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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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,
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.
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.
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.