eFilmCritic Forum Index eFilmCritic
Community Forum
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

new Gilliam film - Tideland DVD RUINED in region 1

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    eFilmCritic Forum Index -> DVD Talk
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
sean



Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Posts: 27
Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:26 pm    Post subject: new Gilliam film - Tideland DVD RUINED in region 1 Reply with quote

That may seem like an exaggeration; the film is still brilliant, and the transfer could be defined as "lovely", I suppose, but the fact is, it's in the wrong aspect ratio. It was shot in 2.35:1, and it's released in "anamorphic full frame" 1.77:1.

I know what you're thinking, "Well, at least it must be open-matte, right?" Very hard to say. When the image is compared to the trailer [at apple.com], it's clear that a big piece of the image is missing on either side of the frame. I also noticed a few camera moves which sure looked like digital pans/readjustments, but it's difficult to be sure; they're subtle, and the camera moves a lot in this movie.

What seems beyond debate -- if you take film ick at their word -- is that the DP has expressed his and Gilliam's dissatisfaction with this. I wanted to spread the word; this seems like the sort of fight this site would take up (though I haven't been here in a while).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
TheAngryJew
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5525
Location: Philadelphia

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anamorphic 1.77? Sounds like someone made a booboo.
_________________
Scott Weinberg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Rob Gonsalves
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 2024

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guess I'll be sticking with the Region 2 edition.
_________________
But I wish the public could, in the midst of its pleasures, see how blatantly it is being spoon-fed, and ask for slightly better dreams.

- Iris Barry, Let's Go to the Movies, 1926
----------
Shoot him again. His soul is still dancing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
David Cornelius
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 30 Nov 2004
Posts: 3401
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lionsgate got shit for this last year with Lord of War and a couple other releases. So much shit, in fact, that they rereleased the discs with proper ratios. If the complaining is loud for Tideland, expect to see corrected discs soon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rob Gonsalves
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 2024

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

David Cornelius wrote:
Lionsgate got shit for this last year with Lord of War and a couple other releases. So much shit, in fact, that they rereleased the discs with proper ratios. If the complaining is loud for Tideland, expect to see corrected discs soon.


The question is whether ThinkFilm, a considerably smaller outfit than Lionsgate, will bother to do that for Tideland, a considerably smaller movie than Lord of War.

Really, it's almost poetic in its incompetence: they barely released it in theaters and now they can't even release it right on DVD.

I grow more and more amazed with each new debacle that Gilliam hasn't choked a bitch yet.
_________________
But I wish the public could, in the midst of its pleasures, see how blatantly it is being spoon-fed, and ask for slightly better dreams.

- Iris Barry, Let's Go to the Movies, 1926
----------
Shoot him again. His soul is still dancing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jason Whyte
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 18 Oct 2003
Posts: 386
Location: Victoria

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Tideland", like "Lord of War" was filmed in that pesky Super 35 format and every now and then the decision is made to "reframe" the movie in the HD transfer to gain more top and bottom information than if the film was shot in anamorphic 2.39 (again, get this right people...NOT 2.35:1!).

I know that Roger Donaldson (The Recruit, The World's Fastest Indian) prefers to release his DVD's cropped to 1.85 from the Super 35 negative, so perhaps Gilliam wanted to release the film this way?

With that said, Niccol didn't want that with the "Lord of War" DVD and hence the 2.39 correction was made, and I doubt that Gilliam would want his image compromised. Best thing you can do is contact customer service at Lions Gate DVD to see if anyone can address the issue.

Jason
_________________
"I talked to Jeremy Piven on the phone, and he told me that he discovered that he had a very high level of mercury. So my understanding is that he is leaving showbusiness to pursue a career as a thermometer." -- David Mamet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
sean



Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Posts: 27
Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jason Whyte wrote:
if the film was shot in anamorphic 2.39 (again, get this right people...NOT 2.35:1!).


I'm glad you're getting angry about something important, like a line of resolution that most people won't be able to spot if you point it out to them, as opposed to the gradual re-normalization of the re-formatting of films by multiple companies, which you seem fairly apologetic over.

Also, just for clarity, the film is not just opened up Super-35, both sides are heavily cropped, and there is some pan-and-scanning involved. Not a lot, which I guess is to their credit, but, the fact is, the image is modified, it is visually not the same movie which was shown in theaters.

