[Proposal] Predator 2 Widescreen 2.05:1 version

[Bigrob]

I had that Predator 2 UK VHS (had the dirty Golding frame around it) and vividly remember it being in the 2.00:1 ratio which I thought was weird at the time

It's this one

Predator 2 [VHS] https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00004SGAQ/r...DzbM8856AA

[CSchmidlapp]

There are Japanese and PAL Laserdiscs on Ebay right now. Are they worth pursuing?

The Japanese LD is listed as having a 2:35:1 AR, so probably.

[CSchmidlapp]

Didn't Top Gun also have a weird release history in regards to Aspect Ratio?

[zoidberg]

IMDB lists it as shot spherical and projected matted 1.85:1. I can't find any mention of super 35mm but that's not to say it wasn't used.
If it was indeed shot with scope in mind how were the optical effects handled?

[CSchmidlapp]

IMDB lists it as shot spherical and projected matted 1.85:1. I can't find any mention of super 35mm but that's not to say it wasn't used.
If it was indeed shot with scope in mind how were the optical effects handled?

My S35mm quote was a mistake. Should of checked really
But my point still stands.

Good question on the Optical Effects, anyone?

[zoidberg]

Didn't Top Gun also have a weird release history in regards to Aspect Ratio?

Top Gun was shot super 35mm and projected in scope. Early home releases opened up the frame to varying degrees (4:3, 1.85:1, 2:1)

[SilverWook]

Is there any behind the scenes footage with a video playback monitor visible? The framing lines could settle things.

[Stamper]

I have the SE and there is a featurette. I'll check it out. What I distinctly remember is in the theater (I saw it I think twice), some scenes like the SWAT flying in slow motion were fantastic looking, and on the LD it looked blah. When I watch the trailers on the SE, I can find the same feeling for that scene it had in the cinema.
Here's a widescreen trailer on youtube:
https://youtu.be/ciuvNsG10_E
and another
https://youtu.be/pLe_1SheJms

Regarding the cells, it maybe that like T1, which had a 1.66:1 ratio on the prints, to be matted at 1.85, that it had a 1.85:1 ratio on the prints to be matted at 2.35? Remember the DVD and LD shows microphones on top, so it would make sense that they released already cropped prints to avoid showings of the microphones for theaters that get it wrong. It was custom back then to send prints with taller ratios so that theaters could adjust to the exact format without struggling to make it fit exactly right, using the extra space to fill the whole screen.

Also it's obvious watching the trailers that this is the right aspect ratio everything looks cinematic whereas the DVDs and BD look like Pan&Scan with bad framing.

I cropped a trailer capture and calculated the ratio. It's exactly 2.39:1.

[zoidberg]

If it was projected in 2.35:1 the prints would have been anamorphic.

[Stamper]

But it was shot flat. Not in Super 35 which is the one which allows for anamorphic prints. I would definetely like to see a japanese LD capture or a cap of a 2.01:1 version!
When shot for 2.35, the VFX were usually handled at 1.85.1 back then.

All three main trailers are 2.39:1 so it's not a case of just one trailer being released and then they changed their mind for the final format (happened to Night at the Museum). Add to this the LDs/DVDs shows microphones, and the existence of both 2.01 and 2.39 laserdiscs and VHS, and there's definetely something funky going on with this film format.

EDIT found this from the featurette. The director and his monitor. The framing looks definetely 2.39:1 to me. So this confirms the film has been presented wrong on DVD and Blu all these years.