You wanna know how to watch that DVD? Shove it up your widescreen ass.

[Philster]

What the fuck, 'people'. Let me introduce you to the concept of personal accountability.

If you get all jazzed up over a movie, maybe when you are buying said fucking movie all that jazzed up hysteria will enable you with the personal accountabilty to look at the product your buying and ensure you have in your clutches the precious little move you think you do.

Don't jump in here and bash fellow dopers who couldn't give a rat's ass about letterboxes, widescreen, pan this and pan whatever.

You cherish movies so much, then check the fucking product when you buy it.

Full screen movies exist on DVD! RUN FOR YOUR FUCKING LIVES!

Some humans even prefer the full screen version. They prefer it! OH THE HUMANITY THE FUCKING HUMANITY.

You might even lack the brainpower - yes YOU, the movie loving person that you are - to notice that you are puRchasing a full screen version, or A DVD THAT OFFERS BOTH VERSION!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! THE HORROR!


THE HORROR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU NEXT TIME YOU BUY A DVD, NUMBNUTS!

[Skammer]

I'd agree with you if I hadn't accidentally bought that fullscreen version of Chicago. Stupid full screen version!

It's much better to blame the studio, the store, and the DVD than to accept personal responsibility.

stupid DVD...

[chula]

Why did we need another thread on this topic?

[tdn]

Wow.

I agree.

I'd also like to point out that coffee is available in both caffienated and decaffienated versions.

[rjung]

All movies should be released in widescreen format, both as a service to movie buffs, and a nudge to non-widescreen-TV-owning folks to get their asses in gear and update their hardware. ;)

[UrbanChic]

Some humans even prefer the full screen version. They prefer it! Really? I mean, no. That can't be. Really? No. No way. I just don't believe it. Really? C'mon. Really?

I don't believe it, sorry.

[Ilsa_Lund]

Sometimes, I get up and wonder what the meaning of life is. Then I yell "Goddamnit Ralph! Clean up the fucking cottage cheese!"

[Chastain86]

Some humans even prefer the full screen version. They prefer it! OH THE HUMANITY THE FUCKING HUMANITY.


Some people like molesting kids, too.

Am I really comparing people who enjoy pan-and-scan movies to people who touch children inappropriately? I believe it's obvious that I am.




I have nothing more to report.

[Philster]

BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!

I am watching a movie on my PC in all it's SQAURENESS!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


I think I missed something over on the right! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


FUCK IT! I'll buy a projector and watch it on the side of my S-U-FUCKIN-V!

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Sorry-- if you prefer a version of someone's artistic work that has parts of both sides torn off then you are a moron.

As someone pointed out in the other thread about this, it's like buying a great painting and then cutting off parts of both sides so you can fit it in your frame (buy another frame).

Why moron? Because you are shitting all over the work that hundreds of people spent months making. I don't care if it's Fellini or Kevin Smith.

It's just wrong.

[gobear]

Philster, you watch your DVDS however you want. I'll watch mine in widescreen on a 16:9 television with 5.1 surround sound. And we'll both be happy.

[Kat]

watch it on the side of my S-U-FUCKIN-V!

:confused:

You own a vehicle that copulates with sports utilities?

[Philster]

News Flash When I am at the movies, I actually sleep through parts, ignore entire stretches or ponder about how to build something with my own hands that some others could look at and ignore.

THE HORROR!

[Philster]

16:9 with 5.1

I'm down with that.....way down with that.

Hey, I'm all about 16:9 with 5.1. As long as that means square picture with montone sounds and a hiss in the background.

[gobear]

16:9 with 5.1

I'm down with that.....way down with that.

Hey, I'm all about 16:9 with 5.1. As long as that means square picture with montone sounds and a hiss in the background.

[quote]
No, it means a television screen built for widescreen films and 5.1 means 5 directional speakers with a subwoofer to give the extra LFE oomph to explosions and space battles.

[Philster]

whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh

[Ilsa_Lund]

whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh


Caution: Use of cape does not enable wearer to rant creatively, or make any fucking sense whatsoever.

[Mockingbird]

Ilsa:

Here is my personal experience and take on it.

If people want to watch Pan & Scan, fine. If they don't want to watch a movie with me because I only do Widescreen when it is available, also fine.

When my fucking video store doesn't mark the DVDs and I get home with a copy of 'Down With Love' and it is Full Frame, I AM PISSED OFF.

They decided at the video store I patronize to only get Full Frame(Pan & Scan) copies of 'Down With Love' because it was so much cheaper. They didn't mark that on the racks.

I also resent that Universal and a few other manufacturers don't put Widescreen and Pan & Scan on the same disc.

They also often do not use a clear and obvious banner to distinct that it is a Widescreen or Full Frame version. I made that mistake ONCE years ago, and others I have known still don't look closely to make sure they are getting the right version. It should be more obvious. Perhaps a hunter orange or toxic green sticker.

[gobear]

I'm irritated when movies are released foolscreen only, like Miracle Mile and Remo Williams.

[Mockingbird]

Ooops.

I made a mistake.

I addressed my response to Ilsa rather than the Philistinester.

Mea culpa.

[Mockingbird]

I'm irritated when movies are released foolscreen only, like Miracle Mile and Remo Williams.

Or 'Death Becomes Her'.

:mad:

[Doomtrain]

I hate fullscreen because when it goes to close ups, it looks like everyone has the Giant Nose That Will Not Be Denied on my TV.

[NoClueBoy]

I really enjoyd the DVD extras on Down With Love. Maybe even more than the movie! (And I loved the movie) How about you?

[blowero]

Sorry-- if you prefer a version of someone's artistic work that has parts of both sides torn off then you are a moron.

As someone pointed out in the other thread about this, it's like buying a great painting and then cutting off parts of both sides so you can fit it in your frame (buy another frame).

Why moron? Because you are shitting all over the work that hundreds of people spent months making. I don't care if it's Fellini or Kevin Smith.

It's just wrong.
God - I detest geeks with every fiber of my being. YOU'RE RENTING A FUCKING MOVIE FOR FUCK'S SAKE, not going to the Louvre.

The one that really slayed me was the guy in the other thread who bitched that Pan & Scan destroyed the artistic integrity of Ghostbusters.

GHOSTBUSTERS? GHOSTBUSTERS??????!!!!!!!GHOST-FUCKING-BUSTERS? You can project that that on my hairy ass, and it is what it is.

Don't get me wrong; I enjoyed the line "Dickless here shut off the grid", as much as the next guy, but c'mon.

