traitor wrong aspect ratio!?
 

the don cheadle dvd traitor, which will be released by anchor bay on december 19th has an aspect ratio if 1,78 according to the back cover listed on dvd empire;
http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_ite...or=1#topoftabs

imdb states the original aspect ration as 2,35!

is it a misprint on the cover, or a wrong info on imdb? i hope anchor bay does not produce such a fiasco as lions gate did with their lord of war release!!

as there are still few weeks until release, perhaps someone with a contact to anchor bay could inquire about the ratio and perhaps inform them about the mistake, if it turns out to be one!?

2.35:1 is the correct aspect ratio. Hopefully that artwork is just a comp that has the wrong info.

i am starting to have that bad lord of war feeling then....

i have written an email to anchor bay and was very impressed how fast i received an answer to my inquiry! great service on their part.
however, they confirmed my fear, which i had when i encountered the back cover!!
here is the correspondence:

"hi!
according to the back cover, the dvd "traitor", which will be released on dec.19, lists the aspect ratio as being 1,78. however, the original aspect ratio was 2,35.
is this just a misprint on the cover, or will you be releasing the dvd with the wrong aspect ratio?
thanking you in advance for your reply regarding this matter i remain for now with
best regards"

"Hi,
Thank you for your interest in Traitor!
Because of the space constraints on DVD we are releasing the Standard Def version of this film in 1.78, but the HD version on Blu-ray™ will be in the theatrical aspect ratio of 2.35.
The 1.78 is not exactly the “wrong” aspect ratio as both versions were created by the film’s director for film’s release. The 2.35 version was used for the theatrical release and HD formats as it was better suited to the medium, and the 1.78 version was reserved for the standard-def DVD to ensure a richer experience even on a standard 4x3 television. Per the director’s wishes, there will be no 1.33 4x3 version, even for television broadcast.
I hope this answers your question!
Best,
Deborah Katz


"hi deborah!
i would like to thank you very much for your fast response! i was very impressed by it, as some major labels like warner don`t care enough about their customers to answer such mails.
great service by your company!
unfortunately, as i feared when i saw the backcover listed on dvdempire, the dvd will not be in the original theatrical aspect ratio.
the reason why i wanted to check with you about the ratio question, was because of the fiasco lions gate had when they released lord of war. the dvd release was also presented in 1,78, which caused such outcry by fans, that the company was forced to re-issue the film in the oar of 2,40.
in addition, you have stated that the blu-ray of traitor will actually be in 2,35.moves like this also often face huge criticism on dvd forums, as many standard dvd buyers feel somewhat "cheated" into being offered a lesser product and that companies are trying to force customers into blu-ray by such release differences.
i am sure you will reveive much negative feedback once the dvd is released and am hoping that your company will rethink the policy of not releasing the dvd in the theatrical aspect ratio.
i also find it difficult to believe that the aspect ratio decision was made due to "space constraints", as i would think that the ratio would not make such a big space difference.
in any case i would like to thank you again for your fast and detailed response to my question!
best regards"


is there any way the dvdtalk admins or senior users could intervene? hopefully users can spread this news on other forums to raise the awareness of the ratio problem with the release!?
how was it possible to have lions gate re-release lord of war, what methods of fan pressure were used?

WHY do they assume people with SD have 4x3 televisions???

Give us that email and let's flood them with emails! (POLITE, RESPECTFUL emails!)

That answer from Anchor Bay is just utter bullshit.

A 2.35:1 transfer takes LESS space on a DVD than 1.78:1.

thats exactly what i thought :)
why do studios still not understand that releasing a theatrical scope movie
in the wrong oar is just crap!!??

the email is:

[email protected]

i think such release policies should not be supported and the company should definitely realize that will cause protest!
like i said before, i am just curious what triggered lions gate to re-release their lord of war in the right aspect ratio!?
hopefully this can be repeated with traitor!!

I wish directors wuld stop shooting in 2.35:1. I kind of like the idea that this director framed his shots with 1.78:1 in mind.

ugh. go back to your P&S vhs.

I hope this is a joke.
If I had my way just about every film would be shot in scope.
Also it is very fucked up Blu-ray gets the film in widescreen while dvd people get a cropped version.I didnt think I'd see it come to this.

Why? Why limit films to any aspect ratio?

fail.

I gotta say this studio is being such pricks...they think the SD people still have 4x3 tv's and could care less about widescreen...well I am here to say we do care about this and its not fair that SD gets 1.78:1 while the BR people get the film in it's original OAR :)

According to IMDb, "Traitor" is 114 minutes long. Obviously space shouldn't be an issue.

I sent an e-mail to the address you provided. I've gone Blu, so this wouldn't affect me, but I agree that it's important to stamp out this kind of foolishness whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head before it becomes widespread.

Also, philip74, if you're going to write more e-mails or posts about this, please note how aspect ratios are written: 2.35:1, not 2,35; 1.78:1, not 1,78.

It may be a cultural thing. I don't know where Philip is, but decimals are written as commas instead of periods in some countries.

i am in europe, but i just wrote the ratios that way.....well because i was lazy i guess :)
anyway everyone gets the point and what is important is, that we all put pressure on anchor bay, before this release policy becomes custom!

i sent my email, and even sent something off to Bill Hunt at The Digital Bits, in hopes that he can publicize this fiasco and get his readers to join our efforts.

i contacted bill hunt as well. are there any other forums we could mobilize in order to put pressure?

Hey, BD is getting affected too. There are several titles with an OAR of 4:3 (or 1.44:1 in the case of the IMAX films) that have been cropped to 16x9, and there doesn't seem to be much opposition to it. I wish there was this kind of passion against these cases.

