For those of you who have a widescreen television, I suggest you check out this little gem. Be sure to pay close attention to those little knawing teeth and strobelike bites. You can see more of Piranha now in it's full glory!.
Thank you IFC.
[deleted]
It's just matted off in a way Dante feels is unnecessary. You're not getting any added picture.
share
Reality Check Kabumpo ! The DVD is matted off and so are the others in the Roger Corman Collection. Death Race 2000 is great and it is not the WS version either. So somethings wrong with this picture...I was speaking of the ACTUAL film ran on IFC, NOT the dvd realease of a few years ago.
Dante said himself the mattes are inappropriate, and unless the sides are corpped on the DVD, whcih it doesn't look like, a matted picture would look excessively tight--lots of tops of heads cut off.
shareI'm watching the film right now on French channel Cine FX in original 1.85:1 version, not dubbed, with French subtitles. Boy I haven't seen this film for years. Great fun!
shareYes u are getting more of the picture when they showed it on IFC they showed the film in it's Original 1.85:1 Anaphormic Widescreen Aspect Ratio. I recorded that version on IFC I have a DVD Recorder I compared it to the 2000 Concorde 50th Anniversary Special Edition DVD that I just got on eBay u are missing alot of the left & right sides on The one on the real DVD. The sides are cropped off it is in Pan & Scan which means it was re-formatted to fit ur t.v. The one IFC runs is not cropped & the whole picture is present. I compared them both together I have 2 T.V.'s in my room I put them both on at the same time & compared them The one on the Concorde DVD is missing the sides of the picture which means it was cropped to fit on ur television screen. The Pan & Scan Version. The IFC one has more on the sides of the picture showing which is the whole aspect ratio of 1.85:1 Concorde should of put that one on their DVD not the crummy Pan & Scan Version. I am a huge Corman fan & also I like Joe Dante he is one of the best Directors around. Still The extras on The Concorde 2000 DVD are really nice though anyway.
share[deleted]
I'm watching it right now on IFC and it's still widescreen...they've been showing it all weekend, probably because it's Halloween. Classic!
shareWhy is the DVD not in widescreen? WTF?
http://www.originaltrilogy.com/
http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=169370
Want to watch the full screen DVD in widescreen? Put duct tape on the top and bottom of your screen. In this case, that's all the widescreen version is. That's also how it was masked in the theatrical run. For me I appreciate the unseen stuff on the top and bottom.
In some movies you end up seeing the boom mics and microphones taped to people's shirts when the film is shown unmasked, cool stuff like that.
Oh brother, where is Joe Dante to clear up this mess. I have both versions of the film and you can see things on the sides in the widescreen that you can't on the full screen.
Oh brother, where is Joe Dante to clear up this mess. I have both versions of the film and you can see things on the sides in the widescreen that you can't on the full screen.
Is it true what some people are saying that the movie was filmed in fullscreen and cropped for the theatrical release? I'm seeing conflicting reports.
http://www.originaltrilogy.com/
http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=169370
New Horizons did the same thing with Roger Corman's Humanoids From The Deep. They said it wasn't shot in widescreen, but then a beautiful anamorphic widescreen DVD of Humanoids was released in Japan under the original title Monster. I ordered it and you do get more picture on the sides and it looks like nothing is cut off the top or bottom.
If you hear some commentaries on these DVDs by older filmmakers, most of them give incorrect information or don't remember most things on their own movies!!
it says this in the insert that came in the dvd case "In preparing for the re-release, one question loomed larger than most - should this film be released in a letter-boxed version? The definitive answer comes directly from Joe Dante who explains that the movie was originally filmed in "full frame" ratios,meaning the entire image fits on your television screen without the need for annoying panning and scanning." so if you get a widescreen version of this movie your not gaining any picture on the sides, but your actually losing picture on the top and bottom. also when they showed this movie in theaters they had to crop of the top and bottom of the picture to make it fit the widescreen in the movie theaters. peopole are mistaken if they think piranha was shot in widescreen.Joe Dante shot all his old movies in 1:33:3 the howling,gremlins 1 and 2,etc.You gotta remeber this was one of his first movies and his first movie that became a major hit,so I doubt he would honestly forget how he shot it.you also gotta remember all of Roger Corman's movies are low buget,they wouldnt of had the buget to use a 1:85:1 or 2:35:1 lens.Joe Dante shot it in fullscreen.he said so himself in the commentary.also John Sayles was present with him in the commentary.he is the producer of this movie.I doubt the director and the producer could both be wrong about the aspect ratio.peolple can argue all they want but Im personally sticking with the full screen version because this is how Joe Dante shot it and this is how he wanted it to be seen.if you go with the widescreen your losing picture and your not watching this movie the way it was intended to be seen.the widescreen version destroys Joe Dantes vision.
