[the thing wnn]

Blu-ray.com - Apocalypse Now Redux German Blu-ray Detailed



Firstly, release is in AR of 1.99:1 (stupid Vittorio, we do all have widescreen displays now! )
Secondly, no option to view original theatrical version, either seamless branching or seperate disc?
Thirdly, no 'Hearts of darkness'

extras seem a bit limited too, can't wait to hear Vittorio on this one though:

'Statement by cinematographer Vittorio Storaro regarding the film's aspect ratio' - hmmmmm

All in all not too good

Hope a UK or US version improves on this, but by the looks of it, Vittorio won't be letting go of his stupid 2:1 revisionary AR anytime soon

[bosque]

Somebody buy Vittorio a new TV set !

[simonblue]

Going to give this one a miss

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by the thing wnn

Blu-ray.com - Apocalypse Now Redux German Blu-ray Detailed



Firstly, release is in AR of 1.99:1 (stupid Vittorio, we do all have widescreen displays now!

I think he reduced to 2.0:1 because we had widescreen (16:9) TVs, and a little cropping fit that shape better - not too much cropping needed, but very small black bars. It should also be noted that he did this with FFC's full consent.

BTW, the original 70mm release, for which the film was originally framed, wasn't 2.35:1, but only 2.2:1, with the extra at the sides treated pretty much as the top and bottom of a open matte 1.85:1 film shot on 35mm at 4:3.

I covered this a little in my blog:

http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs...oming-etc.html

I prefer OAR, but occasionally it's a little confusing as to what this is (see discussion of North by Northwest), and I won't throw myself in front of a bus if there's very slight cropping.

Steve W

[the thing wnn]

ah, didn't realise it was 2.2:1 - still any 'unnecessary' cropping is not a good thing IMHO
The ever reliable IMDB (hehe) states it was 2.2:1 for the 70mm prints and 2.35:1 for the 'normal' prints
Good blog

(although you did put :

To summarize:

1 - Cropping 2.35:1 films should not be done if you wish to preserve the image that the director and cinematographer intended.


Mind you, it is the cinematographer making the changes in this case, does that make it right?)

Also, any film which wins 'best oscar' for cinematography should be available in the same AR etc that the oscar judges deemed worthy of the accolade in my opinion (although in this case, did they see the 70mm version or the 'standard' version?)

I'm not really considering any bus throwing infront of scenarios so much as just not getting it!
and still the other two complaints stand, no option of version (or so it seems on info so far) and no 'Hearts of darkness'. Rights issues should be sorted now, there was a DVD release after all.

Hopefully a better 'fuller' release will be done someday

[Pecker]

I'm quite open minded about intelligent debate on this.

Destroying 2001 by cropping it 4:3 is clearly a non-starter, I hope we all agree.

But how many people, if Apocalypse Now was released in 2.35:1 would complain that it should be seen in 2.2:1?

For me, it's not a case of black and white, but more of a moveable scale - I'd prefer OAR every time, but I'm not going to rfefuse to buy a 2.2:1 film because it's been cropped to 2.0:1 by the cinematographer with the director's approval.

Steve W

[the thing wnn]

I know what you are saying, especially in this case as the fact that 2.35:1 AND 2.2:1 seem to be 'valid' its not quite so clear cut, but its particulalry the fact its VS in this case as he's dragging this 2:1 'vision' across many of his 2.35:1 films. I'm all for releasing a newer vision for a film ALONGSIDE the original version (see E.T. and many others for this) but to force his opinion on such great movies without further debate annoys the hell out of me
In this case I'll be avoiding this one more for the combination of issues with only redux available and still no HOD doc too.
I'm still avoiding the otherwise superb from what i've heard Criterion Blu-ray of 'The Last Emperor' because of the 2:1 issue

[Frere Fitch]

Personally speaking, the cropping does not concern me, for the reason that both Storaro and Coppola approved the altered ratio, which looks fine imo.

I wonder if we'll ever see the theatrical version on BD. I remember reading a Coppola quote stating that the original negative was cut in order to create Redux. The '79 cut should be preserved.

That said, I do like both versions of AN.

[Paku]

Originally Posted by Pecker

I think he reduced to 2.0:1 because we had widescreen (16:9) TVs, and a little cropping fit that shape better - not too much cropping needed, but very small black bars. It should also be noted that he did this with FFC's full consent.

