On a small indie release like this one the director probably owns the film himself, or at least has controlling interest in it. The studio releasing it going to be just a distributor and when they buy the rights to distribute a film they buy what the director is selling. The director has the power.

Also, I definitely would not say 'extremely rare case.' That couldn't be further from the truth. Directors hold studios hostage all of the time. As long as they make money they get to do pretty much whatever they want.

I'd like to know what the truth is. It really isn't that big of a deal as they made it out to be. You know, like was the movie shot for 4:3 and then matted against the director's wishes for its theatrical release? Or was the director fine with it being release in 1.85:1 even though they claim that's not how he wanted it to be seen? The way the president of the company acted, which was almost as if he didn't even know what OAR was, and the fact that they didn't put anything about how the film was being presented on the box cover at all (I wasn't even about to ask if the widescreen was anamorphic, because I didn't want to get called another name) makes me not confident at all about this release. They did tell me that some of the extras on the 4:3 release were in widescreen and someone else posted that the film Supersize Me was released non-anamorphic but had anamorphic widescreen special features. That's sloppy and people don't like it. I tried to just express that and they went absolutely nuts on me. They'll find out what people expect one day, when they get a bigger release and mess it up like this.

Let me see if I understand:

The OAR of the theatrical cut is 1.85:1, and it's presented that way on the disc.

The other version was never released theatrically, so it can't have an OAR. It can only have an "intended ratio." The director says the intended ratio is 4:3, and that's the way it's presented.

If this is correct, where's the problem?

(Never seen the film, just curious.)

RichC

I suspect Wannebe nailed the reason for the different aspect ratios in his post upthread... the full-frame presentation is likely open-matte, thus revealing more nekkid parts, hence the "unrated" marketing tag.

I understand there are a number of 80s teen sex comedies where the open-matte presentation is preferred for this reason.

And let's not forget that this is a low-budget film, many of which are shot in Academy ratio -- and intended to be shown in that ratio -- but which are routinely cropped to force-fit into the usual commercial theater dimensions. The only 1.33:1 film I've ever seen properly projected at a commercial theater (that is, not an arthouse, repertory house, or museum screening) was for "The Blair Witch Project", and that screening was at a Landmark Theater (a chain that takes particular care in proper projection).

I can kind of understand that the "unrated" or director's cut could be in another AR, as rdclark laid it out, but ONLY IF it's majorly re-cut, and not just extended in a minor way. In most cases, it's just minor (time/scene-wise), so the arguement that it's a completetly different film, just doesn't hold up.

The open matte could certainly explain the reason for an "unrated" cut, but is that really the case, was there some "naughty bits" below where the matte line would be?

Also, the studio would make it seem that the director owns or has controlling interest in the film, in this case?

My thoughts are that if the pres of the company wrote me, a concerned customer, like this, it wouldn't matter what the OAR was, what the extras are, hell, he could even come and put it in my DVD player and I wouldn't buy it from him.

Other than that, it does seem like the difference is OAR-as-released, and unreleased-directors-cut-preferred-ratio. Which one is 'better'? I don't know. The OAR would be more 'real,' that is, that's the film that was shown, but you'd assume the DC would be 'tweaked' like the director wanted it. They're both 'right', just different.
Of course, then we get into Greedo-shot-first land.

They buy what the director (or, more accurately, the owner of the film who may or may not be the director) is selling, but I've not heard of a case of such a sale giving the director such a power. Maybe because the company is so small, they were willing to give up more to get the movie, but of the deals I've seen, these sorts of things are not given to the director contractually.

So they rarely give up theatrical final cut to directors, but they give up the home video cut to directors all the time?

Martin Scorsese doesn't have it, but Johnny Hawaiian does. Okay.

I don't doubt that it's possible, but such a situation is not the norm or even all that common in my experience.

You're exactly right. I will not buy this film after the way they treated me. The fact that even in this thread that there is such a lively debate certainly suggests to me that people take these issues seriously. And that there are more than a few possibilites for why this release ended up this way. His company should have been a lot more respectful and helpful in trying to get me the info that I asked for. That's the whole backbone of what they do.

I rely on this board and its members often to get the best info I can to make an informed decision. In this case, I went to the company because no one here or anywhere else knew. There was no website or message board for the film. All I wanted to know were a few things about the film that most people here always want to know before they buy a dvd and I got blasted for trying to find out.

I once had to call Anchor Bay and they were SO nice and helpful and had this been them releasing this film, I bet they would have taken my e-mails and tried to get me the answers from the people who helped produce the dvd release or even the director. It's not that hard and you'd think a first time director would want to get an answer to someone that wanted to see his work. They didn't write me back and tell me to give them some time to look into, they wrote me back and told me that I was a jerk for not just picking a copy, buying it, and being happy with it no matter what. That's not right.

This movie was seen by so few people, it seems, I still don't understand why they wouldn't release only the version the director preferred. The few people who are interested in the film, like me, are probably all going to prefer to see what the director wanted to be seen. But, even with that, the way they answered me, I don't even know if they were being honest about that. The president actually boasted how he shipped 30,000 copies. Well, I have not seen 1 copy in any store and haven't come across 1 person at any board that has seen it (other than the person here who reviewed it). I guess they lost the only $20 they were gonna make, by being so rude to me.

Did you read what I posted? This is an indie movie, written, directed and produced by the same man. Done by his production company. It's autonomous. I don't know how clearly I can spell this out to you... There's nobody else to own it. There's nobody else around to take it from him. One last time: IT'S HIS MOVIE AND HIS DEAL. AS THE SOLE OWNER OF THE FLICK HE CAN DICTATE THE TERMS HE LICENSES IT FOR DVD DISTRIBUTION IN THE EXACT SAME WAY YOU CAN DICTATE THE TERMS IF YOU SELL YOUR OWN PROPERTY.

See above please.

And if you don't think Scorsese would have final cut, regardless of what's printed in whatever article you've read, you are mistaken.

I don't know and honestly don't care what your experience is, because it seems to be limited and or wrong.

Why do you suppose, if the director made the call on how both of these releases, that he would want his vision (4:3 according to the company selling the dvd, insisted on by the director) to be only on the unrated release?

Is he really trying to pacify the few hundred people who saw this film theatrically, assuming it was matted to 1.85 for the theaters?

I suppose that is the sole reason for the widescreen version, just to have something that is exactly what people who saw it in theaters expect, but it causes a lot of confusion. The director has to know people who go to the trouble of buying this release, must have liked the film and will be drawn to an unrated, ORIGINAL release because that seems to be stating the obvious... that the director prefers that version and would have preferred it to have been shown that way in theaters.

So if he's making the call on a small, indie film, he should have released both versions on one disc. Your choices now are, see it the way the director wanted you to see it or see it the way it was shown in the theater. If that's really the case, it's a pretty easy call and it just confuses me (and I think others) when something comes out like this.

The fact the people were rude and unprepared for questions didn't make things easier.

If you really want to convey to the president that you're electing not to purchase any products released by his company solely on the basis of his unacceptable treatment of you, you should send him a final e-mail/letter stating this, perhaps with reference to the minor furvor you've started here (which, in terms of the already limited grosses he could hope to earn from sales of this title, could appear to his interests as a major furvor). If you quietly don't buy the title, the president just figures no one was interested in the film but if he knows you were prepared to buy the title and then changed your mind specifically due to his attitude, then he's obliged to either change his attitude or watch his fledgling company go bankrupt in short order--either way, you and I as the consumer ultimately win.