A reminder to those who plan on getting the Robocop: SE when it comes out...

[Mistienght]

Hey all, here is a friendly reminder.

While the MGM SE release will be anamorphic and have a documentary, stick with the Criterion edition if you have it or get that version if you don't.

Why, if it's not anamorphic? The Criterion version is the only one that has the true OAR and is director approved.

The MGM is usuing 1:85, which will cause picture to be lost and thus making things looked more cramp than they should be. The criterion is at the OAR of 1:66.

So just a friendly warning. I want anamorphic as well, but I will wait until a version with the correct aspect ratio is released sometime in the future. If they ever do.

But hey, they are both great transfers. Someone was arguing tha the colors were boosted in the new MGM release, making Robo, ED and other things bluer. That color correction was a mistake IMO because Robo and company were not that blue when it came out in theaters. They were sliverish!

Anyway, just a little warning cause I know that people are very keen to the OAR just like I am.

[Avid]

Well, I am not a Robocop expert, but I always thought this film was released in the theaters as 1:85. Am I wrong?

If it did have a theatrical run at 1:85, has Paul Verhoeven stated anywhere that 1:66 was his intended aspect ratio?

[SolidSnakeASS]

On the IMDb: http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0093870 they say that 1.66 is the negative ratio and 1.85:1 is the intended ration. I am confused as to if they are wrong though....

[AnonomusBob15]

I'm glad I have my Criterion.

on the back it says 1.66:1, so hmmm.

[Little_Dragon]

Oh, heck, let's just do like the Army of Darkness people and buy them all.

* walks off muttering to himself *

[Mistienght]

Put it this way, Kubrick, except ona few exceptions, intended ratio was always full frame. In theaters you would lose image.

Same thing with Paul but this time of course, a little different. His intended ratio is 1:66.

And you can tell the difference. With the ratio brought down to 1:85, you lose image and things look a bit more closed in.

And as for the theatrical run, most theaters showed it at the ratio of 1:85. But some theaters which always try to hold the original ratio showed it at 1:66.

There was this theater that I used to go to. Not around anymore. They showed all films the intended way. Which was great, because I got to see unmatted Kubrick and other films the way intended, whether the different wide ratios or full frame or matted.

[orko007]

I have the Criterion and I will stick with it.. Best $60 spent on a DVD. And as a bonus it is region 0 so it works on my R4 only DVD.. Long live VERHOEVEN

[Avid]

Found a review comparing the Region 2 and Criterion:

http://www.dvdtimes.org.uk/index.cgi...430&story=2486

Looks like there are trade-offs with each disk. Maybe when they get around to the tenth DVD Robocop release it will be done right.

I wonder if the original sound mix will be on the R1 release...

[retroboy]

I'm quite satisfied with my Criterion RoboCop disc. Does anybody know what kind of extra features the upcoming MGM special edition disc will have? I wonder if they will differ from the Criterion features. I'll probably buy the MGM version for my younger brother, as he is is a RoboCop fanatic (he actually taped all of the episodes from that awful Canadian-made TV series )--he's also hoping for future DVD releases of RoboCops 2 and 3 (I'm sure this will eventually happen since there are some admirers of the second film).

[Wirehed]

I just have the Criterion Laser Disc. I never upgraded to the DVD

[SolidSnakeASS]

I'm not buying eithe probably! So there.

[Nexus 6]

originally posted by Mistienght:

There was this theater that I used to go to. Not around anymore. They showed all films the intended way. Which was great, because I got to see unmatted Kubrick and other films the way intended, whether the different wide ratios or full frame or matted.

That's interesting. You don't find many theaters nowadays with the capability to do that. I used to be a projectionist, and I think most contemporary cinemas (in the US, at least) can only project a flat film at approximately 1.85:1, because that's where the mattes on the aperture plate frame it. Also, the screen is fixed at that ratio for flat presentations. Normally, if the film was shot in open-matte or at 1.66:1, the picture on the film print is taller, rather than narrower, and therefore, the picture is cropped (correctly, if it's open-matte).