shareThen how come u are missing the right & left sides on The Full Screen Version? As I said I compared them both. Who gives a crap about the top & bottom no one looks there when watching a movie I look at the sides. They hardly cut any off the top & bottom anyway they cut alot more off the sides. U are right about that cause I noticed that on It Came From Beneath The Sea (1955) Ray Harryhausen Sci-Fi Classic when I compared the Columbia Tri-Star Widescreen 1.85:1 DVD to the Fullscreen 1.33:1 Version. Which was obviosuly panned & scanned. For the 1.85:1 Version They must of just had to cut some of the top & bottom off to fit it in the theater screen. Like u said they did with Piranha. I am just curious why u are missing the right & left sides on the Full Screen Version unlesss it was Panned & Scanned. Also 1.85:1 isn't expensive to shoot. Your gravley wrong that is how they shot One Dark Night (1983) a B Horror Movie & Low Budget too like Piranha (1978). Attack Of The Giant Leeches (1959) & The Giant Gila Monster (1959) 2 B-Grade 50's Drive-Inn Low Budget Sci-Fi Films were both shot in 1.85:1 also so don't tell me that is expensive. 2.35:1 Letter-Boxed Format is the only expensive screen format. There are even cheaper scopes for that ratio. Corman did all of his 60's Poe Horror Films for A.I.P. in 2.35:1 & they were low budget as I heard on The Audio Commentary for House Of Usher. Which is on The MGM Midnite Movies DVD Double Feature of The Fall Of The House Of Usher (1960) & The Pit And The Pendulum (1961). Which I own. So I think Dante is possibly mistaken & Piranha was shot in 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 & I say 1.85:1 So I mentioned three other Low Budget Films shot in 1.85:1 & that aspect ratio is not expensive the one scope process of 2.35:1 which was Cinemascope was expensive who knows what it is called now though. I just got that Piranha DVD on eBay as I said on my above comment. I heard some of the Audio Commentary the first 10 or 15 mins. I put it on when I was going to sleep. The movie starts off in Full Screen then when the credits come on it has the black bars on top & bottom the Widescreen bars why are they present then? Dante even says & is wondering why those Bars are there he obviously can't remember what format he shot it in. The bars wouldn't appear at all unless the movie was shot in a Widescreen Format. Most movies start off with the credits & Black Bars are present then it switches to Full Screen that means the movie was Panned & Scanned. In some cases movies don't start with credits Piranha in this case. It starts off in Full Screen then when the credits come on the bars appear presevering the theatrical aspect ratio with the Credits. So it seems to me the movie starts in Pan & Scan then switches to the original aspect ratio of Widescreen with the credits then goes back to Pan & Scan. This isn't the first I have seen other movies that switch like this so. I say the movie was filmed in 1.85:1 I will listen to the rest of that Audio Commentary but I doubt Dante says anything else about what format the movie was shot in.
shareWho gives a crap about the top & bottom no one looks there when watching a movie I look at the sides...
I said nothing about cutting off top & bottom to fit on a Widescreen T.V. no such thing as a Widescreen T.V. A T.V. Screen is Full Screen a square box picture. However the movie is on the DVD is how the T.V. Shows it. I said on some movies they have to cut off a little bit of the top & bottom to fit the whole screen in the movie theater thus the case with Piranha. As the guy said. Well know one knows how Piranha was shot this site says 1.85:1 which I think is correct. Although I was looking at other movies Specifications some of the aspect ratios are wrong they have listed. I wanna see it as the way it was seen in theaters not some crummy cropped version to fit on ur television screen which that is called Panning & Scanning. When a movie is filmed in a larger aspect ratio then 1.33:1 or 1.37:1 It is in Anaphormic Widescreen or Letter-Box. 1.33:1 & 1.37:1 are the only 2 Full Screen Formats I know of.
shareI said nothing about cutting off top & bottom to fit on a Widescreen T.V. no such thing as a Widescreen T.V....