Makes me want to start watching movies taller than they are wide, just to piss you nerds off.

[elfbabe]

Wow, I've never seen anyone get this upset about DVDs before, and I'm friends with the kind of people who get REALLY passonate about things like region coding.

Philster, maybe you should go outside. Unless I'm terribly mistaken, international law requires everything to be sunny and warm and covered with flowers and singing birdies and fluffy li'l bunnies this time of year.

[blowero]

This is the big black bar at the top of the screenThis is the big black bar at the top of the screenThis is the big black bar at the top of the screenThis is the big black bar at the top of the screenThis is the big black bar at the top of the screenThis is the big black bar at the top of the screenThis is the big black bar at the top of the screenis the big black bar at the top of the screenis the big black bar at the top of the screen
Better yet, I think I'll just start posting like this. ;)


This is the big black bar at the bottom of the screenThis is the big black bar at the bottom of the screenThis is the big black bar at the bottom of the screenThis is the big black bar at the bottom of the screenThis is the big black bar at the bottom of the screenThis is the big black bar at the bottom of the screenThis is the big black bar at the bottom of the screen

[dnooman]

News Flash When I am at the movies, I actually sleep through parts, ignore entire stretches or ponder about how to build something with my own hands that some others could look at and ignore.

THE HORROR!
Sorry I slept through part of that post, now, you were doing something with your hands in that dark movie theater, and someone screamed THE HORROR!?

Paul Reubens is that you?

[Binarydrone]

Warning: Quote was Panned and Scanned by Binarydrone


etter yet, I think I'll just
start posting like thi

:p
I kid!

[Gadfly]

Better yet, I think I'll just start posting like this.

Well, then, blowero:

o rovide a proper compari
t posting like this all the t

[Binarydrone]

Ahh! Nothing like getting off the smart-ass post milliseconds earlier.

[Gadfly]

Ahh! Nothing like getting off the smart-ass post milliseconds earlier.

Shut up! Shut up! Mine was smart-asser.

[UrbanChic]

God - I detest geeks with every fiber of my being. <snip, but you ain't missin' much> Makes me want to start watching movies taller than they are wide, just to piss you nerds off.I'd give you the finger but one's pushing up my taped glasses and the other's on the D key.

[Mockingbird]

I really enjoyd the DVD extras on Down With Love. Maybe even more than the movie! (And I loved the movie) How about you?

After the Full Frame annoyance, I went out and bought the Widescreen edition.

Here's To Love.

:D

Great movie which lovingly lampoons the Rock Hudson/Doris Day movies.

And you can't go wrong with Ewan MacGregor in a towel doing the bossa nova.

*DROOOOOOOOOOOOOOL*

[Mockingbird]

Makes me want to start watching movies taller than they are wide, just to piss you nerds off.

It is so pathetic to see people voice the same bullshit we had to deal with in high school. These are the losers who compensate for their tiny non-functional dicks with red sports cars and trophy wives 20 years younger than they are.

Cut off your nose to spite your face and watch the movie any way you fucking want.

Some of us prefer another way. Suck it up and move on.

[blowero]

Just want to say, Binary, that was a pretty funny response. :)

Juanita, yours was funny too, but you get a mixed review for the stale "snip you ain't missin much" comment. Other than that, I was laughing.

[blowero]

Ooh, Mockingbird gets the booby prize - Way. Too. Serious. Really took that "nerd" comment to heart. Having flashbacks from high school? ;)

[Brainiac4]

What the fuck, 'people'. Let me introduce you to the concept of personal accountability.

If you get all jazzed up over a movie, maybe when you are buying said fucking movie all that jazzed up hysteria will enable you with the personal accountabilty to look at the product your buying and ensure you have in your clutches the precious little move you think you do.

Maybe the labeling makes it hard to do this. Read much?

Don't jump in here and bash fellow dopers who couldn't give a rat's ass about letterboxes, widescreen, pan this and pan whatever.

Please point out to me the place where I did so. I specifically noted in a response to CanvasShoes that my rant (which, I must point out, was both funnier and easier to read than yours) was not directed at those who did not know the difference or actually had a preference. It was directed specifically at those who (a) understand the difference and (b) offer the rationale of "widescreen movies cheat me out of my TV."

[blowero]

BTW, my tiny dick functions quite nicely, thank you. ;) When do I get that trophy wife? Sign me up.

[Mockingbird]

Ooh, Mockingbird gets the booby prize - Way. Too. Serious. Really took that "nerd" comment to heart. Having flashbacks from high school? ;)

Nope.

Your response is more sophomoric bullshit which is intended to incense and offend so you can put people down for taking things too seriously and being too sensitive.

To call you a child is an insult to children everywhere.

Your bridge is somewhere, why don't you return to it.

[Giraffe]

This thread rules. Special shout out to Philster, for making me almost choke on my sandwich.

[blowero]

Nope.

Your response is more sophomoric bullshit which is intended to incense and offend so you can put people down for taking things too seriously and being too sensitive.

To call you a child is an insult to children everywhere.

Your bridge is somewhere, why don't you return to it.
Yikes! Ever think about getting some therapy?

[Mikahw]

blowero, I'm assuming that you don't have an infinitely large TV. If you do, I'll just look like an idiot.

Anyway, ever notice how the picture doesn't go on forever? If you turn the lights off, it might look like there are black bars on all four sides of the TV! The horror! Better claw your eyes out now while you still have the chance.

[Dante]

The problem I have is that I go to my local Blockbuster to rent a movie, and they have 50 copies, all fullscreen. So, off to your competitors I go, to see if they want access to any of the customers who prefer the movie in its original aspect ratio.

It was directed specifically at those who (a) understand the difference and (b) offer the rationale of "widescreen movies cheat me out of my TV."
Y'see, it's about fighting ignorance.

Philster, seclude yourself in your house with your 13 inch black and white TV, beta VCR, and 8 track tape player. More goodies for the rest of us. :D

[JDeMobray]

blowero, I'm assuming that you don't have an infinitely large TV. If you do, I'll just look like an idiot.Especially since if he does, you're looking at it right now.

[NoClueBoy]

I'm building me a HOLODECK! :)





Goin' out for Mexican food at Ted's Escondido. Anybody want anything?

[blowero]

blowero, I'm assuming that you don't have an infinitely large TV. If you do, I'll just look like an idiot.

Oh, I don't think you need my help for that.

[Mikahw]

Well, at least you didn't bother to address my actual point. Good Job!

