Master of Disguise - Pan & Scan (1 Viewer)

[Greg_S_H]

I honestly like that better than the original line.

Like most in this thread, I support OAR regardless of a movie's merit. But, I think I would have to refuse to sign any petition or to call C/TS demanding an OAR release. I don't know if I could let them think I was a potential buyer. There's no way I would follow through with a purchase.

 

[Randy A Salas]

Due to my hatred of the film, when I was hanging out at my local theater last summer, I projected this 1.85:1 film at a local theater with the masking all the way down to the frameline, spotting boommikes, hard mattes, camera flaps and the odd hand throughout.

That explains a lot.

 

[Matthew Chmiel]

I can't believe an administrator would post such a thing. Nice moderating.

I think he was kidding.

A lot of people here didn't like the film when it came out in theaters back in August, with the exception of Rob Lutter (god knows why he liked it) and Richard Travale (just for the "MILF quotient" presented at his specific showing). A lot of us wasted our good earned $10 to watch it (Jason probably snuck into, the bastard) and we really wanted our money and time back. The only way a lot of us would even consider looking at the DVD packing itself is if we got our 75 minutes of life back.

Also, how many extras are there on this disc that they couldn't even fit a widescreen version of the film? Let it be a flipper disc or dual-layered, the film is pretty short.

 

[Rob Lutter]

Consider the preorder cancelled.
Bastards
Cmon, who didn't laugh when Dana Carvey disguised himself as Quint from 'Jaws'
It wasn't as bad as Chmiel makes it out to be

 

[Travis_W]

Widescreen Review has the disc as 1.85:1 and I remember DVD File saying so as well. Columbia must have dropped the widescreen version completely because it was supposed to have both. Damn, I really wanted to see this one too as I missed it at the cinema. Maybe I'll bite the bullet and watch it anyway. Does Columbia know how much they're pissing us off anymore?

 

[Rob Lutter]

Does Columbia know how much they're pissing us off anymore?

They haven't cared since we (the "niche market" of widescreen enthusiasts) transformed into the minority.

 

[Randy A Salas]

This is a disturbing sign that yet another studio has decided that new family films don't merit anything but a full-screen transfer. Even more bizarre is how they can justify widescreen trailers, deleted scenes and menus but not the actual movie. Incredible.

 

[Bob Black]

I saw the trailer for this film about 300 times while watching Nick Jr. with my daughter last summer. I could not believe how absolutely ridiculous the movie looked from the trailer. I think my daughter is too old for this piece of crap, and she's three!

I do agree that OAR should be standard fare, however. But I wouldn't waste money on this abomination anyway.

 

[Rob Lutter]

I do agree that OAR should be standard fare, however. But I wouldn't waste money on this abomination anyway.

Bob, you should actually see something before you go calling it an "abomination." I only allow Chmiel to make fun of it because I caused him to see it

 

[Travis_W]

I only wanted to see it because of Dana Carvey, seems like forever since Wayne's World. I'm starting to think Disney and Columbia are in cahoots (or however you spell that) in regard to their OAR output. It's funny too because I was watching one of Columbia's VERY early titles, Desperado (a 1996 DVD!) and it was widescreen by default AND enhanced for 16x9! It would be absurd for Columbia to not have Desperado in widescreen but the fact that it was anamorphic all the way back in 1996 showed that they were at least backing widescreen more than they do now.

 

[Jason Whyte]

I do agree that OAR should be standard fare, however. But I wouldn't waste money on this abomination anyway.

That's exactly the reason why I posted my initial message. If the full-frame only release of The Master of Disguise caused the downfall of widescreen DVD, then I'd be more concerned.
Jason

 

[Randy A Salas]

This film doesn't even deserve a thread discussing it.

The subject of the thread is that the film is presented pan and scan on DVD, not whether it's a good movie. Isn't the Movies forum the place where the quality (or lack thereof) of a film should be discussed at length?

As a moderator, aren't you supposed to keep the discussion on track? Instead, as a representative of HTF, you're lowering my opinion of the forum.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Randy,
you do realize your getting yourself worked up over Master of Disguise do you not?
Seriously, I am a 100% pure blooded OAR supporter, but this film is a train wreck with no survivors folks. Personally i'd rather fall off a cliff and get my nostril snagged on a rusty thumbtack before I ever see this film again. It's only saving grace, if your a guy that is, is Jennifer Esposito, at least us guys have her to stare at whenever Carvey is onscreen with his sad and desparate antics.
However, my love for OAR must supercede my love or hate of the film, it does indeed deserve an OAR transfer.
I mean damn, SOMEBODY shot it, right!?
Rob,
alright, you got me there, that scene was funny, and so were the scene's when...
he disguised himself as Al Pacino in Scarface, and his Turtle-man disguise.
If the film had more scenes like those we might have had something here.

 

[Randy A Salas]

However, my love for OAR must supercede my love or hate of the film, it does indeed deserve an OAR transfer.

That is my main concern, too. Discussion of the quality (or lack thereof) of this film is diminishing the real problem: that yet another studio has decided that family films merit only full-screen presentations. That disturbs me.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Randy,
the sad fact is we are mere snowballs riding an avalanche here. As dvd becomes commonplace we, the OAR enthusiests, are going to be left out in the cold more and more.
It sucks I know, but the best thing to do is just not get upset over it too much, it's how it is and will continue to be as long as studios continue to adopt this short sighted attitude towards widescreen in favour of Joe and Jane Sixpack.
Take heart though, Joe and Jane will rue the day when 16x9 tv's are dominant and they start whining about why they have bars on THE SIDES of their tv's.

 

[Tony-B]

That is my main concern, too. Discussion of the quality (or lack thereof) of this film is diminishing the real problem: that yet another studio has decided that family films merit only full-screen presentations. That disturbs me.

Randy, I completely agree with that!! All films should have an OAR transfer, regardless of J6P's demands. If we force it on them, then they will have to get used to it. We need to let Columbia know that this practice is unacceptable, and that they need to stop doing it. And if widescreen is so hated, why does it always beat out the pan and scan releases in the sales?

 

[todd s]

My wife and I took our daughters (ages 7 & 5)to see this movie. The kids loved it. My wife & I couldn't stand it. My kids are busting my chops for me to get it. But, they know the rule.."NO OAR, NO PURCHASE". And besides the thought of having to watch the movie again scares me.

 

[Michael Allred]

Well, I WAS going to give this a rental but I won't now due to the FF only that Columbia has once again bestowed upon us. I think this should be a concern because this is a NEW release (not a catalog title) this is happening to. I think this is gonna happen more often than not in the future.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

DVD Planet has the back cover art available here, and it does indeed indicate only full frame presentation.
I guess we will just have to wait for the Superbit edition, or maybe they will license it to Criterion.
Regards,

 

[Jeff Kleist]

You know, one of these days Criterion is going to take one of these dares and release MOD or Good Burger