Altered aspect ratio for Widescreen TVs (NO!)
 

It looks like my worst fear has come true. It appears that the Lord of War DVD release has been cropped from 2.35:1 to 1.78:1 for the DVD release.

The screener DVD that was sent out was in 2.35:1. The only reason I can think of for the change on the general release is to make it "fit" on a widescreen TV without black bars. Holy shit.

We thought we would be done with altered ARs with the move to widescreen TVs, but it appears that now we may get cropped widescreen releases to conform to the 1.78:1 AR on those sets.

Where can I find the OAR of a film, so I can check each new DVD release to make sure it is in OAR?

I hope this trend doesn't continue...

Here's a thread on IMDB that will make you sick. Some excerpts:

This suggestion is just fucking stupid:
And another one.

[Sam Kinison voice]
Oh, fuck, I'm in hell. Ohh Ohhhhh!
[/Sam Kinison voice]

Just goes to show that some widescreen TV owners aren't any smarter than standard TV owners. Gotta fill that screen!

And who still says that the early adopters of HD discs will be "tech savvy" with an eye on "technical and quality" considerations vs. price???

:brickwl:

:brickwl:

:brickwl:


Please people, read it \/, learn it, love it.

I knew widescreen tvs would not be the end of altered aspect ratio issue:)

See,people are ignorant...and everyone expects all films to be in one aspect ratio. Specifically..whatever shape their screen is.

Thus I think studios should stop conforming to their ignorant wants...and just release O.A.R. only. And then maybe just maybe,have some before and after comparisions to showcase why films are the way they are.

It's not just movies either. The high-definition channels on DirecTV are showing HD, widescreen versions of old TV shows like "Hogan's Heroes" and "Knight Rider." Best I can tell, they're just cutting off the tops and bottoms -- or doing some sort of horizontal version of pan and scan -- to make them widescreen. Completely idiotic.

Sigh...why must we suffer for other people's ignorance?
 

This Lord of War thing makes me deeply, deeply sad. This was one of my favorite movies of last year, and was looking forward to buying it this week. Now I won't purchase it at all. One of my favorite aspects of the film was director Andrew Niccol's striking compositions. While many people complained about the content of the film, you couldn't argue that it wasn't a great looking film.

Dammit!

Well, the UK release is coming out March 6th, it's 2-discs, has better cover art and is being released by Momentum which does a pretty good job with their releases. We region-free folks should cross our fingers for the OAR according to this, it is:

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releas...d-of-war2.html

Just a warning, Hostel was released in theaters at 2:35:1. If Lionsgate alters this movie, I will boycott all of their releases.

I don't get it either. Every widescreen set I've ever dealt with has some sort of zoom feature to create the same effect. What's so wrong with presenting everything in it's OAR and letting the ignorant stretch/crop/zoom to their hearts content? In the event they are too dumb to do that, they should have their widescreen set confiscated.

I wonder if some of these reformats are truly cropping or simply exposing an entire Super 35 image?

I didn't think WS TVs would be the end of reformatting either. All you're doing is trading one shape for another, and that doesn't change the fact that not everything is the same shape.

Has someone contacted Lions Gate about it?

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/search.php?searchid=979646

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/newrepl...te=1&p=6709342

Let's not get too riled up here. Lord of War is just one of a small handful of movies reframed for DVD at the instruction of the film's director. Others include the first Austin Powers, Star Trek VI, and The Recruit.

This still seems to be a case-by-case scenario, not necessarily the beginning of a sweeping trend.

I've heard it said that it was director approved, but can't find any solid evidence that this is true. I'm not doubting your word, but are there any links? I've read that it is not mentioned on the director's commentary track for LoW.

Also, if it was altered at the intstruction of the director, then why is it available in 2.35:1 for other regions:

Region 3 LoR in 2.35:1

and why the pre-screen discs in 2.35:1?

This happened before...
 

This makes sense now.

A few months ago my friend lent me a Lions Gate screener of the movie Employee of the Month with Matt Dillon and Christina Applegate ( a decent movie BTW.) And that screener was 2:35:1, but when the DVD was officially released it boasted a 1:78:1 aspect ratio. Who knows how many other movies they've done this to.

If anyone is feeling ambitious, perhaps a class action suit against Lionsgate, a la the MGM letterboxing debacle, is in order.

Based on what? I've seen this opinion expressed on other forums as well, but so far, I've been unable to find a single shred of evidence supporting this contention. To the contrary, I have seen a post of screen captures comparing a scene in the trailer to a scene in the DVD release (two women standing atop either side of a tank), and the DVD release is very clearly cropped on both sides, changing the entire feel of the frame.

