logo Sign In

John William's Opinion on the Special Editions — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Harlock415
New set.

I looked up some information on the mistake on other sites. So I put disc in my DVD ROm drive and checked the file date of the TS_VIDEO files. It's the newer ones.


I just found out why that is. You must have the re-released set from January 2005. It was re-released then, nearly exactly the same but at a new low price (with a promotional sticker on the packaging saying this). This re-release contained both the corrected versions, but, curiously, only had the V2 label on Part II and not on Part III, even though Part III has been confirmed to be the corrected version.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
What is the original date of that article? It reads as though it were from 1997. It predates the Prequels.
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, this interview is from 1997, from before Lucas started suppressing the OOT. George Lucas was dubbing the new "End Celebration" music into ROTJ on the day the interview took place.
Author
Time
Post link
My BTTF disks don't say V2...can anyone point out a goofed scene, so I know if my DVDs are tainted or not?
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: BountyHunter
My BTTF disks don't say V2...can anyone point out a goofed scene, so I know if my DVDs are tainted or not?


Well, pretty much every scene in II and III is misframed, but for a specific instance, watch the scene in II where Doc size adjusts Marty's jacket. If you can't see him pressing the button, you have the misframed editions.

Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room!

Author
Time
Post link
I'd read that Williams interview a few months ago. Yeah, being from '97 his point of saying the originals were still available was valid at the time. As far as I've ever heard Lucas wasn't talking about suppressing them at that point . . .

I agree with Williams on what he says there; artists have the right to change their ideas, definitely, but it just isn't cool to suppress an older take in such a heavy-handed manner when it's been around for a long time and is a classic in the eyes of millions. Both have to be available. And now, thankfully, we're getting that.
Author
Time
Post link
I love BTTF.

If you want to tell if you have V2 or not, put in part II. Go to the scene towards the beginning after they first 'land' in the future and Marty is changing clothes. Notice the shot where Marty says his jacket doesn't fit. When Doc reaches over and presses a button on it, you SHOULD be able to see his sleeves "adjust". If it looks like nothing happened, you have the flawed disc.

In Part III, go to where Marty first arrived in 1885 Hill Valley. Notice the shot after Marty accidentally jumps in horse crap, where he stands there for a second and it sinks in his shoes are stinky. If the poo reaches the end of the black bar, then the rest is cropped and you have the flawed disc. But if the poop is well in view, you're discs are allright.

I never had the nerve to make the final cut.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
You see, the BTTF movies were shot in an open matte ratio. Rather than being filmed in a 1.88:1 ratio, they were filmed in Academy (and TV) standard 1.33:1 with the top and bottom cropped for theatrical release.



So wait just a second...the full screen presentation shows MORE of the movie than the widescreen presentation? So this is one of the very few cases where it's better to have full screen.
Author
Time
Post link
Yes, the fullscreen version shows more in this case. In most open matte cases, though, the widescreen is still the better way to go, because it was shot that way simply to be easier to carry over to home video (before consumers cared about widescreen), and the directors usually didn't pay attention to the edges of the frame resulting in things like boom mics and other mistakes being in the frame. In this case, Zemeckis has sometimes stated things to the extent that he intended the movie not to be wide, so it's debatable. There aren't any mistakes in the full frame. But, yeah, that explains the whole misframing fiasco in the first place because they were covering up the edges of the picture in wrong places omitting important information.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
But just so I know for sure...my discs are messed up, right?
Author
Time
Post link
Yes. Yes, they are.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: BountyHunter
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
You see, the BTTF movies were shot in an open matte ratio. Rather than being filmed in a 1.88:1 ratio, they were filmed in Academy (and TV) standard 1.33:1 with the top and bottom cropped for theatrical release.



So wait just a second...the full screen presentation shows MORE of the movie than the widescreen presentation? So this is one of the very few cases where it's better to have full screen.


