Ingmar Bergman Collection - Official Recall

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Mike McGee, Feb 9, 2004.

  1. Mike McGee

    Mike McGee Guest

    Just passing along this statement I received...

    Ingmar Bergman Collection - Official MGM Statement:

    It has come to our attention that the transfers utilized for the
    release of Ingmar Bergman's Hour of the Wolf Special Edition DVD and
    Shame Special Edition DVD are not representative of the intended
    theatrical presentation. In order to provide customers with the best
    quality product available, we are recalling the product at retail and
    will be releasing both films in a 1:37:1 aspect ratio on April 20,
    2004. The Ingmar Bergman DVD Collection will also be available on that
    date. MGM Home Entertainment always strives to provide the highest
    standard of product and customer care. For additional information or
    comments, please contact our customer service at 877/646-4968.

    --
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    Mike McGee
    Webmaster, The Digital Review
    http://www.thedigitalreview.com
     
    Mike McGee, Feb 9, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mike McGee wrote:
    > Just passing along this statement I received...
    >
    > Ingmar Bergman Collection - Official MGM Statement:
    >
    > It has come to our attention that the transfers utilized for the
    > release of Ingmar Bergman's Hour of the Wolf Special Edition DVD and
    > Shame Special Edition DVD are not representative of the intended
    > theatrical presentation. In order to provide customers with the best
    > quality product available, we are recalling the product at retail and
    > will be releasing both films in a 1:37:1 aspect ratio on April 20,
    > 2004. The Ingmar Bergman DVD Collection will also be available on that
    > date. MGM Home Entertainment always strives to provide the highest
    > standard of product and customer care. For additional information or
    > comments, please contact our customer service at 877/646-4968.
    >


    Is this a joke? A studio caring that much about the AR of a movie, and
    old foreign movies at that?

    --
    "Get rid of the Range Rover. You are not responsible for patrolling
    Australia's Dingo Barrier Fence, nor do you work the Savannah, capturing
    and tagging wildebeests."
    --Michael J. Nelson

    Grand Inquisitor
    http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost
     
    Grand Inquisitor, Feb 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mike McGee

    John Savard Guest

    On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:33:41 GMT, Grand Inquisitor
    <> wrote, in part:

    >Is this a joke? A studio caring that much about the AR of a movie, and
    >old foreign movies at that?


    Undoubtedly, it is a joke. But releasing a pseudo-widescreen version,
    for play on people's TV sets, of a movie whose OAR was the Edison
    ratio is also a joke, if indeed they did that.

    John Savard
    http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
     
    John Savard, Feb 9, 2004
    #3
  4. Mike McGee

    Mike McGee Guest

    In article <pNUVb.24325$>, Grand Inquisitor
    <> wrote:

    > Is this a joke? A studio caring that much about the AR of a movie, and
    > old foreign movies at that?


    The recall is not a joke.

    --
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    Mike McGee
    Webmaster, The Digital Review
    http://www.thedigitalreview.com
     
    Mike McGee, Feb 10, 2004
    #4
  5. Mike McGee

    Theblackfox Guest

    Well, the joke is that both films in question were absolutely shown in this
    country at 1:66 in art houses (maybe even 1:85 in a few engagements). I saw
    them then and that's the way things were projected here in the sixties. They
    didn't have the ability to show Academy.
     
    Theblackfox, Feb 11, 2004
    #5
  6. Mike McGee

    Mike McGee Guest

    In article <>, Theblackfox
    <> wrote:

    > Well, the joke is that both films in question were absolutely shown in this
    > country at 1:66 in art houses (maybe even 1:85 in a few engagements). I saw
    > them then and that's the way things were projected here in the sixties. They
    > didn't have the ability to show Academy.


    However, if the correct intention of the Director was to show in
    Academy, why is it a joke to release the DVDs in the proper aspect
    ratio? Even if they were shown in the wrong ratio theatrically in the
    first place, that doesn't make it correct.