In the UK, I believe, 1.66:1 was the equivalent to the US's 1.85:1 for years. That's why so many British films' intended ratios are 1.66:1. Also, a lot of Disney films are animated at 1.66:1. I don't know why, exactly, but my guess is that it's probably to make it easier to show in Europe, and to allow for a slightly less cropped image when they transfer it to full-frame video.

As far as Robocop goes, I will most likely pick up the MGM SE, as long as it has the director's cut on it. The 1.85:1 ratio doesn't bother me that much, since that is how it was presented theatrically in the US. I will also most likely hang on to my Criterion edition, though. The commentary on it is very good, and I don't know if the commentary on MGM's disc will be the same one or not. In the past, MGM has not been able to obtain the rights to Criterion commentaries (Silence of the Lambs, Spinal Tap, although the MGM version of the latter had a pretty funny track).

Sorry; didn't mean to ramble.

[Avid]

I haven't seen either, but from reading the above article this looks to be the differences:

Criterion 1:66
MGM R2 1:85

Personally, I am not sure what to make of this. I am starting to think it might have been composed for 1:66, but most Americans saw it at 1:85.

MGM R2 5.1 DD remix
Criterion 2.0 DD
I do hope Region 1 includes the original mix.

The MGM R2 version lets you have the theatrical version and the director's cut through seemless branching. Apparently there is a layer change when going to the new material which causes a slight pause but I would be surprised if R1 was made that way. Personally, I am glad they made the seemless branching option available so people can decide which version they want to watch.

They both include trailers, not sure if they show the same ones or not.

Criterion Commentary edits interviews together from Paul Verhoeven, Jon Davison and Edward Neumeier. The MGM R2 has the three in the same room together. I don't know if one if better than the other.

The MGM R2 has a retrospective documentary that runs about 35 minutes and two featurettes from the time the movie was made.

The MGM R2 has four deleted scenes. I have no idea if these are included in the director's cut.

MGM R2 has a storyboard/film comparision for the boardroom ED-209 scene with commentary from the special effects supervisor. I think the Criterion has the storyboard/film comparison of that scene also.

Criterion has storyboards for scenes that where not filmed. and an essay written about the making of the film.

So there you have it. The big differences are the aspect ratio and seemless branching option. Criterion gives you get the extra storyboards and essay, you get the documentaries on the MGM.

[Mistienght]

Ah, remember this. The branching on the MGM version is not seamless.

It has a noticeable pause when a scene from the director's cut comes in.

Read it in a review.

[Fezzik]

Hopefully the seamless branching will be fixed in time for the RI release (just like the player-generated subtitles on the Terminator SE were fixed)......I would really prefer they release this with just the director's cut, and let those who want the theatrical cut buy the barebones release. As for the aspect ratio...it was in theaters as 1:85:1, so no complaints...we're having enough problems getting studios to release things in their theatrical OAR, so let's not be too picky and rip MGM for releasing a movie in it's OAR as opposed to the director's preferred aspect ratio. These days a studio should be applauded for releasing a movie in OAR period.

[Fezzik]

Sorry....double post

[Avid]

I have put some thought into this.

1:66 was the standard European ratio so Paul Verhoeven does prefer this one which is why he had Criterion do it that way. However, when he filmed the movie he knewit would be released in the United States as 1:85, so both ratios are in fact OAR. While it would have been cool for MGM to release this 1:66 it doesn't really bother me because we are still in fact getting OAR.

The reason I am buying this over the Criterion is because it will have the original theatrical cut, which Criterion does not. I am glad they are putting the extra material in and I will watch the directors cut. I hope that they fix the seamless branching for Region 1 (and include the original sound mix).

So for me the reason to pick the MGM SE over all the other editions available are:
Original Aspect Ratio
Theatrical Cut
Cool Supplements

Let everyone buy the version that is right for them.