New Matilda SE DVD in Full Screen Only! (Sign the Petition) (1 Viewer)

[Nick Graham]

On another note, I think some of these full screen reissues
are being done just for the bargain bin at Wal-Mart and other like-minded stores (the only place I've seen them is the 5.88 bin at Wal-Mart)....has anyone seen if Columbia is actually discontinuing the versions that had OAR as an option?

 

[MatthewA]

About fifty dollars saved by NOT buying these fiasco releases. Considering "Annie" is in anamorphic widescreen already this is an incredible faux pas that I hope is a mistake. I think someone here predicted there would be a special edition that was P&S, like "Stuart Little." The features also look terrible. Good lord, do they think only children under 8 buy DVDs?

 

[Andrew Radke]

When I first heard they were putting "Annie" on DVD, I was thrilled. This is one of the many great movies from my childhood. But after learning today that it will not have the OAR, well, let's just say this is one title I'll definitely be passing up.

 

[Mark-W]

Bill Burns-

Of the 12 titles you mention that Columbia has done good work on, I know at least half your list are titles that came out well over a year ago or more. CTS has been terrible LATELY. They didn't always suck so bad, but their record on recent releases is not good.


Mark

 

[GlennH]

Six years into the DVD format, and CTS is worse now than they were at the beginning. I'm sorry, but there is no defense for some of the junk they're putting out. No amount of relatively "good" releases makes up for such a blatant and pervasive non-OAR strategy.

Isn't it ironic that as more and more people get widescreen TVs CTS should lean toward fullscreen? Talk about out-of-touch.

 

[Randy A Salas]

Matilda was shot in Super35 -- while its theatrical and proper ratio is 2.39:1, this means a fullscreen presentation may still be, for the most part, an open matte transfer with minimal frame trims,

The current disc is definitely cropped/pan and scan. I'd be surprised if CTHE redid the transfer to an open-matte presentation for the special edition.

 

[Bill Burns]

Mark wrote:

.

That doesn't follow, Mark. If half the title are old, half are new, and all are excellent, then my list shows a consistent level of quality.

In point of fact ... let's see ... 14 of the films mentioned in my post (counting those in both the list and the body of the text) came out more than a year ago, I believe. But I named several excellent recent releases in the broad group we call "classics" (excellent by my own experience -- Pennies From Heaven -- and perhaps more accurately "very good" by the experience of others -- Cover Girl, You'll Never Get Rich, etc.), and didn't touch on the many very fine modern releases that continue to hit the market.

My point is that their ratio of good to bad can be swung either way by a limited list of titles important to any one customer. If Matilda and Annie and, say, The Apu Trilogy (two of which aren't out, and the other I haven't seen) are your favorite films, then Columbia Tristar is "the worst DVD provider on the planet" (I can't speak to those Martian DVD companies). If, however, you look at any other random group of titles, you might just as easily conclude that they're the best DVD provider on the planet. If you consider the full breadth of their commitment to DVD, the pioneering trails (including a dedication to high def downconversions) they blazed from day one, their growing list of classic titles (most of which are very well presented, some of which are outstanding), and the majority of modern film releases to disc from the company, it seems clear that one will conclude they're a very good to excellent presence on the format -- not without fault, as I explained with the EE trouble and as others have mentioned with OAR releases and inconsistent regular release/Superbit policies, but out of touch (to borrow from Glenn)? With whom? Annie fans? HT owners who will find EE the most irksome? Folks who bought the Starship Troopers 2-disc edition five hours before the Superbit was announced (I nearly qualify)? Sure, maybe. The DVD public as a whole? Probably not. Classic fans who look at their entire catalogue? Almost certainly not.

Look, in at least three active threads by my count, folks are intent on bashing this studio (sometimes in tandem with jabs at Universal, a company also doing some great classic work of late). With the use of name calling, sarcasm, and dismissive (rather than supportive and constructive) criticism, those who engage the issue thusly ensure only two things: one, that the studio will never read nor care about the thread in question, and two, that meaningful debate becomes impossible.

That's all I have to add on the subject. I'm off to enjoy a few Columbia DVDs, much like Bruce before me. As all of you were.

UPDATE: Randy just posted. I'm sorry to hear the current edition, and thus probably the SE, is P&S -- if a fullscreen version is done for the kiddos, it should always be open matte to whatever extent the elements allow.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

The new Annie SE is getting the shaft as well. Can someone start a petition for that one as well?


All this time I've waited for *both* these titles to be done right (5.1 DTS for Annie!!! and OAR for Matilda) and we get this!!!

