Same here. Whew.

Having seen the amazing documetary on Warner's "King Kong" SE, I can tell you that Peter Jackson genuinely loves the origianl "King Kong" and does not see it as merely a "Cash-Cow"

Do you have any reliable links supporting this?

Theatrical screens are not 16X9, but can have the curtains moved to display several aspect ratios. If it had truely been important to show the film in 1.37:1 then Mel could have pushed for it and many theaters probably would have done it. Fact is there seems to be no record anywhere of Mel Brooks wanting the film shown in 1.37:1 and if there is a source for your claim I wish you would just present it and stop stating your opinion as fact. I can't believe something this important would not be mentioned by Mel Brooks somewhere like maybe the freaking commentary track on the film. Also the framing of the movie in 1.85:1 seems perfect and again makes me question the fact Mel never meant it to be shown that way.

Also, your comment about Peter Jackson is pure lunacy. Jackson has had a love for King Kong all his life and that film was made out of pure admiration of the original and not a quick cash grab. Look at all the time he spent creating supplements like the lost pit sequence and the other extras for the original King Kong DVD and tell me the man is just trying to make a quick and easy cash grab. Your statement if pure bullshit.

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

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072431/technical

Camera
Panavision Cameras and Lenses

Laboratory
DeLuxe (prints)

Film length (metres)
2905 m (Finland)

Film negative format (mm/video inches)
35 mm

Cinematographic process
Spherical

Printed film format
35 mm

Aspect ratio
1.37 : 1 (intended ratio)
1.85 : 1 (theatrical ratio)

No comprende, el stupido?

I hate to break this to you but....imdb is not exactly the most trusted source of information. At the very least, they have been known to make several mistakes on occasion. So unless Mel Brooks himself has stated that 1.37:1 is Young Frankenstein's intended ratio and that statement has been quoted any where BEYOND imdb (such as an audio commentary, interview, etc), you really don't have a leg to stand on.


And the "el stupido" comment is a bit out of line.

<i>Mod note: Please feel free to disagree and argue w/ each other, but leave the "quips" and slurs out of it.

thanks
</i>

Again this does not present any facts at all since it doesn't tell me where they got the info from. However, since you won't provide any I have dug through every listing I could find online for this movie and the only things I can find (and this is still far from concrete since its not directly quoted from Brooks or anyone at Fox) is that there was a conflict between Fox and Brooks on how the movie would be filmed. The studio wanted it in color and widescreen and Brooks wanted it black and white and academy ratio. The compromise was for Brooks to film it B&W and compose the shots for 1.85:1.

Again, the battle over color is well documented, but not the conflict over ratio. From what I have read though and after watching how the movie is composed it seems clear that Brooks knew the movie was being framed for 1.85:1 while filming the movie and it doesn't seem like something that was forced on him after the movie was shot.

You can disagree if you want and if you can find evidence to prove he shot the movie 1.37:1 to have it changed later please provide it, but from what I can see the movie was 1.85:1 from the start of production and that was something he had to give up in winning the battle to get it filmed in B&W.

Hahaha, this thread is circling the toilet thanks to thing-fish.

Please don't use imdb as proof of anything, imdb relies on user-submitted data.

Are there any decent $ deals for this set this week? I'm thinking about taking a chance and hoping I get an anamoprphic YF.

Wait a sec... with all due respect...
If this was shown in theaters at 1:85-1 isn't that then the OAR? Original Aspect Ratio?
Home Video didn't exist back then so filmmakers specifically composed for the cinema with later TV broadcasts as an afterthought.

Just my 2 cents...

:) d

Sorry to jump in and mix things up a bit, but I have a legit observation on this set, but it's far from important.

I picked this up last Tuesday on release for $69.99 at Best Buy. I did get the newest Young Frankenstein... this is not about that... LOL.

Anyway, last night we were watching Robin Hood : Men In Tights, and I noticed that the DVD case had a spindle for a second DVD. Anyone else notice this? I wonder if there were plans to do a 2 disk set for some of these movies, but instead they opted for a single disk for each. I'm sure only time will tell, and if they release a stand alone RH:MIT that is 2 DVD's I think we'll know the answer.

It seems the best chance of getting an anamorphic YF is through Best Buy (so far as B&M goes). While still a crap shoot so to speak, one could also purchase the set at Costco (which by all accounts on this board only have had the non-anamorphic version) and then return that set to Best Buy. Of course the Best Buy set may also have the wrong YF, but $62.99 at Costco sure beats $79.99 at Best Buy. Just an idea...

