MGM to release MANHUNTER Theatrical Cut - FULL SCREEN ONLY!?!? (1 Viewer)

[ArthurMy]

I would just say that so much of what dvdfile prints is rubbish and incorrect, that it isn't worth going on about this until there is "official" word.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Er, not only is it true, but it happened months ago. This thread originally began in May 2004. The disc was released in fullscreen, as promised, in August 2004. Official enough for you?

DJ

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Wow, that'll teach me to start looking at the date a thread was started before I make a total ass out of myself! :b

 

[GuruAskew]

I did eventually relent to buying this DVD. It's the only DVD in my collection where the aspect ratio has been "butchered" as opposed to changed by the director, but I couldn't justify not buying it based on the fact that it was modified when I had 3 other modified versions in my collection. That's pretty much what the "Manhunter" situation breaks down to in R1: 4 versions, each one has advantages and disadvantages. I may be the only person here that's actually broken down and bought the disc, so I'll actually confirm that the R1 MGM fullframe DVD of "Manhunter" does include the true theatrical cut of the film, including the "blow the sick fuck out of his socks" dialogue missing from all 3 widescreen Anchor Bay versions.

 

[Simon Howson]

Conversely the only "full frame" transfer of a film photographed in 35mm anamorphic will result in a widescreen image - this assumes that they they reverse the 2X anamorphic compression ;-)

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Simon,
I understand all of that, however I sadly cannot agree with you. Full-screen, unless intended and composed for by the creators, deserves NO consideration from me whatsoever.

If a film is shot in Super 35, anything that is outside the intended composed area within the exposed negative, is extranious information that I, as an OAR purist, have approximatly zero interest in seeing. It may as well not even exsist. That "dead space" is only for Joe Six Pack and his/her ilk, not for us as film purists.

The only time I would even consider looking at a single frame of a full-screen version is for, perhaps, educational purposes to teach others, that's it, although I haven't done that for a long time because i've basically grown tired of wasting my breath and energy.

As a result of both this forum and my own research, I am self-schooled on the various filming processes, however over the years I have come to the realization that I do not concern myself with any of them, the only thing that I DO concern myself with is that the film's OAR is preserved and presented to me.

This is the very core of my dedication to OAR at all costs.

All of that other stuff, Super 35, Anamorphic, Flat/Hard/Soft matte etc, is just useless information to me. Put simply, I have eliminated all of the technical bullshit that can (and does) often cloud the issue and am left only with the one thing that is fixed and finite...the OAR is all that matters.

Unlike Bill above, I would NEVER under any circumstance give my money to full-screen...ever. Their are so many of my favorite films that I cannot own because of this, and some are from MGM. MGM will just never get it, it would seem.

 

[ArthurMy]

Oh, well, it WAS a bit confusing. But I do stand by my dvdfile comment, simply because it's true.

 

[GuruAskew]

I normally don't, either, but had I known that every single "Manhunter" release would be flawed in some way, I would have avoided the title altogether. I bought the first "Anchor Bay" set because it advertised OAR in both cases and the theatrical cut. Both were wrong. As we all know, the first disc is not the theatrical cut. The original "director's cut" disc is incorrectly framed (some have suggested that it's a matted version of the pan & scan version originally televised) and has horrible picture quality. I bought the "restored director's cut" because I was certain that Anchor Bay and Michael Mann would make sure the scene in question would be re-inserted back into the film. Wrong. Even though Michael Mann obviously expects it to be there in his commentary track, it still wasn't corrected (that's why I don't buy that this scene is missing because the director wanted it removed). Then there's the fact that there's footage present in the "restored director's cut" that looks terrible, but is supposedly the best version of the footage Anchor Bay had access to. This, too, is another undeniable botch job, because there is footage in th "restored version" that looks much better in their original "fake theatrical cut". The bottom line is this: I won't advocate the modification of aspect ratios, but if you own ANY version of "Manhunter" in R1, you are in possession of something that is modified, whether it's missing footage from the original release or the aspect ratio is incorrect. It's literally a case of what you feel like accepting when watching each version:

First version: missing footage, extra footage that doesn't belong there

Second version: incorrectly framed, missing footage

Third version: transfer of varying quality, missing footage.

