Beauty And The Beast: Diamond Edition Discussion Oct. 5th!

[AlwaysOAR]

Many 1.85:1 movies are released in 1.78:1 (Warner does it to all their releases).

I don't think thats entirely true. A recent look at dvds put out by Warners last week, for those films released in theatres at the 1.85, show them being released at their original ratio, via DVDEmpire and other websites. Granted, Amazon, which is pretty much wrong on alot of their descriptions, and UD say 1.78, but the majority say 1.85. These include Sherlock Holmes, The Informant!, The Blind Side, and the original Clash of the Titans. Warners is generally one of the better studios when it comes to releasing the original theatrical ratio.
Disney, it seems, is the main culprit in promoting this new 1.78, full screen, 16:9 TV ratio.

Most DPs have to take several things into account when they're shooting a movie, so nobody frames that precise.
Plus, as was already revealed, the Beauty and the Beast dvd might have the correct aspect ratio, it was zoomed in quite a bit compared to the trailer we saw. So you still didn't get the correct picture.

Well, let's hope your correct on that, as the Platinum release was at the correct theatrical ratio of 1.85.

[ajmrowland]

I put less and less stock in what filmakers now say in how they wanted their films shown. Look at Lucas, constantly tinkering with the original Star Wars trilogy.

I dont really blame Lucas. For one thing, the prequels were part of his original treatment. As for his treatment of the original trilogy, an artist is rarely fully satisfied with his own work.

Other examples include Criterion's release of The Last Emperor, or Paramount's release of Apocalypse Now, where the director of photography of these two films, not the actual directors(credit to KubrickFan for that info) says he always wanted them at the 2.00:1 ratio instead of their original theatrical aspect ratios. The option for the original ratio of 2.35:1 is not given.

I haven't seen those movies, so I wont comment.

Filmmakers sometimes change their minds more than once in how they wanted a film to be shown, evidence the director cuts put out by some, then later on change their minds again.

That may be true, but a different cut is not the AR. I point back to the Lucas comment in my earlier post.

That's why I like Scorcese, he doesn't go back and tinker with the original release, saying you make a film under the conditions your given at the time.

I guess, but that can lead to either him not being one to argue with anyone, or maybe the studios just trust him that much.

Now it's all fine and well if the director wants to release a film altered, whether it's content added/taken out or an alternate ratio, but in those few instances, and they are far and few between fortunately, the option should be given on DVD, and especially Blu, between the original release and the alternate version/ratio.

I agree, but the studios dont want to put money out for an alternate version, let alone one that takes up valuable disc space and racks up the package.

Many of the studios for years have been giving us the option of the original ratio and a full screen/ pan & scan, so why not have the option on these. And again, whether the ratio difference is .5 or .05 is besides the point, preserving the film as it was originally presented should be the first option.

This is different. P&S is/was not always supervised by the filmmakers. Its an entirely separate team that would do those, and they were just to answer some consumers complaints about the "black bars". Here, we're talking decisions of the directors themselves.

[Luke]

Many 1.85:1 movies are released in 1.78:1 (Warner does it to all their releases).

Granted, Amazon, which is pretty much wrong on alot of their descriptions, and UD say 1.78, but the majority say 1.85. These include Sherlock Holmes, The Informant!, The Blind Side, and the original Clash of the Titans.

If we say 1.78:1, it is 1.78:1. Sure, we're not immune to mistakes, but I think you'll find we are one of the few places to accurately distinguish between 1.85:1 and 1.78:1. And you can always check the dimensions of our screencaps to confirm.

[AlwaysOAR]

Granted, Amazon, which is pretty much wrong on alot of their descriptions, and UD say 1.78, but the majority say 1.85. These include Sherlock Holmes, The Informant!, The Blind Side, and the original Clash of the Titans.

If we say 1.78:1, it is 1.78:1. Sure, we're not immune to mistakes, but I think you'll find we are one of the few places to accurately distinguish between 1.85:1 and 1.78:1. And you can always check the dimensions of our screencaps to confirm.

I was referring to Sherlock Holmes when mentioning UD, should have been a bit more clear on that. Most of the other websites say 1.85, these include ComingSoon. net, DVD Town, DVD Verdict, DVD Empire, IMBD(yeah, yeah), etc.

