Full frame Jaws!?!?!

[Cobra]

By far the dumbest idea of the year. How the hell can you even see Jaws in pan-scan, it looks like crap. Spielberg is such an idiot, how can he allow his own films to be butchered like this. I know he's doing it for Jurassic Park, but that doesn't matter for two reasons.

1. Niether JP film was wide
2. Both JP films sucked.

Thank God, Lucas owns Indy and those films won't be screwed with.

I am also very upset with this website for thinking that the full frame presentation of a landmark film, such as Jaws was a good idea. They liked it because it would bring more converts to the DVD format.

Let me tell you guys something: Widescreen haters have no place in the DVD arena. They have to understand what widescreen is and surrender to it. If they don't, they don't understand anything about movies. Who cares about TV size, I have a nineteen inch and I watch widescreen films on it all the time.

People are not stupid anymore, DVD has been around for three 1/2 years and we're close to ten million players sold. You guys think they don't know what widescreen is?

What will the memebers of the pan-scan church do when the wide TVs take over every thing? Will they complain that the black bars on the top and bottom are now on the sides?

Universal started out as the leader of the DVD pack, now they're trailing Disney, what's happened?

[manigrasso]

Maybe I'm hopelessly behind the times, but I didn't even know Jaws was available pan-scan. I know it's anamorphic widescreen on MY copy. I never even heard ANYBODY talk about a pan and scan Jaws, and if it existed, this forum would have been all over it-could I be that sleepy all of the time?

The only complaint I ever heard about Jaws is that the Oscar-winning sound mix isn't included, just the 5.1 channel remix.


Either Universal pulled another "Mummy-Patch Adams" choice of a pan & scan or deluxe CE (but I haven't seen a pan and scan ANYWHERE), or, most likely for you Cobra, your DVD player has somehow defaulted to thinking it's being used on a 16:9 set, not a 4:3 standard set. I suggest you check the specs, and see if that's the case. If there is indeed such a thing as a pan and scan Jaws (again, never saw it or heard of it), rest assured there is a anamorphic widescreen Jaws as well, in either Dolby Digital OR DTS.

Finally, Cobra, most people in this forum demand the OAR. Some have excepted DVDs with widescreen & pan and scan, like many of the Warner Brothers discs, but NOBODY HERE would tolerate a full frame disc unless that was the original aspect ratio. I'd be interested to see where anyone associated with this website said a pan and scan Jaws was a good idea, and would bring more converts to the DVD market (and I'm only accepting quotes from those responsible for the content of this website, or forum moderators, NOT posts by other individuals who may have only been trying to bait people into an argument in the first place).

Once again, check your specs.

[manigrasso]

To be double sure, I read the review of Jaws on this website, and there is NO MENTION of a pan and scan edition of Jaws. So again, Cobra, I'm guessing your DVD player is set up to play on a widescreen TV. Does everything seem stretched and elongated? That would be a tell tale sign.

[eltravi]

Cobra - what the hell are you talking about? My Jaws is widscreen anamorphic....and Spielberg is not an idiot

------------------
Cinema is everything to me. I live and breathe films -- I even eat them!" -- Lucio Fulci

[P7A77]

Does anyone read the main editorial page any more? The P&S was announced recently and will be available in December. Or something. That's what I remember from this morning.

And you must be nuts if you think Lucas isn't going to fuck with Indy to sell more copies. Hell, he already changed the names, and I'm sure he's adding digital effects. I wouldn't be surprised if he released P&S six months before WS.

[micahp]

I'm still not seeing the problem. They released an anamorphic Widescreen version for those of us who care about those things. And then they released a full-frame version for the fools that don't (had to get that dig in). Anyway, it seems to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do.


P7A77: what name change?




------------------
Resident Me,
Micah P.
www.micahpearson.com

[samuelk]

I'm not seeing the problem, either.

If a company releases a facial tissue with lotion and one without, and you wanted one with lotion, do you complain because there's one available that doesn't have lotion?

Sam

[P7A77]

The one without lotion doesn't stay true to the artistic integrity of the tissue manufacturer.

And the name change I meant was the first one being numbered to fit in line with the Young Indy series, and named "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark".

