Just One Of The Guys, coming to DVD - Full Frame Only (1 Viewer)

[David Von Pein]

That is truly a shame. Imagine if we all had that attitude.

Would the world as we know it come to an end?
Would Klaatu and Gort take over the Universe?
Would everyone run screaming into the streets, breaking windows (and Digital Discs)?



I have a couple of non-OAR DVDs. Not really thrilled beyond belief to have them in non-OAR; but what are ya supposed to do when the Widescreen version isn't out there...and it's a movie you really like, and want on better-quality DVD? Leaping out of a window, hollering "I Want My OAR!!", while shaking a fist on the way down, is not an option for me.

The ones I have in Full-Frame (unfortunately :frowning are "Grumpy Old Men" (1993) and "The Bodyguard" (1992).

At least those are *only* matted films, and not 'scope' WS. AFAIK, I don't think "The Bodyguard" was shown in a 2.35:1 AR in theaters...was it?? I know "Grumpy" is not a "P&S" DVD; it just has the mattes removed. Can anybody confirm that "Bodyguard" is the same -- a 1.85:1 OAR in theaters.

I'd very much like to have those movies in OAR Widescreen. But it's still nice to have them in ANY form on DVD, until the studio(s) come to their senses and release an OAR version(s). *

* = However, the above comment, as far as I'm concerned, does not refer to "scope" films in OARs of 2.35 or wider. I hate MAR DVDs of 2.35 stuff. Yuck!

But I don't have an enormous problem (just a *littler* one) with just removing "mattes" to create a FF ratio. Still stupid, yes. But I think we're all in agreement here that that isn't *nearly* as bad as totally mutilating a 2.35 (or wider) film with Pan-and-Scan. Correct?

Perry....your witness.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

The Bodyguard was 1.85 hard-matted, and is available that way on laserdisc. (There was even a 16x9 laserdisc of Grumpy Old Men, you just can't downconvert it for 4x3 TVs!)

For the 100th time, Columbia WOULD have done "Just One Of The Guys" right just a couple years ago, however the company has now officially gone to hell.

 

[David Von Pein]

The Bodyguard was 1.85 hard-matted

Which means (since the mattes are "hard" and non-removable) ..... That to create a FF transfer, they had to "zoom" in on the image, meaning we've "lost" some image on the sides, correct?

 

[Jodee]

Columbia strikes again...just read at DVD File they are releasing one of my long-wanted favorites--"For Keeps" with Molly Ringwald-- full screen only! Bah!

I've been waiting for this title to come out forever and now they mess it up.

 

[Mike_Richardson]

I have a couple of non-OAR DVDs. Not really thrilled beyond belief to have them in non-OAR; but what are ya supposed to do when the Widescreen version isn't out there...and it's a movie you really like, and want on better-quality DVD? Leaping out of a window, hollering "I Want My OAR!!", while shaking a fist on the way down, is not an option for me.

Amen. There are hundreds and hundreds of movies out there not in OAR. To say that you'll never watch JUST ONE OF THE GUYS ever again in your lifetime because it's not OAR is depriving yourself of some good times For me, I'm going to be buying it and living with it, because my VHS is worn out and I'd like to see it again. It's not BEN-HUR, and I can live with it being in 1.33.

 

[Jon Martin]

Amen. There are hundreds and hundreds of movies out there not in OAR. To say that you'll never watch JUST ONE OF THE GUYS ever again in your lifetime because it's not OAR is depriving yourself of some good times For me, I'm going to be buying it and living with it, because my VHS is worn out and I'd like to see it again. It's not BEN-HUR, and I can live with it being in 1.33.

This is exactly what I was arguing in the MGM thread.

There is a huge difference between an open matted, 1.85 or lesser film and a panned and scanned 2.35. One I won't refuse to buy if it is the only version available (though I'd initially be upset) and the other is truly something to be upset about.

 

[Sean Cauley]

I'll likely be buying this one, although the price-point is a tad high. I'm definitely pro-OAR, but not to the point of passing up a chance to see an old favorite (as it happens, in the full-frame version I first saw on HBO eighteen years ago) when it's the only version available, and its limited appeal means a reissue (either in widescreen or with more special features) is highly unlikely.

The OAR/MAR debate reminds me of the Pearl Jam/Ticketmaster battles of the mid-nineties. Sure, I thought Ticketmaster was an evil empire (still do--worse now, in fact), and admired Pearl Jam's principles. But the fact that the band had to boycott TM-using venues meant they didn't come within 400 miles of me between 1994 and 1998 (and I'd screwed up and missed out on the 1994 tour). I think I would have been willing to pay the stupid surcharge to see one of my favorite bands during a four-year drought.

