>>>> Spoke to Warner Rep today concerning WONKA & CATS - here is what I was told..... (1 Viewer)

[Gary Case]

I hope this lot hasn't already been said, but here goes:
As I understand it, the pan-and-scan vs. letterbox debate is fueled mainly by ignorance. Now before anyone thinks I'm being arrogant, go to your dictionary and look up the definition of ignorance. Here's what mine says: Ignorance is the condition of lacking knowledge or education. Ignorance is not something to be ashamed of or angry about. It merely describes a condition that exists in everyone who has not been educated about a particular topic. I came upon a person who was ignorant about the topic of letterboxing just last week in my office.
I was explaining to a co-worker why I was so upset about Warner's decision to release Wonka in non-OAR. She made the comment we've all heard before: "You like those black bars?I don't like it when they put them at the top and bottom of the picture, because it cuts off so much of the image." Two minutes of explanation and a few quick sketches later, she understood why those bars were there. "So that's why they're there. I always thought they were blocking out part of the image for some reason. I didn't realize that the only reason they were there was to show a rectangular picture on an almost square screen." Voila! Ignorance replaced by knowledge.
Warner and all the other movie houses could end this debate once and for all by embarking on an education campaign. Letterboxing isn't a difficult concept to understand, but it is unlikely to be understood by the average consumer unless someone explains it to them! Even the members of this forum, who are some of the most passionate movie lovers around, had it explained to them at one time or another. Who better to make this explanation to consumers than AOL/Time Warner? They are one of the biggest (if not _the_ biggest) media conglomerates in the world. They provide much of the content we see on TV, online, and at the movies. I know they're used to catering to "the average Joe" but they would probably be surprised at how much "Joe" can understand if only someone would explain it to him! A quick explanatory demonstration before TV movies and on DVDs can make a huge difference. Title it something like "Why are those black bars on my movie?". Once people see how much of the picture the are missing when the black bars aren't there, they will be shocked. Make sure to run it again after some of the commercial breaks so people who tune in after the start of the show can see the clip. NBC did something like this when they started showing ER in HD, didn't they?
I may be wrong here, but wouldn't it also make economic sense to release movies in OAR on DVD and TV? It must cost less to telecine the movies once, at the proper aspect ratio of the film, than it does to create two versions of the film. Having the colorist go back over the captured widescreen image and pan a 4:3 capture area around to make a pan and scan transfer has to cost something. After all, movies being telecined now are being captured at HD resolution for presentation on HDTV, so they are all being captured natively at their OAR.
This debate will mostly disappear when large numbers of HDTV sets are finally available in the US at a low cost. If studios persist in releasing "Family" films in pan-and-scan, they will have to contend with angry consumers wanting to know why there are grey bars at the left and right of their screen whey they watch "Willy Wonka" on their HD sets. Of course, this could be a plot to sell the movies twice. ("Willy Wonka" SE2: Now compatible with your widescreen TV!! Run out and buy it now, and throw away that old, outdated 4:3 copy!) Some explanation will have to be made for older films like "The Wizard of Oz" and others that were shot in academy standard, but there are many, many more films in distribution today that were filmed in some type of widescreen aspect ratio.
*sigh*
I hope we aren't seeing the end of the golden age of DVD, when the studios gave us beautiful OAR transfers with lush sound, directors commentaries and tons of extras. Putting a commentary by the director on a version of the movie he or she didn't approve is rather insulting, but the studios just don't care. I guess market research trumps artistic integrity.
-Gary

 

[Patrick McCart]