I looked this up some time ago, and from what I remember, that's complete rubbish. When Storaro first started monkeying around with the aspect ratio, the standard was DVD and a lot, probably most depending on the location, had 4:3 SD sets. The technical arguments then were basically two-fold, that the 2.35:1 image was too small on a (4:3) TV set, and the picture encoded on the DVD didn't utilize enough of the available vertical resolution due to the significant black bars being part of the image.

Now we have 16:9 sets and endlessly higher resolution, so both arguments are moot, yet still he persists. This makes me think those were never the real reasons, that he's just bitter because no one cared about his Univisium format and he's either doing it out of spite, or still hopelessly, and quite pathetically, fighting to see his beloved 2.0:1 ratio become the standard.

[Geoff_D]

You're on the right track Paku but forget about DVD, because Storaro fiddled with the ratio of Apocalypse Now long before 1997, as my Laserdisc editions would attest. As has been said many times over, we've got BIG ****ING TV's now so there's no need whatsoever to persist with the cropping. If they wanna shoot something in 2:1 that's fine, but for the love of Pete don't retrofit an older movie to act as publicity for your own flippin' format.

And Steve, the movie would've been exhibited in 2.35 on 35mm (as it was for the recent 'Redux' theatrical release) so that's just as valid to me. If the filmmakers want to disregard it that's fine, but IMO it's still entirely legitimate. In either case, the movie is still not properly represented on home video, so it's a moot point anyways.

To answer your question, I would weep tears of joy if AN was released in 2.35. Hell, give me it in 2.20 and I wouldn't want much more out of life.

[John Hodson]

Originally Posted by Paku

I looked this up some time ago, and from what I remember, that's complete rubbish. When Storaro first started monkeying around with the aspect ratio, the standard was DVD and a lot, probably most depending on the location, had 4:3 SD sets. The technical arguments then were basically two-fold, that the 2.35:1 image was too small on a (4:3) TV set, and the picture encoded on the DVD didn't utilize enough of the available vertical resolution due to the significant black bars being part of the image.

Now we have 16:9 sets and endlessly higher resolution, so both arguments are moot, yet still he persists. This makes me think those were never the real reasons, that he's just bitter because no one cared about his Univisium format and he's either doing it out of spite, or still hopelessly, and quite pathetically, fighting to see his beloved 2.0:1 ratio become the standard.

Yup. From the Zoetrope website:

Question: Why is the aspect ratio of the Apocalypse Now Redux DVD not the 2.35:1 ratio of the cinematic release?

Answer: (by Kim Aubry, Producer of Apocalypse Now Redux)

In fact, the transfer of Apocalypse Now Redux (from film elements to High Definition digital videotape) was made with an aspect ratio of 2.0:1. This is consistent with the 1998 transfer of the original film Apocalypse Now done for DVD.

The aspect ratio 2.0:1 was chosen by the cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro, who supervised every aspect of this film transfer. Storaro believes that for the purpose of TV transfer, it is better to crop (slightly) the extreme left/right edges of the originally photographed frame and allow for a taller picture on both conventional and 16:9 TV monitors, because the video presentation will have more vertical resolution and detail and will be more impactful.

An orthodox 2.35:1 or 2.4:1 transfer would in some ways be a more accurate reflection of the framing seen in most cinemas, but the picture would be using only approximately 50% of the available scanning lines of the NTSC and PAL systems and hence have very limited vertical resolution. Storaro believes that since he himself composed these shots when the film was made and since he carefully made fine adjustments to the framing as needed in the transfer, the 2.0:1 transfer is the best possible compromise in adapting the very wide film picture to the very "square" TV.

Mr Coppola and I agree with Storaro's views and accepted his decision.

You are right to wonder about the discrepancy between the theatrical trailer and the feature itself. But the feature is not 1.85:1, it is 2.0:1. The transfer of the trailer was not supervised by Storaro, and was done using the conventional theatrical aspect of 2.35:1. It doesn't bother us, as this is considered a DVD "extra."

If you would like to learn more about Storaro's ideas and the 2.0:1 aspect ration, you may check out this informative web site: univisium.com

Clicking on 'universum.com' BTW brings up; "Sorry, we are currently experiencing difficulties." No comment...

[Frere Fitch]

Just to add, my old VHS Paramount release was also 2.00:1 (released 1994, iirc).

[Jeff]

Nice it fits my 2:1 apect ratio screen perfectly.