[Cobra]

Does it say Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark in the actual film? No!

Cover art doesn't mean a damn thing. Look at Planet of the Apes, the new cover art ruins the whole point of the film, but do we look beyond cover art and take the film for what it is?

All I'm saying is that I'm mad that Speilberg and Universal didn't really go all out on Jaws like they should have. Look at the T2 disc and look at Jaws. Doesn't anyone remember that Jaws was the top grossing film of it's time and nominated for a bunch of oscars. Real ones, not just FX categories.

Jaws is a very important film and I just think that the DVD wasn't all that impressive in terms of special features. That's all I'm trying to say.

[samuelk]

I think they did a fine job with the Widescreen version of Jaws. I'd be willing to bet that there wasn't enough material to fill up a disc like T2. I know they cut the documentary time in half, but who knows how much other stuff there actually was...

And Cobra, full-frame films are not always cropped. Sometimes, a full-frame presentation is "open matte", meaning that the widescreen matte is removed. The camera actually records more than what is shown in widescreen.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Niether JP film was wide", but I liked both JP films.

I think you need to calm down and realize that there IS a widescreen, anamorphic transfer of Jaws available, and buy that one.

There's nothing wrong with having choices.

Let me tell you guys something: Widescreen haters have no place in the DVD arena.

First of all, that's alfully prejudiced. Second of all....no, there is no second of all...it's just prejudiced.

I don't think the fact that Jaws has few special features really warrants calling Spielberg an "idiot".

Sam

[homerbert]

I now prefer widescreen films, but some people don't. It's a bit facist to stop people who don't care about the whole widescreen thing from seeing all of it.
As a wannabe director, i still can't really see the validity of the butchered vision argument. The Wachowskis wanted the Matrix in surround, anyone who doesn't watch it in Dolby Digital is butchering the directors vision. T2 was designed as a spectacle for 40 foot screens, anyone who watches it on a TV is destroying his vision. Anyone who watches a movie with the contrast too high is destroying the directors vision.

Anyway Spielberg didn't really use widescreen that much in Jaws, up until the DVD i had only seen the film in pan and scan. It was not butchered, and to be honest, the widescreen is not really a huge improvement. Sergio Leone used widescreen and to watch p and S versions of his film does inhibit enjoyment, but it does not butcher them.


As for saying people who like pan and scan aren't welcome here as they arre not true purists, can we then kick out people who prefer ID4 to Fight Club, or Blues Brothers. Everyones allowed their say.

My Dad refused to watch DVDs in widescreen before we got a new widescreen TV. The borders bugged the hell out of him and made the pictue smaller. Should he be prohibited from enjoying extras and the improved sound. The narratives all there for him to enjoy, and it looks fine. He's happy.

People should be allowed to choose. If someone gets more enjoyment out of watching a film while standing on their head they are entitled to. As long as the pan and scan is clearly labelled, i don't see why you should care. Spielberg obviously doesn't think his artistic integrity is being compromised, let it go.
Bye

[P7A77]

Cobra - I don't know if the actual movie of Raiders had a changed title. I didn't buy the recent VHS re-re-re-re-release. But it really wouldn't surprise me if it was changed on the DVD. "Episode IV" wasn't added to Star Wars until later. All the SW films have repeatedly been altered, and also released in P&S... for a while, that was the ONLY way to view it on video.

All I'm saying is that I find it amusing that you hold up George Lucas as someone who won't "screw" with his films. It's like you haven't been paying attention for the past twenty years.

[Wesly Moore]

Originally posted by homerbert:
Anyway Spielberg didn't really use widescreen that much in Jaws, up until the DVD i had only seen the film in pan and scan. It was not butchered, and to be honest, the widescreen is not really a huge improvement.

I would have to disagree respectfully with you on that point. IMHO, the opening sequence alone (Chrissy's death) is one of the best arguments ever made against P&S. I thought that Spielberg made effective use of the widescreen format throughout. I think that, in general, this is true to a greater degree in films made before directors ever considered the idea of planning their films with home video in mind. A lot of widescreen films made today seem to keep the "video safe zone" firmly in mind from start to finish.

