Freaky Friday - Fullscreen ONLY

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by PseudoApparition, Dec 16, 2003.

  1. well, it looks like the Freaky Friday DVD released by Disney only comes in
    FULLSCREEN. I had no intention of buying this piece of crap anyway, but
    it's still a pathetic move on Disney's part, when they showed so much
    promise with Pirates of the Caribbean and Lion King (and Sleeping Beauty's
    WS vs P&S feature, apparently).

    ugh.

    Dan

    PS: this is in Canada. Not sure if it's any different in the US or any
    non-region-1 areas.
    PseudoApparition, Dec 16, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Please make sure that what you post is true. Freaky Friday has 16:9
    widescreen and fullscreen versions on the same disc. Not the best way to
    do things but the widescreen version is there.

    mike

    PseudoApparition wrote:
    >
    > well, it looks like the Freaky Friday DVD released by Disney only comes in
    > FULLSCREEN. I had no intention of buying this piece of crap anyway, but
    > it's still a pathetic move on Disney's part, when they showed so much
    > promise with Pirates of the Caribbean and Lion King (and Sleeping Beauty's
    > WS vs P&S feature, apparently).
    >
    > ugh.
    >
    > Dan
    >
    > PS: this is in Canada. Not sure if it's any different in the US or any
    > non-region-1 areas.
    Michael Rogers, Dec 16, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. PseudoApparition

    ZC TGS Guest

    On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 07:03:05 GMT, Michael Rogers
    <> wrote:

    >Please make sure that what you post is true. Freaky Friday has 16:9
    >widescreen and fullscreen versions on the same disc. Not the best way to
    >do things but the widescreen version is there.
    >
    >mike
    >
    >PseudoApparition wrote:
    >>
    >> well, it looks like the Freaky Friday DVD released by Disney only comes in
    >> FULLSCREEN. I had no intention of buying this piece of crap anyway, but
    >> it's still a pathetic move on Disney's part, when they showed so much
    >> promise with Pirates of the Caribbean and Lion King (and Sleeping Beauty's
    >> WS vs P&S feature, apparently).
    >>




    As a UK'er, the whole point of having Pan & Scan along side Widescreen
    seems silly. The studios have the power to instantly get people to
    watch Widescreen if they want to by refusing to release Pan & Scan. If
    people then wanted the film they'd have to get the widescreen version.
    The studios must know that each Pan & Scan release is just delayig the
    future.
    ZC TGS, Dec 16, 2003
    #3
  4. From on top of The Wall I yelled "YOU! YES YOU PseudoApparition
    <>! Stand still laddie. Oh, and which one is
    Pink?"
    > well, it looks like the Freaky Friday DVD released by Disney only
    > comes in FULLSCREEN. I had no intention of buying this piece of crap
    > anyway, but it's still a pathetic move on Disney's part, when they
    > showed so much promise with Pirates of the Caribbean and Lion King
    > (and Sleeping Beauty's WS vs P&S feature, apparently).


    The US R1 disc has both WS and Piss'N'Shit on the same disc.

    --
    Brian "Demolition Man" Little
    A reminder to the world....
    "Well, in my case, I get VCRs from the Goodwill thrift store that
    allows a return in 7 days, that way I can ascertain the similar
    components (or lift a fuse or belt for my own evil purposes)!" -Bill
    Schwenke
    Brian \Demolition Man\ Little, Dec 16, 2003
    #4
  5. PseudoApparition

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "PseudoApparition" <> wrote in message
    news:AmxDb.718779$6C4.475687@pd7tw1no...
    > PS: this is in Canada. Not sure if it's any different in the US or

    any
    > non-region-1 areas.


    The US release includes both 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen and
    full-screen versions on the same disc.
    Joshua Zyber, Dec 16, 2003
    #5
  6. PseudoApparition

    Richard C. Guest

    "ZC TGS" <> wrote in message
    :
    : As a UK'er, the whole point of having Pan & Scan along side Widescreen
    : seems silly. The studios have the power to instantly get people to
    : watch Widescreen if they want to by refusing to release Pan & Scan. If
    : people then wanted the film they'd have to get the widescreen version.
    : The studios must know that each Pan & Scan release is just delayig the
    : future.

