Scenes that were "Better" in Full Frame

[MooglePorn]

I just watched Halloween recently and at the part where the girl lowers the sheet and says "what do you think of these" her breasts went below the picture and were not visible. I remember in the full screen version seeing it all, and I assume this is because the film was "open matte".

They were talking about Evil Dead in another forum being worse in Widescreen. Are there any other scenes like this that people know of?

[LBPound23]

I think you see more Bridget Fonda ass in the open-matte "Jackie Brown", but I haven't seen it firsthand.

[Hollow Man]

Some like to watch Terminator 2 in 1.33:1 because you get more on the top and bottom. The question is, did Cameron intend for us to see that much?

-HM

[Riedenschneider]

Originally posted by LBPound23
I think you see more Bridget Fonda ass in the open-matte "Jackie Brown", but I haven't seen it firsthand.

That's true and you see the funny pictures on top of the TV (where they're watching Chicks with Guns).

[sub780lime]

i dont think the title for this topic applies well, does the one scene where you see her boobs really make it better then the entire widescreen version, i wonder, not for me

[elwood731]

Halloween is definitely not as good in full frame. Why? Because there is careful work done to make sure things just barely stick into the edge of the frame, and in full frame they're completely cut out. I prefer widescreen where I don't have to worry about it. One or two scenes is not worth runing the movie for.

[MooglePorn]

In no way am I saying Halloween is better in FS, I was just hoping to hear about some cool stuff "off-screen" you guys might know of like the pictures on the TV Riedenschneider brought up.

Oh, and I'll have to look for some screencaps of the Bridget Fonda thing...

[redshifter]

i wouldn't say i prefer it, but i like the open matte "jurassic park" scene: the first t-rex attack. you can see a lot more of the t-rex, and it just seems to have more impact on my 4:3 t.v.

i also like the open matte version of "the shining", especially the scenes with the two little grady girls. it send goosebumps down my arms how they seem to just float in the exact center of the t.v. screen, in every scene they are in. it's eerie. i also enjoy the other kubrick films in open matte.

[Nexus 6]

I'll have to check out my copy of Halloween for sure, but I don't see how you'd see more in the full-frame version, as the movie was filmed in anamorphic Panavision. The 2.35:1 frame is all there is; the only thing I can think of is that they might have gone ahead and matted it to the 2.40:1 ratio as shown in theaters, but even that wouldn't give you anything that substantial.

I'm not trying to dispute you, MooglePorn but I just don't see how that is possible, unless the zoomed in on the widescreen in a few shots. I'll look on mine and see what it looks like.

As for me, the only thing I can think of is the shot in Ferris Bueler's Day Off (which was Super 35), when "Cameron goes berserk." In the full-frame version, you can see all of his face after it zooms out; in widescreen, his chin and forehead are slightly cut off. I don't mind that, but maybe since I saw the full-frame version first, I was just used to it.

I'm also with redshifter on Kubrick's last three films (although the only one I've seen in widescreen was Eyes Wide Shut).

Other than that, I usually prefer widescreen if that's how it was originally shown. But whatever floats your boat.

[jonwalters]

Halloween was not shot in super 35, therefore the non-letterboxed version is missing visual information and in no way is giving the viewer more.

[DVDog]

Originally posted by MooglePorn
They were talking about Evil Dead in another forum being worse in Widescreen. Are there any other scenes like this that people know of?

Since it was a very low budget film, Evil Dead was originally filmed in 16mm in 1.33:1 [Full Frame]. The new collector's edition "Book of the Dead" DVD shows how ED would've look if it were filmed in 1.78:1 [WideScreen]. Basically Anchor Bay - with Raimi's appoval - cropped out the top & bottom of the film just to give it the appearance of being a WS presentation. In other words...

They widescreened the film just for the sake of widescreen.

That is completely & utterly stupid IMO because one thing film fans want is for the film they love to be preserved in it's original form, not cropped or altered to suit the current market. That's exactly why WS was created in the first place on home video. Director's, fans, etc. bitched that P&S altered the "true" visual look of a film. To then take a Full Frame film & crop it down to "look" like a WS film is basically reversing the P&S process. Except that instead of cropping off the sides, they're cropping off the top & bottom.

Ridiculous.