[Chastain86]

I hate it when mommy and daddy fight.

[jsgoddess]

Isn't there some line about how infighting amongst academics is so vicious because there's so little at stake? I wonder why this thread makes me think of that. :p

[Brainiac4]

Especially since if he does, you're looking at it right now.

Now *that* was funny. :)

[Amp]

I don't know what's worse, the Pro-life vs. Pro-choice threads or the P&S vs. the Widescreen threads. They're both equally passionate.

[Starving Artist]

These are the losers who compensate for their tiny non-functional dicks with red sports cars and trophy wives 20 years younger than they are.Uh...having a red sports car and a good-looking wife 20 years younger than you is a bad thing?

I don't get it! :D

[gotpasswords]

PLEASE!

Everybody stop fighting! You're making the baby Oscar cry!

[Dazzling White Diamonds]

Sometimes, I get up and wonder what the meaning of life is. Then I yell "Goddamnit Ralph! Clean up the fucking cottage cheese!"

I laughed so hard at this that I damned near peed my pants.

Carry on.

[Mockingbird]

Uh...having a red sports car and a good-looking wife 20 years younger than you is a bad thing?

I don't get it! :D

If you achieve your identity from possessions and treat people as if they are possessions...

Now, figure out the rest...

:rolleyes: :smack: :dubious: :p :D

[ZombiesAteMyBrain]

[QUOTE=NoClueBoy]I'm building me a HOLODECK! :)

WOW!! Can I come and play too??

Maybe be a good idea to get Lt. Barclay to help you set it up - he could design you a program where you could put dopers with the wrong sort of DVD or TV setup to the sword - that'd teach 'em!!

[Typo Negative]

I have no idea what "pan and scan" means.



Please don't hurt me.

[Lord Ashtar]

I'm irritated when movies are released foolscreen only, like Miracle Mile and Remo Williams.

Hey now, don't be knocking Remo Williams.

[dnooman]

Check out the 3rd paragraph (http://www.dvdreview.com/html/lingo.shtml), it sheds some light on your question, as well as the argument here as a whole.

[Starving Artist]

If you achieve your identity from possessions and treat people as if they are possessions...

Now, figure out the rest...

What if you just happen to like little red sports cars, and actually love your 20 year's younger wife?

Making a few presumptions there, aren't you?

:rolleyes: your own self!

[Smeghead]

I hate it when mommy and daddy fight.
I got $5 on daddy.

Man, I had no idea DVD format choice was a moral issue. Where have I been?

[gobear]

Hey now, don't be knocking Remo Williams.

Say huh? Did you not note that I am pissed that it received crappy foolscreen release? Dang, y'all.

[SanguineSpider]

I hate it when mommy and daddy fight.

:D


Now that made me laugh.

[blowero]

Well, at least you didn't bother to address my actual point. Good Job!
Oh, I'm sorry. You had a point?........ :p

[Time Like Tears]

Ok, so...

I just wanna clarify here...

I purchase DVDs in widescreen...but rent them in full screen...because I only have a 13 inch TV to watch them on at the moment...and can't see jack in widescreen mode...

Does that make me one of the horsemen?

[blowero]

Ok, so...

I just wanna clarify here...

I purchase DVDs in widescreen...but rent them in full screen...because I only have a 13 inch TV to watch them on at the moment...and can't see jack in widescreen mode...

Does that make me one of the horsemen?

Oh, my, God - you must run. It is not safe for you here. Have you not seen what the Widescreen Geeks do to fullscreen-watchers? You will surely be torn asunder. I know of a safehouse for full-screen watchers. We can get you there, but you must tell noone. And whatever you do, never divulge to a Mac User that you have a PC.

[rjung]

Yes, because you give the companies the impression that there's a market for fullscreen, instead of letting it die on the vine like the blasphemy it is. ;)

[blowero]

Yes, because you give the companies the impression that there's a market for fullscreen, instead of letting it die on the vine like the blasphemy it is. ;)
Too late - the mob's picked up your scent.... ;)

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

And whatever you do, never divulge to a Mac User that you have a PC.See, I don't think this is like that. I don't think this is about techno-geeky nerdiness at all. Viewing films in their intended format is not like some new gadget that the geeks brag about and no one else has heard of. It's not a gadget at all.

If anything, panning and scanning is the nerdy, gadgety thing. It takes special equipment most people don't even know exists to do those abominations. Kinda like specially designed esoteric torture devices. Which is, of course, exactly what they are.

All that being said: watch whatever the hell you want-- but be aware you're missing a bunch of the movie.

What’s the difference if it's "Ghostbusters" or "The Godfather"? Either way, every time the video pans to the left, you miss the reactions of the actors, or the scenery, or the sneaking villain, or whatever; occurring on the right side of the screen.

And blowero-- I find it odd that you in particular would be satisfied with only part of the information. With all the eloquence and wisdom you express in various "God / No God" threads it seems ironic that you, just like a hive-brained theist, would settle for seeing anything less than the full picture.

[blowero]

And blowero-- I find it odd that you in particular would be satisfied with only part of the information. With all the eloquence and wisdom you express in various "God / No God" threads it seems ironic that you, just like a hive-brained theist, would settle for seeing anything less than the full picture.
Kind of an odd sidetrack, but thanks for that nice compliment, although I don't agree with your usage of "hive-brained". Everyone is entitled to his own beliefs, and I certainly respect everyone's right to hold them. I don't think any purpose is served by ridiculing others for their religious beliefs.

[friedo]

It is so pathetic to see people voice the same bullshit we had to deal with in high school. These are the losers who compensate for their tiny non-functional dicks with red sports cars and trophy wives 20 years younger than they are.

Cut off your nose to spite your face and watch the movie any way you fucking want.

Some of us prefer another way. Suck it up and move on.

You're just jealous because the nerds made something of their lives while your large, fully functional dick is stuck serving them fries at Mickey D's.

[friedo]

I have no idea what "pan and scan" means.



Please don't hurt me.

"Pan-and-scan" is the process used to convert most widescreen movies to the 3x4 aspect ratio for TV. It involves panning back and forth from one side of the frame to the other in order to see everything in the original frame. Done well, it's not very noticeable to the casual viewer, but done poorly, it can be nauseating.

Lots of people prefer having the entire original picture (especially if they have totally rad 16x9 TVs), thus the holy wars regarding DVD formats.

Unlike, say, "Mac vs. PC" or "Emacs vs. vi" or even, dare I mention it, "Deep Space Nine vs. Babylon 5," this debate has one clearly superior side.

