PDA

View Full Version : Back to the Future DVD fake widescreen???



derek
12-19-2002, 04:25 PM
http://rpf.prop-planet.com/viewtopic.php?topic=31683&forum=2&start=25

it appears the widescreen versions of the Back to the future DVD's aren't really widescreen, but pan and scan versions that have been cropped. if this is true, it stinks. paramount is supposed to be releasing replacement discs in february.

anyone got this set yet? i may wait to get it now.

Dr Zoltar
12-19-2002, 04:38 PM
Could you post the message here? The link takes you to a web site where you have to register to read any of the posts.

And does anyone know what makes up the deleted scenes on the 3 dvds?

Beast
12-19-2002, 04:39 PM
Ok, first of all it's not fake widescreen. BTTF 2 and BTTF 3 were improperly matted for widescreen on the DVD release. Both films are 1:85.1 Aspect ratio movies. Typically those movies are shot flat, full frame with widescreen in mind. The director composites the shots in the camera when he films.

Then when the films are projected, they are soft matted with the black bars for widescreen presentation. This is how the director intends for the movie to be seen. This matting usually hides things that shouldn't be seen, like boom microphones and wires and tubes used to do the in camera effects.

The special effects with the Delorian, are filmed in widescreen, so that when they open up the mattes for a full frame presentation, the special effects shots have to be zoomed and pan/scanned to fit the full frame.

All that happened with the release was, the bars were placed in the wrong areas. The most obvious is that they hid the power-sizing jacket and the power-drying jacket effects. They also cut off Marty at the ankles when he's on the hoverboard in some shots. They will be re-matting the films in their original theatrical aspect ratios, and replacement copies will be availbale in Febuary directly from Universal. Call 1-888-703-0010 for the replacement info. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

El Chuxter
12-19-2002, 04:44 PM
I've not had a chance to watch the DVD's yet, though I opened them up already. How bad would you (or anyone who's watched them) say the error is?

Beast
12-19-2002, 04:52 PM
El Chuxter, I've seen the comparison pictures of how the old LD looked and how the new DVD looks. It's not terrible, the matting was just improperly placed on the few scenes I mentioned above. Check the following link, for a couple pictures that compare the proper matting to the new improper version. :)

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=112569

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

El Chuxter
12-19-2002, 05:48 PM
Yikes! :eek: You consider that "not terrible"? It looks to me like an official mockery of a travesty of two shams. Missing quite a bit on all sides of the image. I think I'll definitely be requesting a replacement. :(

Beast
12-19-2002, 05:55 PM
It's not terrible, compared to some things I've seen. Trust me on that one. Nice to see that Universal is replacing things, but it would have been nicer if they had announced the mistake before the DVD's came out. After this and the ET BS, Universal gets a big thumbs down for this year. :p :(

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

JediTricks
12-19-2002, 05:59 PM
Yikes!!! That's totally unacceptable, first the "web extras" crap and now this. :mad: At least Universal is doing replacements, but this is still a shame.

derek
12-19-2002, 06:47 PM
dr. zoltar,

the link jar jar posted shows the same photos as the link i posted.:)

jar jar,

i really don't understand the technical side of all this, but i know what i see, and it dosen't look good. those pics we both linked to makes it obvious that something ain't right.:)

i've heard some say after viewing the widescreen and pan and scan versions, in this case, pan and scan is actually better.

haven't some other movies been artificially cropped into widescreen from pan and scan versions?

and if the director shoots the film in fullscreen, and then crops it into a widescreen looking film, isn't that kinda false? i always thought widescreen used a different type of film or camera or something??? i remember kevin smith, in the dogma or Jay&SB commentary saying he took heat for filming in "scope". is that a form of widescreen?

good shot jansen
12-19-2002, 07:50 PM
i called the number which jjb had provided,

the information offered by the universal customer rep is as follows;

you are to mail the dvd's (not the case, just the dvd's) to the following address, along with a letter explaining your reason for returning the dvd's for replacement, as well as your return shipping info.

"back to the future" dvd return
p.o. box 224468
dallas, tx 75260

don't forget to include your address so that they know where to send the dvd replacement discs

the replacement discs will be available late february, 2003

you can also try sending an e-mail to the following address to see if they will respond with better information;

universalstudios&dreamworks@leemarketing.com

. (personally, this whole whack job deal of sending loose dvd's through the mail, expecting then for universal to do the same on the return trip, sounds stinkovitch to me)

i'm sure there will be quite an up roar, and the method of dvd replacement will be refined in the near future.

of some interesting note, i read the following review of the dvd wide screen relase at dvds.helpfulreviews.com (http://dvds.helpfulreviews.com/dvd/B00006AL1E.html) which go's into further explanation of the soft matting process that jjb is talking about. i recommend that you read this review before dismissing this particular inital run of back to the future.

derek
12-19-2002, 08:26 PM
as for replacing devective DVD's through the mail, i had to do this with the heathers DVD. anchor bay, the company that released the film, sent the replacement right out.:)

as much as i hate to, i may just get the pan and scan version of BTTF. this soft matte conversion seems like some kind of false widescreen to me.:confused:

Beast
12-19-2002, 11:33 PM
Derek, most 1:66.1 and 1:85.1 movies are shot in flat format. In other words, they shoot the thing full screen with no panning or scanning. The director's composites the image in camera, with the mattes in mind. The special effects are filmed straight onto 1:85.1. When the film is finished, it's a combination of the open matted transfer with 1:85.1 Special Effects shots.

When the movie is projected, it is soft matted. That means that they physically place mattes over the part of the film that was never meant to be seen. It's not false widescreen. It is the directors intended aspect ratio of the movie. If you remove the soft matting from these sorts of movies, you reveal things that were not meant to be seen. Like boom microphones and extra equipment used for in camera effects.

