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

[Matt Rexer]

I am so angry about this, I immediately cancelled my amazon.com order and bought the old LD instead. "Tilt & scan" is only going to get worse as more widescreen sets are sold. ETA for 16:9 Citizen Kane: 5 years.

I completely agree with Steve Schaffer about this. And, I think some of the "widescreen advocates" around these parts are partially to blame. "Wider is better," "Widescreen Now!" and other, assorted signatures/battle cries aren't really very sensible. Sometimes wider isn't better. All of these demands for "widescreen only" confuse J6Ps and studios alike, I feel. This is exactly why the term OAR is so useful, and should be used instead of "widescreen" in anyone's sig/petition/whatever.

 

[Mike_Richardson]

What's also being lost with the discussion of IT is that it's also inexplicably CUT from its original broadcast and video release. This makes this release a wash right there, on those grounds alone.
Back to the whole aspect ratio debate:
I stand corrected on V: THE ORIGINAL. In fact it does add some picture area on the sides so I can see where Mr. Johnson was coming from on that.
Otherwise, those other examples I stand behind as having no intention of ever being shown in 1.85...THE BOURNE IDENTITY and V: THE FINAL BATTLE in particular look cramped and especially uncomfortable.
To me, IT looks nicely framed, and I have seen it on TV plenty of times in the past.
I have to disagree and say it looks a bit cramped to me. The side-by-side I did with the LD shows there's nothing being added to the sides at all.
Wouldn't it be nice if someone had Tommy Lee Wallace's email address and could just ask him?
Agreed as well. (Though, why not also ask the D.P. as to which aspect ratio he preferred? There are times when it's not just the director's discretion on this issue).
If this was only a situation where one or two mini-series was being matted to 1.85 (like V: THE ORIGINAL MINI-SERIES), I don't think this would be such a big deal. It's when a handful of these shows -- some 15-20 years old -- are being 16:9 enhanced that the red flag is raised.
As far as THE SHINING goes, that's a recent mini-series that may have well been shot for 1.85/16:9...but if it was composed for 4:3, then it should be 4:3.
Some of us just want these shows on DVD in the proper aspect ratio. Showing 4:3 TV mini-series in cropped 16:9 is the same to me as a 2.35 film being cropped to 1.85....we're losing pictural information that SHOULD be seen. (In the example of IT, it's [/b]NOT[/b] "Widescreen." In fact, there's nothing "wider" about the 1.85 image at all...the sides display the same information on both the 4:3 and 1.85 ratios).
And as much as some speculate that every one of these mini-series was intended for European theatrical distribution as an excuse for what Warner is doing, only a handful or less of them (like the original V) actually were.

 

[Steve Phillips]

Here's a thought: let's say Orson Welles was alive and insane, and made a public statement he wanted CITIZEN KANE to be matted for widescreen and colorized. Would that mean that the original version should never be on DVD? Would that mean all of you would accept it as the new approved version?

Ron Howard has approved of a cropped and shorter version of APOLLO 13 for IMAX. Does that mean that all future DVDs should be that version?

I say, let us have the original version available. Frankly, if someone wants to watch an edited, cropped version of IT; I don't care. Just don't make that the only choice out there, as some of us want to see the film without the changes.

 

[Thomas T]

As wide screen televisions grow in population and proliferate, I fear that the home theatre film snobs will become the J6P of the future insisting that Casablanca and I Love Lucy be cropped and matted and anamorphically enhanced to fill up their wide screen televisions.
Hopefully, there will still be the screaming vocal minortiy that still insists on the intended original aspect ratio, flat or wide!

 

[Matt Stone]

I think you're blowing this out of proportion. I'm not all that upset with the cropping of It because it's a little TV mini-series. In theory you could compare the situation to cropping Citizen Kane or Casablanca, but here in the real world that is in insane comparison.

I agree with you in theory, because I always support OAR...it's just that in this case I don't much care. That doesn't mean that I'm turning into a J6P.

 

[Steve Phillips]

Today it is IT, tomorrow it is CITIZEN KANE. That's what we are trying to say.

If you think old TV shows and movies WON'T be cropped for HDTV, you are naive. It's already started...

It simply doesn't matter if the cropping or editing is done to a masterpiece of cinema or an episode of the world's worst TV show; it is simply WRONG.

Again, a new HDTV J6P (fill my screen without regard to the material mentality) is out there. What shall we officially call them?

 

[Damin J Toell]

I think you're blowing this out of proportion. I'm not all that upset with the cropping of It because it's a little TV mini-series. In theory you could compare the situation to cropping Citizen Kane or Casablanca, but here in the real world that is in insane comparison.

It is someone's Casablanca. If you don't care for it, that's all well and good, but it's hypocritical to imply that only movies you have decided are "good" deserve to be presented properly on home video. Every movie deserves the benefit of being presented correctly, and there's no reason to talk down to others because you don't think the movie is worthy of being cared about. If you don't want to fight the fight for It, then don't, but there's no reason to tell others that they're blowing things out of proportion for doing so.
DJ

 

[Jon Robertson]

Having looked at the descriptions of those scenes, I can't say the loss of any of them is remotely critical to the film. It seems like the case where extra material was included to pad out the running time to two hours per show, including commercials (or at least the first one).