Not that it's wrong to watch pan-and-scan movies, mind you. It's just crap, and that's OK. People like crap. I, for example, enjoy fast food. That's what fullscreen is. The fast food of movies.

[Smeghead]

You're just jealous because the nerds made something of their lives while your large, fully functional dick is stuck serving them fries at Mickey D's.

If it's serving fries, I'd say it's beyond "fully functional"! It must be downright prehensile.

Back on the subject at hand (so to speak), does it make any difference if I'm not actually watching the movie when it's on? I'll pop in a DVD now and then just for background noise while I'm online. So, I guess I'm not seeing any of the original artists' visions. Does that make me a bad person?

[friedo]

If it's serving fries, I'd say it's beyond "fully functional"! It must be downright prehensile.


Well, I had to guess, since I'll never personally know what it's like to have such a gigantic throbbing cock.


Back on the subject at hand (so to speak), does it make any difference if I'm not actually watching the movie when it's on? I'll pop in a DVD now and then just for background noise while I'm online. So, I guess I'm not seeing any of the original artists' visions. Does that make me a bad person?

Nah. No point in getting worked up about it if you're not into the visual aspect of it. (But for the best quality background noise, I'm assuming you have a full 5.1 surround system, right?! Just kidding.)

I know a blind guy who has a DVD player and no TV. He just rents movies and listens to them.

[Philster]

I think I have this hidden envy of those who have time to go get a video and watch it.

I am still trying to wrap my head around such a concept.

I'm just not the type to sit still long enough. So, getting one's panties in bunch over 'art' (when it's cookie cutter entertainment) is foreign to me.

Since I opened the thread yesterday, I finished work, went to dinner with my wife and kids, went to a Flyers game, cut my grass this morning, worked on my neighbor's boat, hit the bike trail, bought some more wood, started to build some furniture, finsihed off my daughter's doll house, cleaned my truck, painted easter eggs, hid the eggs, spent some Q.T. with my wife, watched some more Flyers playoff action, and came down to my basement which I finished, grabbed a soda from behind the bar I built, turned on the 60" widescreen to do some surfing and sat down at my PC which sits on the desk I built.

I guess I am pissed because you DVDers get kind of snooty when discussing people who don't care about aspect ratios of people doing make-believe on TV.

I was raised to be exhaustingly active, productive and to enjoy tapping my own artistic abiity, rather than sitting around watching cookie cutter movie scripts.

I always shook my head at the people who scurry into movie stores and get all jazzed up. Shook my head in a 'not for me' kinda way.

But this thing you people have about being 'smarter' or 'better' baffles me.

[Miller]

If it's serving fries, I'd say it's beyond "fully functional"! It must be downright prehensile.

Not to mention, coated with asbestos.

[Gadfly]

I was raised to be exhaustingly active, productive and to enjoy tapping my own artistic abiity, rather than sitting around watching cookie cutter movie scripts.

Uhh. There are cookie cutter movie scripts, but there's a huge number of films that are original, artistic, and still a hell of a lot of fun.

[Miller]

I was raised to be exhaustingly active, productive and to enjoy tapping my own artistic abiity, rather than sitting around watching cookie cutter movie scripts.

I always shook my head at the people who scurry into movie stores and get all jazzed up. Shook my head in a 'not for me' kinda way.

But this thing you people have about being 'smarter' or 'better' baffles me.

And yet, despite your bafflement, you're surprisingly good at it yourself.

[Algorithm]

Since I opened the thread yesterday, I finished work, went to dinner with my wife and kids, went to a Flyers game, cut my grass this morning, worked on my neighbor's boat, hit the bike trail, bought some more wood, started to build some furniture, finsihed off my daughter's doll house, cleaned my truck, painted easter eggs, hid the eggs, spent some Q.T. with my wife, watched some more Flyers playoff action, and came down to my basement which I finished, grabbed a soda from behind the bar I built, turned on the 60" widescreen to do some surfing and sat down at my PC which sits on the desk I built.
Please, go on, in great detail!

[spectrum]

God - I detest geeks with every fiber of my being. YOU'RE RENTING A FUCKING MOVIE FOR FUCK'S SAKE, not going to the Louvre.

The one that really slayed me was the guy in the other thread who bitched that Pan & Scan destroyed the artistic integrity of Ghostbusters.

GHOSTBUSTERS? GHOSTBUSTERS??????!!!!!!!GHOST-FUCKING-BUSTERS? You can project that that on my hairy ass, and it is what it is.

Don't get me wrong; I enjoyed the line "Dickless here shut off the grid", as much as the next guy, but c'mon.

Makes me want to start watching movies taller than they are wide, just to piss you nerds off.

Comedy is just as valid an art form as any other form of cinematic endeavor. And Ghostbusters is a film that is badly maimed when viewed in foolscreen. Rietman composed some beautiful shots in that film, and they are utterly ruined by the hatched job done by the Pan & Scan makers so that the unwashed morons of the world don't have black bars on their TVs.

[netscape 6]

Comedy is just as valid an art form as any other form of cinematic endeavor. And Ghostbusters is a film that is badly maimed when viewed in foolscreen. Rietman composed some beautiful shots in that film, and they are utterly ruined by the hatched job done by the Pan & Scan makers so that the unwashed morons of the world don't have black bars on their TVs.


hmm "the unwashed morons of the world" seem happy with not having those black bars and upset when they're present. Does it matter that they don't watch it in wipe-screen? Do you go out to buy movies or do you have them deliviered to your ivory tower?

[Chastain86]

hmm "the unwashed morons of the world" seem happy with not having those black bars and upset when they're present. Does it matter that they don't watch it in wipe-screen? Do you go out to buy movies or do you have them deliviered to your ivory tower?


I don't know. I don't get the impression that widescreen fanatics are trying to be holier-than-thou for their preference. When companies like Blockbuster order their movies in fullscreen-only, or (even worse) movies are only released in pan-and-scan, you're not seeing the film as the filmmaker intended. I think the fanaticism comes from the love of seeing the product as it was intended, instead of how the studio thinks it should look. And there really needs to be the voice that prevents studios from releasing films in one format over the other.

I'd be really pissed if I had to see every film in fullscreen, just like some people are really pissed that some movies are only released in widescreen. I'm all about offering choices.