The most well known example is the full frame version of "Willy Wonka and the Choclate Factory." At the bottom of the frame, when Veruca Salt expands into a giant blueberry, you can see the airhose going up her pants to cause it. This was not meant to be seen, because the director intended the movie to be soft matted for widescreen.

OAR is not cut and dried to just how the movie was shot, it was how the movie was intended to be shown by the filmmakers. Like T2, it's shot Super 35 which requires matting the image for both Widescreen and Fullscreen, but is panned and scanned for Fullscreen. LOTR's was also shot the same way. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

derek
12-20-2002, 07:02 AM
thanks jar jar, i guess i learn something new everyday.:)

so if i understand correctly, there is no such thing as widescreen cameras or film? technically directors could film 3:4 ratio films for the TV and not have them pan and scan?

i always thought a widescreen movie was just like that widescreen camera photo film that takes really long widescreen photos. i had no idea it was just full screen with some black bars slapped on there.:)

am i correct to assume you don't have a problem with this because it was the filmmakers artistic vision?

and one more question. i know stanley kubrick films are released on DVD in full screen only. are they pan and scan versions, or are they how kubrick originally filmed them, just without the black bars?

Beast
12-20-2002, 11:08 AM
No, there are such things as widescreen cameras and film, it's just not always used depending on the costs. Like I said, it's mostly just 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 that shoot flat and matte. Super 35 is a strange beast, as it it's wider and taller then normal film. Lemme link to a page you can read about the different film formats. :)

http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

BanthaPoodoo
12-20-2002, 11:25 AM
Woah, reading that makes me wonder about other movies I have.....

I read something about ET having some issues. Can anyone tell me what they were talking about or point me to a thread that discusses this??

Might have both of these waiting under the tree, & would hate to have to return them....

Beast
12-20-2002, 12:09 PM
The issue with E.T. was, that the '82 version was only going to be included in the Gift Box edition. This upset alot of people, that felt that they were having to pay more, just to get the original version. Well, apperantly Spielburg decided that Universal had to put the '82 version on the 2-disc basic edition also.

But they didn't bother to tell anyone. It was only after the release, did they actually issue a story that they added the '82 version to the 2-disc basic edition. It was an obvious case, that they didn't want to loose orders on the 3-disc Gift Set. Which they wouldn't have anyway, due to the extra features, book, nice packaging, etc. :stupid: :p

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

BanthaPoodoo
12-20-2002, 01:06 PM
Oh crappitty crap then!!!

I told my dad that I didnt want the two disc set as it doesnt include both versions only the rerelease.

I said (after reading the specs online) that to get both you had to get the big set with the screenplay, soundtrack, etc....

Guess I should recant then & say that the two DVD set would be fine.....

Do you have this set JJB?

Beast
12-20-2002, 02:19 PM
Nope, I picked up the box set for 25.00 or so. It was mispriced at KMart.com. So I figured I would grab it cheap, since the hardcover book is great and the packaging is tons better then the 2-discer. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

stillakid
12-20-2002, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
No, there are such things as widescreen cameras and film, it's just not always used depending on the costs. Like I said, it's mostly just 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 that shoot flat and matte. Super 35 is a strange beast, as it it's wider and taller then normal film. Lemme link to a page you can read about the different film formats. :)

http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

That's not true. I'm not sure where you got your information but it is entirely and completely wrong.

Film is film. The 35mm film you put in your camera at home is the exact same size (width) that is used on features. The only difference is that motion pictures use 400 and 1000 foot rolls of it. You get about a foot or two at a time.

(Though, I suppose if you put IMAX and Vistavision into the mix, then maybe you could consider those "widescreen" cameras, but generally they are very specialized for their particular uses and not used for general photography.)

The vast majority of films are shot in what's known as full "academy," meaning that the entire square frame is exposed.

A ground glass with etched frame markings is used by the Camera Operator as a guide to properly frame up the shot.

There are various ratios that can be chosen from. 1:85 is probably the most common.

There are also choices as to format. There is standard Academy, Anamorphic, and Super-35. Standard Academy exposes the square "academy" frame completely. Anamorphic again exposes the entire frame, but utilizes special lenses which squeeze the image as it is exposed. The same type of lens must be used upon projection to unsqueeze it. For various reasons, Super35 is chosen over Anamorphic, but gives essentially the same super-wide result. It has it own set of particulars which makes it different from the other 2, but I won't get into that here. The point is that all are shot on the same strip of 35mm film.

Sometimes, though not often, the Director of Photography (actually the First AC will do this) will insert a "hard matte" into the gate of the camera. What this does is physically block the upper and lower portions of the film from being exposed.

Usually this doesn't happen. Why? Television. Since most movies are now destined for television screens at some point, on-set framing of shots isn't limited strictly to the 1:85 (or whatever other aspect ration they've chosen) frame.

A quick lesson in camera structure: When the camera operator looks through the eyepiece, he sees the ground glass (which sits between the viewfinder and the mirrored shutter. As the shutter spins, half the time, the light goes to the film (when the mirror is clear) and the other half of the time, the light is diverted to the eyepiece. (To complicate matters further, most of the time light is again diverted to the video camera for the monitors, but that isn't important for this topic). Anyway, the light passes through the groundglass on the way to the viewfinder. Etched on the groundglass are several rectangle markings. The Operator uses these as reference as he frames up the shot.

Often, the groundglass will have both the 1:85 and 4:3 of standard television. Whenever possible the operator will frame up shots and the director will block the action so that the most important stuff happens within the television area. Typically, before filming even starts, the camera assistants shoot a framing reference chart so that the lab and the editors know exactly where those lines are on that camera. Then, hopefully, everyone is on the same page and nothing ends up on the screen that shouldn't.

