"Monsoon Wedding" Not Anamorphic! (1 Viewer)

[Craig S]

I can't believe there hasn't been any discussion of this yet, but a search turned up nothing, so...
Glenn "DVD Savant" Erickson has just published his review of the upcoming Universal DVD of Mira Nair's wonderful Monsoon Wedding, and it is apparently non-anamorphic. This is confirmed by DVD File's review. To add insult to injury, the disc has a list price of $32.95!
I thought we had won this particular battle long ago. Oh well, next Tuesday is going to be VERY expensive and this is now one less disc to buy...

 

[Rich Malloy]

Just cancelled my preorder and put it in my Netflix queue. I'll watch it, but I won't buy it.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

I can't believe there hasn't been any discussion of this yet, but a search turned up nothing, so...

Actually, I did bring this up here as I was making the point that those of us her prefer foreign and independent films get the shaft constantly. That A-list thread was listing complaints of various mainstream releases. While the points were valid, I raised the point that the A-list crowd has it much easier than we do and used Monsoon Wedding as a recent example. Universal would NEVER do this to a big release.
The funny thing about this is that everyone over at zulm.net was rejoicing when they heard that Universal had picked this up! At the time companies like Eros and Videosound were rarely doing anamorphic transfers of Indian films, so everyone assumed that Universal would show Eros how to an Indian film correctly. Now anamorphic transfers are (finally!) becoming more common and Universal does this!
The disc still looks very nice and the film is wonderful but this is still inexcusable. Those of you who haven't seen it might want to take a break from your "When is the Indiana Jones Trilogy coming out?" threads and spend a delightful 2 hours with this terrific film.
Jeff

 

[Yumbo]

yup,

watching it now.
but the transfer is good for letterbox, and you should pick it up.

a good movie. don't deny yourselves.

I can't wait for BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM!

 

[Julian Lalor]

Very odd, considering the R2 version IS anamorphic. How hard could it have been for Universal to do?

 

[andrew markworthy]

Yes, it's a shame it isn't anamorphic (the R2 version, as already mentioned, is, and to add insult to injury, was released months ago).

However, I personally regard anamorphic releases, along with extras, as icing on the cake. Sure, a well-produced DVD is an excellent thing, and simple pride in a job well done should be sufficient motivation for companies to get things right in this regard. But if a movie's good, it's worth buying regardless of anything else. And if you watch something just for its surface appearance, then this is no better than losers with (over-) expensive hi-fi listening to crap music 'because the production's so good'. Is anyone seriously arguing that an anamorphic release of a third-rate movie is better than a non-anamorphic release of something of the calibre of Monsoon Wedding?

So please, don't cancel orders - this is a great film, and better than anything that mainstream Hollywood is likely to release this year.

 

[Walter Kittel]

I canceled my order when I found out that the title was going to be released without 16x9 enhancement not because it lessens the quality of the film, but because I don't believe that Universal deserves my money for treating this title in this fashion.

I plan on treating Universal, with respect to this title, the same way I did Disney ( during their earlier DVD release policy of not supporting 16x9 enhancement. ) Rather than purchase a new copy, and giving Universal another sale; I'll eventually purchase a used copy some day in the future.

Presentation quality is important, and certainly is a factor in the Home Theater equation. But I tend to agree that presentation will only take you so far, and that a film will predominately succeed or fail on its own merits, assuming a watchable transfer.

- Walter.

 

[Craig S]

I agree that this is a wonderful film (I saw it in the theater earlier this year), but the price Universal is asking for a non-anamorphic transfer is ridiculous. I refuse to pay it. There's no excuse at this point for a new film to be non-anamorphic. And Monsoon Wedding is not an obscure film - this was a bonafide arthouse hit and is the highest-grossing Indian film ever in the U.S..
I'll probably pick it up if and when Universal reduces the price in the future.

 

[Brian Lawrence]

I don't mind that the transfer is non-anamorphic, so long as it still looks good. But what does puzzle me is the $32.95 price tag coming from Universal. Is this a sly way of trying to slowly inch up to rental pricing on non-blockbuster films? Or do they simply feel that those who actually have some taste and standards in what movies the choose to purchase, should be penalized?
Seems like the kind of thing I would expect from The Mouse :frowning:
Oh well, Best Buy will probably be selling it in the low 20's anyhow

 

[Ted Todorov]

However, I personally regard anamorphic releases, along with extras, as icing on the cake. Sure, a well-produced DVD is an excellent thing, and simple pride in a job well done should be sufficient motivation for companies to get things right in this regard. But if a movie's good, it's worth buying regardless of anything else. And if you watch something just for its surface appearance, then this is no better than losers with (over-) expensive hi-fi listening to crap music 'because the production's so good'. Is anyone seriously arguing that an anamorphic release of a third-rate movie is better than a non-anamorphic release of something of the calibre of Monsoon Wedding?
So please, don't cancel orders - this is a great film, and better than anything that mainstream Hollywood is likely to release this year.

