Remo Williams DVD - MGM screws up BIG TIME! (2 Viewers)

[Dave Scarpa]

Well God Forgive me I bought it, only $9.99 Guess I'll see how the zoom mode is on my set.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Please, Gary, read up on open matte before embarrassing yourself further.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Guys,

This is the last time I will make this warning.

Since you guys can't debate this issue without
throwing insults at each other, I am going to
insist this debate cease.

I see one more insult, I am going to remove the
member responsible for it.

This thread has gone way off course from its
original intent.

 

[Luis S]

Maybe MGM will see this thread and realize Remo has got some very passionate fans and then they'd release an anamorphic version to please us. I know,not likely but I can dream cant I.....

Later,

Luis S

 

[Oliver Kopp]

Thank you Gary for the picture comparison. I wasn't going to buy this, although I love the movie and waited for a release as long as the rest of you, because it was supposed to be a P&S Fullscreen release.
But now I just ordered it. The way I see it there is no loss of picture. They just "removed the black bars". It may not be the theatrical OAR but it isn't a butchering like other P&S releases, too.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Yeah there's no reason to sling insults anyways everyone is entitled to their Movie Opinion, no one is right and no one is wrong... they just are.....


How Deep was that?

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Thank you Gary for the picture comparison. I wasn't going to buy this, although I love the movie and waited for a release as long as the rest of you, because it was supposed to be a P&S Fullscreen release.

Oliver, that's how I feel too. While I agree with and appreciate the efforts of OAR (mission-statement and all that), I can grudgingly accept an open-matted MAR much sooner than I could ever accept a true Pan and Scan MAR. Mine's on order as well.

Or another way I look at it, what's my alternative? To stay with just my Full Frame VHS copy which is much lower quality audio and video and susceptible to all the problems of tape.

 

[Gary Tooze]

If you guys can talk civilly I would love to continue this discussion.

So you think he was framing 2 films ? One at 1.33 and one at 1.85 ?

Framing is a HUGE portion of a director’s job.... and many are often known for their detail in this area ( Kurosawa, Antonioni... ). It is a precise science to directors.

If he was only framing at 1.85 wouldn't you expect encumbrances at the top and bottom of the frame?

When they do have those items in the frame, they usually zoom in to accommodate removing them. This was not done on this DVD... and to me the composition seems much more proper at 1.33... of course, I have seen both versions. I am aware of your points though... thanks.

For what it's worth, the IMDB lists the film as having a 1.85:1 AR.

... well we all know the validity of Imdb ... but what they might be saying is this is how it was shown in the theater... which does not infer that it was how it was framed by the director. I contend that it was cut for the theater AFTER the fact... and Guy Hamilton was not part of the cropping. It was done by an external party ( most likely an anonymous telecine operator ). The balance of cropping is variable from the top and bottom. Someone made these decisions. I think someone other than the director messed with this film to put it in the theater.

I think understanding framing and its integral importance in creating a motion picture would help out a lot here.

I understand how 1.85 films are made. Thanks. I just don't think this was the case in Remo Willaims. In "Anatomy of a Murder", the decision to show this theatrically was made AFTER the film was completed. Could this have been the case here? is it possible?

Regards,

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Gary If I zoom this baby on My Widescreen set am I losing alot ?

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

If he was only framing at 1.85 wouldn't you expect encumbrances at the top and bottom of the frame?

No -- it is someone's job to look out for that, because the film will eventually end up on TV and video. If you pick a pile of random, open matte transfers on DVD and watch them, I doubt very highly that you will ever see a boom mic or dolly tracks or cables. This does not prove that each and every one of those films were composed for 1.33 and then cropped by someone else for theatrical release.

You've noted that the extra area above and below seems to vary -- this I would take as a sign of a shot that has been zoomed to avoid a piece of equipment, or (just as likely) to make the composition for 1.33 look better.

Here's a big question: if Guy Hamilton was shooting for 1.33, why did he have extraneous information at the sides of the frame rather than using the whole frame and obtaining better resolution?

As to whether or not the film was intended for theatrical release, the end credits should give some clues as to who financed the film. Also, often (but not always) end credits have little tags telling you whose film stock the release prints were done on, and by what lab, though I suppose the credits would have been made after the decision to release the film to theatres.

By the way, I do also agree that an open matte transfer is less objectionable than a pan-and-scan transfer, and if the image quality is better, I too would prefer the open matte version.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Gary If I zoom this baby on My Widescreen set am I losing alot ?