The larger point I was trying to make is that Warners is pretty good about their releases insofar as ratios go in that they give the original theatrical ratios. If that happens to be 1.78, and some films are released to theatres at that ratio, I think, then fine. I just want to see films released in their original versions on DVD/Blu first and foremost. This goes for the upcoming Beauty and the Beast release.

[AlwaysOAR]

I put less and less stock in what filmakers now say in how they wanted their films shown. Look at Lucas, constantly tinkering with the original Star Wars trilogy.

I dont really blame Lucas. For one thing, the prequels were part of his original treatment. As for his treatment of the original trilogy, an artist is rarely fully satisfied with his own work.

Exactly, even more of a reason to have the original version first and foremost, IMO. Then along with it, the current version the director wants at that particular time.

Filmmakers sometimes change their minds more than once in how they wanted a film to be shown, evidence the director cuts put out by some, then later on change their minds again.

That may be true, but a different cut is not the AR. I point back to the Lucas comment in my earlier post.

True, but I was simply pointing out that ratio changes aren't the only changes directors sometimes make in their revisionism.

Now it's all fine and well if the director wants to release a film altered, whether it's content added/taken out or an alternate ratio, but in those few instances, and they are far and few between fortunately, the option should be given on DVD, and especially Blu, between the original release and the alternate version/ratio.

I agree, but the studios dont want to put money out for an alternate version, let alone one that takes up valuable disc space and racks up the package.

That might be true for DVD, but with Bluray, I'd think there's plenty of space. If Blade Runner can get a 5-disc Bluray release with I forget how many versions, then some of the Disney Classics can/should as well.

[KubrickFan]

Warner does release their 1.85:1 output in 1.78:1. Check the review for Sherlock Holmes: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRevie ... lu-ray.htm

Frankly, I think it's a bit odd that you would claim that Warner always does it correctly when they don't (and never did). Do you even see the black bars on your screen with a 1.85:1 movie?

[AlwaysOAR]

Warner does release their 1.85:1 output in 1.78:1. Check the review for Sherlock Holmes: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRevie ... lu-ray.htm

Frankly, I think it's a bit odd that you would claim that Warner always does it correctly when they don't (and never did). Do you even see the black bars on your screen with a 1.85:1 movie?

I guess you didn't see my earlier post. Most of the other websites say 1.85, these include ComingSoon. net, DVD Town, DVD Verdict, etc.
Also, you have one site, dvdreview .com, saying 2.35:1, so go figure.

Anyway, on the back of most of Warners output you'll see "Presented in a 'matted' widescreen format preserving the aspect ratio of it's original theatrical exhibition", and I haven't run across a Warner release yet that's been incorrect, not to say maybe they have been wrong on some releases, I can't say for sure. And I did say they were pretty good with their releases, not that they always do it correctly.

Also, that website you linked says 1.85, I don't know what you're talking about...

[KubrickFan]

Warner does release their 1.85:1 output in 1.78:1. Check the review for Sherlock Holmes: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRevie ... lu-ray.htm

Frankly, I think it's a bit odd that you would claim that Warner always does it correctly when they don't (and never did). Do you even see the black bars on your screen with a 1.85:1 movie?

I guess you didn't see my earlier post. Most of the other websites say 1.85, these include ComingSoon. net, DVD Town, DVD Verdict, etc.
Also, you have one site, dvdreview .com, saying 2.35:1, so go figure.

Anyway, on the back of most of Warners output you'll see "Presented in a 'matted' widescreen format preserving the aspect ratio of it's original theatrical exhibition", and I haven't run across a Warner release yet that's been incorrect, not to say maybe they have been wrong on some releases, I can't say for sure. And I did say they were pretty good with their releases, not that they always do it correctly.

Also, that website you linked says 1.85, I don't know what you're talking about...

Just because they copy the information on the package, doesn't make it correct. Do you see any black bars on the screenshots? I don't.

[AlwaysOAR]

I guess you didn't see my earlier post. Most of the other websites say 1.85, these include ComingSoon. net, DVD Town, DVD Verdict, etc.
Also, you have one site, dvdreview .com, saying 2.35:1, so go figure.