[blowero]

I don't know. I don't get the impression that widescreen fanatics are trying to be holier-than-thou for their preference.
No, I'm sure Spectrum meant "unwashed morons" in a good way.:rolleyes:

[Miller]

hmm "the unwashed morons of the world" seem happy with not having those black bars and upset when they're present. Does it matter that they don't watch it in wipe-screen? Do you go out to buy movies or do you have them deliviered to your ivory tower?

Yes, we do. Mine are delivered by unicorn, because I'm that much more special.

[Equipoise]

[QUOTE=Philster]
I'm just not the type to sit still long enough. So, getting one's panties in bunch over 'art' (when it's cookie cutter entertainment) is foreign to me.

Since I opened the thread yesterday, I finished work, went to dinner with my wife and kids, went to a Flyers game, cut my grass this morning, worked on my neighbor's boat, hit the bike trail, bought some more wood, started to build some furniture, finsihed off my daughter's doll house, cleaned my truck, painted easter eggs, hid the eggs, spent some Q.T. with my wife, watched some more Flyers playoff action... [QUOTE]

You're thumbing your nose at people who care about cinematic artistic expression (which is not all "cookie cutter entertainment") and YOU WATCH SPORTS?? (snort)

I think you're the very definition of "Joe Six Pack," whether you drink or not.

At least HD-DVDs are on the way. By the time J6Ps get around to thinking about buying them, widescreen TVs will be the standard and they won't be able to screw it up for the rest of us.

[Equipoise]

Damn damn damn, I hate it when I don't preview.

[Who_me?]

Okay, here's a post that everybody may agree with. Of course I'll get flamed from the Full Screeners and the Wide Screeners...

I really don't care whether the movie is wide screen or full screen. As long as I enjoy the story and acting, I don't care if I'm not getting something in the background off to the side. Conversely, I don't care whether I do get it. I have several movies that I have the option for either letterbox or full screen... I choose what I want at the moment. Some I've watched full screen, some letterbox... some I've watched more than once and seen it both ways.

I don't see the big deal of this argument. Art or director's vision bedamned, I watch a movie for entertainment... not just because it's art and I don't worry if I don't get the entire director's vision.

[Who_me?]

Damn, the first sentence is supposed to say that everybody will be agreement with the fact that I'm a neandertal... with a 20 year younger wife... ;)

[Lamia]

They decided at the video store I patronize to only get Full Frame(Pan & Scan) copies of 'Down With Love' because it was so much cheaper. They didn't mark that on the racks.

I saw Down with Love in full-frame as an in-flight movie back in the summer. Luckily I'd already seen it at the theater so I knew what it was supposed to look like, because it really suffers when cropped. The whole split-screen "sex scene" was deleted, probably because it was considered too racy for airplane audiences, but it was just as well because I'm sure it would have looked ridiculous in pan & scan.

[Cheesesteak]

Just to agree with spectrum here on Ghostbusters, the pan & scan version is ridiculous. Some of the scenes are fairly close up, filled with the characters faces and them talking to each other. What you end up with is the frame sliding from side to side so you can actually see the characters lips moving.

There's something about the way it pans that is completely noticable and jarring. Maybe movie makers don't normally pan from side to side to show you different people talking, maybe the panning just looks different, but damn it's noticable.

Ghostbusters is the only pan & scan movie I can think of offhand where it really looks awful.

[Lamia]

Ghostbusters is the only pan & scan movie I can think of offhand where it really looks awful.

A League of Their Own (and probably most sports movies, but this is the one I've seen most often on TV) really suffers because of that sliiiide necessary to keep up with characters as they run across the baseball field. It looks cheap and jerky.

[blowero]

Okay, here's a post that everybody may agree with. Of course I'll get flamed from the Full Screeners and the Wide Screeners...

Nah, full-screeners aren't gonna flame you for that. It's the WIDE-screeners who think their shit don't smell. In fact, I think I'll adopt the moniker "pro-choice", to be used from now on. I think the consumer should get to decide which version he wants, and not have his choice dictated to him by snobs. ;)

[Dante]

I don't see the big deal of this argument.

Actually, I think the crux of the argument at first was that people say "I want to see the whole movie, so I won't watch widescreen." Then, when you explain how widescreen is actually the whole movie, they wave you away and continue on saying "Nope, nope, nope, still want to see the whole movie." That's what's frustrating. However, if someone understands the difference between widescreen and fullscreen and wants to watch fullscreen, well then, that's their right1.

I always wonder how many fullscreeners, if at a theatre, would sit placidly by if the curtains didn't retract all the way and only gave them a 4x3 view of the screen...

1For the record, it is very very wrong of them to do it.

[Stonebow]

A League of Their Own (and probably most sports movies, but this is the one I've seen most often on TV) really suffers because of that sliiiide necessary to keep up with characters as they run across the baseball field. It looks cheap and jerky.


Before i understood that there were different viewing formats (I'd never really thought about it), I saw My Best Friend's Wedding in Fullscreen and i swear to God, there were moments that nearly made my eyes bleed. And not on account of the actors either.

Pan and Scan makes gives me a headache, so I avoid it. And I don't own any freakishly large tvs, and I would hardly consider myself a serious fan of cinema in general, though I do enjoy a good flick.

Of course, the sorts of movies I really enjoy- space, fantasy, epics, etc. all lend themselves to Widescreen naturally, so take my prejudices with a grain of salt.

[pulykamell]

I guess I'm a pretty visual person by nature, so I get annoyed when somebody takes a carefully compositioned shot, intended for movie screen ratio and then hacks it down to 4:3. I also get annoyed when I look at newspapers and magazines, and see the occasional image which is just godawfully cropped down (or not cropped enough), by some overworked or careless photo editor. These things are blatantly obvious to me, and pan-and-scan drives me me batty when I can tell there's some important visual information going on in the far sides of the screen, but I can't see it. Or when the composition of the image looks clearly unbalanced because something is left off the screen.

Perhaps certain people are more attuned to it than others, but I think if you sat down a full-screen fanatic and showed them the same movie side-by-side with the widescreen edition, so they can see the difference, at least some of them would gain an understanding of what we're on about. Artistic integrity is part of it, but my main complaint is simply that the cropping makes the movie look bloody awful.

[TJdude825]

Especially since if he does, you're looking at it right now.
At the risk of adding to a thread that really doesn't deserve to be any longer (oh well, too late now), isn't that not actually true? Couldn't he just turn his back to the screen? And by the way, if you were looking at an infinitely large screen, wouldn't each pixel also be infinitely large? Sorry for the interruption; now please return to your ignorance-fighting.

