wergo

Well, it does follow horror movie conventions. The big difference here is that the protagonist is too innocent to be aware of the dangers. The premise is based on the audience being afraid FOR the girl rather than the girl herself being afraid.

Plus, of course (as the commentary repeats endlessly) nothing ever happens. Just the girl being exposed to one potential danger after another, but without any actual harm occuring.

It's a horror movie paradigm, but they've removed everything that would offer comfort to the standard horror movie audience.

PotVsKtl

So then would you say Schindler's List is horror? River's Edge?

wergo

Probably not 'Schindler's List', but 'The Pianist' definitely follows horror movie rules. I'd also possibly argue that 'Kids' is a horror movie, as well. Neither 'List'
nor 'River's Edge' really have a clear protagonist for the audience to empathise with. In both of those cases, we're expeceted to be God-like observers, trying to figure out the motivations of the characters from the portions of their lives we're being shown. In 'Tideland', much of the film is devoted to making the audience intentionally anxious as to what's about to happen to the lead character. We're not expected to pass impatartial judgement on the characters' actions so much as react vicerally to them.

ThatGuamGuy

Well, I would disagree slightly; with 'List', I think you're supposed to empathize at least somewhat with Oskar Schindler. I would argue, though, that it is not a horror movie because the horrors that are going on are never directly connected with Schindler; there's never a fear or danger that he will be thrown into a camp, so that gives it a level of detachment. The horrors are just a backdrop for the main character's arc.

Compare this to 'Hotel Rwanda', which I frequently described as the best horror film of the last decade; that movie *completely* follows the genre (I see a lot of 'Night of the Living Dead' in that movie). Even scenes where there is no direct danger, the tension is tangible and thick. (Or 'The Pianist', which also fits these basic rules.)

I don't know 'The River's Edge', but I'm guessing that 'Requiem For a Dream' would be better example of a drug-addict horror movie [at least the Burstyn stuff], for the reasons wergo said.

Agreed. In fact, if you try to pass impartial judgment on their actions, you probably won't like the movie much. But you react in horror, scared for what will happen to Jeliza-Rose.

I would argue that, as mainstream horror goes further down the road of physical torture with no emotional resonance, there will be a backlash from certain circles, where they create films like 'Tideland' which have no physical horrors, but are emotionally devastating.

I think it all depends how you define a genre, but I don't see "drama" as the absence of genre.

PotVsKtl

I don't see "drama" as the absence of a genre, but things like sci-fi, horror, fantasy, etc. are called "genre films." Tideland is not a genre film in my estimation.

Josh Z

OK, somebody has to ask it:

Other than Blockbuster employees who might be confused as to which shelf to file it on, who cares what genre the movie is categorized as? What a silly, pointless debate this is.

Jay G.

Well, for one, the genre categorization gives someone a general idea of what type of film the movie is; something that, along with plot descriptions and reviews, can help a viewer decide whether it's a type of film they'd like.

For example, in MovieTalk there's a thread by someone asking whether Silence of the Lambs is more a thriller or a horror film, with the OP indicating that he only likes the former.
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=495004

So, right or wrong, genre labels partly define people's expectations of films, and an incorrect labeling can both keep certain people away that would otherwise enjoy the film, or cause disappointment among those who feel it didn't live up to the expectations the genre label defines.

ThatGuamGuy

In my experience, "genre films" is generally used as a perjorative term to dismiss specific genres wholesale, so I tend to avoid the term.

ThatGuamGuy

Um ... if you don't like a conversation, why continue to take part in it?

Obviously, Wildo cares about what genre the movie is categorized as at least enough to ask about it. And it seems like at least four other people are enjoying the discussion (or contributing under duress).

Can you find any sort of debate about film which isn't silly or pointless? Seriously. Is trying to figure out why '1900' may or may not be out of print less silly or pointless? Does wondering whether 'Song of the South' is a good movie worth releasing, racist trash, or just a bad movie which should be forgotten on strictly artistic levels, have a point?

Maybe you should describe the sort of conversation you want to have, and we can make a sticky, and then we'll all have something less silly to aspire to.

chiller

I think the Horror/Fantasy genre is perfect for this film. The reality of the situations are truly horrific and had me squirming in my seat the first time I watched it. Yet the 2nd time I watched it I was truly wrapped up in the fantasy innocence of the little girl. The fantasy aspects are really hard to see at a casual glance and I think this is what makes so many hate it. Even I had trouble watching this at first as the themes would make anyone feel sick while viewing it unless you fell into the fantasy yourself.

Anyone know the release date of the correct version?

ThatGuamGuy

It's not even definite that there will be a corrected version.

