MovieChat Forums > Mackenna's Gold (1969) Discussion > 2010 widescreen DVD - not really

2010 widescreen DVD - not really

posted 14 years ago by yakko362002
8 replies | jump to latest

I bought a DVD of this a few days ago (having already bought one a year or so ago) because this one said it was in widescreen. It looks just like the other DVD except it has a 2010 date on it, the sky on the cover is blue instead of orange, and it on the back it says widescreen instead of fullscreen. I was disappointed to learn that it is the same full screen print that is on the first DVD. I thought someone had finally seen fit to release this movie as it should be, in widescreen and with Julie Newmar's nude scenes restored, but still no.

Just thought I'd give everyone a heads-up on this especially if you were really wanting the widescreen version as I was. This 2010 reissue is full screen even though the box says it's widescreen. First few minutes are wide, then it changes to full - just like the other DVD and the VHS version.

Why would they claim widescreen on the label when it isn't?

yakko

[–] wvmcl 14 years ago

That's funny because I recently saw it on TCM and it was in what looked like 2:35:1 widescreen, and the nude swimming scene seemed to be fully intact. I'm surprised that they would not release this version on DVD. But then TCM seems to take a more serious attitude toward film preservation than a lot of DVD producers.

[–] lschwartz106 14 years ago

Your evaluation of the latest print is valid. But I was still impressed by the sheer photograhy, and at times, camera movement. As a north-easterner from New York City, perhaps I don't get the horizontal beauty that the film had.

[–] rich56 14 years ago

Saw this in the store the other day and , like you, have been waiting for a widescreen version. Almost bought it based on the back info. Thought I'd check with some DVD sites first to make sure I wouldn't be burned. Glad I did.

[–] Lumbering_Golem 13 years ago

If you're in the USA, the Region 1 disc was originally a two-sided release, with a 2.35:1 widescreen print on side A and a 4:3 fullscreen pan and scan print on side B.

However, sometime after its original release, the disc was replaced with a single-sided version that only contains the 4:3 pan and scan print.

In the UK, we only ever had a one-sided disc with the 2.35:1 print of the film which, I'm assuming, hasn't been replaced with a 4:3 print in the meantime.

[–] allentbone 13 years ago

I wish I had read your post before I bought the DVD, I thought Sony had finally done this movie right but it still is Fullscreen. I'm taking my copy back to the store because I had only bought it because it states "1.85:1 Anamorphic Widescreen".

[–] moondoggiedaddy2007 13 years ago

I agree with what everybody said. I also purchased this movie based upon its advertised aspect ratio; its package cover lists 1.85:1 Anamorphic Widescreen. The movie lasts around 128 minutes, and here is a timed breakdown of the aspect ratio:

0:00:00 --- 0:05:45 = widescreen
0:05:46 --- 2:06:49 = full screen
2:06:50 --- 2:07:55 = widescreen

After watching it, I returned it to the store for a full refund.

I'm told the Laserdisc version of "Mackenna's Gold" is truly widescreen. Is that a fact, or were we, the consumers, taken again for a deceptive product like fool's gold for the real thing?

It is possible the movie studio is unaware of this "mistake". Perhaps we consumers can inform them.

Write to SonyPictures.com through their web site, or contact them at their address:

Columbia Pictures
10202 W. Washington Blvd.,
Culver City, CA 90232-3195

[–] trainnvain 13 years ago

They're showing this on Sony Movie Channel HD this month, watched it last night. Was in widescreen aspect, and contained the scenes that some on here say were previously edited out. Not a bad movie, Julie-good, heavy back projection use-bad.

[–] darkness_surroundz 8 years ago

Nope this is NOT a goof up

Many films shot widescreen splash much of the films info, title, stars and credits across the whole 2.35 screen
when shown on television and cut to 1.33, many names and titles would be lopped off on either side;

PLUS union rules dictate that the titles and workers on a film must have their names 'visible'
Since squashing the screen to fit on Tee Vee would look weird or make the films info unreadable
usually the first minute or two and the last 1-5 minutes are allowed to remain/revert to widescreen

When at the front of a movie-they will keep it widescreen until the first scene ends, then BANG! 1.33 aspect ratio-they don't just cut to 1.33 right after the "Directed by" goes away
Like wise they are also required to show all credits at the end not be cut off, so the last scene in a film will revert to widescreen (2.35) until the end