Not Gary, but he pointed out that the headroom changes from shot to shot, so how much you'd be losing would vary from shot to shot.

 

[Randy A Salas]

JACK MATHEWS
Times Staff Writer
18 October 1985
Los Angeles Times

...
But there's a hardness about his look and a softness about his attitude that make Fred Ward, who plays the title role in "Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins," the most interesting action star to emerge from the movies this year.

The question is: Will enough people see his performance to convince Orion Pictures to let the adventure continue?

"It's too early to make a decision (on a sequel)," says Mike Medavoy, head of production for Orion. "We'll have to watch and see how it does for a while."

"Remo Williams," the first in what Orion had hoped would be a series of films based on the "Destroyer" paperback books, opened Friday to hot reviews but cool box-office business. In its first four days, it grossed only $3.4 million in 1,170 theaters.
...
Orion has been blunt about its intentions for Remo. The studio, run by the same people who launched James Bond at United Artists, set out to create a red, white and blue-collar Bond, a new American hero who might be trotted out every other year or so to deliver some predictable box-office punch.

English director Guy Hamilton, responsible for some of the earliest and best Bond movies ("Goldfinger," "Live and Let Die"), and former Bond writer Christopher Wood ("Moonraker"), were signed for the first Remo movie, with options for a second.

If Remo ends with "The Adventure Begins," it won't be their fault. Hamilton and Wood, downplaying the violence and uplifting the humor, have delivered a welcome and breezy alternative to the mayhem and genocide of "Rambo" and "Commando."
...

Dick Clark was one of the producers of Remo Williams, and many articles refer to the movie as his first foray into motion pictures.

Remo Williams clearly was filmed for theatrical exhibition.

 

[Malcolm R]

In the screenshot you presented, I much prefer the composition of the WS frame as it gets your attention on the character. In the FS version, he's just a little guy in a big room. His presence is being overpowered by lots of windows and empty floor space.

I'll say it again: More isn't always better.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

The producers have optioned all of the 65 "Destroyer" novels

Oh, that had to hurt. Ow. Ow, ow and ow.

 

[Aryn Leroux]

It would be great after all these years if they decided to continue the adventure. c'mon in the day and age of sequels can't we get another remo ? .. probably no shot though.

 

[Gary Tooze]

Gary If I zoom this baby on My Widescreen set am I losing alot ?

Depends on how much you zoom... but probaly no more than when you watch a DVD cropped from 1.85 to be anamorphic at 1.78 .. say 4% !?!

Cheers,

 

[Gary Tooze]

Thanks for the info anyway guys. You have illuminated me in some areas, but not enough to sway my opinion. Personally I find it quite objectionable to make 1.33 films into 1.85 films... and I only think a director should concentrate on one. Perhaps I am being too idealistic, but I suppose that comes from an Art Film background of cinema appreciation.

BTW, In the last captures I posted if Chiun on the floor. He is meditating and the focus should not be on him, but rather what is around him... the space for contemplation. I personally believe this looks far more appropriate in the Full screen... again though just an opinion.

Cheers,

 

[Joel C]

Reviews were "hot"? I guess it would have seemed like a novelty in the blood-soaked times of Rambo, but it sure hasn't dated well.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Personally I find it quite objectionable to make 1.33 films into 1.85 films...

Virtually *all* live-action 1.85 theatrical films are created this way since the mid-50s. The full-frame (~1.33) is exposed (and 'protected' as best as possible regarding mikes and such) but the key composition is in the 1.85 ratio and then the film is matted in theatres via the aperture plate in the projector (some directors do hard-matte the prints to 1.85). The director and cinematographer know this and the film is correctly framed at 1.85, not 1.33.

 

[Gary Tooze]

Virtually *all* live-action 1.85 theatrical films are created this way since the mid-50s. The full-frame (~1.33) is exposed (and 'protected' as best as possible regarding mikes and such) but the key composition is in the 1.85 ratio and then the film is matted in theatres via the aperture plate in the projector (some directors do hard-matte the prints to 1.85). The director and cinematographer know this and the film is correctly framed at 1.85, not 1.33.

Is this a North American thing Peter ? I have never heard of any directors film productions throught the world using this technique. And...

is the matte balanced (equal on both ends), for those that don't hard matte, or is it flexible... so who determines it if the director is not , say, in the projection booth ?

Regards,