Latest on MJJC

Ghosts VHS Question

Toby34

Proud Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
89
Points
18
I know that Ghosts was released in a box set format with the On The Line CD single but had 2 questions:

1) Was Ghosts ever released on VHS without the box set?
2) Was Ghosts ever given an NTSC VHS release? (I can only find PAL and Seacam)
 
Toby34 said:
I know that Ghosts was released in a box set format with the On The Line CD single but had 2 questions:

1) Was Ghosts ever released on VHS without the box set?
2) Was Ghosts ever given an NTSC VHS release? (I can only find PAL and Seacam)
Click to expand...

It was released on Video CD in Japan. That should play anywhere.

IMG-8447-2.jpg" alt="IMG-8447-2
 
Toby34 said:
1) Was Ghosts ever released on VHS without the box set?
Click to expand...

Yes, there are various European versions

https://www.discogs.com/Michael-Jackson-Ghosts/release/1809507

Toby34 said:
2) Was Ghosts ever given an NTSC VHS release? (I can only find PAL and Seacam)
Click to expand...

Probably the only NTSC VHS is this one, from the Japanese boxset

https://www.discogs.com/Michael-Jackson-Ghosts-Deluxe-Collector-Box-Set/release/8041356

----------

Also I noticed that there is a Promo DVD made in 2009 in Poland, I never knew about the existence of this

https://www.discogs.com/Michael-Jackson-Ghosts/release/6819432
 
Wow! Thank you so much everyone! Some super knowledgable people here!

Now to track down a Japanese VHS!
 
Such a shame it has never been released in HQ - like digital release or Blu-Ray.

Now I can't remember - was it shot in 4:3 or in widescreen 16:9 ?
 
Didn't it appear on Amazon Prime digitally in the US last year? Before being removed shortly thereafter?
 
Hess;4289998 said:
Now I can't remember - was it shot in 4:3 or in widescreen 16:9 ?
Click to expand...

According to IMDb, it was shot in 1.33 : 1, which is the same as 4:3. On my Ghosts VCD, it's also 4:3. I think it was a deliberate choice to use that aspect ratio. I know many people consider widescreen to be 'better', but 1.33 : 1 (the ratio used in the time of silent films) is making a comeback for artistic reasons:

Why The Old-School 4:3 Aspect Ratio Is Coming Back With A Vengeance Right Now

One of the reasons it mentions, is this:

Movies are about people, not landscapes. And unlike epic landscapes (which call for a wide aspect ratio), people – or more specifically, faces – beg for 4:3. The reason is quite simple: A human head fills up more of the frame at 1.33 when compared to 2.35. A normal closeup at 2.35 is going to leave a lot of empty/negative space on the opposite side of the frame. This could of course be an excellent artistic choice for a specific project, but it won’t highlight the actor’s micro-expressions the same way a 4:3 frame will.​

With this in mind, watch Ghosts one more time. And try to count the number of closeups. Soon you will discover this movie is actually more about faces than anything else. It's all about Michael's facial transformations: pulling his tongue out, crushing his face on the floor, pulling his skin off, being a fat guy, and so on. This movie is all about faces. Michael has several in this movie (his own, the skeleton, the ghoul, the mayor), but then there also all the astonishing faces of all the dancers, all with their own character and style... and there are all the frightened faces of the normal people... this story is for a large part told with closeups. And the 1.33 : 1 ratio fits that concept the best. I think it was an artistic choice.

Ghosts.png
 
Piek;4290044 said:
Movies are about people, not landscapes. And unlike epic landscapes (which call for a wide aspect ratio), people – or more specifically, faces – beg for 4:3. The reason is quite simple: A human head fills up more of the frame at 1.33 when compared to 2.35. A normal closeup at 2.35 is going to leave a lot of empty/negative space on the opposite side of the frame. This could of course be an excellent artistic choice for a specific project, but it won’t highlight the actor’s micro-expressions the same way a 4:3 frame will.​

With this in mind, watch Ghosts one more time. And try to count the number of closeups. Soon you will discover this movie is actually more about faces than anything else. It's all about Michael's facial transformations: pulling his tongue out, crushing his face on the floor, pulling his skin off, being a fat guy, and so on. This movie is all about faces. Michael has several in this movie (his own, the skeleton, the ghoul, the mayor), but then there also all the astonishing faces of all the dancers, all with their own character and style... and there are all the frightened faces of the normal people... this story is for a large part told with closeups. And the 1.33 : 1 ratio fits that concept the best. I think it was an artistic choice.
Click to expand...

