MovieChat Forums > The Hills Have Eyes (1977) Discussion > Some Problems With The Cropped DVD/Blu-R...

Some Problems With The Cropped DVD/Blu-Ray Transfer

posted 13 years ago by FightingWesterner
10 replies | jump to latest

Due to the inherent nature of low-budget horror flicks, there's a lot of films originally shot with a 1.33:1, full frame screen ratio, most of which have turned up on discs in cropped 1.78:1 versions.

Most of the time, what's shaved from the top and bottom of the screen are of little or no consequence to the picture, as many were (or claimed to have been) shot with widescreen exhibition in mind.

However, the Hills Have Eyes is the exeption, with a few notable moments robbed of their full effectiveness.

The first incident occurs during the scene where Jupiter is eating Big Bob while ranting at his severed head. Seeing things from the point-of-view of Bob's head, Jupiter spouts the line, "You put your fingers in our pie...!", during which he wags Bob's severed hand at the camera. In the DVD and Blu-Ray version, most of the hand and all of the fingers are cut off, taking a bit of irony and black comedy with it.

The second time occurs during the climax, when Ruby catches the rattlesnake with the forked stick. Again, most of the snake's head is now unseen. For those of you without access to the old videotape editions, watch it again as part of un-cropped alternate ending in the disc's special features. Notice the snake's full face and hissing tongue and tell me which version of the frame is more effective.

I remember in the eighties and nineties, when pan and scan videos were the standard, film buffs were rightly aghast at the butchered prints of their favorite films. It leads me to ask this question. If panning and scanning motion pictures, in order to fill a square television, is artisticaly bankrupt, why then isn't it as bankrupt to cut a square picture in order to fit a widescreen TV?

[–] Minus_The_Beer 12 years ago

I think the cropping of films originally shot in 4:3 to fit widescreen TVs is more forgiveable given the fact that there just aren't as many cases of this as there were of cropping in the VHS era. Most of the films that were originally shot in 4:3 (save for Kubrick's work) are b-movies and/or horror movies that the general public and self-proclaimed "movie buffs" could care less about.

Regardless, The Hills Have Eyes is certainly a film that should have been released in both full-screen and widescreen -- and in the same package. Usually Anchor Bay is reliable when it comes to these things, but I guess they dropped the ball this time.

[–] FightingWesterner 12 years ago

Thankfully, there's a lot less panning and scanning in today's home video releases. However, there are some major genre films, previously released on full frame VHS, that have been trimmed to fit widescreen TV's.

Some of the more notable movies: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Psycho, Re-Animator, Maniac Cop, Black Christmas, Night Of The Demons, a slew of older Hammer productions, and George A. Romero's Martin, The Crazies, and Season Of The Witch.

The Evil Dead and Night Of The Living Dead probably exist on disc in 1.33:1, only because Elite Entertainment and Anchor Bay drummed the fact of their original aspect ratios into the brains of fans long before widescreen televisions became the norm, which suggests a little bit of underhandedness when it comes to later releases like The Hills Have Eyes.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FightingWesterner 12 years ago

Instead of trying to insult me, maybe you should instead try to refute my statements in a logical fashion.

Believe it or not, the framing of a lot of 1970's exploitation films were often decided not by the director, but by the projectionists at the local drive-in, who were handed a 1:33.1 print with no special instructions on how to show it. Many times, the filmmaker's decision to crop the image is a retroactive one, Romero's pre-Dawn films for instance.

I gave two specific examples to back up my assertion that some scenes in the film are badly framed when cropped for a 1:85.1 or 1:78.1 exhibition, whether Wes Craven intended it or not. Why would he compose a scene with a glib reference to to an onscreen action, and then cut it off? Why would he go through the trouble of having an actress pick up a live rattlesnake and then fail to show her grab the rattlesnake?

Last House On The Left was also shot in 16mn and there's no scene I can point to that's as badly clipped as these. Either Craven dropped the ball on this one, or he took a look at the cheap film-stock and decided it would look like crap blown up to 35mm.

No whining here, just someone who wants to express an opinion and gauge that of others.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FightingWesterner 12 years ago

Let me know what you think. After watching (and loving) the VHS versions about a million times, the two scenes were kind of of a letdown. (I can't help it. I got OCD!)

I read somewhere that the original negatives for Last House On The Left were tossed after being blown up to 35mm, leaving only the 1:85.1 version. Nevertheless, it looks fine, even the pan and scan Vestron VHS. That was one I honestly believe was shot with widescreen exhibition in mind.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FightingWesterner 12 years ago

Fair enough.

[–] John-367 7 years ago

"Last House On The Left was also shot in 16mn and there's no scene I can point to that's as badly clipped as these. Either Craven dropped the ball on this one, or he took a look at the cheap film-stock and decided it would look like crap blown up to 35mm. "

In the pre-digital era 16mm would always have to be blown up to 35mm in order to be shown in the vast majority of cinemas. Only some art-house cinemas or non-theatrical venues would be able to project a 16mm print.
Everyone concerned should have had in mind that cropping to widescreen was going to be the main way the film would be seen, especially given that TV screenings were unlikely at the time for a film like this.
It would be easy to forget though on the odd shot, especially if you didn't have a ground glass in the camera viewfinder which was etched with the correct framing guide.

[–] FightingWesterner 7 years ago

Don't get me wrong. I wasn't saying it was not blown up to 35mm. I was suggesting that the stock was so grainy that Craven may have decided to keep the 1.33.1 ratio for the prints, which he didn't do for Last House On The Left.

My contention is that the primary venue for this was drive-ins and other "low rent" movie houses that were probably very used to showing older, square-shaped pictures and that he himself may have realized that a pulled-back image would help clean it up a little.

I wish they would have at least done what Bill Lustig did for the Maniac Cop 3 blu-ray (which was trimmed from it's home video premiere ratio to a slim 2:35.1) and did some panning along with the scanning.