Gary: She was sort of right about Wonka! You really should have told her about 1.85:1 matting because only a very small percentage of 1.85:1 films require P&S for a 4:3 transfer. (mostly with CGI sequences)
I have several pieces of film at home with me and I can tell you that it's geometrically impossible for a rectangular image to be on 35mm film WITHOUT being scope or being an closed matte film.
The frame on ordinary 35mm film is about 1.37:1 and 1.85:1 films are put on the film at 1.33:1....the projector does the matting.
You don't lose a quarter of the image like a scope film (Panavision films are actually cropped by 40% approx!) would if panned and scanned.
Cats & Dogs is mostly hard matted thanks to CGI, but Wonka is 100% open matte, so you lose no image (maybe just a tiny bit because of reframing...but keep in mind that the NEW transfer doesn't have to have the exact same framing as the old transfer.)
If a movie is NOT scope or hard-matted on 35mm film, it's open matte or academy ratio. There's no exceptions unless you start going into 70mm and 65mm formats.
I said this before, but to fully understand video, you must also fully understand film first.
Look on the back of films like Air America and Pee-Wee's Big Adventure and look for the ratio box...it says "WIDESCREEN VERSION: Presented in a "matted" widescreen format preserving the aspect ratio of its original theatrical exhibition."
You're seeing how the film was meant to be seen in theaters, but keep in mind that the non-letterboxed versions of 1.85:1 films (not counting the few hard-mattes and CGI shots) is just the picture without a frame. The matted version is that plus the frame.
------------------
P.S.: There's no P.S.

 

[Sean Laughter]

You're seeing how the film was meant to be seen in theaters, but keep in mind that the non-letterboxed versions of 1.85:1 films (not counting the few hard-mattes and CGI shots) is just the picture without a frame.

And without a great deal of the available resolution if they'd do an anamorphic transfer, which is alot of the problem with the full-frame release of Wonka (aside from seeing cables going up people's pants when you're not supposed to).

 

[Mark Cappelletty]

VideoETA lists "Osmosis Jones" as being released on November 13 (!). As this is the first (not excepting "The NeverEnding Story") new WB "Family Film" to be released on DVD that was put out theatrically with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, you might want to hoof it out to the multiplex to check this out before it gets mangled by the geniuses in charge of Warners' DVD operations.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Warner do you Know how many of my 400 Discs are Pan & Scanned? Five.
And their My Wife's
You Losing alot of My income.

 

[Doug Pyle]

This Pyle family is cancelling our pre-order at Amazon.com for Willy Wonka, and replacing it with a pre-order for Shrek.
Put that in your market research.

 

[AaronMK]

P&S for 16x9 and Open Matte are just as much of a discrace to artist intergrity as P&S of a scope film.
Using the emergence of 16x9 sets as a reason not to P&S releases misses the point. That would be just like saying it would be acceptable to P&S to 16x9 and use the "P&S on the fly" feature of players to make it fill 4x3 televisions as well. This would still be P&S on both 4x3 and 16x9 sets, and would still not be representative of the film maker's coposition and intention.
Warner needs to realize that, to many people who buy many more movies than the average consumer, OAR is the only acceptable option. They should also realize that the shape of their television is almost never a factor in this preference.
------------------
My DVD's
If a movie is not available in OAR, than it might as well not be available at all.

 

[Erwin]

Does it really cost that much more to release a widescreen version of a movie? Doesn't P&S cost more since it has to be modified? Come to think of it, I don't think Warner has ever released 2 versions (WS and P/S) of a DVD. I know they release some with both versions. I really hope Warner changes it's new marketing stategy.

 

[Phong]

Thought people would like to see what Warren Lieberfarb will be getting tomorrow morning.
366 pages:

10,686 signatures:

[Edited last by Phong on August 20, 2001 at 03:46 AM]

 

[Antonio_M]

WOW!

That looks like a dictionary!

Man, I would love to see the reaction on his face!

 

[James D S]

But do the people (In Warner's nifty poll) who responded that they prefer 4x3 also report that they WILL NOT buy a widescreen presentation? I doubt it. It's us OAR pundits that are fanatical and would resort to boycotting. Why doesn't that play into Warner's bass-ackwards policy?
Widescreen release - Everybody buys.
4x3 release - Just the people who would buy the widescreen anyway.

