Does the Zooming on the new FRIDAY THE 13TH disc bother you?

Discussion in 'Site Polls' started by rhett, Feb 3, 2009.

?

How do you feel about the zoomed in image on the new FRIDAY THE 13TH discs?

Poll closed Mar 5, 2009.
  1. Unacceptable. I will not be buying until it is fixed.

    67 vote(s)
    51.5%
  2. Unfortunate, but I can't hold off buying any longer.

    28 vote(s)
    21.5%
  3. I don't really care either way.

    11 vote(s)
    8.5%
  4. It's noticable, but not that significant.

    18 vote(s)
    13.8%
  5. I can't even tell the difference.

    6 vote(s)
    4.6%
  1. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,675
    Likes Received:
    945
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    That's a brilliant idea actually, so I just tried it. I compared three screengrabs (one from the old 2004 release of Friday the 13th, the 2003 R2 of Friday the 13th (which has the same framing as the new DVD/blu-ray) and the original release of Friday the 13th, Part 2, in that order.

    [​IMG]
    Friday the 13th (2004 boxset release)
    [​IMG]
    Friday the 13th (2003 R2 release)
    [​IMG]
    Friday the 13th, Part 2 (1999 release)

    Well...I think we have our answer here. The screengrabs from Friday the 13th, Part 2 and the R2 of Friday the 13th show just about the same amount of image on the sides of the frame (the R2 actually shows a bit more) and the matting done on the R2 is set a bit higher than the Friday the 13th, Part 2 DVD, but more or less, the same "cropping". And the Paramount transfer from 2004 has completely different framing. Yeah, clearly the Paramount transfer is wrong.

    Shinya, good idea! :D

    ~Matt
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2009
  2. Kolpitz

    Kolpitz Purely and Simply Evil

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    1,503
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Boxborough, MA
    This won't change a thing, Matt, and you know it. Maybe if you worked for Paramount ... :D

    But, even still, all I have to say is ... OWNED!!
     
  3. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,675
    Likes Received:
    945
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    Yeah, probably not.

    ~Matt
     
  4. WesReviews

    WesReviews Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2001
    Messages:
    1,582
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Pikeville, KY
    Definitely owned.

    Maybe even p0wned.
     
  5. Kolpitz

    Kolpitz Purely and Simply Evil

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    1,503
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Boxborough, MA
    Totally p0wned
     
  6. SaviniFan

    SaviniFan I Have A Fetish

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    5,788
    Likes Received:
    373
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    On the cutting room floor.
  7. Mattapooh

    Mattapooh Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    946
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    St. John's, NL, Canada
    God love teh internetz!

    No seriously, REALLY good idea for a comparison and I think we have our near-definitive answer.

    Anyone still on the fence? GO BUY IT!

    Also, anyone from Paramount? GIVE US TEH MONEYZ!!
     
  8. bigdaddyhorse

    bigdaddyhorse Detroit Hi-on

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    12,508
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Under a rock
    The matching framing does not explain the extra picture on the sides. This would be the first case ever of a widescreen movie being filmed too wide, so it had to be cropped for theater and home video. I know about Apocalypse Now being trimmed to 2.00 from 2.35, but it was still 2.35 it theaters, and then we heard from the director saying there was wasted dead space and the home video was how he wanted it. I don't see dead space on this, where the fuck is that extra picture coming from?

    Use your heads, does this make any sense, really? Without Cunningham saying this is right, it's wrong to me.
     
  9. spawningblue

    spawningblue Deadite

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5,069
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    To be completely honest, considering those scenes from part 2, the uncut version may be the right way to see it. That being said, those screen shots don;t really 100% prove anything, as the Director for part 2 could have took any scenes from part 1 and edited then in anyway he saw fit, including the ratio.

    It would still be nice to hear from Cunningham or Paramount on the issue.
     
  10. Katatonia

    Katatonia Hellbound Heart

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Messages:
    20,601
    Likes Received:
    1,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Missouri
    That was my first thought as well. I've seen quite a few films that source scenes from early films and then re-frame them in slightly different ratios for that film.

    Otherwise the Blu-ray transfer looks very nice, but I still personally prefer the framing used on the old DVD's. Until Cunningham, or someone who honestly knows speaks up, we're just speculating here as to what the correct "framing" truly was. Then again, this is the unrated version of the film and not the theatrical version, so...