This whole thing just goes to show you that the OAR issue doesn't go away when people switch to widescreen televisions. Heck, I've even read about some people with CIH front projection setups (which use a 2.35:1 screen) who crop the top and bottom of 1.85:1 material so it will fill their screens. Now, you know these aren't backwards people who are ignorant as to why the black bars are there.

Why would you want that? I'm sick of having to turn my head from side to side when watching a scope movie. It's ridiculous.

And I always hear how excited people are when seeing films in IMAX -- which is just 4:3!!!

Then you're sitting too close.

It might be of some value to email Roger Ebert and ask him his thoughts on the topic of studios cropping 2.35:1 (and greater) ratios to 1.85:1.

Well for one thing I dont like IMAX.
I like WIDE movies. There is a reason the most beautiful cinematography is often wide or scope (2.35:1) aspect ratio.
Leone, P.T. Anderson, Wes Anderson, etc are some of my favorite filmmakers and they have shown the ability to make beautiful films in scope that just would not be possible in a flat ratio.

As far as the Dark Knight IMAX debate goes, didn't Nolan frame the IMAX scenes with a 2.35:1 theatrical exhibition (non IMAX theaters) in mind?

it's not a huge deal but the BR release of High School Musical 2 is widescreen where the SD is foolscreen

As a pretty big fan of Traitor (I would assume most others in this thread to be fans as well or why would an 1.78:1 SD release matter?) I can't say the aspect ratio of the SD is affecting my excitement for this release at all. Pretty sure this movie made it crystal clear Don Cheadle is indeed an action star which I would assume lead to him replacing Terrence Howard in |Iron Man 2... While I am def stoked for TDK this coming week I am almost more excited for the 19th.. especially after I watched clip they had up at IGN last week and was reminded how much I dug this flick in theatres.

Also if the 1.78:1 bothers you that much why not just pick up a BD player, they have them out there for like a $150, bet closer to the Holiday you might even be able to find them cheaper.

But yet they decided to release Righteous Kill as 2.35:1?? So what is their excuse now?
http://images.dvdempire.com/gen/movies/1439474bh.jpg

...Are you sitting about an inch away from the screen? That's the only way I could picture someone having to physically turn their head from one side to the other to watch a movie shot in 2.35:1.

All movies (or TV shows) should be released in the original aspect ratio. Period.

the excuse they have was just pure bull in the first place!
anchor bay should just re-release the film in the right format, but of course
they won`t do that. i bet they will just sit this one out and hope that no one but a bunch of film freaks in this forum will notice!
at least righteous kill was left in its theatrical aspect ratio!

DVD Aspergers strikes again

Since the width of the image being displayed on a TV is the same, regardless of the aspect ratio (true also for my projector), the required head-turning will be the same regardless of aspect ratio. This makes me think the person you're responding to is trolling.

Oh I'm positive of that. That what I thought when I first responded.

Here is what I originally said, typo intact:

I then went on to say:

I thought I was being clear that I was talking about watching theatrical presentations, but I can see where some people might have been confused.

I think that movies (and TV shows) should be released in their original aspect ratio (also not colorized and without updated special effects using the newest technology).

I normally don't buy when these types of alterations are made. An example from Anchor Bay is Season of the Witch/There's Always Vanilla , which were altered from their original 1.37:1 to a 1.77:1 AR. I was eager to get that release before I learned of the altered aspect ratio, but have never picked it up. I assume that the alteration is being made to Traitor for the same reason. They believe that most people want a product that fills up their screen, and a growing percentage of households have TVs with a 1.78:1 aspect ratio. They probably also assume that most people who buy Blu-ray want to get as close to the original theatrical experience as possible, and therefore give them the correct aspect ratio.

I've never contacted any company regarding this issue, but I think that the things suggested and done here may (ultimately) result in a corrected release. If Anchor Bay realizes they are losing sales because of this practice, they're likely to rethink it.

There are always exceptions and I tend to disagree with blanket statements. While I prefer OAR I won't avoid a release if it isn't perfect if the content is good.

As far as colorization, again it depends. The colorized "It's a Wonderful Life" is very well done and for a festive occasion as Christmas I prefer it over the b/w. Who is to say it wouldn't have been done in color if the funding allowed at the time.

As far as special effects. If done correctly they also can be a welcome change. I like the adjustments to the original Star Trek series. They didn't stray from the original concept but just made improvements. Again, if the techniques were available then you don't tink they would have used them.

Now many don't like the changes to Star Wars but the bigger issues I believe most had were related to plot changes not special effects. Also, remember Star Wars went through earlier changes to improve the special effects that were well received. In the original movies and VHS copies many of the battle scenes had visible rectangular shapes around the ships that was a result of the blue screen techniques available at the time. The later release removed these issues.

Just my opinion, but some changes can be good if taken on a case by case basis.

I remember how much more clearly visible they were on the laserdisc releases. My friends and I just joked those were their "shields".


...and I agree with your statements. Even in Star Wars, I liked most of the small changes/improvements in effects. It was when they changed the actual content of the story or added whole scenes that it just became ridiculous.

How about, just don't buy the TRAITOR dvd, you don't really need to see it again...

Do you know that Jimmy Stewart wept when they colorized It's a Wonderful Life? Capra himself said that b&w was chosen because it fit the subject matter better than color.

That's good to know about the artistic choices made by Capra, thanks for sharing that. But it doesn't change the fact that some prefer watching it colorized. I wouldn't want the b/w copy to go away by any means but I personally like the option in this case.