DirkUSA

Howdy,
It says on the back of the cover that the DVD is in 1.78:1 DVD Screen Format. You can see the cover here: http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_ite...2&tab=5&back=1
IMDB says the movie is 1.85:1, I don't know if that is correct but I get this feeling that Lion's Gate will crop movies to fill out widescreen TVs like they did with Lord Of War. I don't know if this is done under supervision of the director or not, but I prefer the movie in it's OAR, I don't want them to be altered in any way. I personally never liked Once Upon A Time In Mexico, it just didn't look right to me. I know Rodriguez wanted it like that but I would have preferred it in 2.35:1 as it was shown in theaters. I know the difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 isn't that much but I just don't like the idea that this becomes the new p/s, meaning making movies or shows fit 16:9 TVs like they did with the first season of Kung Fu, or Disney did it with one of the Aladdin sequels.

Regards,
Dirk

speedyray

Good Grief, I was really hoping Lord of War was an isolated incident, but it looks like the studios are going to replace fullscreen with widescreen fullscreen. We need OAR not full screens.

rant finished

DJ_Longfellow

Oh no.....at least it's not THAT big of a crop like Lord of War, still unsettling.

Paul Arnette

What are some other instances of a studio other than Lion's Gate perpetuating this practice currently? This is a serious question, though I am not aware of any other studios and therefore the above comment seems a bit hyperbolic to me.

Drexl

I've seen many DVDs over the years that are 1.78:1 although they are labeled 1.85:1. I would prefer 1.85:1, but it's just not a big deal.

SilverDreams

Sadly, this practice has been going on for years. My Italian dvd of Dario Argento's NON HO SONNO was cropped from its original 1.85 ratio to 1.77 to fit widescreen TVs. Hopefully this won't become too commonplace.

DirkUSA

Disney/Buenavista with The Recruit and one of the Aladdin Sequels. The Recruit was show in 2.35:1 in movie theaters and Aladdin is originally 1.33:1 and the DVD looks really bad in 1.78:1.

Dirk

digitalfreaknyc

Life As A House.

This shit HAS TO stop.

The Valeyard

Start your engines and storm Liongate. Start sending your letters & e-mails.

Sweet Baby James

I really don't see why you would bother to change a 1.85:1 to a 1.78:1. With the overscan that most displays exhibit, the black bars are not visible with a 1.85:1 transfer anyway.

cisman

I know on my panny plasma I don't see black bars at 1:85:1

The only time I do is when it's 2:35:1.

I don't mind though becuase I want to see the movie as I saw in in theaters.

Jay G.

In cropping a 1.85:1 film to 1.78:1, you're losing about 4% of the picture on the sides. In comparison, the cropping of a 1.37:1 film to 1.33:1, which is fairly standard, the loss is about 3%.

However, many 1.85:1 films are shot open-matte, which means that the new transfer may actually add image on the vertical plane. This would be an increase of 4% more vertical information.

In either case, the difference is fairly negligable, as not much is going to be happening on the outer 4% of the image. As Drexl pointed out, this is a fairly common practice for 1.85:1 films on DVD, yet not many people notice it.

Richard Malloy

Lion's Gate again, eh? Hmph. They've really gone out of their way to make quite the shitty track record for themselves.

Non-oar "fill my screen" releases. Censored releases of foreign films. Dubbed releases of foreign films. They've clearly concluded we're all of that breed we used to deride as "Joe Sixpack" 'round these parts, and are clearly pandering to a presumed ignorance. Gee, thanks, Lion's Gate.

Shagrath

This is pretty lame on the part of Lion's Gate. I would boycott this release and any other release with an altered OAR, but I know my wife won't let me on this one. Hopefully it'll at least be an open-matte release and we won't lose any info, even if it is altered.

DirkUSA

The funny part is that they release a fullscreen edition also. I really don't see the point here. Most 4:3 TVs barely show bars if you play a 1.78:1 DVD.
I just want to see the movie in it's OAR and not altered. I agree that there isn't much difference between 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 but why altering it if you have a fullscreen version out anyway??? Who knows what they did, we will only find out when there are different release out there and someone can compare, like Lord Of War. This whole thing reminds me of Disney's "Family Friendly Widescreen" on the back of their covers. 1.66:1 is family friendly so I guess anythig else isn't?????????? Except Saw II isn't family friendly at all.

Dirk

Richard Malloy

It's certainly not as big a deal for this film (1.85:1 to 1.78:1) as compared to a film shot 'scope (like "Lord of War"). What it suggests, however, is that this is Lion's Gate's policy going forward.

Fill mah screen....ddduuuuuuhhhhh

mdc3000

Well, I was one of the suckers who bought LORD OF WAR anyhow because I figured it was an isolated incident and thought perhaps it was approved by the director...now with this news of SAW II, it seems this is Lion's Gate's brilliant new DVD strategy.... I just fired them off an email about the issue...going to return my LORD OF WAR and told them how I will boycott all future releases that use this horrible DVD FULL SCREEN .... it's like they're trying to pass off a glorified full screen edition as widescreen, which I just won't stand for... sent my email to [email protected] hopefully it'll get to the right people.

MATT

DirkUSA

They released "The Devil's Rejects" in 1.85:1 and it says DVD Screen Format on the back of that DVD also, but that is the OAR of the movie.
Does anybody have more information how Saw 2 was filmed?

Dirk

The Valeyard

If you need to pick it up for your wife, get it at a used DVD store.


Stick it to the Man! Fight the power!

Shazam

Almost all (if not all) WB 1.85AR movies are 1.78AR DVDs.

This practice has been going on for years, pretty well since DVD started.

You guys are just starting to notice now?

NatrlBornThrllr

The only thing that bothers me about this is that now, in some cases, neither "fullscreen" nor "widescreen" mean OAR. This means that instead of just grabbing the widescreen version of a film, I'll be forced to read up online (or check the small print on the back of the DVD) to decipher whether or not a particular film has been cropped. This is the point where these loose terms ("fullscreen," and "widescreen") come to bite us in the ass.

-JP

DirkUSA

Absolutely true!

Dirk

Julie Walker

The original SAW was released this way as well.

But it is true that the majority of '1:85:1' films are actually 1:78:1 on dvd.

So it's kind of impossible to now stop studios from going that route. On the other hand....tampering with 2:35:1/scope films IS something we should not tolerate.

OldBoy

who cares about this release anyway?...wait till the Unrated, DTS version comes out. Maybe that will be better.

Slowpc

Humm... Lord of War and then Saw II ... good work Lion's Gate, I guess I will not be buying that one....