Aside from being completely beside the point (anamorphic means enhanced for 16x9 tvs, allowing greater resolution to be seen), I haven't seen anyone else mention the idea that this should be 1.37. And considering there's a thread just as big over at the HTF about this, one of those guys would have definitely brought up the idea by now.

There are thousands and thousands of movies filmed by exposing a 1.37 film frame, with the intent of matting off the top and bottom to create a widescreen presentation. The idea has been around for half a century, and is nothing new, and you are not being cheated of movie image.

http://www.imdb.com/Technical?0072431

The INTENDED ratio for Young Frankenstein is 1.37:1. The 1.85:1 aspect ratio was only the theatrical ratio. It is INTENDED to be seen in fullscreen. It was SHOT in fullscreen, as was the original Frankenstein films from the 1930s.

This arguement has been around since at least the release of Young Frankenstein on Laserdisc, but the fact is in 1975 few theaters if any would have shown this film in 1.37:1 and Mel Brooks has never once mentioned being unhappy with the film being shown 1.85:1 and doesn't mention it at all in the commentary. There are also no framing issues during the film which also leads me to believe Brooks knew the film would be matted for 1.85:1. What ever the case Fox is never going to offer the film in 1.37:1 so its a moot point. What is important is for the 1.85:1 release to be anamorphic and that is where many are getting cheated.

next thing you know thing-fish is going to want it colorized ;)

I guess I'll just return the set I bought at Costco unopened. I was sort of lukewarm on this set anyhow, and don't want to deal with the hassles of explaining the anamorphic problems to customer service if it's the wrong Young Frankenstein (which now seems likely). Fox's loss and my wallet's gain.

I received mine from Amazon today. Anamorphic Young Frankenstein with yellow letters and no shrink wrap.

I'll wait till the next DDD 20% off sale to pick up this bad boy. Especially looking forward to "To Be or Not To Be".

Well, my set came from Amazon (yellow spine, non-shrinkwrapped) and was non-anamorphic. Out of curiosity, I also purchased a set from Costco. Same story for them as well. I'll be returning both sets. What an unbelievable fuckup from Fox. DVD consumers deserve better than this. :thmbsdwn:

I just got off the phone with Fox's Customer Service center and was told that I was the first person to report a problem with "old" YF discs being found in the new Mel Brooks set. I strongly suggest that others call them to re-enforce the fact that mine was not an isolated event.

Fox Home Entertainment
Hours of Operation (PST): M-F 8AM-5PM
1-888-223-2FOX

How is releasing a fullscreen version of a film that was shot in fullscreen and intended to be seen in fullscreen the equivalent to colorizing a film? I don't understand why the members of this forum make a big deal about colorization, yet NOBODY complains about a film that was shot in and intended to be seen in fullscreen being displayed in an incorrect aspect ratio! Surely that is a bigger sin than adding a little color? (BTW, I DON'T want Young Frankenstein colorized - Mel Brooks made the film in black and white because the original Frankenstein movies were made in black and white, and so it should stay in black and white.)

If Mel Brooks has no problem with it what are we supposed to do?

Costco took my return no problem whatsoever. Amazon just sent an email stating "I have placed a new order for the item. Rest assured that the replacement will be the anamorphic version. There is no charge for this replacement." So we shall see what Amazon sends to me. I would recommend anybody who is upset over this to politely call Fox customer service (thanks Revkarl for the number). The more people that call, the greater problem it becomes. If no one calls Fox, they will assume there is no problem and the consumer gets screwed.

I wrote you off as a troll at first, but since you seem adamant, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, why do you insist Brooks preferred this particular film to be 1.37?

I've already explained how almost every 1.85 movie is created by filming it at 1.37 then matting off the top and bottom, so you can't use that argument. I need to see where you've read or heard Brooks state that Young Frankenstein was intended to be at 1.37. I mean something like Kubricks old statements about home video, or the ill fated James Cameron/1.33 The Abyss letter.

Apparently Fox customer service is getting numerous phone calls on this matter. They told me that they are "reviewing" the set first and do not have a response at this time. Hopefully, more participants on dvdtalk, HTF, etc... will make this become an issue for Fox to address.

I just got a phone call from Fox Home Entertainment's customer service center.

They are offering an exchange program for those who received the 1998 non-anamorphic YF disc, but they want the entire box set back, not just the "bad" disc.

For those interested, call Fox (888-223-2FOX) and they will send you a pre-paid DHL shipping label.

Let's just hope this doesn't end up like WHV's Kiss Me Kate exchange program, where it was still a crap-shoot as to whether or not you got the "new" disc.

The entire box? Sorry, I'll just wait till I can buy it off the shelf with a sticker or something indicating the problem is fixed.

I understand they want to be sure nobody sends in the old disc without buying the set, but sending in the case for just that disc should be enough proof.

I said the same thing to the CS rep., but she was very insistent...they want the entire box set.

I can see it now. You send in the entire box, and when you receive it back, the box will be damaged, dinged, etc... Granted, it's only a box to house the set, but I can't be the only one that picks out the bext box available whenever I purchase a boxset at a B&M. Some of the retail places (Walmart and Best Buy) have the most frustrating shelving in which they hold dvd box sets. Inevitably, there are box sets that are badly dinged, dented, creased, or have signs of an exacto knife cut on the spine from whomever opened the shipments from their distributor. I concur that the slimcase should suffice as evidence of a purchase. :thumbsdown:

Picked my set up at Best Buy - YF has yellow spine, no shrink wrap, anamorphic.

It was shot in black and white because the classic Frankenstein films were in black and white, and it was shot in fullscreen because the classic Frankenstein films were shot in an aspect ratio of 1.37:1. Thus, a fullscreen version should at least be included in addition to the widescreen version, if not as the sole version on the disc.

For what it's worth, the first laserdisc version was released in fullscreen. (I still have it)

I don't care about the black and white, I have B&W films in my collection, I'm still waiting for you to provide a good source for this to be 1.37.

The original King Kong was 1.37, but both remakes were widescreen. Should they be modified to 1.37 just because the original was?

And there were plenty of laserdisc releases that weren't OAR, it wasn't the widescreen mecca some LD enthusiasts make it out to be, there was plenty of pan and scan crap on the big disc too.

I want you to show me something where Brooks says it should be presented at 1.37.



Also, I already found one of these boxes at a used CD/DVD store today, I would have grabbed it, but I didn't have a way of checking the Young Frankenstein disc.

First of all, the "King Kong" remakes were cheap rip-offs made by exploitive producers in two seperate but equally pitiful attempts to cash in on the popularity of the original classic. "Young Frankenstein" was a spoof made by a comic legend who actually loved the original Universal Frankenstein films, and didn't see them only as a cash cow (which was how Dino DiLaurentiis and Peter Jackson saw Kong).

Secondly, "Young Frankenstein" was actually shot in fullscreen. The King Kong remakes were shot in anamorphic widescreen.

Young Frankenstein was MEANT to be seen in fullscreen. That IS the original aspect ratio. The widescreen version is merely formatted to fit 16X9 screens (both theatrical and home screens).