Hurricane

No stress hear. Just stating the facts as I see them. If MGM wants to keep their head up their a$$, no skin off my back. Like I said, I have Hot Dog on VHS. If they would have offered a better print that was OAR I would have easily purchased it.

I'm sure the "Hot Dog" DVD despite not being OAR will be a significant improvementt over your current VHS copy.

Actually I'm looking forward to the "Poltergeist II/III" double feature for $14.95!

hurricane,

I think our point is that they'll probably make *less* money with a FS version than with an anamorphic widescreen version because most of the people who would buy these titles are film geeks like us.

Since the high-def digital transfer of many of these titles have already been made, what is the logic in releasing the FS only?

Silly, silly MGM.

-- Jough

I agree with you 100%. The only difference you and I have is that I'm still going to end up buying the Full Screen version because I like the movie so much. Shame on me!

I was already not going to buy the dvd, and I posted because I know someone at MGM will read this, and maybe get the message.

I think your more stressed about it then us.

And because people like you spend the money, MGM gets the message it is ok not to remaster and release WS.'

To some of us, it is vital for a movie to have everything it had in the theater, for some, it is not.

Three bones I want to pick with MGM:

1) why won't you just release the unrated cut of "The Burning" on DVD since it's available on VHS

2) Did you purposefully mean to just release Pasolini's "The Decameron" and not "Canterbury Tales" and "Arabian Nights"

3) "Robocop" - unrated, 5.1 sound, extras! Now!

I beg to differ! Did you read carefully what I posted? I said that "The few 4x3 DVD's I have (that were theatrically done in WS) that are Full frame I zoom in to fill the screen so all I am missing is the extra info on the top & bottom that was never meant to be seen in the first place." So I did NOT say I zoom in 4x3 DVD's that were shot by the director to be seen in 4x3 (like X-Files and Twin Peaks), but instead said I zoom FULL FRAME 4x3 DVD's which are films shot in FULL FRAME (35mm film) by the director and matted to 2.35:1 or 1.85:1. The director has matte marks on the cameras to frame what he wants shown theatrically in WS and cares not what is on the out of matte area (usually booms etc.). So when I zoom a 4x3 FULL FRAME DVD I am seeing what was presented theatrically because now have cut off the top and bottom material that was never intended to be seen in the first place! Yes is is not as good as Anamorphic but with my RP-91 player I can scale better then any other DVD players out there and get a very good result.

First, never be sorry for posting your views, that's why it's a discussion forum.

Other's have already commented on the mastering of a DVD requires no more money to do it right than to hack it to 4x3 format so I won't belabor the point.

My thoughts are more on the marketing end of some of the titles discussed here. Marketing people have profiled these movies and have concluded (rightly or wrongly) that some of these titles will appeal to those don't want widescreen format.

This will be the same marketing people that will conclude that a widescreen version will be a great idea (at some point) and will re-issue the film. Film content is king and (from a Marketer's standpoint) is the gift that keeps on giving.

The idea that 'I would rather have something than nothing' is sweet, sweet music to their ears. They love you and they see you coming.

Of course the tide is turning on FS anyway. Some retailers are now saying "Full Screen version also available" rather than the other way around.

Also, be a change agent for others. When I'm at the DVD stacks sometimes you'll hear people talking about which version of a DVD to purchase. I'll politely interject with two and only two thoughts.

1) I start with my hands wide and then bring them in as I explain that a full screen version of a film is missing what was shown at the movie theatre.

2) That full screen fits most people TVs today but with prices coming down .. how much longer before they will get a widescreen TV and are then stuck with a DVD that won't play widescreen on it.

Invariably, people thank me for the input - actually looking grateful/relieved to have the info.

If you tell a few people, they will tell a few people and market acceptance for widescreen will occur faster. Then there will be one less way for marketing types to mess with us.

Check out the Digital Bits recently. They have news that Blockbuster is going to start ordering the WS version over the full frame (Pan and Scan or Open Matte) version of DVDs whenever possible, stating consumer demand for widescreen as their reasoning.

This is very good news - I guess people have gotten used to their "black bars" or more and more J6Ps are getting widescreen TVs and hate the windowboxing (bars on the SIDES of a 4:3 picture to fill in the screen) of their new WS tvs, or else zooming and noticing how much of the picture is cut off (this is especially bad with a pan and scan release).

So ha ha ha.

-- Jough

My "ha ha ha" above was directed at those who preferred "full frame" DVDs and now have widescreen displays and have black bars on the sides instead of the top and bottom.

And with non-anamorphic discs, they'll have thick black bars all around the picture - turning their 40 inch plasma display into a 13" tiny teevee.

-- Jough

First off, let me state that I ALWAYS prefer OAR DVDs. That stated, however, the above argument is too simplistic.

I've done some work in the film re-mastering area and while it doesn't cost any more money to re-master a film in the OAR as opposed to doing it in P/S, it does cost TWICE as much to remaster a film in BOTH aspect ratios. Plus, it costs TWICE as much again to compress both versions for DVD and it costs somewhat more to use a DVD-9 (or higher) to hold both versions.

So the question isn't whether or not it costs more to re-master a film correctly, the question is how does a studio keep everyone happy (those who hate "black bars" as well as those of us who prefer OAR) and contain the costs on "lower profile" releases? Unfortunately, MGM has decided that on some titles the increased costs of releasing a DVD with both versions isn't worth it. Do I think they've made the right decision? NO! It's a step backward and I'm extremely saddened to see them go in that direction.

But as long as there are people out there who insist on P/S DVDs -- and Wal-Mart and BlockBuster both say that these people are out there and are vocal -- then we're going to see this problem continue.

EDIT: BTW, my own personal compromise...If it's a movie which I love AND the OAR was 1.85, then I'll buy the full-frame DVD. If the movie was shot 2.35, then forget it! Anyone who has ever seen a P/S version of a Sergio Leone movie can tell that P/S doesn't work with a director who knows how to use the 2.35 canvas...