[High Cheese]

[quote]
No, it means a television screen built for widescreen films and 5.1 means 5 directional speakers with a subwoofer to give the extra LFE oomph to explosions and space battles.
Sigh.......You take all the fun out of sarcasm.

[High Cheese]

Personally, I'm glad they format the movies to fit my television screen. I'd hate to stare at Harrison Ford's ankles for the better part of Indiana Jones.

[Silver Serpentine]

Y'know . . . There are very few movies I watch for artistic merit. American Beauty, Requim For A Dream, Jan Svankmajer stuff, a couple other foreign or indie films. Arsty crap movies, y'know? ;)

Other than that, I don't see many movies as Great Works of Art. I don't really care about the artistic merits of Ace Ventura. I don't get movies like that to watch art, I get them to be amused, and I don't care what they look like on my screen, as long as it's decent quality, and I can hear it.

I also watch all movies with either closed captioning or subtitles on. ALL movies. And TV. This sems to piss some people off to no end - "I can't read and watch the movie at the same time!" Why not? Maybe this is just a skill I got when I saw a bunch of Slavic movies with my mom every week at UT, I don't know.

You know what does annoy me to no end? Movies with uneven soundtracks. I saw the Hulk the other day, and the action scenes were REALLY LOUD, but I couldn't hear any dialouge. I hate that.

[unclviny]

Bunnies are nice.

[blowero]

At the risk of adding to a thread that really doesn't deserve to be any longer (oh well, too late now), isn't that not actually true? Couldn't he just turn his back to the screen? And by the way, if you were looking at an infinitely large screen, wouldn't each pixel also be infinitely large? Sorry for the interruption; now please return to your ignorance-fighting.
Possibly the most inane reason for bumping a thread, ever.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Last night, I watched Pirates of the Caribbean. A great movie, and one of the few that we own on DVD. We're not rich, and what money we have we prefer to put into things like eating good food, taking trips to interesting places, and replacing the pork-colored shag carpeting downstairs with something less intestinal in appearance.

That means that we have one TV: a six-year-old model, probably 19", given to me as a graduation present. It suits our purposes fine, for the most part: we watch maybe 5 hours of TV a week between us, and rent a couple of movies every month.

But last night, I realized just how much widescreen can suck for folks like us. PotC is a fantastic movie full of great visuals (and I'm not talking about the CGI skeletons: I'm mostly talking about Johnny Depp's phenomenal physical performance). But watching the movie widescreen meant that these visuals were reduced to such a small size that most of the details were completely lost.

Assuredly gobear will come along to tell me to plunk down $1,299 to buy a bigger TV; spectrum will come along to tell me that I should be burned at the stake for suggesting heresy; I Love Me, Vol. 1 will come along to tell me, in great tedious detail, how stupid I am.

But beyond all that, a fullscreen version of the movie would have worked better for me. I love the movie because Captain Jack Sparrow is such a great character, and it's his smirks and staggers and stares I want to be watching. Given our small television and lack of funds (or incentive) to purchase a larger one, it makes more sense for me to watch a movie like this fullscreen.

blowero is right: pro-choice is the most reasonable position here. There is no morality involved, no paean to the sanctity of artwork (remember, directors: if you don't want your movie whored out, don't finance it through a whorish studio). Different versions of the movie will be better for different people.

One more note: from a previous thread on this subject, I learned that widescreen folks aren't seeing the full frame, either: the full frame is always edited down by the director to get the final shot. IN some cases, the fullscreen version actually shows more information in a better shot than the widescreen version does.

Daniel

[WILLASS]

As someone pointed out in the other thread about this, it's like buying a great painting and then cutting off parts of both sides so you can fit it in your frame (buy another frame).



Not really though is it? Usually with great painting there is one copy. I would liken this to buying a poster of a painting and then cutting the sides off it to fit your frame. Basically, why would you give a shit what someone did with his or her postcard depicting the Mona Lisa its not affecting the original is it?

On the other hand I think the spirit of the OP is people who think that widescreen means they lose something which full screen keeps. Pointing out that this is bullshit is fighting ignorance, getting your knickers in a twist about what format people watch their films in is simply geeky, obsessive and pedantic.

[blowero]

On the other hand I think the spirit of the OP is people who think that widescreen means they lose something which full screen keeps. Pointing out that this is bullshit is fighting ignorance, getting your knickers in a twist about what format people watch their films in is simply geeky, obsessive and pedantic.
I totally agree with you, but just a minor nitpick: The OPs point was the latter rather than the former.

[WILLASS]

Whoops! Am I going to get into trouble for censoring his 'art' by not paying full attention to his post therefore missing his intended point and not fully appreciating his work in its original, uncut glory? ;)

[Miller]

Possibly the most inane reason for bumping a thread, ever.

Ha! Not half as inane as bumping it to reply to that post!

At the risk of adding to a thread that really doesn't deserve to be any longer (oh well, too late now), isn't that not actually true? Couldn't he just turn his back to the screen? And by the way, if you were looking at an infinitely large screen, wouldn't each pixel also be infinitely large? Sorry for the interruption; now please return to your ignorance-fighting.

Then it wouldn't be infinite. If it's infinite, it exsists in all possible points in space in the entire universe. No matter which way you turn, you would be looking at it. Also, each pixel wouldn't have to be infinitely large, there would just have to be an infinite number of them. Which would be some killer resolution.

[WernhamHogg]

Just remember a few years ago when people didn't have to own movies at all? I'm starting to think of those as the good old days. You saw a movie once or twice in the theater and that was that, unless you caught it years later on TV. Now they need to own every movie they like, see all the chopped footage, have director commentaries, and get worked up about formats. I avoid the DVD extras. The ruin movies for me the way grad school ruined novels for me for about five years.

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

As to the OP, I have had a couple frustrating experiences trying to find out if the damned DVD in my hand was widescreen or pan & scan. In the most recent case, this information was helpfully included inside the front flap of the nifty cardboard DVD box, which was of course hermetically sealed in shrinkwrap.

Regarding Ghostbusters, I think as others have mentioned, the comments aren't necessarily about its artistry (though I don't see why it couldn't be art), but about the atrociousness of the pan & scan. We had the VHS version long before DVDs were around, and I had no clue about widescreen format, aspect ratios, shot composition, or cinematography. Still, I could tell something was wrong with the movie - it was like watching the film through the eyes of a weaving drunkard. It was almost enough to give you motion sickness.

