MGM to release "Return of the Living Dead" DVD in 2002 (1 Viewer)

[Ken_McAlinden]

You wish to believe the people who want to make money off this rather than those who CREATED it? Interesting...

This is mis-characterizing his statement grossly. He said (my emphasis) in the absence of hearing from the director, he would trust those who owned the material inclusive of documentation about how it should be framed/projected. That may not be 100% reliable, but it's probably better than a subjective evaluation by a fan.
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

 

[Mike Girardi]

Really? Seems to me that fans are often correcting studios... I'll certainly trust a major fan who has researched a film over a studio who just happened to acquire it as part of a catalog.
Mind you, at this point I fully believe neither of them - but I believe MGM less based on history (quantity of quality) and purpose (make money).
But in this case, with regards to your point, perhaps I'll change my comment from "who created it" to "who cares about it". Either way, that isn't MGM...
I also still debate whether MGM has anything which truly verifies any AR (other than the only print available to them...) - and if they do, I see no reason why it would be considered proof of any kind. The only possible proof would be a verifiable quote from the director. Without that, I prefer to believe those who do research (and my own eyes which have compared the various prints).
[Edited last by Mike Girardi on October 19, 2001 at 06:43 PM]

 

[Larry Schneider]

I don't care if they put a "full screen" version in - but I do want a widescreen version because that's how it was presented in theaters. I also want anamorphic enhancement.
The work print footage sounds interesting, and since the running time of the film is relatively short I expect there will be room for it.

 

[Michael Allred]

Well I'm not going to get into what seems to be a OAR debate that will drag on forever but as somebody else pointed out and to clarify what I said, in the absence of O' Bannon saying which is which, I can only go by what the studio says since they're the ones who actually OWN all of the relevant materials.
Remember the "Willy Wonka" debacle? That film shot open matte and yet fans cried bloody murder until Warner announced a widescreen DVD. Why is it soooo different here?
Who's to say ALL of the previous home video releases of RotLD weren't framed properly?
Considering the money angle, with all the hoopla over studios being "pressured" to release full screen DVD's, if "RotLD" was intended for FS, don't you think MGM would be going that route instead of WS?
BTW, as a side note I got an e-mail from MGM today. They again confirmed a 2002 DVD release for "RotLD" BUT they told me it will NOT be part of their 'Midnite Movies' line.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Who's to say ALL of the previous home video releases of RotLD weren't framed properly?

Exactly, they could have been cropped on all four sides for all we know or otherwise mangled into the "right" shape with the "wrong" matting. The Fox Lorber releases of Richard Lester's Musketeer films are an example of this. They are letterboxed to something like 1.66:1, but they are severely cropped all around and do not show the whole width of the frame. At this point, we can only hope that MGM has appropriate reference materials and gets it right.
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

 

[Mike Girardi]

