Giant: Not Anamorphic!

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Richard C., Jun 23, 2003.

  1. Richard  C.

    Richard C. Guest

    What an incredible disappointment!

    Just put this in to play last night and it is not anamorphic.
    1.66:1 is one of the worst aspects to not have anamorphic.
    There is no way to expand it without stretching or cropping on a 16:9 set.

    Damn that WB! Why would they do this?


    *************************************
    Richard C., Jun 23, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Richard  C.

    Richard C. Guest

    "Brockhurst Pertwee" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    : Don't blame Warners, blame George Stevens, Jr. It was his decision (he
    : believes that his father liked height rather than width). The fact that
    : the film was shown in 1:85 in most theaters apparently means nothing.
    : Of course, I have the import which is enhanced, but that transfer looks
    : awful.
    :
    =============================
    You miss my point......
    It was not an anamorphic DVD.
    1.66:1 can easily be done that way.
    If you understood 16:9 sets and "anamorphic enhancement" you would get why I am
    pissed.
    The 1.66 aspect ratio is not the problem.................
    Richard C., Jun 24, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:01:29 -0700, "Richard C." <> wrote:

    >What an incredible disappointment!
    >
    >Just put this in to play last night and it is not anamorphic.
    >1.66:1 is one of the worst aspects to not have anamorphic.
    >There is no way to expand it without stretching or cropping on a 16:9 set.
    >
    >Damn that WB! Why would they do this?
    >
    >
    >*************************************
    >



    Life's full of these little tragedies. Only through Jesus can you overcome such misery.
    Dr. Speedbyrd:>, Jun 24, 2003
    #3
  4. First I wrote:

    <Don't blame Warners, blame George Stevens, Jr. It was his decision (he
    believes that his father liked height rather than width). The fact that
    the film was shown in 1:85 in most theaters apparently means nothing. Of
    course, I have the import which is enhanced, but that transfer looks
    awful. >
    =============================
    Then Richard C. responded:

    <You miss my point......
    It was not an anamorphic DVD.
    1.66:1 can easily be done that way.
    If you understood 16:9 sets and "anamorphic enhancement" you would get
    why I am pissed.
    The 1.66 aspect ratio is not the problem.................>

    I missed your point? Did you read what I wrote? I said don't blame
    Warners, blame George Stevens, Jr. It was HIS decision to not do the
    transfer anamorphic, he wanted it 1:66 with the most minimal
    letterboxing it could have, and did not want it windowboxed for
    anamorphic sets. Once again, how did I miss your point? I know 1:66
    can be done, I had a widescreen TV before you did, and I get why you're
    pissed. It's fine to be pissed, just don't blame Warners because had it
    been up to them they would have done an anamorphic transfer and DID do
    so on the Canadian import which I own.

    I know what the problem is, Richard, you don't need to preach to me, you
    just need to learn to read my posts and not interpret them so that they
    suit your whim. The fact is, I've stopped buying ANY MGM 1:66 or 1:85
    title that is not enhanced for widescreen - they are the real idiots.
    Brockhurst Pertwee, Jun 24, 2003
    #4

  5. > I missed your point? Did you read what I wrote? I said don't blame
    > Warners, blame George Stevens, Jr. It was HIS decision to not do the
    > transfer anamorphic, he wanted it 1:66 with the most minimal
    > letterboxing it could have, and did not want it windowboxed for
    > anamorphic sets. Once again, how did I miss your point? I know 1:66
    > can be done, I had a widescreen TV before you did, and I get why you're
    > pissed. It's fine to be pissed, just don't blame Warners because had it
    > been up to them they would have done an anamorphic transfer and DID do
    > so on the Canadian import which I own.
    >
    > I know what the problem is, Richard, you don't need to preach to me, you
    > just need to learn to read my posts and not interpret them so that they
    > suit your whim. The fact is, I've stopped buying ANY MGM 1:66 or 1:85
    > title that is not enhanced for widescreen - they are the real idiots.



    And on and on and on it goes...

    Looks like them black bars are a problem after all.

