Bergin/Thurman Robin Hood

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Colin Caulkins, Jun 8, 2004.

  1. The 1991 Robin Hood starring Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman has recently
    been released on DVD. But what's this: One side of the disc has it in
    1.33:1 and the other has it in 2.35:1. Since the movie was made for TV, I
    can understand the 1.33:1. But 2.35:1? According the IMDb, it was filmed
    in a spherical process and the correct aspect ratio is 1.78:1. Is the
    IMDb wrong or has the widescreen version been excessively cropped for some
    reason? Or perhaps the back cover of the DVD is wrong?

    Colin
    Colin Caulkins, Jun 8, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Colin Caulkins wrote:
    > The 1991 Robin Hood starring Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman has recently
    > been released on DVD. But what's this: One side of the disc has it in
    > 1.33:1 and the other has it in 2.35:1. Since the movie was made for TV,
    > I can understand the 1.33:1. But 2.35:1? According the IMDb, it was
    > filmed in a spherical process and the correct aspect ratio is 1.78:1.
    > Is the IMDb wrong or has the widescreen version been excessively cropped
    > for some reason? Or perhaps the back cover of the DVD is wrong?


    As I understand it, this movie *wasn't* made for TV: it was released
    theatrically in Europe and and was only relegated to US TV after the Kevin
    Costner _Robin Hood: Prince of Bad Accents_ film came out.

    In any event, the back of the box *is* mislabelled: the widescreen side is
    an anamorphic transfer at about 1.66:1 (pillarboxed in the 1.78:1 frame).
    The 1.33:1 transfer on the flipside is pan-and-scan, cutting off image at
    the left and right edges (and at the top, though it shows a bit more at the
    bottom).

    I don't have any authoritative information about the film's intended aspect
    ratio, but the 1.66:1 framing looks good to my eyes: the compositions are
    balanced and there isn't an excess of headroom.

    HTH,

    doug

    --
    "Take care not to hurt yourself; beware of the need for help..."
    --Big Star
    Douglas Bailey, Jun 8, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Douglas Bailey wrote:

    > Colin Caulkins wrote:
    > > The 1991 Robin Hood starring Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman has recently
    > > been released on DVD. But what's this: One side of the disc has it in
    > > 1.33:1 and the other has it in 2.35:1. Since the movie was made for TV,
    > > I can understand the 1.33:1. But 2.35:1? According the IMDb, it was
    > > filmed in a spherical process and the correct aspect ratio is 1.78:1.
    > > Is the IMDb wrong or has the widescreen version been excessively cropped
    > > for some reason? Or perhaps the back cover of the DVD is wrong?

    >
    > As I understand it, this movie *wasn't* made for TV: it was released
    > theatrically in Europe and and was only relegated to US TV after the Kevin
    > Costner _Robin Hood: Prince of Bad Accents_ film came out.


    I saw it in a theatre in Scotland when it came out, and it was going for
    more of a light action film vibe than the "deep and meaningful" Costner
    version, and as a result is the more enjoyable of the two. Plus it doesn't
    have that gawdawful Bryan Adams song in it anywhere, which is even more of
    a recommendation.

    swac
    Stephen Cooke, Jun 8, 2004
    #3
  4. Derek Janssen <> wrote:

    > Then again, the Bergin version spends so much Bruckheimer-"King Arthur"
    > time trying to set up the "historical accuracy" backstory of the
    > Saxon-Norman conflict, that it barely gets around to slipping any
    > recognizable Errol Flynn heroics in...


    I'm rather looking forward to King Arthur. For years I've wished someone
    would make a King Arthur movie that authentically depicts Dark Age
    Britain, rather than setting the story in some fantastical High Middle
    Ages as has always been done. The vast majority of Bruckheimer's stuff
    stinks on ice, but perhaps this one will be an exception.

    Colin
    Colin Caulkins, Jun 8, 2004
    #4
  5. Douglas Bailey <> wrote:

    > In any event, the back of the box *is* mislabelled: the widescreen side is
    > an anamorphic transfer at about 1.66:1 (pillarboxed in the 1.78:1 frame).
    > The 1.33:1 transfer on the flipside is pan-and-scan, cutting off image at
    > the left and right edges (and at the top, though it shows a bit more at the
    > bottom).


    > I don't have any authoritative information about the film's intended aspect
    > ratio, but the 1.66:1 framing looks good to my eyes: the compositions are
    > balanced and there isn't an excess of headroom.


    Thanks for that information. This title has now gone a ways further up my
    want list.

    Colin
    Colin Caulkins, Jun 8, 2004
    #5
  6. Stephen Cooke wrote:

    >>>The 1991 Robin Hood starring Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman has recently
    >>>been released on DVD. But what's this: One side of the disc has it in
    >>>1.33:1 and the other has it in 2.35:1. Since the movie was made for TV,
    >>>I can understand the 1.33:1. But 2.35:1? According the IMDb, it was
    >>>filmed in a spherical process and the correct aspect ratio is 1.78:1.
    >>>Is the IMDb wrong or has the widescreen version been excessively cropped
    >>>for some reason? Or perhaps the back cover of the DVD is wrong?

    >>
    >>As I understand it, this movie *wasn't* made for TV: it was released
    >>theatrically in Europe and and was only relegated to US TV after the Kevin
    >>Costner _Robin Hood: Prince of Bad Accents_ film came out.

    >
    > I saw it in a theatre in Scotland when it came out, and it was going for
    > more of a light action film vibe than the "deep and meaningful" Costner
    > version, and as a result is the more enjoyable of the two. Plus it doesn't
    > have that gawdawful Bryan Adams song in it anywhere, which is even more of
    > a recommendation.


