The DVD of Stephen King's "IT" Should Have Been Prefaced With "SH"--DO NOT BUY I (1 Viewer)

[Ric Easton]

Its very disappointing to hear about these edits. I was looking forward to the DVD for quite some time. I guess I will be hanging on to my LD.

- Ric

 

[Kenneth Cummings]

Dang, reading this thread, I wonder if you guys are worst then the people at Wal-Mart with all the complaints about the DVD. I find it not a bad idea, as when HDTV takes over, it not be smash to pieces. Granted, it a strange thing to remove minor scenes that lead into the second half. Besides, Warner made this release for us and you don't like it *sigh*. Now I wonder why Ron said the studios don't listen to us more.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I find it not a bad idea, as when HDTV takes over, it not be smash to pieces.

DJ

 

[Matt Stone]

I echo that, Damin.

 

[Ric Easton]

What he said!

(I think!)

- Ric

 

[Travis Brashear]

Originally posted by Kenneth Cummings:
I find it not a bad idea, as when HDTV takes over, it not be smash to pieces.
Okay, I'm gonna take a brave crack at this--I think he means he prefers the letterboxing because, when HDTV arrives, his screen won't show the movie "smash(ed) to pieces" by sticking black bars on the sides to retain a 1.33:1 ratio...did I win?

 

[RaulR]

Now I wonder why Ron said the studios don't listen to us more.

NOW you wonder?

 

[Steve Phillips]

Yeah, how dare us ask IMPOSSIBLE things like releasing a movie unedited and in the original aspect ratio. The nerve of the internet community....
I find it really strange how people who are so upset by panning and scanning a widescreen film will defend to their last breath the practice of cropping old TV shows and TV movies. Oh, and so a few scenes are cut out? Don't dare complain! Just be sheep and give the studios your $$$.
WHY? I can tape edited MAR crap off TBS!
I guess it would be OK if FOX cut a half hour out of all the STAR WARS films, right?

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Unfortunately, when HDTV does become the norm, most 4:3 material will be presented cropped (regardless of composition).
Me, I'd rather watch in OAR, even if to some people it means they be smash to pieces.

I find it really strange how people who are so upset by panning and scanning a widescreen film will defend to their last breath the practice of cropping old TV shows and TV movies.

There's a bit of a double standard...if something was originally wide and later released as 4:3, we attack, claiming that it could not ever have been intended to be shown as 4:3. When something was originally 4:3 and later released wide, we assume the director planned it that way from the very beginning. :rolleyes
If Spielberg releases Duel in 16:9 only, we say that he was probably planning on that framing from the beginning. Well, Chris Columbus was definitely planning on 4:3 for Harry Potter from the beginning, but if the only DVD were in 4:3 he would get death threats, possibly a couple from our own members.
I personally believe that a lot of us want to fill our wide screens and we model our rationale to fit that desire.
There is no evidence so far to indicate that IT was composed with widescreen in mind, for overseas theatrical release or any other purpose.
To those who say that 'as far as we know' It was composed to be released wide; well, as far as I know, Snow Dogs was composed to be released 4:3.

 

[Brett C]

It sucks about IT being matted and cut,Though in regards to Duel it indeed did play in cinemas outside of the US.So I would prefer it matted myself..

 

[Steve Phillips]

Just because something shot and intended to be most widely seen on TV played somewhere in the world theatrically matted once is not a justification to crop it for widescreen TV.

Several 2 part episodes of the 60s spy series THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E. were released as features in Europe. Does that mean that MGM should release these shows on DVD in cropped form? NO. It wouldn't be the OAR. It would look terrible. EVEN if the director might have had an inkling when making a particular 2 parter that these limited theatrical showings might occur, the show was going to be mainly seen in the US on TV, and was most likely composed to look best that way..the main market after all, was US TV in 1964-68.

Why do you all assume they shot it to look BEST when cropped? Since 99% of the audience was going to see it on TV, why not accept the possibility that it looks best that way, and that the cropped version might be the more compromised one?

I read a lot of stuff about J6P here and their "fill my screen at all costs" mentality. Frankly, a new breed of HDTV J6Ps has been born. Now we are starting to see who REALLY cares about OAR.

I have a 16X9 set and want to watch 4X3 material in 4X3. If I didn't, I could use my remote to crop and stretch.

