I just got home and this was in the mail.

Excited to see what it looked like in upconverted anamorphic, I was quickly disappointed beyond measure and absolutely furious to find that this is a LETTERBOXED 16x9 presentation.

Somebody cared enough to create the show with a 1.78:1 AR, but shit the bed mightily when allowing the DVD to be authored this way.

Letterboxed....In 2007.....unbelieveable.

Are you for real? Glad I didn't buy it yet. That sucks because I'm a big fan of the show, but non-anamorphic DVDs are completely unacceptable these days. I may as well just watch them on tv and zoom in. I hope [as] get a ration of shit for this fuckup.

Wow... Pass.

Would it be adult swims fault or Warner's fault?

Thanks for the head-up. I was considering getting this. I guess I'll just netflix it.

Good question. I don't really know myself. I'd have to say both, but it really depends on who had the bigger hand in producing the set.

thats brutal

That blows. There's no excuse for that in 2007.

I almost picked this up the other day. Glad I didn't.

If I may play devil's advocate here...what if that was the intention of the creators? Does your opinion change?

Well, it can't be the intent of the creators....it was filmed in 1.78:1 and shown letterboxed, BECAUSE there is no Cartoon Network HD feed yet.

If it was their intent, I still don't like it because the OAR would fit perfectly into a 16x9 display. As it stands now, it's just annoying and anachronistic.

Sure, it was Lucas' intent to have the OOT shown this way too in the '06 releases, but that doesn't make it right!

Welcome to DVDTalk. "Director's intent" is proudly trumpeted here just as long as the viewer agrees with that intent. What they say here is usually different than what is meant.. for example, "Original Aspect Ratio" is the proud call of the internet DVD Junkie, but only if it's widescreen.

I don't see what you are getting at. If this was an anamorphic release, the directors framing would still be intact.

the creator's intent was obviously for it to be seen in widescreen, hence it's being presented in widescreen. that has nothing to do with the fact that the DVD company distributing the title failed to make it anamorphic. the end.

That was just a jab at DVDTalk based at the "director's intent" comment. I actually agree that a non-anamorphic widescreen release in 2007 is retarded. I thought it was retarded in 2002 when Warner (hmm..) did that with Return of the Joker.. and it would be five years before I'd even have the hardware to care about anamorphic transfers.

Not to sound like an ass, but how exactly do you know that?

However, I do agree that if it was supposed to be one way and the disc is another, then it is a mistake.

Thank you for that. See post above.

Of course I don't KNOW that. The basis of my resoponse was that the presentation does not pass the "Reasonable Man" test. Why on earth, in 2007, would the creator prefer to have his vision seen in anything less than the optimal available conditions? Today, that equals original aspect ratio in the highest possible resolution.

Of course, if for some reason, the creator really, really loves a windowbox presentation utilizing about 67% of the available display, then I stand corrected.

feel free to contact the co-creator at [email protected] re: intent

This sounds like the same shit WB pulled with Justice League, somebody dropped the ball during the QC/authoring process, and they're going to try to foist it off as director's intent.

I'll be honest, this is an easy pass. I have several DVD sets of the Adult Swim series, and I really don't watch them that often, I more often end up watching them in repeats every night.

I can definitely wait for this to be done right.

That's BS and you know it. I have seen several discussions on this forum that complained about 4x3 material being matted down to widescreen, and the people here calling shenanigans on it. Kung Fu and V: The Miniseries comes to mind.

Your sig says it all!

Who cares? The show is good and that's all I care about.

Do you own a 16X9 display? If yes, then this statement makes no sense. If no, you will one day, then you will care.

Wow, glad I didn't buy this yet. What a disappointment.

Oh and to the people arguing over whether letterboxing is the 'director's intent' ... are you really that bored?

Do you want to know one of the reasons I don't care about either hi-def format? Because there's still no standard def DVD release of Peter Hyam's 2010. Peter frakking Hyams Two-thousand frakking ten. Considered by many to be a blight on cinema at large, and I want a 16x9 DVD release of it.

Everything deserves the absolute best presentation it can have. Regardless of inherent quality.

As I said, I can totally wait for Metalocalypse to be re-done correctly. It was already on shaky should-I-buy grounds as mentioned above; this sent it right over the edge.