On a side note, Amazon has shipped either another box set or another YF in the clamshell (their email was vague), which should arrive today or Tuesday. If so, and assuming it is the correct version, that would be great, and preferable to sending the entire box set back to Fox. I also have another set "in reserve" that I bought from Best Buy to hopefully solve this problem. I have yet to open it since I want to give Amazon a chance to rectify the problem first. The first retailer/etailer to get it right gets my business here, and Amazon has a great return policy.

As another poster said, I hope Fox gets a lot of these sets returned by consumers either directly for the exchange or through stores that send them back for credit. That is at minimum a sufficient punishment for this lame action. Props to those on this board that brought this problem to our attention (and HTF as well).

Thanks to all who pointed out IMDB's credibility (or occasional lack thereof). I actually saw that a few days ago when the subject was brought up, but didn't think anyone would actually go so far as to use that as their source, so I didn't mention it.

Darkside brings up some interesting info, if Brooks was compromised, than I could accept putting both versions on the disc, just like I could accept both versions of certain Kubrick movies being released.

But thingfish was presenting a questionable source as hard proof, and that's just not enough. Besides, if Brooks accepted the compromise to get 1.85, who's to say he didn't go ahead and compose it for 1.85 so it would look good in the theaters?

And I'm still waiting till I can tell a good set in the store, so I can purchase it once and be done with it.

No. The only versions of Kubrick films that should be released are the versions Kubrick wanted us to see (for instance, the current DVDs of "Dr. Strangelove" and "Lolita" have the wrong formats -- the films are meant to have shots filmed in both fullscreen and 1.66:1 widescreen, not entirely widescreen prints. This was NOT what Kubrick intended). Towards the end of his career, Kubrick knew that they'd mess things up on TV, so he shot "The Shining," "Full Metal Jacket," and "Eyes Wide Shut" in fullscreen, which is the way these films should be released on home video.

Original aspect ratio means how the movie was filmed, not how it was shown theatrically.

(BTW, Hitchcock's "Psycho" was also intended to be seen in fullscreen.)

I know that IMDb isn't always a reliable source, but they do frequently get the aspect ratio info right. "Young Frankenstein" was intended for fullscreen. Please do not argue about this. You are wrong. Accept it.

I'd really like to get High Anxiety but I dont want the whole box set. Hopefully they will release them seperately as well.

I thought you might drag Kubrick into this, here's a thread on the HTF with a very nice picture from some of Kubrick's archives.

HTF thread

From the picture, "The frame is exactly 1-1.85. Obviously you compose for that, but protect the full 1-1.33 area."

Compose but protect. Clearly The Shining is intended to be seen at 1.85. For someone like Kubrick I can allow dual presentations in a DVD set, that would be the best of both worlds.

Brooks, however funny he may be, has never struck me as being one obsessed with the cinematography and composition. You have not provided any proof beyond a shaky IMDB reference that Brooks absolutely wanted it at 1.85. If he protected for both, then I can accept a dual format presentation on a DVD set.

And don't tell me what Original Aspect Ratio means, if you're trying to use my sig against me, then you need to re-read it. It's not about more image or less image, it's about the right image. And you have yet to prove to me that 1.33 is the one and only "right" image. I'm not saying it can't be, just that we don't really have anything saying it is.

And I've heard the Psycho argument before too, and the arguments for 1.33 don't seem to hold much water either from what I can recall.

Again, thanks for backing this up with reliable information.

Yeah, I noticed these as well, I think theyre on all the cases. It's great for Blazing Saddles, since you can put the 30th anniversary version in the same case and save shelf space.

Wow. I'm convinced.

:wacko:

Prove it.
You can't.
Good night.

So i'm watching Robin Hoood Men in Tights the other night and it looks like it's in full screen and the case say's widescreen but it doesn't look like widescreen to me, does anyone else see this ? Sorry if this was mentioned before but I didn't feel like scrolling through the 195 posts on this thread.

I think the menu on mine was fullscreen, but the movie is definitely widescreen.

It might be your dvd player and/or tv also. I have some widescreen dvd's that play fullscreen on my tv but widescreen on my computer. I think they're all anamorphic. Does anyone know why this happens?

you guys need to go into your dvd player menus and set your screen to 4:3 WIDESCREEN Just take all the disc out, turn the power on. hit menu and look for display/video options.

its is definatley widescreen

thing fish is just a troll and you guys are feeding him.