Quote:
I know that Roger Donaldson (The Recruit, The World's Fastest Indian) prefers to release his DVD's cropped to 1.85 from the Super 35 negative, so perhaps Gilliam wanted to release the film this way?


Yeah, that sounds likely, because Gilliam is all about compromising his own vision for a larger audience.

Anyway, Gilliam himself hasn't said anything directly on the subject [though he just released a very scathing letter directed at Thinkfilm relating to their general mishandling of the film], but his DP is quoted at www.filmick.co.uk and he's not happy with it. If you compare the image on the DVD to the wider trailer available on-line, it certainly looks more like a Gilliam movie in the original aspect ratio.

Quote:
With that said, Niccol didn't want that with the "Lord of War" DVD and hence the 2.39 correction was made, and I doubt that Gilliam would want his image compromised. Best thing you can do is contact customer service at Lions Gate DVD to see if anyone can address the issue.


It's not Lions Gate, I think Lions Gate learned their lesson. It's Thinkfilm and, apparently, they have a history of doing this, but they haven't had a film with the inherent cult appeal of 'Tideland' before this (or, if they had, they didn't modify it; possibly it was already 1.77).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Rob Gonsalves
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 2024

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sean wrote:
If you compare the image on the DVD to the wider trailer available on-line, it certainly looks more like a Gilliam movie in the original aspect ratio.


Which is ironic, because up until recently (Fear and Loathing, I believe) Gilliam had never shot very wide; usually always 1.85 or less. I guess his new DP converted him. For years, Gilliam was in a group of favorite directors of mine (Kubrick, Cronenberg, the Coens until 2000 or so) who for various reasons never shot 2.35 (or 2.39, or 3.14, or whatever).

So the ironic thing is that Universal, the ones who busted Gilliam's balls so much on Brazil, didn't fuck up the aspect ratio of Fear and Loathing (true, we had to wait for the Criterion edition for an anamorphic transfer, but at least Universal's transfer wasn't fuckin' cropped). Yet here's ThinkFilm, supposedly this vanguard of independent film, working with probably their highest-profile director ever, and they hose him (A) in the theatrical release, (B) in the run-up to Oscar nominations (see Gilliam's rant here), and (C) on the DVD. Ya think too many directors will have a hard-on to work with them after all this?

They just better not fuck up Shortbus too, that's all I have to say.
_________________
But I wish the public could, in the midst of its pleasures, see how blatantly it is being spoon-fed, and ask for slightly better dreams.

- Iris Barry, Let's Go to the Movies, 1926
----------
Shoot him again. His soul is still dancing.


Last edited by Rob Gonsalves on Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:46 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rob Gonsalves
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 2024

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not to shill, but any of y'all with an all-region, code-free player can order the Gilliam-approved Region 2 Tideland from xploitedcinema.com. A little pricey, but they ship with a pow'ful quickness. I ordered mine yesterday, they shipped today. In all my experience with them, they've always shipped absurdly fast. No, I don't get paid for saying that. Just a satisfied customer. (And if you're gonna order this, you might wanna do it soon, because as word spreads about ThinkFilm's botched release the Region 2 disc may become a hot item. Especially since so many Gilliam fans never got to see this in theaters and have been masturbating over the DVD release date for months.)

Gilliam sez a 2.25 is his intended aspect ratio: "I mastered the DVD and decided that opening it up a bit vertically from the strict 2.35 looked better on the small screen. It's probably about 2.25. It is the choice of the director. Tell the fans to relax. I prefer it this way." The abovementioned Revolver release from the UK is 2.25. For more, including ThinkFilm's waffling about why they went with 1.78 and their rapid backtracking, filmink has the latest here.
_________________
But I wish the public could, in the midst of its pleasures, see how blatantly it is being spoon-fed, and ask for slightly better dreams.

- Iris Barry, Let's Go to the Movies, 1926
----------
Shoot him again. His soul is still dancing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rob Gonsalves
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 2024

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


_________________
But I wish the public could, in the midst of its pleasures, see how blatantly it is being spoon-fed, and ask for slightly better dreams.