    Paramount could at least answer their emails and offer some type of official explanation here. :eek2:

    And this whole "YOU'RE STUPID!" shit (in not so many words) going on from both sides of the issue isn't helping anything here. We're only debating a simple framing issue here, and the answer is far from clear yet.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2009
  11. spawningblue

    spawningblue Deadite

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5,069
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    Yeah the way I see it, it's not the end of the world either way. It still would be nice for an official explanation though, but whether that happens or not... But yeah, this will not stop me from buying the ultimate box set that is apparently in the works. I'm more worried about them including the 3-D version of part 3 on Blu Ray, as well as all the previous and new extras. The theatrical version of part 1 would be nice as well, maybe with the ratio that we all remember...
     
  12. MrKateB

    MrKateB Asshole Extraordinaire

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    not wanting to come across like I'm insulting anyone here--either their preferences, their opinions or otherwise, because I think everyone here has a valid reason to be feeling the way they do...but:

    The guy that has the YouTube rant-n-rave, referenced a few pages ago? I was going to post something snarky about him taking up the cause because he looks just like Jason from Pt. 1 until I read a user comment on the YouTube site from someone who told him that he sounded like Piglet from Disney's Winnie-the-Pooh, and was trying very hard to assure him it was a good thing....("Oh Dear! Oh Dear!").....

    To those who are comparing a re-framing of Friday the 13th to a re-framing of anything by Hitchcock or Kubrick, or many of the true cinema classics mentioned by Mattapooh and a couple of others...Friday the 13th is one of my favorites, and will always have a special place in my memory as it was the first R rated film I ever saw in theaters, having tricked my parents into taking me to see it...But, you know, it's really not quite the same sort of thing...It's not in the same league, never will be, and I mean that more in terms of cinematography merit as opposed to a budgetary one...True enough, I prefer versions of movies that are true to the original release etc., and don't care for the trend of updated effects & tinkering going on, but based on the quality of the screenshots I see here and at the other sites it looks like Paramount has really improved the film quality immensely with the transfer they've produced, they've given it a real depth I've not seen before, and it does sparkle like a brand new film. The only thing that did kind of bug me was the shot in which the canoe Alice is sleeping in--it looks like it's been wiped out of frame, and that's a very iconic shot...Still and all, prior to now it's all been about the bastards at Paramount holding back on an R1 uncut version, and how rotten it all was, this evil thing they're doing to piss off F13 fans...Well, as it turns out, they weren't able to do anything about it until recently due to rights with Warner...They've now produced an R1 uncut transfer, and one that really does truly look amazing to me at least, and now suddenly it's all about the bastards at Paramount again because now they've eliminated an inch of water or a few weeds on the sidelines....The movie will never be the same again if I can't gaze upon Pine Tree #1034...for that is the one that I always used to look at during that one scene with the truck going around the corner....Dammit it all to hell---Those Paramount Bastards...Pine Tree, I will never forget you.

    A major upgrade in visual quality and delivering more gore (which always seemed to be primarily what it was ever really all about) totally overrides the loss of a bit of flora and fauna, water, Harry Crosby's feet or whatever (TRULY--I remember a forum post once where the whole issue was that Harry Crosby's feet were cut out of the beach scene, "and that meant there could be OTHER things wrong too"...never did figure out why that had made all the difference for these people, but I guess it just further proves that we all have our own preferences and perceptions about what should & shouldn't be in a shot, and that's what makes some people directors and others auteurs perhaps)

    Anyway, I'll shut up, really am not wanting to go off, I get the points made about "a cut is a cut" and all, and I guess wanting some sort of formal statement made could in some way bring about closure to those who mourn the "lost footage" (literally, in the case of the Harry Crosby fan)...

    Essentially though, if I understand correctly, we are dealing with two "original" versions of the same film, the one seen back in 1980 in the U.S., and the one that was released overseas by Warner Bros. I am not sure, but I don't think anyone has stopped to realize that we could, in some way, consider ourselves fortunate that we now have access to digitally remastered versions of both, one has been given a serious makeover that makes it look like it was filmed yesterday, and the other not looking too shabby either, with some decent extras. AND, to boot, for those who picked it up initially, a third version that could have possibly been prepared for Home Box Office or Showtime back when they were both much bigger deals than they are now, or simply as someone put it, a weird hybrid that gives you more at first than taketh away at the end (Annie/Voorhees alternates).....

    Damn those Paramount bastards, always sticking it to the F13 people...

    With all the crap happening around the globe these days though, I really just can't give a shit, and I'm actually surprised and thankful that they bothered to pursue the uncut #1 30 years later, as WELL as a decent remaster of #2, and even deliver a special treat for those who never saw it theatrically, a 3-D version of #3.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2009
  13. Katatonia

    Katatonia Hellbound Heart

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Messages:
    20,601
    Likes Received:
    1,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Missouri
    Exactly, and it appears that Paramount simply used the source from the R2 release. I think what people are wondering is, how much does the framing differ from the original "rated" version of the film as theatrically shown here in North America.

