dvd_luver

I have an idea, but why is it that Hollywood film studios pick some of their movies, that have been filmed in a Widescreen aspect ratio, and than go ahead and release them as a Full Frame only dvd, with no Widescreen dvd available to movie viewers. I could think of many dvds they have done this with. It's simply stupid. I want the movie in all it's glory, not some Full Frame dvd.

Joe Molotov

That almost never happens now, but in the early days of DVD there were some movies that just got Fullscreen only releases. That was just the way they did things back then. Most people had VCRs, and since Widescreen VHS movies were rare, most people weren't as educated on aspect ratios and letterboxing as they are now.

John-In-VA

So what exactly is your idea?

bboisvert

Really? I can only think of a small handfull...

dvd_luver

Universal still every now and than releases a catalogue title or two with a Full Frame only transfer, when the film was filmed in a Widescreen aspect ratio.

My original idea was that this was a way to make DVD more appealing to VHS lovers who would only upgrade to DVD if their movie was like how it was before. So Full Frame only versions of DVD's was a way to get a VHS fanatic a DVD player, and down the road maybe even into Widescreen DVD's. However, Hollywood studios still offer Full Frame dvds, with Widescreen editions, and I am guessing only because some people still love that VHS picture look.

The Monkees

Matilda was released full screen only, like 3-4 weeks ago

NitroJMS

Other than kids films and low-interest titles, not much gets released as full screen only anymore.

JimRochester

Just One Of The Guys


Bastards

Green Smurf

It was a while ago, but When Peggy Sue got Married is fullscreen only.

I think, that's all I've ever seen it as.

Cameron

i think part of the reason in the early days was they already had full screen transfers available because of vhs and laserdisc.....parenthood and hte shadow come to mind

joliom

Exactly. A lot of the Foolscreen-Only releases currently available are the result of the studios porting over the old 1.33:1 TV/VHS/Laserdisc transfers they already have prepared instead of spending money to prepare all-new WS digital transfers. The rest are those dual releases where they are catering to idiot consumers that have standard TV's and think WS is inferior because it doesn't fill up their screen. It was more understandable in the early days of DVD because very few people were educated about WS vs. FS and hardly anybody had WS TV's. It's inexcusable today. All DVD's should be OAR unless there is a legitimate argument over the intended aspect ratio (like in the case of some of Kubrick's films), in which case they should have BOTH. And all WS DVD's should be anamorphic. Btw, I'm ready to start a protest over the names "Full Screen" and "Full Frame." The word "full" is completely misleading and just adds to the confusion for a lot of unknowing consumers. How about "Narrow Screen" as an alternative?

impossiblefunky

I want to say that there's no widescreen release of HOOPER and for that, I am sad.

uhftv

I think there's been tremendous growth since dvds were created in the widescreen format. But I wouldve liked fullscreen to have gone the way of the dodo by now.

It would be nice to have fullscreen migrate over fully to vhs only, and leave widescreen the standard for dvds. Everybody wins that way. I know there are some dyd buyers/owners out there that like it, but I wonder if there are any out there with huge collections that are ALL fullscreen. To see that in person would be enough to make me shed a tear.

Drexl

It was originally released as double-sided with both WS and FS, but had the WS side removed last year. If you look around, you may still be able to find it with both versions.

DrGerbil

Wasn't 'A Midnight Clear' released in FS? What a terrific film... one truly deserving of a WS re-release.

Goat3001

The WS/FS thing has never been a problem to me personally. Back in the earlier days of DVD I was led to believe that if I didn't "educate" the public then DVD would turn into VHS and would have only fullscreen releases. I now know thats not going to happen and we're much more likely to have WS only releases then FS only releases. Either way, every movie that I own and all the movies that I would want to own have either a OAR only release or a OAR/P&S release. I guess it can be kinda a bitch when you pick up the wrong version by accident only to notice that you goofed up and then have to exchange it but that rarely happens (only once to me). I figure with WS/FS releases everyones happy.

It really is too bad that some movies get released in P&S only. Which actually kind of confuses me. Wouldn't it cost more to make a movie P&S? You would have to edit it to fullscreen, compared to just releasing WS without touching it. These movies getting FS only releases don't seem to be movies that are going to sell a whole lot of copies, so I'm wondering why they would spend the extra money to make is P&S. Of course I could be completely wrong and it might actually cost more to release it OAR.

