 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
[Don't kill me over this, I like kids movies.]It will be released in Canada tomorrow, so haven't seen them yet. This is a case where the FS is apparently not really a subset of the WS, but rather is a different presentation. From other comments, as best I can tell, the director intended a 4:3 presentation in theaters, and this was how the film was made/cut etc., and there is nothing notable in the extra WS width. Rather, worthwhile high and low details are missing on the WS presentation. What do you think of this? I suppose I could get both versions for "educational" purposes, as I haven't heard of this situation for another DVD. I'm one of those people who always chooses the WS version, as I assume I'm getting "more" of the film, but maybe not this time.
Follow Ups:
I must say that I was very impressed with the quality of the video and the sound. It was sufficiently better than the typical DVD that it stood out. They did a good job, regardless of the format "controversy". I just got the WS version in the end, since I have a smallish (51) WS.
Chris Columbus will NOT helm the third HP movie, The Prisoner of Azkaban. (Good news.)According to Variety, Warner Brothers is looking for a director who can take some risks and be at ease with the darker material in HP III. Columbus wants to move back to Amerikay from old blighty.
So WB are courting...no shit...Alfonso Cuaron! Yup, the director of the sexually explicit, indie Mexican road movie Y Tu Mama Tambien. Of course, Cuaron has also directed more mainstream friendly fare, like the Great Expectations re-make with Gwyneth Paltrow/Ethan Hawke and the fine children's film The Little Princess. He's currently in preproduction for the film version of The Children of Man, based on the PD James novel.
Good grief, maybe WB actally learned something from the success of sister company New Line's bold but successful gamble with Peter Jackson on LOTR.
Hope Cuaron gets the nod. Would be muy interesting.
So with the way movies are coming out these days, why don't we get both versions when we buy the DVD. Seems like Bugs Life included both, though it is a shorter movie, but I have seen others that are multi-disc sets that include both. Since it is an issue in this disc, I'd expect both to be there. Seems like a money making scheme to me...I can smell the special edition disc set on the horizon with "super duper" extras and both versions in a special package of some sort. Ah consumerism!
We should see the pictures the way directors intented it.
Yeah, many DVD's include both. Terminator 2 had three versions (one "hidden") on ONE disc, still looked pretty good to me. It's somewhat the technical issues of modern movie-making that were interesting me re the HP movie presentation. I think I have a beginner's handle on it now. Things sure haven't got easier for directors, what with the different markets the studios have to cater to.
Here's a page where you can compare the two.
You're welcome guys.I found the link while surfing through some DVD related newsgroups.
This whole WS vs. P&S HP debacle is what results from filming in Super 35, the only benefit being it's easier to do a video transfer later.
There's no real right or wrong, just a big mess !
You can argue for either the original theatrical presentation in WS or for the original shooting format, Super 35.Judging from those screen captures it looks like Chris Columbus et al framed unimaginatively for standard TV screens.
IIRC this discussion arises every time a big hit Super 35 film is released on video. eg. almost everything done by J Cameron.
cheerio
I bought the full screen version this morning (for our miniscule 32" 4:3 TV) before having seen this thread & your post. My wife and oldest son have seen the movie and read the books; I and son #2 have not. Based on the link, I am quite pleased with my selection of full screen; if the sample shots are representative of the whole movie, I'd take the full screen version about 90% of the time. I have to really want to watch a movie in 2:35:1 to go out and rent it though, so I'm a bit biased. Now if I just had that jumbo widescreen, things might be bit different.....
Hey Blake, did you get it at Future Shop, cheap? Man, they sure must have sold a shipload of them out here, place was much more crowded than usual, even for "release day". Anyway, the format choice question is almost irrelevant if you have a small 4:3 or any WS, then it's pretty obvious which to choose from a practical POV. It's trickier to decide if you have a large screen 4:3.
Hi Craig. Was there at around 10:30 a.m. and they said they'd sold 100 copies by then and there were lineups when they opened at 10. Definitely pretty busy. Agree with you about selecting the format; trickier if you've got a big 4:3 set. In looking at that link, though, it makes you wonder in this case why 1:85:1 was not used for the final widescreen print-there sure is a lot of info missing top and bottom in some of those cropped shots.
I honestly didn't realize there was so much info on this...it's really kind of pathetic, isn't it?From the example shots, I think I'd still pick the WS, but I understand you must watch both versions to really appreciate the difference.
I am sure they could have easily fit both versions on the 2 discs, and as was mentioned, especially considering the "fuss", I'd bet a set with both versions will be out before the end of the year.
You lose something either way-some scenes are preferable in widescreen (like the chess game) and others in P&S (the shot of Voldemort's face coming out of the book). If memory serves me correctly, the film was shown theatrically in the 2:35 aspect ratio, so I would have to assume that the widescreen DVD accurately represents the theatrical presentation.
If you have a widescreen HDTV, then it's a moot point because you'll want the full bredth of the film as originally presentation. Now admittedly, in it's WS aspect ratio Harry Potter isn't going to be as visually spectacular as it was on a theater screen due to the reduced size, especially when it comes to some of the more subtle visual effects such as the various paintings which come to life. However, it's still the same well constructed movie regardless of whether Chris Columbus composed the shots with 4:3 academy or WS formats in mind and indeed some of the effects shots with conrasting perspectives are bound to be more impressive in WS.AuPh
If you go to the link mentioned above and view the original shots from the film, it is clear that there is information missing as a result of cropping in both versions. You have a choice of poison here, but that's what it is. Makes you wonder how often this really happens-if it's happening quite a bit, then "widescreen" may be not much more than a "perfect sound forever" marketing ploy.
