LOTR question

[hido]

I noticed in an ad for the DVD of LOTR that it says "Fullscreen" across the top of the box. When is the "widescreen" version going to be released, and will it contain extras not found on this current release?

thanks

[spacemonkey]

The widescreen and fullscreen (hissssss!!!) versions are both being released tomorrow (Tuesday, Aug. 6) with the same bonus material on disc 2.

...choose...wisely...

[Wholly Schmidt]

The wise choice is to wait for the November editions. We just played around with the DVD tonight (widescreen of course) and the extras weren't really that special.

[Murph]

I believe -- could be wrong -- that the November Director's Cut Edition will have both versions on the same DVD set, I think. I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

At the very least, they'll release both versions of both versions. (Make sense?)

[Wholly Schmidt]

I think I understand what you just said...

[spacemonkey]

Nope. 'Fraid not.

The Special edition that comes out in November ONLY contains the version of the film with the 30+ minutes of extra footage cut in. The only way to own the theatrical verison of the film is to plunk down for the DVD that came out today, even though the special features are pretty lame.

However, there is a little rebate one can use towards the special edition that is included with today's release. It ain't much but, hey, it beats a poke in the eye.

[Wholly Schmidt]

What I thought he meant was that there will be widescreen and fullscreen versions for both the release today and the non-theatrical version coming in November.

[spacemonkey]

Oh...well...put it THAT way...

Actually, I'm not certain, but I THINK that the special edition out in November will only by available in widescreen.

[mtkafka]

The special stuff on the dvd that came out today is pretty good. Its as good as I would expect. Its got two hours of extra stuff. So its not like this current DVD release is terrible. Plus the November special edition is not just an addon of scenes... they actually remastered the additional scenes into the movie (with additional musical scores) ... so its really like a new cut of FoTR.

etc

[asspennies]

I have to wonder, why would anyone want to watch a fullscreen version of a movie if a widescreen version was available?

Do those black lines annoy you so much that you can't watch the movie as the director intended?

[Anonymous]

Some people don't like it <shrug> .. it effectively makes the movie smaller on anybody that doesn't have a high-definition or anamorphic TV. Plus, the work has to be done anyway (for TV broadcasts), so better make use of it.

I hate them personally but I understand the reluctance of companies to do away with it, especially since they seem to think more people still want fullscreen (and for God only knows why have polls to back them up). My main contention was that on the big FOTR standee at Best Buy the fullscreen was version was stuck on the front with widescreen on the back. Unsuspecting customers would buy the fullscreen version without really looking at the box -- thereby theoretically selling more copies. That's just lame.

--- Alan

[Bub, Andrew]

Most of those people don't appreciate the difference, they don't understand what they're missing. And those black bars are really annoying on anything smaller than a 24" screen in a regular Family room setting.

[Wholly Schmidt]

And any release you'd ever plan on watching with children would be better off fullscreen, they have a hard time understanding how filling the screen is giving them less of the movie (and likely they wouldn't care if they did).

[Dave Long]

Start 'em small with widescreen and they never notice. My 4,2 and one year olds don't complain about the "bars". They just sit and watch.

--Dave

[Thierry Nguyen]

Doesn't anyone consider lighting when watching a movie?

Be like a movie theatre and turn the lights down. BAM! ZOOM! You don't notice the black bars anymore.

[Wholly Schmidt]

You don't notice the coffee table either, but your shins will.

[Tom Chick]

What the hell are you doing traipsing around the living room when everyone's trying to watch a movie, Wholly? You deserve a shin banging. :)

-Tom

[Murph]

My wife's pretty picky about the black bars. She prefers to not have them, if it's possible.

I really like it when you get both the fullscreen and widescreen versions with one purchase of a movie, but I guess those days may be gone...

We got the fullscreen version of Lord of the Rings, because it could be awhile before we get a widescreen TV, and there's no sense in having black bars when you have the option not to. (I know, I'm missing a few inches off each side of the screen, but that's okay. I guess the black bars annoy me just a little bit, too.)

[Bub, Andrew]

Oh Murph... woe and sad tidings indeed... Did you not see the movie in the theaters? Did it not it win Best Cinematography (or was it not nominated)? Why would you only want to see half of that scenery? Why would you want that to see that particular movie ... compressed?

The shot of Gandalf riding from the Shire. The full shot of the Fellowship in the snow. Lothlorien in all it's grandeur. That battle scene at the beginning! Together. In one long wide gorgeous shot. The Balrog and Gandalf facing off on the bridge! What a horror to lose all that.