- Iris Barry, Let's Go to the Movies, 1926
----------
Shoot him again. His soul is still dancing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jason Whyte
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 18 Oct 2003
Posts: 386
Location: Victoria

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

I'm glad you're getting angry about something important, like a line of resolution that most people won't be able to spot if you point it out to them, as opposed to the gradual re-normalization of the re-formatting of films by multiple companies, which you seem fairly apologetic over.


I'm not talking about a line of resolution. That was an aside to point out that the aspect ratio of "scope" is 2.39:1, not 2.35:1. s'it.

And where did I imply that I was being apologetic over companies doing this? I'm not in favor of it either, and I used the Donaldson example of the rare occasion where it is done intentionally. The AR should be identical to the theatrical aspect ratio.

(Then there's also Apocalypse Now which is director and cinematographer approved 2:1 rather than 2.39, but that's a whole other conversation.)

Quote:
Also, just for clarity, the film is not just opened up Super-35, both sides are heavily cropped, and there is some pan-and-scanning involved. Not a lot, which I guess is to their credit, but, the fact is, the image is modified, it is visually not the same movie which was shown in theaters.


Thanks for the link to the Filmick article. That seems to address it and here's hoping it can get rereleased.
_________________
"I talked to Jeremy Piven on the phone, and he told me that he discovered that he had a very high level of mercury. So my understanding is that he is leaving showbusiness to pursue a career as a thermometer." -- David Mamet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
TheAngryJew
HBS Monkey
HBS Monkey


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 5525
Location: Philadelphia

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Makes me wish I didn't reallllly dislike Tideland.

But I did.
_________________
Scott Weinberg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
sean



Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Posts: 27
Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jason Whyte wrote:
And where did I imply that I was being apologetic over companies doing this? I'm not in favor of it either, and I used the Donaldson example of the rare occasion where it is done intentionally. The AR should be identical to the theatrical aspect ratio.


it's probably just because I posted this to every place I could think to, and people kept responding "Well, Thinkfilm wouldn't do that if Gilliam didn't want them to, so don't blame them," so I caught a whiff of that in what you said. I'm glad Gilliam has now publicly settled it.

FWIW, though, I have mixed feelings about the fact that Gilliam's preferred aspect ratio for the video release is 2.25:1 as opposed to 2.35:1 (which is how he described the 2.39:1 transfer). I'd rather have the extra tenth of an inch in width per inch in height, but that seems unlikely, and it won't be that big a difference.

Quote:
(Then there's also Apocalypse Now which is director and cinematographer approved 2:1 rather than 2.39, but that's a whole other conversation.)


Honestly, I can't believe Coppola approves of that. I know he has said he does, but, looking at the comparisons I've seen, I can't believe that's the approved framing.

But, as you say, that's a whole other conversation...

Quote:
Thanks for the link to the Filmick article. That seems to address it and here's hoping it can get rereleased.


It does sound as if they're going to re-release it as quickly as they can, and I tend to assume that it will be the 2.25:1 transfer (though I hope people contacting them to complain request the 2.25 as opposed to the 2.35/2.39, since they're hiding behind the fact that there is no approved 2.35 to attempt to justify why they released it the way they did).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
sean



Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Posts: 27
Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob Gonsalves wrote:
Which is ironic, because up until recently (Fear and Loathing, I believe) Gilliam had never shot very wide; usually always 1.85 or less. I guess his new DP converted him. For years, Gilliam was in a group of favorite directors of mine (Kubrick, Cronenberg, the Coens until 2000 or so) who for various reasons never shot 2.35 (or 2.39, or 3.14, or whatever).


That's true; his older movies are generally a taller image. But the actual way the images are framed, the way he puts some things in the foreground others in the background, the way he uses the space (whatever size space he uses), these are all unmistakably Gilliam-y, and lost (to various extents) on the DVD.

The canted angles are still there, of course.
Quote:
Yet here's ThinkFilm, supposedly this vanguard of independent film, working with probably their highest-profile director ever, and they hose him (A) in the theatrical release, (B) in the run-up to Oscar nominations (see Gilliam's rant here), and (C) on the DVD. Ya think too many directors will have a hard-on to work with them after all this?


I think that if Gilliam weren't so publicly confrontational about everything, they probably wouldn't do anything. But because he is, they know that, if they don't fix it, he'll be really open in his attacks on them, and that would scare other filmmakers away.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Post new topic   Reply to topic    eFilmCritic Forum Index -> DVD Talk All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group