    ===============
    As a US'er, I agree with you 100%!
    ================
    Richard C., Dec 16, 2003
    #6
  7. PseudoApparition

    Scot Gardner Guest

    "ZC TGS" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    <<As a UK'er, the whole point of having Pan & Scan along side Widescreen
    seems silly. The studios have the power to instantly get people to watch
    Widescreen if they want to by refusing to release Pan & Scan. If
    people then wanted the film they'd have to get the widescreen version.
    The studios must know that each Pan & Scan release is just delaying the
    future.>>


    The studios that release the same title separately (in individual
    boxes), in widescreen and also pan & scan, know that they are ultimately
    going to make more money. The ignorant consumer, who can't stand to look
    at black bars above and below the widescreen presentation on a
    conventional 4:3 TV, will purchase the "fullscreen" pan & scan version.
    (Some of these people would not buy the title at all if it were
    widescreen.)

    Now, fast forward a couple of years and everybody will have 16:9 TVs.
    Some of the "fullscreen" people will use the stretch mode so that their
    pan & scan DVDs will fill the screen. But ultimately, many of the pan &
    scan disks will be purchased again. And I think that the studios are
    well aware of this how this scenario will play out.
    Scot Gardner, Dec 16, 2003
    #7
  8. PseudoApparition

    ZC TGS Guest

    On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 07:26:26 -0800, "Scot Gardner"
    <> wrote:

    >"ZC TGS" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >
    ><<As a UK'er, the whole point of having Pan & Scan along side Widescreen
    >seems silly. The studios have the power to instantly get people to watch
    >Widescreen if they want to by refusing to release Pan & Scan. If
    >people then wanted the film they'd have to get the widescreen version.
    >The studios must know that each Pan & Scan release is just delaying the
    >future.>>
    >
    >
    >The studios that release the same title separately (in individual
    >boxes), in widescreen and also pan & scan, know that they are ultimately
    >going to make more money. The ignorant consumer, who can't stand to look
    >at black bars above and below the widescreen presentation on a
    >conventional 4:3 TV, will purchase the "fullscreen" pan & scan version.
    >(Some of these people would not buy the title at all if it were
    >widescreen.)



    The simple solution is just to close the curtains and switch the
    lights off when watching the widescreen film, and the black bars are
    gone! :)

    What I don't get is why they think that they are losing out with
    Widescreen. Do they honestly think that with widescreen that are
    losing picture at the top and bottom?

    Do these people go to the cinema? Don't they consider the shape of the
    cinema screen with their TV screen?!



    >Now, fast forward a couple of years and everybody will have 16:9 TVs.
    >Some of the "fullscreen" people will use the stretch mode so that their
    >pan & scan DVDs will fill the screen. But ultimately, many of the pan &
    >scan disks will be purchased again. And I think that the studios are
    >well aware of this how this scenario will play out.



    Some consumers are just plain stupid. Like many things, I guess it
    will take experience for them to learn.
    ZC TGS, Dec 16, 2003
    #8
  9. PseudoApparition

    Justin Guest

    ZC TGS wrote on [Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:42:18 +0000]:
    >
    >>Now, fast forward a couple of years and everybody will have 16:9 TVs.
    >>Some of the "fullscreen" people will use the stretch mode so that their
    >>pan & scan DVDs will fill the screen. But ultimately, many of the pan &
    >>scan disks will be purchased again. And I think that the studios are
    >>well aware of this how this scenario will play out.

    >
    >
    > Some consumers are just plain stupid. Like many things, I guess it
    > will take experience for them to learn.