Here's the most updated info: http://www.smart.co.uk/dreams/tidecrop.htm

To sum it up:
- Thinkfilm has spread a lot of untrue information
- All Region 1 discs are misframed at 16:9, with information lost on the sides of the frame, and an opened up picture on the top and bottom.
- Region 2 discs are misframed at approximately 2:1, with information lost on the sides of the frame, but the original top and bottom frame lines (against Gilliam's wishes)
- Gilliam is working to get this corrected

It's not said there, but the region 3 is apparently either the original theatrical 2.35:1 or the slightly modified Gilliam transfer at 2.25:1 ... still trying to find out if it has the extras or not.

Giles

excuse my language, but what a clusterfuck!

Jay G.

I agree. I can't even recall when a film's DVD releases have been so screwed up across all regions. After reading the full story, I'm actually more inclined to believe ThinkFilm than before. Their labeling of the UK transfer a "faux 2.35" has turned out to be true, since that transfer's as cropped at the sides as their release is.

I'm also very wary of the R3 release. I wouldn't put any stock in that release having the correct image until we see some actual screencaps from that release.

ThatGuamGuy

Actually, they labelled the 2.25:1 transfer as a "faux 2.35", even though Gilliam has said several times that 2.25:1 is the transfer he approved. They specifically said that it was "closer to 2.25"; if it was the 2:1 or 2.05:1, I think they would likely have said "closer to 2:1".

jmj713

Is it naive to expect a replacement program?

Jay G.

Gilliam approved a 2.25:1 transfer, but that's not the transfer the UK DVD used. The UK DVD, and thus likely the PAL master that got sent to ThinkFilm, is a vertically cropped version of the 1.78:1 transfer they already had. So they were correct to call it "faux" since it shows neither the original theatrical image nor Gilliam's approved home video image.

Jay G.

Hopefully they will, since Thinkfilm is still trying to get people to buy the current version while suggesting a corrected release down the line. Considering that they'd only have to replace one disc, it'd be a good gesture on their part. Universal had a replacement campaign when the Back to the Future sequel DVDs had framing issues.

However, when Lionsgate had a similar "reframing 2.35:1 to 1.78:1" issue with Lord of War, they silently repressed the 2-disc SE with a corrected 2.35:1 image, but I don't recall them exchanging the discs of existing copies.

Giles

wasn't this also a problem with the domestic US release of 'Creep'?

ThatGuamGuy

No, you don't have to assume or guess what's "likely" and what's not. All you have to do is read what Thinkfilm said:
"Eventually, a faux 2.35 was created by the UK distributor, which ended up being closer to a 2.25 – a quick, but not complete solution."

If you choose to interpret that statement as dissolving Thinkfilm of any blame, then you have to ask yourself why they issued so many misleading statements. However, if you interpret it (as I do) as Thinkfilm desperately trying to claim that it's not their fault, it reads as if they're pretending that they didn't know that Gilliam himself prepared the 2.25:1 transfer they rejected (for whatever reason). They call it "faux-2.35" because it is not 2.35, not because it is a faux-transfer. 2:1 would be closer to faux-1.85 than faux-2.35

They also claimed that the 2.25 (or "faux 2.35") transfer they received was only in PAL. While I doubt the PAL thing is true (since it was the third explanation they settled on, and Gilliam says they're lying), I don't understand how you can, on the one hand, accept the PAL explanation, but on the other hand reject their explanation that the PAL transfer was 2.25.

Point is, they themselves said the transfer they rejected was 2.25, and there's only one known 2.25 transfer, the one Gilliam did. The reasons for the rejection ... well, it doesn't seem as if we've gotten a straight answer yet, since they haven't said the same thing twice. Frankly, I don't care what happened, I just want it to be fixed.

Jay G.

Yes, but that release was never corrected.

Jay G.

Why not? You do.

I'm not saying Thinkfilm is free of any blame. They certainly could've held off the release until they got a transfer they were happy with, since they claim they would've preferred a scope transfer. I'm just saying that their side of the story sounds far more believable now, and that their labeling of the UK transfer as "faux" was ultimately correct, even if it wasn't for the same reasons they had initially labeled it that.

Going from the Dreams fansite summation, I'd say that none of their statements seem to be deliberately misleading nor contradictory. It's a case where they released information piecemeal, not relating the full story at once. It seems suspicious since they explain certain issues only after people bring them up, but it's not proof of lying.

Why do you have to assume that Thinkfilm had to pretend that they didn't know that Gilliam had supervised a transfer? That information could've very likely not been communicated to them.

There you go assuming again. We don't actually know why they called it a "faux 2.35" transfer. They don't say that they called it that because it's not 2.35:1 ratio, although they do point that out. The UK transfer is a cropped version of the 1.78:1 transfer they initially got. They may have noticed this and figured it was a faux scope, possibly because they thought the film was originally shot in scope. Ultimately though they were correct, since the UK transfer is a faux 2.35, a faux 2.25, and even a faux 2.1, since it crops the sides of the frame.