Evil Dead's OAR is 1.33:1. It was never shot in 1.78:1 or any other WS ratio. FF is the way it was originally shot & that's the way it should've been presented on the BotD SE DVD. The very nature of WS is to preserve a films OAR. Altering it so that it gives the appearance of something that it's not goes against everything WS stands for.

[Tucker]

I totally agree with the last post, also i'm a big fan of widescreen but recently saw the Matrix on tv in full frame and have to admit it looked much better than the WS version.The WS version just has no vertical space to it and looks very closed in.Seems to me it's a 1.85:1 presentation but they have blacked out the vertical height to make it look like a 2.35:1 presentation because there is still too much info missing on the sides.Same goes for Gladiator.The sad thing is they could fit onto a WS tv without the need for black bars as i don't think they are in full ratio.

[Shifty]

MooglePorn, if you're interested in this sort of stuff, Here's one observation I've made:

In the fullscreen version of the Abyss, you can see Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio's breats in the scene where they're trying to resuscitate her character.

Also, I've heard this one at BTTF.com:

The scene where Marty changes into the futuristic clothes, you see more image on the top and bottom. Well, there's a gag there when Doc Brown pulls a cord on the loose fitting jacket to make it fit Marty. The gag is supposedly lost in the widescreen version.

[aintnosin]

Originally posted by Shifty
MooglePorn, if you're interested in this sort of stuff, Here's one observation I've made:

In the fullscreen version of the Abyss, you can see Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio's breats in the scene where they're trying to resuscitate her character.

That's in the WS version too.

[newt]

FYI: Halloween

[newt]

Some of the John Waters collection, Pink Flamingos, etc. were cropped at top & bottom just for the sake of making it wide. It would be OK if the full frame version was availabe, but it isn't!:rar:

[DVDog]

Originally posted by Shifty
Also, I've heard this one at BTTF.com:

The scene where Marty changes into the futuristic clothes, you see more image on the top and bottom. Well, there's a gag there when Doc Brown pulls a cord on the loose fitting jacket to make it fit Marty. The gag is supposedly lost in the widescreen version.

Why would it be lost? I remember seeing that scene exactly in the theatrical version & that was obviously in WS format. This is getting crazy.

[jeffallee]

I also thought the full frame version of "the matrix" looked better then the widescreen. It's strange the way some super 35 films like "the matrix" and "the abyss" look better in full frame, yet other super 35 films like "fellowship of the rings" look awful in full frame. I also think it is a shame when they "letterbox" films that were never widescreen to begin with. I get the feeling that they could sell "letterbox" versions of the "wizard of oz", "gone with the wind" and "I love lucy" and some peope would be stupid enough to buy it. Just for the record, I think the full frame version of "halloween" is unwatchable.

[Shifty]

Originally posted by DVDog
Why would it be lost? I remember seeing that scene exactly in the theatrical version & that was obviously in WS format. This is getting crazy.

Not too sure, I'm going by what some guy said in another forum at BTTF.com. Supposedly, you don't see his jacket arm come up all too well.

[Shifty]

Originally posted by aintnosin
That's in the WS version too.

It's a bit more prominent in the fullscreen.

[Nexus 6]

originally posted by Tucker:

Seems to me it's a 1.85:1 presentation but they have blacked out the vertical height to make it look like a 2.35:1 presentation because there is still too much info missing on the sides.Same goes for Gladiator.The sad thing is they could fit onto a WS tv without the need for black bars as i don't think they are in full ratio.

Both Matrix and Gladiator were Super 35. The exposed film had a ratio of roughly 4:3, which gives them some room to open up at the top and bottom, but hardly ever is it opened up to the full frame; therefore some of the sides are still cut off in the full frame version.

I can assure you that both films are framed at 2.35-2.40:1 on DVD; that's how they were shown in theaters, and that's the way they were meant to be seen. But if you prefer watching them in full-frame, that's your business, and your choice, and that's cool.

originally posted by jeffallee:

It's strange the way some super 35 films like "the matrix" and "the abyss" look better in full frame, yet other super 35 films like "fellowship of the rings" look awful in full frame.

Yeah, I guess it just depends on how the film was originally framed, and then how much they open it up later on.

[MooglePorn]

Newt... you proved me wrong. I could have sworn you saw her tits in the full frame version. Oh well....