    You think they can learn!??!
    Justin, Dec 16, 2003
    #9
  10. PseudoApparition

    Scot Gardner Guest

    "ZC TGS" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    <<What I don't get is why they think that they are losing out with
    Widescreen. Do they honestly think that with widescreen that are losing
    picture at the top and bottom?>>

    <<Do these people go to the cinema? Don't they consider the shape of the
    cinema screen with their TV screen?!>>


    Of course, with open matte titles, they really are losing picture
    information from the top and bottom of the screen. With the exception of
    hard-matted special effects shots, these open matte titles do not need
    to be paned & scanned.

    However, on non-academy-ratio movies, using the original widescreen
    aspect ratio not only presents the movie as the director intended it to
    be seen, it also allows for an more-detailed anamorphic transfer. An
    anamorphic transfer can be done on a 1.66:1 aspect ratio movie, so there
    is very little of the extraneous picture information is lost.

    You would think that the average person could differentiate between
    various aspect ratios, such as 4:3 Standard, European Vista, 16:9
    Standard, Cinemascope2, Cinemascope1 and American Vista.

    Once you go beyond the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, pan & scan becomes nearly
    impossible for me to watch. What you end up with is a blurred, zoomed
    image which comprises around 50-60% of the original picture. The pan &
    scan compromise can't begin to compensate for not having all of the
    picture information.

    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FilmToVideo/
    Scot Gardner, Dec 16, 2003
    #10
  11. PseudoApparition

    Mark Gold Guest

    "Scot Gardner" <> wrote:

    >Now, fast forward a couple of years and everybody will have 16:9 TVs.


    16:9 tvs are going to flop. Academy ratio is superior.
    Mark Gold, Dec 16, 2003
    #11
  12. PseudoApparition

    Shinner Guest

    "Richard C." <> wrote in
    news:3fded6f0$0$449$:

    >
    > "ZC TGS" <> wrote in
    > message
    >:
    >: As a UK'er, the whole point of having Pan & Scan along side
    >: Widescreen seems silly. The studios have the power to instantly get
    >: people to watch Widescreen if they want to by refusing to release Pan
    >: & Scan. If people then wanted the film they'd have to get the
    >: widescreen version. The studios must know that each Pan & Scan
    >: release is just delayig the future.
    >
    > ===============
    > As a US'er, I agree with you 100%!
    > ================


    As a person capable of logical thought, I understand that they're not
    going to risk alienatnig the P/S crowd on the assumption that they'll
    buy WS if not given the choice.

    It's not about artistic integrity, it's about $$$, plain and simple.

    They're not going to cut their throats at this time. Now when the
    majority of TVs sold swings heavily to the widescreen type, I could see
    it. Not that you need a WS TV to watch a WS DVD, just that the P/S
    people who annoy you all so much, aren't going to buy WS DVD until they
    make the mental connection that WS TV = WS DVD. Like it or not (correct
    or not, logical or not, true or not), that's how they think, obviously,
    since P/S releases are still making money for the producers. Now they
    may end up being disappointed still seeing the dreaded black bars on
    their WS TV but I'd bet they probably won't think (however illogical it
    is) that they're "missing" part of the picture. People post all the time
    about this here after overhearing conversations in a store...."I don't
    have a widescreeen tv so I'll take the full screen release." Once
    widescreen TVs really catch on, I bet the that sort of logic will follow
    along with it..."I got a widescreen TV, now I can watch widescreen
    movies"
    Shinner, Dec 16, 2003
    #12
  13. In article <brnf5o$vch$>,
    (Mark Gold) wrote:

    > 16:9 tvs are going to flop. Academy ratio is superior.


    What does superiority have to do with the marketplace? Beta was superior
    over VHS and it flopped. Read history.
    Urra Dipschitt, Dec 16, 2003
    #13
  14. PseudoApparition

    ZC TGS Guest

    On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:16:14 GMT, Urra Dipschitt
    <> wrote:

    >In article <brnf5o$vch$>,
    > (Mark Gold) wrote:
    >
    >> 16:9 tvs are going to flop. Academy ratio is superior.

    >
    >What does superiority have to do with the marketplace? Beta was superior
    >over VHS and it flopped. Read history.