Andrew,
I couldn't disagree with you more. Of course it is absurd to buy crappy movies because they have good transfers/extras. But the logic doesn't follow that we should be buying bad AND overpriced DVDs of great films.
If the studios see that they can get away with it they will keep doing it more and more. If their sales figures of Monsoon Wedding are very bad, they will get the message: the next time they will release an anamorphic transfer at a reasonable price. Or they will pass on purchasing the rights and a company that gives a shit, like Criterion, Anchor Bay, Fantoma, etc. etc. will pick it up and do a proper transfer.
Anamorphic widescreen in September of 2002 is not negotiable. It is not "icing on the cake" by a long shot. It is a make or break element of the DVD. It is a short walk to Pan & Scan and VHS from non-anamorphic.
It would be doubly unforgivable to reward Universal for this horrendously bad treatment of a great film, when it is available in R2 with an anamorphic transfer. Everyone should be buying the R2! And for those who do not have multi-region capability, this should be one more compelling reason to get a region-free player.
Ted

 

[Jean-Michel]

Is the commentary on the R2 disc the same as the R1? I'm assuming they are but then again they are from different distributors........

 

[Phil Kim]

However, I personally regard anamorphic releases, along with extras, as icing on the cake.

Several years from now, when 16x9 display becomes the norm, I am not sure if you will consider anamorphic "an icing on the cake." On 16x9 displays, the non-anamorphic widescreen transfers not only look significantly less detailed, they are just plain inconvenient:

• Subtitle getting chopped off when you "zoom" the images in to eliminate the black bars.
• Having to "unzoom" when navigating the menu.

Some modern DVD players (e.g., Panasonic DVD-RP91) are equipped with automatic anamorphic output feature, but the feature works with only some titles. No more non-anamorphic widescreen DVDs for me.

 

[Brian Lawrence]

Several years from now, when 16x9 display becomes the norm, I am not sure if you will consider anamorphic "an icing on the cake."

More like many years from now.

 

[andrew markworthy]

But the logic doesn't follow that we should be buying bad AND overpriced DVDs of great films.

Yes, but by that logic, you end up with *no* copy of the film. This is like saying 'I refuse to buy food because it's overpriced and I don't like the recipes'. The end result is you starve.

I'm just not sufficiently bothered about non-anamorphic displays,I guess. Yes, I can see the advantages of an anamorphic transfer, but if it isn't available, I don't find my viewing marred, and the black bars have never bothered me. As I implied in my first post on this thread, if people are sitting watching a film thinking 'it's not anamorphic, it's not anamorphic' then they're not into movies, they're into showing off their home theatre equipment.

 

[Stu Rosen]

Please explain something to me: With a 16:9 set playing an anamorphic disc of a widescreen movie, you "zoom in" to eliminate the black bars? By doing so, do you lose any part of the image?

 

[Andy_MT]

However, I personally regard anamorphic releases, along with extras, as icing on the cake.

can't believe someone actually said this. extras maybe, but anamorphic ? i feel so ashamed :frowning:

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Please explain something to me: With a 16:9 set playing an anamorphic disc of a widescreen movie, you "zoom in" to eliminate the black bars? By doing so, do you lose any part of the image?

With a 16x9 set, you don't zoom in on an anamorphic disc. A 1.85 film will virtually fill the screen while a 2.35 film will have small bars at the top and bottom. If you did, for some reason, want to zoom in on an anamorphic transfer of a 2.35 movie, yes, you would be cutting off the left and right of the image.

 

[andrew markworthy]

can't believe someone actually said this. extras maybe, but anamorphic ? i feel so ashamed

Yeh, well, some of us spend our time watching films, others are in it for how big their screen is or the wattage on their sound system. It takes all sorts.

To repeat what I said once more - it's not that anamorphic isn't good - it is. Likewise, good quality restoration work on older movies, good sound, obeying the OAR, etc, etc. But when push comes to shove, what matters is the movie. And when you have a movie as good as Monsoon Wedding, why aren't you watching the movie, rather than beefing about picture quality? It's not that a non-anamorphic picture is unwatchable, for goodness' sake!

There is a dangerous trend in HTF discussions for debates about movies to be hijacked into Asperger-level discussions of technical details. It's fine for some folks, but a lot of people (myself included) became hooked on DVDs through a love of film, not an opportunity to parade an affectation of disgust because a great film hasn't been released in precisely the desired format.

 

[Andy_MT]

Yeh, well, some of us spend our time watching films, others are in it for how big their screen is or the wattage on their sound system. It takes all sorts.

or maybe it's perhaps that [us] sorts like films so much that we want them to look their best so that we can get a better experience from them. did you ever think about that, mr. i'm better than everybody else ?
and just for the record, i have many non-anamorphic titles, because of the film. and many look very, very poor, but i still watch them. i just don't get the maximum impact from them as i could have done. this isn't just the cinematography, but some if not most non-anamorphic titles are from recycled laser disc masters that have very distracting flaws in them that keeps taking me out of the picture.
and don't you think film-makers would prefer to have their work show cased in the best means possible ?
so if you really believe that anamorphic is just "icing on the cake", then you stand in a very, very small minority.
we all want our films to look great, as i think many deserve. you apparently don't think so. It takes all sorts.

 

[Jodee]

FYI, this will be an advertised "low price" at Circuit City which means it will probably sell for $19.99 which is what other recent Universal 32.95 "low price" advertised titles sold for the first week (such as Hollywood Ending).

I can't wait to see it again and it's worth $20 to me, anamorphic or not. I heard the director commentary track is outstanding.