IMHO, the WS is still superior although I can see where a director who wants to allow for standard academy framing (4:3) might justify this viewpoint for the benefit of those who don't own HDTV (i.e., the majority of folks). OTOH, when you go to a movie, just about any movie unless it's a re-release of a pre-1953 non-WS film, do you view it in 4:3 Academy standard or one of the WS modes (1.85:1, 2.35:1 or 2.75:1, etc.)? Yep, you saw it in WS! See my point? This is the converted aspect ratio you should have the film in on your HDTV; if it isn't being provided then it's the fault of the studio producing the DVD version or someone else (i.e., the director or producer, perhaps) who has an agenda. The "agenda" may be as simple as a sneaky way of selling as many copies of both versions as is humanly possible. However, I'm of the opinion that the confusion this creates does a disservice to both DVD collectors, who happen to own an HDTV, and those consumers contemplating the purchase of an HDTV.AuPh
I'll agree with you on your last point of the whole thing being a disservice to collectors and consumers; I'm not so sure in this case that the widescreen version is better (guess you'd have to compare still frames of the whole movie to do that-a little tedious, obviously). I just don't see the point of shooting the movie, then hacking a major part of the information away, then promoting it as "widescreen" as if it's some kind of techno wonder. Kind of misleading IMO.
I saw HP in the theatre, and it was most certainly presented in widescreen format. I would assume that was the director's (Chris Columbus) intention.I wonder if (like LOTR) HP was shot in Super 35, so less would have to be chopped from sides for FS home video. This sounds more likely. So since HP wasn't shot with hard matte in camera, there would be information top & bottom on the 4:3 FS that we wouldn't see either in the theatre or WS video.
I found HP to be charming...I think Columbus is a hack, but even he couldn't totally destroy a good yarn. (I'm also something of an Anglophile and find just the concept of Potter hard to resist.) The books are much, much better.
From what I've read, you have it exactly right re the Super 35.Speaking of books: I enjoyed the book too, and nearly always prefer the book, but this movie was quite close. OTOH, there is the movie Dune, which seemed to me a completely different story than the (first) book. I liked both of them, different as they are. Blade Runner is one case where I preferred the movie. And the case of Pulp Fiction, if I hadn't read the book I wouldn't have known what was going on...
I meant Get Shorty, not Pulp Fiction. Doh!
...what you meant :-) Liked both film & book, though I read the book long before the movie of Get Shorty.I've always had a soft spot for Dune, even though it's a bit of a mess. I'm afraid I'm a Lynch fan through and through.
With HP, I think Columbus did OK, the material was, ummm, magical to start with. He could have made more of it, the movie tends to just go on when it should soar, but heck, it works. I don't expect visual poetry from CC. It was a great kids movie, and I must admit to a liking for good childrens films. I'm taking my neighbor's children to see Monsters Inc. at the dollar theater this weekend.
Don't be embarrassed about kid flicks. Have you seen what some inmates have admitted liking? Remember our cheesey movie lists a few weeks ago?
I'm not embarassed about liking them, it's just they're not often mentioned here. I thought that by introducing a technical aspect to the presentation of one...well, you know.Frankly, I don't want to have to think a whole lot when watching a movie. A little bit is all right. And I don't mind being disturbed after watching a movie. That's good too. But I know that there's a lot of kid in me, and I very easily can and enjoy suspending belief for entertainment. Many would disagree, and want REVELATION and mind expansion, but my real life is just too bogged down with reality to want to choose that for leisure. I'm not unaware of what's going on, just don't need to pay to get a little clue...
That said, very often I have to go back to a DVD shortly after watching it to review some scenes, where I get the feeling I missed something important. So I guess I don't take them as lightly as I'd like to think.
This is where books excel, if you have a decent imagination, and no director can match the picture of characters you develop in your own mind, because they fit perfectly just for you.
She teaches in an inner elementary city school and she feels she has quite enough gritty, complex realism in her real life. BTW, she loves HP, as do many of her children. I've been supplying her with HP & LOTR posters. (The American Library Assoc. had very cool posters of the LOTR characters for their reading promotion.)Several of these kids, many of whom are LD, have started reading HP as a result of seeing the film. A few have even tackled LOTR as a result of seeing the film. My friend is delighted - it's not often these children pick up a book for pleasure.I like all kinds of films. I can be snotty, but I'm not offended by popcorn flicks. Sometimes I'm in the mood for a Memento, a Mullholland Drive, an Amorres Perros...some days I just want to relax at the movies. But I'm always annoyed by movies that dumb down. And I'm sick to death of car crashes and violence towards women. Enough!
BTW, I think some Kid flicks are quite fine on any terms...the Babe movies, James & The Giant Peach, many others.
Yeah, I'm not picky about the genre of movies really, I just like it to be a quality production, at least content-wise. I have many classic and foreign films on DVD here. The only ones that really bug me are the ones in which there's no/bad acting (the last two Star Wars come to mind), or which are a thinly disguised copy of another movie.Violence against women: I'm pretty sure I have never seen a movie with that gratuitously in it. I can't really count the beginning of Thelma and Louise, where it's necessary for the storyline. Not saying there's not a lot of it, but it doesn't seem to be in the movies I choose to view.
I'm a fairly voracious reader, and I mainly watch movies when I have no new "good" books to read, which seems to be more often these days, and I'm really getting into the DVD's.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