    Then again, the Bergin version spends so much Bruckheimer-"King Arthur"
    time trying to set up the "historical accuracy" backstory of the
    Saxon-Norman conflict, that it barely gets around to slipping any
    recognizable Errol Flynn heroics in...

    ....We don't care if the book's not "period" accurate with the Norman
    Conquest, we want Prince John, the Sherriff, and an ARCHERY CONTEST,
    dammit!!

    Derek Janssen
    Derek Janssen, Jun 8, 2004
    #6
  7. Colin Caulkins

    P Pron Guest

    Douglas Bailey <> wrote:
    > Colin Caulkins wrote:
    >> The 1991 Robin Hood starring Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman has
    >> recently been released on DVD. But what's this: One side of the

    disc
    >> has it in
    >> 1.33:1 and the other has it in 2.35:1. Since the movie was made for
    >> TV, I can understand the 1.33:1. But 2.35:1? According the IMDb,

    it
    >> was filmed in a spherical process and the correct aspect ratio is
    >> 1.78:1.
    >> Is the IMDb wrong or has the widescreen version been excessively
    >> cropped for some reason? Or perhaps the back cover of the DVD is
    >> wrong?

    >
    > As I understand it, this movie *wasn't* made for TV: it was released
    > theatrically in Europe and and was only relegated to US TV after the
    > Kevin Costner _Robin Hood: Prince of Bad Accents_ film came out.
    >


    I'm not an expert on it, (I'm in UK, so don't devour US TV listings)
    but my understanding was that it was made as a US TVM, with a
    substantially longer running time, but that an edited version had been
    issued theatrically in Europe - not an uncommon scenario. At the time,
    none of the leads would have been particular box office draws, and it
    isn't unusual for TV to make movies that are _similar_ to upcoming
    blockbusters, to cash in - and the tendency for movies to take months
    to cross the Atlantic gives a window of opportunity to release a US
    "TV quickie" in European cinemes, before the "real" movie gets here.

    It's a long time since I've seen it, but I remember thinking that it
    felt as though there were chunks missing - although it was generally
    quite gently paced there were points where it was disturbed by abrupt
    changes of tempo.

    I know that IMDB is far from infallible, but it lists it as a TVM and
    gives the running time as 133 min / Germany:97 min whereas the DVD
    runs for (I think) 104 mins. I'd been looking forward to a DVD release
    of the 133 min version - looks as though I've got longer to wait....

    paul
    P Pron, Jun 10, 2004
    #7
  8. Colin Caulkins

    G. Bates Guest

    "P Pron" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > Douglas Bailey <> wrote:
    > > Colin Caulkins wrote:
    > >> The 1991 Robin Hood starring Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman has
    > >> recently been released on DVD. But what's this: One side of the

    > disc
    > >> has it in
    > >> 1.33:1 and the other has it in 2.35:1. Since the movie was made for
    > >> TV, I can understand the 1.33:1. But 2.35:1? According the IMDb,

    > it
    > >> was filmed in a spherical process and the correct aspect ratio is
    > >> 1.78:1.
    > >> Is the IMDb wrong or has the widescreen version been excessively
    > >> cropped for some reason? Or perhaps the back cover of the DVD is
    > >> wrong?

    > >
    > > As I understand it, this movie *wasn't* made for TV: it was released
    > > theatrically in Europe and and was only relegated to US TV after the
    > > Kevin Costner _Robin Hood: Prince of Bad Accents_ film came out.
    > >

    >
    > I'm not an expert on it, (I'm in UK, so don't devour US TV listings)
    > but my understanding was that it was made as a US TVM, with a
    > substantially longer running time, but that an edited version had been
    > issued theatrically in Europe - not an uncommon scenario. At the time,
    > none of the leads would have been particular box office draws, and it
    > isn't unusual for TV to make movies that are _similar_ to upcoming
    > blockbusters, to cash in - and the tendency for movies to take months
    > to cross the Atlantic gives a window of opportunity to release a US
    > "TV quickie" in European cinemes, before the "real" movie gets here.
    >
    > It's a long time since I've seen it, but I remember thinking that it
    > felt as though there were chunks missing - although it was generally
    > quite gently paced there were points where it was disturbed by abrupt
    > changes of tempo.
    >
    > I know that IMDB is far from infallible, but it lists it as a TVM and
    > gives the running time as 133 min / Germany:97 min whereas the DVD
    > runs for (I think) 104 mins. I'd been looking forward to a DVD release
    > of the 133 min version - looks as though I've got longer to wait....
    >
    > paul



    The version I taped off of tv is 112 minutes, so it looks like there
    are 3 different versions.

    GB
    G. Bates, Jun 11, 2004
    #8
  9. P Pron <> wrote:

    > I know that IMDB is far from infallible, but it lists it as a TVM and
    > gives the running time as 133 min / Germany:97 min whereas the DVD
    > runs for (I think) 104 mins.


    I guess I won't be buying this any time soon, after all. This sort of
    thing happens way too often. If they're going to the bother and expense
    of releasing something on DVD, you'd think they'd want to use the longest
    version available.

    Colin
    Colin Caulkins, Jun 11, 2004
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Aaron J. Bossig

    Where\'s Robin Hood: Men In Tights?

    Aaron J. Bossig, Jun 27, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,040
    DarkMatter
    Jun 27, 2003
  2. Geo H
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    837
    Geo H
    Jun 27, 2003
  3. David Z
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    789
    David Z
    Jun 27, 2003
  4. Aaron J. Bossig

    Re: Where\'s Robin Hood: Men In Tights?

    Aaron J. Bossig, Jun 27, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    866
    Aaron J. Bossig
    Jun 27, 2003
  5. Aaron J. Bossig

    Re: Where\'s Robin Hood: Men In Tights?

    Aaron J. Bossig, Jun 27, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    807
    Aaron J. Bossig
    Jun 27, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page