"but I do want a widescreen version because that's how it was presented in theaters"
Care to prove that with verifiable evidence? I agree it's probable, but even then that could have been due to lack of choice. Sound pointless to want what was "shown in the theaters" anyway. Theater viewings will fluctuate theater to theater, so who's theater is correct? Plus what you see may have been the studio's idea, not the director's intent. I want what the director wanted me to see - nothing else. That's true OAR.
"The work print footage sounds interesting, and since the running time of the film is relatively short I expect there will be room for it."
Lots of room for it, but just having available room doesn't mean it will be there... If MGM doesn't have the workprint, it won't be there for sure. I really doubt they'd go through the effort of acquiring it - much less finding a better source for such footage (if such a source even exists).
"I can only go by what the studio says since they're the ones who actually OWN all of the relevant materials."
Trusting the fox to guard the hen house? Never trust people who want your money. It makes no sense. If they only have a matted print, it is in their best financial interest to claim the widescreen version is proper. Another possibility is that they do have some studio material and would rather blindly trust that than verify things with the creators. A mistake either way. Remember, this is only a catalog title for them - so they only have whatever they got with the acquisition of that catalog.
"Remember the "Willy Wonka" debacle? That film shot open matte and yet fans cried bloody murder until Warner announced a widescreen DVD. Why is it soooo different here?"
Because it was well known that Wonka was supposed to be shown matted. No debate, no confusion, no argument. The STUDIO decided otherwise, and the true fans revolted. So actually, maybe this isn't so different... We again have a studio making the choice for us. Pity more people aren't complaining in this case - but then far fewer true fans of this film seem to be around.
"Who's to say ALL of the previous home video releases of RotLD weren't framed properly?"
The director. Or at least someone who has compared the workprint and full frame prints to the matted releases. Certainly not MGM either way... Studios should not be deciding how things are presented without confirmation from the creators. In this case, MGM even said that their alleged proof is only paperwork from other studios. That's like having politicians vote for other politicians (rather than the people themselves voting) - not that this doesn't happen either...
"Considering the money angle, with all the hoopla over studios being "pressured" to release full screen DVD's, if "RotLD" was intended for FS, don't you think MGM would be going that route instead of WS?"
Not if they only have a matted print - or don't know any better. And they also know many people also scream for anamorphic, so perhaps they are trying to make more money from that crowd (assuming they will not know any better). Full frame supporters are generally buying family films - which this is not. Anything is possible. Without working at MGM, I'm not foolish enough to take their word on anything. MGM also released a standard version of "Escape from NY" when they had SE material, and based on other things I've seen posted about them have frequently made many fans unhappy with other releases, so I refuse to trust them. Trust is earned.
"Exactly, they could have been cropped on all four sides for all we know or otherwise mangled into the "right" shape with the "wrong" matting."
I have the workprint and have compared it to the full screen and matted releases. The matting does not look correct. The full screen versions have more top and bottom info, but nothing missing on the sides - so the they are not P&S (except for the European DVD which is sickeningly zoomed). Cropping off top/bottom info is as bad as cropping off side info if it is supposed to be seen.
"At this point, we can only hope that MGM has appropriate reference materials and gets it right."
Personally, I'll put my hope in someone getting O'Bannon to verify the proper format he wants it presented in. At this point, MGM could show me documents notorized by the Pope and it wouldn't convince me if those are just documents from other studios. There's too much debate over it and I find it hard to believe that people familiar with the film claim full screen and the film looks more properly framed full screen, but it's supposed to be matted anyway? MGM has done nothing to earn that level of blind trust.
So does anyone know how to get hold of O'Bannon? Surely there must be some way to reach someone who has been involved with several major films.
[Edited last by Mike Girardi on October 20, 2001 at 02:42 PM]

 

[Jim Bivins]

Maybe less bickering amongst ourselves and let's get some contact info.
If anyone know's how to reach Mr. O'Bannon, let's informing him as well as contacting someone at MGM and letting them see the interest in a SE and correct OAR.
I will post something in studio feedback if no one else has on this issue.
Jim

 

[Robert Ringwald]

Over at the f13thfilms forum, someone said they they emailed MGM and asked them about this.
MGM replied that it was going to be an anamorphic transfer, released in 2002, but not part of their Midnite movies line...

 

[Wes Ray]

"Over at the f13thfilms forum, someone said they they emailed MGM and asked them about this.
MGM replied that it was going to be an anamorphic transfer, released in 2002, but not part of their Midnite movies line..."
If it's not in the Midnite Movies line, I hope they make it a Special Edition ala Carrie and Dressed to Kill.

 

[Michael Allred]

Mr. Ringwald, I already posted that info on the 19th. Beat ya ;-)
------------------
My DVD collection--> http://members.tripod.com/~evilbaby/DVD_Collection.html

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

...as well as contacting someone at MGM and letting them see the interest in a SE and correct OAR.

Someone from MGM has already posted in this thread, so I am betting they know. I just hope we haven't lost them with barrages of text speculating on how uninformed they may be.
Upon further consideration, get that Studio Feedback thread going as soon as possible!
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

 

[Jim Bivins]

Got it up yesterday.

