OAR of Trouble With Angels? (1 Viewer)

[Brian W]

Went to pick this up yesterday. I'm sure this must have been widescreen (1966 release), DVD box has 1.33:1. Is this the original OAR or did they do a full frame only? Open matte maybe? Wouldn't this be unusual for Columbia (classics) releases? Always anamorphic OAR from the early days of DVD in my collection.

Appreciate any help so I can evaluate this purchase, great movie, hope they didn't give this just a wham bam transfer.

 

[Rob Ray]

It's open matte. While I would prefer OAR of course, there's no harm done on this title. I've saw the film theatrically in 1966 and again last year at UCLA and I've owned the full-framed laserdisc for years. It plays fine in full-frame.

By the way, it's never looked or sounded better on home video. But judging by the full-frame transfer and the choice of trailers included, Columbia is clueless about the quality of this underrated film.

 

[Brian W]

Rob-
Relief that it open matte anyway... and that the quality is good as you say. Can always scale it, thanks for the good news, I will pick it up today...

 

[Julian Lalor]

While I would prefer OAR of course, there's no harm done on this title.

Actually, there is. It isn't in its OAR. Buying this DVD is no better than buying a P&S version of Matilda or Annie and only encourages Columbia to continue this practice with family oriented films. As much as I like the film I, for one, won't touch this DVD with a barge pole. Hopefully this will be rectified in the R2 version, as with a number of other Columbia DVDs.

 

[David Lambert]

Agreeing with Julian here. Not to mention that it's horribly overpriced. Still, I'd pay it if it was in widescreen.

[c]NO OAR = NO SALE![/c]

 

[Mattias_ka]

Actually, there is. It isn't in its OAR. Buying this DVD is no better than buying a P&S version of Matilda or Annie and only encourages Columbia to continue this practice with family oriented films. As much as I like the film I, for one, won't touch this DVD with a barge pole. Hopefully this will be rectified in the R2 version, as with a number of other Columbia DVDs.

If it's a good transfer in open matte NO PICTURE INFO WILL BE LOST. Ok, you will have too much picture info, but you can do your own matte with the TV-set. This is NOT anywhere close to a P&S, where you MISS picture info.

 

[Mike_Richardson]

This is NOT anywhere close to a P&S, where you MISS picture info.

I agree wholeheartedly -- but most of the HTF doesn't see it that way. To a lot of users who I respectfully disagree with on here, there is NO difference between 2.35 cropped to full frame and 1.66/1.85 unmatted to full frame. A WORLD of difference in my mind...and seeing TROUBLE WITH ANGELS open matte is a hell of a lot better than not seeing it at all, for me at least.

I'd DEFINITELY recommend the OPEN MATTE DVD!

 

[Julian Lalor]

If it's a good transfer in open matte NO PICTURE INFO WILL BE LOST.

That's not the point and for someone who's been a HTF member for more than 2 years, I would have thought you'd know that.

 

[Robert Ringwald]

These are the people that stretch a movie to fit a 16:9 set...

Honestly, OAR is all that matters. We don't want more or less picture, we want the movie how it was presented in theaters.

 

[Paul_Scott]

i really do understand where Julian, Robert and David are coming from
however
if 30-40% of the base that was going to buy this title, but didn't based on its AR status- just how would that be interpreted by the studio?
i seriously doubt, unless they have comment cards in the aisle at Best Buy or Wal-Mart, that the studio would take it to be
"wow...we really need to be careful to release this stuff OAR."
i think they would find a more likely explanation to be
"these vintage family films just don't move anymore"
or "Hayley Mills films are dvd rack poison".
sorry, but if film i really liked were only released in open matte (!!not pan & scan), i would reluctantly buy it.
the odds of such a trifle of a catalog title like this getting one release, let alone a re-release just to correct its AR, isn't great to begin with.



actually, whether a title is letterboxed or not, i would recommend making some masks for any tv over 32".
it improves the viewing (in a dark room) tremendously and costs so little.
i found it to be essential to enjoying an RP.
best bang for the buck tweak you can do , imo.

 

[David Lambert]

I hope that my refraining from buying any non-OAR titles is interpreted by the studio as "OAR sells, MAR does not". Columbia has demonstrated that they don't value customer input on this issue. My dollars or lack thereof are the only power I have over the issue.

This isn't like a TV series, where buying a best-of set is interpreted by the studio as "there's interest in it, so let's release a season set". Columbia doesn't see good sales of MAR titles like "Trouble With Angels" as proof that the film is so popular that a widescreen release is additionally warranted.

In fact, good sales of a MAR DVD only leads the studios to believe that they should MAR more titles in the future.


If OAR releases from Warner, Disney, Paramount, Fox, etc. are all selling like gangbusters in the "Family" genre, and Columbia (and Universal and MGM) look at their Family genre and see sales as flat, and all their releases are MAR, then maybe they'll get the hint.


I realize that it's a small hope, but hope must start somewhere. Noone's going to convince me here that it should be okay to buy any kind of MAR release...P&S, Open Matte, Tilt-and-Scan, whatever. In the end, I don't have to spend my money on a product I'll be unsatisfied with...like an overpriced MAR copy of The Trouble With Angels.

 

[Paul_Scott]

its obvious that Columbia has gone backwards (i would trace the gear change to around the time the superbits were first introduced).
Thank God the majority of the titles i wanted from that studio are already on disc and OAR (their stuff from the late 90's still holds up very well).

what's a real head scratcher to me is- their parent company should easily justify ALWAYS using at least a 16:9 AR (when applicable).
i assume they are producing very few tv sets in the 4:3 AR now.
bizarre.

