Charlie out on DVD
Obviously, don’t get the full screen version.
It’s frustrating that they even sell one, much less call it “full screen.” In order to make the film fit on a conventional television set, they lop off a little on the right and left, or pan-and-scan. That means you’ll lose any Oompa-Loompas at the edge of the frame.
You wouldn’t kill an Oompa-Loompa, would you? So get the widescreen version.
Or better yet, get the two-disc set. The bonus disc has a lot of featurettes about the making of the film, including how they did the squirrels and Oompa-Loompas. On Amazon
I show up in several of the bonus features. My advice for any screenwriter lucky enough to have their movie come out on DVD: be really nice to the crew that films the bonus features. Think about what they’ll need when they’re editing. Specifically:
- Tell the story. They need someone to help fill in pieces of the plot so that it makes sense.
- Speak clearly.
- If you screw up, or start rambling incoherently, just stop. Take a breath, and start over. They’ll use your clean take.
- They won’t use the interviewer’s voice, so when they ask you a question, you have to answer as if unprompted. For example:
- INTERVIEWER
- Was is intimidating working with a book you loved so much?
- YOU
- It was intimidating working on this book I loved so much as as kid. I felt this responsibility to make sure that not just Roald Dahl’s words, but his spirit…etc.
As I’ve mentioned before, the screenwriter doesn’t get a particularly big cut of the DVD profits. But it’s something. For Charlie, I’ll also get royalties for “Wonka’s Welcome Song,” for which I co-wrote lyrics.
If you feel like shooting an extra few pennies my way, you can order through Amazon here.
Articles
November 8th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
The Full Screen version name is particularly confusing since there’s also a Full Aspect version. When I went shopping for the Stnaley Kubrick collection I saw these confusing notes and reviews criticizing the collection for having full screen versions of a couple features, such as The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut. So then I went looking for widescreen version — after some unearthing I found out that Kubrick shot those films using the full frame, and intended them to be seen that way. So they aren’t actually pan & scan — widescreen for these features just involves masking part of the negative, so the theatrical version for them is, in fact, the version that’s missing some bits.
November 8th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
I agree with the confusion over the Full Frame name. I wish they would just put something like “Original Aspect Ratio” or something to that effect (”Full Aspect” is a little to esoteric for my taste). Today’s techno-crazies would probably drool over that phrase and it would be clear that the DVD will have all of the visual information (well, all that wasn’t lost by lowering the resolution and compressing it) that the film seen in the theater did.
You should be careful, though, when you say “Kubrick shot those movies using the full frame” as you imply the only “full frame” is the TV’s aspect ratio. (Not to be nitpicky but) it would be more correct to say that Kubrick shot the movie in an aspect ratio identical to a television. When you see Eyes Wide Shut, it is “widescreen,” even though it is not letterboxed; it is also full-frame.
One other thing to look out for is when they do full-frame versions by showing more of the film than was originally shown in the theater. That is, in some films what is exposed on the negative is “square enough” that a full-frame version can be made, even though what was shown in the theater (and what the director/producer or whomever wanted you to see) was masked to form a widescreen version. I don’t know if they do this still but back in the days of VHS in some movies you could see various lights/rigging that would have been masked out in the theatrical version but, in order to make the film full screen is now visible.
November 8th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
“If you screw up, or start rambling incoherently, just stop. Take a breath, and start over. They’ll use your clean take.”
Good advice. I was editing some video of John McCain once and he did that. He flubbed a word and instead of trying to correct it and keep going like most of us would do, he stopped, paused long enough for a clean edit and started again from the begining. I cut a lot of news video and he’s the only person I ever saw do that. Someone should teach Bush that trick.
November 9th, 2005 at 1:18 am
“It’s frustrating that they even sell one, much less call it “full screen.â€? ” While I think almost every one who reads your blog will get the wide-screen edition, I can’t tell you how often I have heard from middle of the road Americans who say, “I hate it when the have those black bars on the movies.” The various DVD editions cater to the different markets. It’s just business.