 

[MatthewA]

Bill, it's not just two discs. There have been a number of problems with this studio's output of late. There's the TV discs:

All in the Family season 1: Poor picture quality (though it always looked pretty dreary, IMO)
Sanford and Son seasons 2 and 3: one cut episode on each
Soap season 1: Two cut episodes
The Larry Sanders Show season 1: Poor picture quality
Married with Children season 1: Poor picture quality, logo plastering (the latter is a minor quabble compared to the others, but I am still bothered by it)

Also:

Casey's Shadow (another Panavision film released only in P&S)

There are more but I need to get to something else.

Yes they are capable of great discs, but they seem to be working at a fraction of their potential.

 

[todd s]

Randy,

Any chance with your press credentials you can contact Danny Devito? He was the producer of the movie along with appearing in it. Maybe, he has some influence.

 

[BruceKimmel]

Well, MatthewA, what would you have Columbia do, reshoot All in the Family? Because, that's what the TAPE elements look like. If that doesn't please you, then blame the elements not the transfers. It wouldn't matter if Criterion, Universal, Disny, MGM/UA or whoever would have put out All in the Family - it would look exactly like it looks - hence, to blame the studio for the shortcomings of TAPE elements is rather foolhardy and agenda-laden, in my opinion. But you go ahead and bash Columbia - I'm watching their excellent transfer of Platinum Blonde - which, for a film made in 1931, looks pretty damned swell.

 

[Chris_Morris]

Well, MatthewA, what would you have Columbia do, reshoot All in the Family? Because, that's what the TAPE elements look like. If that doesn't please you, then blame the elements not the transfers. It wouldn't matter if Criterion, Universal, Disny, MGM/UA or whoever would have put out All in the Family - it would look exactly like it looks - hence, to blame the studio for the shortcomings of TAPE elements is rather foolhardy and agenda-laden, in my opinion.

Have you actually seen the tape elements? From your above posts, it seems you don't like people commenting on things they haven't seen, so I would assume that you have seen the tape elements, no?

As for MwC, there is no excuse that an episode would look better on a 'best-of' than it does on the season set. Blame that one on bad management and over-compression. No reason why it couldn't have been a three disc set.


Chris

 

[Randy A Salas]

Randy,

Any chance with your press credentials you can contact Danny Devito? He was the producer of the movie along with appearing in it. Maybe, he has some influence

Unfortunately, I've never talked to him and wouldn't have the time to track him down.

Incidentally, he also directed the film. So one assumes that he's already aware of what's happening with it on DVD.

 

[MatthewA]

Bruce, I own the aforementioned DVD and didn't expect Glorious Technicolor from a 30-year-old videotaped sitcom. The 2nd season has better quality. The picture quality was very poor on disc 3, because they crammed 5 episodes onto a single-layer disc. Not a good idea. Type in the name of the show in the search engine and you'll see what we think.

 

[John Berggren]

187

This is one of 2 PS DVDs in my library, and I want it replaced.

 

[Nick Graham]

Bruce, not trying to start a flame-a-thon here, and I mean no disrespect in any way, but are you employed by Columbia or one of their corporate siblings?

 

[BruceKimmel]

First off, yes I've seen the TAPE elements of many early seventies TV shows at CBS, and they look like what they look like. Some have weathered better than others, but obviously the best-looking TV shows from that era are film-based. Compression is a whole other issue, of course - I've only watched the first disc of season one.

Nick: No, I am not employed by Columbia or one of their coporate siblings. I simply enjoy much of their product and am grateful that someone would care enough to put out a terrific anamorphic transfer of a film like The Swimmer. Like all studios, they err occasionally. I defend Paramount just as much.

I think people have become unreasonable in their expectations - some things do not have good elements, so the choice is do you want the release or not? It's really that simple. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. You CAN make the sow's ear look as good as possible, though, and I am constantly amazed at what really good telecine engineers can do (believe me, THAT I have first-hand knowledge of because if you'd seen what we had to work with for a little movie I had something to do with you'd know just what miracles can be wrought).

But tape is a whole different story.

 

[Joshua Clinard]

I just called that new number, and it does allow voicemail. I left my comments, voicing my displeasure. We'll see if anyone calls back. Has anyone else called?

 

[Joshua Clinard]

I just got off the phone with a represenative from the publicity department at Columbia Tristar. She gave me a new number to call, directed to Allen Furman. I haven't called the new number yet, but I will do so tomorrow. If anyone else calls, report back here what happens. Thanks.

The new number is: 800-860-2878 .

And any of you guys that have DVD sites, please get the word out about this petition, and enourage your visitors to call CT and make thier wishes known. I have already e-mailed the Bits, DVDFile, and DavisDVD.

 

[Joshua Clinard]

Come on people! We need more than 209 signatures. Please sign the petition, even if you don't like the movie. All movies deserve to be released in Widescreen. I know several hundred people that signed the Wonka petition didn't even plan on buying the movie. Why can't you show the same respect for this movie? Every person here should sign the petition, if they believe in the forum mission statement! So go sign it, and call the number in my signature and tell the studio you want Matilda and Annie in Widescreen!