MovieChat Forums > The Shadow Dancer (2006) Discussion > Disney Sucks

Disney Sucks

posted 17 years ago by ilseofmirth
3 replies | jump to latest

This has to be one of the worst DVD's I've ever seen. Not the movie, but the presentation of the film on DVD. From the trailers and other clips I've seen it is onbious the film was shot in widescreen 2:35. To crop it down to 4:3 and not even take out of the fade to black for the commercial spots is criminal... especially when you're charging $29.00 for the DVD. This is just another example of big studios churning out product without any regard for the film maker or the audience.

Shameful

[–] C-Slim 17 years ago

It was not shot in widescreen 2.35:1. The intended aspect ratio, had it made it to the big screens, would have been that, but it went direct to DVD and TV and very few theaters. It was shot in Super 35 so what you saw was the uncropped full screen version. You actually saw more than in the widescreen version which would have given you less on the top and bottom of the screen.

I was also very bothered by all the needless fade to black... expecting to see a commercial break. It gives the impression that this was done to make this churned out product easier for presentation on TV... to the Lifetime Channel where it belongs.

[–] cinebuffet 17 years ago

It was not shot in Super 35. It was shot in 35mm as the tech specs say. It was then cropped during the editing or DI process to make it 2:35. In fact you see less of the picture because in order to fill the screen in the 4:3 or 16:9 version they had to lose the black on top and bottom of the image. Do this the image had to be blown up. Regardless, I think we both can agree that for the price of the DVD when it came out... without a director's commentary, or secondary langauge track, commerical fades and no option to see the film as the film makers inteneded... it is pretty disgraceful...

[–] C-Slim 17 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35

It was, indeed, shot in 35mm using most of the full frame of the Super 35 original. So, when making this print for TV, there was nothing lost on the top or bottom of the original image and no blow up was needed. There was, most likely, a very small amount lost on both of the sides. But not a significant amount. The 2:35 version would actually be a cropped version which would be fine if it was framed with that in mind. But I've seen wide screen movies (using Super 35 negs) that had too much desirable information noticeably missing on the bottom compared to the "full screen" version. (a miniskirt with great legs, for example, would be tragically lost)
At no time, in this movie, did I feel like there was anything missing or too tight (which would indicate a blow up). And, there was none of that annoying scanning back and forth that you would see in most non-widescreen versions.

Film negative format (mm/video inches)
35 mm

Cinematographic process
Super 35

Printed film format
35 mm (anamorphic)

Aspect ratio
2.35 : 1

from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376181/technical