[Geoff_D]

Originally Posted by Zoetrope Mouthpiece

An orthodox 2.35:1 or 2.4:1 transfer would in some ways be a more accurate reflection of the framing seen in most cinemas, but the picture would be using only approximately 50% of the available scanning lines of the NTSC and PAL systems and hence have very limited vertical resolution. Storaro believes that since he himself composed these shots when the film was made and since he carefully made fine adjustments to the framing as needed in the transfer, the 2.0:1 transfer is the best possible compromise in adapting the very wide film picture to the very "square" TV.

We don't have a 'bang head against a wall' smiley here, do we? This one will have to do:

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by John Hodson

Yup. From the Zoetrope website:

Question: Why is the aspect ratio of the Apocalypse Now Redux DVD not the 2.35:1 ratio of the cinematic release?

Answer: (by Kim Aubry, Producer of Apocalypse Now Redux)

In fact, the transfer of Apocalypse Now Redux (from film elements to High Definition digital videotape) was made with an aspect ratio of 2.0:1. This is consistent with the 1998 transfer of the original film Apocalypse Now done for DVD.

The aspect ratio 2.0:1 was chosen by the cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro, who supervised every aspect of this film transfer. Storaro believes that for the purpose of TV transfer, it is better to crop (slightly) the extreme left/right edges of the originally photographed frame and allow for a taller picture on both conventional and 16:9 TV monitors, because the video presentation will have more vertical resolution and detail and will be more impactful.

An orthodox 2.35:1 or 2.4:1 transfer would in some ways be a more accurate reflection of the framing seen in most cinemas, but the picture would be using only approximately 50% of the available scanning lines of the NTSC and PAL systems and hence have very limited vertical resolution. Storaro believes that since he himself composed these shots when the film was made and since he carefully made fine adjustments to the framing as needed in the transfer, the 2.0:1 transfer is the best possible compromise in adapting the very wide film picture to the very "square" TV.

Mr Coppola and I agree with Storaro's views and accepted his decision.

You are right to wonder about the discrepancy between the theatrical trailer and the feature itself. But the feature is not 1.85:1, it is 2.0:1. The transfer of the trailer was not supervised by Storaro, and was done using the conventional theatrical aspect of 2.35:1. It doesn't bother us, as this is considered a DVD "extra."

If you would like to learn more about Storaro's ideas and the 2.0:1 aspect ration, you may check out this informative web site: univisium.com

Clicking on 'universum.com' BTW brings up; "Sorry, we are currently experiencing difficulties." No comment...

I've highlighted the relevant bits. How what I said amounts to 'complete rubbish' and a decision made before 16:9 sets came along is a mystery to me, and completely contradicted by the portion JH quoted.

Steve W

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Geoff_D

We don't have a 'bang head against a wall' smiley here, do we? This one will have to do:

You can have this one on me.

The point is, if the DoP supervised the cropping using fine adjustments, and it's an acceptable compromise to him, then it should be just that for us - an acceptable compromise. Not right, not good, but acceptable.

Steve W

[Geoff_D]

Cheers Steve.

As for your last point, it's a compromise that I routinely accept through gritted teeth. I still don't buy the '16:9' part of it though. Yes, I know that the nice lady said that it was done with 16:9 in mind, but then she reveals all in the very next paragraph by saying it was done to maximise resolution on "very square" TVs. And the bit about losing half the resolution is firmly rooted in the 4:3 age too. It's no coincidence that the widescreen aspect ratio for AN on home video (or TV broadcast, for that matter) has never, ever been greater than 2:1.

Us nerds all know of Jim Cameron's little letter in the 4:3 version of The Abyss: SE on Laserdisc, stating that he feels that the 'opened up' version gives the best impact on the limited NTSC resolution of the time. But will there be a 4:3 edition on Blu-ray (when it finally appears, natch)? Oh, **** no, because the pathetic resolution of letterboxed NTSC transfers is a thing of the past. JC is aware of this. Hell, I'd wager that even Kubrick would've been won over (re: 4:3 vs 16:9) because the man LOVED a bit of new-fangled technology. Yet Vittorio Storaro keeps his head buried in the sand, ignoring the huge advances that have been made in home cinema tech.

I'd feel better about the whole issue if, in the intro on the Blu-ray, Storaro simply says "I like it better this way". No sloblock about resolution and this and that, just a straightforward admission that he prefers the composition of the cropped version.

[Frere Fitch]

Are people happy enough that Redux is being released over the original?