The only case where it's better to have fullscreen is in cases where it was shot in, and intended to be shown in fullscreen. The fact that it was shot in fullscreen does not mean that was what was meant to be shown. For a great example... check out A Fish Called Wanda. In the widescreen version, John Cleese is naked while talking to the family, making it, well, FUNNY. In the fullscreen version, you can see he's clearly wearing pants.

You should watch films in whatever the director intends. In the case of BTTF, you should get the widescreen versions.

And yes, you have a bad copy of the discs.

Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room!

Author
Time
Post link
But what about Stanley Kubrick who intended some of his movies (Full Metal Jacket, for example, and maybe The Shining) to be shown in widescreen in theaters and in fullscreen on video?!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
In this case, Zemeckis has sometimes stated things to the extent that he intended the movie not to be wide, so it's debatable. There aren't any mistakes in the full frame.



Originally posted by: bad_karma24
You should watch films in whatever the director intends. In the case of BTTF, you should get the widescreen versions.


Wait, I'm getting conflicting info here, which is the way the movie was intended to be seen...Full or Wide?
Author
Time
Post link
I've heard interviews with him on the DVD (which you should have) that state that he didn't consider the movies to be suited for widescreen, and that he shot them in 1.33:1 because more people would end up seeing the movie on video anyway. Last time I brought this up here, someone proposed that he could have been referring to 2.33:1 as wide rather than 1.88:1 (which is the ratio the widescreen version of it is in), which could be a possibility. I personally prefer the widescreen versions, and I own them that way on DVD, but in this case there is nothing wrong with the fullscreen, and in terms of your versions, less wrong with the fullscreen.

But it gets even more complicated than that, I just remembered! The special effects shots were filmed in a 1.88:1 ratio, so you're actually seeing the full image of special effects shots in the widescreen version while the fullscreen version crops them! So basically, in either version, you're losing some parts of the picture... which sucks.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
But it gets even more complicated than that, I just remembered! The special effects shots were filmed in a 1.88:1 ratio, so you're actually seeing the full image of special effects shots in the widescreen version while the fullscreen version crops them! So basically, in either version, you're losing some parts of the picture... which sucks.


Damn...Damn, damn!
Author
Time
Post link
1.85:1 is how they were shown in theaters, so if you want the original theatrical experience...
Author
Time
Post link
That's true. So obviously it depends on if you want the theatrical experience (why I like the widescreen), or if you want the full picture. I personally think a lot of grief could have been saved if they had just shot the thing wide to begin with (I'm not a big fan of open matte, especially in today's world when there's really no need for it).

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Think of it this way - you'll have a widescreen TV sooner or later and the FS will look silly on it.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Z6PO
But what about Stanley Kubrick who intended some of his movies (Full Metal Jacket, for example, and maybe The Shining) to be shown in widescreen in theaters and in fullscreen on video?!


They were shown in theaters in widescreen because at the time, most theaters couldn't show 4:3 stuff. He always intended them to be fullframe though.

And the intended versions of BTTF are the widescreen versions. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room!

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
I've heard interviews with him on the DVD (which you should have) that state that he didn't consider the movies to be suited for widescreen, and that he shot them in 1.33:1 because more people would end up seeing the movie on video anyway. Last time I brought this up here, someone proposed that he could have been referring to 2.33:1 as wide rather than 1.88:1 (which is the ratio the widescreen version of it is in), which could be a possibility. I personally prefer the widescreen versions, and I own them that way on DVD, but in this case there is nothing wrong with the fullscreen, and in terms of your versions, less wrong with the fullscreen.

But it gets even more complicated than that, I just remembered! The special effects shots were filmed in a 1.88:1 ratio, so you're actually seeing the full image of special effects shots in the widescreen version while the fullscreen version crops them! So basically, in either version, you're losing some parts of the picture... which sucks.


