Willy Wonka review at Amazon (1 Viewer)

[William Ward]

I support theatrical aspect ratio 100%, but I don't support making claims without proper reasoning. I signed the petition because I wanted the matted version, not because I hate Warner Bros. for not releasing the matted version.

Yet you purchased the MARed version. According to Warner Brothers, Wal-Mart(or wherever you get it), and the distributor, you think that MARed versions are OK. You paid your money thereby supporting it.
Also, why do you care what the score on the Amazon website says for this DVD? You're purchasing it so obviously it hasn't made that much of a difference. Anyone interested enough in purchasing it through Amazon will also have the savvy to either look up the facts about WW and find that it is indeed open matte, or won't know the difference and will associate P&S with "formatted to fit your screen" and buy it based on that.
By pleading with people not to knock it down you seem to be worried that the low rating will hurt sales of a disc that you don't(according to the above statement) support.
Odd....
------------------
William
Go Bucs!!
MyDVDs

 

[cafink]

Also, it's foolish to give a DVD a one-star review that you haven't even seen yet. Does this mean we should already be giving the Citizen Kane DVD a perfect 5 star (even though it probably will be deserving of the score.), even though no one has seen it yet? I only submit reviews for DVD's I have actually seen.

I haven't seen the "Wonka" disc, but I did submit a one-star rating to Amazon. I know enough about the disc to know that it deserves no more. For me, any DVD that doesn't even present the movie itself correctly deserves such a rating. Regardless of what a technical wonder the disc may be, it doesn't even contain the proper version of the movie it purports to contain. We KNOW this to be a fact, we don't have to see the disc in action.
As for "Kane," I haven't seen the disc, so I can't rate it yet. But if I knew that the movie was going to be colorized or cropped to a different aspect ratio, I assure you that I'd quickly submit a one-star rating for it as well.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I didn't buy the DVD, I was saying the transfer looked good from the screenshots I saw on a DVD site. The color and picture quality is much better than the old version. You can see every wrinkle on Uncle Joe's face.
I'm not buying it until the matted version comes out.
Reviews on amazon.com do bleed over to alternate versions (such as earlier DVD's and VHS tapes) I think the new Kubrick Collection has a few reviews from the old one.
It's like giving the 2001 model Corvette a bad review because the 1986 model was said to be bad from word of mouth.
------------------
P.S.: There's no P.S.

 

[William Ward]

My mistake. I must have mistaken you for someone else who was defending the Open Matte and stated that they would buy it.
------------------
William
Go Bucs!!
MyDVDs

 

[Patrick Larkin]

I don't think anyone in these threads has ever once said they'd be buying the disc. thankfully, a widescreen version is always a few blocks away at the rental store.
Wonka was a marginal buy for me anyhow except that my cute little daughter loves the oompa loompas. I could give a rats ass what they do to Wonka. Just give me my widescreen Godfather collection and I'll be happy. After all, WB is marketing Wonka to J6P's as you call them. Godfather is for the true film fan.
I did sing the petition by the way. I signed it in support of a widescreen version.

 

[Greg_Y]

Patrick, that's really not fair. To infer that Willy Wonka is a film for J6P's and The Godfather Trilogy is for "true film fans" is just plain insulting. There's no true scale of film-importance; it's all subjective. I too couldn't care less about Willy Wonka and I'm dying for the GF films, but to tell people not to fight the good fight for the proper presentation of their favorite films is just plain wrong.
I mean this in the nicest way possible: maybe you should take a step back from the WW discussion and just take a deep breath.

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Greg --
Well, now you know how insulting the elite mentality of the 16x9 crowd is to the average J6P. And, WB has already deemed WW a J6P release by going fullscreen.