Anyway, on the back of most of Warners output you'll see "Presented in a 'matted' widescreen format preserving the aspect ratio of it's original theatrical exhibition", and I haven't run across a Warner release yet that's been incorrect, not to say maybe they have been wrong on some releases, I can't say for sure. And I did say they were pretty good with their releases, not that they always do it correctly.

Also, that website you linked says 1.85, I don't know what you're talking about...

Just because they copy the information on the package, doesn't make it correct. Do you see any black bars on the screenshots? I don't.

Just because a screenshot doesn't show something doesn't make it correct either. All the movies I've watched the last couple of years have been on a standard 1.33 TV overseas where I work here, so unless a film is an academy ratio film, I always have black bars.

I read the various reviews of a particular release, like everyone else, to determine whether or not to purchase a title, and the majority of reviews for this particular Warners title, Sherlock Holmes, say 1.85. Now I only brought up that title, along with a few others, to point out that Warners does release their 1.85 films in their correct ratio, maybe not all of them, I can't be sure of course, after you said they never have, a broad statement to say the least.

However, we have gotten off topic, BATB, and all I would like to see is the original release in the correct theatrical ratio. Not alot to ask...

[KubrickFan]

Just because a screenshot doesn't show something doesn't make it correct either. All the movies I've watched the last couple of years have been on a standard 1.33 TV overseas where I work here, so unless a film is an academy ratio film, I always have black bars.

I read the various reviews of a particular release, like everyone else, to determine whether or not to purchase a title, and the majority of reviews for this particular Warners title, Sherlock Holmes, say 1.85. Now I only brought up that title, along with a few others, to point out that Warners does release their 1.85 films in their correct ratio, maybe not all of them, I can't be sure of course, after you said they never have, a broad statement to say the least.

However, we have gotten off topic, BATB, and all I would like to see is the original release in the correct theatrical ratio. Not alot to ask...

Screenshots show the entire thing, so if black bars aren't there, then they aren't there. I could pick any Warner title and show you that their 1.85:1 movies have always had black bars, at least on DVD (never collected Laserdiscs, so I couldn't tell about that format). So it isn't a broad statement, but simple fact.
But you're watching your movies on a 4:3 screen? You can't even tell the difference between 1.85:1 and 1.66:1, since there's overscan.

[AlwaysOAR]

Just because a screenshot doesn't show something doesn't make it correct either. All the movies I've watched the last couple of years have been on a standard 1.33 TV overseas where I work here, so unless a film is an academy ratio film, I always have black bars.

I read the various reviews of a particular release, like everyone else, to determine whether or not to purchase a title, and the majority of reviews for this particular Warners title, Sherlock Holmes, say 1.85. Now I only brought up that title, along with a few others, to point out that Warners does release their 1.85 films in their correct ratio, maybe not all of them, I can't be sure of course, after you said they never have, a broad statement to say the least.

However, we have gotten off topic, BATB, and all I would like to see is the original release in the correct theatrical ratio. Not alot to ask...

Screenshots show the entire thing, so if black bars aren't there, then they aren't there.

I've seen screenshots from other sites, and no I don't remember which, that are a perfect square of a known widescreen release. In regards to black bars, I was actually answering your question as to whether or not I see black bars on my tv screen, and being that I have only a standard, 1.33 tv here, of course I'll have black bars on any widescreen release.

I could pick any Warner title and show you that their 1.85:1 movies have always had black bars, at least on DVD (never collected Laserdiscs, so I couldn't tell about that format). So it isn't a broad statement, but simple fact.

Well of course they would have black bars. Now on a 16:9 tv, which I had gotten one, but really didn't get the chance to try out before taking a job overseas and now have it in storage, if you don't see them due to overscan I don't know.
But that wasn't what we were debating. You made the statement that Warners releases all of their 1.85 theatrical releases at the 1.78 ratio on DVD. So you're telling me that all of the DVD review sites, in all of their reviews of Warner's releases in the past where they say that a DVD has been released at it's theatrical ratio of 1.85, are wrong?
You referenced a website earlier in this thread where you were trying to claim they only release at the 1.78 ratio, yet it said Warner's Sherlock Holmes was released on DVD at it's theatrical ratio of 1.85. I'll grant that there will be the occasional mistake in a review, dvdreview .com said 2.35, but all of them, on all of their reviews of past Warners' releases. I don't think so.