I, too, get frustrated with full screen DVDs, since on more than one occasion, I have picked up a DVD, saw the cheap price and was ready to pay when I looked a little closer and realized,” This sucks. It is the full screen edition!”
I look forward to seeing the DVD. The 2 disc edition of course.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:22 am
I have only been interviewed on camera once and it was the single most excruciating experience of my life. Wish I had read this before. Now I understand why they kept telling me that I had to repeat the question. (And why they got so steamed whe I would awkawrdly begin with “So…your question is…”.) Once again, the mysteries are solved on this site…
November 9th, 2005 at 10:45 am
An actual studio executive, who I won’t name because I can’t remember exactly who it was, once said:
“When I go to Blockbuster, I always get the full screen version, because I want to get my money’s worth.”
This dumbshit was paid millions to spend hundreds of millions to make movies. Grrr.
November 9th, 2005 at 1:55 pm
lol John, that’s quite rude. I’m shocked. Dissing executives: You’re turning into Josh “the infinite monkey” Friedman all of a sudden?
November 9th, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Well, maybe John´s turning into Peter Dragon. By the way: wasn´t “Action!” the greatest show ever?
On topic: where I live at the moment (Germany), they don´t even have several versions of one film - except the “special edition/normal edition” difference. Normally, well-made DVDs (what I expect Charlie to be and what is usually the copy of the U.S.-version) come as widescreen versions, whereas the few really crappy releases (even those of good films) get zoomed, lopped and raped. Hell, “Man on Fire” even got rid of the comic-like subtitles in this country.
What about pay-tv in the U.S.? Do they air “Fullscreen” or “Widescreen” versions? ´Cause here, more and more they seem to be into zoomed fullscreen films…
November 9th, 2005 at 6:57 pm
Picked up the two-disc edition yesterday, and I’m very pleased with it. I haven’t watched all of the features yet, nor have I played all of the games, but i was glad to see Deep Roy came back to do the menus! Great work on the film, Mr. August!
November 11th, 2005 at 5:37 pm
John,
Thank you for the interview tutorial. I edit those DVD BTS docs, and am constantly slamming my forehead into my desk as the interviewer steps on the interviewees lines.
It’s a must read for all your “name drop” friends.
Brad
November 11th, 2005 at 8:47 pm
I ordered my copy through Confederated Products.
November 12th, 2005 at 8:17 pm
I never realized how lush the film was until now. I know this is a writer’s Blog and I’m commenting on the amazing Burton, but hot damn is that movie beautiful to look at. Speaking of which, actually, John are you ever going to release some of your older screenplays on here? I mean, the ones out of development and just in complete unmitigated stasis… Like the “American Mcgee’s Alice” script that I’ve been crying for ever since I heard about it. I understand that copyright laws, etc. are getting in the way but damn would I love to see that. Your Big Fish script is something I’m using as a template for writing now, and (God bless you, Mr. August) it got me an agent. So pretty please, release the Charlie screenplay fight for that Alice script to hit the net. That is all. Keep up the good work.
November 12th, 2005 at 8:25 pm
I realize that what I’m about to say won’t make me too popular among the cinephiles here but I made it through middle school not being particularly popular so I’ll go ahead and risk it. I think that the obsession with everything being presented in wide screen is as equally irrational as the insistence by others who want everything in full screen (i.e. the aforementioned studio exec). If you’re watching Lawrence of Arabia or The Last Emperor, then of course you want the letterboxed version, but if it’s just an Adam Sandler type comedy or a documentary or some other film where the composition of the shots is irrelevant to the story, then full screen is a better choice. For those kinds of films I’d rather have the larger image.
What really bugs me though is fake widescreen. I’ve seen countless short films shot on video, with no intention for a theatrical release, masked to give the appearance that they were shot in widescreen originally. So you end up with a picture that’s being cut off on the top and bottom just to give the illusion that you’re being true to the original format, when in fact just the opposite is occurring. Take the still frame of John above for instance. Obviously that’s a shot that was solely intended for the DVD, not theatrical release, so what purpose is the letter boxing? I haven’t seen it yet so I suppose there may be a legitimate reason. For instance if it’s being intercut with shots from the film then it makes sense to keep the framing consistent, but otherwise it’s just a gimmick.