Also, I want to re-state the fact that Widescreen is ALWAYS the way to go IMO. I own no P&S releases, or Full Frame releases, unless the disc has both, and I ALWAYS watch widescreen. This is purely about stuff you probably saw on VHS and now miss in Widescreen.

Two more examples...

In Color of Night, the long ass sex scene with Jane March and Bruse Willis suffers lots of lost nudity in the widescreen version. The shower scene and bathtub scenes specifically.

Also, in Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me, when Heather Graham walks slowly away from Austin after they drive Will Farrell off the road, she kind of "shakes her ass" and in hotpants it looked NICE, but in Widescreen you don't see her ass, just her back. Kind of ruins the point.

Anyway, anyone got more?

[RealmRider]

This thread reminds me of the big hullaballu that went out about the time of Willy Wonka being released in Full Frame only. Turns out after all the petitions to get the disc released in widescreen, the director came forward and said he prefers the open matte release where you can see more picture (despite a few gaffs being seen in the opened up version.) Funny that you don't hear any apologies from the people who organized the widescreen petition over that one...

[Darksim]

But I don't get it, if it was originally shot in 2:35:1 and it would be cropped to P+S, wouldnt there be more missing from the sides and none missing from the top and bottom? Do they really crop the top and bottom just to keep us widescreen fans from bitching?
Original Aspect Ratio, is it that too much too ask???????

[Darksim]

Oh by the way, is there really more Bridget Fonda ass in the p&S version of Jackie Brown? I didnt get a clear conclusion....

[MooglePorn]

But I don't get it, if it was originally shot in 2:35:1 and it would be cropped to P+S, wouldnt there be more missing from the sides and none missing from the top and bottom? Do they really crop the top and bottom just to keep us widescreen fans from bitching?

From what I have read above, basically they film the movie in a taller format then they show in theatres, essentially cropping the top and bottom, but the director films with the 2.35:1 ratio in mind, hence Widescreen is the preffered format.

As for Willy Wonka, I hadn't heard he said that, and am quite surprised. I guess he's another Kubrick, which I respect. If this is true, I might get the Full Frame release, if I ever buy the movie.

[redshifter]

Originally posted by DVDog
Since it was a very low budget film, Evil Dead was originally filmed in 16mm in 1.33:1 [Full Frame]. The new collector's edition "Book of the Dead" DVD shows how ED would've look if it were filmed in 1.78:1 [WideScreen]. Basically Anchor Bay - with Raimi's appoval - cropped out the top & bottom of the film just to give it the appearance of being a WS presentation. In other words...

They widescreened the film just for the sake of widescreen.

That is completely & utterly stupid IMO because one thing film fans want is for the film they love to be preserved in it's original form, not cropped or altered to suit the current market. That's exactly why WS was created in the first place on home video. Director's, fans, etc. bitched that P&S altered the "true" visual look of a film. To then take a Full Frame film & crop it down to "look" like a WS film is basically reversing the P&S process. Except that instead of cropping off the sides, they're cropping off the top & bottom.

Ridiculous.

Evil Dead's OAR is 1.33:1. It was never shot in 1.78:1 or any other WS ratio. FF is the way it was originally shot & that's the way it should've been presented on the BotD SE DVD. The very nature of WS is to preserve a films OAR. Altering it so that it gives the appearance of something that it's not goes against everything WS stands for.

this is why i sought out the oop elite entertainment version. it has the best transfer in oar (1.33:1), a 5.1 soundtrack, and great commentaries. plus it was inexpensive.

are there open matte versions of "abyss", "t2", "matrix", and "gladiator" available?

[LBPound23]

Originally posted by redshifter
this is why i sought out the oop elite entertainment version. it has the best transfer in oar (1.33:1), a 5.1 soundtrack, and great commentaries. plus it was inexpensive.

are there open matte versions of "abyss", "t2", "matrix", and "gladiator" available?

All the films you mention (I believe) were shot in Super 35, so they wouldn't have an "Open Matte" version, since Super 35 allows you to choose different framing for both 1.33:1 and 2.35:1, but you never get the entire width of the 2.35:1 frame in 1.33:1. Not to mention, most effects shots are straight Pan & Scan.

And to answer your question, there is no P&S DVD for Matrix, T2, or The Gladiator. I think Abyss probably has a Foolscreen version from Fox.