    --
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    Mike McGee
    Webmaster, The Digital Review
    http://www.thedigitalreview.com
     
    Mike McGee, Feb 11, 2004
    #6
  7. I don't think he was saying it was a joke in the way you're inferring,
    Mike McGee. Mr. Bergman, I'm quite certain, being a man of world
    cinema, most likely knew how his films would be projected outside of his
    native country. It seems the poster was just pointing out that they
    weren't shown here in Academy ratio on their original release, so
    therefore MGM was not necessarily incorrect when matted those two films
    for 1:66 based on how the film was projected in this country. Not a
    question of right or wrong, he was just pointing out information.
     
    Brockhurst Pertwee, Feb 11, 2004
    #7
  8. Mike McGee

    Mike McGee Guest

    In article <>, Brockhurst
    Pertwee <> wrote:

    > I don't think he was saying it was a joke in the way you're inferring,
    > Mike McGee. Mr. Bergman, I'm quite certain, being a man of world
    > cinema, most likely knew how his films would be projected outside of his
    > native country. It seems the poster was just pointing out that they
    > weren't shown here in Academy ratio on their original release, so
    > therefore MGM was not necessarily incorrect when matted those two films
    > for 1:66 based on how the film was projected in this country. Not a
    > question of right or wrong, he was just pointing out information.


    I see what you mean, well stated!

    I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers, I just was confused there since I
    think it's actually admirable for MGM to go through the expense of
    getting it right. Especially since this is the same studio that put out
    Remo Williams in only a full-screen format. Remo's not on par with
    Bergman films, but at least MGM is showing a step in the right
    direction.

    ....then again, maybe they just hate the widescreen format, and will do
    anything to avoid it, including justifying a recall. ;)

    --
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    Mike McGee
    Webmaster, The Digital Review
    http://www.thedigitalreview.com
     
    Mike McGee, Feb 11, 2004
    #8
  9. Mike McGee

    Richard C. Guest

    "Mike McGee" <admin@_removenospam_thedigitalreview.com> wrote in message
    news:110220041030234790%admin@_removenospam_thedigitalreview.com...
    : In article <>, Brockhurst
    : Pertwee <> wrote:
    :
    : > I don't think he was saying it was a joke in the way you're inferring,
    : > Mike McGee. Mr. Bergman, I'm quite certain, being a man of world
    : > cinema, most likely knew how his films would be projected outside of his
    : > native country. It seems the poster was just pointing out that they
    : > weren't shown here in Academy ratio on their original release, so
    : > therefore MGM was not necessarily incorrect when matted those two films
    : > for 1:66 based on how the film was projected in this country. Not a
    : > question of right or wrong, he was just pointing out information.
    :
    : I see what you mean, well stated!
    :
    : I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers, I just was confused there since I
    : think it's actually admirable for MGM to go through the expense of
    : getting it right. Especially since this is the same studio that put out
    : Remo Williams in only a full-screen format. Remo's not on par with
    : Bergman films, but at least MGM is showing a step in the right
    : direction.
    :
    : ...then again, maybe they just hate the widescreen format, and will do
    : anything to avoid it, including justifying a recall. ;)
    :
    =======================
    Not only that, but they seem to release all of their 1.66:1 movies in NON-anamorphic.
    That particular aspect ratio cannot be displayed properly and with good resolution on
    a WS set unless they are anamorphic.

    I refuse to buy any of the current MGM 1.66 non-anamorphic DVDs.
    ============================
     
    Richard C., Feb 11, 2004
    #9
  10. Richard C. wrote:
    > [MGM] seem to release all of their 1.66:1 movies in NON-anamorphic. That
    > particular aspect ratio cannot be displayed properly and with good
    > resolution on a WS set unless they are anamorphic.


    I guess it depends how you define "properly": my 1.66:1 non-anamorphic
    discs look fine on my 16:9 set.