But of course filmmakers know that this illusion works for their audience and that’s why they do it. In fact, despite my annoyance with such contrivances, I recently did it myself. I shot a feature in standard 16mm, which is a 1.33:1 ratio, the same as a standard TV, but I masked it for a 1.78:1 (a.k.a. 16 x 9) ratio. Why did I do such a hypocritical thing? Because I was advised that it would find distribution easier in that format. Why will it find distribution easier? Because people have an irrational obsession with “wide screen”. And this is no rare occurrence. Most applications for film festivals will ask you what the original format was and what the actual projection aspect ratio is. Some will even give you a choice of “true 16 x 9″ or “masked 16 x 9″.
I recently saw a rant by someone on one of the IFC blogs claiming he wouldn’t watch IFC anymore because of some film being shown in full screen. Of course, the film may have been shot in that format originally anyway. What a lot of people don’t realize is that Academy aperture is the same format as a television screen, but this guy just assumed that he was getting cheated because there was no letter boxing.
The problem is that most people actually believe that the theatrically released film is the truest vision of the director and that anything done in the ancillary markets to alter that is a butchering of the auteur’s vision, but there’s not a director alive who doesn’t know more people are going to see his film in the ancillaries than in the theater. And there’s not a cinematographer alive who doesn’t know he needs to compose each shot so that it will play well both in the theatre and on TV. Of course I don’t know every director or every cinematographer, so I could be wrong.
Having said all that, Charlie is the kind of film I do want to see in its original aspect ratio.
November 12th, 2005 at 9:54 pm
FYI - I was buying some beverages at 7-11 yesterday night and notivced that they were selling CATCF DVDs at the counter (they were the only ones being sold at the prime counter location). I didn’t check to see if they were widescreen or not, but I guess it goes without saying that they were “convenient.” Lets hope that Mr. John makes a few extra $$s from this saturation.
November 13th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
When I picked up the movie (here in Canada) I was surprised that there was only a $2 difference between the single disc version and the 2-disc, with features. Maybe it was the store where I picked it up - they’re not the sharpest knives in the drawer. Anway, I’ve the 2-disc version though I’ve not gone through all the features yet.
With wide-screen vs full-screen, I don’t care how someone else wants to see the movie as long as I get the aspect most representative of how the film was intended. Kubrick’s The Shining makes sense as full-frame, I think, because the film seems to have a horizontal orientation to some of the shots (like a sense of people being dwarfed by walls, hedges etc.). Whereas something like Sergio Leone’s Once Upon a Time in the West has a vertical orientation. His use of landscapes and the width of the screen for framing is incredible. I can’t imagine seeing that cropped.
Anyway … if I have any complaint, it is that discs should be VERY clearly labelled as to whether they are full or wide. I’ve encountered a few where it wasn’t that obvious. (And I hate that business of putting the wide version on one side of the disc and the full on the other.)
November 24th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
I love the 2-disc DVD; it’s great! The games are fun, and I love watching the Behind-the-Scenes stuff.
I just wish there had been a commentary, either by Mr. Burton or by Mr. August–or even better, by both. I also wonder why there were no deleted scenes available, as I do know some things were cut because they were in the TV spots but not the final movie.
Do you think there’ll be a future DVD for CatCF that will feature more?
Oh, well, even if there isn’t, the main feature of the DVD is the movie, and I’m so excited to finally own the best movie of 2005 so I can watch it whenever and however many times I want!
Joy
December 6th, 2005 at 10:49 am
I feel jipped.
I ordered Charlie and the Chocolate Factory from Netflix, and being the August fan that I am, was looking forward to watching all the special features. But when you order the movie, you just get the movie itself. All of the features are on another DVD, which you would have to order as a seperate movie.
I guess that 2 DVD’s is perceived as a good value for retail, but the downside is that most rental customers will never get to view the features…