely support OAR. Of course, this isn't a perfect world, and although some believe no publicity is worse than bad publicity, we don't agree. I think it is important to let readers know what a transfer looks like and what's on the disc, even if the studio decides to only go P&S/Full Frame only. The other option would be to simply not discuss tiltes like A Midnight Clear at all, but we'd rather not pretend it doesn't exist.

That said, I think our Snow Dogs and Midnight Clear reviews were clearly critical of the decision of both Sony and Buena Vista to only go full frame only but didn't get into rants. I think Mike Restaino made it clear that Columbia was not serving the fans of Midnight Clear who have supported the film for so many years by not paying to produce a new widescreen transfer. Same with Wayne Rowe and his review of Snow Dogs, which was blatantly negative towards Disney's decision.

Also, note we did lower the overall video rating of both films considerably because they had been altered. Snow Dogs, given how great it looked in every other respect, would have easily gotten at least a 4 out of 5 Video score, but was instead only a 2. With nearly half the picture gone, there is no way we can rate it even a solid 3!

However, after noting our displeasure with the OAR situation in a review, we still feel it is imperative that we discuss the other aspects of a transfer accurately, and not just bash it because it is full frame only. I hate P&S, but alas I have seen hacked transfers that boast excellent blacks, color reproduction, contrast, etc. So, we decided we'd voice our complaints but still describe and rate the rest of a disc fairly.

So, I hope this makes sense, and also, personally speaking, i feel I've tried on the site via editorials and such to make it clear we support OAR. As for my "Happy Thoughts" editorial, while I do feel the situation is frustrating, the fact of the matter is that we can now buy thousands upon thousands of widescreen movies for very low prices, and that OAR has been introduced to MILLIONS of new households that never had a laserdisc player. So, yes, some (but not all) of the studios have dropped the ball in many respects, but overall I think widescreen is truly reaching the masses, and it is important to acknowledge the good as well as the bad.

Anyway, thanks for listening. And as for the poster who was deleted for saying something nasty about me, well, try running your own DVD site for awhile, it's pretty damn tough to make everyone happy!!!

: )

 

[Dharmesh C]

I didn't support your Snow Dog review, I was quite disappointed that you reviewed it at all. But, your above explanation makes things a little clearer. Ala, you can't make everyone happy, will you reviewing more p&s titles?

 

[David Lambert]

umm... weren't we already talking about that article, David? At least I was.

Actually, Michael, noone mentioned it in this thread until you did, with your one-line statement. Previously, all the talk was about the two reviews.

I'm glad Peter was able to come by and represent himself here. Whether you agree or disagree with him (and - sorry Peter - but sometimes I do disagree, though not often), it IS his site to run the way he sees fit. We have to remember: What he is doing makes sense to him, and that's what counts.

I don't pay him any $ to use his site, do you? If you don't like what you're watching, change the channel.

 

[oscar_merkx]

Peter & Co
Great to hear your side of the story.
It's a shame that P&S gets the upper hand in the States, so I believe that the way forward is through education. Here in Europe we are fortunate that Widescreen is very much in favor. Just reading all the threads here at HTF and at the Digital Bits have thought me so much that I would have never learned before. I now know the difference and for me I will never purchase P&S, instead I truly enjoy watching Widescreen DVDs.
Just my 2 cents

 

[Nigel McN]

one thing to remember is that that the dvd site and the forum are pretty much 2 seperate entities, run by 2 different groups of people.

 

[Lars Vermundsberget]

This "P&S on the march forward" problem might be worse than I understand (I'm no American, BTW), but I tend to think that what PeterB wrote makes a lot of sense.
The people here want 100% of DVD titles to be available in OAR, and I easily agree. Within that context, having MOST titles available in OAR is not good enough. But can't it still be seen as...good?
Is this P&S vs OAR war within a few years or so going to be entirely won or entirely lost (- "won" meaning no more threat from P&S and "lost" meaning that all or most DVDs are formatted to fit TV screens -) once and for all? I don't know, but I'd doubt that.
I don't mean to suggest that the fight for the availability of OAR should stop - far from it. But it seems to me that the views expressed in PeterB's editorial is sometimes met with a "if you're not 100% with us, you're against us" mentality. Or maybe I'm just misinterpreting some of you the same way I'm accusing some of you of misinterpreting PeterB...

 

[george kaplan]

Peter,

I for one, still think you could and should take a harder line position. Talking about how it's a shame that some of the picture has been cropped, and then turning around and saying, in essence, "but, hey, the part of the film they do show you looks great", is a disservice in my opinion. Frankly the world's greatest transfer of a film that only shows 2/3 of the film is just about the world's worst transfer of a film.

My suggestion would be a big (and I mean BIG) disclaimer at the top. WARNING: THIS FILM IS NOT IN IT'S ORIGINAL ASPECT RATIO. YOU ARE NOT SEEING THE PICTURE AS IT WAS INTENDED

I wouldn't really mind you talking about how beautiful the portion of the film they showed is in this case.

I would ask you to seriously consider such a disclaimer at the beginning of every non-OAR film. That would be the right thing to do. It warns us, and it educates those who don't yet understand the issue.