But you're watching your movies on a 4:3 screen? You can't even tell the difference between 1.85:1 and 1.66:1, since there's overscan.

Yes, you can see a difference, if you meant the difference between 1.85 and 1.66, even if it is minor. But whether or not the difference in ratio between a theatrical release and it's presentation on DVD/Blu is .5 or .05 is besides the point. Not wanting to see a film misframed on a release is the same as not wanting to see a film edited, IMO. I only hope to see BATB released in it's original version in it's theatrical ratio. Again, not alot to ask...

[KubrickFan]

Well of course they would have black bars. Now on a 16:9 tv, which I had gotten one, but really didn't get the chance to try out before taking a job overseas and now have it in storage, if you don't see them due to overscan I don't know.
But that wasn't what we were debating. You made the statement that Warners releases all of their 1.85 theatrical releases at the 1.78 ratio on DVD. So you're telling me that all of the DVD review sites, in all of their reviews of Warner's releases in the past where they say that a DVD has been released at it's theatrical ratio of 1.85, are wrong?
You referenced a website earlier in this thread where you were trying to claim they only release at the 1.78 ratio, yet it said Warner's Sherlock Holmes was released on DVD at it's theatrical ratio of 1.85. I'll grant that there will be the occasional mistake in a review, dvdreview .com said 2.35, but all of them, on all of their reviews of past Warners' releases. I don't think so.

They probably simply copied it from the packaging. You can check any Warner DVD or Blu-ray you like. They'll all be in 1.78:1.

Yes, you can see a difference, if you meant the difference between 1.85 and 1.66, even if it is minor. But whether or not the difference in ratio between a theatrical release and it's presentation on DVD/Blu is .5 or .05 is besides the point. Not wanting to see a film misframed on a release is the same as not wanting to see a film edited, IMO. I only hope to see BATB released in it's original version in it's theatrical ratio. Again, not alot to ask...

Your television has overscan, and because of that you won't see the difference between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1, and every ratio inbetween. That's why it's highly improbable that you could see the difference between them on that tv.

[SWillie!]

I keep thinking maybe theres new posts with new info on the Diamond Edition.






There isn't.

[Raindown]

I keep thinking maybe theres new posts with new info on the Diamond Edition.






There isn't.

Lol I'm in the same boat. I look and then I

[Luke]

Not to further stray from our non-existent <i>Beauty and the Beast</i> talk, but...

Warner never lists aspect ratios (at least on DVD; haven't seen one of their Blu-rays), instead simply specifying "Matted" or "Scope." KubrickFan is right; they do 1.78:1, not 1.85:1. And, AlwaysOAR, if you're relying on what review sites list and are unaware for instance that 1.78:1 anamorphic DVDs don't have black bars on the image themselves, it's pretty peculiar and ironic that you're a stickler for upholding OAR down to distinguishing between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1. While we can all get behind the sentiment of your user name, it just seems like such a wasteful nitpick, especially when unbeknownst to you, many of the DVDs you think are 1.85:1 are in fact 1.78:1 and you'd never be able to tell the difference on the vast majority of televisions.

[AlwaysOAR]

I keep thinking maybe theres new posts with new info on the Diamond Edition.






There isn't.

Lol I'm in the same boat. I look and then I

Well, I have tried to steer the conversation back to BATB on my last couple of posts, without much success...

[AlwaysOAR]

Well of course they would have black bars. Now on a 16:9 tv, which I had gotten one, but really didn't get the chance to try out before taking a job overseas and now have it in storage, if you don't see them due to overscan I don't know.
But that wasn't what we were debating. You made the statement that Warners releases all of their 1.85 theatrical releases at the 1.78 ratio on DVD. So you're telling me that all of the DVD review sites, in all of their reviews of Warner's releases in the past where they say that a DVD has been released at it's theatrical ratio of 1.85, are wrong?
You referenced a website earlier in this thread where you were trying to claim they only release at the 1.78 ratio, yet it said Warner's Sherlock Holmes was released on DVD at it's theatrical ratio of 1.85. I'll grant that there will be the occasional mistake in a review, dvdreview .com said 2.35, but all of them, on all of their reviews of past Warners' releases. I don't think so.