Fourth version: fullscreen transfer

so you're damned no matter which way you go.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

It's cool, Bill, I meant nothing bad toward you. However, if it were me, I would have completely skipped this film altogether until someone down the line did it right.

That's just me, though.

 

[GuruAskew]

If I had known the first two times, I would have avoided it altogether, but I got burned by trusting Anchor Bay, and the third time around, I just said "screw it".

 

[Simon Howson]

In the case of many early Super 35 films, the image was essentially composed for 4:3, and protected for 2.4:1. Not the other way around. In such films I do not consider the aspect ratio a fixed value, such as 2.21:1 for a 70mm print of Lawrence of Arabia. Rather the use of Super 35 has made the aspect ratio a variable property of the film.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Simon,
I must say that your knowledge, while extensive, is somewhat twisted around.


Absolutly! However you didn't go deep enough, I wish to not only view the film as presented in theaters, but also my absolute #1 GOAL is to bring into my home theater what the film's creator's took many hours and skill to show me. From conception, story boarding, blocking and finally to pricipal photography...one OAR.

Simon,
I feel compelled to give you a little heads up about my passion for this issue, i've been involved in MANY OAR discussions over the years, and I am like a rabid pit-bull with a bone once I get started. I just wanted you to know what your in for if you wish to engage me in this further.

 

[Simon Howson]

But you simply wish to ignore that films today aren't photographed with a single aspect ratio in mind. I have no problem with you wishing to view a film in its theatrical aspect ratio, but don't ignore the fact that film makers are aware that theatrical revenues aren't really that important, they simply provide a rough clue to how much the film will sell on DVD. It is the alternate exhibition venues (and ancillary sales) that really determine how profitable a film is, and hence that is kept in mind when films are actually made. Hence Cameron was concious to compose a film like Terminator 2 for television as much as he desired to use the 2.4:1 theatrical aspect ratio.

I also think it is funny you mention the term blocking. Most Hollywood films these days feature the actors in very static positions just delivering lines, there is much more camera movement than actor movement in contemporary film making. Uusally when actors say lines they are on screen and photographed either a medium-close or full close up. The consistent use of close framings is making widescreen film making more and more redundant, which again means whether a film is 2.4:1 or 16:9 quite meaningless.

Is this something that concerns me? Certainly, widescreen films from the 50's, 60's and 70's are some of my favourite films. Yet I am interested in how films are made and part of that is being aware that contemporary production practices and the resulting film style of Hollywood films are making aspect ratios rather redundant, because shots are framed too close to make much of a difference.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Actually, Thirteen Days was shot as standard spherical 35mm and exhibited at 1.85:1 theatrically.

DJ

 

[Simon Howson]

This isn't really an original aspect ratio debate. Because many film makers use technologies such as Super 35 to create a compromise system regarding aspect ratios. If the cinematographer,and director do not perceive the aspect ratio to be fixed then I think it is quite erroneous for the audience to consider it as such.

Also, I don't think it is wrong to prefer a 2.4:1 widescreen image, but I think it is silly to assume that the 2.4:1 aspect ratio is some how sacred when the actual people who made the film do not think the same thing.

If they really cared, then they would film in Panavision, and insist that wherever the film was shown that it would be letterboxed. But we all know that these days film makers are much more pragmatic than that, and hence people like Cameron shoot in Super 35.

 

[Simon Howson]

Yes that's right. But my comments are still valid for The Recruit.

 

[Jeff(R)]

This comparison of several versions of Manhunter might be of interest to many of you:

http://website.lineone.net/~manhunter5/differ.html

Jeff

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Simon,
I don't even know where to start with that mammoth post, except to say that alot of it is a product of skewed reasoning IMO, that's the only way to say it. It is a prime example of what I said earlier, your letting the technology, and worse, Hollywood politics, which have no bearing here, cloud what is important.

