Is the Back to the Future Trilogy DVD box set "rerelease" fixed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kumiko Nikaido

Vindication...sweet.
B00006AL1E.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg


Universal Studios will be rereleasing the Back to the Future Trilogy DVD box set on Jan. 25th with a new low price of $19.99. The question is, is this reissue a fixed version of the widescreen edition that supposedly wasn't presented in true "widescreen"?

I remember people complaining about the initial release of the box set saying that the widescreen version was messed-up in that it wasn't present in a true letterbox aspect ratio, and that the image was simply overlayed with top and bottom black bars.

But for the $20 rerelease price, I'm gonna jump on this now. :D
 
One of them, they fake widescreened wrong, too high, so at times your totally seeing not only fake widescreen, but like the top left corner so you couldn't see parts you are supposed to be seeing. Stupid.
 
I believe it was fixed a while ago but the only way to tell was by a new barcode number; I'm sure that they would keep the fixed version in this reissue.

PS, fucking sweet, I had no idea that they were reissing this set for that price. I've been holding off on getting it.
 
http://www.bttf.com/backtalk/20041206-bttf-dvd-reprice.shtml

Yes. But you should confirm it by looking for the V2 mark on the barcode on the back. That's the only way you'll know for sure that you're getting the fixed versions.

Also, there have been strong rumors of a new 20th anniversary set at the end of the year, or at least a new release of the first film. No confirmations, but there seems to be some evidence that they're trying to clear inventory of this release and milk people one last time.
 
Dan said:
http://www.bttf.com/backtalk/20041206-bttf-dvd-reprice.shtml

Yes. But you should confirm it by looking for the V2 mark on the barcode on the back. That's the only way you'll know for sure that you're getting the fixed versions.

Also, there have been strong rumors of a new 20th anniversary set at the end of the year, or at least a new release of the first film. No confirmations, but there seems to be some evidence that they're trying to clear inventory of this release and milk people one last time.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip. I eagerly await a supreme 20th anniversary edition.
 
sykoex said:
The movie was originally shot in fullscreen. They say it in the commentary.
Click to expand...

Most movies are originally shot "in fullscreen." The director just has a rectangle set up around the screen to tell where his theatrical shot will be. There are Cinemascope cameras that they can use to shoot in widescreen, but they usually don't. This is why sometimes when you're watching a fullscreen version that was made from just releasing the full view, you'll end up with what look like poorly framed shots, or booms visible.
 
DarthWoo said:
Most movies are originally shot "in fullscreen." The director just has a rectangle set up around the screen to tell where his theatrical shot will be. There are Cinemascope cameras that they can use to shoot in widescreen, but they usually don't. This is why sometimes when you're watching a fullscreen version that was made from just releasing the full view, you'll end up with what look like poorly framed shots, or booms visible.
Click to expand...

Umm.... No.

Almost all movies are shot in Widescreen, then cropped down to fit the 4:3.
Some movies are shot in the full frame, like Air Force One.

Widescreen:
airforceone3.jpg


Fullscreen (aka how it was originally shot):
airforceone4.jpg
 
DarthWoo said:
Most movies are originally shot "in fullscreen." The director just has a rectangle set up around the screen to tell where his theatrical shot will be. There are Cinemascope cameras that they can use to shoot in widescreen, but they usually don't. This is why sometimes when you're watching a fullscreen version that was made from just releasing the full view, you'll end up with what look like poorly framed shots, or booms visible.
Click to expand...
Ya like the widescreen version of the Buffy TV show. Some scenes you see the crew off to the sides, not even caring that they are in the shot because they aren't supposed to be in the shot. And the classic one where the guy who plays Xander leans over a gaping hole. The reason why it's classic is because when they made the widescreen DVD's, you could see one of the stagehands holding his pants so he wouldn't fall in. You also see asscrack because of that.
 
Bog said:
Anyone have a list of movies shot in fullframe?
Click to expand...
Here is a list of films shot in fullframe 35mm. Note however, that not all of these were then projected in a different ratio, and those that were weren't all projected in 1.85:1. This list is also anything but exhaustive, and I have a feeling it has errors just like the rest of IMDB.

Near as I can tell, T3 was shot in 35mm anamorphic, meaning a 2.35:1 image squeezed horizontally into a 1.37:1 ratio on the negative.
 
shit, for $19.99, im there. Isn't that glitch just in one scene anyway? If thats the case, i could care less, i'll probably not even notice it.
 
Some points to be corrected in this thread (and I didn't bother reading too much, so sue me for duplication):

True, this was corrected a while ago, but until now, it has only been made available to those who sent the discs in through Universal's replacement program.

This is the only time it's going to be made available through the retail outlet, before it gets pulled in June.

The BTTF movies was shot hard-matted, I believe, so you wouldn't get more information in an open matte, full frame transfer. You'd get less.

The problem is that some engineer fell asleep at the switch when the 2nd and 3rd movies were being transfered, and so the shots where visual effects took place, had incorrect framing. It was like letterboxing the letterboxed version. Chopping off too much information.

It's "I couldn't care less." :p
 
Error Macro said:
Some points to be corrected
Click to expand...
Ditto. :)
The BTTF movies was shot hard-matted, I believe, so you wouldn't get more information in an open matte, full frame transfer. You'd get less.
Click to expand...
Half and half. In most shots you get more footage. In effects shots you get less, since they only worked the effects into the 16:9 version and thus must crop those for a 4:3 result.

The problem is that some engineer fell asleep at the switch when the 2nd and 3rd movies were being transfered, and so the shots where visual effects took place, had incorrect framing. It was like letterboxing the letterboxed version. Chopping off too much information.
Click to expand...
As well as including some needless information. For instance one of the best-known examples of screw-uppery is when Marty's 2015 jacket auto-fits on him. We don't get a clear shot of his arms and hands, but if you love the wall they're standing in front of... well then it's your lucky day!
 
I got the region 2/4 release, haven’t noticed anything wrong the discs look different from the one’s depicted in the FAQ but no V2 on them!

I will go check it out now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Drew Struzan, artist of 150 iconic film posters for Star Wars, Back to the Future, Blade Runner, passes away at 78
43
199
jason10mm replied
Star Wars Original Trilogy Theatrical Version restoration in the works
2
54
251
kevboard replied
"The Simpsons 2" is officially in the works and set to release in theaters on July 23, 2027.
News  2
60
461
Codes 208 replied
No Back To The Future 4
2
52
4K
Quasicat replied
The search for MH370 is back
18
1K
Hookshot replied
Top Bottom