"Christmas Vacation" Special Edition is a bunch of bull.

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Charlie, Apr 23, 2004.

  1. Charlie

    Charlie Guest

    I was eager to get the Special Edition of "National Lampoon's
    Christmas Vacation" because it is one of my favorite holiday films.
    So I went to the store when it came out and paid my money for what I
    hoped would be a better presentation and a few bonus extras, even
    though I already owned the "full screen" version of the film.

    Here's what I got for my money:

    1. A matted picture that cuts off the top and the bottom of the
    picture. I thought a few things were missing when I was watching the
    film. One scene in particular caught my attention. Clark and Cousin
    Eddie are walking in the toy store with the list of toys for the kids.
    Cousin Eddie's tight pants clearly show his large "manhood" hanging in
    his trouser pants. This is part of the joke of who Cousin Eddie is.
    Completely cut out and missing on the "Special Edition".

    2. A commentary in which Beverly D'Angelo add these insights: "Doesn't
    my hair look nice in this scene?" And again later. "They changed my
    hair for this scene, I think it looks nice," There is no talk about
    the actual making of the film. No Director, No Chevy Chase.

    We clamor for "Widescreen" presentations and this is what we get.
    What a bunch of crap.
     
    Charlie, Apr 23, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Charlie

    BubbCoop Guest

    <<We clamor for "Widescreen" presentations and this is what we get.>>

    the film was shot in Full Frame and matted to a "widescreen" shape for
    theatrical presentation, so that is the correct version of the movie. The "full
    screen" version is simply unmatted, just as The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut are
    unmatted from what we saw in theaters.
     
    BubbCoop, Apr 24, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Charlie

    Charlie Guest

    On 23 Apr 2004 23:08:23 GMT, (BubbCoop) wrote:

    ><<We clamor for "Widescreen" presentations and this is what we get.>>
    >
    >the film was shot in Full Frame and matted to a "widescreen" shape for
    >theatrical presentation, so that is the correct version of the movie. The "full
    >screen" version is simply unmatted, just as The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut are
    >unmatted from what we saw in theaters.


    duh!
     
    Charlie, Apr 24, 2004
    #3
  4. Charlie

    Jay G Guest

    Charlie <> wrote:
    > On 23 Apr 2004 23:08:23 GMT, (BubbCoop) wrote:
    >
    >> <<We clamor for "Widescreen" presentations and this is what we
    >> get.>>
    >>
    >> the film was shot in Full Frame and matted to a "widescreen" shape
    >> for theatrical presentation, so that is the correct version of the
    >> movie. The "full screen" version is simply unmatted, just as The
    >> Shining and Eyes Wide Shut are unmatted from what we saw in
    >> theaters.

    >
    > duh!


    Okay, so you understand that. What you don't seem to understand
    is that many people who clamor for WS know that a good number
    of WS presentations are matted from a full 4:3 frame, and they
    want them anyway. WS is all about getting the proper aspect
    ratio for a film, not about just getting more image.

    -Jay
     
    Jay G, Apr 24, 2004
    #4
  5. Charlie

    BubbCoop Guest

    <<duh!>>

    don't "duh!" me jackass. the poster was obviously ignorant of the facts.
     
    BubbCoop, Apr 24, 2004
    #5
  6. Charlie

    Charlie Guest

    On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 19:21:26 -0500, "Jay G" <> wrote:

    >Charlie <> wrote:
    >> On 23 Apr 2004 23:08:23 GMT, (BubbCoop) wrote:
    >>
    >>> <<We clamor for "Widescreen" presentations and this is what we
    >>> get.>>
    >>>
    >>> the film was shot in Full Frame and matted to a "widescreen" shape
    >>> for theatrical presentation, so that is the correct version of the
    >>> movie. The "full screen" version is simply unmatted, just as The
    >>> Shining and Eyes Wide Shut are unmatted from what we saw in
    >>> theaters.

    >>
    >> duh!

    >
    >Okay, so you understand that. What you don't seem to understand
    >is that many people who clamor for WS know that a good number
    >of WS presentations are matted from a full 4:3 frame, and they
    >want them anyway. WS is all about getting the proper aspect
    >ratio for a film, not about just getting more image.
    >
    >-Jay
    >

    Yes, I understand. What I am saying is that in this particular case,
    the fullscreen is a better presentation.
     
