539 House

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Message
Author
zombeaner
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:24 pm

Re: 539 House

#26 Post by zombeaner »

Jeff wrote:
marnum wrote:Sorry for the repetition, but the announced aspect ratio can't be right. Should be 1.55:1.
MoC's transfer is 1.55 because that is what was on the ten year old master that Toho supplied them with. They weren't sure why Toho did that, but it looks fine. Janus did their own new high-def master of the original elements (which are 1.37, of course) and elected not to mask it at all. Their 1.37 print is what played recently in U.S. theaters, and that is what will be on the Criterion Blu-ray and DVD.
The print I just saw last weekend was matted closer to 1.85:1 It did appear to be missing some information at the top and bottom, but not enough to lose the subs.
Zombie-Luv
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:23 pm

Re: 539 House

#27 Post by Zombie-Luv »

Just got back from seeing this with my mum, and we both hated it. It was indulgent and it felt like it when on forever. I really did like the theme song, though.
User avatar
Tribe
The Bastard Spawn of Hank Williams
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Contact:

Re: 539 House

#28 Post by Tribe »

Zombie-Luv wrote:Just got back from seeing this with my mum, and we both hated it. It was indulgent and it felt like it when on forever. I really did like the theme song, though.
Indulgent. Who woulda thought.
User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:46 pm

Re: 539 House

#29 Post by HerrSchreck »

Jeff wrote:
marnum wrote:Sorry for the repetition, but the announced aspect ratio can't be right. Should be 1.55:1.
MoC's transfer is 1.55 because that is what was on the ten year old master that Toho supplied them with. They weren't sure why Toho did that, but it looks fine. Janus did their own new high-def master of the original elements (which are 1.37, of course) and elected not to mask it at all. Their 1.37 print is what played recently in U.S. theaters, and that is what will be on the Criterion Blu-ray and DVD.
Yep, I can vouch for that... I saw it projected at IFC earlier in the year after the restoration and I can vouch that it was projected theatrically by Janus in the academy ratio. WTF is 1.55 anyhow? Kind of a whack AR to begin with.
User avatar
The Fanciful Norwegian
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:24 pm
Location: Teegeeack

Re: 539 House

#30 Post by The Fanciful Norwegian »

Yes, it's called 14:9. As noted in the link, it's sometimes used to present 4:3 material in a 16:9 broadcast, so I'm guessing similar logic compelled Toho to make a 14:9 master of House. I have a few DVDs in the same AR, including one of Rohmer's "Four Seasons" films (can't remember which) and The Housemaid.
User avatar
TechNoir
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:32 am

Re: 539 House

#31 Post by TechNoir »

HK Flix has a cool T-shirt that they are giving away for free with preorders of this title. Its the same one thats on the Criterion site. It also comes with a large round decal as well.
User avatar
Minkin
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:13 am

Re: Atkins shirts

#32 Post by Minkin »

Yeah, but the shirts are only available in Large and Extra Large. Is that HK Flix's target audience?
What's with people not posting links today?
Last edited by Minkin on Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:25 pm
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Atkins shirts

#33 Post by swo17 »

Minkin wrote:What's with people not posting links today?
Insert smarmy wikipedia reference here.
User avatar
Venom
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:26 am

Re: 539 House

#34 Post by Venom »

User avatar
Cash Flagg
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:15 am

Re: 539 House

#35 Post by Cash Flagg »

Zombie-Luv wrote:It was indulgent and it felt like it when on forever.
I would imagine any film on forever would feel like it was indulgent.
User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: 539 House

#36 Post by cdnchris »

zombeaner
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:24 pm

Re: 539 House

#37 Post by zombeaner »

I still fail miserably when trying to describe this film to friends. It is just impossible.
User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 8:43 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: 539 House

#38 Post by mfunk9786 »

We recently invited a lot of people to a screening and had to do a lot of awkward convincing for a few of them. It's annoying to realize that you're not respected enough for "trust me, just come and see it" to work outright.
User avatar
Peacock
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 11:47 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: 539 House

#39 Post by Peacock »

Did they enjoy it?
User avatar
Buttery Jeb
Just in it for the game.
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:55 am

Re: 539 House

#40 Post by Buttery Jeb »

I just told people it was bat-shit insane; those who came, they'd have enjoyed it the most anyway.
User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 8:43 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: 539 House

#41 Post by mfunk9786 »

Peacock wrote:Did they enjoy it?
Of course, should go without saying! ;)
User avatar
Minkin
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:13 am

Re: 539 House

#42 Post by Minkin »

Beaver

Double dip!
crmb
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:28 pm

Re: 539 House

#43 Post by crmb »

Unfortunately, looks like the blu is cropped to 1.33 and not in the original 1.37. (missing left-right information VS the 1.55 master)
I don't see the the point to not release it 1.37
User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: United States

Re: 539 House

#44 Post by Finch »

Anyone know why the Crit has a purple tint in one screencap and the MoC doesn't? And which one is accurate?
User avatar
mteller
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:23 pm

Re: 539 House

#45 Post by mteller »

Finch wrote:Anyone know why the Crit has a purple tint in one screencap and the MoC doesn't? And which one is accurate?
I don't know, but considering it's House, I'd bet on the wackier purple.
User avatar
med
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:58 pm

Re: 539 House

#46 Post by med »

I can't say for certain whether that purple was there when I saw the film around the start of the year, but I'd assume it was. I doubt any additional futzing around was performed on the print between the theatrical run the home-video release, since Janus/Criterion handled them both. And given that Toho master MOC used is cropped wrong, anyway, the Criterion is the safe bet.
Giulio
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 10:35 pm
Location: Italy

Re: 539 House

#47 Post by Giulio »

wait wait wait please

which one is cropped? for beaver both, which is the correct AR?
User avatar
criterionsnob
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: 539 House

#48 Post by criterionsnob »

The re-release was definitely projected 1.33:1 and had the tint.
User avatar
andyli
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:46 pm

Re: 539 House

#49 Post by andyli »

crmb wrote:Unfortunately, looks like the blu is cropped to 1.33 and not in the original 1.37. (missing left-right information VS the 1.55 master)
I don't see the the point to not release it 1.37
Did CC release one single blu-ray title which has 1.37:1 ratio instead of 1.33:1? I think it's a company thing. They just don't want to make two different transfers for DVD and Blu-ray.
User avatar
med
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:58 pm

Re: 539 House

#50 Post by med »

They actually do perform different transfers for DVD and BD releases of the same title, but I know what you mean. And the subject of MOC's 1.55 vs. Criterion's 1.37/1.33 was already addressed in this thread.

The colors on the MOC release—I'm judging from the Beaver caps here, as I've never seen the disc itself—are fairly dull and washed out. Given the nature of the film overall, I'm sure it was the filmmaker's intent to have bright, popping colors.
Post Reply