Very interesting observation, thank you! :)
 
Michael actually want it ghost to be very scary. but knew he had fans that was kids etc so he made it friendly. ghost is not all that scary. i would call ghost silly and creepy. he just want it a friend and people found him wired. it's funny to realize that ghost is really how he actually felt like in real life because of the lies etc. poor mike. :(
 
Piek;4290044 said:
According to IMDb, it was shot in 1.33 : 1, which is the same as 4:3. On my Ghosts VCD, it's also 4:3. I think it was a deliberate choice to use that aspect ratio. I know many people consider widescreen to be 'better', but 1.33 : 1 (the ratio used in the time of silent films) is making a comeback for artistic reasons:

Why The Old-School 4:3 Aspect Ratio Is Coming Back With A Vengeance Right Now

One of the reasons it mentions, is this:

Movies are about people, not landscapes. And unlike epic landscapes (which call for a wide aspect ratio), people – or more specifically, faces – beg for 4:3. The reason is quite simple: A human head fills up more of the frame at 1.33 when compared to 2.35. A normal closeup at 2.35 is going to leave a lot of empty/negative space on the opposite side of the frame. This could of course be an excellent artistic choice for a specific project, but it won’t highlight the actor’s micro-expressions the same way a 4:3 frame will.​

With this in mind, watch Ghosts one more time. And try to count the number of closeups. Soon you will discover this movie is actually more about faces than anything else. It's all about Michael's facial transformations: pulling his tongue out, crushing his face on the floor, pulling his skin off, being a fat guy, and so on. This movie is all about faces. Michael has several in this movie (his own, the skeleton, the ghoul, the mayor), but then there also all the astonishing faces of all the dancers, all with their own character and style... and there are all the frightened faces of the normal people... this story is for a large part told with closeups. And the 1.33 : 1 ratio fits that concept the best. I think it was an artistic choice.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, thank you, yes, yes! :punk: Nothing against widescreen either of course, I'm all for the acceptance of every kind of aspect ratios. :D Being a big silent, classic and every kind of cinema fan I'm totally used to every ARs, and 4:3 triumphed in the silent era, during Old Hollywood, Italian Neorealism, French New Wave etc., it's perfectly fine. :yes: What's important is that films should be seen the way it was intended by the creators.

Great observation regarding Ghosts, I agree it was filmed with 4:3 AR in mind, thanks for pointing it out.

The situation is interesting with Moonwalker though, which is 4:3 (more precisely open matte) on DVD but widescreen on Blu-ray editions. I guess it was intended for both TV (4:3) and cinema (WS) release, the standard medium for the MVs (sorry! short films) being mainly television. I've seen it on the big screen at the time (in Europe it was shown in cinemas) but wasn't aware of ARs yet, haha, so I can't recollect but I assume it was WS (imdb lists it at 1.85 : 1).
 
Piek;4290044 said:
According to IMDb, it was shot in 1.33 : 1, which is the same as 4:3. On my Ghosts VCD, it's also 4:3. I think it was a deliberate choice to use that aspect ratio. I know many people consider widescreen to be 'better', but 1.33 : 1 (the ratio used in the time of silent films) is making a comeback for artistic reasons:

Why The Old-School 4:3 Aspect Ratio Is Coming Back With A Vengeance Right Now

One of the reasons it mentions, is this:

Movies are about people, not landscapes. And unlike epic landscapes (which call for a wide aspect ratio), people – or more specifically, faces – beg for 4:3. The reason is quite simple: A human head fills up more of the frame at 1.33 when compared to 2.35. A normal closeup at 2.35 is going to leave a lot of empty/negative space on the opposite side of the frame. This could of course be an excellent artistic choice for a specific project, but it won’t highlight the actor’s micro-expressions the same way a 4:3 frame will.​

With this in mind, watch Ghosts one more time. And try to count the number of closeups. Soon you will discover this movie is actually more about faces than anything else. It's all about Michael's facial transformations: pulling his tongue out, crushing his face on the floor, pulling his skin off, being a fat guy, and so on. This movie is all about faces. Michael has several in this movie (his own, the skeleton, the ghoul, the mayor), but then there also all the astonishing faces of all the dancers, all with their own character and style... and there are all the frightened faces of the normal people... this story is for a large part told with closeups. And the 1.33 : 1 ratio fits that concept the best. I think it was an artistic choice.

Ghosts.png
Click to expand...

Great observation. I absolutely love this movie (which is why I want to own a copy). My only complaint is how much time is spent on closeups of the audience.

You have Michael Jackson and a team of Ghouls dancing but show little kid's faces half the time?

Wish it wouldn't cut away from the dancing so much.

Great movie though and super creative.
 
Does anyone know why the full movie isn’t on the official MJ YouTube channel?
 
ScreenOrigami;4290078 said:
Does anyone know why the full movie isn’t on the official MJ YouTube channel?
Click to expand...

I hope the answer is: they are saving it for a proper release someday.
 
Piek;4290154 said:
I hope the answer is: they are saving it for a proper release someday.
Click to expand...

I really hope so. I love Ghosts. I’ve only been a fan for about a year now, and I must have watched it twenty times already. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top