Beast
12-20-2002, 06:52 PM
Actually that is incorrect, as there are other types of film Such as the film used for Todd-AO aspect ratio films (2.2:1 aspect ratio during filming) 2.35:1 aspect ratio (final print)). That uses 65 mm film. Super Panavision also uses 65 mm film. There is also 70 mm film, which older movies were shot on regularly.

Super 35 uses standard film, but it exposes more of the film, then regularly is done. And then there is 16 mm, which Evil Dead was filmed on. And then there is Super 8/8 mm film also. So you may want to check your facts again. Oh, and don't forget Imax film which is also a different size. Oh, and don't forget digital video as well, which Star Wars: Episode II was shot on. ;)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

BanthaPoodoo
12-20-2002, 08:01 PM
I prefer 9mm's myself! :D

OK thanks. May just fork over the extra $$$ & get the big set instead.

stillakid
12-21-2002, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Actually that is incorrect, as there are other types of film Such as the film used for Todd-AO aspect ratio films (2.2:1 aspect ratio during filming) 2.35:1 aspect ratio (final print)). That uses 65 mm film. Super Panavision also uses 65 mm film. There is also 70 mm film, which older movies were shot on regularly.

Super 35 uses standard film, but it exposes more of the film, then regularly is done. And then there is 16 mm, which Evil Dead was filmed on. And then there is Super 8/8 mm film also. So you may want to check your facts again. Oh, and don't forget Imax film which is also a different size. Oh, and don't forget digital video as well, which Star Wars: Episode II was shot on. ;)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

I was responding to what you said:

No, there are such things as widescreen cameras and film, it's just not always used depending on the costs.
That's a misleading statement. True, there are cameras that can shoot 65mm and 70mm film, but it just doesn't happen anymore. Nobody goes out to shoot a standard Hollywood movie with large format cameras. The two choices for that larger aspect ratio are Anamorphic and Super 35, both which use 35mm filmstock.

Yes, IMAX uses a larger size, but I also mentioned that it's a special format camera not used for general photography.

Vistavision uses standard 35mm film, only the film is shot length-wise, so that a wider than normal aperture can be exposed. But again, that is a format used almost exclusively for fx work, and specifically to capture background plates.


Like I said, it's mostly just 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 that shoot flat and matte.
I have no idea what concept you tried to express here. Flat and matte? What's that supposed to mean? "Flat," I can't even venture a guess. A hard-matte is what we use on the front of the matte-box to control flares. Also, as previously described, a special matte can be placed in the gate itself to only expose the desired portion of the film. The lab will also use a matte later on for release prints. I once bought some flat latex paint to redo my walls, but that stuff would really muck up the inside of a camera. :rolleyes:

I'll attach a page which will describe the various ratios to you.


Super 35 is a strange beast, as it it's wider and taller then normal film.

What the hell are you talking about here? Reread your statement then tell me if it makes any sense. The wider thing is just plain wrong. Super 35 utilizes standard 35mm filmstock. "Taller"? Are you kidding? What exactly is taller film anyway? Most camera systems have magazines that can utilize 200' lengths, 400' lengths, and 1000' lengths. 2000' mags have been built specifically for sitcom use. So if that's the "taller" you're talking about, I don't see how it applies to the discussion at hand.

Now, there are times when a production will utilize a camera with a 3-perf pulldown. Per the Panavision Catalogue:

3 PERF
3 Perf cameras pull down 3 perforations per frame rather than the conventional 4 perforations per frame. Some of the advantages of the 3 Perf cameras:

Uses 255 less film.
33 1/3 % more running/shooting time per magazine

340% larger negative area than 16mm in NTSC

Only 26% smaller than 4 perf in NTSC

Ideally suited for 1.78:1 (16x9) format
But, this has nothing to do with "tallness" of the film, whatever that means.

For example, Titanic was shot using Super 35. The reason being that Cameron wanted the wider aspect ratio of true Anamorphic, but the physical limitations (not enough lenses and cameras would have been available for production) made Super 35 the best option under those circumstances.

FYI: Per the Panavision Catalogue:

Super Panavision 35
Panavision Super 35 is a format for shooting full aperture, utilizing a greater camera negative area. This format provides the option of releasing a film in any of 3 formats: 70mm, 2x Anamorphic, and 1.85, without cropping any of the sides. The final decision can be made in post-production, as it does require an optical process. During principal photography, shooting Panavision Super 35 allows the cinematographer to use spherical lenses.


And if we're talking about standard Hollywood fare, it didn't seem relevant to discuss 16mm and 8mm. While on rare occasions, someone will shoot a film on one of those formats and get extremely lucky in finding someone to release it, those instances are incredibly rare and hardly worth mentioning. In order to release those films to theaters requires a blow-up and usually the quality is degraded too rapidly to make it worthwhile. Yes, some of these films slip through the cracks and make it to your local cinema, but they are few and far between.

And, yes, now with the advent of higher quality digital acquisition, a few productions are using 24P cameras or PAL DigiBeta to shoot with. But again, that wasn't the point.

stillakid
12-21-2002, 05:29 PM
Once again, please check your facts before disseminating faulty information. I know you think that you're some kind of expert in everything, but take this opportunity to realize that you're in fact, not.

stillakid
12-22-2002, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Super 35 uses standard film, but it exposes more of the film, then regularly is done.

Oh yeah, and this is incorrect as well. The "regular" exposure is full Academy (as illustrated on the attachment above). Then, per the ground glass framing, the preferred portion of the exposed frame is extracted for projection. A standard camera is used to for Super 35 filming, but requires additional setup for the slightly wider exposure.

