Jet Li's Fearless (Huo Yuan Jia)

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 28 Apr 2008, 21:43

Now, now Brad...

It is a fine film. I just wish it's cinema release had prompted a better DVD of the original Huo Yuan Jia film Legend Of a Fighter

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 28 Apr 2008, 22:47

Who own the American rights? If anyone. It's unlikely HKL were going to re-release it.

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 28 Apr 2008, 23:46

Don't think anyone has it in America

Could be Mei Ah has it in HK

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 28 Apr 2008, 23:53

Mei Ah could sub-license the film I reckon, unless people have to go to Seasonal directly.

'Legend Of A Fighter' is a bit of a clumsy film and doesn't warrant a re-release, as much as I enjoy it. It would have been nice if they got it right the first time round (despite SITES being an BBFC 18, it was marketed to involve teens).

If anything, Mei Ah may remaster it in the future, an upgrade from my Cantonese 4:3 VCD. If it had 24p flagging and better subtitles, it would have more advantages than HKL's (more extensive clean-up aside).

Agreed, I love the artwork of the DC. Markgway loved it so much, he elaborated on it with variants :twisted: .

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 29 Apr 2008, 09:46

SITES marketed to involve teens? Eh?
You mean it was marketed towards teens?

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 29 Apr 2008, 13:14

What Chen Lung means is the "official explanation" for why SITES, DM and LOAF were cropped by HKL

From DVD Fever

Why crop and result in such a missed opportunity? The following comes courtesy of the DVD Debate, which answers the query and it comes straight from Brian White, Head DVD producer at Medusa :

"The reason we decided to re-master this movie into 16:9 format was to cater for the widest possible commercial audience. The hard-core collectors may all prefer 2:35:1, but we have found that many kids with 14, 17 and 21" television sets are amongst the most regular buyers of Jackie Chan movies.
Unfortunately, due to the tiny viewing area offered with the 2:35:1 format on smaller TV sets, we often get asked by this target audience to provide 'pan & scan' versions of our movies. As the hard-core collectors detest 'p & s' with a passion, I thought the 16:9 anamorphic/1:85:1 widescreen ratio, would be a good compromise that would appeal to both markets.

In addition, had we conformed the feature to 2:35:1 anamorphic standard, most of the nation's DVD players, are currently not equiped to handle this ratio correctly, and therefore the image would be stretched."

So - a well-judged decision or an incredible lack of foresight? You decide. Every single DVD player can handle a 2.35:1 anamorphic feature film and if he's worried about small TVs, what about putting both a 2.35:1 and a 4:3 version on the disc? After all, a 16:9 version doesn't satisfy either market, it just annoys both!

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 29 Apr 2008, 13:25

OK, I see what you mean then. Seems a dumb explanation from HKL to me.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 29 Apr 2008, 13:28

To be fair Brian White did quickly change his opinion on what aspect ratio to use. They only cropped 3 films, it's only a major problem with LOAF.

I always set DVD Players to 16:9 Enhanced even on 4:3 TVs as the black bars on 2.35:1 are so huge in non-anamorphic mode, it's especially bad on small TVs. Sure it makes the heads then stretched but I personally prefer that.

Of course I personally have never had to put up with either. My Mum oddly has never even noticed the stretched heads but would notice the black bars. From my perspective there is no decent way to display Widescreen movies on a 4:3 TV.

Many French DVDs for 1.66:1/1.78:1/1.85:1 movies have the WS flag properly set so they'll display in 4:3 P&S if your DVD Player is set that way, instead of 4:3 P&S being no different to 4:3 Letterbox. It's a pity more companies never used the flag properly.

what about putting both a 2.35:1 and a 4:3 version on the disc?

You would then get people complaining the bitrate is low due to both versions on 1 disc. Although many MA films tend to be 90-100 minutes, so it may work.

In addition, had we conformed the feature to 2:35:1 anamorphic standard, most of the nation's DVD players, are currently not equiped to handle this ratio correctly, and therefore the image would be stretched.

No they're not. What is this supposed to mean?

eon · Post by **eon** » 29 Apr 2008, 13:37

Nice one - hopefully they manage to release it on blu-ray at some stage. I've got the HK Director's Cut already, definitely a much better movie - far better pacing etc. The theatrical cut was good, the DC was very good.

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 29 Apr 2008, 13:37

"I always set DVD Players to 16:9 Enhanced even on 4:3 TVs as the black bars on 2.35:1 are so huge in non-anamorphic mode, it's especially bad on small TVs. Sure it makes the heads then stretched but I personally prefer that. "

Dear God help you!

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 29 Apr 2008, 13:43

What do they mean? Of course UK DVD players can handle 16/9.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 29 Apr 2008, 13:57

I think that Brad meant that he sets DVD players to "auto-tilt & scan mode" when they're hooked up to 4:3 TVs. Correct?

If so, then Jesus fucking Christ. May the the Lord have mercy on your soul indeed. I have literally yelled at people (eg my mother and aunt) for doing such pig-shit ignorant things as that.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 29 Apr 2008, 14:13

What on earth is auto-tilt & scan mode? I've no idea what that is.

Most DVD Players only have 3 modes: 4:3 P&S (which does naff all on most DVDs), 4:3 Letterbox or 16:9 Enhanced. I meant I choose the latter no matter if it's a 4:3 or 16:9 TV.

