OAR of Trouble With Angels?

Discussion in 'DVD' started by Brian W, Nov 12, 2003.

  1. Brian W

    Brian W Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2000
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  2. Rob Ray

    Rob Ray Agent

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  3. Brian W

    Brian W Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2000
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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...
     
  4. Julian Lalor

    Julian Lalor Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    975
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  5. David Lambert

    David Lambert Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2001
    Messages:
    11,380
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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]
     
  6. Mattias_ka

    Mattias_ka Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  7. Mike_Richardson

    Mike_Richardson Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2002
    Messages:
    639
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  8. Julian Lalor

    Julian Lalor Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    975
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  9. Robert Ringwald

    Robert Ringwald Cinematographer

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,641
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  10. Paul_Scott

    Paul_Scott Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Messages:
    6,546
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  11. David Lambert

    David Lambert Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2001
    Messages:
    11,380
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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. [​IMG]
     
  12. Paul_Scott

    Paul_Scott Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Messages:
    6,546
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  13. Julian Lalor

    Julian Lalor Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    975
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  14. Paul_Scott

    Paul_Scott Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Messages:
    6,546
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  15. Julian Lalor

    Julian Lalor Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    975
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  16. Mattias_ka

    Mattias_ka Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  17. Randy A Salas

    Randy A Salas Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,348
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  18. Mattias_ka

    Mattias_ka Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  19. TedD

    TedD Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2001
    Messages:
    698
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  20. Mattias_ka

    Mattias_ka Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     

Share This Page