New Version of Crash

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Dick Sidbury, Apr 2, 2006.

  1. Dick Sidbury

    Dick Sidbury Guest

    Is it 2.35 to 1?
    The previous version was formatted to fit 16x9, and for that reason I
    didn't buy it. Amazon and IMDB claim the new one is 2.35 but I they are
    not always reliable.

    Thanks.

    dick
     
    Dick Sidbury, Apr 2, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dick Sidbury

    Jay G. Guest

    On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 11:03:40 -0400, Dick Sidbury wrote:

    > Is it 2.35 to 1?
    > The previous version was formatted to fit 16x9, and for that reason I
    > didn't buy it. Amazon and IMDB claim the new one is 2.35 but I they are
    > not always reliable.


    The previous release was 2.35:1 as well. You may have gotten it confused
    with Cronenberg's Crash, which was released on DVD in 1.78:1.

    -Jay
     
    Jay G., Apr 4, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dick Sidbury

    Richard C. Guest

    "Jay G." <"Jay "@tmbg.org> wrote in message
    news:gwonom3p6ae7$.1qgf3s1k4edd0$...
    > On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 11:03:40 -0400, Dick Sidbury wrote:
    >
    >> Is it 2.35 to 1?
    >> The previous version was formatted to fit 16x9, and for that reason I
    >> didn't buy it. Amazon and IMDB claim the new one is 2.35 but I they are
    >> not always reliable.

    >
    > The previous release was 2.35:1 as well. You may have gotten it confused
    > with Cronenberg's Crash, which was released on DVD in 1.78:1.
    >
    > -Jay

    ==========================
    Very strange..
    I think the confusion on the Haggs' Crash comes from this wording on the box
    of the original release:
    "Presented in Widescreen.....formatted from the original 1.85:1 version in
    which the
    film was shot" (whatever that means). It is indeed 2.35:1.

    So just WHAT is the difference with the new release?
     
    Richard C., Apr 4, 2006
    #3
  4. Dick Sidbury

    Dick Sidbury Guest

    In article <>,
    "Richard C." <> wrote:

    > "Jay G." <"Jay "@tmbg.org> wrote in message
    > news:gwonom3p6ae7$.1qgf3s1k4edd0$...
    > > On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 11:03:40 -0400, Dick Sidbury wrote:
    > >
    > >> Is it 2.35 to 1?
    > >> The previous version was formatted to fit 16x9, and for that reason I
    > >> didn't buy it. Amazon and IMDB claim the new one is 2.35 but I they are
    > >> not always reliable.

    > >
    > > The previous release was 2.35:1 as well. You may have gotten it confused
    > > with Cronenberg's Crash, which was released on DVD in 1.78:1.
    > >
    > > -Jay

    > ==========================
    > Very strange..
    > I think the confusion on the Haggs' Crash comes from this wording on the box
    > of the original release:
    > "Presented in Widescreen.....formatted from the original 1.85:1 version in
    > which the
    > film was shot" (whatever that means). It is indeed 2.35:1.
    >
    > So just WHAT is the difference with the new release?


    Yes that is what confused me on the original. Anyhow the new version is
    specifically listed as 2.35 to 1.

    dick
     
    Dick Sidbury, Apr 5, 2006
    #4
  5. Dick Sidbury

    Richard C. Guest

    X-No-archive: yes

    "Dick Sidbury" <> wrote in message
    news:D...
    > In article <>,
    > "Richard C." <> wrote:
    >
    >> "Jay G." <"Jay "@tmbg.org> wrote in message
    >> news:gwonom3p6ae7$.1qgf3s1k4edd0$...
    >> > On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 11:03:40 -0400, Dick Sidbury wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Is it 2.35 to 1?
    >> >> The previous version was formatted to fit 16x9, and for that reason I
    >> >> didn't buy it. Amazon and IMDB claim the new one is 2.35 but I they
    >> >> are
    >> >> not always reliable.
    >> >
    >> > The previous release was 2.35:1 as well. You may have gotten it
    >> > confused
    >> > with Cronenberg's Crash, which was released on DVD in 1.78:1.
    >> >
    >> > -Jay

    >> ==========================
    >> Very strange..
    >> I think the confusion on the Haggs' Crash comes from this wording on the
    >> box
    >> of the original release:
    >> "Presented in Widescreen.....formatted from the original 1.85:1 version
    >> in
    >> which the
    >> film was shot" (whatever that means). It is indeed 2.35:1.
    >>
    >> So just WHAT is the difference with the new release?

    >
    > Yes that is what confused me on the original. Anyhow the new version is
    > specifically listed as 2.35 to 1.
    >
    > dick


    ======================
    I bought it today and it has DTS ES as one of the sound options.
    It is only 115 minutes compared to 122 on the original 2 disc set.
    (7 minutes shorter????!!)
    Different extras.
     
    Richard C., Apr 5, 2006
    #5
  6. Dick Sidbury

    BB Guest

    "Richard C." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > X-No-archive: yes


    >
    > ======================
    > I bought it today and it has DTS ES as one of the sound options.
    > It is only 115 minutes compared to 122 on the original 2 disc set.
    > (7 minutes shorter????!!)
    > Different extras.


    The original release mistakenly listed the runtime, which is in fact 112
    minutes.

    The new version is about 3 minutes longer, with small sections of dialog and
    "moments" restored. The director says he felt that the theatrical cut was
    too tight, so he expanded it a little.

    -BB
     
    BB, Apr 5, 2006
    #6
  7. Dick Sidbury

    Richard C. Guest

    X-No-archive: yes

    "BB" <> wrote in message
    news:a8PYf.13581$zk4.4665@trnddc05...
    >
    > "Richard C." <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> X-No-archive: yes

    >
    >>
    >> ======================
    >> I bought it today and it has DTS ES as one of the sound options.
    >> It is only 115 minutes compared to 122 on the original 2 disc set.
    >> (7 minutes shorter????!!)
    >> Different extras.

    >
    > The original release mistakenly listed the runtime, which is in fact 112
    > minutes.
    >
    > The new version is about 3 minutes longer, with small sections of dialog
    > and "moments" restored. The director says he felt that the theatrical cut
    > was too tight, so he expanded it a little.
    >
    > -BB

    ========================
    Thanks!
    Boy.........they sure screwed up the info on the original packaging, didn't
    they.

    ================================
     
    Richard C., Apr 5, 2006
    #7
    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. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,053
    Boomer
    Jan 5, 2004
  2. Ant
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    595
  3. Mike Rahl
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    2,378
    Walter Roberson
    Dec 12, 2006
  4. Douglas C. Neidermeyer

    Installing older version of WIN XP over newer version

    Douglas C. Neidermeyer, Sep 6, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    582
    Douglas C. Neidermeyer
    Sep 6, 2006
  5. =?Utf-8?B?TXVua2VkYWw=?=

    Installing full version over existing trial version

    =?Utf-8?B?TXVua2VkYWw=?=, Sep 12, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    441
    Larry
    Sep 12, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page