I've grown to like it, I must say. But I'm not sure that I actually prefer it over the 1979 version.

[John Hodson]

Link culled from the HTF, but this interview makes interesting reading. You 'can't have a painting at 2.35:1'? Just what is he on?

But, you know, it can't work -- you can't have a painting at 2.35. If you go to Amsterdam, you go inside the Rijksmuseum, on the back wall you see a beautiful Rembrandt painting called Night Watch. You look at the painting... and something was wrong. It didn't work. Then, next to the main painting there is a copy. It was a copy of the original. The painting by Rembrandt was cut because it didn't fit between two windows. Somebody did the copy before that -- so you can see the original composition. And that's what's happened to cinema on television...

I love 'scope, I also love Academy, but best of all, I love to see a film on screen as it was originally composed. Criterion's The Last Emperor - at least from the screenshots I've seen - is a disgrace, it looks tight, it looks wrong. My memories of seeing the screen filled with choppers - left, right and centre - are blown to bits every time I see Apocalypse Now on DVD (as it was on VHS). They haven't chopped off a huge amount, just enough to spoil some of the compositions...ironically just like Night Watch. IMHO.

And no, I'm not happy with the original cut of AP being somehow airbrushed from history. Redux should remain an interesting 'extra'.

[Geoff_D]

Storaro, like Billy Friedkin, has gone stark staring mad. Replacing the out-dated notion of keeping the image quality constant on a ****ing 4:3 TV, he now insists on 2:1 because "it's the only solution for the future".

The interview also confirms that the 2:1 framing for AN came up when he started transferring it to home video, and not just for the DVD age.

[Frere Fitch]

After the French Connection mess, God knows how the remaster of The Exorcist will turn out. Let's hope he keeps his hands off the proper cut (unlikely).

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by John Hodson

Link culled from the HTF, but this interview makes interesting reading. You 'can't have a painting at 2.35:1'? Just what is he on?

An interesting point to note - the OAR of paintings is often used in film OAR discussions. But the truth is that most old paintings through several aspect ratios. Regularly when they're cleaned up they're re-framed, etc, changing the aspect ratio slightly. If you go and see the Mona Lisa there are parts of the original painting which you can't see - a little like the art world's version of overscan.

Originally Posted by John Hodson

I love 'scope, I also love Academy, but best of all, I love to see a film on screen as it was originally composed. Criterion's The Last Emperor - at least from the screenshots I've seen - is a disgrace, it looks tight, it looks wrong. My memories of seeing the screen filled with choppers - left, right and centre - are blown to bits every time I see Apocalypse Now on DVD (as it was on VHS). They haven't chopped off a huge amount, just enough to spoil some of the compositions...ironically just like Night Watch. IMHO.

And no, I'm not happy with the original cut of AP being somehow airbrushed from history. Redux should remain an interesting 'extra'.

JH, let me put this another way.

1 - I'd prefer to see this on Blu-ray Disc in either 2.35:1 or 2.20:1.
2 - I'll buy it if it's in 2.00:1
3 - I wouldn't buy it if it's in 16:9 or 4:3.

Originally Posted by Frere Fitch

After the French Connection mess, God knows how the remaster of The Exorcist will turn out. Let's hope he keeps his hands off the proper cut (unlikely).

And here's the good news.

Owen Roizman, who was Friedkin's DoP on both The French Connection and The Exorcist, and who publically fell out with WF over TFC BD, is working with him on The Exorcist BD.

This new BD will apparently contain both cuts. Incidentally, there's a very strong argument for saying that the 'Version you’ve Never Seen' is a lot closer to WF's early vision of the film. It's certainly not some Lucas-esque re-imagining. Read more here:

The Exorcist (BFI Modern Classics): Amazon.co.uk: Mark Kermode: Books

Steve W

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by John Hodson

Link culled from the HTF, but this interview makes interesting reading.

I've just had timde to read that in full. I note his reason for going to 2:1 is:

The aspect ratio for 65mm is 1:2.21, and the new video aspect ratio is 1.78. If you remove 0.21 from the 65mm, and then you have high definition which is supposed to be the future film/television format, you'll find the perfect balance between the two is 2:1.

So, he quite clearly says that he chose 2:1 as the perfect balance between the OAR of 2.2:1 and the then new TV standard of 16:9 - no mention of 4:3 at all.

And apparently I was talking 'complete rubbish'.

