"Monsoon Wedding" Not Anamorphic! (1 Viewer)

[andrew markworthy]

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 ?

You haven't contributed all that much to HTF so far, so perhaps you're unaware that we have standards. Personal insults are not on. In any case, do try reading what people have written before you fire off. You're getting irate over an argument nobody is making.

My point for the final time is an entirely different one - namely, let's stop this ostentatious angst every time a disc doesn't have everything on that someone wants. Bad transfers are one thing, but DTS, anamorphic, etc, are extras. Yes, we've come to expect them, but they aren't essential.

 

[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.

what's this then ? a chicken sandwich ? sounds kind of insulting to me. people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and all that business.

anyway, i'm not waisting any more of my time arguing to you. you haven't got anything logical to add to this argument which was ... you claiming that anamorphic (not anything else as you're claiming) was icing on the cake. you're wrong. and thankfully, most of the industry doesn't agree with you (nearly all titles in 16x9+).

thank you and goodnight.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Stop this bickering. One more problem post, and this thread's toast.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

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.

The main issue for movie lovers like me is that because we love the FILM we want it preserved in as hi-fidelity a form for our-home theater experience as we can, the lack of 16x9 enhancement on widescreen titles means that the title will never be able to replicate "film-like" experience on a big-screen or projector (or that however well it does end up succeeding, it could have been 1/3 better!). I just watched Billy Eliott the other day for the first time...and I saw it on DVD on a projector. The image that I watched looked EXACTLY like a real 35 mm film print...no kidding. All the resolution and image purity that I would see from the rear 2/3rd seating in a theater was there on the big-screen in a living room. I was able to enjoy the FILM experience from the DVD copy. Yes, I know that 35 mm film has more resolution than DVD...but trust me folks...from a seated position about 2/3 the way back in a theater...the DVD projection really does look almost identical. No kidding (this is why people like me are so strong about advocating front-projection over rear-projection HDTVs...the impact really can be FILM-LIKE!).

Had this DVD (Billy Elliot) not been 16x9 or had it not been mastered properly, this experience would not have been possible. At best (like with the Abyss or Titanic) it would have been a "big video" experience.

I think what you mean when you emphasized your love of "film" is actually your love of the "story". Sure, you can enjoy the story watching a P/S version of a movie on cable TV. However to really love the FILM, one cannot separate the other aspects of the medium...such as image resolution and impact on a large-screen, from the "film experience" as intended by the director.

I used to say to my film-buff friend that I was happy to watch films (on laserdisc in those days) on TV and avoid the theater. He would INSIST that I see certain films "on the big screen" because he pointed out that watching a movie on a small screen, even in OAR, was NOT the "experience" visually that the director intended for the viewer.

He was right. Thankfully, with a well-recorded DVD and good-quality projection in a home theater, we can begin to acheive a viable "film presentation" in our homes that does accomplish this experience.

For those of us who enjoy FILM, that means preserving the integrity of the art of the director...which not only means OAR, but also means image FIDELITY. Without 16x9 enahancement, a DVD limits the image quality to a "video" resolution when viewed on a large-screen display or projector.

Loving film as much as I do and respecting it for the art-form that it is, then trying to make a point to Universal about just how important it is to preserve as much as the film's resolution on DVD as is possible (with 16x9) is not only a right, it's a responsibility. I will now not purchase this DVD that I had been planning on purchasing.

-dave

 

[Ted Todorov]

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.

This is simply not true -- as I emphasized in my original post Monsoon Wedding is available with an anamorphic transfer in R2 and I urged everyone to buy it there -- how is it that you end up with "*no* copy" if you buy the readily available superior version??? Not to mention the fact that I already saw Monsoon Wedding in 35mm under ideal conditions...
More globally speaking, between the local 35mm showings and high quality anamorphic DVDs of good to great movies out there, there aren't enough hours in the day to see them all and there isn't enough money in most people's bank accounts to buy all the DVDs in question. "Starving" is not exactly possible. We can certainly afford to refuse to buy non-anamorphic (or otherwise inferior) DVDs of widescreen films, and still have an endless supply of great films to watch.
Personally I am constantly missing stuff on my "must see" list, because I just don't have enough to time to see it all, I have hundreds of unwatched DVDs at home and the NY Film Festival (for which I have tickets for 15 films) starts on Friday. And I'm going to "starve" if I don't buy the non-anamorphic DVD of Monsoon Wedding a film I already saw?
Ted

 

[Brian Lawrence]

This is simply not true -- as I emphasized in my original post Monsoon Wedding is available with an anamorphic transfer in R2 and I urged everyone to buy it there -- how is it that you end up with "*no* copy" if you buy the readily available superior version???

We can't assume that everyone has a multi-region dvd player. I would guess that most here don't. I have one but it is a shoddy Apex A-600, which does not give me nearly as nice of a picture as my Standard "region 1 only" Panasonic player.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Universal Home Video (also DreamWorks SKG)
70 Universal City Plaza
Universal City, CA 91608
(818) 777-4400
Consumer Hotline: 972-293-5903
1st DVD Web site: http://www.universalstudios.com/dvd/
2nd DVD Web site: http://www.oz.net/blam/Universal/DVD/index.htm
E-mail (Form on web site): http://www.universalstudios.com/dvd/MB_frames.html
E-mail: [email protected]
2nd E-mail: [email protected]
Need I say more???

 

[Ted Todorov]

We can't assume that everyone has a multi-region dvd player. I would guess that most here don't.

Again, if you read my original post in this thread you will see that I make no such assumption, and note that this DVD is one more good reason to get one. (If you don't have a multi-standard TV, the ones that do proper PAL to NTSC conversion are the Malata 520 & JVC ??? (see the Regional DVD Area)).

