www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare2/alien.htm It's cropped on all four sides. Look at how much is missing on the right side in the shot with Harry Dean Stanton. Has Ridley Scott said anything about why it was done? Has anyone even noticed? If Ridley went through the trouble of re-framing the film, I figure that would be something he would mention but I haven't gone through all the extras.

I'm not seeing it.

It's not cropped, it's OAR.

Check out the pictures of everyone standing around the guy on the bed, the guy on the far right in the wacky shirt, look at the white compartments on the wall behind him. In the DVD shots you can see the rounded edges of the compartments, but in the Blu the edge of the frame squares off the edges.

The newer DVD is also cropped when compared to the older ones.

If this was approved by Scott, then I'd assume it's what he wanted.

There is some cropping compared to the old DVD edition. Which one is accurate, however, I can't claim to know. Ridley Scott approved the new transfer, so presumably he's OK with it. The shot where the sleep chambers open for the first time looks overly cramped to me, but I didn't have any other problems with the framing in the rest of the movie.

It is not uncommon for different transfers of a movie to show slightly different framings.

I always think of Robocop when this comes up.

I remember everybody having a coronary when Friday the 13th came out in a similar cropped-in transfer: tantrums, threatened boycotts, etc... Looks like nobody cares now.

this reminds me of The Last Emperor and Apocalypse Now. Both Vittorio Storaro lensed films - he is obssessed with the new ratio of that is not quite full screen, but definitely not letterboxed either. Those films were altered for their new releases.... The Last Emperor Criterion edition even explains why they agreed to change the aspect ratio.

Maybe Ridley is also into this?

ok...so haven't gotten Last Emperor in any form but...what was the reason CC backed the decision?

The difference on Alien is on the traditional order of slight discrepancies among video transfers, not the radical revisionism of Storaro's re-framing.

The official reason was some blather about the artists' wishes. The unofficial reason was that their only available alternative was to not release it at all.

They should have gone with their only available alternative.

The new release of "Apocalypse Now" is in its original aspect ratio, not in Storaro's cropped Unavisium ratio, or whatever he calls it.

No, "Alien" also is in its correct aspect ratio, it's just cropped a bit.

A little extra room for tv overscan on the old DVD releases maybe?

who is cc?

ah ok, are you sure? that "complete dossier" and Redux DVD release was definitely in the new Unavisium (lol) and I read that the Blu Ray was the same version as Redux/dossier.

....trust me...we had a major argument as did the argument about the OAR and whatnot. It's in it's OAR. Now begone w/ the topic and let us not discuss it again unless your in joy for it.

should've just multi quoted but whatever...

CC is Criterion Collection

They canceled the sequel.

Yes, I'm sure. In addition to the fact that I own it, there is a 17-page thread here about the new release, and the aspect ratio is discussed at length. The movie finally being presented in its OAR was even part of the advertising campaign for the Blu-ray.

As the film was shot scope (as opposed to Super-35), can't we sort of assume that the full negative image is what was intended to be seen?

Of course, this seems like a relatively minor gripe, since the image composition isn't hugely changed, and I doubt any vital information is lost on the top/bottom/sides.

i cant figure out the multi-quoting here.