THE RECRUIT to be a MAR (Modified Aspect Ratio) release only. (1 Viewer)

[Declan]

pisses me off this does. I've been looking for sleepers on LD for ages because the DVD was opened up to 1.78:1 from a scope ratio taken from a super 35 neg.

I was goin to get the r1 of the Recruit (as well as the fact that the film has just opened here in the UK last Friday), but I may wait now until late summer when it comes out on r2 as at least we might get the proper ratio.

It was'nt 1.78 at the cinema, so i sure as hell will not watch it this way at home. I prefer scope over Flat anyway as it is more pleasing to the eye.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I'll reserve judgment until I see the disc, but there's ample precedent for this. Carlo mentioned the first Austin Powers. Other examples include Top Gun (opened up to about 2:1), Star Trek VI and the very first LD of The Abyss.

There are also examples of directors opening up the mattes on 1.85:1 films to bring them to 1:66:1 (e.g., Paul Verhoeven with the Criterion Robocop).

I've been looking for sleepers on LD for ages because the DVD was opened up to 1.78:1 from a scope ratio taken from a super 35 neg.

The R1 DVD of Sleepers is correctly framed at 2.35:1. I just loaded up my copy to check. It's an early Warner "flipper", but there's nothing wrong with the AR.

M.

 

[Jon Martin]

Is this a misprint?

I saw it in the theatres and I don't believe it was 2.40. It looked just standard.

They certainly didn't use the widescreen to any extent.

 

[Simon Massey]

I've been looking for sleepers on LD for ages because the DVD was opened up to 1.78:1 from a scope ratio taken from a super 35 neg.

Thats just the R2 version. I spotted that and then bought the R1 version which as Michael says is definitely the correct AR

 

[Damin J Toell]

Had he shot anamorphic and done it properly

So any choice by a filmmaker other than what you would choose is improper?

DJ

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Damin, it is well known that I consider Super35 to be an inferior format due to decrease in resolution and increase in grain from the blowup process. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

 

[Steve_Tk]

Yes I'm not a fan of 1.78 or 1.85. I think it works for some movies, but I like 2.35 much better. I'd say 85% of my collection is 2.35.

I also don't care if the movie was 2.4, 2.35, 1.85, but if you show it one way in the theater, then release it that way on DVD. No one gives a damn if the director was just testing something or likes it better this way.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Damin, it is well known that I consider Super35 to be an inferior format due to decrease in resolution and increase in grain from the blowup process.

And it's well-known by actual filmmakers that shooting with spherical lenses has numerous advantages over scope. Calling their choices improper based on tunnel-vision with regard to one factor just continues to feed the seemingly never-ending misconceptions.

DJ

 

[Damin J Toell]

No one gives a damn if the director was just testing something or likes it better this way.

No one cares what the director wants? Or perhaps you only mean yourself. I certainly care very much what a director wants for his own film.

DJ

 

[Charlie Essmeier]

My guess is that they're simply framing the film to fit 16:9 screens. Many, many films are slightly modified to a 1.78:1 ratio, although they don't always say so on the packaging. It's a tradeoff between those who want widescreen and those who don't want black bars.

It's still widescreen. It doesn't remove any information seen in the theater. To me, it's no big deal.

At my house, the screen is 16:9, so I'm cool either way, although I don't intend to buy this film regardless of the aspect ratio.

Charlie

 

[Declan]

it is well known that I consider Super35 to be an inferior format due to decrease in resolution and increase in grain from the blowup process. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

well Jeff peter jackson has'nt complaied about it so far.

 

[Patrick McCart]

A 2.35:1 Super-35 film and a 1.85:1 flat film are not going to be very different in grain (in theory).

Both are transferred from a flat source (meaning, non-anamorphic) most of the time...

The grain difference is seen in theaters, not on video. In fact, Super-35 has more total frame space than a normal flat 35mm 1.85:1 film.

 

[WillG]

"My guess is that they're simply framing the film to fit 16:9 screens. Many, many films are slightly modified to a 1.78:1 ratio, although they don't always say so on the packaging. It's a tradeoff between those who want widescreen and those who don't want black bars."

"It's still widescreen. It doesn't remove any information seen in the theater. To me, it's no big deal."

Yes, but do you want this to be done with all Super 35 films that are shown at 2.35:1 in the theater?

 

[Carlo_M]

Nope, not at all Will. But a lot of people are making judgments without even seeing the final product yet. Hell this might all be a misprint or something!

But if a director wants to open up a film for home video, and he approves it and it doesn't detract from the composition of the film, then I don't have a problem with it. I do agree though that opening up a 2.35 film to 1.78 is rather a drastic change and I'm not sure how it *wouldn't* drastically affect the composition. But in terms of how Austin Powers was opened up to about 2:1 I certainly didn't have a problem with the finished result.

I love how for some of us, our preference of aspect ratios has superceded what the filmmakers prefer.

 

[Talal]

watch this end up being a mistake in the press release...

 

[Nathan V]

This had better not start a trend. "Opening up" ruins the composition. It isn't OAR. Hell, this is almost as bad as fullframe. Imagine watching Road to Perdition (Conrad Hall) in 1.78:1.
As far as preferences go, i prefer 2.35:1 a hell of a lot better than 1.85:1. You can do SOOO much more with composition.

In any case, let's all hop this was a typo.

Regards,

 

[Damin J Toell]

In any case, let's all hop this was a typo.

It would be one heck of a typo. The ad copy doesn't just list the AR, but it actually specifies that it's the director's AR. And if he doesn't think it ruins the composition....

DJ

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Damin is correct. The ad is on page two of this week's print edition of Video Business, if anyone wants to check.

My initial reason for posting this information was the curious way they worded it: "Shows More of the Film Than Was Presented In Theaters." Since this was photographed in Super 35, that's entirely possible. But I worry that it might start a trend - 2.40 in theaters and 1.78 at home. Just like the way HBO-HD crops many 2.40 films to 1.78.

 

[Dave H]

The problem is some directors are doing this for the wrong reasons with some movies (Apocalypse Now - see PREVIOUS threads for some good debate). Don't blindy accept anyone's decision - including the director's.

 

[Steve_Tk]

No one cares what the director wants? Or perhaps you only mean yourself. I certainly care very much what a director wants for his own film.

Actually, I would be very interested to see how people would respond to this if it happened to say a movie like...LOTR.

Where the movie is released in one format on screen, then changed without any other options for DVD.

And yes, I don't care what a director wants when he chooses to release a movie one way, then changes it for video. I'm not someone that just agrees with everything the almighty director wants. It's plain stupid to release a movie in one aspect, and change it for DVD release. It reminds me of how George Lucas changes his films after release, and does not give you what you saw in the theaters.

If this is a April Fools joke then it was done very well, and good job on picking a movie that is not in a huge spotlight.