Space_Monkey

My wife keeps asking if I heard anything about "K2" because she knows I won't buy it for her until they re-release it in widescreen.

joliom

Most of the pan & scan only releases are old transfers that were prepared back in the VHS days or for TV broadcast that they're just recycling for DVD. Very very few are prepared exclusively for DVD without a widescreen transfer to go along with it.

a handle

I just bought last night some $4.88 DVDs a WallyWorld like Leathel Weapon 2,3,4 and some Segal movies that had Wide on one side and full on the other side. This seems to be the best of two worlds

Shagrath

Except you get no disc art, and they're more easily scratched (because there's information on both sides).

joliom

There just needn't be any fullscreen DVD's for widescreen films. If they absolutely have to do it then I prefer the dual release method. Why waste precious disc space that could be used for extras, more soundtrack options, or a transfer encoded at a higher bit-rate? To me it's no different than including a colorized version on every DVD of old B&W films.

darkside

Everyone keeps talking about how HDTV will quickly be taking over. I find that hard to believe when we are still having issues just getting studios to stop releasing fool screen movies. My local Target has been pissing me off lately by only carrying the full screen versions of the Universal catalog titles.

At the very least the studios need to start labeling these correctly as pan and scan instead of full screen. They sure aren't full screen on my 16X9 TV.

ShagMan

This is definitely a pet peeve of mine... Universal is horrible about this, they released Tank and Iceman in FS only... Tank probably wouldn't be so bad because it's 1.85:1, but Iceman was in 2.35:1, so a FS would be

Dan

a few I've noticed
- The Fan (and many other Columbia TriStar films) was once available as a double-sided disc with WS and FF, but is now only available as FF.
- Matilda (already mentioned)
- Freaky Friday (the Lindsay Lohan / Jamie Lee Curtis version) is FF only in Canada, but the US release has both versions
- The Shrek Box Set that came out at the same time as Shrek 2 is only available as a FF set (maybe just a Canada thing again).
- Kindergarten Cop

It seems awareness about the difference between Wide Screen and Full Frame is up, but there's still those people who don't like widescreen no matter what. A co-worker of mine was approached by a customer today who insisted that "widescreen blows". He fully understood the differences, but still hates widescreen and probably will forever. What can you do?

I can't understand how someone can go to a theatre and watch Lord of the Rings, proclaim that it's their favourite movie of all time, then buy the Full Frame DVD a few months later and not notice the difference at all.

A new trend with DVD manufacturers seems to be that they'll label a DVD as widescreen, and it IS widescreen (16x9) but not the OAR. A perfect example is the Alexandra's Project DVD released here in Canada. Alliance/Universal released it as a 1.78:1 16x9 enhanced DVD, but the OAR of the film is actually 2.35:1. I find that disgusting, and I fear that a LOT of films are being released in a 16x9 frame when they were intended to be wider.

Also, Disney likes to label their Full Frame versions of Widescreen films as "family-friendly". What's family-friendly about disinformation?

Retailers are a BIG part of the problem as well, though they're slowly getting better. Most of them order equal quantities of widescreen and full frame versions of a film, and when the widescreen versions sell out, they don't bother to re-order more, because they're still stuck with lots of full frame DVDs that no one wants to buy and they don't want to be stuck with the product for 3 months before they can return it to the supplier. Then the studios complain that the product didn't sell as well as expected (re: Sideways, The Incredibles, etc.) Most Widescreen advocates will NOT buy non-OAR discs, while most Full Frame advocates will buy Widescreen if it's the only thing available.

my rant went off-topic, but my point is: Full Frame releases should only exist for shows that were meant to be shown that way. Aside from that, the studios need to stop wasting their time/money on something they KNOW will be retuned to them anyway.

Egon's Ghost

Amen. I've recently watched Matrix on VHS...I shudder to think of it. Anyway, Disney's Family Friendly thing is mind-bogglingly infuriating. It offends me to the core. Perhaps a more fundamental problem is that many people really DO think they are seeing less if a film is widescreen on a 4:3 TV. Mind you, it was my father-in-law, so I hope it's a generational thing. I hope.