And finally, skutir, you have confirmed for me the general idiocy of any ode to "the good old days." You are aware that no one is forcing you to watch DVDs, and that lots of people actually enjoy seeing their favorite movies often and learning about their making, yes?

[WernhamHogg]

And finally, skutir, you have confirmed for me the general idiocy of any ode to "the good old days." You are aware that no one is forcing you to watch DVDs, and that lots of people actually enjoy seeing their favorite movies often and learning about their making, yes?

I was, in the true spirit of message boards, giving my opinion. I re-read my post and see nothing that suggests a condemnation of anyone else, simply my own preference to watch a movie and be done with it.

[galt]

When my fucking video store doesn't mark the DVDs and I get home with a copy of 'Down With Love' and it is Full Frame, I AM PISSED OFF.Yes, the video store obviously acted inappropriately here. The proper thing for them to do would have been to beat some sense into you before allowing you to rent 'Down With Love'. :P (Sorry, but I thought it was utter crap)

blowero is right: pro-choice is the most reasonable position here. There is no morality involved, no paean to the sanctity of artwork (remember, directors: if you don't want your movie whored out, don't finance it through a whorish studio). Different versions of the movie will be better for different people.Shame on you, LHoD, for having the nerve to bring reason to this argument.

If it's infinite, it exsists in all possible points in space in the entire universe. No matter which way you turn, you would be looking at it.Not if it's planar, and as we all know, the better TV's are truly flat.

[Miller]

Not if it's planar, and as we all know, the better TV's are truly flat.

Ah, but the curvature of space-time makes an infinite flat-screen TV impossible.

[cheesepickles]

To the widescreen folks who argue that fullscreen deprives the viewer of the artist's original intent:

Could it not be argued that watching the movie in any format on any tv screen as opposed to watching the movie projected onto a large screen on a theater is also a bastardization of the product?

Aren't all movies intended to be watched in a theater with a group of people?

This is just my perspective...

[Kaitlyn]

Originally Posted by Mockingbird
It is so pathetic to see people voice the same bullshit we had to deal with in high school. These are the losers who compensate for their tiny non-functional dicks with red sports cars and trophy wives 20 years younger than they are.

I resent that. As someone with a red sports car and a beautiful, lithe young wife 20 years my junior, and a complete set of Fantastic Four 1-511, I assure you that my medium-sized dick's functionality is nothing less than perfectly adequate. Hell, on occasion, it's risen to the level of "pretty good for a guy my age". And that's without Viagra.

People who are trying to make a distinction between the "art" of a movie and it's entertainment value are creating a false distinction. If you laugh at Ghostbusters, you are aprreciating its artistic merit; in this case its humor. When your reaction to a movie is what the creators intended, be it laughter, tears, pathos, horror, awe, or any other reaction, you are responding to whether the movie achieves its artistic vision. Put another way, when you laugh at Ace Ventura: Pet Detective you are enjoying it for its art.

Widescreen movies aren't just about beautiful scenery. Often, it's about the composition of the shot.

Example the first: In The Graduate, Mrs. Robinson is putting on her stockings in the foreground as Ben watches in the background. In the Pan n scan version, the frame cuts from putting on the stocking to Ben's reaction, which ruins the shot entirely.

Example the second: In The Karate Kid (available only in the butchered version) Daniel's girlfriend fakes her way into the karate tournement by pretending to be Mr. Miyagi's translator. The official thanks Miyagi to which he replies, "Welcome" and walks away. In the PnS version the camera pans to follow Miyagi, cutting off the official's reaction, ruining the visual joke.

Example the third: In Pee Wee's Big Adventure, Pee Wee is taking some chain out of the saddlebags of his treasured bicycle. The theatrical version was filmed at 4:3, with the upper and lower portions masked out to create the 1.85:1 theatrical version. The home video release was "open matte", which showed the whole screen, including that extra stuff at the top and bottom that wasn't supposed to be visible to the audience. In this case, you can clearly see a huge pile of chain on the ground under the open-bottomed saddle bag being fed through as Pee Wee takes out way too much chain to secure his bike. Tim Burton was not happy that his carefully arranged gag was given away by showing it incorrectly.

Example the fourth: In Silverado, Kevin Costner stands at the corner of a sidewalk and draws guns with both hands, gunning down two men simultaneously, each at the opposite end of the screen. The PnS version shows only one of the men. Later, in the final showdown, Kevin Kline faces down Brian Dennehy in the street, and the PnS version cannot fit both on the screen at the same time, forcing a cut from one to the other during the gunfight.

None of these movies, save perhaps The Graduate is a great work of art, but they are nevertheless works of art. To fully appreciate them, they must be viewed in the version that is closest to the creator's vision as possible.

I object only when the sole version offered is the butchered one. Sure, offer people who lack the understanding or aesthetics or proper equipment a circumcised version, but let those of us who truly respect the artistic vision of the creators a version as close the original as possible.

[TJdude825]

Ah, but the curvature of space-time makes an infinite flat-screen TV impossible.

I had actually thought about that, but I don't know enough Einsteinian physics to figure a way around it. But this is what I love about the SDMB. Nobody has mentioned that an infinite screen would be extremely hard to see (unless you were an infinite distance from it), you'd have great trouble placing the speakers without blocking part of the picture, or that it'd take an infinite amount of plastic, metal, electron guns, electricity, time to build it, etc. Nobody has mentioned that even with the signal travelling at the speed of light, different areas of the screen would be vastly out of sync with each other, or the fact that an infinite screen would also have infinite mass (unless perhaps it were also infinitely thin), and therefore destroy the universe. Or even just the basic fact that infinite objects simply don't exist. No such problems are even mentioned, until someone realizes that the curvature of space-time prevents such a screen from existing. Fucking curvature of space-time. Ha.

Sorry. May this be the end of the infinite-screen hijack. Just kiddin' guys, keep it goin! Hijack hijack hijack!

[Kaitlyn]

Cheesepickles: You're right that it is a compromise just watching the movie in any video format. But this doesn't justify causing further damage to the director's vision.

Directors almost universally prefer the widescreen versions of their movies. One notable exception is Stanley Kubrick, who filmed many of his later movies with the intent of their being released on video full screen. But he made the movies with this in mind; he composed the shots to look right in both formats. Most director's do not.

To be fair, many movies are made center-heavy, with little going on on the sides of the movie, for the very reason that less will be lost when they are shown on 4:3. Less lost, however, does not mean nothing lost.