 

[Mike Friedrich]

~ I went to Laughlin this weekend for a mini get out of town trip, and as usual I take my Apex ad600a with me to watch my dvd's[free per view] opposed to the Motels pay per view.
Anyways, I popped in on of my favorite road movies *Stand By Me SE[non anamorphic] and it accidently appeared in full screen on the set due to my previous 16:9 setting. Now since you can change formats on the fly with the ad600a, I switched back and forth a couple of times just fooling around, and I could not understand for the life of me how even J6P would want to watch a clearly poorer and missing presentation on a standard Tv set ? I mean we all talk about 16:9 sets, but the difference is so obvious even on a standard set, if only J6P's were to follow my example in reverse they might see some light beyond the black bars.
If only I could sabatoge their players to enlighten them for a couple of frames, how much in denial could they be in ?
~ But now with pan&scan only, it will only mislead J6P even further by never revealing the truth to them !
bodymov'n

------------------

 

[SteveK]

WB: P&S is readily available on VHS. P&S is about all you see on PPV channels. P&S is all you will see on "premium" movie channels like HBO. P&S is all you will see on broadcst television. Can't there be one format that OAR enthusiasts can rely upon for movies the way they're supposed to be shown?
DVD is that format, at least for most studios. If you MUST "offer" P&S, at least give us the OAR as well. Again, P&S is readily available on other formats, but DVD is about the only option for OAR. Please don't destroy that as well.
Thank you.
Steve K.
edited to correct typographical error
[Edited last by SteveK on August 20, 2001 at 07:39 AM]

 

[Gerard Priori]

So, "market research" dictates that most "families" (an abused word if ever there was one) prefer to watch their movies fullscreen to fill their 4:3 monitors. OK, fine. But, to echo some prior postings on this thread, the question remains whether or not these phantom families who prefer fullscreen movies will buy them if they are sold in widescreen editions. With the majority of us here at the HTF, no widescreen edition is a deal breaker--we won't buy a title unless it's presented in its original aspect ratio. Does your market research indicate that these every-families who prefer their movies butchered to suit the furniture won't buy the movie if the correct version is available? You know where we stand.
The market research that indicates that families like pan and scan tells us nothing except that the general public are ignorant. Rather than catering to the uneducated, wouldn't it be better if Warner Brothers took some time to educate the market about the benefits of anamorphically enhanced widescreen DVD presentations? Does Warner Brothers have any pride in their product? They aren't acting as if they do.
-Jerry
[Edited last by Gerard Priori on August 20, 2001 at 08:18 AM]

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I do not buy titles in their incorrect aspect ratio. The new releases I purchase are overwhelmingly skewed towards family films since I like to be able to watch DVDs with my daughters. I will not buy fullscreen DVDs of films that should be presented in other aspect ratios.
Correct presentation of a film is also much more important to me than any potential supplemental materials. JM Kenney appears to have assembled a wonderful assortment of extras for the Wille Wonka DVD, but I have no interest in seeing them on a disc where the film's presentation is undermined by being in the wrong aspect ratio. If WB goes the same route with the forthcoming Iron Giant SE, I will ignore it even though it was my daughter's favorite film from the studio.
Disney has had greater success with their family fare on DVD than any other studio, and they have only one title that is exclusively available in the wrong aspect ratio (A Goofy Movie). Perhaps you could learn from them, and you would not have to leave so much money on the table from people who care about films, family or otherwise.
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Willie Wonka: Was a must-have. I'm not buying it because of the lack of OAR.
Cats& Dogs: Was a must-have. I'm not buying it because of the lack of OAR.
Lord of the Rings: Was a must-have (in fact I was going to buy several because I love it so much). I'm not buying it because of the lack of OAR.
Never-ending Story: Was a must-have, now is a wait-and-see to tell whether the OAR is going to be right.
What's the pattern here, o marketing geniuses???? How much more money will Warner lose from me before they wise up???
------------------
"This movie has warped my fragile little mind."
[Edited last by Mark Zimmer on August 20, 2001 at 09:18 AM]

 

[DaViD Boulet]