Ted

 

[Duncan Harvey]

I think the point is that if you have a widescreen tv over a certain size - eg an RPTV one, then the lack of an anamorphic transfer is a serious issue. Blowing up the picture is never the same and does reveal the line structure - especially with NTSC material.

I've seen non anamorphic blow ups on widescreen sets of 28 inches and 32 inches and they dont look too bad - hence the transfer is acceptable and the difference not too dramatic compared to a 16x9 transfer. But go to a larger screen (for example mine is 56 inch widescreeen RPTV) and it really does matter.

I would imagine that 28 inch sets are the "standard" for UK widescreen sales as once you get beyond this the price really increases. Hence as noted above, lack of enhancement doesnt appear to be a big deal.

I think its a little dodgy to compare anamorphic with dts as a "like to have" but not essential. If you havent got dts then usually you have DD 5.1 and any differences are usually marginal. But if you have a larger screen, then the differences between anamorphic and non-anamorphic are significant and do diminish the viewing experience.

Ultimately if the films is a "have to have" title then I'll buy it, but it is a shame when in this day and age, 16x9 transfers are not seen as a pre-requisite of a disc.

 

[Jason Whyte]

What I wonder is WHY Universal decided to go ahead and release this without 16x9 enhancement. Monsoon Wedding was hard-matted 1.85:1 as well, which makes things even more odd.

Furthermore, the subtitles are "burned in" and nowhere near the original font and size of the prints here in North America.

Jason

 

[Yumbo]

I wonder too,

I didn't realise it was one of their rental priced titles; that I can understand being the cause of consternation for some.

screen size - on my 36", I wouldn't know if it was non-anamorphic - that's how good the transfer is.

What is stupid is that on the disc artwork, it is labelled as being anamorphic.

it still remains a brilliant movie.

 

[Brajesh Upadhyay]

Universal really didn't treat this wonderful film the way it deserved to be. I'm glad to have it on DVD, but the lack of 16x9 enhancement (I have a widescreen HDTV) & large burned-in subtitles are irritating.

May order the UK version -- are the subtitles removable on this DVD?

 

[John Geelan]

Watched the movie last night and really enjoyed it. This is a great all around film, it has comedy, drama and suspense.
Great acting and has a nice pace.

I feel that I got a good look at modern Indian life that is remarkably very similar to us here in the US.

Recommended very highly!

 

[R. Kay]

Great movie!

Enjoy it and stop whining.

Just watch it.

 

[Sanjay Gupta]

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..

It is in fact amongst the all time top ten highest grossing foreign language films in the US.

There is absolutely no excuse for a non anamorphic DVD on a new transfer and Universal has majorly cheated us on this one. To add insult to injury 'large burned in subtitles', now I am really pissed. For those of us who understand Hindi & Punjabi (languages spoken in the film) there could be nothing worse than the sub titles.

I for one have been looking forward to this DVD from the day I saw this film (over a year ago) in the theater and I was personally overjoyed when I had first heard the news of Universal acquiring this title. My love for this film will make me still buy the DVD, but nevertheless Universal has lost a lot of goodwill and respect in my eyes. For god's sake even small Indian DVD companies now don't release DVDs without anamorphic transfers. As for the 'burned in subtitles', what is the whole point of the DVD technology, even a comparitively much smaller UK company got this DVD right for R2, shame on you Universal.

Sanjay
Member since 1997

 

[Sanjay Gupta]

May order the UK version -- are the subtitles removable on this DVD?

Yes the sub titles are user selectable from the menu on the R2 DVD.

Oh why, Oh why did I wait this long for the stupid Universal R1 release, when I could have gotten the R2 release when I was in the UK last month. I guess as they say 'better late than never'.

Sanjay
Member since 1997

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Great movie!
Enjoy it and stop whining.
Just watch it.

No. Stop whining and CALL and WRITE UNIVERSAL and complain to them!!!!
have any of you even contacted yet? Am I the only one???
Universal Home Video (also DreamWorks SKG)
70 Universal City Plaza
Universal City, CA 91608
(818) 777-4400
Consumer Hotline: 972-293-5903
1st DVD Web site: http://www.universalstudios.com/dvd/
2nd DVD Web site: http://www.oz.net/blam/Universal/DVD/index.htm
E-mail (Form on web site): http://www.universalstudios.com/dvd/MB_frames.html
E-mail: [email protected]
2nd E-mail: [email protected]

Then, RENT the DVD...don't buy it.
And enjoy the film.
dave

 

[Sanjay Gupta]

You know what is even more stupid than the film not being presented Anamorphically, the fact that the menus on the DVD are anamorphic. Go figure.

Sanjay

 

[Doug D]

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.

Ted,

Unfortunately, voting with one's dollar is a blunt instrument. They could take it as "oh, foreign films don't do so well on DVD".

 

[Ted Todorov]

Unfortunately, voting with one's dollar is a blunt instrument. They could take it as "oh, foreign films don't do so well on DVD".

But that is totally fine with me. I wish they would think that.
Studios that specialize in foreign films like Criterion or Anchor Bay know very well that foreign films do well on DVD -- they are keeping them in business, and thus they care about the DVD quality. A studio like Universal, unless it has a very independent department that specializes in foreign films (which they do not) is going to screw them up EVERY TIME because all their knowledgeable DVD employees are hard at work on their big money makers, like The Mummy, Part MCLXXIV, Ultimate Edition.
If Universal hadn't bought Monsoon Wedding someone like Anchor Bay or Criterion would have grabbed it a second -- it certainly wouldn't be gathering dust in some vault.
Ted