 

[John Berggren]

I placed a review, and voted various reviews as helpful or not helpful accordingly.
------------------
Rationality is not a commodity which is evenly distributed.
Save Stargate SG-1 Season 6
View SpaceDog's DVD Collection

 

[Robyn Young]

Okay. A few comments.
I, too, wrote a 1 star review. I stated plainly the facts about the release, and blamed WARNER, not Amazon. I've since edited it to reflect that Amazon changed thier listing, but kept the rest the same. Now, when we first started writing reviews, the movie review rating was about a 4 1/2, based on maybe 75 reviews of the OOP dvd and vhs copy. What did all those 5 star reviews tell the average guy? That Wonka was this fantastic do-no-wrong film. None even touched the aspect ratio or anything.
Then there were the 1 star reviews--"The movie scared me...Bad writing...The chicken scene was unneccesary..." So, the only bad reviews were based on the movie itself, not the presentation. But here's the thing. I read most of the 1 star reviews. I skimmed all the 5 star reviews, because they all basically said the same thing.
Because I have a widescreen copy of Willy Wonka, I would probably give that a 5 star rating or maybe a little lower. I don't know. What I do know is that with all the reviews mixed in, it would be easy for our words to get lost. Our 1 star ratings are doing nothing more than evening the playing field as far as the reviews go. We can't do too much damage to the overall rating, but if we bump it down a bit, maybe someone will notice.
By the way, I don't give a rat's *** about the Godfather. To imply that I'm a J6P because I want ALL my movies(not just those that are "worthy") in OAR is pretty insulting.

 

[Jerry Gracia]

quote: Stanley Kubrick *preferred* open matte for his films. The theatrical aspect ratio was applied to his films not by choice:[/quote]
This is highly debatable and in any case...this is *one* man noted for preferring open-matte over letterboxing. This is an exception to the rule. Most directors compose exlusively for the matted 1.85:1 presentation when shooting "flat".
quote: that YOU do not know the filmmakers intentions. Until you are ARMED with this information, do not claim to know what the intended aspect ratio is or was.[/quote]
It is common knowledge that WILLY WONKA's original aspect ratio is 1.85:1...I don't need to "claim" this.
quote: Finally, if it was clearly shown to me that the director of Wonka intended ONLY for his film to be seen in 1.85:1, then I will support the 1.85:1 ONLY release.[/quote]
The original DVD release of "WONKA" was in its OAR of 1.85:1...what more do you need?
quote: So please, think through the whole issue logically.[/quote]
You are trying to poke at me, aren't you?
quote: If you KNOW that open matte is not pan and scan, you wouldn't use that term. It just shows ignorance.[/quote]
No, it just shows I don't give a crap. Open-matte and pan and scan are the same shit in my book...they just have a different scent.
quote: I was watching Cinemax or something showing the great film (great WIDESCREEN film) Lawrence of Arabia. They were showing it in Pan and Scan. The frame is SO wide in Lawrence that to pan it is incredibly noticeable and quite objectionable. I almost felt ill for what was done to this great film.[/quote]
We'll...when I watch an open-matte film...the head room and wasted space at the bottom of the frame and the occasional crop/zoom are just as sickening to me. Especially since I am a Home Theater buff and can't stand the fact that a film I am watching is not in its original aspect ratio.
quote: Open Matte, while still an objectionable alteration, would not change the compostion of the screen. Characters would always be in their places and no panning would be needed.[/quote]
Whew...big mistake.
By changing the screen dimension the composition IS changed my friend. Sure, the characters on screen probably won't get cropped off the sides but the desired camera close-up or long shot by the director will be altered by allowing the frame to be opened up.
quote: My only point was that open matte is not as devastating to composition as PS. The studios are going to do it, whether a group of elite HT enthusiasts like it or not. Just be glad it isn't PS for at least you don't get the unnecessary movement.[/quote]
Ahh. I know where you're coming from now. Maybe you don't belong here.
quote: Like it or not, you are vastly outnumbered by many more folks who don't know what OAR is, don't care, and won't have a 16x9 TV for 10 years if ever[/quote]
Yes, I am very aware of this. You aren't a part of this "vast" majority...are you? And by the way...I own a 4:3 myself.
quote: I'm of the position that since the studios are going to do it anyway, let the fullscreen version be OM and also release the widescreen either on the same disc or on another release.[/quote]
I am of the position that since we've already suffered through 20 fucking years of pan and scan/full frame only on VHS that its time ALL alterations of movies on video ENDS.
------------------
LuvLBX
[Edited last by Jerry Gracia on August 15, 2001 at 09:10 AM]
[Edited last by Jerry Gracia on August 15, 2001 at 09:12 AM]
[Edited last by Jerry Gracia on August 15, 2001 at 09:14 AM]
[Edited last by Jerry Gracia on August 15, 2001 at 09:23 AM]

