Minority Report - cover art (1 Viewer)

[Tim RH]

It looks almost definately to be from DreamWorks, not Fox. And I'm pretty sure it isn't a fake.

 

[Will_B]

I was hoping for the "two faces" (Cruise and the bald chick) but you can't have everything.

 

[Carl C]

The disc is indeed coming from DREAMWORKS. At least here in North America.
And, while I prefer the original theatrical teaser art, they're at least sticking with the original one-sheet. Here are both:

 

[Brenton]

Looks great. While I won't be able to afford this one when it comes out (I've got a big list of other discs I have to buy, as well as a new home theater system) I will have it on my Christmas list. Great film, hopefully a great disc. (And who else here thinks that this is a good opportunity for Spielberg to do a commentary!)

 

[Carl C]

Brenton, your signature reminded me that it's worth pointing out that "MINORITY REPORT" is Spielberg's first 2.35:1 film in over a decade.

 

[Patrick Mirza]

Hey Sam -

Um, no it's not "fake"... it's directly from Dreamworks/Universal. Why would I would post bogus cover art?? Do I really want zero credibility?

 

[Jeff Kleist]

(And who else here thinks that this is a good opportunity for Spielberg to do a commentary!)

Spielberg refuses to do commentary. Lucas even asked him to do them on Indy and he refused

 

[Damin J Toell]

And, while I prefer the original theatrical teaser art

The teaser image always looked like Dustin Hoffman to me, so I'm pretty glad they went with the one-sheet.

DJ

 

[Lee_eel]

What i am expecting is a grainy picture much like A.I, Not always a bad thing though!

 

[Declan]

yeeeeeehhhhhhaaaaaaaaaa...
yep 2:35.............Why doesnt Speilberg shoot this way more often. It's much more cinematic and he is great at using the frame (check Jaws, CE3K and Indy triogy for e.g.).
Was looking forward to it for ages before it came out at the flicks..........and when it started and the curtains went back and the scope lens was changed on the projector..............well I was happy as a pig in.............:b

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

yep 2:35.............Why doesnt Speilberg shoot this way more often. It's much more cinematic and he is great at using the frame (check Jaws, CE3K and Indy triogy for e.g.).

What makes it more cinematic? And is it that he's inherently great at using the 2.40:1 frame, or is it that he saves using 2.35:1 for the projects where he needs the full 2.40:1 frame?

 

[Declan]

the fact that it's wider is what makes it more cinematic. Thats why people started going to the cinema all those years ago, because they made films in cinemascope. Then they narrowed it down to 1:85, which IMHO was'nt the best of moves. That ratio is fine for something like Road Trip, but Jurassic Park..........how good would that movie have benifitted from being shot in scope. Saving Private Ryan as well, but I can see the argument that in order to make the Omaha Beech sequence clostraphobic that they would have needed the narrower aspect ratio.
But which do you guys prefer. When I (personally) watch a film at the cinema in Scope I feel that I am getting more for my money as the screen is wider. But that is just my opinon. I am glad Michael bay is at the minute shooting Bad Boys 2 in scope instead of 1:85 (cause I loved the first one, think not many of the rest of you did though) Disscuss if you will.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Thats why people started going to the cinema all those years ago, because they made films in cinemascope.

People started going to the cinema "all those years ago" long before the advent of cinemascope. Cinemascope has only been around for about half as long as cinema itself, so I see nothing inherently "cinematic" about the wider format. The Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane, Gone With The Wind, and any other number of innumerable classics represent the very definition of "cinema" in the minds of many viewers, so to call them non-cinematic due to their narrower AR seems a bit off the mark to me.
DJ

 

[Declan]

oh and..............2:40..........or 2:35.......why dont they just get the aspect ratio right on some DVD's/lasersdics. Titanic was'nt 2:30 from where I was sitting. Looked more 2:35. Dances with wolves DTS...2:45-50.

Star Wars SpEd 2:20 more like.

 

[Declan]

sorry......should have said "people were drawn from their Tv's BACK to the cinema Because of Cinemascope"

 

[Damin J Toell]

oh and..............2:40..........or 2:35.......why dont they just get the aspect ratio right on some DVD's/lasersdics. Titanic was'nt ":30 from where I was sitting. Looked more 2:35. Dances with wolves DTS...2:45-50.
Star Wars SpEd 2:20 more like.

Your varied experiences are due to variations in the projection by the theatre you were in. The proper theatrical exhibition AR of Star Wars is 2.39:1, period.
DJ

 

[Declan]

Sorry, I was on about the home versions of the movies above.

The laserdisc of Star Wars SpEd is not the original AR of 2:39.........it is more 2:20, maybe even 2:10.

 

[Declan]

sorry Damin.......apologiseing alot today
you know for somebody who does'nt like violence I get hit alot

 

[Kenneth Cummings]

Oh cool, I going to get this one as well. Want it so much, I already added the picture (thank you Dave) to my weird website signture (it not a DVD site).

 

[Brenton]

Hey, Declan, sorry to nitpick, but when you denote an aspect ratio as 2:35 (for example), that says "two to thirty-five". It should be 2.35:1 (two point three five to one).