O Brother where art thou
vila
wrong aspect ratio??????????????
Its released by Buena Vista wasnt it? Anyone know an email I can harass them
on? Did a search on google but couldn't find an accessible site.
Thanks
wd
1.85. Anyone know anything about this?
"vila" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:%9wT6.13448$fs6.9...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Robert Davies
Rob
"wd" <w...@synertia.com> wrote in message
news:9fm949$4m6sj$1...@ID-87885.news.dfncis.de...
ButtleNotTuttle
>1.85. Anyone know anything about this?
A local store broke the street date with this and I even looked at it, but I
wish I could say what the ratio is. I forget.
Archie
Norman Wilner
news:20010606194819...@ng-mc1.aol.com...
Sorry, I must have lost the beginning of this thread -- I don't have the
disc yet, but it's my understanding that "O Brother" is properly presented
at 2.35:1.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
http://www.zap2it.com/movies/videodvd
loabn
as 2.35:1 but the feature is presented on DVD in a 1.85:1 ratio.
"wd" <w...@synertia.com> wrote in message
news:9fm949$4m6sj$1...@ID-87885.news.dfncis.de...
vila
list the disc at 1.85:1.
This includes several review sites.
loabn <lo...@loaba.com> wrote in message
news:9QET6.9477$Jg4.9...@news1.telusplanet.net...
Justin McGill
of Total Movie. *sigh*
Justin
"vila" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:%9wT6.13448$fs6.9...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
In dreams I walk with you
> Does anyone know what the fuck is up with O Brother being released
in the
> wrong aspect ratio??????????????
Does anyone know what the fuck is up with O Brother anyhow ? I've
liked all Coen movies so far, but this one clearly escapes me. Am I
missing something (obvious) ?
--
David May.
The Hunger Site Home
www.thehungersite.com
(Donate Food for Free to Hungry People in the World.)
Ricard
David Mullen
Sorry, but it wasn't.
From "American Cinematographer": "O Brother Where Art Thou?" was also the
Coen Brother's first experience in a widescreen format (2.40 : 1 aspect
ratio), which Deakins had suggested because of the importance of the
landscapes and the epic nature of the story. He recommended shooting in the
Super-35 format, in part because he liked the perspective rendered by the
spherical lenses he'd used on "Kundun".
(Currently the 'scope projection format is 2.39 : 1, but it is often rounded
up to 2.40 : 1 or down to the old 2.35 : 1 in discussions.)
David Mullen
Paula J. Vitaris
: >The original aspect ratio was 1.85:1.
:
In the theater, I'm sure it was 2:35:1.
I haven't watched my DVD yet, but from the talk here it looks like it was
released on DVD at 1:85. The question is: WHY? Anyone have an answer?
Since it was shot on Super 35, I guess we're getting more, not less... but
I would have preferred the theatrical ratio.
-- Paula
vila
scope.
Ricard <aj...@beta.telenordia.se> wrote in message
news:3B1F7C52...@beta.telenordia.se...
JoeS
> David Mullen (dav...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> : >The original aspect ratio was 1.85:1.
> :
> :
> : Sorry, but it wasn't.
> :
> : From "American Cinematographer": "O Brother Where Art Thou?" was also the
> : Coen Brother's first experience in a widescreen format (2.40 : 1 aspect
> : ratio), which Deakins had suggested because of the importance of the
> : landscapes and the epic nature of the story. He recommended shooting in the
> : Super-35 format, in part because he liked the perspective rendered by the
> : spherical lenses he'd used on "Kundun".
> :
> : (Currently the 'scope projection format is 2.39 : 1, but it is often rounded
> : up to 2.40 : 1 or down to the old 2.35 : 1 in discussions.)
> :
> : David Mullen
> :
> :
> In the theater, I'm sure it was 2:35:1.
>
> I haven't watched my DVD yet, but from the talk here it looks like it was
> released on DVD at 1:85. The question is: WHY? Anyone have an answer?
What makes you think it's in 1.85:1. One person who read something incorrect on
Amazon????
> Since it was shot on Super 35, I guess we're getting more, not less... but
> I would have preferred the theatrical ratio.
If you have the disc, why don't you see for yourself rather than making
assumptions based upon one piece of incorrect information?
Joe
Norman Wilner
news:v_HT6.39265$aA5.2...@news1.rdc1.tx.home.com...
> "vila" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
> news:%9wT6.13448$fs6.9...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>>
>> Does anyone know what the fuck is up with O Brother being
>> released in the wrong aspect ratio??????????????
>>
>> Its released by Buena Vista wasnt it? Anyone know an email
>> I can harass them on? Did a search on google but couldn't find
>> an accessible site.
>
issue
> of Total Movie. *sigh*
The movie's a co-production, and was released by Touchstone in North America
and Universal in the rest of the world. Both logos appeared in the trailer
...
Norman Wilner
>
> yeah well there are more sites than amazon and all of the
> ones Ive looked at list the disc at 1.85:1.