    Max Christoffersen
    max christoffersen, Jun 24, 2003
    #5
  6. Richard  C.

    mikeith Guest

    "Dr. Speedbyrd:>" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:01:29 -0700, "Richard C." <>

    wrote:
    >
    > >What an incredible disappointment!
    > >
    > >Just put this in to play last night and it is not anamorphic.
    > >1.66:1 is one of the worst aspects to not have anamorphic.
    > >There is no way to expand it without stretching or cropping on a 16:9

    set.
    > >
    > >Damn that WB! Why would they do this?
    > >
    > >
    > >*************************************
    > >

    >
    >
    > Life's full of these little tragedies. Only through Jesus can you

    overcome such misery.

    LMAO! Now that is a funny post.
    mikeith, Jun 24, 2003
    #6
  7. Richard  C.

    Richard C. Guest

    "Brockhurst Pertwee" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    : First I wrote:
    :
    : <Don't blame Warners, blame George Stevens, Jr. It was his decision (he
    : believes that his father liked height rather than width). The fact that
    : the film was shown in 1:85 in most theaters apparently means nothing. Of
    : course, I have the import which is enhanced, but that transfer looks
    : awful. >
    : =============================
    : Then Richard C. responded:
    :
    : <You miss my point......
    : It was not an anamorphic DVD.
    : 1.66:1 can easily be done that way.
    : If you understood 16:9 sets and "anamorphic enhancement" you would get
    : why I am pissed.
    : The 1.66 aspect ratio is not the problem.................>
    :
    : I missed your point? Did you read what I wrote? I said don't blame
    : Warners, blame George Stevens, Jr. It was HIS decision to not do the
    : transfer anamorphic, he wanted it 1:66 with the most minimal
    : letterboxing it could have, and did not want it windowboxed for
    : anamorphic sets.

    ===========================
    But, being non-anamorphic, it IS WINDOWBOXED on 16:9 sets.
    That is the entire problem.
    See...you did miss the point.
    If it were anamorphic it would appear to fill the screen of a 1.78:1 set - just as
    1.85:1 appears to.
    ==============================

    : Once again, how did I miss your point?

    ================================
    Your statement about windowboxing shows that you did.
    ==============================

    : I know 1:66
    : can be done, I had a widescreen TV before you did, and I get why you're
    : pissed. It's fine to be pissed, just don't blame Warners because had it
    : been up to them they would have done an anamorphic transfer and DID do
    : so on the Canadian import which I own.
    :
    : I know what the problem is, Richard, you don't need to preach to me, you
    : just need to learn to read my posts and not interpret them so that they
    : suit your whim. The fact is, I've stopped buying ANY MGM 1:66 or 1:85
    : title that is not enhanced for widescreen - they are the real idiots.
    :
    ================================
    Richard C., Jun 24, 2003
    #7
  8. Richard  C.

    Richard C. Guest

    "max christoffersen" <> wrote in message
    news:bd8kch$go1$...
    :
    : > I missed your point? Did you read what I wrote? I said don't blame
    : > Warners, blame George Stevens, Jr. It was HIS decision to not do the
    : > transfer anamorphic, he wanted it 1:66 with the most minimal
    : > letterboxing it could have, and did not want it windowboxed for
    : > anamorphic sets. Once again, how did I miss your point? I know 1:66
    : > can be done, I had a widescreen TV before you did, and I get why you're
    : > pissed. It's fine to be pissed, just don't blame Warners because had it
    : > been up to them they would have done an anamorphic transfer and DID do
    : > so on the Canadian import which I own.
    : >
    : > I know what the problem is, Richard, you don't need to preach to me, you
    : > just need to learn to read my posts and not interpret them so that they
    : > suit your whim. The fact is, I've stopped buying ANY MGM 1:66 or 1:85
    : > title that is not enhanced for widescreen - they are the real idiots.
    :
    :
    : And on and on and on it goes...
    :
    : Looks like them black bars are a problem after all.
    :
    : Max Christoffersen

    ==========================
    Do you even understand what the problem is?

    I doubt it.

    Black bars are no problem at all..............
    Richard C., Jun 24, 2003
    #8
  9. Richard  C.