 

[Julian Lalor]

sorry, but if film i really liked were only released in open matte (!!not pan & scan), i would reluctantly buy it.

Thereby securing that other family films from the same studio will be released pan and scan. You've no one to blame but yourself over the release of Annie in pan and scan.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Thereby securing that other family films from the same studio will be released pan and scan. You've no one to blame but yourself over the release of Annie in pan and scan.

on the other hand, if i were buying it- i could say "this will show them there is intrest in this title and the studi that repackages and triples dips even more than Universal might be inclined to release an OAR SE.
neither of us are privy to the thought processes in their dvd division, so i don't know that your framing of the situation is any more valid than what i just supposed.

Luckily for me, i have no interest in any of these titles.
i may have given Angels a shot
if it was OAR, but more importantly- if it was msrp'd $10 less.
its not just the companys asthetic sense that is askew here-
how many J6P moms & dads are going to be forking over $25 to pick up an 'unspecial' 30+ yr old catalog title for their kids?
it may be classified in blockbuster and best buy as a 'family film', but the only ones going out of their way to buy it, like Willy Wonka, are going to be the adults who've enjoyed it previously.
kids don't want moldy oldies, they want the shiny new flick they saw at the cineplex 4 months ago.
who the hell is this targeted at with a common store price over $20, when you can pick up a loaded copy of Finding Nemo for less?

i have no suggestions for anyone that is upset with this studios policies vis a vis AR.
But i seriously doubt boycotting a given release is going to be a clear message of anything other than "this title didn't sell".
a company this clearly out of touch at the moment is likely to misinterpret everything, and since they, like Universal, seem to shun feedback from venues like this forum (and ignore petitions, iirc) where is the opportunity to clarify?

you would think that looking over the weekly sales figures and seeing that OAR is outselling P&S would be enough, and you would also think that a company that is activly trying to deliver an HD optical disc standard, involved in the maufacter of 16:9 displays, and remastering many of their catalog for future dissemination in some HD format, would have some interest in providing as much 16:9 content as they could, and cutting back on the 4:3.

who knows what these clowns are thinking.

 

[Julian Lalor]

so i don't know that your framing of the situation is any more valid than what i just supposed.

From another thread comes Columbia's response to why Annie is receiving a P&S release:


"We thank you for your interest in Annie & Matilda. While we respect your opinion and your request for a widescreen version, we have based our decision to include only the fullscreen version due to a number of factors, one of which is that our research indicates that both kids and families
will enjoy the full screen version."

Research no boubt bouyed by people thinking, I'll just by the pan and scan version for this film. I'll never have to worry about the films I really like getting this treatment. Will I?

 

[Mattias_ka]

That's not the point and for someone who's been a HTF member for more than 2 years, I would have thought you'd know that.

Hope I made you understand the different between right picture info and right aspect dimensions for you.


Take care

/Mattias

 

[Randy A Salas]

BUT, a open-matte version CAN be almost as good. Why? Because you will not loose anything (if it's done right).

But it's not always done right.

And it's not just a question of matting to get the proper widescreen presentation from an open-matte presentation. You can matte it yourself to get the proper OAR, but you lose the ability to have anamorphic enhancement, which should be standard on any widescreen DVD. So there's a loss in picture quality.

It's also rare for an open-matte transfer to be truly that way for the entire movie. Some, if not many, scenes have to be zoomed or panned and scanned to eliminate things that were never intended to be seen, such as boom mikes. Movies that don't do this are often left with embarrassing goofs, such as a boom mike moving around during the famous lineup scene in The Usual Suspects or an air hose inflating Violet in Willy Wonka--both of which you can see on the full-screen DVDs.

Even if not P&S, you do lose something in an open-matte presentation: artistic integrity.

 

[Mattias_ka]

It's also rare for an open-matte transfer to be truly that way for the entire movie. Some, if not many, scenes have to be zoomed or panned and scanned to eliminate things that were never intended to be seen, such as boom mikes.

Well, no, according to a friend that works in the theater with the film and projektors, many movies are only same open-matte entire movie.

 

[TedD]

This is the open-matte version of the movie North By Northwest:

Really, really, poor example for this discussion...

"North by Northwest" is a VistaVision film and the OAR of a 35mm release VistaVision print is 1.66:1. No way this is going to fit into a DVD's 1.33:1 frame without either letterboxing, or P&S, or cropping of the sides.

It's important to realize that it is normal prectice for the telecine to zoom in a little so as to make sure that possible scratches, and other anomalies at the edge of the frame don't get transferred to the video master. Unfortunately, this practice is frequently over done, resulting in transfers like "North by Northwest" and "Ben Hur", which may have the correct AR, but do not accurately represent the original film frame's content.

And on the original subject, I will buy an open matte release of a title I absolutely must have.

I will NOT waste my money on the discretionary purchase of an open matte title, nor will I ever purchase a P&S transfer, no matter what the title is or how bad I may want to own it.

Ted

 

[Mattias_ka]

"North by Northwest" is a VistaVision film and the OAR of a 35mm release VistaVision print is 1.66:1. No way this is going to fit into a DVD's 1.33:1 frame without either letterboxing, or P&S, or cropping of the sides.

Well, I only toke the north by northwest example because I found those pictures on Widescreenmuseum.com and they fitted my needs. All I want to do it make the point about open-matte, not about NBN.

Btw, I have a question for those that don't buy a open-matte version:

Do you ALWAYS see thew movie with the ORIGINAL sound?