Yes, Super 35 can be manipulated, but so what, when a director begins shooting his/her film, he/she chose long before a single frame was committed to film what AR they wanted to compose for, they shoot FIRST AND FOREMOST with the THEATRICAL AR in mind, hence the term original aspect ratio, the ORIGINAL composition.

Anything else outside of this composition area is merely protected for the altered 4x3 version, but for the OAR purist, it's meaningless junk, not to be given consideration.

I'll say it again, nothing, and I mean NOTHING else outside of the original composition matters, in the least. I am not interested in anything else done to the film after the OAR has been chosen and committed to film, and any attempt to alter the film after the fact (The Recruit) will only ruin what was composed for originally.

It is known here that Roger Donaldson made a big mistake by doing this with that film, he effectively alienated many OAR purists like myself when he did that and many (myself included) avoided the title as a result. Hell, their was an entire thread on it right here in the forum! It may still be archived, look it up and check it out for yourself.

You may be interested in such matters, and that's great, it's good to be curious, but don't claim that just because Super 35 can be manipulated that this somehow makes it alright to alter what was originally intended by the filmmakers...it most certaintly does not.

This is how it is, Simon, 2.35:1 is chosen, 2.35:1 is composed for, 2.35:1 is presented in theaters, 2.35:1 is IT, their is nothing else after that IMMOVABLE fact.

Let me ask you this, do you support OAR? If you do than why are you pursuing this? It's only causing you to come accross as someone who doesn't mind open matting films as long as they look "better", in referrance to your comments about Terminator 2 ealier.

Now, you can certaintly watch a film however you'd like, standing on your head while under water, it's your choice, but I am here to uphold the value of original artistic intent and I am unwaivering in this respect. This is a pro-OAR site, it's in our mission statement, and I have learned a great portion of my values regarding OAR right here in this forum and they have served me well.

Now, you and I can go back and forth until the end of time, but it still will not change the fact that I have a mad burning hatred for open matting and pan and scan, and it also will not change the fact that I would rather eat dog shit than buy a title that isn't presented in it's correct AR.

I mean, let's not kid ourselves here, is their any chance my posts will alter your perception? Probably not. And, in turn, their is no chance your posts will alter mine, so what are we doing here?

Simon,
I really hope that you feel no ill will towards me, as I hold none towards you, you simply believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe. I realize that I can come off as a little intense and for this I apologize, but this is afterall just a debate, it's not life or death.

 

[Simon Howson]

No offense taken.

I just watched a story on 60 Minutes showing George Lucas at work on the last Star Wars film, he was sitting in front of a computer running back and forth over a section of the film. Even though all the previous Star Wars films have been presented theatrically 2.4:1, and I assume this will be the case for the last one. The editing display was very clearly showing a 16:9 image. Which means even in post production Lucas hasn't even entirely figured out where exactly the widescreen mask will go, and can be altered even on a shot by shot basis to 'fix' certain compositional problems.

You, and I may consider it sad, but in contemporary film making, using Super 35, the aspect ratio of the image is considered something open to manipulation.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

No sir, not to me, and not to a good majority of this forum's members either. They uphold the original theatrical aspect ratio, the one, the ONLY one that matter's, and so do I.

With Donaldson, I AM against what he did, absolutly, he took his original 2.35:1 composition and opened it up to 1.78:1, many of us never understood what on Earth possesed him to do such a thing, he ruined that film, plain and simple. If he wanted the film to be 1.78:1, he should have composed for that in the first place and not went back later and second guessed himself the way he did.

It's bad when a room full of telecine operators open matte a film and destroy it's OAR, it's doubly bad when the film's own director does it himself.

I don't know what the deal was with that 60 Min episode, but considering that the new Star Wars film will be 2.35:1 like the others, I believe what you saw was George zooming in to get a closer look at something, it could have been anything, really. And rest assured, no matting will be involved here, the film will be strictly created in 2.35:1, which of course means when the 4x3 version comes out for the un-enlightened folk, it will be a panned and scanned hack job all the way.

Your not gonna fight me on that too, are you?

And to the membership, can I please get some back-up here? I know your out there reading all of this, don't be afraid to speak up.