    Zimmy Guest

    Brockhurst Pertwee wrote:
    > I missed your point? Did you read what I wrote? I said don't blame
    > Warners, blame George Stevens, Jr. It was HIS decision to not do the
    > transfer anamorphic, he wanted it 1:66 with the most minimal
    > letterboxing it could have, and did not want it windowboxed for
    > anamorphic sets. Once again, how did I miss your point? I know 1:66
    > can be done, I had a widescreen TV before you did, and I get why
    > you're pissed. It's fine to be pissed, just don't blame Warners
    > because had it been up to them they would have done an anamorphic
    > transfer and DID do so on the Canadian import which I own.
    >
    > I know what the problem is, Richard, you don't need to preach to me,
    > you just need to learn to read my posts and not interpret them so
    > that they suit your whim. The fact is, I've stopped buying ANY MGM
    > 1:66 or 1:85 title that is not enhanced for widescreen - they are the
    > real idiots.


    But, your wrong. It has nothing to do with Georgie Jr. that the transfer
    isn't anamorphic. He may have a say on widescreen, but not 16x9
    enhancement.
    It simply is Warner Bros. policy (why, I'll never know) that all 1.66 movies
    will be non-anamorphic.

    See Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon for examples.
    Zimmy, Jun 24, 2003
    #9
  10. Richard C says:


    > See...you did miss the point. If it were anamorphic it would<
    > appear to fill the screen of a 1.78:1 set - just as 1.85:1 <
    > appears to. < Richard C



    Richard you just joined the screen-filling fraternity.


    Max Christoffersen
    max christoffersen, Jun 24, 2003
    #10
  11. My POINT Richard, which you have ignored in every response is that you
    are blaming the WRONG FUCKING PERSON. That is my ONLY point.
    Acknowledge it and move on. You blamed Warners and I'm telling you it
    was not Warners decision, it was George Stevens, Jr's decision. End of
    POINT. Do you get it now, Richard? Honestly.
    Brockhurst Pertwee, Jun 24, 2003
    #11
  12. Richard  C.

    Zimmy Guest

    Brockhurst Pertwee wrote:
    > No, Zimmy, it is NOT Warners' policy. It WAS Mr. Stevens Jr's
    > decision. Just as the other two movies you cite were Mr. Kubrick's
    > (and/or family) decision. You cannot name another instance of this
    > "policy", except for a couple of the VERY earliest Warners DVDs. The
    > reason Mr. Stevens Jr pulled the Canadian DVD of Giant, which WAS
    > enhanced for widescreen TVs, was because he didn't a) like the
    > transfer and b) didn't want it enhanced for widescreen TVs.


    I'm really not sure why you insist on this. Why would Stevens care if it is
    16x9 or not?
    Here is your chance to prove me wrong... Name another 1.66 Warner DVD that
    is anamorphic.
    The DVDs I mentioned were remastered and re-released in 2001 so they are not
    the earliest.
    2001(2.35) was 16x9 enhanced, Clockwork and Lyndon(1.66) were not. All
    released at the same time.
    This isn't a letterbox vs. fullscreen issue (which is what the families do
    care about) but an "enhanced for widescreen" issue, which I seriously doubt
    any Kubrick or Stevens know anything about.
    So, if 1.66 unenhanced transfer are not Warner's policy, name a Warner's
    1.66 disc that is 16x9.
    Go ahead...

    Now, I would answer North by Northwest, but I think that was a new 1.85
    master struck from a restored master, but I could be wrong.
    Zimmy, Jun 24, 2003
    #12
  13. Richard  C.

    Heinrich Guest

    In article <>,
    Brockhurst Pertwee <> wrote:

    > I said don't blame Warners, blame George Stevens, Jr. It was HIS decision
    > to not do the transfer anamorphic, he wanted it 1:66 with the most minimal
    > letterboxing it could have, and did not want it windowboxed for
    > anamorphic sets.


    Hummmm? This doesn't make any sense. You could retain the 1.66-1
    aspect ratio and still have Widescreen Enhancement. What possible
    objection could Stevens have to that? His original aspect ratio would
    be intact and widescreen TVs would have some small back bars on the
    sides instead of all the way around without enhancement. I can't
    understand his objection!

    4:3 TVs would view the picture as slightly letterboxed!
    Heinrich, Jun 24, 2003
    #13
  14. Well, Zimmy, one of the reasons I go on about it is because George
    Stevens, Jr. is on record as saying his father really preferred height
    to width in his compositions. I'm NOT saying it shouldn't have been
    enhanced, I wish it had been (but I do have the Canadian import which
    is), I'm saying Mr. Stevens, Jr. PULLED the Canadian DVD because of it
    and had the transfer redone and left is unenhanced because HE felt
    that's what his father would have wanted. The other two movies you keep
    citing (without understanding what I wrote) are the two Kubrick films
    and they have the exact same situation - Jan Harlan and Leon Vitale who
    supervised those transfers, did not enhance them for widescreen because
    they believed that's what Stanley would have wanted. POINT, once again,
    it's not Warners who's to blame in terms of the three films you cite.