 

[Andre Bijelic]

I simply don't understand the OAR double standard.

Why is it that when a widescreen film is cropped, everyone screams bloody murder and trots out the old "you wouldn't cut the sides off the Mona Lisa, now would you?" argument. Yet lop the top and bottom of a 4:3 presentation to fill your 16:9 sets and that's somehow okay with many of you.

Why is it acceptable to crop the top and bottom of the Mona Lisa?

 

[Matt Stone]

It's not...that is unless the director crops it. For example, look at The Evil Dead. There are two approved transfers, one is a non-matted 4x3 transfer, and the other is a matted 16x9 transfer. Raimi approved both, so I don't have a problem with it. If the studio released the cropped version without first consulting (or involving) the director (or DP, etc)...then I have a problem.

 

[Steve Schaffer]

Warner may not even understand the anger over this.

We consistently demand OAR, and in most cases this means widescreen for almost all movies. Maybe when we said OAR, they heard "widescreen" and gave it to us.

A huge campaign to get IT in 4/3 is only going to confuse them and possibly damage the cause for getting widescreen on stuff that originated as widescreen.
They'll mistake a demand for 4/3 IT as a demand for 4/3 everything.

 

[Mike_Richardson]

Steve Phillips wrote:
Just because something shot and intended to be most widely seen on TV played somewhere in the world theatrically matted once is not a justification to crop it for widescreen TV.
Amen! I have tried to stay out of this argument but the bottom line is that there seems to be an amazing double standard going on here.
I know SALEM'S LOT was filmed with a European theatrical release in mind, but I think people are making a huge assumption that these TV mini-series Warner is now matting for 16:9 DVDs were ALL shot for "european theatrical exhibition." For example, I have a hard time believing that:
THE BOURNE IDENTITY (1988)
V: THE MINI-SERIES
V: THE FINAL BATTLE
and
IT
were *ALL* shot with a possible European theatrical release in mind. That's simply speculation (And even if they WERE, why do you think 1.85 would even be the proper aspect ratio? These were not European movies being shown on American TV -- they're American TV mini-series, first and foremost!)
The facts are this: these were all shot for AMERICAN TELEVISION, and that was their primary audience in any event. In 1982, 1984, 1988, and 1990, there was no such thing as 16:9 widescreen. I can't believe someone knowingly shooting a U.S. TV mini-series in 1984 would care much about 1.85 exhibition.
What Warner is doing on these DVDs is just as much of an abomination as a 2.35 film being cropped to 1.33 -- it is distorting the original framing and exhibition. You needn't be a "purist" to understand that.
As far as director intent goes, how do we really know if Tommy Lee Wallace signed off on IT? I mean, Warner will do whatever they want (no offense to Mr. Wallace, but he's not exactly Spielberg or Scorsese and I have a hard time believing his involvement in the IT DVD was integral to its release). Knowing that some directors record audio commentaries while watching VHS tapes at their homes, who knows what the director was REALLY watching while recording the IT commentary?
As far as the IT DVD goes, the fact that it's cut makes it even more deplorable. Too bad, too, because the commentary was a nice addition. I'm just glad I still have the laserdisc!

 

[Damin J Toell]

V: THE MINI-SERIES

There's absolutely no confusion as to the director's preferred AR for this: he wants it in widescreen.

DJ

 

[Tom Oh]

I am in agreement with Mike Richardson. I saw Bourne Identity (!988) on DVD and the cropping butchers the film. There are many close-ups in this mini. On DVD, mant shots have top of characters heads cropped off. In Paris scene, the top of Eiffel Tower is cut. You can't tell me these were director's intentions. It really bothered me watcing this DVD I'm guessing that it's same with "IT" This is just as bad as pan & scan. I'll call it "Crop & chop"

 

[David Lambert]

There's absolutely no confusion as to the director's preferred AR for this: he wants it in widescreen.

Nor is there any confusion that this was originally filmed with thoughts of a European theater release in mind. That's been documented from the 80's, and somewhere I have an issue of Starlog magazine that mentions this.

The rest I agree perfectly with, though.

 

[Bingo]

Wouldn't it be nice if someone had Tommy Lee Wallace's email address and could just ask him?

 

[Jordan_E]

To me, IT looks nicely framed, and I have seen it on TV plenty of times in the past. Are we going to go through this again when Stephen King's THE SHINING comes out later?