>
> This includes several review sites.
The review sites may have posted the same erroneous information to begin
with, and never corrected it. I seem to remember some confusion over Buena
Vista's original retailer solicitation a couple of months ago; both "O
Brother" and "Unbreakable" were listed as 1.85:1, when both films are
actually 2.35:1.
As I've yet to see a single review of the disc, I'm not worrying yet.
Paula J. Vitaris
: If you have the disc, why don't you see for yourself rather than making
: assumptions based upon one piece of incorrect information?
There was a post here somewhere from someone who had watched the disc and
said it was 1:85. I can't find it, it's scrolled off my system.
But EXCUSE ME for asking! I promise never ever to enter your little world
again and disturb it with a question.
-- Paula
JoeS
> JoeS (me....@gte.net) wrote:
> : If you have the disc, why don't you see for yourself rather than making
> : assumptions based upon one piece of incorrect information?
> :
>
> There was a post here somewhere from someone who had watched the disc and
> said it was 1:85. I can't find it, it's scrolled off my system.
There has not been a single post from anyone who has seen the disc.
> But EXCUSE ME for asking! I promise never ever to enter your little world
> again and disturb it with a question.
You didn't ask a question. You took one person's observation of an erroneous
website listing and leapt to:
"it looks like it was released on DVD at 1:85. The question is: WHY? Anyone
have an answer?
Since it was shot on Super 35, I guess we're getting more, not less... but
I would have preferred the theatrical ratio."
That ain't a question. That's leaping to some conclusions based upon erroneous
information that you could have substantiated.
Joe
C
http://www.dvdempire.com/Graphics/Movies/27380bh.jpg
The dvd is a Disney/Buena Vista release.
"JoeS" <me....@gte.net> wrote in message news:3B1F9F7D...@gte.net...
Justin McGill
disc or not.. need to do some research on this one.. I did enjoy the movie
though.. although did I miss something? I recall the Cohen's talking about a
scene with Clooney drinking, then he launches into a "Popeye" in the take..
this is something they were apparently very excited about, but I don't
recall seeing it in the film.
Justin
"Norman Wilner" <xnwi...@xhome.xcom> wrote in message
news:ehOT6.51353$Be4.17...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
Slash
<xnwi...@xhome.xcom> scribbled:
Not sure if it helps, but the "DVD rip" DivX version floating around
is 2.35:1. :)
-Slash
--
"Ebert Victorious" - The Onion
Norman Wilner
news:l1i0itompa1f8ak46...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 16:53:55 GMT, "Norman Wilner"
> <xnwi...@xhome.xcom> scribbled:
>>"vila" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
>>news:ibGT6.13136$YB3.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>>>
>>> yeah well there are more sites than amazon and all of the
>>> ones Ive looked at list the disc at 1.85:1.
>>>
>>> This includes several review sites.
>>
>> The review sites may have posted the same erroneous information
>> to begin with, and never corrected it. I seem to remember some
>> confusion over Buena Vista's original retailer solicitation a couple
>> of months ago; both "O Brother" and "Unbreakable" were listed as
>> 1.85:1, when both films are actually 2.35:1.
>>
>> As I've yet to see a single review of the disc, I'm not worrying yet.
>
> is 2.35:1. :)
So was the Oscar screener sent out at Christmas. And Disney's retailer/press
site now lists a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, so I think this is really just much
ado about nothing.
ButtleNotTuttle
Wrong. I posted after I saw the disc at a local store. I just couldn't remember
what ratio it listed. I have seen it again and it is 2.35:1 enhanced.
Archie
ButtleNotTuttle
>http://www.dvdempire.com/Graphics/Movies/27380bh.jpg
>
>The dvd is a Disney/Buena Vista release.
This is the same as what I saw.
Archie
JoeS
You looked inside the box and saw the disc?
(Of course, I meant saw the movie played from the disc to verify the contents)
Joe
Norman Wilner
>
> Odd.. don't remember touchstone.. but, deciding whether I
> should get the disc or not.. need to do some research on this
> one.. I did enjoy the movie though.. although did I miss something?
> I recall the Cohen's talking about a scene with Clooney drinking,
> then he launches into a "Popeye" in the take.. this is something
> they were apparently very excited about, but I don't recall seeing
> it in the film.
It's not in the finished picture; it might have been something the Coens
wanted to keep, but couldn't, though I can't see how anything would appear
out of place in that movie.
Ricard
JoeS
> When I saw it in the theatre... oh, fuck it. I just don't give a damn.
Many theaters (including several I go to) incorrectly show 2.35:1 movies as
1.85:1. It's not enough to see how it's shown on your theater, unless they never
do this. You can sometimes spy some of the picture off the sides of the screen as
a tipoff.
Joe
JFMullin
Coen Brothers movie not to be shown in 1.85:1
--------------------------------------
John Mullin was voted
People Magazine's
'Sexiest Man Alive' in 1994.
--------------------------------------
ButtleNotTuttle
>contents)
I know.
Arch