When are the studios going to wise up and release a proper version of this great film? The only version currently available is the horrid pan-and-scan, cropped travesty. A Special Edition, widescreen with commentaries, and special features are mandatory.
Anyone know of a possible upgrade?
I hadn't seen this movie since it came out. I just bought it only to find out that its only Fullscreen. wtf? If they were going to pick only one format to release it in, they should've picked widescreen. But yeah, this movie is long overdue for a collectors edition.
shareI have no information about a widescreen version, but are you sure that this is pan and scan? Here's a discussion (archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/archive/index.php/t-540000.html) where a couple of people put forward the view that it's open matte, rather than pan and scan. Here is another discussion (www.dvdtalk.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-392317.html) where someone says that the DVD is open matte. But then there's this review (www.dvd.net.au/review.cgi?review_id=2278) that states that the DVD is the 1.66:1 hard-matted version with the edges cut off. If that's the case then only 10% of the picture on each side is cut off, which is less of a mutilation than a pan-and-scan version of a 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 film.
The laserdisc was apparently done in 1.66:1. If anyone out there has access to both the laserdisc and the DVD it would be easy enough to compare the two and once and for all answer this question. A little help?
-- TopFrog
technical specs page on IMDB says "1.85:1 (intended ratio)".
shareThe IMDb technical specs page also lists 1.37:1 as the negative ratio.
There are two basic ways to go from a 1.85:1 picture to 1.33:1 version for a standard TV screen. One is to keep the height of the picture the same as in 1.85:1 version, but to only show some of the width of the intended image. This is the dreaded pan-and-scan method, and it cuts out about 30% of the image in converting from 1.85:1 to 1.33:1.
The other method, open matte, involves keeping the all of the width of the image, but showing additional image material at the top and bottom. This material was on the original negative but was masked out (soft matted) when the film was shown. Adding this material back increases the height of the image by about 40%, making the resulting open-matte image 1.33:1. Since some widescreen TVs have a zoom feature that projects the middle portion of an image to the full 16:9 screen, it's possible to recover the 1.85:1 widescreen image, assuming that the matte was centered on the frame (which is not always the case).
I don't know, but I suspect that the DVD version of Fearless uses a hybrid of the above two methods. Apparently at least parts of the film were hard-matted, with a mask in the camera, to 1.66:1. This means that there is only enough material to increase the height by about 10% over that of the 1.85:1 theatrical presentation. In order to obtain the 1.33:1 ratio about 20% of the image width still needs to be chopped out. This results in some panning and scanning, but less than in the usual case.
Of course this is only my speculation, and it would be nice to get the full story from someone who can compare the 1.85:1 image to what is on the DVD.
-- TopFrog
From Doug Pratt's DVD-Video Guide (www.readfilm.com/DVDBook/DVDbook200.pdf): "The picture on Peter Weir's enigmatic 1993 feature is in cropped format, losing picture information on both sides in comparison to the 1.85:1 letterboxed LD and adding nothing to the top or bottom."
-- TopFrog
yes, I demand a proper anamorphic widescreen releases of this classic as well!!!!!
shareThat is wrong. The DVD is open matte, not pan-and-scan. I own a widescreen laserdisc (1.85:1 ratio), and have compared it to the DVD. The mattes on the laserdisc are removed for the DVD version. I still prefer to watch the laserdisc, though. It seems more cinematic that way.
shareThanks for clearing that up once and for all. Odd that there's so much dead wrong information out there.
-- TopFrog
what's wrong is that I own a widescreen television and want the film projected in the original cinema aspect ratio, not the bloody ugly 4x3 format (open matte or not)
shareErwin-6: If the DVD really is open-matte. Using the zoom-feature on your TV (provided it has one) would result in something very close to a widescreen version....
RIP Ian....
I just had the delightful pleasure of seeing Fearless in a brand new 35 mm print followed by a question and answer period with the cinematographer, Allen Daviau in San Rafael, California. He said since they have just done a Hi-Def transfer for tv (which I've seen on DirecTV recently too) he's sure a proper widescreen DVD version will follow sometime soon although he didn't know when. He decried the current pan-and-scan version out there now as crap, it's the only reason I haven't bought this film which is one of my favorites.
shareWhile I would welcome a new 16x9 Widescreen version of the DVD as well and would definitely buy it if it comes out, I don't agree with those who don't want to see it because it isn't the proper aspect ratio. It is a truly great film and you are shortchanging yourself by letting the aspect ratio become more important than the story and performances.
I have seen this film many times and it never fails to move me. I pity the video purists that can never seem to enjoy the most important aspect of a film which is the story and performances and let technical issues overwhelm everything else.