    Yes, they're pillarboxed *and* slightly letterboxed, so they don't fill the
    screen in any dimension. Yes, I wish they were anamorphically encoded so
    they'd have better resolution. But they're not exactly low-res as is, and
    (subject to a good transfer in the first place) perfectly watchable.

    Passing up _Equus_ or _Witness For the Prosecution_ or _Kiss Me Deadly_ or
    _Some Like It Hot_ because they don't fill your screen is your right, but I
    can't say I agree with you: me, I'm watching the *movie*, not the black
    bars.

    --
    Douglas Bailey
    2/11/2004 11:50:29 PM
    "And the chorus goes, and the chorus goes, b-b-b-b-b-bang..."
    --Wire
     
    Douglas Bailey, Feb 12, 2004
    #10
  11. Mike McGee

    jayembee Guest

    Mike McGee <admin@_removenospam_thedigitalreview.com> wrote:

    > I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers, I just was confused
    > there since I think it's actually admirable for MGM to go
    > through the expense of getting it right. Especially since
    > this is the same studio that put out Remo Williams in only
    > a full-screen format. Remo's not on par with Bergman films,
    > but at least MGM is showing a step in the right direction.


    Quite. I assumed the joke was the line from the press release
    that went: "MGM Home Entertainment always strives to provide
    the highest standard of product and customer care."

    Given that there are at least three titles of theirs released
    within the last year that I wanted to buy, but didn't because
    they were in fullscreen rather than widescreen -- TRUE LOVE,
    MIRACLE MILE, and REMO WILLIAMS -- I hardly think that
    "highest standard of product" applies.

    -- jayembee
     
    jayembee, Feb 12, 2004
    #11
  12. Mike McGee

    jayembee Guest

    Douglas Bailey <> wrote:

    > Richard C. wrote:
    >> [MGM] seem to release all of their 1.66:1 movies in
    >> NON-anamorphic. That particular aspect ratio cannot be
    >> displayed properly and with good resolution on a WS set
    >> unless they are anamorphic.

    >
    > I guess it depends how you define "properly": my 1.66:1
    > non-anamorphic discs look fine on my 16:9 set.
    >
    > Yes, they're pillarboxed *and* slightly letterboxed, so
    > they don't fill the screen in any dimension. Yes, I wish
    > they were anamorphically encoded so they'd have better
    > resolution. But they're not exactly low-res as is, and
    > (subject to a good transfer in the first place) perfectly
    > watchable.
    >
    > Passing up _Equus_ or _Witness For the Prosecution_ or
    > _Kiss Me Deadly_ or _Some Like It Hot_ because they
    > don't fill your screen is your right, but I can't say
    > I agree with you: me, I'm watching the *movie*, not the
    > black bars.


    It's sometimes hard to keep up with who's argued which
    position for what reason, but I believe that Richard is
    approaching it strictly from the resolution point of view,
    not the screen-filling point of view.

    But beyond that, I agree with the thrust of your comment.
    There are certain films that I want enough that I'm willing
    to compromise a little on their presentation.

    -- jayembee
     
    jayembee, Feb 12, 2004
    #12
  13. Mike McGee

    Mike McGee Guest

    In article <>, jayembee
    <> wrote:

    > Given that there are at least three titles of theirs released
    > within the last year that I wanted to buy, but didn't because
    > they were in fullscreen rather than widescreen -- TRUE LOVE,
    > MIRACLE MILE, and REMO WILLIAMS -- I hardly think that
    > "highest standard of product" applies.



    I hear ya, but at least there's some debate over Miracle Mile's true
    OAR since it had strong ties to being shown virtually as an HBO film.

    However, there's no debate over Remo not being in OAR. That's
    unacceptable.