 

[Tim Gerdes]

I want movies to be seen in the correct framing, but this isn't about aspect ratios! This is about making one-star reviews for a disc you haven't seen.

A film that is not presented in its OAR is not even worthy of a single star in my book, no matter how nicely the picture was restored, or how many special features are added.
For me, OAR is absolutely critical to the enjoyment of a film. It is a deal breaker, and I can judge a disc that does not have this important feature without seeing it.
Likewise, suppose a film was released without its soundtrack. You get a beautiful picture, but absolutely no sound from your speakers. Would you need to see the disc to know that it wasn't worth buying?

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Whoa! Well said Jerry.
Patrick, just think about this for a moment o.k., if we the lovers of ALL films, want our movies, whatever they might be, kids films, adult oriented, action, drama, comedy etc, on dvd in their correct OAR, we must speak out when something like this WW situation rears it's ugly head. We have to let the studios know when they screw up, because they'll be more likely to do it again in the future. The shooting process of WW is irrealevant, 'open matte', 'pan-n-scan' whatever, the point is WW is being presented wrong on this dvd, period.
And please don't throw what I just said back at me saying "wrong for us, but right for the six packers who prefer it", we are fighting for a cause here, the preservation of film, and the way I look at, were just looking out for the uninformed, for they know not what they do. And that my friend is why everyone is giving this disc a bad review.
------------------
The Multi Channel Animal's truly, madly, deeply in love with Estella Warren!
[Edited last by John Williamson on August 15, 2001 at 09:45 AM]

 

[Andrew 'Ange Hamm' Hamm]

Patrick Larkin, you obviously have thought this through very thoroughly, and I admire the sack it takes to repeatedly plead an anti-OAR case here. You may not feel that is what you're doing, but it is. You are.
This is a pro-OAR--and that means original theatrical aspect ratio, loony Kubrick ideas de damned--forum. If this is such a big issue for you that you feel horribly affronted by every single other member of the forum jumping down your throat, then with all respect and friendship, maybe you should head on over to DVD Talk.
The issue is indeed not aspect ratio here. It is the preservation of art. This is not an opinion, and it is not different for Joe Sixpack or me. It is an ABSOLUTE. Any--ANY--alteration of a film's original theatrical aspect ratio is an unacceptable modification. The exceptions throughout film history to this rule are so rare they can be counted on one hand.
If you wish to disagree, fine. Disagree. But consider every pro-open-matte statement you make to be flamebait, because around these parts that's exactly what it is.
------------------
Andrew Hamm's new album Link Removed is available now!

 

[Patrick Larkin]