    I understand how 1:66 works on a widescreen TV as I HAVE a widescreen TV
    and many enhanced 1:66 discs. The joke, of course, is that few of these
    films, if any, were EVER shown in 1:66 in the US - they were shown in
    the standard 1:85 that just about every single movie theater in the US
    is and has been set up to show since the beginning of the widescreen
    revolution. This was all discussed at the Home Theater Forum weeks ago.
    It's all out there, Zimbo, all you have to do is look. I heard the
    Stevens, Jr. comment directly from someone who worked on the transfer
    and I believe he's repeated the comment in several interviews.
    Brockhurst Pertwee, Jun 25, 2003
    #14
  15. Richard  C.

    Zimmy Guest

    Heinrich wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    > Brockhurst Pertwee <> wrote:
    >
    >> I said don't blame Warners, blame George Stevens, Jr. It was HIS
    >> decision to not do the transfer anamorphic, he wanted it 1:66 with
    >> the most minimal letterboxing it could have, and did not want it
    >> windowboxed for anamorphic sets.

    >
    > Hummmm? This doesn't make any sense. You could retain the 1.66-1
    > aspect ratio and still have Widescreen Enhancement. What possible
    > objection could Stevens have to that? His original aspect ratio would
    > be intact and widescreen TVs would have some small back bars on the
    > sides instead of all the way around without enhancement. I can't
    > understand his objection!
    >
    > 4:3 TVs would view the picture as slightly letterboxed!


    My Brockhurst is in his own world were sons of dead director's control the
    technical aspect of DVD production.
    I think George Jr.s insisted on Dolby Digital 2.0 also, and make sure the
    bit rate averages 5mps! that is how Daddy would have wanted it.
    Zimmy, Jun 25, 2003
    #15
  16. Richard  C.

    Richard C. Guest

    "max christoffersen" <> wrote in message
    news:bda63i$tgf$...
    : Richard C says:
    :
    :
    : > See...you did miss the point. If it were anamorphic it would<
    : > appear to fill the screen of a 1.78:1 set - just as 1.85:1 <
    : > appears to. < Richard C
    :
    :
    : Richard you just joined the screen-filling fraternity.
    :
    :
    : Max Christoffersen

    =====================================
    You are so very, very wrong.........
    If you knew ANYTHING......you would know the difference between an anamorphic DVD and
    a non-anamorphic DVD.
    The aspect ratio is not altered.

    What a putz.
    Richard C., Jun 25, 2003
    #16
  17. Richard  C.

    Richard C. Guest

    "Brockhurst Pertwee" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    : My POINT Richard, which you have ignored in every response is that you
    : are blaming the WRONG FUCKING PERSON. That is my ONLY point.
    : Acknowledge it and move on. You blamed Warners and I'm telling you it
    : was not Warners decision, it was George Stevens, Jr's decision. End of
    : POINT. Do you get it now, Richard? Honestly.
    :
    ===============================
    George Stevens did not release the DVD - Warner Brothers did.
    I am not complaining about the aspect ratio.

    Do YOU get it?
    Richard C., Jun 25, 2003
    #17
  18. Richard  C.

    Richard C. Guest

    "Zimmy" <> wrote in message
    news:bdacu3$qsus1$...
    : Brockhurst Pertwee wrote:
    : > No, Zimmy, it is NOT Warners' policy. It WAS Mr. Stevens Jr's
    : > decision. Just as the other two movies you cite were Mr. Kubrick's
    : > (and/or family) decision. You cannot name another instance of this
    : > "policy", except for a couple of the VERY earliest Warners DVDs. The
    : > reason Mr. Stevens Jr pulled the Canadian DVD of Giant, which WAS
    : > enhanced for widescreen TVs, was because he didn't a) like the
    : > transfer and b) didn't want it enhanced for widescreen TVs.
    :
    : I'm really not sure why you insist on this. Why would Stevens care if it is
    : 16x9 or not?
    : Here is your chance to prove me wrong... Name another 1.66 Warner DVD that
    : is anamorphic.
    : The DVDs I mentioned were remastered and re-released in 2001 so they are not
    : the earliest.
    : 2001(2.35) was 16x9 enhanced, Clockwork and Lyndon(1.66) were not. All
    : released at the same time.
    : This isn't a letterbox vs. fullscreen issue (which is what the families do
    : care about) but an "enhanced for widescreen" issue, which I seriously doubt
    : any Kubrick or Stevens know anything about.
    : So, if 1.66 unenhanced transfer are not Warner's policy, name a Warner's
    : 1.66 disc that is 16x9.
    : Go ahead...
    :
    : Now, I would answer North by Northwest, but I think that was a new 1.85
    : master struck from a restored master, but I could be wrong.
    :
    ====================
    I am glad that you understand EXACTLY what the issue is.