Of any film I can think of, aside from Royal Tenenbaums, this is clearly the one to get the letterbox version of.

"...and there's no sense in having black bars when you have the option not to."

Indeed. And why concern yourself with unabridged versions of books my friend. I mean, there's all that extra reading to worry about.

[Anonymous]

Bub, can you please not act like a pretentious ass all the time?

http://www.random.net.nz/debsoc/comparison/comparison.html

p.s. It's a rhetorical question.

[Thierry Nguyen]

My wife's pretty picky about the black bars. She prefers to not have them, if it's possible.

I really like it when you get both the fullscreen and widescreen versions with one purchase of a movie, but I guess those days may be gone...

We got the fullscreen version of Lord of the Rings, because it could be awhile before we get a widescreen TV, and there's no sense in having black bars when you have the option not to. (I know, I'm missing a few inches off each side of the screen, but that's okay. I guess the black bars annoy me just a little bit, too.)

It's not just inches; it's entire Nazghuls, armies, castles, landscapes, and people.

http://www.random.net.nz/debsoc/comparison/comparison.html

I mean, you physically don't see Gandalf and the Balrog on the same screen at one point.

[Thierry Nguyen]

Ah fuck, someone else beat me to the link.

My web-fu is WEAK INDEED.

[Bub, Andrew]

I liked your post better Thierry, that link is great. It's a time saver too!

[Jim F.]

Wow, yeah, that's a great link.

On my old 21" TV, you really couldn't watch Widescreen. The shrinkage from the bars made it like trying to play a game on a 17" monitor from across the room. I lost more detail from the shrinking than I did from the pan & scan.

About 6 months ago I talked my wife into a 32" HD TV and, well, it's a whole nother world. Now I can't stand watching a pan & scanned film. I never knew what I was missing until I watched The Matrix for the first time on the new TV in Letterbox instead of the Fullscreen option.

[Lurker]

I see LOTR was shot in Super35, which usually means that the P&S version doesn't chop off as much picture (except in the special effects shots, which are hard matted). In fact, in many cases, you end up getting MORE picture on the top/bottom than the director intended - which is why careless P&S editors sometimes put boom mikes in the frame. I'm just wondering if that comparison page is really snapshots from the real P&S version of LOTR, or just estimates or what the scenes would look like.

http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml#Super35

All that said, it's supposed to be about original aspect ratio, and anything else is butchering the artist's original vision. Some movies I'm sure you wouldn't care less, but LOTR is the type of film you probably don't want anyone messing with the frame that the director no doubt slaved over.

Losing the clarity of detail does hurt though - sadly, it's one of those problems you have to throw money at to fix. Good news is it's less and less money as every week passes.

[Toddy]

Just as an aside, it seems like retailers think that most people hate those black bars. Of about 200 LOTR DVDs at my local Wal-Mart last night, maybe seven or eight were Widescreen. It's right on the front of the box, although I'm glad I knew ahead of time that there were two versions. Otherwise I'm sure that I would have just grabbed one of the Fullscreen ones and not noticed until I got the wrapper off at home.

[DavidCPA]

My Wal-Mart had both widescreen and fullscreen available but the wide screen was almost sold out when I bought mine. The cosumer is voting. One thing about Wal-Mart, if the consumer wants something a certain way, Wal-Mart will make sure it is available.

-DavidCPA

[Brad Grenz]

I bought a copy at Walmart too, only when I grabbed the DVD I din't even think to make sure it was widescreen. I got home and was looking at the packaging and realized I had dodged a bullet when I saw the word "Widescreen" across the top.

Edited to ad a link of my own. Those images in the above links were bogus interpretations of what the pan and scan would look like. IGN DVD has real screens of both version here (http://dvd.ign.com/articles/366/366890p1.html). It turns out you do gain some because it's super 35, but you loose some as well. And at least one shot was speezed to get everything into a 4:3 frame.

[Murph]

Well, I'll say this (although maybe it's just because I'm not the afficiando that some of you guys are)...It certainly didn't lose much in the "chopping" to pan&scan. The movie was still breathtaking. It was substantially less thrilling on the small screen, but I think that's due just to the fact that it was on a TV and not a movie screen. It's not about the ratios so much as sheer magnitude. Check out the link Brad provided: I know I'm losing something, but it's not that much. And everything looks so much farther away watching a widescreen presentation on a non-widescreen TV...That bothers me way more. (In most of those shots of the "gorgeous scenery" that Bub mentioned, the camera moves, too, so I get the same scenery, just not as much at a time. :) )

I'd certainly prefer to watch the widescreen version on a widescreen TV, and one day that will be the case. Until then, I'm content with pan&scan.