    I did read an article a few years ago that the reason why VHS won and
    Betamax lost was because VHS became the preferred format by the porn
    industry for their videos because it was cheap and easy... Anyone
    think that's possible?
    ZC TGS, Dec 16, 2003
    #14
  15. PseudoApparition

    jayembee Guest

    ZC TGS <> wrote:

    >>What does superiority have to do with the marketplace? Beta was superior
    >>over VHS and it flopped. Read history.

    >
    >I did read an article a few years ago that the reason why VHS won and
    >Betamax lost was because VHS became the preferred format by the porn
    >industry for their videos because it was cheap and easy... Anyone
    >think that's possible?


    Nonsense. It was recording time, pure and simple. A VHS T-120 could
    record up to 6 hours on one tape, whereas the Beta equivalent, the
    L-500, could record only up to 3 hours.

    -- jayembee
    jayembee, Dec 16, 2003
    #15
  16. PseudoApparition

    Richard C. Guest

    "Mark Gold" <> wrote in message
    news:brnf5o$vch$...
    : "Scot Gardner" <> wrote:
    :
    : >Now, fast forward a couple of years and everybody will have 16:9 TVs.
    :
    : 16:9 tvs are going to flop. Academy ratio is superior.
    :
    ==================
    Cute joke!
    =================
    Richard C., Dec 16, 2003
    #16
  17. PseudoApparition

    Justin Guest

    jayembee wrote on [Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:06:20 GMT]:
    > ZC TGS <> wrote:
    >
    >>>What does superiority have to do with the marketplace? Beta was superior
    >>>over VHS and it flopped. Read history.

    >>
    >>I did read an article a few years ago that the reason why VHS won and
    >>Betamax lost was because VHS became the preferred format by the porn
    >>industry for their videos because it was cheap and easy... Anyone
    >>think that's possible?

    >
    > Nonsense. It was recording time, pure and simple. A VHS T-120 could
    > record up to 6 hours on one tape, whereas the Beta equivalent, the
    > L-500, could record only up to 3 hours.


    Possibly. Also the fact that beta was proprietary for most of its life
    Justin, Dec 16, 2003
    #17
  18. PseudoApparition

    ZC TGS Guest

    On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:31:47 GMT, Justin <> wrote:


    >Possibly. Also the fact that beta was proprietary for most of its life



    Isn't some form of Betamax system still used for a professional
    broadcast system?
    ZC TGS, Dec 16, 2003
    #18
  19. Michael Rogers <> wrote:

    > Please make sure that what you post is true. Freaky Friday has 16:9
    > widescreen and fullscreen versions on the same disc. Not the best way to
    > do things but the widescreen version is there.
    >
    > mike


    Well, short of buying the dvd and watching it, one has to go by the
    packaging, and the disc in Canada lists only a fullscreen version. Is
    the packaging the same way in the US (ie, is the ws version an
    uncredited bonus?)?
    Robert Wiersema, Dec 16, 2003
    #19
  20. PseudoApparition

    Richard C. Guest

    "Robert Wiersema" <> wrote in message
    news:1g62ccn.zsowwvn1302rN%...
    : Michael Rogers <> wrote:
    :
    : > Please make sure that what you post is true. Freaky Friday has 16:9
    : > widescreen and fullscreen versions on the same disc. Not the best way to
    : > do things but the widescreen version is there.
    : >
    : > mike
    :
    : Well, short of buying the dvd and watching it, one has to go by the
    : packaging, and the disc in Canada lists only a fullscreen version. Is
    : the packaging the same way in the US (ie, is the ws version an
    : uncredited bonus?)?

    ================
    Nope.......
    It clearly states on the back that it includes both versions.
    Richard C., Dec 16, 2003
    #20
    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. Brad Smilanich
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    473
  2. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    455
    DVD Verdict
    Jan 13, 2004
  3. Timekill

    freaky friday (full or widescreen?)

    Timekill, Jan 19, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    427
    Jay G
    Jan 21, 2004
  4. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    456
    DVD Verdict
    Jul 7, 2005
  5. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    598
    DVD Verdict
    Feb 17, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page