But 2.35:1 was the theatrical aspect ratio, so obviously they'd use that aspect ratio as a base.

Can you quote from the email or webpost from Gilliam that actually says they're lying about the PAL format issue? It's certainly not on the Dreams page.

They said the transfer was "closer to 2.25," so they didn't measure it directly. Also, this quote is from an email that was in response to an inquiry, one that possibly mentioned the claimed 2.25 ratio of the UK DVD that Gilliam says he approved. So they would have a number to work with and could've tacitly agreed with it without first confirming. Goodness knows many fans assumed the UK DVD was 2.25:1 until some people checked for themselves. Also, Gilliam himself says that his transfer was "probably about 2:25." I'm not going to hold either to firm numbers for what were approximations.

Well, at this point, there's no known 2.25:1 transfer. The UK DVD has a transfer closer to 2.10:1.

Gilliam's also changed his story about the aspect ratios over the course of this situation. He initially asserted that the UK DVD contained a transfer that was "probably about 2:25." He then said later that the UK transfer, "for reasons I won't go into at the moment, is 2.10:1" He then finally admits that "the sides have been cropped on all the DVDs. .... And we are in the thick of sorting it out."

Now, that's three different stories from Gilliam. To one suspicious of him and his motives for initially boosting the UK DVD despite an incorrect aspect ratio, one might see that as him lying and changing his story as certain facts are revealed. However, the more reasonable assumption would be that he was acting with the best intentions but may have been misinformed about certain things, changing his statements as newer and more correct information became available. Now, as fans of his work, the majority of us are going to give Gilliam the benefit of the doubt. I don't see why Thinkfilm shouldn't get the same, especially since there seems to be at least some degree of culpability on the production companies side.

Here's what I think happened:

1. The production company sent all the distributors a 1.78:1 HD transfer that cropped the sides and opened the top and bottom.
   
2. Thinkfilm, not having any other transfer, starts to work on releasing this one.
   
3. Gilliam works from the HD master to create a cropped 2.10:1 version of the film for the UK DVD. He possibly assumed the HD 1.78:1 image was of the full original frame, unaware of the cropping on the sides. He also initially seems to think his finished image is closer to 2.25 than to 2.10.
   
4. The UK distribution company sends Thinkfilm this transfer, possibly in PAL, along with what Gilliam says were instructions for Thinkfilm to match their own transfer to it.
   
5. Thinkfilm obviously experienced confusion over the UK transfer. They seemed to think that they were supposed to use the PAL master, instead of cropping their copy of the 1.78:1 image to match. They also notice that the UK version isn't in the correct aspect ratio for a 2.35:1 film, and apparently don't know that Gilliam wanted it that way. They may or may not have noticed that the UK version was just a cropped version of their 1.78:1 copy, and they may or may not have noticed that the image was cropped at the sides compared to the theatrical image.
   
6. Thinkfilm decides to go ahead with the original 1.78:1 image, since it's from a higher quality master and it's the same as the UK image horizontally, but with more image vertically. The reasoning isn't totally clear, but it may be that they thought that the 1.78:1 was a straight crop of a scope image, and thus reasoned that it showed more of the original image than a further cropping of the 1.78:1 image would.

Now, this is just my reasoning of the possible chain of events, based on the information given by both sides. I've made a few assumptions, but ultimately I think I come pretty close to what probably actually transpired.

toddly6666

As a fan of the majority of Gilliam films, Tideland is nothing more than a fair movie. I love the type of quirky acting and characters in Gilliam films, but I thought the acting really sucked - it's as if the actors were aware that they were in a Gilliam film and uncomfortably tried to act quirky. The actors that were really only good in the film and actually seemed like real characters were Jeff Bridges and Janet McNeer. The girl was pretty bad. The retard was doing a bad Giovonni Ribsi impersonation. Jennifer Tilly was at her most annoying. The drugs/horror/adult-child relationships factor in the movie was nothing shocking or controversial as people made it sound. All in all, just a creepy, slow and fair flick, but worth a rental just to support Gilliam.

Sure, it was done with much freedom, but Tideland(indie low budget) and Brothers Grimm(hollywood big budget) were both pretty fair/forgettable flicks.

The DVD is definitely worth a rental or purchase only for the extras. Thedocumentaries and footage of Gilliam is priceless, because he is such an interesting genius. Gilliam is a hundred times more interesting than this flick.

Josh Z

I have trouble watching behind-the-scenes footage of Gilliam until he cuts off that damn rat-tail he's been sporting in recent years. Ugh. How embarrassing.

Giles

I know, that's why I hope ThinkFilm will get around to correcting 'Tideland'

Wildo1966

IMO Tideland was definitely an interesting movie, not a movie you will soon forget. As for a dvd that I will watch over and over I don't think so...This was a blind buy for me, I heard the reviews and the warning and I went ahead and bought it anyway. People should rent this one before even considering buying it...