Page 5 of 8
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 8:50 pm
by Luke
Ballzo wrote:I have yet to see, but why is this movie presented in window and letter box. Could somone please explain. Luke said something to the effect that "there is no way to preserve the original aspect ratio" How did they do it in the theatres?
The film was exhibited on 2.35:1 screens, but the first 24 minutes of the film were presented in 1.85:1. After the transformation, the movie filled the entire width of the screen. Changing perspectives, you know.
The way they've chosen to do it will essentially replicate it, but in doing so, it will also shrink the size of the film down considerably in the first 24 minutes.
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:02 pm
by Ballzo
I see, Thanks Luke!
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:34 am
by AwallaceUNC
Thanks for the pics, Joe. I definitely can't wait to see this. I don't get why the DVD can't be an exact replication of the 1.85:1, and the transformation look as it did theatrically.
-Aaron
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:40 am
by Luke
awallaceunc wrote:Thanks for the pics, Joe. I definitely can't wait to see this. I don't get why the DVD can't be an exact replication of the 1.85:1, and the transformation look as it did theatrically.
-Aaron
The transformation will look as it did theatrically. Instead of having unused space at the edges of the big huge theater screen, there will be unused space at the edges of the TV. How else could that be done? If it filled the screen at 1.85:1, in order to get wider it would have to extend beyond your TV set at the transition spot. And that doesn't seem feasible.
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:42 am
by Joe Carioca
awallaceunc wrote:Thanks for the pics, Joe. I definitely can't wait to see this. I don't get why the DVD can't be an exact replication of the 1.85:1, and the transformation look as it did theatrically.
-Aaron
The DVD will present the movie exactly how it was seen in theaters.
By the way, the first review of the DVD is on:
http://www.dvdmg.com/brotherbear.shtml
It seems comparable to the Finding Nemo DVD, but not comparable to the good and old collector's editions. Anyway, I can't wait to have it, and will be extremely satisfied with the DVD!
Oh, and there will be a "Chicken Little" trailer... but no HOME ON THE RANGE?!!!
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:30 am
by AwallaceUNC
Luke wrote:awallaceunc wrote:Thanks for the pics, Joe. I definitely can't wait to see this. I don't get why the DVD can't be an exact replication of the 1.85:1, and the transformation look as it did theatrically.
-Aaron
The transformation will look as it did theatrically. Instead of having unused space at the edges of the big huge theater screen, there will be unused space at the edges of the TV. How else could that be done? If it filled the screen at 1.85:1, in order to get wider it would have to extend beyond your TV set at the transition spot. And that doesn't seem feasible.
Oh, alright. I thought you meant that this wouldn't be able to look the way it did in theaters, my bad. Thanks for the clarification.
-Aaron
Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 6:46 pm
by Joe Carioca
By the way, acording to the review, Roy Disney appears on the DVD. If this is any indication, he is not going to be edited out of future releases.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:32 am
by AwallaceUNC
Good, that would be pretty shiesty of Eisner, but I wouldn't put it past him.
-Aaron
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:48 am
by 2099net
Before you all start moaning, IF Roy is edited out of any future DVD releases, there will probably a legal reason, rather than a "Eisner" reason for it being done.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:02 pm
by AwallaceUNC
This is true. But like I said, wouldn't put it past him. If it's possible that he ousted the Genie from the Aladdin cover b/c of Robin William's Oscar skit, then it's possible he'd pull a similar stunt w/ Roy. Of course, that doesn't mean that if Roy is excluded, it's automatically b/c of Eisner... which I think was your point
-Aaron
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:46 pm
by 2099net
awallaceunc wrote:This is true. But like I said, wouldn't put it past him. If it's possible that he ousted the Genie from the Aladdin cover b/c of Robin William's Oscar skit, then it's possible he'd pull a similar stunt w/ Roy. Of course, that doesn't mean that if Roy is excluded, it's automatically b/c of Eisner... which I think was your point
-Aaron
I don't think it is possible he ousted the Genie because of the Oscars® presentation.
How long did it take for the non-Genie artwork to show after the Oscars®? Days? Take it from me, things in big organisations do not happen that fast. Not only does Eisner have to "damand" the change, somebody has to make the change, get it signed off, duplicated, sent to publicity, made in to a press pack (or press release), have that signed off, distributed to the relevant parties then have the relevant parties make the image public.
It just wouldn't happen that fast.
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2004 1:38 pm
by AwallaceUNC
I agree. I personally don't side with that theory (though I won't totally strike it out). My point is, if that possibility is on the table, this one can be too.
-Aaron
Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2004 1:43 pm
by Joe Carioca
Animated-news has some screen grabs from the Koda's outtakes. I'm glad they created all-new outtakes and didn't just use the ones from the end credits.
They also have screen caps of the deleted scenes and Chicken Little trailer.
http://www.animated-news.com/archives/00001102.html
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 9:51 am
by Joe Carioca
Home Theater Forum has a very critic review:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum ... id=2098840
Hmm, it seems this DVD won't come with a sleep cover!
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 10:02 am
by Jens
I hate these kind of reviews. Ok, that guy has a right to voice his opinion, but Brother Bear wasn't an "attemp" like Atlantis was. Brother Bear is a real classic in my humble opinion. The last movie I really felt "magic" with was The Lion King actually. And this one made me feel magic too!
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 10:13 am
by Jack
Home Theater Forum review wrote:Coupling that with animation that seemed a bit uninspired . . .
Hey, he's entitled to his opinion on the movie and everything, but this comment gets me upset. I don't understand how he could consider it lackluster, unless he takes the impressionistic style as something thats 'quick' or 'lazy'. IMO, Brother Bear was the most beautiful-looking film of 2003. [/rant over]
Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:03 pm
by Joe Carioca
A picture of the packaging, courtesy of an E-bay's seller:
How come Lion King 1.1/2 gets a cardboard sleeve and Brother Bear doesn't?
Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:21 pm
by Mermaid Kelly
good point
... it really should have one!!!!!!!
Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:41 pm
by indianajdp
Well, just because it's not pictured (the Slip Case) does not mean it doesn't have one. Actually I fully expect that it will, since it is a 2-Disc set.
But if it doesn't come with one ... oh well. I just take them off and keep the separate anyway. Just one less I'll have to deal with.
Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:48 pm
by Joe Carioca
indianajdp wrote:Well, just because it's not pictured (the Slip Case) does not mean it doesn't have one. Actually I fully expect that it will, since it is a 2-Disc set.
But if it doesn't come with one ... oh well. I just take them off and keep the separate anyway. Just one less I'll have to deal with.
The sleep cover isn't mentioned in Home Theater Forum's review, and they always mention it when the DVD has one.