    If the "rated" version had the same theatrical framing originally as the "unrated" version, then problem solved. Otherwise, why the difference in zooming...with a minor 10 second difference between the versions? Who decided on that decision: the filmmakers, the studio(s): Paramount or Warner, or a telecine operator somewhere down the line? It's enough of a noticeable difference to question how and why it happened, and as to what framing the filmmakers originally intended. Sure, we can sit here and say "the framing looks better" or "it appears that Paramount got it right this time" on this or that version...which ultimately proves nothing and boils down to personal opinion.

    I consider myself neutral and unsure of which version (if either) is the correctly framed version. I simply want to obtain the facts on the matter, whatever they may be, and thus far Paramount and the filmmakers remain silent on the issue. :eek2:
     
  14. SaviniFan

    SaviniFan I Have A Fetish

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    5,788
    Likes Received:
    373
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    On the cutting room floor.
    At this point I really don't care about the facts of the framing. All I know is the blu-ray looks great, and I'm going to enjoy it. I seriously doubt I'll double dip on the title on blu just to see Pine Tree #1034 as MrKateB so eloquently put it.
     
  15. Mutilated Prey

    Mutilated Prey Soul Stealer

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    6,458
    Likes Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Texarkana
    I can't believe we're still talking about this :lol:
     
  16. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,675
    Likes Received:
    945
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    I guess the reason is because we really haven't received a definitive answer from either the filmmakers, Paramount or Warner. Personally, I'm leaning more towards Paramount's original transfer being wrong and the new transfer/Warner release being the right one. I'm perfectly content with the new blu-ray. The movie looks astounding, and the framing is perfectly fine, it's not like it was misframed or anything.

    ~Matt
     
  17. Mutilated Prey

    Mutilated Prey Soul Stealer

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    6,458
    Likes Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Texarkana
    Exactly my point. Mainly, the Blu looks great and until I hear from filmmakers, Paramount, Warner or whomever I'm gonna move on. Whatever they have to say will indeed be interesting, but it's not going to really change anything about how I feel about the current situation.
     
  18. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,675
    Likes Received:
    945
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    Precisely. People are making such a huge deal of this, and comparing them to "what if they did it to a Hitchcock film?" There's no comparison there. Hitchcock was an auteur filmmaker, Sean S. Cunningham is FAR from one. I doubt he had much cinematography in mind when they made the film, they only made the movie to make money. (Victor Miller even said in an interview that Cunningham came up to him and said, "Halloween's doing very well...let's rip it off.") Cinematography was at the back of their minds when they were making this movie, this is why the whole framing issue doesn't really matter to me. The movie's so amateurish anyway that this hardly seems like it should even be up for debate.

    ~Matt
     
  19. Rocker10

    Rocker10 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    458
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I had to say unacceptable although I had already made my purchase via Amazon. My hatred for Paramount is climbing to new levels. 'Lets make it uncut, but fuck it up with a zoom'. Paramount is hands down one of the worst studios doing home video. This also applies to their splitting TV on DVD into half seasons, etc. *shakes fist*
     
  20. Erick H.

    Erick H. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    63
    My guess is that the film was framed in 1:85 for U.S. theatrical release(the most common ratio in the States) and 1:78 for overseas issues (this often happens,1:78 is a more common theatrical ratio abroad than it is here).There are numerous examples of domestic DVDs framed at 1:85 while the PAL releases in the U.K. are 1:78,it is likely that these films simply WERE framed at 1:78 when they ran in England and some other countries.Go to sites like DVD Compare and check some ratio differences sometime,it happens a lot.

    Since this disc was seemingly made from a European source (the Warner Bros. print),they may simply have kept the framing that was most common over there.It's gonna look a little tighter than the 1:85.Unless Paramount or Cunningham steps up and says that this was intentional or accidental,it might well just be a case of ''either/or",we can see it in HD uncut in a European ratio(slightly tighter) or see the versions we have had access to for years ,trimmed for content but slightly wider.I doubt that Paramount had no choice in the matter (if the original negative still exists).Even if the unrated material only existed in a 1:78 print (with no original negative material in existance) they could still likely have reinserted the cut scenes like the new MY BLOODY VALENTINE did,the inserts would just have been tighter framed.They probably just didn't think anybody would care about the tighter framing.

    I mentioned this earlier but I'll say it again,lots of 1:85 (theatrical screening) films end up as 1:78 on BLU RAY.Perhaps they are just ''filling the frame" for viewers with high def TV's.Nobody has ever given me a definitive answer as to whether this is just a common practice.
     

Share This Page