[Dave Long]

I think you're nuts. I look at those pictures comparing the two and can't imagine how you can say otherwise. If you didn't know what you're missing, you might not care as much, but it's plainly obvious how much of the movie was lost to the chopping.

I worked in video rental for three years. Your mentality is the same one I heard from so many customers that I can't help but think we'll see DVD migrating backwards to pan & scan everything as it becomes the main movie watching source for everyone. Try as I might (and believe me, I tried for three years), you can't educate the masses.

--Dave

[Anonymous]

I worked in video rental for three years. .... Try as I might (and believe me, I tried for three years), you can't educate the masses.--Dave

Ah yes, the eternal struggle of the video store clerk to enlighten the masses ... poor Dave.

[Dave Long]

Hey...you affect your small corner of the world and things change. Try it sometime instead of anonymously ridiculing those you know nothing about. I was a lot more than a clerk.

--Dave

[Anonymous]

Hey...you affect your small corner of the world and things change. Try it sometime instead of anonymously ridiculing those you know nothing about. I was a lot more than a clerk.

Oh yes, instead of ridiculing I'll take your approach: I'll start off by saying "I think you're nuts" and then work from there.

[Thierry Nguyen]

I bought a copy at Walmart too, only when I grabbed the DVD I din't even think to make sure it was widescreen. I got home and was looking at the packaging and realized I had dodged a bullet when I saw the word "Widescreen" across the top.

Edited to ad a link of my own. Those images in the above links were bogus interpretations of what the pan and scan would look like. IGN DVD has real screens of both version here (http://dvd.ign.com/articles/366/366890p1.html). It turns out you do gain some because it's super 35, but you loose some as well. And at least one shot was speezed to get everything into a 4:3 frame.

Teaches me to rely on bogus kiwi info instead of REALAMERIKANTRUTH.

Still, fullscreen ain't the way SuperKiwiJackson made the movie. Every purchase of fullscreen makes SuperKiwiJackson, DPAndrew, and EDITORJohn cry, because their baby was all chopped up to appease the Anti-Black-Bar-Brigade.

[Anonymous]

"One thing about Wal-Mart, if the consumer wants something a certain way, Wal-Mart will make sure it is available."

Unless it's a Nirvana album with a song called "Rape Me" on it, or any of the other dozens of albums they've refused to carry -- including one Sheryl Crow album they banned only because one song on it mentions an abusive father buying a gun at Wal-Mart.

[Brad Grenz]

To me widescreen is simply a matter of aesthetics. Irregardless of what's missing and what isn't, I just find the deeper aspect ratios, 2.35:1 or 2.66:1, far more pleasing visually. Hell, I use to spend insane amounts of money for widescreen vesions of movies on VHS.

And the ultimate irony is of course that a decade from now when 16x9 is the standard for display devices all the legacy fullscreen stuff people bought will have verticle black bars.

Hey, I was flipping through channel last night and saw a little bit of what I think was Unforgiven. I've never seen the movie before but I was struck by how hideous it was pan & scanned. It was just obscene. The movie must have been really wide, like 2.66:1 in its original form cause it was completely unwatchable chopped up.

[Bub, Andrew]

Unforgiven is beautifully filmed Brad. And a wonderful movie. If you've ever been a fan of Westerns, Clint, or Gene Hackman, rent it or buy the widescreen version.

[Murph]

I think you're nuts.

Could be. It wouldn't be the first time I've heard that. :)


I look at those pictures comparing the two and can't imagine how you can say otherwise. If you didn't know what you're missing, you might not care as much, but it's plainly obvious how much of the movie was lost to the chopping.

Looking at it side by side, I can see where you'd think that. But, watching it lost very little of the effect. (Difficult to accurately judge, because it's way less impressive on a TV screen -- regardless of dimensions -- than on a movie screen...) Most of the shots involving scenery pan across the landscape, so I still "get" all of the scenery. I won't shed tears over not getting quite as much per shot. I don't feel like I've lost anything important. But maybe I'm just not as big on scenery as some people. (The opening sequence in the Shire, and the scenes at Rivendell, are still breathtaking. It's not much less so because I'm getting 10% less grass per picture.)

