"The US R1 has an interview with Terry Gilliam and producer Jeremy Thomas, while the Canadian R1 instead claims to have an interview with Terry Gilliam and Mitch Cullin, writer of the novel the movie was adapted from."

The US R1 also has an interview with the cinematographer. It doesn't have the interview with Cullen (I don't think), but the interviews with Thomas, Cullin, and the DP are all used in the documentary as well. (I assume that the documentarian shot the interviews, used the footage he wanted, and then gave more raw footage of the interviews to the DVD team; I think there's a different Gilliam interview.) The Jeremy Thomas interview is kind of dry and possibly the least interesting feature on the disc (though Gilliam's interview is annoying, in that he just repeats everything he said in the commentary).

From Terry Gilliam:

"I'm embarrassed! Having been assured that the Canadian DVD was the correct format, I now discover I was completely misled.

What was I thinking? Why hadn't I jumped a plane and flown to Toronto to buy a Tideland DVD on the 1st day of sales? I would have known the truth before opening my big mouth. What a fool!!! I can begin to see why Stanley Kubrick went a bit whacko trying to keep an eye on every print of his films in every far-flung corner of the globe... and he had a full-time guy doing the legwork.

Any volunteers?

What I recommend for all the owners of the North American Tideland DVD is to get a roll of wide black tape... sorry, before you do that, go out and buy a dozen more copies of the DVDs and pass them out to your friends, then... pause the disc at the Capri Films logo when it flares out into a blue sky. What you see is the correct proportion of 2.35:1. Then, unrolling the tape, mask off the black areas on the
screen above and below. If you want to leave a little bit more space top and bottom of the logo you will end up with the UK proportion. Then you should just sit back and enjoy. All the information left to right is there. There was no panning and scanning. Just stupidity.

-Terry

Are the colors on the DVD that wacked as well?

That comparison seems to show that the DVD has all of its open-matte extra picture at the top of the frame. Hmmm...

The dvd picture above could've been taken from a different source like a work-print.
It was not meant to be a representation of color - just ratios.

And I don't think Terry's solution would work very well, as the amount of extra space at the top and bottom of the frame varies from shot to shot. Even though there seems to be a little cropping on the sides, at least it's not pan-n-scan.

I haven't received my copy in the mail yet but it's good news to hear that it isn't pan and scan.

Or are they talking about the canadian version? I'm so confused.

All the information left to right is NOT all there. If you really look at those two pictures you can see there is information missing on both sides. More so on the left than the right. Maybe Terry Gilliam is talking about the Canadian DVD being open matte with no image loss on the sides, but the US Thinkfilm DVD is certainly cropped.

I would take that comparison pic with a grain of salt. That pic's from an article posted at quickstopentertainment, and doesn't say exactly where the comparison images came from:
http://www.quickstopentertainment.com/?p=3707

Hey guys according to davis dvd, they will be re-releasing it soon:

http://www.davisdvd.com/news/dvd.html

So basically people who bought the current version before knowing about this problem are SOL?

Excellent film, but I'm glad I rented from Netflix rather than buying it.
I fear a lot of others weren't so lucky.

That info's several days out of date on that page. It's referencing the 3/6 post on the film ick blog. Since then, ThinkFilm has sent out more contradictory information, and the aspect ratio of the Canadian DVD has been questioned.

Josh - the colors aren't that wacked, no. I did notice, when comparing the image to the 2.35 trailer at apple, that the trailer was darker, and I liked the way it looked more, but I'm sure Gilliam had more control over the DVD than the trailer.

Also, there is some extra picture at the bottom. I'd say it's like 9:1 top:bottom ... check the mailbox. That's the only point of reference, which is why I'd say this is a bad frame to use for a screengrab comparison. Most of the interiors of the movie are loaded with Gilliam's attention to random chaotic detail, they'd probably make it easier.

Given how often Gilliam has been misinformed in this process, I don't take anything he says about the products distributors are selling as gospel until it's triple-checked. I doubt that there are two different 1.77:1 transfers floating around in NTSC.

That's because Quick Stop is trying to take credit for the work of the people at film ick and Terry Gilliam's "Dreams" forum. The guy who uploaded those pics posts at "Dreams" so, while I chastise Quick Stop Entertainment for their desire for the scoop [check out how they claim people are talking to *"us"*], I will say there's no need to doubt the pictures.

It looks like we're all SOL unless and until Criterion decide to put this out properly.

Hopefully the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray will be correct.

It's not so bad that I can't live with it but respect for the CORRECT aspect ratio is SUCH a big part of why I started buying laserdiscs and DVDs in the first place.

So what's the final word on this? Does the U.S. version show too much or is it pan and scan? Also when are the corrected versions coming out?

Yours is post #41 in this thread. Have you considered reading the previous 40?

There is reason to doubt the pictures, as this is from the post they originated from:

The 1.78:1 image isn't from the US DVD, but from a preview vid from the film's website that was posted before the film was even in theaters. That's why the colors are out of whack.

Last night I emailed Maple Pictures to get the info on their Canadian DVD straight from them. They kindly sent this reply today:

So their release is screwed up because Thinkfilm handled the DVD mastering for them as well.

Well, I was told not to blind buy this movie but I did not take the advise and I bought it yesterday at Walmart...Wow, what the heck did I just watch? Do people really think this is a horror movie? Yes the dead bodies throughout the movie did make it a morbid movie but this seemed more like a kid movie...Not sure what I think about this movie right now...

Who told you that?

Cronenberg called it a "poetic horror film." Cronenberg, in this case, is an idiot.

It is not a horror movie if you compare it to other movies in the genre, but, emotionally speaking, I'm not sure what else you'd call it. I mean, its about a psychologically abused little girl whose parents die, the bizarre [pseudo-backwoodsy] people who sort of adopt her, and the real life pain that insanity and ignoring reality can lead to.

I don't know what to call it if not a horror movie, but I find genre to usually be pretty limiting when discussing really great films. I certainly don't think it fits as a kids movie, though!

Look at the dvd and/or case, it clearly states HORROR/FANTASY

It's drama. It's not a genre film.