I wanted to buy this DVD yesterday, but I'm apparently going to have to wait for a OAR release in another region, because I'm not spending a dime on what appears to be a butchered atrocity.

a quote from http://rogerebert.suntimes.com re: Fantasia/Pinocchio/Snow White
I also remember reading an article or interview with him where he was talking about a festival he went to where a full-frame classic film (I forget the title) was projected as widescreen. When he asked the festival organizers why they did that, they claimed that it was because they didn't want people to think that they were paying to come to this festival to watch TV, so they made the film more "cinematic" by chopping off the bottom and projecting it to fill the theatre's screen.

Finally, the R1 release of Gus Van Sant's "Elephant", has full-frame and widescreen versions of the film, yet the full-frame is the OAR. HBO included a WS version to appease WS TV owners.

ugh.

obviously, this isn't quite the same as cropping 2.35:1 into 1.78:1 (the opposite, in fact), but if this is any indication of things to come, I'm highly disappointed.

in another thread, someone stated that The Recruit was also advertised as 2:35:1 in R3, but the DVD was actually 1.78. Does anyone know how cd-wow handles returns, if at all? will they accept open product returns if it's not as advertised?

Funny that this is very similar to the debacle of The Castle Keep. Pan and scan or full frame of widescreen or 1.85:1 films was to appease the mainstream audience who owned standard 1.33:1 televisions. Now they are cropping 2.35:1 films to appease the "widescreen" television owners. Jesus H. Christ, we really haven't won this battle, have we?

Well, people yelled and screamed about the Castle keep, and that has been released in its original aspect ratio. Perhaps the same can happen with The Lord of War?

Great after years of putting up with pan and scan now we have to deal with this. I noticed this a lot on the PSP. Most of the UMD movies are reformatted for 1.78. I still can't believe there are so many idiots watching the black bars instead of the stuff going on in between them.

I watched Lord of War last night and thought it didn't look right at 1.78:1, but had no idea that it wasn't OAR. That's the first widescreen disc that I've bought like this. I know Showtime, HBO, and others have been cropping to 1.78 for years, but this is the first instance I've run across on DVD. I hope it's an isolated incident and not a case of "here we go again." Let's also hope this isn't what we have to look forward to when HD discs become available. Most of the HD movie channels have little value to me because of this. Even many of Voom's original channels were cropped like this (and many 1.33:1 films were cropped to fit widescreen).

[QUOTE]I also remember reading an article or interview with him where he was talking about a festival he went to where a full-frame classic film (I forget the title) was projected as widescreen. When he asked the festival organizers why they did that, they claimed that it was because they didn't want people to think that they were paying to come to this festival to watch TV, so they made the film more "cinematic" by chopping off the bottom and projecting it to fill the theatre's screen.[\QUOTE]

I believe it was AN AMERICAN IN PARIS (1951)--Gene Kelly's dancing feet were cut off by the fake letterboxing at the above-mentioned film festival.

The fantastic Ebert quote about it is my sig...

I just can't see how the black bars make a goddamn difference at all. Once the lights are off, how can you even see them?

= J

About a year ago, I was flipping through the channels when I noticed that the local WB affiliate was showing LOTR: FOTR. I was impressed to see that it was shown letterboxed even on the analog standard-def broadcast, until I noticed that it was letterboxed at 1.78:1. If you're going to make the audience "suffer" through black bars, why not just show the damn thing in OAR and be done with it?

On an amusing side note, I've noticed that financial and consultation firms -- which often aired commericals shot in 1.78:1 before the advent of HDTV -- have started airing commericals shot in 2.35:1 in the last couple of years. I guess they figure the "black bar look" is classy enough that they don't want widescreen set owners to feel left out.

I've known stuff like this would happen for a loooooong time. The hypocricy is unbelievable, "home theater enthusiasts" will refer to people that prefer stuff to fill their 4x3 televisions as "Joe Sixpack" but they are completely tolerant of a modified aspect ratio if it fills their expensive 16x9 televisions. Case in point: the last FIVE seasons of "The X-Files" are only available on DVD in a modified aspect ratio. Though they were FILMED in 1.78:1, there are NUMEROUS examples that prove that they were not COMPOSED for that ratio. Specific episodes that reveal stuff that should have stayed "behind the scenes" include "Bad Blood", "Dreamland", "Alpha" and "Christmas Carol", but you'll never see an online petition crying for the release of "The X-Files" seasons 5-9 in their proper 4x3 aspect ratio, you'll only see a bunch of hypocrites praising the additional dead space on the sides of the screen. I have to confess that I have chosen to watch films in the 1.85:1 or 1.78:1 aspect ratio over films that would fill my screen in a less-ideal fashion on my 16x9 display but these urges were short-lived, the gimmick of the differently-shaped screen no longer factors into what I watch.

So what you are saying is that someone who owns a standard T.V. is dumb?