OAR of Trouble With Angels? (1 Viewer)

[Brian McHale]

I think we all agree that OAR is best. I think what get's some of us riled up is when someone claims that open matte is just as bad as pan 'n' scan. To me, this is somewhat like saying that shoplifting is just as bad as murder. They may both be crimes, but one is much worse than the other.

I recently broke down and bought Grumpy Old Men when I found it in the $7.88 bin at Wal-Mart. I knew this was open matte, but the price was low enough that I thought it was worth the shot.

When we watched it, I treated it like a non-anamorphic widescreen disc (used same zoom mode). And guess what? On my 42" 16x9 set, not only did the framing look correct, but the transfer actually looked good.

Would I have rather had an anamorphic OAR presentation? Yes. But I still got to watch a movie I enjoy in OAR.

I would like to own Matilda. But pan 'n' scan ruins 2.35:1 movies, so I wouldn't buy that at $5!

In conclusion, I am a staunch OAR fan, but in dialog/character driven (in other words, no special effects) open matte presentations, I can still achieve OAR. With p&s I can't. So please, don't tell me that open matte is just as bad as pan 'n' scan.

Just remember, they're both crimes, but one is much worse.

 

[Jefferson]

Yes, this is a disappointment.

But...
Not buying the title, would seem to send
a message that the film ITSELF is of little interest,
which we fans know is not the case.

Also...not buying it leaves me with my old
faded vhs copy.
hmmmmmmm.......:frowning:

Turner Classic Movies shows it letterboxed,
I suppose i could tape that one
and hope nothing happens to it.
But i will probably buy the dvd.

 

[Mattias_ka]

Brian McHale, Yes, this is what I mean.

 

[Julian Lalor]

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

My comment was directed to the fact that this forum is a stong and unbending advocate of OAR, regardless of the manner in which the film was shot.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

In addition to being P&S (I doubt that it's open matte since there's important screen information at times all the way to both the top & bottom), it's a bad transfer loaded with edge enhancement and video artifacts. Nasty sound too, with boomy effects and bass and lots of hiss and noise. Columbia should be ashamed to release this beloved movie in such ratty shape.

 

[JayF]

I emailed Columbia/Sony about whether or not a widescreen version of TWA would be released and this is the reply I received...

"It could be released this year, but we don't have release dates yet. To be notified when it is available please register for our Sony Pictures Network newsletter which will give you upcoming release dates for our DVD & Home Video titles."

Does this look like just a "canned" response from Columbia, or is it actually possible that a new release could happen?

As for the current 4x3 version, this thread seems to imply that it is open matte, but reading reviews on Amazon.com there are several mentions of cropping of action on the sides of the screen.

I'm totally confused about this release and whether or not to buy it.

 

[Randy A Salas]

That's a canned response.

 

[JayF]

Damn... Thanks Randy.

Well, I purchased it anyway and to be honest I don't think it looks that bad. I'm projecting onto a 106" diagonal screen and actually pleasantly surprised.