However, what we're talking about here really does boil down to personal choice. I think that P&S simply bothers some people less than others (for instance, me ).



------------------
Wesly Moore
------------------
weslymoore@aol.com

They mostly come at night. Mostly.

[Taxi]

I agree that choice is good, and as unnecessary as I think it is, the Pan&Scam version of Jaws on DVD is probably a good thing, although I can't imagine anybody would be so against the widescreen version that they wouldn't have already bought it.

If they want to release a P&S version AFTER the OAR version, that's fine by me. If they start doing it the other way 'round, then you'll see me start to complain.

------------------
Taxi
DVDFile Administrator

[eltravi]

Cobra - you really don't have much of an argument going on here.
Taxi - wanna close this thread?

------------------
Cinema is everything to me. I live and breathe films -- I even eat them!" -- Lucio Fulci

[manigrasso]

If I can add one more thing please. Actually, it's more of a question. Does anyone know how well the bare bones, full-frame editions of The Mummy & Patch Adams sold for Universal, especially in comparison to the anamorphic editions?

If these full-frame editions don't sell well, I would think they'd stop offering them, or at least maybe go to a Warner Brothers-eaque flipper disc. I don't know why they don't do that in the first place. This way everybody's happy.

[clortho]

With the Mummy, I wouldn't have been happy with a pan&scan version on the flip side. The Mummy was dual layer, and we all know how averse universal is to double disk editions, much less a DVD-18 that would have been needed.

I can't say what Patch Adams was, since I don't have it, but if it was dual layer, I'd object to a dual sided single layer disk as well on that one.

Clortho

------------------
I am the Keymaster
clortho@hotmail.com

[Cobra]

Since I hated the Mummy and Patch Adams, that whole pan-scan/widescreen issue doesn't concern me.

In response to Samuelk, the JP films were shot in 1.85 and Jaws was 2.35. I don't really consider 1.85 to be that wide. After the seventies, Spielberg refused to go 2.35 because he saw how horrible Jaws and his other 70's films looked in P&S on TV. He only shot 2.35 on the Indy films and, for some reason, Hook.

P7A77, adding Episode IV to Star Wars is different than something as horrendous as Greedo shooting first. I know what you mean about alterations in the films as I can see alternate takes and extensions of scenes in my videodisc, videotape, laserdisc, and widescreen '92 and '96 releases. You must remember, however that stuff like C-3PO's explaination of the tractor beam was supposed to be in the original film and they forgot about it in '77 so it was added in for the '92 release.

I know that George has toyed with his films a bit too much, but remember, all the hasbeen filmmakers are doing it. Spielberg is recutting ET and Friedkin re-did the sound on Exorcist. I don't want these films to be screwed with, I want them as close to the original product as possible and that's why I think Jaws should only be shown in widescreen. It's letting the film be true to form not what an audience who only saw it on TV feels it should be.

With the money that will be spent by Universal on the repackaging and shipping of the new Jaws disc they could have made that Touch of Evil special edtion DVD that was proposed then abandoned. They're not dropping the price either.

[eltravi]

But that's just the thing....Jaws IS in widescreen! People want to have options, and now Jaws has three of em - DTS, Widescreen, and Pan & Scam. And if your defending George Lucas and at the same time calling Spielberg a hasbeen....hmm...lemme think...who HASN'T had an original idea in 20 years? And was it Lucas that made Saving Private Ryan last year? Oh nope, it was Spielberg.

------------------
Cinema is everything to me. I live and breathe films -- I even eat them!" -- Lucio Fulci

[Tyler Durden]

This is just the kind of thread that really gets my goat - for goodness sake STOP WHINING. What is going on - If Jaws was ONLY available in Pan & Scan believe me, I'd be screaming along with the rest of you but it's available in both. Pan & Scan is, unfortunately, more popular than widescreen and Universal should be congratulated for giving consumers the choice. Now please can we start complaining about important matters and start congratulating studios when they do get it right!

[samuelk]

Exactly. That was my whole point when people started asking why Universal was releasing so many versions of JP and The Lost World... there's nothing wrong with choices.

Sam

[Taxi]

Okay, so to sum up: Choice is good.

Thread closed.

------------------
Taxi
DVDFile Administrator