Movies That Are Anamorphic, But Not Advertised As Such! A Nice Surprise! (1 Viewer)

[David Von Pein]

Does anyone, by chance, have some kind of a list (complete or otherwise) that shows DVD titles that ARE, in reality, Anamorphic Widescreen DVDs, but are not advertised as being 16:9 encoded on the packaging?

Was viewing the DVD of 1973's The Legend Of Hell House recently and was all set to use the "Normal" setting (rather than "16:9") on my 4:3 HDTV, when I was pleasantly surprised to find that the disc was, in fact, enhanced for WS sets. Nice transfer too IMO, plus a pretty good scare-fest to boot. Had never seen it previously.

Nowhere on the Hell House package does it hint that it's a 16:9 encoded disc. Curious.

Same with 1992's A League Of Their Own. It's Anamorphic, but you'd never know it from the box. Kind of annoying, huh, when this occurs.

In fact, re. Hell House, only about half of the DVD e-tailers I checked show the disc as 16:9 enhanced (DVD Planet & DDD). Amazon shows just "Widescreen Letterbox" (not enhanced), and DVD Empire also does not tell us it's 16:9. Plus, even DVD Profiler doesn't provide the "Anamorphic" notation in its database.

Made me think ... I wonder how many other dozens (hundreds?) of titles suffer a similar misleading "16:9 or not" plight??

Any notable major titles you can think of that omit such vital info to its potential viewers?

 

[TonyD]

patton, origional release.

 

[Richard Kim]

Same with 1992's A League Of Their Own. It's Anamorphic, but you'd never know it from the box. Kind of annoying, huh, when this occurs.

Since it's a Columbia/Tri-Star release, it's not surprising, since virtually all of their widescreen films are anamorphic, even if it's not labeled on the box.

 

[Nicholas Vargo]

*batteries not included is the only DVD I own that is anamorphic, but is not listed on the actual case. The only downside to the transfer is that it actually looks like a non-ananmorphic transfer, with the quality variying at times. At times, it looks sharp, but at certain points, like at least once in the middle of the opening titles, the picture exhibits a soft look. Still looks good and was worth the $9 I paid for it regardless

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Meatballs is - doesnt even say that its WS on the box!

HBO pulled one out

 

[David Von Pein]

And yet another that leaves the unaware buyer in the Anamorphic darkness. .......

 

[Brian Harnish]

Don't forget City of Angels.

 

[Aaron Cohen]

How about on the flip side as well? Releases that say they are anamorphic and end up being non-anamorphic? Talk about a rude surprise. The original DVD of The Abyss comes to mind... Of course Fox told me when I called to complain that their wording was correct, that the enhanced for widescreen tv's wording merely meant that the menus were enhanced...

Also, I purchased John Carpenter's The Thing dvd caseless from a yard sale with the wording "2.35:1 Anamorphic Widescreen" clearly displayed on the disc when it is in fact not.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Several low-budget small-studio titles on my shelf that surprised me with nice 16x9 transfers that I didn't see coming. That's always a nice treat...to think you've got a crappy 4x3 encoded low-fi pictuer on it's way (keep reading!)...brace for the terror...then find yourself surprised that somehow the film-tape transfer was up to big-studio (or better) standards!

I'll have to double check which ones they were and post back some title names.

-dave

 

[Marc_Sulinski]

Goodfellas is an example of a release that indicates that it is anamorphic on the box, but in reality it is not.

 

[Jeremy Allin]

In addition to Goodfellas, The Hand That Rocks The Cradle is listed as 2.35:1 anamorphic, but it is really 1.85:1 NON-anamorphic.

 

[Marc_Sulinski]

In addition to Goodfellas, The Hand That Rocks The Cradle is listed as 2.35:1 anamorphic, but it is really 1.85:1 NON-anamorphic.

Well, if you did put your TV in FULL mode like you would for watching anamorphic DVDs, then 1.85:1 would look like 2.35:1. Maybe someone didn't notice the stretching effect?

 

[Christopher Carr]

Harvard Man was released with the back saying Full Frame Transfer but it also contained both Full Frame and Anamorphic Widescreen.

 

[JasonRH]

I bought The Forbidden Planet last week and didn't see that it was widescreen enhanced anywhere on the box. Nice surprise that it was.

 

[David Von Pein]

Of course Fox told me when I called to complain that their wording was correct, that the enhanced for widescreen tv's wording merely meant that the menus were enhanced...

Oh for Pete's sake!!!

If this were the case on all DVDs, we would NEVER be sure if the FILM were 16:9 encoded, or merely the MENUS (or both).

A ridiculous explanation from Fox.

 

[DeeF]

The Last Picture Show

is enhanced, though it doesn't say so on the box.

 

[David Von Pein]

Thanks Dee!
That's another good example.

Funny, too, that many of these titles we're talking about here are NOT limited to the very "old" releases from way back in 1997-1998 (the "dark ages" as some refer to those early days of DVD). But many of these that do not correctly reflect the "Anamorphic" (or vice versa) status of a disc were released since 2001.

Wouldn't you think that the DVD execs in charge of packaging/labelling would have gotten this right by this point in time? (Particularly with more and more Widescreen TVs being sold each & every day.) :frowning:

(While perusing the large amount of Sunday ads in the newspaper recently, you'd be hard-pressed to even find ONE HDTV being advertised in the paper that ISN'T a 16:9 set!)