*cough* Kubrick *cough*

Yeah, the reference was undoubtedly to Kubrick and his '57 film, Paths of Glory.

DOHHHH!

Jesus!

Send me his telephone number!!

There was obviously a similar potential problem with Hitchcock's Psycho. This used to be shown in open-matted Academy Ratio on UK TV except that certain shots of Janet Leigh in the shower were hard-matted to prevent her being shown topless (or maybe that she wasn't topless!)

This one is not from a TV broadcast, this one is from the trailer. I made these screenshots years ago for my DVD review.

While you're here (and on a slightly more positive note), what's happening with the Touch of Evil aspect ratio? AFAIK we haven't heard your take since the announcement of the new box.

I contributed to one of the commentaries (along with my friend James Naremore) and wrote a brief text about the memo at Universal's request, but they didn't either consult with me or tell me about the aspect ratio they went for. I hope they consulted with Rick Schmidlin, who's much better versed on this topic than I am, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't.

Is there any chance you can bust down their door and tell em who's who?

Looking forward to the DVD (and commentary) despite the 1.85 ratio.

Even if they didn't consult Schmidlin on the AR business, he's said in the past that 1.85:1 is the way to go, so unless he's changed his mind (entirely possible given the passage of six years), it wouldn't have made a difference.

He's remained insistent on 1.85, and as you are aware people like Ericksonn at DVDTalk have become offensively insistent to the point of homophobic name-calling.

But what the fuck do I care!

Maybe I missed something, but I doubt that "misinformed flamers" were meant in that way.

He still is completely wrong, and increasingly arrogant on the subject.

Quite honestly, I dont really know what me meant either! But it didn't fill me with joy. When people like him are so - apparently - influential in DVD production decision making.

I would still argue the case that - at the very least - the "Preview" version should be shown in Academy for the principal reason that this is precisely how it was shown for decades to an audience who "re-learnt" and discovered it, and of course championed the movie in large part based on how Metty and Welles had intended it. It is also screamingly obviously correct, but never mind that.

Schmidlin's not wrong to believe, given the year of release the movie should have been 1.85, but all the evidence of studious observation belies that. Never mind, the non pros opinions never count, and that includes a literal army of cinephiles who've never published anything and who are powerless to affect any sort of HomeVid decision making. Unless of course someone whom they "respect" contradicts the Prices and Schmidlins and perhaps dilutes their arrogance. It's the same shit with Ned Price and fucking The Searchers.

This as well as Psycho (1960) will be on TCM tonight from 8PM to Midnight on the east coast. So I just thought I would give a heads up on here, because this may in fact be the new releases that are forthcoming in October.

While I haven't seen the posts at hand, I think he meant "internet troll" when using "flamer".

Regarding Erickson's "misinformed flamers" comment I'm inclined to agree with bishop and chris as to its real meaning. Nevertheless I completely understand and empathize with David's feelings of offense even if it was not directed at him personally. I believe his subsequent post quite accurately describes the "professional insiders" view of us as collectively composed of "misinformed" anal retentive fanboys when in fact some of us are film professionals with years of experience in production, post-production and exhibition as well as actual film collectors, some of whom could probably date the origins of a film print by reading its edge codes at least as accurately a paleontologist carbon dates a dinosaur bone! Unfortunately we have no standing in this "insiders zone" and to make matters worse the "professionals" all to often resort to the sort of juvenile film geek oneupmanship and arrogance that we frequently get accused of.

To get back on point I continue to hope that at least the original and/or preview version gets transferred in 1:37 although all the pre-order specs I've found so far indicate widescreen only. However, as I mentioned previously, unless these versions have been digitally hard-matted then they would be ipso facto 4x3.

I hope no actual trolls were offended by this.

THis reminds me of a graffito a thousand years ago on a toilet door.

Somone had scrawled "johnno like fucking grils."

Sombody else scrawled "you mean girls"

And somebody else scrawled "what about us grils!"

I checked out parts of it last night and wasn't too impressed with the transfer. I had only seen it on DVD years ago so I can't really recall how it looks on the current DVD.

Psycho looked absolutely beautiful on TCM last night. I'd have to check but if I remember correctly it looked alot better than the version in the Hitchcock Masterpiece Collection that was realeased I think in the 80's.

80s? I thought the print used in the recent dvd collection was a recent restoration.. no?

brainfart, I'm retarded. I don't think they even had DVD's in the 80s. haha. Either way, Psycho looked gorgeous on TCM.

Glenn Erickson's review on Film.com

This is discouraging in its closemindedness. It tries to completely devalue the idea that the films might possibly have been composed for academy ratio. I saw a print of Touch of Evil a couple of weeks ago at the Walter Reade that was academy, with the Heston family in attendance, but according to Erickson it was projected incorrectly.