Tideland Dvd
 

HI ALL why is it that the movie tideland is only on region 5 russian dvd and it says its rare ? whats the problem with this movie ? why cant i find it on region 1 or 2 ? etc has it been banned ? if u have info etc drop me a line thank u

Well I can speak for region 1; the reason is because it has yet to have its theatrical release which the last time I heard would be next month, October '06. Gilliam had a hard time looking for U.S. distribution for it but I think it was "ThinkFilm" that finally picked it up.

I've been waiting to see this as well since last year.

word from a reliable source and friend who saw it last year at the Toronto International Film Festival says it's pretty bad

Just out at the cinemas in the UK so the DVD will follow assuming someone thinks it's worth releasing.

Unfortunately, the UK censor can't ban this sort of film.

trust me they can
 

im told its more wired than all his other films as it has girl playing with her daddy dead body and also the dady is on crack or some shite.im told its reallly strange and its strange art.ive checked e-bay and its on dvd there just 1 listing

Trying to cash in on the R5 DVD on eBay I noticed. Man, the prices are high!

A friend gave me his copy of the R5 after watching it. I didn't really like it either. I think the artwork/poster is the most appealing thing about this film. lol

why all Gilliam movies have to go through trouble all the time...

because the man is a meglomaniac. ;)

From what I hear, he's asking a ton of cash for the rights to Tideland for DVD...

Interesting stuff on the R1 Tideland DVD from ThinkFilm and Gilliam...

Here's a couple of posts from film ick, the first explaining the current situation and containing statements from Terry.

And the second with a statement from Nicola Pecorini, the film's cinematographer.

I saw this dvd at Walmart yesterday...It did not look like anything special...Can anyone recommend Tideland as a blind buy?

Apparently this is misframed in Region 1 and Gilliam isn't happy. Thinkfilm is working on a fix for this.

I loved 'Tideland', but, without giving further information (are you a Gilliam fan in general? Do you mind disturbing, difficult movies?), I would absolutely not reccommend it as a blind buy. The thing is, you may love it, in which case you'll probably want to own it once there's a properly formatted DVD (the current one is a good-looking transfer, provided you don't know what you're missing), but you may also hate it (it seems like a lot of people do).

Even to a Gilliam fan, I'd hesitate to reccommend a blind-buy.

Don't hold your breath for the R1 re-release!

As the Film Ick article says if you read it carefully, the eventual re-release from ThinkFilm will be...2.35:1, which is again not the proper aspect ratio. Durrr...

Hopefully ThinkFilm comes to their senses and releases it RIGHT because I don't think a DVD release is the kind of thing where you want to be using the phrase "third time's the charm".

well, blame Gilliam for being difficult and filming it in 2.25 - jeesh.

even (the not 100% accurate) imdb lists the film as being 2.35

droid - There are probably people who would prefer it to be released in the original aspect ratio regardless of the director's wishes to modify it.

But, anyway, if you pay too close attention to what Thinkfilm said, your head will explode from the inconsistencies of it. I suppose it might technically be possible that they were not informed that Gilliam's preferred aspect ratio was that of the transfer he supervised himself (2.25 : 1), and that nobody bothered to tell them when they inquired as to a 2.35 : 1 transfer, and that every step of the way they've been *really* trying to push this film ... but it doesn't make any sense.

Gilliam delivered them all the requirements of the DVD (I'm going to give Thinkfilm the benefit of the doubt and assume that the full-frame transfer they did use came from this, although if you read what they said, it actually sounds as if they might've created it themselves). They chose to release only the full-frame version AS THEY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST ("Keeping Mum" for one). Why they did this is up for debate, but, given the scathing statement Terry Gilliam posted about Thinkfilm *prior* to this debacle, they seem to be (putting it kindly) very neglectful. When they got called out on it by numerous angry fans, the DP of the film, and Gilliam himself, they started covering their asses and wrote the statement to which you refer.