[Toddy]

My Wal-Mart had both widescreen and fullscreen available but the wide screen was almost sold out when I bought mine. The cosumer is voting. One thing about Wal-Mart, if the consumer wants something a certain way, Wal-Mart will make sure it is available.

Well, that's one way to think about it. But I'm pretty sure that 95% of the LOTR DVDs at my local Wal-Mart were Fullscreen to begin with. I think that the average person either doesn't care or wants something to fill his or her TV. If Wal-Marts were getting a lot of complaints, the ratio would be different.

[gnmarsh]

realisitically how many people do you think even know what the difference means, other then the black bars that irritate them? How many people even have televisions big enough to enjoy a widescreen film. It doesn't make any difference if you can see a more of the picture when everything in it is the size of ants.

Side note, having watched this last night (on widescreen), enjoyed it quite a bit more then in the theater. Could be because my home setup is better then most theaters, could be beacuse I could pause it and use the bathroom, get a drink etc. and not miss anything. If you have a 6.1 home theater setup this is one to own to show it off. Transfer was outstanding, sound was better then I remember it.

[graller]

I will side with Murph here for mostly the same reasons. My wife is a non-techie and when she sees smaller images and bars on her TV she does not say "aspect ratios". She says what is wrong with the TV < I am simplifying here> I am the owner of the Fullscreen copy of the DVD. At some point in the future when I need a new TV I will buy an HDTV and Widescreen and at that point I will be upset over the vertical bars on my OLD DVD's. But thats my point - I want to watch them now. And probably again in December, and again next December. 5-10 years from now I may pull this DVD out once in a blue moon. I am not buying this DVD for 10-15 years down the road - by that time some other newer hotter tech will have come along. Having said that I wanted to watch the movie so bad now I had it Aug 8th. And I will probably buy the damn thing again in November just because the preview of the DVD on the one I have now has me suckered into wanting to get the extended.

[Ben Sones]

Here's an interesting question: everyone takes for granted that most people "don't understand" widescreen DVDs and videos. Why? Is there any data to support that assumption? I mean, let's face it: it doen't take a Nobel-prize winning physicist to figure out what's going on. Anyone that has seen a movie in a theater has probably noticed that movies are wider than television. Is it not possible that people understand it just fine, and that some people don't like it anyway because it does add the black bars and makes the movie smaller on your screen (you see more of the frame, but what you see is smaller, by necessity)? And really, how many people really dislike it? I mean, in my highly unscientific sampling of people that I know, I have ever seen anyone complain when a movie is in widescreen. And, for what it's worth, only a few people I know complain when its not. Is there really that much resistance to the format?

Personally, I will only buy DVDs in widescreen format (with the exception of Willy Wonka, which was originally shown in something close to a full screen format, or stuff from television). I'm not convinced that the average person feels that strongly about it, but I'm not convinced that they are that resistant to it, either.

[graller]

I meant to add one other comment here. I watched the movie the other night on my computer monitor. Long Story. Anyway, I am amazed at the quality of the images in this movie and DVD's in general when you play it back with a modern video card and a good 17 inch flat monitor. I can see why the future is digital and HDTV

[Ben Sones]

Not really too far off topic: I want all my movies in "Tallscreen"...

http://www.brunching.com/features/baddvd

[Murph]

And really, how many people really dislike it? I mean, in my highly unscientific sampling of people that I know, I have ever seen anyone complain when a movie is in widescreen...I'm not convinced that the average person feels that strongly about it, but I'm not convinced that they are that resistant to it, either.

Sure, few complain when they have to watch a movie in widescreen format on a non-widescreen TV. But, just the same -- how many people will consciously, intentionally buy a widescreen version when they know that they're watching it on a non-widescreen TV, when they have the choice?

I know a lot of you guys think I'm an idiot for not buying the widescreen version, in spite of the fact that my TV doesn't "support" it. But I'd bet a lot of people would have made the same choice.

And, again -- when I get a widescreen TV, I'll go buy the widescreen version. (And, it's largely for that reason, that I wish every DVD had both versions included, so I have the choice. I want fullscreen now, but in five years, I'll want the widescreen version.)

[Bub, Andrew]

It isn't really a question of what shape your TV is Murph. It's a question of film appreciation. Are you sitting back looking at the movie, or are you studying it actively. For most films, you're right, you're not missing much. But a cinematographer is a lot like a painter. They're framing a shot. The big hoary old tree on the left offsets the dialogue happening on the right. It's all about context. About giving you a full shot. With pan n' scan (which is the real name for full-screen) you're going to lose that tree. To push the analogy, I want to see the whole Mona Lisa - her hands, her clothes, etc., - rather than just her face.

