Movies not available on DVD in their original aspect ratio

[PaulKTF]

I hate when a movie is available on DVD, but not in its original aspect ratio. What are some movies you own that are butchered? One of my favorites is the horror movie Child's Play which has never gotte a widescreen VHS/laserdisc/DVD release. :(

[Steve Hoffman]

Hell, almost every DVD I own is off.

[kurtphyre]

I wish The Edge would get an anamorphic release. I hate non-anamorphic discs!

[The Wanderer]

There's just something about TV screens, movie screens and aspect ratio that (sadly) apparantly defies all solution.

[g23]

Godard framed a lot of his movies for 1:33 to allow for projectionist projecting wrong. Eyes Wide Shut is in full frame on dvd but was wide-screen in theatre, but it really was extra space being filled with the interior framing of the image. One I've never been sure of (anyone remember seeing it during its original run?) is Woodstock: the DVD alternates between the original shot aspect ratios, but I downloaded an .avi file that had ingrained french subtitles that had been transfered so that stayed within the widescreen which had some more information on the sides.

Then there are those 'we dont give a f*&%' DVDs which are pan&scan transfers that are probably the most recent remaster for a VHS reissue dumped on DVD for the new market.

[g23]

There's just something about TV screens, movie screens and aspect ratio that (sadly) apparantly defies all solution.

Yeah it's strange. With widescreens tv becoming the norm a new dvd of Eyes Wide Shut formatted in the original theatrical ratio will be of better use then the Kubrick preferred 1:33.

[The Wanderer]

The whole topic of aspect ratio isn't as simple as one would suspect it should be - plus - it also ties into framing and matting when the director is filming and considers the theatrical look versus the DVD version(s).

Pan and scan, now known as full-frame, I avoid, but may on occasion actually have information top and bottom lost on widescreen.

Recently, when "This Island Earth" (full-frame, I think) was re-released there was actually a disagreement as to the original theatrical aspect ratio - the DVD said one thing and the original NYT review, which showed aspect ratios, at that time, was different. I saw screen shots of the new and an earlier release and it was interesting to see more info in the frame (top and bottom)between the two versions.

I think it boils down to money, knowledge, competence and caring.

[Ed Bishop]

Hell, almost every DVD I own is off.

To be fair, you could never trust the aspect ratio as seen at your local theater, so why expect perfection on DVD's? :D

At least most of them have the proper widescreen(if not the perfect, correct and full image)concept, which is more than you could say for TV and VHS before Criterion's work started wising up everyone else.

Solution: get rich, buy a theater, get your fave films, invite your friends, and stock the bar...:D

:ed:

[93curr]

Worst one I own is the DVD of Gregg Araki's 'Doom Generation.'

Terry Gilliam's Tideland' is almost as bad.

[Eli]

It's a minor quibble, but I wish War of the Worlds (1953) would come out in its original aspect ratio of 1:37.

[hushypushy]

Terry Gilliam's Tideland' is almost as bad.

Really? I have a burned version that I only watched once, but I watched it on a widescreen TV and everything was peachy. And I'm a stickler for that sort of thing my girlfriend hates the fact that I won't watch a film with her if there are any aspect ratio problems (fullscreen, bad ratio, etc). She finally convinced me to watch TV stretched wide though...the things I do :love:

[Solaris]

A Hard Day's Night. Good thing I have a transfer from the laserdisc because there's no way I'll watch the regular DVD. Letterboxed...how silly.

[Bahax]

I have a burned version that I only watched once, but I watched it on a widescreen TV and everything was peachy.

Apparently ThinkFilm messed up the aspect ratio for the US/Canada release. It's discussed here (http://www.smart.co.uk/dreams/tidecrop.htm) with some comments from Gilliam.

[blind_melon1]

I argue weekly with some people that I work with, because they all zoom in on their tv, or watch it in pan&scan so they have no black bars...and yes, one of them owns a 42" Widescreen Hi Def Plasma

GRRRR

[93curr]

I argue weekly with some people that I work with, because they all zoom in on their tv, or watch it in pan&scan so they have no black bars...and yes, one of them owns a 42" Widescreen Hi Def Plasma

GRRRR

I never cease to be amazed at how often I see widescreen TVs in stores showing 4:3 images stretched to "fit" the screen (HMV on Yonge St. does it ALL the time). Just looking at them makes me nauseous. And if you point it out to them, they look at you as if you're nuts and tell you that that's how widescreen TVs are "supposed" to look.

It's like the people who's every answer is "but louder is better"; some people just think everything's okay as long as those evil black bars don't show up on the screen.

[Bahax]

Aaaargh!! That is one of my biggest pet peeves! You see it all–the–time.

Non-widescreen content stretched to fit a widescreen display. Can't people see that it's wrong?

[pigmode]

WALKABOUT!!!

Sorry, I meant non-anamorphic...nevermind.

[tomhayes]

True Stories (David Byrne)

[Michael]

Twins, Star 80, The Super, Jersey Girl, With Honors.

[Captain Groovy]

Charley Varrick
Jeff

[Captain Groovy]

Charley Varrick

Jeff

[carrick doone]

Fearless

[Jim in Houston]

The Shadow w/Alec Baldwin. Pan and Scan only in the US but the Region 2 is anamorphic. It was on last night in HD on Cinemax or Starz and was in widescreen but the audio was only pro logic. So to get the full effect I would have to play the audio from my DTS fullframe DVD and sync it with the HD video.

arrrrrgh

[hushypushy]

Apparently ThinkFilm messed up the aspect ratio for the US/Canada release. It's discussed here (http://www.smart.co.uk/dreams/tidecrop.htm) with some comments from Gilliam.

Well no wonder I didn't notice, I didn't see it in theater :p I stand corrected.

This reminds a lot of Eyes Wide Shut (mentioned earlier). The "proper" release being 1:33, but the cinematic release works too because the cut-off portion is not necessary. So for that reason, I'm not too terribly disappointed by Tideland or EWS (although, the copy of EWS I have is the fullscreen version).


I never cease to be amazed at how often I see widescreen TVs in stores showing 4:3 images stretched to "fit" the screen (HMV on Yonge St. does it ALL the time). Just looking at them makes me nauseous. And if you point it out to them, they look at you as if you're nuts and tell you that that's how widescreen TVs are "supposed" to look.

It's like the people who's every answer is "but louder is better"; some people just think everything's okay as long as those evil black bars don't show up on the screen.

Yeah, that's exactly how it is. My girlfriend's parents have a widescreen TV and I can't stand it; I switched the mode to normal (bars on the side) and left it there (oh crap!) and they got all worked up because everything looked weird:sigh:

I also don't get how people don't notice pan & scan. My mom bought Crash (the Paul Haggis one, not Cronenberg) but in fullscreen...I sat down to watch it with my parents and after 5 minutes I had to leave the room, the pan & scan not only raped the framing of the scene, but the back and forth movement (as opposed to the steady framing of widescreen) was making me sick!

[PaulKTF]

I also don't get how people don't notice pan & scan. My mom bought Crash (the Paul Haggis one, not Cronenberg) but in fullscreen...I sat down to watch it with my parents and after 5 minutes I had to leave the room, the pan & scan not only raped the framing of the scene, but the back and forth movement (as opposed to the steady framing of widescreen) was making me sick!

So I'm not the only one who gets a little sick from too much pan-and-scanning? Viva widescreen! :)