...A T.V. Screen is Full Screen a square box picture. However the movie is on the DVD is how the T.V. Shows it. I said on some movies they have to cut off a little bit of the top & bottom to fit the whole screen in the movie theater thus the case with Piranha...
Who gives a crap about the top & bottom no one looks there when watching a movie I look at the sides...
it says this in the insert that came in the dvd case "In preparing for the re-release, one question loomed larger than most - should this film be released in a letter-boxed version? The definitive answer comes directly from Joe Dante who explains that the movie was originally filmed in "full frame" ratios,meaning the entire image fits on your television screen without the need for annoying panning and scanning." so if you get a widescreen version of this movie your not gaining any picture on the sides, but your actually losing picture on the top and bottom. also when they showed this movie in theaters they had to crop of the top and bottom of the picture to make it fit the widescreen in the movie theaters. peopole are mistaken if they think piranha was shot in widescreen.Joe Dante shot all his old movies in 1:33:3 the howling,gremlins 1 and 2,etc.You gotta remeber this was one of his first movies and his first movie that became a major hit,so I doubt he would honestly forget how he shot it.you also gotta remember all of Roger Corman's movies are low buget,they wouldnt of had the buget to use a 1:85:1 or 2:35:1 lens.Joe Dante shot it in fullscreen.he said so himself in the commentary.also John Sayles was present with him in the commentary.he is the producer of this movie.I doubt the director and the producer could both be wrong about the aspect ratio.peolple can argue all they want but Im personally sticking with the full screen version because this is how Joe Dante shot it and this is how he wanted it to be seen.if you go with the widescreen your losing picture and your not watching this movie the way it was intended to be seen.the widescreen version destroys Joe Dantes vision.
That's a lie though on the DVD of Piranha it is Panned & Scanned u are missing alot the sides. I am referring u back to this too since u wanna use that dumb asses comment. 1.85:1 isn't expensive to shoot. Your gravley wrong that is how they shot One Dark Night (1983) a B Horror Movie & Low Budget too like Piranha (1978). Attack Of The Giant Leeches (1959) & The Giant Gila Monster (1959) 2 B-Grade 50's Drive-Inn Low Budget Sci-Fi Films were both shot in 1.85:1 also so don't tell me that is expensive. 2.35:1 Letter-Boxed Format is the only expensive screen format. There are even cheaper scopes for that ratio. Corman did all of his 60's Poe Horror Films for A.I.P. in 2.35:1 & they were low budget as I heard on The Audio Commentary for House Of Usher. Which is on The MGM Midnite Movies DVD Double Feature of The Fall Of The House Of Usher (1960) & The Pit And The Pendulum (1961). Which I own. So I think Dante is possibly mistaken & Piranha was shot in 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 & I say 1.85:1 So I mentioned three other Low Budget Films shot in 1.85:1 & that aspect ratio is not expensive the one scope process of 2.35:1 which was Cinemascope was expensive who knows what it is called now though. Piranha wasn't shot in Full Screen. Cause if that is the case then why do the black bars appear during the credits? Cause it was shot in a Widescreen Format that's why. In Widescreen u are not missing any picture at all. If the movie was shot in any Widescreen u are not missing the picture & I never heard of a Widescreen t.v. that makes no sense. If a movie is shot in a Widescreen Format or Letter-Box Format but u get ahold of a copy of it in Full Screen then the movie was Panned & Scanned to fit on ur t.v. which sucks u are missing alot of the picture then. Yeah those Widescreen Plasma T.V.'s are stupid & make no sense to have so that was just dumb. No need for them. This will blown ur mind too a 1959 B Movie called The Alligator People (1959) was shot in Cinemascope 2.35:1 Letter-Box Format not missing any of the picture either. 20th Century Fox distributed that film & they also put out the DVD too & that is a Low Budget B Film so tell me another *beep* story about people that do low budget not affording 2.35:1 or 1.85:1. I just wanna see movies as they were shown in theaters that's all I care about & Piranha was shown in 1.85:1 in Theaters maybe it wasn't shot that way but that is how it was shown in theaters so. Obviously Dante didn't preffer that version that's why he choose to put it out on DVD in 1.33:1 Panned & Scanned. Missing the sides but not the top & bottom. Good movie but Ray Harryhausen's films are 100 times better It Came From Beneath The Sea (1955), Earth vs. The Flying Saucers (1956) & 20 Million Miles To Earth (1957)were all released on DVD by Columbia Tri-Star in 1.85:1 Anaphormic Widescreen & I compared the 1.85:1 Widescreen Version of It Came From Beneath The Sea (1955) to the 1.33:1 Full Screen Version. U are actually missing some of the top on the Widescreen Version & that doesn't bother me that's the way it was ment to be seen or wouldn't have been put on DVD that way same with the other Harryhause Films never checked probably missing some of the tops on those too. They choose the Theatrical Versions to put on the DVD's not the Full Screen Versions. 20 Million Miles To Earth (1957) actually has both versions on that DVD. And u choose on the menu & there is a picture of both versions next to each other the full screen version sucks it shows the bridge part when the Ymir is in front of the bride on the full screen version u are missing some of the soilders they are cut off not on the 1.85:1 they are all there. So with Full Screen Pan & Scan u are missing people not just objects Last Supper example would u rather see 6 Diciples or 12? 6 with Pan & Scan. 12 with Widescreen. All Movies before 1953 though were all shot in 1.33:1 Full Screen or 1.37:1 Full Screen even after 1953 some movies were still shot in those Full Screen Formats. More in Widescreen & Letter-Box Formats though. I just like to see movies as they were shown in Theaters that's all.