Before you guys get your knickers in a twist again I've never owned a 4:3 TV and DVD Player at the same time. I already owned a WS TV when I bought my first DVD Player. As to my Mum she prefers it set to 16:9, it's her TV. I happen to agree with her.

On a 14" 4:3 TV (her TV size) a 2.35:1 movie in non-anamorphic mode has so much black bars and such a small image it's hard to see what's going on. In that scenario screw "the director's vision", the director never intended the 2.35:1 movie to be watched on such a small TV but when it is you have no choice but to try and choose the best of a bad bunch.

On a 14" 4:3 TV both 4:3 letterbox and 16:9 enhanced look almost a bad as each other. If her TV was bigger it maybe different but you really have no choice watching a 2.35:1 letterbox movie on such a small TV.

As to yelling at my relatives. I'd never do such a thing, not without provocation anyway.

grim_tales wrote:What do they mean? Of course UK DVD players can handle 16/9.

I wondered that too.

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 29 Apr 2008, 14:58

"On a 14" 4:3 TV (her TV size) a 2.35:1 movie in non-anamorphic mode has so much black bars and such a small image it's hard to see what's going on. In that scenario screw "the director's vision", the director never intended the 2.35:1 movie to be watched on such a small TV but when it is you have no choice but to try and choose the best of a bad bunch"

You're weird! I watched bloody Ben Hur on a 14 inch set and had no problems. Just admit you have zero respect for filmmakers. Cause strectching the image (hey, do you work for Soublade by any chance) is just pathetic

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 29 Apr 2008, 15:30

Bradavon: "The member who drives you around the bend"

Just admit you have zero respect for filmmakers.

That would be W for WTF!

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 29 Apr 2008, 15:36

When I had a 14" 4/3 TV I set my player to "4/3 Letterbox" - now its always set to 16/9 mode

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 29 Apr 2008, 16:13

16:9 mode on 4:3 TV gets more resolution, but you distort the ratio.

When I said "marketed to involve teens", I meant marketed particularly to teens as well as adults obviously (hmm donno about adults lol), even though SITES is an 18. What about the 2:35:1 Austin Powers movies, etc?

Putting both versions on there would cause a lot of stress with bitrate, but if kids are competent enough, they could switch the player to 4:3 PAN/SCAN if HKL put the option on. Sure you have to go through a menu, but if that's what it takes...

I thought you yelled at your Dad Brad (how poetic lol). Curiously, is that your real name?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 29 Apr 2008, 16:13

grim_tales wrote:When I had a 14" 4/3 TV I set my player to "4/3 Letterbox" - now its always set to 16/9 mode

I presume 16:9 on a WS TV not 16:9 on a 4:3 TV?

Did you ever try 16:9 Enhanced when you had a 4:3 TV?

chenlung wrote:16:9 mode on 4:3 TV gets more resolution, but you distort the ratio.

I knew I was right for all these years

chenlung wrote:What about the 2:35:1 Austin Powers movies, etc?

What about them?

chenlung wrote:they could switch the player to 4:3 PAN/SCAN if HKL put the option on.

On the majority of DVDs that just gives you 4:3 Letterbox and we're back to Brian's original point that it annoys the vast majority of people with a 4:3 TV. Particularly when most MA films are 2.35:1.

chenlung wrote:I thought you yelled at your Dad Brad (how poetic lol).

I don't recall saying that.

chenlung wrote:Curiously, is that your real name?

Nope. The ladies call me "Mr. Cool".

I used to live in a town called Bradford on Avon. I picked it when I first got the web 13-15 years ago and it stuck.

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 29 Apr 2008, 18:04

"On the majority of DVDs that just gives you 4:3 Letterbox and we're back to Brian's original point that it annoys the vast majority of people with a 4:3 TV. Particularly when most MA films are 2.35:1."

To hell with them and you!

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 29 Apr 2008, 18:07

I knew I was right for all these years

You still are odd lol.

My friend prefers natural resolution viewings without letterboxing as it's sharper.

What about them?

Those crap consumer movies are aimed at teens and 2:35:1.

I don't recall saying that.

Well, you didn't like him for it then. Help me out 8)!

Nope. The ladies call me "Mr. Cool".

Curiously, are you referring to the ladies on this forum (if any)?

I used to live in a town called Bradford on Avon.

How beautiful!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 29 Apr 2008, 18:10

What's weirder displaying a 16:9 movie stretched vertically in a 4:3 frame or calling someone weird for something they have never actually done on their own TV?

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 29 Apr 2008, 18:33

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 29 Apr 2008, 18:42

GAH!!!! HORRID!!!!!!!!

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 29 Apr 2008, 19:20

Note: Brad's on the left of that picture. I can understand Jet being pissed off because of a decision not mutually agreed

.

bradavon wrote:What's weirder displaying a 16:9 movie stretched vertically in a 4:3 frame or calling someone weird for something they have never actually done on their own TV?

Years ago, I didn't letterbox stuff because I was under-knowledged but I now do - unless I'm on a PC in which I use the geometry settings to achieve use of the anamorphic resolution.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 29 Apr 2008, 19:49

What ratio is that Hung?

It's not how Fearless would look on a 4:3 TV when the DVD Player is set to 16:9 Enhanced. The black bars for one are too big.

bradavon wrote:unless I'm on a PC in which I use the geometry settings to achieve use of the anamorphic resolution.

How do you mean?