    Thank you.
    Richard C., Jun 25, 2003
    #18
  19. Richard  C.

    Richard C. Guest

    "DanRydell" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    : "max christoffersen" <> wrote in message
    news:<bd8kch$go1$>...
    :
    : > And on and on and on it goes...
    : >
    : > Looks like them black bars are a problem after all.
    : >
    : > Max Christoffersen
    :
    : I was just thinking "Even Max can't miss a joke THIS obvious".
    : Apparently, I was dead wrong.
    :
    :
    : By the way Richard, Warner Brothers has a track record of this type of
    : thing. They refused to put out an anamorphic Wizard of Oz and Citizen
    : Kane. And if they think I'm gonna buy that new non-16X9 Casablanca,
    : they've got another thing coming!

    ===============================
    But those movie are all 1.33:1 or 1.37:1.

    Or are you doing it again?
    Richard C., Jun 25, 2003
    #19
  20. RichardC, who cannot seem to understand the POINT, wrote:

    <George Stevens did not release the DVD - Warner Brothers did. I am not
    complaining about the aspect ratio.
    Do YOU get it?>

    Yes, dear, I do get it. George Stevens, Jr. controls the copyright on
    the film of Giant, not Warners. Warners released it. They had NO say
    on the transfer, and Mr. Stevens, Jr., whether rightly or wrongly, made
    the decision to not do an anamorphic transfer. And that, Richard, is
    the end of this story. Blame him, blame Canada, blame it on Rio, put
    the blame on Mame, blame it on my youth, but don't blame Warners.

    Do you also blame Warners for the full-frame transfers of Eyes Wide Shut
    and The Shining, and the non-anamorphic transfers of A Clockwork Orange
    and Barry Lyndon? After all, they released the DVDs, and by your logic
    (and Zimmy's) they control how the transfers are done. Well, in these
    particular cases (Giant included) they do NOT. The Kubrick Estate
    controls how the transfers are done and that is why they are the way
    they are, because the estate, as represented by Leon Vitale and Jan
    Harlan avers that that is how Mr. Kubrick wanted them.

    You both continually ignore the fact that Warners issued an anamorphic
    DVD of Giant in Canada. You both continually ignore the fact that Mr.
    Stevens, Jr. had the power and the right to have that DVD pulled from
    distribution, which he did. He did so because the transfer was not what
    he desired.

    You both need to come back and apologize for being hard-headed and
    continually ignoring the POINT of my original post - i.e. that you are
    blaming the wrong party. But, as per usual on Usenet, you will simply
    continue to be hard-headed or you will disappear.
    Brockhurst Pertwee, Jun 25, 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. Aaron J. Bossig

    Re: Giant: Not Anamorphic!

    Aaron J. Bossig, Jun 23, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    975
    Bil Gonzalez
    Jun 24, 2003
  2. MarkZimmerman

    Re: Giant: Not Anamorphic!

    MarkZimmerman, Jun 24, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    844
    MarkZimmerman
    Jun 24, 2003
  3. Brockhurst Pertwee

    Re: Giant: Not Anamorphic!

    Brockhurst Pertwee, Jun 25, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    757
    Richard C.
    Jun 26, 2003
  4. Brockhurst Pertwee

    Re: Giant: Not Anamorphic!

    Brockhurst Pertwee, Jun 26, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    762
    Brockhurst Pertwee
    Jun 26, 2003
  5. DRutsala

    Re: Giant: Not Anamorphic!

    DRutsala, Jul 5, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    369
    John Harkness
    Jul 5, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page