The Game SE (1 Viewer)

[Chris Bardon]

I remember hearing rumblings a while back about David Fincher wanting to revisit The Game on DVD and give it the treatment it deserves (like Seven and Fight Club got). Is this actually happening, and if so, any idea when?

 

[Wes Ray]

I'm hoping Criterion will release this sometime next year. They alluded to it in the chat recently.

 

[Ricky f]

The Game SE DVD would be amazing
I hope we can see a SE soon
Regards,
Ricky

 

[Ron Reda]

Killer flick...I'd buy it again without batting an eye!
Ron

 

[Brett_B]

Killer flick...I'd buy it again without batting an eye!

I'll second that comment!

 

[LDfan]

I hope criterion does release the DVD. The Criterion version of The Game is my favorite LD. I'm still holding onto it until the DVD comes out, if it ever does. Just looking at the beautiful gatefold makes me remember the quality that used to be put into LDs.
Jeff

 

[Kenneth Cummings]

I recently mention it in the chat with Criterion a week ago and they said it a distict possibly. I hope it comes out, because the first time I saw it was on TBS in evil pan and scam(shudder).
------------------

 

[Ron Reda]

Kenneth Cummings,
"The Game" in P&S??? No way I could have watched it on PBS!
I'm glad I checked it out in the theater. By the end, I couldn't get out of my seat...the twists and turns (especially the ending) really threw my brain for a loop! I had to chill for a few and gather my thoughts.

 

[Eric-S]

I have this on a DTS LD, but would love to see extras and hear a commentary. It's one on my favorite movies!
Eric

 

[Scott Weinberg]

I'd pick up any upgrade of this fantastic movie, whether it be an MGM SE or a Criterion version.
Bring it on!
------------------
Scott Weinberg
------------------
http://members.home.net/scott2915/_vti_txt/ofcs

 

[Anthony Thorne]

THE GAME was shot in Super 35, and Fincher's selection of this process would have included framing decisions made just for the fullscreen version. Watching it in this manner is no worse than watching, say, TITANIC in the fullscreen edition. It's not widescreen, but it's a perfectly acceptable variant.
The reason most of us dislike pan and scan is because it utterly disregards the director's intentions for framing and composition. Super 35 is a different kettle of fish and viewing THE GAME in that manner is not the end of the world. That said, I will lean towards the widescreen version when watching THE GAME or TITANIC on DVD, but folks who see the full screen editions of these and other Super 35 movies are getting off lightly in comparison to the brutal pan/scan jobs done on various 2.35:1-or-nothing productions.
[Edited last by Anthony Thorne on November 03, 2001 at 12:37 AM]

 

[cafink]

It's not widescreen, but it's a perfectly acceptable variant.

"Perfectly acceptable"? David Fincher, director of the film, doesn't think so (per his commentary on the Criterion laserdisc). With all due respect, I think I'll take his word over yours.

 

[Jonathan Burk]

I've seen both the letterboxed and full frame presentations of the game (both off the DVD, on the same system), and it is a totally different experience between the two. I much preferred the letterboxed. YMMV. (But I agree that Super 35 full frame is much better than pan and scanned scope!)

 

[Damin J Toell]

quote: THE GAME was shot in Super 35, and Fincher's selection of this process would have included framing decisions made just for the fullscreen version. [/quote]
this isn't necessarily the case at all. shooting in Super35 does not necessarily mean that multiple framing is being done. directors can and do shoot films for one (and only one) AR with Super35. while i do not know if The Game was shot solely in 2.35:1, more information would be needed to find this out; simply stating that it was shot in Super35 doesn't prove anything.

The reason most of us dislike pan and scan is because it utterly disregards the director's intentions for framing and composition.

the exact same consideration applies with a "fullscreen" transfer of a film shot in Super35. just because it's somehow "less bad" than pan & scan, it doesn't make it acceptable. if the main consideration is the director's intentions for framing and composition, then the director's chosen AR is the only acceptable one.
DJ
[Edited last by Damin J Toell on November 03, 2001 at 04:20 AM]

 

[Mark_Wilson]

I have the Criterion LD, the DTS LD, the non-anamorphic DVD, and an R4 Aussie Anamorphic DVD. Would really love to have an anamorphic & DTS LD.