No way. I had to have watched the original Star Wars over 200 times as a kid in fullscreen. It used pan and scan all over the place. When I saw the special edition in the theater (and then purchased all three on VHS), I saw it in widescreen and was blown away by how much of the screen I had peviously been missing. It was so cool to see it all for the first time. Uhm, one famous scene that comes to my mind is the closing shot of everyone standing at the award ceremony; the fullscreen had to pan over as the music finale boomed in order to just show everyone. I also remembered scenes in the cantina that showed more of the strange creatures. Oh, and that awesome shot of the Star Destroyer in the opening was a lot more impressive.

Here are two websites:

http://www.widescreen.org/examples/starwars/index.shtml
http://www.stomptokyo.com/sings/lbx/starwarslbx.html

....anyways, perhaps he meant Empire and/or Jedi? Though, I seem to remember seeing a lot more in those movies too, but I'm less sure...

Perhaps a good explanation of what you heard is that he used widescreen for every shot he made, but still designed each shot to be easy to convert to 3x4?


Otherwise, I think I enjoy movies in widescreen over fullscreen since widescreen gives that greater horizontal periphery. Human beings more naturally look to their side before looking up.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
THe directors of BTTF were of the variety that, like Stanley Kubrick, despised how their films looked when brougth to home video because of cropping.

So that's why they shot open matte. They taped cardboard or something to the screens where the mattes would be, so they didn't actually shoot with the "fullscreen" version in mind, but filmed FOR the widescreen version. So widescreen is still the better way to go if you ask me. That's they way the shots were compiled, composited, and framed to be seen. In some films shot this way, you can see hanging boom mikes and other things like that in the open matte fullscreen version. In BTTF 2 in the fullscreen version, you can see the dolly that the Delorean is "flying" on when it is chasing Biff to get the Almanac back. This is an example of an unwanted bit of picture giving part of the movie away.

So if you ask me, widescreen is the best way to go. you can call the number and have them send you the new discs. I did. It's not a scam, and doesn't take very long. For nerds like us.

I never had the nerve to make the final cut.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
I've heard interviews with him on the DVD (which you should have) that state that he didn't consider the movies to be suited for widescreen, and that he shot them in 1.33:1 because more people would end up seeing the movie on video anyway. Last time I brought this up here, someone proposed that he could have been referring to 2.33:1 as wide rather than 1.88:1 (which is the ratio the widescreen version of it is in), which could be a possibility. I personally prefer the widescreen versions, and I own them that way on DVD, but in this case there is nothing wrong with the fullscreen, and in terms of your versions, less wrong with the fullscreen.

But it gets even more complicated than that, I just remembered! The special effects shots were filmed in a 1.88:1 ratio, so you're actually seeing the full image of special effects shots in the widescreen version while the fullscreen version crops them! So basically, in either version, you're losing some parts of the picture... which sucks.


No way. I had to have watched the original Star Wars over 200 times as a kid in fullscreen. It used pan and scan all over the place. When I saw the special edition in the theater (and then purchased all three on VHS), I saw it in widescreen and was blown away by how much of the screen I had peviously been missing. It was so cool to see it all for the first time. Uhm, one famous scene that comes to my mind is the closing shot of everyone standing at the award ceremony; the fullscreen had to pan over as the music finale boomed in order to just show everyone. I also remembered scenes in the cantina that showed more of the strange creatures. Oh, and that awesome shot of the Star Destroyer in the opening was a lot more impressive.

Here are two websites:

http://www.widescreen.org/examples/starwars/index.shtml
http://www.stomptokyo.com/sings/lbx/starwarslbx.html

....anyways, perhaps he meant Empire and/or Jedi? Though, I seem to remember seeing a lot more in those movies too, but I'm less sure...

Perhaps a good explanation of what you heard is that he used widescreen for every shot he made, but still designed each shot to be easy to convert to 3x4?


Otherwise, I think I enjoy movies in widescreen over fullscreen since widescreen gives that greater horizontal periphery. Human beings more naturally look to their side before looking up.


Um, we're talking about Back to the Future, Tiptup, not Star Wars. All of Star Wars was filmed in a 2.33:1 ratio, so the fullscreen version is definitely cropped, and you're missing out on a large portion of the picture in that case.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.