My family and I enjoy watching all our DVD movies on our 16x9 display.
Disney has been providing us with some of the highest-quality 16x9 transfers of their family titles. They even give us OAR 1.66:1 titles in 16x9, which greatly increases the resolution and quality of the image on our screen. Dreamworks family DVD titles are absolute reference material, always presented in their original aspect ratio, and never cease to delight my family. We were buying widescreen (OAR) 16x9 family titles even before we had a 16x9 display.
A five minute introduction at the beginning of a DVD explaining the rationale of letterboxing with one or two side-by-side comparisons would do more for the advancement of DVD and home-theater than any survey. Be Proactive. Even the DVD of "Annie" by Columbia displays the virtues of widescreen in their menu at the beginning of the feature. When viewers are asked to choose which version they want to watch, they can clearly see the widescreen image compared right next to the "modified" image, thereby being educated as to the meaning of that phrase "modified to fit your screen".
Why can't your studio provide the quality image that other studios strive to provide to their consumers? If you feel that there is an audience that will only buy images modified to fit their 4x3 displays then please by all means provide a modified version as an added feature. But everyone should have the option to view a Warner Brothers family film in its original aspect ratio just like they do with family titles by other studios.
I have been waiting a long to to finally purchase The Never Ending Story on DVD for my family. I have passed up purchasing this title on VHS in expecation of having it available on DVD 16x9 enhanced in its original aspect ratio. I've cancelled my purchase of Willy Wonka and am now dismayed to find that your studio insists on taking away my priviledge of sharing yet another title with my family in its OAR. I will be canceling my pre-order for Never Ending Story with great sorrow.
I can understand your studio wishing to make p/s dvds available to those wishing to fill their 4x3 screens. But I cannot understand your studio not making DVDs available to those who wish to watch their favorite family titles in their original aspect ratio. DVD was designed to be about choice and about quality. You've turned it back into VHS.
Regretfully,
David Boulet
[Edited last by DaViD Boulet on August 20, 2001 at 10:27 AM]

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

I can't help but get the feeling that the snapper packaging has something to do with dictating which version is placed on the market?
If you have both versions of the movie and all of the extras then you would have to either make a flipper (which in general people hate) or a 2 disc set (which the snapper case can't handle as proven before). The only other alternative is DVD-18 which some studios don't support or have stopped doing.
As for having "Pan and Scan" only because of children... I believe Warner is short-sighted as to the fact that adults watch these movies also. True, the people at HTF are DVDphiles and J6P could care less as long as the movie is on DVD in some form or another having a VHS mindset anyway.
I personally would like to see the movies presented in their "original" formats and can't for the likes of me figure out why anyone would prefer P&S over 16x9 in the first place

Seems to me that not so long ago people despised P&S and pushed the studios away from it. Why the sudden interest in, what I consider, an obsolete format?

 

[Rod Martin]

I purchased the first release of Willy Wonka last year. Due to my laziness, I failed to put it up for sale on eBay before the general public learned of the rerelease, and the purchase price plummeted.
Boy, I am so glad I did not sell this! I will never by non-OAR and I'm keeping my disk! When you decide to release Willy Wonka correctly, I will purchase it.

 

[Edwin-S]

I have decided to throw in my two cents worth. I recently purchased the following films:
The Road Warrior
Get Carter (1971 version)
2001: A Space Odyssey
Batman: Mask of the Phantasm
They are all titles put out by your company and they all have one thing in common....they are in their OAR. The reason being because first I check for this...OAR....then this...enhanced for 16x9 or anamorphic(where applicable)because I intend to purchase, in the near future, this
.
.
.
a W I D E S C R E E N television.
I saw "Cats and Dogs" at the theatre. It was silly and outlandish. I got a good laugh out of it because it was something not too many modern comedies are....funny with out being completely gross. I was intending to get it until I found out this....it will be P&S only. I will not be doing this.....purchasing it.
I sincerely hope your P&S policy for family titles gets changed because I am still waiting for this film....."Watership Down". If it comes out in Pan and Scan, I will be waiting for a long time to come.
------------------