Now, in the interim, I did find that a rare few films recently used the 65mm format, but few is the key word.
From: http://www.theasc.com/clubhouse/logs/clog-rp1.htm I attended Alex Thompson's talk about shooting in 65mm. He shot Hamlet with Panavision 65mm cameras and praised them for their excellent service; but also praised the newer, quieter Arri 765 camera he used on the project for four days. Because 65mm can only be processed in Hollywood, London or Munich, there was a five day delay in getting dailies, and the 35mm reductions used for editing were not sharp--it was almost impossible to tell if the extremely critical focus was on. The lightest 65mm sound camera weighs 93 lbs. so all those fast moving shots that looked like Steadicam were actually shot from an Elemack dolly on an extremely level and smooth floor


In the end, any camera can achieve a "wider" aspect ratio, but there is no such thing as a "widescreen" camera* or "widescreen film." You could shoot a full Academy frame on a 70mm camera and then project that square onto a screen. A movie only looks widescreen when a widescreen aspect ratio is chosen. It is when the lab or the projectionist mis-frame that you start seeing unwanted elements, like the boom in the shot for example.

*Except for something like Widelux (http://www.panphoto.com/Widelux.html) , but that's for stills.


For those with further questions concerning the Super 35 format, here is an excerpt from an ASC interview with James Cameron:

What about increased grain, the most common detriment that critics of Super 35 bring up?

Cameron: Do audiences care more about grain or focus? Where are you more likely to be out of focus, when your wide lens is a 25mm or when it's a 50mm? Focal length is focal length, and depth of field is a result of focal length. If your medium-wide lens is a 50mm, you're going to be out of focus more often, and your Z-axis is going to be a very shallow plane. Some cinematographers like shallow focus, and if that's the case, then anamorphic is not a detriment to them. It would have been very problematic on Titanic, though, since we were going for a very deep-focus style, as we had done on True Lies.

In Super 35, you're able to shoot with shorter focal lengths, you're using spherical lenses, you don't have the strange anamorphic aberrations while shooting, and you're able to get a beautiful anamorphic print at the final print stage. That all speaks in favor of the format. But even if all of those factors combined were a wash, there is still one compelling reason to shoot in Super 35. If you use anamorphic, you cannot do any vertical repositioning whatsoever, so when you go to video you're throwing away half of your beautiful movie. About 99 percent of the video audience will see the film pan-and-scanned. Which half of the picture the left or the right don't you want the audience to see?

As for other proponents of the format, John Alcott started it, and he wasn't exactly chopped liver. Plus, he started using Super 35 when the stocks were not in his favor and the methodology had not been worked out.



Look, I could go on and on, but if anyone is really interested in truly learning this stuff without working your way into the industry like me, go to http://www.cinematography.com . There's a ton of information available from the actual people who use this equipment and create the movies. Anyone can register and use the forums as well. At least you can be certain that you're getting factual information instead of relying on an anonymous screenname at a StarWars Toy website.

good shot jansen
12-23-2002, 04:38 PM
whew! there's a lot there! good thang i don' wanna make the flix, only want a full bowl of popcorn, sit back and enjoy em!

anyway, i just got finished watching the trilogy on dvd. i enjoyed all three emensely. if i hadn't read about the soft matting process used here, i prolly would have never even noticed that anything was amiss.

don't let what's been posted about the movies as presented on this initial dvd release stop you from getting it. they are well worth owning and enjoying.

the enclosed bonus material, particularly the making of featurettes, as well as the commentary, make this gift set a must have for fans of the series.

enjoy!

SQueek
12-23-2002, 09:51 PM
i almost bought the trilogy for 40 bucks today, but then i rememberd this post and didnt, when does the fixed one come out?

Beast
12-23-2002, 09:57 PM
Agreed with GSJ, don't let the soft matting issue stop you from buying the set. Just get them and enjoy them until late January when you throw them in an envelope and mail them out for replacement. The new versions will be available in Febuary, but no clue if they will actually mark the DVD sets as the new versions. With the Jurassic Park discs, all they did was change the color of the box around the audio specs to red on the back cover. :p :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

JediTricks
12-24-2002, 03:44 AM
Stilla, I believe TRON (1982) was shot on 65mm for the live sequences; when they got the cameras, they were full of sand from their previous use shooting Lawrence of Arabia (1962) - the star of which, Peter O'Toole, was strongly considered for TRON's main villain but only wanted to play one of the protagonists. Also, because of the lack of familiarity with 65mm, the TRON crew received all the filmstock from Kodak in a specific order with specific leaders and breaks in the filmstock but the crew didn't realize this and used the stock out of order, causing the filming to include flashes every once in a while - luckily, they were able to use this to their advantage by adding a sound effect to each one making it seem like a system glitch in the video world.

My point? Uh... that another fairly recent film has used non-35mm for principle photography, but they didn't know much about it.

Dr Zoltar
12-24-2002, 11:00 AM
Would somebody mind posting what deleted scenes are included in the box set for this?

El Chuxter
12-24-2002, 12:13 PM
I know it's off subject a bit, but what was wrong with the JP sets? And would that be on the set of just the two movies, or the joke set with the two movies and the bad made-for-TV sequel that somehow made it into theatrical release? :p

good shot jansen
12-24-2002, 12:26 PM
Deleted Scenes - back to the future I
Peanut Brittle (we now know why george has peanut brittle for dinner)
"Pinch Me" (marty asks an old lady to pinch him to see if he's dreaming)
Cigarette Commercial
Doc's Personal Belongings (we now know where marty gets the hair dryer for the darth vader scene)
"She's Cheating" (marty and doc watch his mother cheating in class)
Darth Vader (Extended Version)
"Hit Me, George" (marty practicng with george for the prom night)
"You Got A Permit?" (doc pays off the cop)
The Phone Booth (why george was late coming to the rescue)