And I do agree that 2.35:1 cropped and 1.85:1 open-matte are different animals. I still prefer both film formats OAR, but if it's a boycott vs. waiting several years on a 1.85:1 title, I'll bite the bullet. I probably wouldn't have bought Real Genius at the price they were cahrging if it hadn't had an OAR side to the disc; that movie's 2.35:1 OAR was incredibly cramped and unappealing in the cropped TV version I'd grown up on (even though I had never seen it theatrically).

 

[Jesse Skeen]

For the 101st time, Columbia WOULD have done "Just One Of The Guys" right just a couple years ago, however the company has now officially gone to hell.

 

[TonyD]

well maybe this and the other full frame dvd's they are releasing would have been released both ways if they new all those who are here saying, "well i can only get it full frame so i guess i'll buy it."
would instead say, "well i love the movie but i'll only buy it in a widescreen version."

since they know you'll buy it either way, they released it the way they want.

the way they think more people will buy it.

so they save money by not putting out a dual or two seperate versions.
why should they? you'll buy it anyway?

 

[David Holm]

Deep discount has it listed as Pan & Scan!

Sorry - I can't post the link...

Dave

 

[Jon Martin]

Deep discount has it listed as Pan & Scan!

Deep Discount doesn't know the difference between pan and scan and full frame.

 

[Josh L]

I can verify that it is NOT pan and scan

 

[Chad R]

Paramount just announced 'Summer School' (another of my favorite 80's comedies) for release this summer in widescreen and with 5.1, for only $14.95 retail. THAT'S why I'm not buying "Just One of the Guys." I'd go with the whole 'since it's only available in pan and scan' argument if it weren't so darned expensive. For the premium they're asking, widescreen should be a minimum.

 

[Mattias_ka]

If people could LEARN about the difference between open-matte and P&S it would be great.
Too me, a open-matte release is MUCH better than a P&S release. I don't understand that people are not buying a movie they want to see because it's open-matte. You can do you own matting and get good picture. Better than not to see the movie at all.
The most funny part is that the many of the SAME people does NOT listen to the original soundtrack but to the new remixed one. Talk about double morals

 

[john mcfadden]

Well I rented the disc...and you know what ? For a ff disc it looks good , exactly how i remember it from growing up watching it on cable . The picture is sharp for the most part, the audio is good at a 2.0 dolby mix ...but the only crime is that Columbia could'nt dig far enough to include the original trailer ....But to all the hold outs who won't buy it ...Wait till the dump bin ...you'll pick it up ....Shhh! it's ok i wont tell anyone....
(RENTNRIPP)

 

[Ricardo C]

I couldn't do it. There it was, staring me in the face, begging me to buy it and enjoy the sight of Joyce's breasts in glorious prog-scan DVD. And I couldn't. I just couldn't bring myself to betray the HTF.

Damn you people.

 

[Jon Martin]

If people could LEARN about the difference between open-matte and P&S it would be great.

It does get quite frustrating, reading all of these posts (not just here, but on other boards) about people seeing a full frame title and saying "I'm not buying pan and scan (or pan and scam)". For some, it is like they don't want to learn, and just want to continue to complain about something they don't understand.

There is a HUGE difference between open matte and pan and scan. Open matte is annoying, but pan and scan is truly evil.

I'll buy an open matte DVD, but not a pan and scan.

 

[TonyD]

true that there is a difference, but.

how is anyone supposed to know that a dvd is open matte or pan and scan?

it very rarely, if ever at all will say that in the specs on the dvd.

and i dont care anyway i won't put money into the pockets of a studio for a copy of a dvd that is not oar, or at least one that is approved by the director.

i know there are now dvd released that are having a modified aspect ratio like, i think basic or the recruit.
and coppola movies are released with a changed ratio but they are approved by the dp and director.

 

[PaulP]

Yes it's probably open-matte as opposed to pan-and-scan, but that's still not OAR and I don't buy non-OAR.

 

[Robert Floto]

There is a "bit" of a difference between Pan & Scan and Open Matte...however, it doesn't remove any reason for a lot of OAR Fan's disdain. Depending on the movie, if there are visual effects in it...then even if the film is presented Open Matte, the effects shots are most likely cropped on the sides.

I will reiterate what has been said many times on this board... There is never a reason for ANY movie to be released on DVD in a non-OAR format. Dual releases are fine, but the OAR version MUST be made available.

I myself refuse to watch a MAR version of any film now that I know better...