 

[Steve Phillips]

UNIVERSAL to release BATTLESTAR: GALACTICA DVDs cropped and edited to improve flow!

Ok, I'm making it up. But, because this is a silly 70s TV series, by the logic I'm seeing here you would expect fans of the show to blindly accept this and never complain. After all, who cares about this silly show, right?

I don't. I'd never buy it.

But I'll defend those that would be upset by any changes made to a show they like. Next time it could be a show I do care about.

 

[Thomas T]

No, Matt, I don't think it's being blown out of proportion. It may indeed be a "little mini-series" but are there now to be qualifications as to what films merit an original aspect ratio?
Perfect is just a bad John Travolta film so is Columbia justified in releasing this 2.35 scope film in pan and scan? The I Love Lucy series is surely a true comedy classic, one of the best and loved by many. But, hey, it's just an old B&W white TV show so if it gets cropped and stretched are the naysayers blowing it out of proportion?
Either one is pro OAR or one is not.

 

[Matt Stone]

Hey don't jump all over me for not liking It...I love It. I've got the DVD (also would have bought if I knew about the scenes being cut), I've got the LD, and I've got the VHS. It's not a little mini-series to me...it's a great movie. But my point is simply in the grand scheme of things It isn't Citizen Kane. I'm just being realitic here. Many more people care about Citizen Kane than care about It...whether that is right nor not, it is true. As I said in my previous post, I agree with you 100% in theory...

If you don't want to fight the fight for It, then don't, but there's no reason to tell others that they're blowing things out of proportion for doing so.

You're missing my point, I'm not attacking you for fighting the fight...hell I'll join you in it. My "blowing it out of proportion" quote was in regards to calling HDTV owners J6Ps. You seem to be grouping every widescreen TV owner into one big group. It is true that a lot of them want their screen to be filled, but that isn't important to me.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Matt:

Quote:

Although I try to avoid using such terms, I've seen "Joe 16x9-Pack" suggested.
DJ

 

[Steve Phillips]

I agree, we really shouldn't use those terms. But I do like it....

 

[Matt Stone]

I don't think Thomas meant to imply that every HDTV owner thinks that way, just that as HDTV gets a larger installed base, an ever-increasing number of owners will be of the "fill my screen" mindset. And, I'm sorry to say, I think he's right.

That's stating the obvious. Since we are all moving towards HDTV, so will the J6Ps...and just because they get new TVs, it doesn't mean they won't still be J6Ps. Thomas said that "home theatre film snobs" will become the next J6P. I disagree wiht that whole-heartedly. I think that J6Ps will always be J6Ps, but "film snobs" will never favor substantial cropping over an OAR presentation (at least I won't).

 

[Andre Bijelic]

And so it goes...

"The Amazing Howard Hughes," a 1977 telefilm with Tommy Lee Jones, has just been announced for future DVD release -- in anamorphic widescreen.

 

[Steve Phillips]

Don't complain Andre! I'm sure it played in a theatre somewhere in the world at least once!
After all, it's just some old TV movie...
Of course you know I'm being sarcastic...

 

[Steve Schaffer]

I watched about an hour and a half of IT last night with the commentary turned on. At one point the director states that the film really should have been shot in widescreen because of the many scenes in which the entire group of characters must be shown. He gives a brief explanation of 1:85 vs 1:33, calling 1:33 basically square with a little stretch on the sides, and goes on to discuss the difficulties involved in cramming all the characters into the 4/3 frame. Nowhere, so far does, he mention the reframing for the dvd. He may have been doing his commentary while watching a 4/3 tape or some such and may not even have been aware at the time of the reframing.

While I am very much an OAR advocate, I don't think we really need worry about a cropped Citizen Kane or Casablanca.

While we may have no double standard on OAR, I think it's logical to assume that the studios do indeed differentiate between TV miniseries and classic theatrical films originally produced in 4/3 and will not make the mistake of messing with the latter.

Colorizing isn't happening any more. The widescreen bastardization of Gone With the Wind has pretty much disappeared as has the similar travesty Disney did on the original Fantasia.

I think it's fairly safe to assume that the studios have caught on to the idea of original aspect ratio and no colorizing on movies widely regarded as classic, even if they do regard tv miniseries as less critical in this regard.

 

[Dave Mack]

So, is WB gonna release "The Shining" mini-series and rerelease Salem's Lot in 16x9? I would LOVE a new transfer for "Lot" as the old 1 is pretty rough-looking by today's standards.
D

 

[Matt Stone]

While I am very much an OAR advocate, I don't think we really need worry about a cropped Citizen Kane or Casablanca.

That is exactly the point that I was trying to make.

On a different note...I know it isn't OAR, but how does the re-framing look, composition-wise? Does it look cropped...I'd check myself, but my damn copy still isn't hear yet.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

I can't really expound on the Aspect Ratio issue, but I think it's absolutely vile to release a 'trimmed version' of any movie without informing the consumer of the change.
It was on my 'maybe' list of purchases; no longer.