cinephiler2351

I know there's a lot of kids in school that don't know the difference between full screen and widescreen. At the same time, these kids are reading Flowers For Algernon in school and at some point are shown the movie to see the proper difference between film and literature and how an adaptation cinematically can be faithful or very different.
Many of those schools have upgraded from VHS to DVD.

At first I was pleased at the announcement that Charly (I read the book I had seen the wonderful movie) was going to be released by MGM on DVD. The bad news was that it was going to be released full frame not widescreen as intended. Here's is a clear cut case of a film that needs the wide treatment being that the film was filmed in Technoscope and in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. A lot of activity will be lost and the viewing experience will not be the same in full frame.

If anyone from MGM is reading this, it's not too late to do an about face and release this title the way it was meant to be seen in a widescreen format.

I implore anyone from MGM or anyone on this forum to speak their mind for this title. I have been waiting many years from the CBS/Fox days to Anchor Bay and now to this. I've waited too long to see this film wide and I won't rest until it is done so properly. This is also no way to treat an Oscar-winning film (Cliff Robertson won Best Actor playing the title role), no matter whether you regard it as a classic or not.

I encourage any comments from both sides and if you truly care for a title, it can make the difference wasting a DVD title and giving it better DVD treatment than being reduced to the treatment of a VHS Rental.

Thank you

Christopher Bligh

RagingBull80

I have not seen the film Charly but I agree with you that it should be presented in its original aspect ratio!

Classic Films

MGM and Columbia are the worst with Disney a close third when it comes to releasing Wide Screen films in fools screen. The only thing we can do is let them know of our disapproval and not buy these products . One of the reasons I think they do this is that the existing masters of these films are full frame from VHS days and it is much cheaper to use these then to remaster the films for Wide Screen. They will say the do it because that is what Walmart wants. If that were the only reason why not release flippers, like they used to with a widescreen version on one side and fulls screen on the other.

marty888

Very shabby treatment of an important movie.

It's just one more reason why I'm in the region-free mode:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...261440-0712449

PixyJunket

Here this out?

RevKarl

While I agree with what Classic Films stated a few replies ago, I am afraid that the studio "pinheads" who release film classics in MAR don't realize that we are "voting with our wallets" in not buying these DVDs; rather, it supports their shortsighted view that there is little, if any, market for such films and they are right not to spend any effort (or money) in properly producing such DVDs.

Groucho

It's for the kids in school!

S Galbraith IV

While MGM certainly has released its share of full-frame and 4:3 letterboxed DVDs, many of its recent releases are titles acquired on a limited basis through Disney. These include HELL IN THE PACIFIC, TOO LATE THE HERO, SHALAKO, JUNIOR BONNER, THE LAST VALLEY ... and CHARLY.

Most of these, if I remember correctly, were produced by ABC's short-lived theatrical feature division -- whose library of titles is owned by Disney.

MGM, acting mainly as a distributor, was forced to work with inferior masters provided by Disney. I don't recall MGM ever being given access to any film elements at all.

(The same problem exists on Image's release of the TV series COMBAT. They're taking the blame for inferior, time-compressed transfers provided them by Disney.)

Marty888 refers to a widescreen PAL version of CHARLY (and thanks for that, 888 -- I just ordered my copy), so one presumes the holder of the U.K. rights created a master using elements held there, or got Disney to create a new master back in L.A. I would argue even a 16:9 PAL conversion is better than 4:3 P&S, but there might even be a 16:9 NTSC master created at the same time for this.

I've forwarded this thread to an old collegue of mine at MGM. Don't get your hopes up, but I'll ask him to at least look into this, and keep you posted....

PatrickMcCart

Criterion was able to totally re-transfer four films from the same catalog that Charly is in (ABC Films), so it's a matter of taking the time to work with BV.

Cliff Robertson probably has a little bit of ownership for the film (since he co-produced it), so he should be alerted to what is happening with the film.

Not only will it be MAR... it'll probably be a lousy transfer as well.

PopcornTreeCt

Technoscope? Nobody listens to techno!

Mr. Salty

Wow, that's a really long sig.

movielib

I've got the R2 also.

Max Bottomtime

Almost as funny as the first line.
"I know there's a lot of kids in school that don't know the difference between full screen and widescreen."

I know there's a lot of kids in school that don't know the difference between hear and here. :-)

viking99

or...

I know there are a lot of........oh, never mind.

Hokeyboy

Hudsucker Industries

proudly presents

WIDESCREEN

You know... for kids!

Ruderic

I don't know why they don't release both versions. One of my favorite DVDs is the Shrek with the Widescreen and Full screen editions in the case. I can play it on the widescreen TV or on the fullscreen TV in the kid's room.

cinephiler2351

I thank all of you for your support and if any of you are interested, I have posted the official petition right here:

http://www.petitiononline.com/Axman/petition.html

I'd appreciate if you can put in your input live and official so that MGM can do the right thing for this title and tell all your friends to do the same. Your support will not go unacknowledged

thanks again to you all

Bill Geiger

Wanna give this a bump for a good cause.