Willy Wonka Widescreen Scam? (1 Viewer)

[MarkHastings]

The misframing of "Back to the Future" wasn't an intentional scam, it was a mistake. Big difference.

Agreed, BTTF misframing is more of a mistake than a scam, but intentionally trying to keep it a secret so as not to lose out on sales by a pre-Holiday release is just as bad as any so called scam.

I'm sure a lot of people that got this set as Christmas presents would agree with me.

 

[Torgny Nilsson]

I defend my use of the word "scam" in my original post. If the movie was willfully or accidently framed or matted so that the image is smaller than the OAR, it should not be advertised as widescreen. If it continues to be advertised that way after the issue is discovered, it is a scam regardless of the reason for the framing.

And I don't see how the fact that some theaters may have additionally matted the movie makes any difference. A movie should not be advertised as "widescreen" unless it is as close to the OAR for the move as the director, rather than the theaters, intended. As far as I can tell from this discussion, that was not done here.

 

[Carlo_M]

All that I am saying is that the old dvd matches what I saw in the theatre, and the new one doesn't...it is missing picture info that is on the previous release.

I have screencaps comparing the 1997 DVD with the new one!

Unfortunately I have nowhere to host them...

But on the ones I have, yes the new DVD is cropped in comparison on all sides, and by less than 5%, probably more like 2-3%. It isn't a case where they just slapped mattes on incorrectly, as this movie was shot and then matted for its OAR presentation. I think the new DVD is just cropped a little bit more heavily than the original DVD was, but by no means is it a "scam" or even in my opinion incorrectly framed (like BTTF 2&3).

For Torgny I think you need to soften your stance a little bit on this issue. Check out this link at Widescreen Museum - there's an awful lot more to transferring a widescreen movie to DVD that explains differences such as what we see in the Willy Wonka DVDs. I think the best headline is on the first page (it's 4-5 pages long), Letterboxed Video - "Put your rulers away and chill out."

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Torgny, how does incorrect framing (assuming it is incorrect) make it not widescreen? Widescreen is just anything significantly more thn 1.33:1. The term has nothing to do with whether it's OAR or not.

 

[Torgny Nilsson]

Yes, I know that widescreen is not the same as OAR. But I think that most people think they are the same, especially since widescreen proponents keep telling pan and scan proponents that pan and scan is evil because it crops the original picture, whereas widescreen does not.

The Amazon.com thread (which I also don't trust much) made it seem like a lot was cropped off the widescreen release of Willy Wonka, which is why I posted this thread, to find out if that was accurate. I assume this thread is now a dead horse.

 

[jonathan_little]

Yes, I know that widescreen is not the same as OAR. But I think that most people think they are the same, especially since widescreen proponents keep telling pan and scan proponents that pan and scan is evil because it crops the original picture, whereas widescreen does not.

What "people" think that OAR and Widescreen are the same?

It's really amazing that nobody seems to care about the mattes during the theatrical exhibition or the curtains covering the screen, but when they get home to watch it on their TV, it's "gotta fill my screen." I should go complain to the manager of the theater sometime and tell him or her that I want them to take down all the curtains and show all of the movies "full screen," which I'd estimate would be about 2.5:1 at my local cinema. Either they'd be totally puzzled and confused by my statement or they'd nervously share a laugh with me...

 

[Randy A Salas]

The Amazon.com thread (which I also don't trust much) made it seem like a lot was cropped off the widescreen release of Willy Wonka

There's a similar customer review on Amazon about the movie Strange Bedfellows:

"I've only checked out the Strange Bedfellows DVD, but was quickly disappointed to see it's not a true widescreen presentation, but rather, in order to give that illusion, they chopped off the bottom of the picture. I have this movie on VHS, both store-bought and taped from TV, and they have more at the bottom of the picture than this DVD."

It simply sounds like a case of an open-matte presentation vs. an OAR presentation, but the poorly informed customer makes it sound as if something shady has occurred on the widescreen DVD.

 

[Mike Heenan]

35mm prints of Willy Wonka were not matted in the re release prints.

 

[JeremyFr]

Also another thing to think about here is that if you see a movie at your local Regal entertainment you do not see the movie in the intended format no matter what. if its 1.85 to 1 they crop it to fit the 1.78:1 screens they use and if its 2.35:1 they zoom it to fit the screens so what doe everyone think of that?? I dont patron these theatres anymore because of this myself and you can read on Eastman/Kodaks website how theatres like Regal are quickly irritating directors/producers and ruin countless numbers of prints with heat damaged and undertrained high school drop out projectionists that dont even know how to thread them correctly. So you complain about not seeing it the right aspect ration on DVD you saw in the theater when hell most the time you go to a theatre you dont see it in the right aspect ratio, I'll find the story about this and link it here in a bit.

 

[JeremyFr]

Heres the link to the article through Kodak

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/ne...g2001P.shtml#p

 

[Michael Reuben]

especially since widescreen proponents keep telling pan and scan proponents that pan and scan is evil because it crops the original picture, whereas widescreen does not.

You will not find many people parroting that simplistic explanation on this forum. Most people here understand that the issue is preserving the original composition of the frame as intended for theatrical exhibition -- regardless of whether that means showing more, or less, than what appears on a presentation that's been reformatted for a 1.33:1 TV screen.

M.

 

[Rain]

Anyone who is still unclear about OAR vs. open matte would be wise to check out Robert Harris's informative article on the subject of aspect ratios over at The Digital Bits.

 

[Patrick McCart]

The 16x9 transfer could have NOT been converted from the open matte presentation.

If so, the resulting transfer would look very poor.

I've seen a few 16x9-ized transfers and I can tell you that they're just about as nice to look at as a Madacy DVD.

 

[MarkHastings]

The 16x9 transfer could have NOT been converted from the open matte presentation.

If so, the resulting transfer would look very poor.

I'm not trying to bust balls, I'm just curious.

How else do you get a 16x9 transfer from a 4x3 film frame?

 

[Patrick McCart]

How else do you get a 16x9 transfer from a 4x3 film frame?

Well, you take the existing 4:3 transferred letterboxed transfer and modify it to be 16x9 (by upcoverting the image).

It's been done to a few DVDs such as the Image DVD of Army of Darkness and Westworld. They look hideous.

 

[MarkHastings]

Patrick,

That's what I assumed you were talking about.

For a minute, I thought maybe you were saying that the current way was lousy because there was a better way to get a 16x9 transfer from an open matte, but I guess I was just reading more into your statement then I should have :b

 

[ScottR]

It may not mean much to many, but all that I am saying is that the image I projected on the screen (as projectionist) was the same as the previous dvd, and that the new dvd does not contain as much side info, enough to be noticed.

 

[Dwayne]

But I think that most people think they are the same, especially since widescreen proponents keep telling pan and scan proponents that pan and scan is evil because it crops the original picture, whereas widescreen does not.

Pan And Scan is always evil since it never reflects the intended composition. Perhaps you meant to say full frame?

 

[MarkHastings]

Pan And Scan is always evil

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Agreed that the usual way to simplfy the concept of P/S is to talk about "cropping the original" for novice movie-watching folks. However, the issue of OAR is very complex and open-matte full-frame home-video versions of films often combine P/S with open matte...and a few are entirely open matte...and a few are crop a bit from the side while adding a bit at the top.

All these various issues are discuessed at length on this forum. If you're finding out for the first time that there's more to "P/S" that just cropping a widescreen image (such as open-matte presentations) don't get mad at us! Do a search here and you'll find out we do our best to explain *all* these things to folks on this forum who inquire.

-dave