From DavisDVD:

That's ridiculous - it can't be true. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid...

I hate letting the conspiracy theorist in me get out, but...

Do you suppose there was some conflict between Donaldson and Buena Vista regarding a P&S version? Maybe this was his way of compromising.

It isn't a movie I liked enough to buy, but I do remember thinking in the theater that it was a very slick, well-filmed movie and this seems like such a dumb thing to do.

"Honey, those black bars are on the TV screen again."

If Donaldson was dissatisfied with the 2.35:1 framing and feels that the mattes should be opened up a little, that's his prerogative. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that has happened (Austin Powers, Star Trek VI, etc.).

If the director decided to do it then who cares? To me that's really all that matters (in regards to aspect ratios anyway).

1.78:1 is fine. still beats Pan and scam. if i dont go on dvdtalk and know about these things, i'd be in the store and be picking up The Recruit and i wouldn't even notice a damn thing wrong. just like back to the future.

may 27th is pretty fast for this recent movie. sweet!

If this was a movie I looked forward to getting I'd be ticked. 2:35:1 is what all movies should be filmed its just wide enough show lots of detail.

PS Why does the article say 'open up the frame'? He's chopping the sides!

No he isn't. The Recruit was shot in Super35.

If the director shot the film with a possible 1.78:1 display in mind (often the shots will be structured for more than one possible AR), and decided on his own to release it this way, then I have no problem with it.

Just wanted to second bboisvert's correction on this (in case it didn't sink in ).

We are actually seeing much more image with a 2.35:1 film shot in Super35 and changed to 1.78:1. No panning and scanning happening here.

Dang. Luckily I've seen it on theatre, which I rarely do.

btw, this was a warner title.

I don't really understand what all the fuss is about. If the director has decided to open up the fram and we are not losing any information on the screen, then what is the downside? As long as the mics are not making their way into the shot, I don't see anything wrong here.

I'm hating thing...and thinking about NOT picking it up.

It's absolutely ridiculous. If this is the way that he wanted it released, it would have been released that way in the first place. This is CLEARLY a way of making those nasty black bars go away on home theaters...in much the same way they did with "Life As A House."

I find it amusing that all the morons who complain about snapper cases and non-anamorphic discs are probably the same ones that say they have no problem with this. Well...i guess this is another reason to get it (if being a snapper wasn't good enough for you :P)

Disgusting.

No, this is a Buena Vista title as stated in the first post.


I don't have a problem with this. Nothing is being lost, and it's a decision made by the director.

Settle down there, and watch who you're calling "moron". The truth is, many times the director will shoot a film composed for more than one aspect ratio. James Cameron is one well known example. Many other directors will film a movie as "TV Safe", meaning the 4:3 composition is just as valid as the 2:35 (or whatever). Also, many times a film is shot in one aspect ratio, and then projected in another, completely outside of the control of the director. In that case, if you were to fight for the movie theater ratio you would ironically be arguing for a home video release of the incorrect ratio. The bottom line is, this is the director's film. If he shoots it with the intent of one day displaying it at 1.78:1 (which he apparently did, otherwise mics and cables would be in the frame), then how is that display any less valid than the theatrical display?

The irony is, everybody is for this because its the director's intention, yet no one is backing George Lucas' intention.

Ironically...

I'm FOR George Lucas' intention and AGAINST this one...

And as for the comments by Numanoid...i'm fighting for an aspect ratio and it being kept intact. I also have a hard time with directors who shoot for home video, tv etc. Shoot the movie for it's purpose...the theatrical experience...and not for eventual money-making issues.

Perhaps you're unaware that films now make more money on home video than they do at the box office. The paradigm has shifted. The home video market is now an utterly valid "purpose". Besides, we are talking about the DVD, the home video version of the film. IMO, the artistry of the director must be honored. If a director chooses to film something in two ratios, allowing us to view one version in the theater and another in the home, and puts every effort into planning and composing the home video version, then what exactly is to complain about? This is not a cropped or pan and scan release. It apparently is an acceptable opening of the matte to reveal more of the ORIGINAL composition. Again, if the director had wanted only a 2.35:1 ratio, he would have composed with microphones, lights, wires, etc. in the matte. The fact that he is able to open the matte to 1.78:1 shows that he anticipated doing just that...ergo the artist's vision is intact.

You are all forgetting that this is ROGER DONALDSON. He's a hack. No one needs to listen to what he wants. And most definetly they shouldn't have listened to him about how he wants the film presented on dvd.

That's right. The marketing departments should make the decisions, not the directors.

Numanoid...

I am forgetting none of this. Sue me for thinking of artistry. And I refuse to believe that this was the directors ORIGINAL intent.

It's amusing to see the posts here and then head over to hometheaterforum where people are destroying this decision with facts about composition and the impossibility of him being able to frame both extremely well at the same time.

I just don't believe it and think this decision is a load of crap. I want what I saw in theaters...THAT is the OAR.

Well, rather than referencing another forum full of people that know no more than the people here, try looking at an example of a S35 film that has been transferred open-matte 1.78:1. There are three examples I know of...

Silverado
Turbulence
Judgement Night

I happen to have all three. I also have the 2.35:1 letterboxed LDs of Turbulence and Judgement Night. In the case of Silverado, I slightly prefer the 2.35:1 framing. Kasdan seems to have very consciously framed for that ratio, but, 1.78:1 is certainly not bad and is considerably better than 4:3. In the cases of Turbulence and Judgement Night, I find the 1.78:1 framing the preferable presentation. By comparison, the 2.35:1 framing is "cramped".

There's a trade ad for this title in the latest issue of "Video Business" which states that the director originally composed this film for 1.78:1 (16:9) and that the theatrical cut did NOT reflect the director's vision for this title.

Please note that no aspect ratio will improve the quality of the film.

-- Jough