Deleted Scenes back to future part II
"Dad's Home" (Extended Version)
Pizza Scene ((extended version of mcfly's eating pizza)
Jennifer Faints (Extended Version)
Old Biff Vanishes From Car (biff disapears after he returns from the past)
Burned Out High School (marty see's his high school burned out)
Marty Meets Dave (dave is marty's brother, he's a drunk in the altered present)

Deleted Scene back to the future III
The Tannen Gang Kills Marshal Strickland

that's the only deleted scene from the 3rd flic

scruffziller
12-26-2002, 12:56 PM
I haven't watched all the features on all the BTTF movies, but I have to say that watching the deleted scenes on pt. 2 gave alot of insight into things that happened. The did some pretty poor choicing as to what to cut since a following scene or prior scene was showing something but never really knew what it was until you saw the deleted scene. But then again if they didn't cut it, it would have given too much away. The 2 I am talking about is when Biff gets out of the Delorean, and is in pain, and who the heck that guy was asking Marty to thumb some cash for the clock tower. Why is he in makeup to look old since I have never seen him before until he was revealed in the deleted scenes. You could have found out watching the movie but it would haver been very difficult.

Beast
12-26-2002, 01:08 PM
I think they cut the Biff disapeering scene, because it doesn't fit in that timeline. It would have been different if there would have been a reverberation wave that started changing that current version timeline over to the new version.

But we've already seen that George was still married to Lorraine a few moments ago, and not dead. And that the future was in good shape. Not what would have been the result of the changes that Biff made. That's because that 2015 isn't the altered version that would come about from the tampering of the past.

It's like how Doc explains the alternate time lines to Marty in the garage. There are two 2015, the one that used to be and the new alternative 2015 that became the new future once that jumped back to 1985. It's not til they jump back to the 1985 timeline, do they go back to the actual altered reality. Had they jumped forward to 2015 again from that point, it would have been the altered version affected by the past changes. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

BanthaPoodoo
12-26-2002, 02:04 PM
Man, this is heavy........

Vortex
12-26-2002, 04:51 PM
There's that word "Heavy" again. Is there something wong with the Earth gravitational pull in the future?

scruffziller
12-28-2002, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
I think they cut the Biff disapeering scene, because it doesn't fit in that timeline. It would have been different if there would have been a reverberation wave that started changing that current version timeline over to the new version.

But we've already seen that George was still married to Lorraine a few moments ago, and not dead. And that the future was in good shape. Not what would have been the result of the changes that Biff made. That's because that 2015 isn't the altered version that would come about from the tampering of the past.

It's like how Doc explains the alternate time lines to Marty in the garage. There are two 2015, the one that used to be and the new alternative 2015 that became the new future once that jumped back to 1985. It's not til they jump back to the 1985 timeline, do they go back to the actual altered reality. Had they jumped forward to 2015 again from that point, it would have been the altered version affected by the past changes. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

So since we are being so scientific here.......:rolleyes: :D

If the old Biff altered 1955 to which Marty and Doc traveled to the altered 1985, how did old Biff return to the original 2015 with the time machine. That in itself would have been the ultimate paradox because then that would have prevented Doc from ever building the time machine. Don't worry dude I wrote a report in college on temperol theories and how many movies can't get them right because there would not be a movie then.

Beast
12-28-2002, 10:39 AM
Check out Disc 3's FAQ section. It answers what happened. They note that they don't show the McFly house after Biff returns with the Delorean. They said that the time line did ripple when Biff disapeers, it just didn't make any huge change to that area of town. So we don't know if the same people live in the house or not. Of course, since Biff disapeered, his cane head that he left in the car should have also. But I guess that would have erased their plot point. ;) :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

scruffziller
12-28-2002, 12:18 PM
I'll make a coment before I watch the FAQ. It does make sense that the "ripple effect" is what is going on since Biff does not disappear until after the Delorean leaves. Which means that the Delorean should have disappeared as well (if indeed the altered 1985 prevented Doc from building it) upon arriving in 1985. However, using the theory from Star Trek First Contact, by entering the time warp,/vortex, etc. it would have protected the Delorean and the contents thereof. Biff's disappearing I think indicates that he has died between 1985 and 2015 due to his fast living. Or do you think that getting hit in the face by the Delorean's door killed him. I think he was just knocked out. If you think about it, BTTF Trilogy has a very similar outlay to the OT.

1. Intro
2. Dark
3. Resolved

stillakid
12-28-2002, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by scruffziller
I'll make a coment before I watch the FAQ. It does make sense that the "ripple effect" is what is going on since Biff does not disappear until after the Delorean leaves. Which means that the Delorean should have disappeared as well (if indeed the altered 1985 prevented Doc from building it) upon arriving in 1985. However, using the theory from Star Trek First Contact, by entering the time warp,/vortex, etc. it would have protected the Delorean and the contents thereof. Biff's disappearing I think indicates that he has died between 1985 and 2015 due to his fast living. Or do you think that getting hit in the face by the Delorean's door killed him. I think he was just knocked out. If you think about it, BTTF Trilogy has a very similar outlay to the OT.

1. Intro
2. Dark
3. Resolved

I was watching this with my son the other night (his first time) and I had to draw a "map" to explain their travels back and forth through time. These "paradoxes" naturally became part of the discussion. I think that the explanation for what you describe above is taken care of by Doc's illustration (on the chalkboard) in part II. They are in an "alternate" 1985, not the original one.