They probably simply copied it from the packaging. You can check any Warner DVD or Blu-ray you like. They'll all be in 1.78:1.

I'll have to wait till I get back to the states in a few days, the few Warners' titles I have post 1953 I'll have to compare to say Toy Story, which I can borrow from someone I know, and Toy Story is misframed at 1.78 from it's theatrical release of 1.85

Yes, you can see a difference, if you meant the difference between 1.85 and 1.66, even if it is minor. But whether or not the difference in ratio between a theatrical release and it's presentation on DVD/Blu is .5 or .05 is besides the point. Not wanting to see a film misframed on a release is the same as not wanting to see a film edited, IMO. I only hope to see BATB released in it's original version in it's theatrical ratio. Again, not alot to ask...

Your television has overscan, and because of that you won't see the difference between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1, and every ratio inbetween. That's why it's highly improbable that you could see the difference between them on that tv.

Well, I just borrowed Dr. Strangelove's 40th Anniversary edition(1.66:1), as well as Monster's Inc. first release(1.85:1) from someone here to compare, and sure enough without even having to measure, you can see there's more black border for Monster's than Strangloves. And of course measuring it, a first for me, it's confirmed as well. If you can't tell the difference then fine, but that isn't really the point I've been making. Knowing that a title is going to be misframed on it's DVD/Blu release from it's theatrical ratio is almost as bad as a film being edited, IMO. We just won't agree on this.

[AlwaysOAR]

Not to further stray from our non-existent <i>Beauty and the Beast</i> talk, but...

Warner never lists aspect ratios (at least on DVD; haven't seen one of their Blu-rays), instead simply specifying "Matted" or "Scope."

Yes that's true, as they also add preserving the aspect ratio of it's original theatrical exhibition. Now I've never had any reason to believe otherwise, and will have to compare the few Warners' titles I have to a known 1.78 release, I can borrow Toy Story to compare for that. And I can compare a known 1.85 release as well with them.

And, AlwaysOAR, if you're relying on what review sites list and are unaware for instance that 1.78:1 anamorphic DVDs don't have black bars on the image themselves, it's pretty peculiar and ironic that you're a stickler for upholding OAR down to distinguishing between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1.

Oh, I'm aware on a 16:9 television that a 1.78 DVD won't have any black bars as that's the ratio of the new widescreen tvs. A film released on DVD in it's correct theatrical ratio of 1.85 I would think have slight black bars on top and bottom, as it should. Now if it doesn't because of overscan, I don't know as I haven't had the chance really to watch most of my collection on a 16:9 tv.

Now if I know that a title is misframed from it's theatrical ratio, whether that difference is .05 or .5 is besides the point for me. I don't expect agreement on that, though I do find it odd that you and KubrickFan are aware of misframing on alot of the Disney live-action classics from the 60's and 70's. Where a majority of them are misframed on DVD from their original ratios of 1.75, either overmatted at 1.85 or undermatted at 1.66, you seem to indicate they should be corrected on future releases, though if I'm wrong on that assumption, my apologies. So why not the same for titles misframed from their theatrical ratios of 1.85, to the 1.78 ratio to fill a 16:9 tv.

As far as review sites go, before I decide to purchase a title, I look at the various releases a particular title has had, looking at several different reviews to get as much of a complete account as I can, looking of course for correct theatrical ratio, not edited, etc.




I've said my peace on this subject in this thread, mostly, and don't plan on really commenting more on it (waits for applause), though I won't promise...

I do regret that we have gotten off topic, that being Beauty and the Beast, and all I want to see for it on it's upcoming release is at least one of the versions in it's original form and it's original aspect ratio...

[Matt]

Does everyone know that Beauty and the Beast Combo Pack is up for pre-order on just about every site now?

I cannot wait!

[Want2beBelle]

Does everyone know that Beauty and the Beast Combo Pack is up for pre-order on just about every site now?

I cannot wait!

Really woo hoo!! thanks for posting!