 

[Robert Ringwald]

You're right. I just went back and read that.
I think they should make some kind of documentary for the DVD. It is a really big cult classic, and I see it selling very well if they do it right.

 

[Jules]

In answer to Michael Allred's request for someone from the crew to confirm the original aspect ratio, it was 1.85:1. It was definitely not 4:3.
Jules Brenner
Director of Photography

 

[Artur Meinild]

Alrighty then, I think this matter has been settled!
Thanx a lot for clearing that up Jules, I'm really looking forward to this DVD now!
------------------
~ Stud. Polyt. ~ Artur Meinild ~

 

[Michael Allred]

Yes folks, the DIRECTOR OF PHOTOGRAPHY has now confirmed the OAR of "Return of the Living Dead", no further need to debate or argue about it.
Mr. Brenner, thank you very much for e-mailing me earlier today, it was greatly appreciated. I'm glad you had the time to visit this thread (which was my hope when I had originally pointed you in this direction.)
Now, aren't we ALL glad MGM is releasing the DVD in widescreen?
------------------
My DVD collection--> http://members.tripod.com/~evilbaby/DVD_Collection.html

 

[Jules]

Let me add something by way of clarification concerning aspect ratios. While it's true that the information in a frame may contain more than what a cinematographer composes for, the essential things, are: (1) the theatrical ratio (1.85:1 in this case) and (2) a TV "protection" area which in this case would be a little above and a little below the main ratio area. Protection means against stray microphones, ends of sets and other intrusions. So, to see the true intentions of a cinematographer on any film you need to go to the theatre or see a letterbox VCR. TV aspect ratios are a reality of the marketplace but compromise the full effect of the film -- any film. It's gratifying to know that the fans of this film are as concerned with my intended compositions as this forum indicates.
It also follows from the above that once a cinematographer's work is over and the film goes to the distributor, we're all at the mercy of what they want to do with it. Can they project it in another ratio? Can they release the VCR in another ratio? Yes, the frame allows them to do that. It's a rare film that's shot with a hard matte.
If anyone here would like to check out my page on this and other films I've shot: http://variagate.com/jbmovies.htm
Jules Brenner
Director of Photography

 

[Larry Schneider]

Jules, your input is greatly appreciated. And your work on this very enjoyable film is appreciated too.

 

[Mike Girardi]

Thanks very much Jules. That was exactly what we needed to know.
Now we just have to worry about MGM doing a special edition... Commentary, deleted scenes (including the extended ending), behind the scenes, outtakes, soundtrack - all possible if they care. Hell, how about a transfer (to on screen text) of that March 1986 "American Cinematographer" article referenced on Jules' site?
Have you [Jules] tried contacting them and offering to do a commentary (or at least an interview) - assuming you're interested. And would you happen to have better elements for the deleted footage and/or any outtakes?
And out of curiosity, having seen the workprint, was it intended (or protected) to have an open matte release for home video and TV broadcasts? It sure looks that way - considering the absence of any equipment in shots. Because if so, I'd really like to see both versions on a flipper then.
It also seems that Quigley (Trash), Karen (Frank), and Mathews (Freddy) will be at the Fango convention in NY on January 5-6:
http://www.creationent.com/calendar.html#fango2
Sure would be nice to see MGM take advantage of an obvious opportunity with that as well.

 

[Ross Williams]

Wow! Thanks Jules, I love that the HTF is influential enough to get the Director of Photography to show up and tell us the proper aspect.
Now that, that's out of the way, we need to make sure we get the proper cover art. I want the original poster with the punk zombie's spray painting Return of the Living Dead on the tombstone. This one: http://members.tripod.com/uneedamed/rotldsh.jpg
I don't want Bob's from marketing, five minute photoshop version.
------------------
"You know, there's a million fine looking women in the world, dude. But they
don't all bring you lasagna at work. Most of 'em just cheat on you." - Silent Bob
"No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai
Optimus Prime Films