It gets into a real Stephen Hawking thing, but I think that the theory is that there can be multiple "universes." So when Old Biff went back to change his own past, Old Biff's universe didn't change, but 1985 young Biff's did. The reason being is that he didn't actually alter that timeline, but created a brand new one. So, if it was possible to step "outside the box" and be God for a moment, what you would see would be 2 or 3 (or more) Marty's, Biff's, and Doc's, all living out different lives completely unaware of each other. Old Biff returned to his wimpy 2016(?) environment and will die there with nothing changed even though he gave his younger self the means to alter his (younger Biff's) future.:crazed:



Originally posted by JediTricks
Stilla, I believe TRON (1982) was shot on 65mm for the live sequences; when they got the cameras, they were full of sand from their previous use shooting Lawrence of Arabia (1962) - the star of which, Peter O'Toole, was strongly considered for TRON's main villain but only wanted to play one of the protagonists. Also, because of the lack of familiarity with 65mm, the TRON crew received all the filmstock from Kodak in a specific order with specific leaders and breaks in the filmstock but the crew didn't realize this and used the stock out of order, causing the filming to include flashes every once in a while - luckily, they were able to use this to their advantage by adding a sound effect to each one making it seem like a system glitch in the video world.

My point? Uh... that another fairly recent film has used non-35mm for principle photography, but they didn't know much about it.

I suppose so, if 1982 is "recent." ;) It does just seem like yesterday when MTV appeared on cable. :) (God, do I feel old)


And as a postlude to my rantings above, I do apologize. I approached that reply in an inappropriately aggressive manner. Technical questions were being answered incorrectly and I just thought that those truly curious about the nuts and bolts of the process should steer clear of receiving answers on a toy site. It's a shame that there are problems in simply putting a movie on DVD or tape necessitating the need for the discussion to even come up in the first place. But if we do see the day when something like 24P takes over completely, you can be reasonably certain that what the camera operator sees is what you'll get on your own television at home.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
12-30-2002, 12:30 AM
I think my question was answered. upon reading pages of jibberish, I think i saw that nobody is sure if the proper versions of the widescreen trilogy are going to marked differently. Lemme strain my eyes and read again! blast! :D

SQueek
12-31-2002, 12:43 PM
im sure something on them will let you be able to tell even if it is some microscopic number somewhere....

jedi master999
12-31-2002, 01:18 PM
actuly paramount diddnt make back to the future trilogy universal did and i think the dvds are great

scruffziller
01-03-2003, 07:52 AM
I can say one thing. Thank god they won't ruin the franchise with a part 4!!!!!

JediTricks
01-04-2003, 03:15 AM
I heard that was seriously being shopped recently. I almost wept.

Beast
01-04-2003, 03:20 AM
JT, where did you hear that? Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis have both stated that there never have been any plans for to make a Part IV. And that there is no place for a possible fourth movie to go. They state that a few times on the DVD even. That's why they wrapped up the storyline, and we got "The End" at the end of the third film. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

stillakid
01-04-2003, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
JT, where did you hear that? Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis have both stated that there never have been any plans for to make a Part IV. And that there is no place for a possible fourth movie to go. They state that a few times on the DVD even. That's why they wrapped up the storyline, and we got "The End" at the end of the third film. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

About 2 years ago, I distinctly recall seeing an press junket interview with Robert Deniro and Billy Crystal for Analyze This. The reporter asked when the sequel would begin and both actors laughed it off quite seriously. "Where would it go?" Deniro asked.

Fast forward to now.....


If they want to figure out a story, they'll do it.

JediTricks
01-05-2003, 05:50 PM
I don't remember where I heard it, it was maybe 9 or 10 months ago.

Gale and Zemeckis aren't the only ones in control, I believe Universal has some say in this. It's like the Terminator franchise, Carolco had some of the rights and when they went under, some other guys bought the rights to the series and began working on T3 and T4 which they stated they'd do even without Arnold if necessary.

stillakid
01-16-2003, 11:44 PM
I just found this and thought it was interesting:


ICG, ASC, SMPTE Gather in LA to Consider Wide Screen Formats
by Ed Eberle

Local 600 in conjunction with ASC and SMPTE gathered world class cinematographers and leading filmmaking technology authorities to discuss the aesthetic and technical considerations that influence their decisions in shooting wide screen formats for feature film cinematography on Nov. 12 at the Gene Autry Hollywood Museum in Los Angeles.

Guild members John Bailey, ASC, John Hora, ASC, Theo Van de Sande, ASC, and Kees Van Oostrum, ASC joined Dave Kenig, Panavision Director of Camera Systems and Deluxe Labs Vice President of Technical Services and Client Relations, Beverly Wood for the standing room only meeting.

Moderator Bob Fisher opened the aesthetic side of the discussion with John Bailey, ASC, who said he would opt to shoot anamorphic whenever possible providing it was story appropriate. "There is an industry caution about shooting anamorphic that seems to say it's most appropriate for epic films with big exterior vistas, but that's not true. It is very appropriate to intimate, character driven stories as well." Later to illustrate how anamorphic wide screen imaging can help explore intimate characterization, Bailey showed a low-key dramatic clip from his latest anamorphic film, The Divine Secrets of The Ya Ya Sisterhood.

Kees Van Oostrum, ASC, commented that both camera movement and critical focus issues can raise the aesthetic bar when shooting anamorphic as opposed to Super 35mm. "Widescreen anamorphic framing lets people move into the frame rather than forcing you to move the camera all the time. The focus in anamorphic is more precise, it's either in or out. That gives the cinematographer more creative control of the focal plane."

Describing full frame anamorphic cinematography as providing audiences with "a real movie experience," ASC Cinematographer John Hora said, "As far as expressiveness, showmanship and quality of the image is concerned, anamorphic is the only way to go."

Commenting on the number of anamorphic films shot overseas, the cinematographers agreed they've faced difficulty selling US studio production executives on anamorphic cinematography. "They tend to believe in the myths that too many things can go wrong, that it's too expensive and that they might need bigger sets," Kees Van Oostrum remarked.

Theo Van de Sande, ASC, suggested that NL editing as well as the trend in screening "non-film" dailies tends to dilute format and resolution issues that are central to the widescreen debate. " Not watching film dailies, but instead seeing your material on cassette or on an non linear screens, makes it difficult to really make valued judgements about the work."