The real problem with pan and scan is that it doesn't simply remove 10% on the sides, as you seem to think. Often it chops it up and remolds the shot. Take the elevator scene in Pulp Fiction. There's Sam Jackson, there's Travolta. They're talking. In the widescreen it's a static shot. The dialogue is rapid fire. One talks, and then the other talks, then back to 1 and repeat. The camera doesn't move, you're eyes do. In the pan and scan version (which I had before I knew better) they had to chop it up. So, instead of the static shot with your eyes moving back and forth the camera does it for you. It changes the tension of the scene, and it's just not what the film maker was trying to achieve.

Or, look at Tenenbaums. If you haven't seen it there's this neat trick where whenever something tense is going on Paltrow is in the corner, or down the stairs, basically she's at the bottom right of the screen. It's a really nice way for the film-makers to convey her alienation and those shots are interesting to look at. She draws your eyes away from the argument. In pan n' scan she's gone completely and that effect is totally lost.

And... have you ever noticed that in TV people stand WAY too close together when sharing a scene? That's because of the square TV frame. Cinema view, or Panavision, frees the director up to seperate people. Show more of the scene without moving the camera or cutting.

Now, if you don't care or appreciate those things, that's fine. But I think people not caring or appreciating those sorts of things is why widescreen sells better.

Now, as far as Ben's point, I don't think most people know or care about what they're missing Ben. And most movies really don't require widescreen because most film-makers aren't doing interesting things. LOTR though deserved its Academy nod for Cinematography. Each shot is lovingly framed and Fullscreen buyers are only seeing part of each picture.

Heh, It reminds me of something I saw on VH1. Some show where old people and young people watch videos and critique them. This one video was Black & White and the kid said: "Why not use color? We've got the technology! So use it!"

I have a "full-screen" TV FWIW. But I acknowledge that I also have a 36" screen. Widescreen is harder to take with smaller TVs.

[Sean Tudor]

One thing that really makes me laugh is I have one friend who invites everyone over for DVD viewing nights. He always stretches his widescreen DVD's to fill out his 4:3 TV. Absolutely hilarious stuff.

I have tried explaining to him that he is supposed to watch it in widescreen mode (with the black bars) but he won't have it any other way.

:lol:

But then I guess this is the same generation that has never learnt how to program their VCR.

[Sean Tudor]

And, again -- when I get a widescreen TV, I'll go buy the widescreen version. (And, it's largely for that reason, that I wish every DVD had both versions included, so I have the choice. I want fullscreen now, but in five years, I'll want the widescreen version.)

I am lucky enough to have a Sony 68cm screen (26") so I do not mind the black bars at all. I much prefer to see the film as I viewed it in the cinema and it means I don't have to re-purchase my entire DVD collection in widescreen.

[Ben Sones]

Now, as far as Ben's point, I don't think most people know or care about what they're missing Ben.

Oh, no--I absolutely agree. My point is that I don't think they mind the other way, either. In fact, I doubt the average person even checks the DVD case to see which version he/she is buying. I think that they want LoTR on DVD, and if the store has widescreen copies on the display case, then that's what they grab. If the store has fullscreen copies on the display case, then that's what they grab. I'm just not convinced that "average Joe" buyers actively try to avoid widescreen DVDs any more than they seek them out. Considering how many television shows are in widescreen these days, they may not even notice when they watch the film.

[Bub, Andrew]

Related-somewhat funny-story:

My wife didn't like the black bars. So I used a couple DVDs as examples, showing her what's different and why losing that stuff can be bad. I figured she was just humoring me until I bought Casablanca on DVD and she asked me why I didn't get the Letterbox version.
My work here is done!

[Murph]

Okay, Bub: I blame you. I was watching the LotR DVD earlier this afternoon, and more than once I kept picturing the outside edges that I knew were missing from the pan&scan version.

When the extended version comes out in November, I'll probably buy the widescreen version.

Jerk. You've ruined my pan & scan experiences. :)

(It didn't help things any that on the special features, they showed clips from the widescreen version, so I could see how it would look in widescreen on my TV, and it wasn't nearly as annoying as I'd expected. :))

[Supertanker]

I usually watch movies with the captions on, as I watch movies after the kids go to bed, and must keep the volume low to avoid waking them. Another reason I like the widescreen version is that the black bars give them somewhere to put the captions without obscuring the picture. The white-on-black text is easier to read, also.