OK-Let's end this. When told about Dante's fuzzy recollection of format, Spielberg said that Joe probably shot Piranha in 1:79 ratio. At that time those were the cameras used in most Roger Corman pictures (Death Race2000 etc.)during the 70's. He said don't quote him though. He hasn't talked to Joe in quite a while.
"we are the muzik makers. and we are the dreamers of dreams."
Films weren't shot for T.V. They were shot for a silver screen that is now the same shape as most of our television screens. Kubricks decision was just that. A decision. He wasn't thinking of widescreen t.v.- He was trying to accomodate our full screen televisions that we used to have in our homes. Rest in peace, Stanley. We miss your vision.
share
"if you go with the widescreen your losing picture and your not watching this movie the way it was intended to be seen.the widescreen version destroys Joe Dantes vision."
Steven Spielberg told me that you are full of sh**t! Besides, anyone who watches Turner Classic Movies, knows full well the truth to the bullcrap you are spreading on this thread about what you know and what the director says about his film! Pleease explain to us, smart guy, why the titles are widescreen on the DVD and the rest of the film is not?
The Bars are on the credits cause the movie was filmed in a Widescreen Format 1.79:1 as u said which I never even heard of that aspect ratio but it is a Widescreen Format. *beep* Steven Spielberg he is not that great of a Director. And I watch Turner Classic Movies on a regular basis I record movies off their all the time. I have a DVD Recorder & that statement made no sense they don't show Piranha on TCM.
share[deleted]
Piranha was filmed in widescreen. It's very possible that Dante forget this as he filmed the movie over 30 years ago. On the commentary, his recollection of certain details was hazy.
Another thing. If you own an original full screen version (not the re-released New Concorde version), the opening credits are cut off so you can't read all the names. Now, on the newer versions (both DVD and VHS), the opening credits are presented in widescreen so you can read the full names.
http://myspace.com/crazyjimfilms
Click here to read my scripts!
I doubt that Dante would have forgot how he shot this movie.this was the first movie of his that became a major hit.also when companies make dvds they use the original film negative.so they would have known if this movie was suposed to be widescreen or fullscreen.the insert that came in the dvd case reads "In preparing for the re-release, one question loomed larger than most - should this film be released in a letter-boxed version? The definitive answer comes directly from Joe Dante who explains that the movie was originally filmed in "full frame" ratios,meaning the entire image fits on your television screen without the need for annoying panning and scanning." since they used the original film negatives why didnt they release it in widescreen if it was shot that way and then lie to the public and say that the original film negatives of this movie are in fullscreen?
sharethis topic has been dead for a while now.does that mean I finally stopped the argument between everyone.
shareWhatever I say Piranha was shot in Widescreen 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 that's why on the credits the bars appear on it. The movie starts in Pan & Scan Full Screen 1.33:1 then when the credits start the bars appear & then when they are done it switches back to Pan & Scan Full Screen 1.33:1 so I say it was shot in an Anaphormic Widescreen 1.78:1 or 1.85:1
shareFilm4 in UK shows Piranha in widescreen. And its free to view for digital viewers :)
shareSayles was the writer, NOT the producer. Roger Corman exec produced, and future Robocop exec producer Jon Davidson produced.
http://www.originaltrilogy.com/
http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=169370
[deleted]