    --
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    Mike McGee
    Webmaster, The Digital Review
    http://www.thedigitalreview.com
     
    Mike McGee, Feb 12, 2004
    #13
  14. Mike McGee

    Richard C. Guest

    "Douglas Bailey" <> wrote in message
    news:10oyh673aghog$...
    : Richard C. wrote:
    : > [MGM] seem to release all of their 1.66:1 movies in NON-anamorphic. That
    : > particular aspect ratio cannot be displayed properly and with good
    : > resolution on a WS set unless they are anamorphic.
    :
    : I guess it depends how you define "properly": my 1.66:1 non-anamorphic
    : discs look fine on my 16:9 set.

    ==============================
    They do not look anywhere near as good (resolution wise) on my 16:9 set as they would
    if done properly.
    I consider "proper" to be anamorphic. That is one of the reasons for haveing a 16:9
    set.........1/3 more resolution.

    On a Pioneer Elite, there is a very significant difference in the overall
    "appearance".
    A non-amamorphic DVD looks "fuzzy" and is not as clear as it should be.
    =================================
    :
    : Yes, they're pillarboxed *and* slightly letterboxed, so they don't fill the
    : screen in any dimension. Yes, I wish they were anamorphically encoded so
    : they'd have better resolution. But they're not exactly low-res as is, and
    : (subject to a good transfer in the first place) perfectly watchable.

    =====================================
    The picture is actually about 1/3 smaller than it would be if it were anamorphic.
    That is a significant loss in SIZE of image. Not to mention the resolution.
    ====================================
    :
    : Passing up _Equus_ or _Witness For the Prosecution_ or _Kiss Me Deadly_ or
    : _Some Like It Hot_ because they don't fill your screen is your right, but I
    : can't say I agree with you: me, I'm watching the *movie*, not the black
    : bars.

    ========================
    Black bars have nothing to do with it.
    There is NO excuse for a non-anamorphic DVD today........................

    Even Disney did the Lion King 1 1/2 in 1.66:1 anamorphic.
    =========================
     
    Richard C., Feb 12, 2004
    #14
  15. Richard C. gets busted for being a screen filler with:

    > : Passing up _Equus_ or _Witness For the Prosecution_ or _Kiss Me Deadly_ or
    > : _Some Like It Hot_ because they don't fill your screen is your right, but I
    > : can't say I agree with you: me, I'm watching the *movie*, not the black
    > : bars.
    >
    > ========================
    > Black bars have nothing to do with it.


    > There is NO excuse for a non-anamorphic DVD today........................
    >
    > Even Disney did the Lion King 1 1/2 in 1.66:1 anamorphic.



    You just want your screen filled.

    Like the man says - watch the movie not the black bars Dickwit.


    Max Christoffersen
     
    Max Christoffersen, Feb 12, 2004
    #15
  16. Mike McGee

    Richard C. Guest

    "Max Christoffersen" <> wrote in message
    news:BC525FD0.6923%...
    : Richard C. gets busted for being a screen filler with:
    :
    : > : Passing up _Equus_ or _Witness For the Prosecution_ or _Kiss Me Deadly_ or
    : > : _Some Like It Hot_ because they don't fill your screen is your right, but I
    : > : can't say I agree with you: me, I'm watching the *movie*, not the black
    : > : bars.
    : >
    : > ========================
    : > Black bars have nothing to do with it.
    :
    : > There is NO excuse for a non-anamorphic DVD today........................
    : >
    : > Even Disney did the Lion King 1 1/2 in 1.66:1 anamorphic.
    :
    :
    : You just want your screen filled.
    :
    : Like the man says - watch the movie not the black bars Dickwit.
    :
    :
    : Max Christoffersen
    :
    ==============================
    **** yourself, max!
    You have never had a clue and I guess you don't intend to get one.

    You are the dog crap on the bottom of our shoes!