In answer to questions regarding the lack of lens choices and industry-wide investment in anamorphic technology, Dennis Kenig said Panavision was "listening closely and working hard to respond to cinematographers interest in the anamorphic format."

Deluxe Labs Vice President of Technical Services and Client Relations, Beverly Wood noted that she has seen an uptick in interest regarding anamorphic lensing, not only from established cinematographers but from the upcoming generation as well. But, she indicated they lacked a full range of information on the format. "Many young cinematographers say they want to shoot anamorphic but they have a laundry list of why they can't."

SithDroid
02-05-2003, 08:25 PM
Wow, cool discussion about film. Does anyone know of any good books about film and cameras. I can never find anything around here, unless I'm looking in the wrong place.

Also, has anyone sent in their discs to be replaced and if you have, has anyone received them yet? I still need to send mine to be replaced and just wanted to know if they arrived in good condition. To me this whole thing is Universals fault and they should have to eat the cost of shipping boths ways because if they would have gotten it right in the first place, this wouldn't have happened.

stillakid
02-05-2003, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by SithDroid
Wow, cool discussion about film. Does anyone know of any good books about film and cameras. I can never find anything around here, unless I'm looking in the wrong place.


I don't know exactly what kind of information you're looking for so I'll suggest two things for you.

1) http://www.cinematography.com

2) http://www.samuelfrench.com

The first has an extensive message board that is frequented by people who work in the industry. If you can't find the answers you're looking for in the archives, somebody is usually around to read your questions.

And Samuel French is a bookstore that specializes in entertainment industry material. If you don't have one near you, check out the website.

Beast
02-05-2003, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by SithDroid
To me this whole thing is Universals fault and they should have to eat the cost of shipping boths ways because if they would have gotten it right in the first place, this wouldn't have happened.
Call the number again. Apperantly the people calling now are getting self addressed stamped envelopes mailed out to them. I can't confirm that myself, but I've seen it posted on a few DVD forums. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

derek
02-06-2003, 05:13 PM
DVD fan files suit claiming 'wide-screen' format a fraud
Associated Press
LOS ANGELES -- A movie buff is suing Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and several retailers, saying many so-called "wide-screen" DVDs, advertised as showing the film as seen in theaters, actually show even less than already cropped "standard" versions.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, was filed late Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court.

A representative of MGM did not immediately return a call for comment.
from the associated press
Studios increasingly offer two versions of films on DVDs -- a standard format cropped to fit a typical TV screen and a wide-screen, or "letterbox" version, showing the full image as seen on a large movie screen.

The letterbox version is wider left to right and has black bars above and below the image.

But Warren Eallonardo, 28, of Los Angeles, claims that several MGM movies he recently bought, including Rain Man and Hoosiers, falsely advertise wide-screen versions of the films.

"In actuality, the DVDs provide a standard format with the top and bottom of the picture cut off," said Clifford Pearson, an attorney representing Eallonardo. "He felt like he is being ripped off."

SQueek
02-07-2003, 01:10 PM
so when is the fixed one coming out, im not buying till its right.

stillakid
02-10-2003, 09:31 AM
Vulcan Inc. to Present the 'Reel' Cinerama Film Festival February 28 - March 6; Four of Seven Cinerama Prints to Be Featured At Festival


SEATTLE--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 10, 2003--Vulcan Inc. is proud to present the "Reel" Cinerama Film Festival, an unprecedented celebration of the original 3-strip Cinerama format that changed what it meant to go to the movies, from February 28 to March 6 at the Seattle Cinerama Theatre.

Since its rescue and renovation by investor and philanthropist Paul G. Allen in 1999, the Seattle Cinerama is now the only remaining operating Super Cinerama in the world .

Only seven Cinerama films were ever made, and four of those will be presented at the Seattle Cinerama as part of the festival, including How the West Was Won and This is Cinerama -- the preservation of which has been made possible by Vulcan Inc. in collaboration with Warner Bros. and Pacific Theatres Intl. The festival will also exhibit rarely seen archived prints of Search for Paradise and Windjammer (originally released in 1958 under the Cinemiracle umbrella, a rival yet compatible system.)

Aside from the technology and process that makes Cinerama films special, its fan base is also unique -- and international. On a regular basis the Seattle Cinerama and various Cinerama fan sites receive e-mail inquiries asking about when Cinerama films will be shown. For many people, seeing Cinerama films in the '60s and '70s was a transformative experience, similar to how 2001, Star Wars and other films touched people of subsequent generations. Eventually replaced by 70mm (a cheaper and easier -- if less compelling -- format in which to make movies), Cinerama films lost widespread distribution but stayed in the hearts and minds of fans around the world.

Purchased and painstakingly restored to its original grandeur by Vulcan Inc. under the guiding vision of investor and philanthropist Paul G. Allen, the 800-seat Seattle Cinerama Theatre opened in 1999 to critical and popular acclaim and remains one of the world's most majestic movie houses -- and the only true Super Cinerama theatre in the country. The Seattle Cinerama is primarily a first-run 35 and 70mm movie theatre, and occasionally used for special events. The "Reel" Cinerama Festival is the first time since the theatre's grand re-opening the public will have the chance to experience Cinerama films as they were meant to be seen!

"The 'Reel' Cinerama Film Festival will be a rare treat for baby boomers and film history aficionados," says David Strohmaier, producer/director of the upcoming Cinerama Adventure documentary. "The travelogue films, while made with the innocent mindset of the 1950s, still have all the cinematic effect of putting you in the picture. It was the giant screen immersiveness of Cinerama, something Imax doesn't have, that thrilled audiences all through that era. How the West Was Won has its own unique luster," says Strohmaier, "I've seen the spectacular new print at Crest Labs in Los Angeles and the film looks better than when I saw it as a kid in the mid-1960s. The images come right off the screen at you, when you are at the theatre, you live in the movie."