    Charlie, Apr 25, 2004
    #6
  7. That's it Charlie I'm sick and tired of this crap!
    Now someone hit my music....
    > Yes, I understand. What I am saying is that in this particular case,
    > the fullscreen is a better presentation.


    But its not the presentation the filmmakers intended now is it?
    I doubt we were meant to see the character's underwear in
    that infamous scene on "Fish Called Wanda" where he's
    supposed to be "nude" now were we?

    --
    Demolition Man
     
    Brian The Demolition Man Little, Apr 25, 2004
    #7
  8. Charlie

    Biz Guest

    BubbCoop wrote:
    > <<duh!>>
    >
    > don't "duh!" me jackass. the poster was obviously ignorant of the facts.

    Ummm.. HE was the OP....
     
    Biz, Apr 25, 2004
    #8
  9. Charlie

    BubbCoop Guest

    <<Yes, I understand. What I am saying is that in this particular case,
    the fullscreen is a better presentation.>>

    it's not the correct one.
     
    BubbCoop, Apr 25, 2004
    #9
  10. Charlie

    BubbCoop Guest

    <<Ummm.. HE was the OP....>>

    okay, then just ignorant.
     
    BubbCoop, Apr 25, 2004
    #10
  11. > Yes, I understand. What I am saying is that in this particular case,
    > the fullscreen is a better presentation.


    I don't think so. I want to see films presented the way they were
    shown in the theaters. Christmas Vacation was presented in 1.85:1 in
    the theaters in 1989. That's how it should be on DVD. Just because
    an unmatted presentation exposes more video on the top and bottom
    doesn't make it correct. But, if you're that unhappy with the
    widescreen disc just sell it and keep the fullscreen disc.
     
    It's me, Billy, Apr 25, 2004
    #11
  12. Charlie

    3W Guest

    "It's me, Billy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > Yes, I understand. What I am saying is that in this particular case,
    > > the fullscreen is a better presentation.

    >
    > I don't think so. I want to see films presented the way they were
    > shown in the theaters. Christmas Vacation was presented in 1.85:1 in
    > the theaters in 1989. That's how it should be on DVD. Just because
    > an unmatted presentation exposes more video on the top and bottom
    > doesn't make it correct. But, if you're that unhappy with the
    > widescreen disc just sell it and keep the fullscreen disc.


    But didn't he also mention a scene being cut?
     
    3W, Apr 25, 2004
    #12
  13. Charlie

    Jay G Guest

    3W <> wrote:
    >
    > But didn't he also mention a scene being cut?


    No, he mentioned a sight-gag being out of frame in
    the matted WS version. This happens sometimes,
    with certain props or gags that were put on the
    set not appearing in the intended frame. When it's
    open-matted, the extra image sometimes contains
    these.

    A few examples of added image info can be found
    on this Harry Potter comparison page about 2/3rds
    down:
    http://plum.cream.org/HP/cos/dvd.htm

    Another example would be the 4:3 version of T3,
    which shows a bit "more" of Kristanna Loken in
    certain shots.

    However, just because this extra image info
    exists, whether it be sight-gags, cleavage, or
    whatever, doesn't mean it was intended to be
    seen. For whatever reason these bits were cut
    out of the intended image by the director and
    cinematographer when framing the shot, so they
    weren't intended to be seen.

    -Jay
     
    Jay G, Apr 25, 2004
    #13
  14. Charlie

    Gazza Guest

    On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 00:04:34 GMT, Charlie <> wrote:

    >Yes, I understand. What I am saying is that in this particular case,
    >the fullscreen is a better presentation.


