What's new

New Apocalypse Now DVD set this year? (1 Viewer)

Jim Tudor

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Apr 10, 1999
Messages
213
I've generally decided to swear off most upgrades in favor of future HD versions, but this would've been an exception, had the films been presented in their OAR. That was the make or break point for me. "Hearts of Darkness" I could live without, but non-OAR is just silly.
 

Brandon Conway

captveg
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
9,623
Location
North Hollywood, CA
Real Name
Brandon Conway
Personally, I'll be picking up this release because:

1. I never had either of the previous DVDs.

2. The AR issue is a non-issue to me, since the DP and director are approving the transfer with the altered AR. The same thing happened with Star Trek VI, and I had no problem with that, either.

I can understand some not wanting to ever cross any lines when it comes to OAR and the like, but I'm usually much more forgiving to such changes when the approval comes from those who made the product in the first place.

In a perfect world there would always be a choice (which is one reason I have not picked up The Last of the Mohicans (1992) - I want the theatrical cut too much), but at other times I've purchased a release with only one option that since it didn't offend my sensibilities that much I was fine with (Star Trek VI, Dances with Wolves SE with the Extended Cut only, etc.)
 

Sean Richardson

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
192

For whatever it's worth, the theatrical cut of 'Dances With Wolves' is available on OOP DVDs; I believe it has a completely different commentary track. I once read a quote from Costner where he said that the US theatrical was his preferred cut, and he was surprised the extended was released (though I don't know if that makes sense, or jibes with what he said at the time). It's pretty cheap on Ebay, either a one- or a two-disc release.
 

Brandon Conway

captveg
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
9,623
Location
North Hollywood, CA
Real Name
Brandon Conway
Yeah Sean, I know about the older DwW disc. I just feel fine watching the Extended Cut whenever I sit down to watch the film, so I don't mind not having the theatrical cut. It's one of those films where I recognize it has less solid pacing than the theatrical version, but I enjoy the new scenes with those characters too much to care.

Thanks for the head up, though. :)
 

Patrick McCart

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 16, 2001
Messages
8,196
Location
Georgia (the state)
Real Name
Patrick McCart
If Coppola and Storaro say 2:1 is better for home viewing, I'm fine with that. They're qualified!

It really is level compromise between framing and resolution, anyways.


I inherited the Redux disc from my late stepfather, but I'll jump on this. Coppola's commentaries for the Godfather films are great.
 

Dick

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 22, 1999
Messages
9,913
Real Name
Rick

Yes, they are. These two gentlemen, who so carefully framed their quite magnificent movie in 2.35:1 and utilized their image area to the max are indeed "qualified" to turn around and tell their video-buying public that it is now okay to see characters cut in half on extreme sides of the frame (as happens numerous times when seen at 2.1) making their film resemble nothing more than a wider-than-usual but nonetheless cropped, sloppy and distracting t.v. print.

I for one have no desire to re-purchase this title unless it is presented correctly for once. I think Coppola and Storraro will be shooting themselves in the foot if they don't offer the proper OAR on this after two compromised DVD releases, as there are MANY like me, I'd wager, who feel the same way.
 

Patrick McCart

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 16, 2001
Messages
8,196
Location
Georgia (the state)
Real Name
Patrick McCart

You don't understand the reasoning, though. They want the best compromise between framing and resolution. By cropping to 2:1, they lose some image, but gain resolution. Putting films on video is already a compromise, so it makes sense.

A 2.35:1 film takes up about 360 lines of the 480 NTSC offers for resolution on DVD. 16x9 enhanced, of course. About 1/4 of the total available resolution is used for the letterboxing bars. In comparision, a 2:1 film would use about 425 lines out of 480 with only about 1/10 of the total available resolution used for letterboxing bars. Personally, I think having the full image available for 2.35:1 framing is more important, but it's clearly resolution that's more important to Storaro and Coppola. I'm glad it's the filmmakers making the decision since they have a better idea of the film's presentation.

The fact they prefer a major alteration like this shows more care for the presentation, not less.
 

Dick

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 22, 1999
Messages
9,913
Real Name
Rick

I don't disagree with that, Patrick, and I understand the loss of definition agrument. But if ever that argument needed to be retired, it is now, with standard anamorphic DVD's looking great on 16x9 televisions, and HD within a breath of penetrating the marketplace.

So, gentlemen, may we have the extreme sides of the movie back, please?
 

Peter Neski

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
1,191
Please is that dvd even 2.1?? .Its Cropped and missing the sides theres
no way thats a good thing,the 2.35:1 frame is clearly better ,and when
storaro was cropping it,he wasn't dealing with 16x9.
I saw AN over 14 times in the Theatre and both dvds aren't as good as
they should be,
 

Dick

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 22, 1999
Messages
9,913
Real Name
Rick

All I can say, Aaron, is that characters pn the sides of the frame are cut in half in a bunch of shots on all video editions, and I am sure this was not the case in the theatrical presentation. I am not at the moment in a position to list the shots or the exact moments they occur as I am in the process of moving and do not have a way to verify, but I recall quite distinctly noticing this when viewing both the original and the director's cut DVD's and it irritated me a lot.
 

Dave Simkiss

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 5, 2001
Messages
243
Location
Wales UK
Real Name
Dave Simkiss
Matthew - sorry if I've missed a previous post by yourself explaining this already, but these grabs are taken from...?

Are these grabs from a 2.35 laserdisc or print of AN, with highlights to show where the DVD's crop?
 

Matthew Marino

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Apr 24, 2003
Messages
185
Oh, sorry. All those grabs are from the Redux DVD. The more colorful part is obviously from the feature. The full 2.35 shots in the back are from the provided Redux theatrical trailer. I basically layed the cropped version on top of the full frame and tried to match them the best I could. The trailer on the theatrical cut isn't at the full aspect ratio so this is all I have to work with. I may have a few more to add.
 

Aaron Reynolds

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 6, 2001
Messages
1,715
Location
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Real Name
Aaron Reynolds
I agree that the 2:1 framing is too tight -- what I'm saying is that the framing of the original, intended theatrical presentation, the 70mm six track presentation, is the correct and intended one. Either that, or the film was made by idiots.

Now, if we can find a properly full-frame source print and do this same comparison but with 2.2:1 as the highlight AR instead of 2:1, that would be a good example. Also, the 2.2:1 should be a steady, unmoving area. I don't know the vagaries of printing from 35mm anamorphic up to 70mm, so I don't know where the crop would be made.

Also, the examples of composition are only good in shots where the camera is not moving -- when moving, characters come and go on and off the screen all the time. That boat shot, which I seem to remember is moving forwards towards the group on boats, is a good example -- you can't always have perfect composition in a moving shot.

I've never bought this title on DVD -- the old laserdisc with the warning label on the back about the extreme dynamic range of the PCM track has always been one of my favourite sound demos, and I really wouldn't feel right replacing it with something that has an inferior sound format.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,810
Messages
5,123,578
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top