Tickets are available at www.movietickets.com, the Cinerama box-office (located at 2100 Fourth Avenue) and by calling the AMC ticket hotline at 206/441-3080. A limited number of festival passes are available for purchase for $40 at the Cinerama box-office. Each pass gives audience members daily access to the theatre for one showing per day (excluding opening night) and allows access to a projectionist booth tour prior to the matinee shows on Saturday or Sunday. Please note that Search for Paradise and Windjammer are not preserved prints. The color and condition of the prints can not be guaranteed.

Beast
02-21-2003, 02:30 PM
Back to the topic of the BTTF DVD's. Universal issued a statement that said how to recognize the new corrected versions in the stores. They won't be available til after March though, due to having to press all these discs. But here's the info they sent The Digital Bits. :)

We have an update for you on those Back to the Future box sets with the mis-framed Part II & III discs. The corrected discs will be available by mail sometime in March. They'll also be issued to stores. Here's what Universal has been telling their customers, via e-mail, about how to identify the fixed sets:

"The new packaging will have a "V2" printed near the bottom of the screen format/bar code sticker. This will indicate that the set contains the remastered versions of BTTF II and BTTF III. The same "V2" will also appear on the new discs after the copyright language line."
MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Pendo
02-21-2003, 03:35 PM
Thanx for the info JJB :).

The replacements aren't ready until April in the UK :(.

PENDO!

SQueek
02-23-2003, 01:03 AM
so will V2 still be selling for 40 dollars....lets hope

Beast
02-23-2003, 01:17 AM
Why would they raise the price? It's just the corrected versions of the same DVD set. No worries, the price won't go up. Of course you likely won't be able to find as good a sale as you would have when the discs first came out. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

scruffziller
03-22-2003, 09:30 AM
One thing that I never noticed until I watched the first movie with the commentary was that after Marty returns to 1985 the mall is "LONE PINE MALL" instead of Twin Pines Mall.

Also I figured out that everything is happening according to Marty's point of view as does the 2 Bobs explain that as well.

JediTricks
03-23-2003, 06:03 PM
Fox claims to have premiered a "new" cartoon of BTTF this Saturday, but it turned out to be that pukey one from 1991 complete with Christopher Lloyd as Doc Brown and Bill Nye as his science pawn; but they edited out the post-credits Biff jokes.

scruffziller
07-18-2003, 12:37 PM
Not sure if they said it in the DVD commentary. But does anyone know the science behind why Doc's old TV model would not have been able to be used to view the video tape with the camcorder.

JediTricks
07-18-2003, 05:49 PM
The camcorder's output would probably require an RF adapter, like what you connect an Atari 2600 or NES to a TV with, because its outputting image without converting it to a specific channel. Luckily, Doc Brown is smart and may have altered his TV to accept the feed or simply made a crude adapter. :D

Sadly, since the V2 discs still aren't in stores, I haven't gotten the DVDs yet. :(

AdmiralPiett
07-18-2003, 09:55 PM
Does anyone have any idea where to find the Huey Lewis "The Power of Love" video that's supposedly on these disks? I've spent too many hours of my early 20s trying to find these extra features and have failed at each attempt.
Piett

James Boba Fettfield
07-19-2003, 08:14 AM
Put in Disc 2 (BTTF 2) and go to bonus materials.
Click on the arrow to view the third screen of bonus materials. The second item in that list of bonus materials is the "Power of Love" music video.

Pendo
07-19-2003, 09:12 AM
The UK version doesn't have a 3rd Bonus menu :cry:! What else are we missing from that menu?

PENDO!

scruffziller
07-19-2003, 02:08 PM
The camcorder's output would probably require an RF adapter, like what you connect an Atari 2600 or NES to a TV with, because its outputting image without converting it to a specific channel. Luckily, Doc Brown is smart and may have altered his TV to accept the feed or simply made a crude adapter. :D

I thought that as well.:D

However, I heard it was more involved than that, that they had to dummy the TV that they were using with an old front since they couldn't actually do it in real life with the unit, instead that of using a more recent B&W set. But yea DOC being smart to make it work, works for me.:D

BTW.

Does anyone know if the front image on the box with Marty looking at his watch on the set that now includes the Doc, if that was originally the picture and added back or is it a new addition?

JediTricks
07-19-2003, 03:28 PM
The image was indeed altered.

It's likely, VERY likely in fact, that the old TV's image would have flickered badly on film - you'll see this a lot in movies with TV or computer monitors as the main focus, that's why a lot of TV shows & films use the fx department to add the TV image in post-production rather than deal with the issues of the refresh being the wrong speed for the camera's gate.

plo koon 200
07-25-2003, 12:18 AM
thanks jar jar, i guess i learn something new everyday.:)

so if i understand correctly, there is no such thing as widescreen cameras or film? technically directors could film 3:4 ratio films for the TV and not have them pan and scan?

i always thought a widescreen movie was just like that widescreen camera photo film that takes really long widescreen photos. i had no idea it was just full screen with some black bars slapped on there.:)

am i correct to assume you don't have a problem with this because it was the filmmakers artistic vision?

and one more question. i know stanley kubrick films are released on DVD in full screen only. are they pan and scan versions, or are they how kubrick originally filmed them, just without the black bars?

Actually, only some of Kubrick's DVD's are full screen but Jar Jar were they shot that way such as Full Metal Jacket.

scruffziller
07-25-2003, 08:11 AM
Does anyone know if the front image on the box with Marty looking at his watch on the set that now includes the Doc, if that was originally the picture and added back or is it a new addition?

When I said box I meant the DVD box. The cover art.