    I just want the superior resolution of an anamorphic DVD.
    But someone like you would never comprehend that.
    You are still watching on a 13" Emerson................
    ==============================
     
    Richard C., Feb 12, 2004
    #16
  17. Richard C. tries to deny being a screenfiller with:

    > : You just want your screen filled.
    > :
    > : Like the man says - watch the movie not the black bars Dickwit.
    > :
    > :
    > : Max Christoffersen
    > :
    > ==============================
    > **** yourself, max! You have never had a clue and I guess you don't intend to

    get one. <


    Awwww...c'mon you're just pissed that someone else saw through your 'OAR
    always rave' to see you for what you are: a bonifide screenfiller.

    Like the man says - watch the movie not the black bars Dickwit.


    Max Christoffersen
     
    Max Christoffersen, Feb 13, 2004
    #17
  18. Mike McGee

    Richard C. Guest

    "Max Christoffersen" <> wrote in message
    news:BC5291D6.6951%...
    : Richard C. tries to deny being a screenfiller with:
    :
    : > : You just want your screen filled.
    : > :
    : > : Like the man says - watch the movie not the black bars Dickwit.
    : > :
    : > :
    : > : Max Christoffersen
    : > :
    : > ==============================
    : > **** yourself, max! You have never had a clue and I guess you don't intend to
    : get one. <
    :
    :
    : Awwww...c'mon you're just pissed that someone else saw through your 'OAR
    : always rave' to see you for what you are: a bonifide screenfiller.
    :
    : Like the man says - watch the movie not the black bars Dickwit.
    :
    :
    : Max Christoffersen
    :
    ======================
    Everyone here but you knows I DEMAND OAR!
    I also desire anamorphic DVDs of WS movies.

    So.......**** yourself max.

    Do it now!
    ==========================
     
    Richard C., Feb 13, 2004
    #18
  19. Richard C. tries to deny the facts with:

    > : Awwww...c'mon you're just pissed that someone else saw through your 'OAR
    > : always rave' to see you for what you are: a bonifide screenfiller.
    > :
    > : Like the man says - watch the movie not the black bars Dickwit.
    > :
    > :
    > : Max Christoffersen
    > :
    > ======================


    > Everyone here but you knows I DEMAND OAR! I also desire anamorphic DVDs of WS
    > movies. <


    > So.......**** yourself max.



    Is this your born again Christian spirit on display Richard?

    Everyone also knows you're a screen-filler. And it's not just me saying it!

    Like the (other) guy said: 'Watch the movie not the black bars'.


    Max Christoffersen
     
    Max Christoffersen, Feb 13, 2004
    #19
  20. Mike McGee

    Richard C. Guest

    "Max Christoffersen" <> wrote in message
    news:BC52AFD9.6964%...
    : Richard C. tries to deny the facts with:
    :
    : > : Awwww...c'mon you're just pissed that someone else saw through your 'OAR
    : > : always rave' to see you for what you are: a bonifide screenfiller.
    : > :
    : > : Like the man says - watch the movie not the black bars Dickwit.
    : > :
    : > :
    : > : Max Christoffersen
    : > :
    : > ======================
    :
    : > Everyone here but you knows I DEMAND OAR! I also desire anamorphic DVDs of WS
    : > movies. <
    :
    : > So.......**** yourself max.
    :
    :
    : Is this your born again Christian spirit on display Richard?
    :
    : Everyone also knows you're a screen-filler. And it's not just me saying it!
    :
    : Like the (other) guy said: 'Watch the movie not the black bars'.
    :
    :
    : Max Christoffersen
    :
    ==================================
    Sure, max............................
    Delusion rules in your little, pathetic, fucked world.

    It must really suck being you.
    ===================================
     
    Richard C., Feb 13, 2004
    #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. Ed Smith
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    795
    ~ Darrell ~
    Apr 16, 2004
  2. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    501
    DVD Verdict
    Oct 27, 2003
  3. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    500
    Doug MacLean
    Nov 15, 2003
  4. brian0918
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    570
    brian0918
    Sep 29, 2005
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    787
    SoHillsGuy
    Feb 18, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page