Just got "cloudy with a chance of meatballs" and there is a 16x9 "fullscreen" version on the disc as well as the OAR of 2.35:1. I guess now that blu_ray has caught on we are going to have to deal with this crap again

Bastards...they're taking the cue from HBO!!!

Is it possible they reframed for 16:9 for the IMAX release? And I only see one review that mentions this, but it sounds like it is on the accompanying DVD, not on the BD. Is this the case?

It appears that way; the grid from the back cover art of the BD lists:

BD: Anamorphic Widescreen 2.35:1
DVD: 16x9 Full Screen 1.78:1 & Anamorphic Widescreen 2.35:1

So according to this, the "new fullscreen" is 1.78:1.
This disc is NOT the first to do so.

Remember the issue of the Blu-Ray "Gullivers Travels"?
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...ls_blu-ray.htm

Mother fuckers. DAMN IT!!!

What I want to know is how Bill Hader is doing the "Director's Commentary", since he's not the director.


Meanwhile, do we have any confirmation of whether the re-framed version actually made the Blu-ray itself, or just the included DVD?

Its just the DVD:



Yes, I know this is the Canadian art but its the same as the US release. BD is 2.35:1 proper, DVD includes both 1.78:1 modified and original 2.35:1 aspects.

Alliance Canada also presented some movies in the 1.78:1 aspect ratio modified from the 2.35:1/2.40:1 originals but these had more to do with the elements they had available to them.

I don't see why people are getting so upset. The BD has the correct OAR as does the DVD, but the DVD also includes a reframed version, and we have no idea if this was merely cropped or reframed and restaged similar to how Pixar redoes their material for 4:3. As long as the correct OAR is released, who cares if it is released alongside something that isn't?

I would be more upset with something like Traitor, which Lionsgate released at 1.77:1 on DVD and only in 2.35:1 for the BD.

Directors' Commentary WITH Bill Hader.

Who cares if there's a pan and scan version of the film as long as the OAR is still present and accounted for? And how many of you will actually be utilizing the DVD alongside the Blu (where the OAR is present too).

And Traitor was released by Anchor Bay. Or what about the first pressing of Lord of War where the DVD and Blu were 1.78:1 despite it being in 2.35:1 for it's theatrical release?

16x9... the new "full screen"

I think there's a few Alliance BD releases in Canada that are 1.78:1 where they're supposed to be 2.35:1. IMO, this is the beginning of a very, very bad trend...

Since it looks people are just skimming this thread. I'll say this again:

It is just the DVD only that includes both the 1.78:1 modified and 2.35:1 original aspect ratios.

The Blu-ray Disc is presented in its original 2.35:1 aspect ratio only.

^while that's relevant for this thread, since it disproves the claim in the title (first "foolscreen" Blu-ray), I think people like myself are more concerned with the fact that 16x9 is now being labeled as "full screen", which is sure to cause some significant confusion in the future.

Well, Artisan/Lionsgate was the first to use the "16x9 Fullscreen" label on DVDs back in 1999. The television version of Joan of Arc with Leelee Sobieski has 16:9 Fullscreen on the back.

I'll only care if the studios start putting these re-framed versions on a BD-50 with everything else or using another disc and that being an excuse to keep the price of it higher than it may be without. Until then, couldn't care less.

as someone else mentioned above this was an Imax3D release, and it was in 1:78:1 aspect ratio in the Digital Imax theatres that played the movie. so technically both are OAR.

As a bit of a funny side note this movie was actually pulled from theatres early cause of sony wanting to release it a month earlier on VOD

Maybe it should say "Anamorphic Fullscreen"?? Wonder if they flagged it so if your player is set to "pan and scan" it will crop the sides on a 4x3 screen?

Just remembered Brother Bear had both a 2.35 and cropped 16x9 transfer, but no 4x3.

The Splat button on the blu-ray was a little fun.

As long as the feature is presented in its OAR, along with the fullscreen format, it doesn't matter, because the widescreen version is still included on the disc.

As manicsounds said, this isn't the first foolscreen disc. Don't forget about Gulliver's Travels and a few other titles that were cropped from their original 4:3 ratio to fill the 16x9 frame.

One could even argue that every IMAX movie has also been butchered, but I'm willing to accept the flexible ratio defense for those.

If they want to include a presentation with a modified aspect ratio, I'm fine with it-- as long as it doesn't impinge whatsoever on the rest of the content, i.e. nothing is dropped to make room, and the quality of the OAR presentation is not affected in any way.

--THX

Using fullscreen to describe 16:9 is really going to confuse those black-bar-hating Wal-Mart shoppers with 4:3 televisions that get home and find out fullscreen is describing a screen size they don't own.

Except that this is dealing with Blu-ray, and the number of people that have 4:3 TVs and a Blu-ray player are very small. And the percentage of Blu-ray owners with 4:3 TVs that hate black bars would be even smaller since just about every other Blu-ray would have black bars.

The most shocking thing here is someone let Lelee play Joan of Arc.