If you take their statement at their word, they obtained all the elements Gilliam had signed off on, but decided that, since the 2.25:1 transfer was modified from the theatrical ratio, they were confused and decided not to use it at all ... even though the 1.77:1 transfer was clearly modified further. (Clearly, they love film so much they couldn't use a "faux-transfer" or "incomplete solution" like 2.25 ... so, by inference, the 1.77 was not faux and was complete???) Now, I guess they love 'Tideland' so much that they couldn't wait to get it out of theaters ... and they couldn't possibly push back the release date in anyway until they received (what they consider) proper elements ... so they chose the 1.77 transfer (notice that they don't say this was "prepared by the UK distributor", which is a phrase they use to dismiss Gilliam's transfer, even though who else would've prepared it except the same person that did the 2.25?). Then, so they can still feign confusion over how something like this could happen, they blamed the distributor who gave them the 2.25:1 transfer, saying they didn't think it was what Gilliam wanted (which, again, doesn't explain why they *would* release a full-frame transfer). Now they're saying that they are still looking for a 2.35:1 transfer ... to believe that, you must believe that Gilliam has not been in contact with the company (unlikely, given his statements), nor has anybody else associated with the film.

I think they said "We're looking for a 2.35 transfer" because (a) few people can spot the difference at a glance; if they'd released a 2.25 transfer initially, there would've been much less fuss [there was some reaction when they did this in the UK, and Gilliam recently said "Relax, that's how I wanted it"], and (b) because everybody who contacted them complaining was asking for a 2.35 transfer, and I doubt anybody at Thinkfilm wanted to split hairs and get into the semantics that, actually, Gilliam's current preferred aspect ratio for the film is 2.25.

I don't think we have to worry about it coming out in 2.35 as opposed to 2.25, if only because the amount of work that Thinkfilm would have to do to a 2.35 transfer to make it releaseable seems beyond them (everything would have to be re-done, as there is no proper 2.35 transfer on anything besides film). But I do think that everybody complaining to the company should modify their complaint to reflect Gilliam's wishes, re: 2.25:1 aspect ratio.

No, it was filmed in 2.35 ... Gilliam chose to open it up very slightly for the video transfer because he felt it looked better that way.

oh... okay.

Yeah, it's weird, right?

Also, I'm guessing you're not aware that Thinkfilm has done this before, with other small movies; this is the first time they've made excuses because this is the first time people have seriously gone after them for it. I would assume that Gilliam's reputation -- not so much the megalomania as the public confrontations -- makes them afraid to piss him off too much; since they need independent filmmakers, it wouldn't be good for them for Terry Gilliam to be publicly talking about all the various ways they screwed over his film. I mean, he already is, but they could at least get the DVD release right after dropping the ball on the theatrical one. You can blame Gilliam for everything that's wrong with the film, because it's uber-Gilliam ... but you can't blame him for anything that's wrong with the release. That's strictly Thinkfilm.

But the Canadian edition on Maple is just fine?

"A second statement from Terry Gilliam to Phil Stubbs reads "I think we have to get the word out NOT TO BUY the American version of the DVD. The Canadian version is correct. It's Region1... so Americans can see the film as intended" but, sadly, Mr. Gilliam had been deceived about the US release and may yet be wrong about the Canadian one. Is there ANYBODY out there who can confirm without a shadow of a doubt that the Canadian release is in the correct 2.25:1 aspect ratio?"

http://www.filmick.co.uk/2007/03/thi...tter-than.html


I'm beginng to wish I'd just waited for the HD-DVD edition. But I'm just not that patient.

I can't find anybody to confirm that other than people trying to sell it. Thinkfilm denies it, saying it's the same master, and that it's the fault of somebody else, somebody British, who apparently sent them only a PAL master of the 2.25 transfer (which he insists on calling a "faux 2.35"). The fact that this would be a blatant violation of the contract they had to sign to get the film distributed, the fact that it makes no sense that they would have received a 1.77 transfer in NTSC and HD but not a 2.25 one, the fact that they have a history of doing this to other movies, none of these things are touched upon. But they seem to be bending over backwards trying to prove that it's not their fault that they messed up the release.

More from filmick:

For anyone looking to buy the Canadian release from Amazon.ca, it may be difficult to tell the difference between it and the US release, which is also listed there.

Here's the Canadian release:

http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000LXGQUO/

You can click on "see larger image" and see the name "Maple" on the spine, which is the Canadian distribution company.

http://www.maplepictures.com/catalog...=1074&MODE=100

It should be noted that all the features between the US and Canadian R1s are identical, except for possibly the interview featurette. 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.

Here's the only review I've found so far of the Canadian disc:
http://www.twitchfilm.net/archives/003465.html

"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

http://www.quickstopentertainment.co...ideland-02.jpg

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.