Steve W

[the thing wnn]

My only issue is that he takes away the choice of what aspect ratio we watch in, especially for those with larger screens
We always have the zoom button (in various guises and amounts) for those who want more of the screen filled.
But for those who want to see a film as it was in the cinema/theatre (e.g. the whole idea of home cinema anyway!) that choice has been taken away by what he considers a fair compromise

Shame

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by the thing wnn

My only issue is that he takes away the choice of what aspect ratio we watch in, especially for those with larger screens
We always have the zoom button (in various guises and amounts) for those who want more of the screen filled.
But for those who want to see a film as it was in the cinema/theatre (e.g. the whole idea of home cinema anyway!) that choice has been taken away by what he considers a fair compromise

Shame

Agreed.

Steve W

[John Hodson]

If he'd have originally framed the damn films for 2.00:1, I'd have no complaints whatsoever. He can do a Lucas and say what he likes now, but he didn't, and this retrospective Pauline conversion to a 'catch all' aspect ratio is plain barmy.

I hate it when BDs are released shorn of their DVD extras for no other reason than to make us dip and dip again. Well, they can sod off until this (and The Last Emperor - nice to see Optimum giving him the finger) is released unmolested. If that's 'never', that's fine by me.

BTW Steve, in responding to Paku, I wasn't agreeing with his comment that you were talking 'rubbish' - heaven forfend...

[Frere Fitch]

Originally Posted by Pecker

This new BD will apparently contain both cuts. Incidentally, there's a very strong argument for saying that the 'Version you’ve Never Seen' is a lot closer to WF's early vision of the film. It's certainly not some Lucas-esque re-imagining. Read more here:

The Exorcist (BFI Modern Classics): Amazon.co.uk: Mark Kermode: Books

Steve W

I think it's a valid alternate cut - certainly - but I still think Friedkin's instincts were sharper in '73, when he cut Blatty's prefered version. Did the studio order the cuts? I must pick up Kermode's book.

Other than the misjudged (imo) ending, I could absolutely live with the longer cut if it wasn't for the major soundtrack alterations and obtrusive CG 'enhancements'.

Anyway - I should probably create an Exorcist thread for this discussion.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by John Hodson

BTW Steve, in responding to Paku, I wasn't agreeing with his comment that you were talking 'rubbish' - heaven forfend...

I know, mate.

Everyone knows that I only talk rubbish on days with a 'd' in them.

Steve W

ps. Extra kudos for 'Pauline conversion'.

SW

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Frere Fitch

I think it's a valid alternate cut - certainly - but I still think Friedkin's instincts were sharper in '73, when he cut Blatty's prefered version. Did the studio order the cuts? I must pick up Kermode's book.

Other than the misjudged (imo) ending, I could absolutely live with the longer cut if it wasn't for the major soundtrack alterations and obtrusive CG 'enhancements'.

Anyway - I should probably create an Exorcist thread for this discussion.

From memory, it goes something like this (warning, contains spoilers):

Blatty's editors persuaded him to alter the ending of the book to be more open-ended - something he always regretted. When his chance came to write the screenplay he felt he'd put this right. WF put together a cut of the film which followed his screenplay, and which is reasonably close to the 'Version You've Never Seen'. Initially WF was happy with this cut. Later on WF felt (like Blatty's publishers) that it was a little obvious - I'm not sure if this was WB's own opinion, or under pressure from producers - so he created a cut pretty close to the original theatrical release. Now, when this was shown to preview audiences they said they liked it, but felt that evil had triumphed at the end. Blatty said "I told you so, let's go back to the original cut", but WF refused. Over the years the two of them would discuss the situation, until Mark Kermode dug out a lot of old, unused footage, including the 'spiderwalk' and the longer ending, whilst filming a documentary for Channel 4. This, and the initial DVD release got WF & Blatty talking again, and WF came back round to Blatty's idea. As the missing footage had been unearthed, he decided to re-cut the film to be closer to the original cut, and came up with the 'Version You've Never Seen' edit.

So, there's a lot to be said for both versions.

Steve W

[rgfinch]

I don't care if Coppola likes it, as JH says, the 2:1 ratio just looks wrong, and the taller ratio just diminishes the film's impact, not enhances it. Would Ben Hur look better 2:1, Lawrence of Arabia, River Kwai, TGTBTU etc etc ? Epic films should be wide because somehow or other, the taller they get the smaller they become.