 

[John Stone]

quote: THE GAME was shot in Super 35, and Fincher's selection of this process would have included framing decisions made just for the fullscreen version. [/quote]
Incorrect. Just because Fincher used Super 35 doesn't mean that he shot with "fullscreen" in mind. The Game looks terrible at 1.33:1.
quote: Watching it in this manner is no worse than watching, say, TITANIC in the fullscreen edition. [/quote]
The 1.33:1 version of Titanic is, visually speaking, a schizophrenic mess. I don't care what Cameron thinks, Titanic's many visual effects were all done at 2.35:1 and had to be heavily panned and scanned for the 1.33:1 home video version. The result is a visually disjointed film that looks like absolute shit.
Most Super 35 films are a mess at 1.33:1. Take a look at the comparison shots from The Fifth Element and see what you think.
So, what about Super 35 films that don't contain many effects shots? Take a look at the screen shots from Blast From The Past, which was shot in Super 35. There are no visual effects in any of the screen shots, but they are all very poorly composed at 1.33:1.
------------------
John
http://www.twowiresthin.com
[Edited last by John St on November 03, 2001 at 07:51 AM]

 

[Anthony Thorne]

THE GAME may look terrible to your eyes in the 1.33:1 ratio, but if Fincher went far enough to keep boom mikes, cables, stray extras and the like out of that additional 1.33:1 space when he shot it, then framing decisions were made with that format in mind. Framing decisions HAVE to made with reference to the 1.33:1 format when shooting in Super 35, else the abovementioned problems occur.
I don't see any part in my previous post where I suggested that Fincher shot THE GAME with the 1.33:1 ratio as his PREFERRED ratio, however, just as I wouldn't expect Scorsese, Cameron or Peter Jackson to be waving flags over the full screen editions of KUNDUN, TRUE LIES or LORD OF THE RINGS. Compositions are impaired, the panoramic effect of various shots is lost and certain elements are cropped offscreen. Equally however, for some less anal retentive viewers, a sense of space is opened up from top to bottom and exta details are viewable for those who are interested. TITANIC might look like shit to some OAR zealots in fullscreen but an equal number of viewers (most of whom, I know, are not on this board) will never notice and never care. I pursue OAR with every DVD I buy, but if a 2.35:1 movie turns up on TV, and I haven't seen it, I'll watch it if it was filmed in the Super 35 format. It gets switched off otherwise. (I still haven't seen some 70's Altman movies for this very reason...). Fincher may well be crying a river of tears over the fullscreen version of THE GAME, but what do I care? Am I his best buddy? He chose to shoot THE GAME in Super 35, and that version is at least watchable, if not spectacular. I've always switched off ALIEN 3 whenever it screens on TV because the brutal cropping on that Panavision title really IS unwatchable. Maybe the producers of THE GAME forced the Super 35 format on Fincher at gunpoint, to ensure that the millions who missed it in theaters would at least stick with it during the TV broadcast. If so, it worked for me. I'm holding out for the Criterion version but won't be all that bothered if I watch the 1.33:1 version now and then in the interim.
Am I asking folks to throw away their widescreen copies of the above movies for the full screen variants? Am I suggesting that the full screen Super 35 versions look better? There's no need to even answer those questions... However, if a director chooses to shoot in Super 35, then the fullscreen version - no matter how crappy or compositionally impaired it may be - was considered by the director while they were shooting the movie. Some (not necessarily all) may have been gritting their teeth whilst framing it, but I repeat, it's an acceptable variant for many viewers if the original widescreen version is unavailable.
[Edited last by Anthony Thorne on November 03, 2001 at 05:23 PM]

 

[Damin J Toell]

quote: Framing decisions HAVE to made with reference to the 1.33:1 format when shooting in Super 35, else the abovementioned problems occur. [/quote]
no, they don't. check out the documentary on the Titus DVD. they shot with Super35 and framed only for 2.35:1; the monitor doesn't show a 1.33:1 frame. they shot with Super35 and did not protect for 1.33:1. it is quite possible to frame only for 2.35:1 and pay no attention at all to protecting for 1.33:1. claiming that directors have to protect for 1.33:1 when shooting in Super35 is like claiming that directors have to protect for 1.33:1 when shooting in 1.85:1 in standard 35. this would also be a mistake. directors can protect for 1.33:1 and often do, but they don't have to.
quote: Fincher may well be crying a river of tears over the fullscreen version of THE GAME, but what do I care? Am I his best buddy? [/quote]
do what you like. you can watch a movie through a toilet paper roll, if you want. but don't act like it's an acceptable choice.
quote: However, if a director chooses to shoot in Super 35, then the fullscreen version - no matter how crappy or compositionally impaired it may be - was considered by the director while they were shooting the movie. [/quote]
UNTRUE. again: UNTRUE. and once more with feeling: UNTRUE. directors do not have to protect for 1.33:1 when shooting with Super35. this is an utterly groundless myth. Super35 is a method of filming, it does not force a certain AR (or multiple ARs).
DJ
[Edited last by Damin J Toell on November 03, 2001 at 07:49 PM]

 

[cafink]

Some (not necessarily all) may have been gritting their teeth whilst framing it, but I repeat, it's an acceptable variant for many viewers if the original widescreen version is unavailable.

Well, "acceptable" is a matter of personal taste. It's true that many find the full-frame version of a Super35 film an "acceptable variant" to the widescreen version, but it's true also that many find pan-and-scan version of a scope film an "acceptable variant" to the widescreen version.