In conclusion, might I make a few comments.
1. I am not attempting to defend full screen formatting.
2. I merely pointed out the crucial difference between OM and Pan and Scan. Many of you find them one and the same. I consider Kubrick's films to be the best ever made and your assertions about deviating from OAR smacks at the very heart of Kubrick's wishes.
3. I don't think that any studio should arbitrarily decide the screen format of a film. I believe that only the director should have that power. As we know, this is not the case unless you are someone of the stature of Kubrick. Film get lopped all the time and I find this equally if not more reprehnsible. Films getting lopped for content or length.
4. Finally, I am by no meaning intending to defend open matte presentation when dictated by studios. Even with all of our protests and complaints, I find it hard to believe that our niche will make any sort of consumer impact because the people this film is targeted at don't understand OAR. Like my mother in law, after numerous explanations, still does not understand what the black bars are for. This will not change until the 16x9 set is ubiquitous which is a decade away minimum. SO, my only comment was that if it has to be ful frame, let it be OM. AND IT WILL BE FULL FRAME sad as that comment is... This release speaks VOLUMES on market research. Do you think these guys just make it up as they go along? Someone somehwere has definitive data that says they will sell this many more "units" if they go full screen. Thats just the way it is.
5. Trying to rid yourself of any pragmatic view of the world does not change the circumstances. I'm sorry. I do understnad the necessity to voice our frustration at these recent events. I have signed the petition in support of widescreen WW.
6. I have NO full frame DVDs in my collection nor will I ever buy one unless I can flip it to the widescreen side.
Now chill out. Its funny. I'm a Macintosh user and if I go over to Maccentral and say ANYTHING counterpoint to the Macintosh way, you're immediately labelled a Windows lamer or an idiot. I see the standards aren't that much higher here at Home Theater Forum. Shame.
[Edited last by Patrick Larkin on August 15, 2001 at 02:16 PM]

 

[Patrick Larkin]

sorry, i double posted.
[Edited last by Patrick Larkin on August 15, 2001 at 04:08 PM]

 

[Joshua Clinard]

To believe that WB actually has done any worthwhile market research is ludicrous.

 

[Josh Dial]

There is no difference between open-matte and pan and scan.
There, I said it.
They are both wrong, whatever ever the differences MAY HAVE BEEN in the past, the "wrongness" of them both have melded into one SUPER-SCREW for movie fans.
I don't care if someone can point out certain instances where "eh, ah, sir, here we see where, though no scanning takes place, and no panning takes place"
the movie is STILL ALTERED IN SOME WAY!
Someone can be my guest and begin a new topic about the differences between P&S and OM, but in my books, its just like people calling tissues kleenex, when its a different brand. Are there differences? YES. Does it matter cause they're the same? NO.
cheers!
Josh

 

[SteveMc]

Educating the consumer on widescreen is a good idea. Why not put a litte 5 minute piece in the extras section showing clearly the concept behind OAR, what the viewer is missing, etc. This would be extremely effective for P&S titles.

Definately. I like that Fox put a similar segment on the Die Hard SE disc. I guarantee 9 out of 10 people would choose widescreen over P&S if they were shown what it actually does to a WS transfer. The one person that doesn't probably has their DVD hooked up to their 13" tv. If they were to put it on a P&S disc like Wonka and people see that they are only getting part of the picture, I'd bet money they'd pissed because they aren't getting the "whole picture" like they should be.
------------------
Crash
"I don't even own a gun, let alone many guns that would necessitate an entire rack."
Help us get the Friday the 13th films-UNCUT. Click Here or here

 

[george kaplan]

I do think that there is a difference between how bad open-matte and pan & scan are. Just like there's a difference between someone who murders 6 people and someone who murders 6 million. Hitler was worse, but that doesn't make Manson good.
------------------
13-time NBA world champion Lakers: 1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1972, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988, 2000, 2001

 

[Aaron Thomas]

Question for anyone thinking open matte being better than P&S:
If a movie is "open matte", but has parts of it pan-and-scanned, is it still better?
I'm not experienced in evaluating video nor film, but of all the movies I've seen recently in both "OM" and widescreen, NOT ONE did not contain some notable incidence of P&S.
Most significantly, while many effects scenes were problematic, there also seemed to be quite a bit of "zooming" in on one main element of a scene.
Has anyone else noticed such a disturbing trend, or am I just seeing things? Does anyone here even see enough MARred movies to make such a judgement?
Aaron Thomas
All my movies are now OAR & DVD, but I watch in other places too ...

[Edited last by Aaron Thomas on August 16, 2001 at 09:42 AM]