    Not on a widescreen TV.

    g
     
    Gazza, Apr 26, 2004
    #14
  15. Charlie

    No Time Guest

    Charlie <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > I was eager to get the Special Edition of "National Lampoon's
    > Christmas Vacation" because it is one of my favorite holiday films.
    > So I went to the store when it came out and paid my money for what I
    > hoped would be a better presentation and a few bonus extras, even
    > though I already owned the "full screen" version of the film.
    >
    > Here's what I got for my money:
    >
    > 1. A matted picture that cuts off the top and the bottom of the
    > picture. I thought a few things were missing when I was watching the
    > film. One scene in particular caught my attention. Clark and Cousin
    > Eddie are walking in the toy store with the list of toys for the kids.
    > Cousin Eddie's tight pants clearly show his large "manhood" hanging in
    > his trouser pants. This is part of the joke of who Cousin Eddie is.
    > Completely cut out and missing on the "Special Edition".
    >
    > 2. A commentary in which Beverly D'Angelo add these insights: "Doesn't
    > my hair look nice in this scene?" And again later. "They changed my
    > hair for this scene, I think it looks nice," There is no talk about
    > the actual making of the film. No Director, No Chevy Chase.
    >
    > We clamor for "Widescreen" presentations and this is what we get.
    > What a bunch of crap.


    Almost as dumb as your hilarious lack of research. Four seconds on the
    internet would've brought up the specs and saved you the embarrassment
    of wasting your money and starting this idiotic thread. Better luck
    next time, dipshit.
     
    No Time, Apr 27, 2004
    #15
  16. Charlie

    Tarkus Guest

    On 4/24/2004 8:43:27 AM, BubbCoop wrote:

    > <<duh!>>
    >
    > don't "duh!" me jackass. the poster was obviously ignorant of the facts.


    He *was* the poster.
    --
    "250 years in the future, all will be lost unless the fifth element is
    found."

    Now playing: "Yes - Long Distance Runaround"
     
    Tarkus, Apr 27, 2004
    #16
  17. Charlie

    GMAN Guest

    In article <>, Charlie <> wrote:
    >On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 19:21:26 -0500, "Jay G" <> wrote:
    >
    >>Charlie <> wrote:
    >>> On 23 Apr 2004 23:08:23 GMT, (BubbCoop) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> <<We clamor for "Widescreen" presentations and this is what we
    >>>> get.>>
    >>>>
    >>>> the film was shot in Full Frame and matted to a "widescreen" shape
    >>>> for theatrical presentation, so that is the correct version of the
    >>>> movie. The "full screen" version is simply unmatted, just as The
    >>>> Shining and Eyes Wide Shut are unmatted from what we saw in
    >>>> theaters.
    >>>
    >>> duh!

    >>
    >>Okay, so you understand that. What you don't seem to understand
    >>is that many people who clamor for WS know that a good number
    >>of WS presentations are matted from a full 4:3 frame, and they
    >>want them anyway. WS is all about getting the proper aspect
    >>ratio for a film, not about just getting more image.
    >>
    >>-Jay
    >>

    >Yes, I understand. What I am saying is that in this particular case,
    >the fullscreen is a better presentation.


    That is never the case.
     
    GMAN, Apr 27, 2004
    #17
  18. Charlie

    GMAN Guest

    In article <>, "Brian The Demolition Man Little" <> wrote:
    >That's it Charlie I'm sick and tired of this crap!
    >Now someone hit my music....
    >> Yes, I understand. What I am saying is that in this particular case,
    >> the fullscreen is a better presentation.

    >
    >But its not the presentation the filmmakers intended now is it?
    >I doubt we were meant to see the character's underwear in
    >that infamous scene on "Fish Called Wanda" where he's
    >supposed to be "nude" now were we?
    >

    Or the shower scene in the motel in "Vacation" where DeAngelo can be seen nude
    on top but wearing white panties???? Man that is stupid.
     
    GMAN, Apr 27, 2004
    #18
    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. Alasdair Baxter

    Bull's Eye Network

    Alasdair Baxter, Jul 24, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    587
    dwacon
    Jul 26, 2005
  2. GRC

    Bull Of The Woods

    GRC, Jul 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    422
  3. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    426
    DVD Verdict
    Oct 16, 2003
  4. Rclrk43
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    586
    Jay G.
    Dec 29, 2004
  5. Death from Above

    Special Report: How special are you?

    Death from Above, Mar 19, 2007, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    497
    Kline Sphere
    Mar 19, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page