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

I was, in the true spirit of message boards, giving my opinion. I re-read my post and see nothing that suggests a condemnation of anyone else, simply my own preference to watch a movie and be done with it.

Sure, and you are welcome to do that. My point was that the current state of affairs in no way prevents you from continuing to watch a movie once in the theater, and never again. So what are you complaining about? Seemed to me it was the option other people have to own movies.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I object only when the sole version offered is the butchered one. Sure, offer people who lack the understanding or aesthetics or proper equipment a circumcised version, but let those of us who truly respect the artistic vision of the creators a version as close the original as possible.

Okay, okay, okay! Y'all are better than me! I'm just an ignorant ass, incapable of appreciating the true grandeur of an artiste's vision! I bow before you! Bring me thy boots, and I will lick them!

Happy now? Or do I break out the scourge?

Daniel

[friedo]

Okay, okay, okay! Y'all are better than me! I'm just an ignorant ass, incapable of appreciating the true grandeur of an artiste's vision! I bow before you! Bring me thy boots, and I will lick them!

Happy now? Or do I break out the scourge?

Daniel

Well, shit, it sure took you long enough.

[Merijeek]

Sorry-- if you prefer a version of someone's artistic work that has parts of both sides torn off then you are a moron.

As someone pointed out in the other thread about this, it's like buying a great painting and then cutting off parts of both sides so you can fit it in your frame (buy another frame).

Why moron? Because you are shitting all over the work that hundreds of people spent months making. I don't care if it's Fellini or Kevin Smith.

It's just wrong.

Because, by God, you haven't seen "Weekend and Bernie's II" until you see it in wide screen!

Infidels!

-Joe, just joking, hates P&S

[Philster]

If the boxes aren't marked, I can forgive you if you are a movie nut and you were all jazzed up about seeing Ghostbusters in it's full glory, while you sit there like a shmuck holding a crappo P&S version. Forgiven. You wanted the widescreen version, you didn't get it and you didn't know much about the product because of poor labelling. Damn the company that packaged that. Damn them to heck.

But, if you get pissy and your shorts get in a bunch to the point that you feel the need to slam people who don't care about the art (which is relative) in movies, then the point of this thread was to tell you to shove the DVD up your ass.

This has nothing to do with me being a Joe Six Pack. I'm a well rounded individual who places an extraordinary low level of importance on being idle and watching movies. I've seen about a dozen movies I like and find to be art or worthy of remembering. The hit rate on 'art to justa-movie' is low. Hundreds of films, a few keepers. It's not time well spent for me.

This, however, is not a slam on film lovers. But if you get snotty and blame people with other interests for your inconvenience, don't be surprised if they treat you with the same kindness and insult you.

So, BACK THE FUCK OFF. You get a P&S version of a movie, deal the fuck with it and leave other non-fans out of it.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

But if you get snotty and blame people with other interests for your inconvenience, don't be surprised if they treat you with the same kindness and insult you.

So, BACK THE FUCK OFF. You get a P&S version of a movie, deal the fuck with it and leave other non-fans out of it.

Oh, Philster, you incompetent dweeb who has no understanding of the good, kind people who deign to shower you with artwork; you Philistine; you corrupter of the innocent and destroyer of creativity. Do you still operate under the delusion that people like you, with different tastes and different aesthetics, are equally worthy to those great ones? Do you still pretend that they have the least bit of time to waste on reasonable arguments and civility, when they've got their masturpieces to create?

You sad, sad soul. The sooner you recognize the futility of approaching them as a supposed equal, the better.

Daniel

[World Eater]

Sure, offer people who lack the understanding or aesthetics or proper equipment a circumcised version, but let those of us who truly respect the artistic vision of the creators a version as close the original as possible.

Your post was making some sense until you ended it with this.

[Kaitlyn]

To clarify for those who choose to ignore the substantive section of my post and pick out only the one slightly snarky comment to which to react: I have no objection to the release of full frame versions of widescreen movies. Nor do I object to people viewing and appreciating these versions in their homes. I don't understand it, but I don't object to it.

To say that people who admittedly don't care about the "art" of a movie lack aesthetics to fully appreciate it and don't respect the artistic vision that went into it's creation isn't acting superior, it's merely being descriptive.

Give those who see movies solely as entertainment what they want, and those of us who see it as art what we want, and I'll be satisfied.

[Dr. Rieux]

Bunnies are nice.
My cat's breath smells like bunny.

[unclviny]

I didn't care about the difference in prints of movies until one day I watched someone carry on a conversation with an elbow (it was a long time ago and I was probably "chemically enhanced" so I don't remember the movie), somehow I thought that I was missing something.

Flame on, this is entertaining

Unclviny

Flowers smell pretty

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

To say that people who admittedly don't care about the "art" of a movie lack aesthetics to fully appreciate it and don't respect the artistic vision that went into it's creation isn't acting superior, it's merely being descriptive.

Incorrect.
Daniel

[pesch]

Originally Posted by Ilsa_Lund
Sometimes, I get up and wonder what the meaning of life is. Then I yell "Goddamnit Ralph! Clean up the fucking cottage cheese!"

I laughed so hard at this that I damned near peed my pants.

Carry on.

Me too, especially since I don't know if Ilsa Lund is quoting something or having an attack of Tourettes.

[Kaitlyn]

Incorrect.
Daniel

Ah, playground reasoning. You've made a big mistake there, Bucko. I work with seven year olds, so I know the proper response to really put you in your place. Prepare to be devastated by my superior knowledge of this school or rhetoric:

Is not!

[blowero]

Prepare to be devastated by my superior knowledge of this school or rhetoric:

Is not!
But you gotta say "no backs" - then he can't answer you. It's a slam dunk. "I'm rubber and you're glue" is also effective.

[Philster]

How 'bout, "Your mom's ass is suitable for viewing that DVD in widescreen?"

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Ah, playground reasoning. You've made a big mistake there, Bucko. I work with seven year olds, so I know the proper response to really put you in your place. Prepare to be devastated by my superior knowledge of this school or rhetoric:

Is not!

Using smaller words now to make the same argument, are we? Can't fool me, sonny.

Daniel

[Kaitlyn]

Using smaller words now to make the same argument, are we? Can't fool me, sonny.

Daniel

Nah, just replying in kind to your contradicting me without supplying any kind of reasoning for it.

An argument isn't just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

[WernhamHogg]

Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

No it isn't.

someone was going to do it so i fgured why not me?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

An argument isn't just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

Yeah, yeah, Monty. Arguments also aren't simply ipse dixit ad nauseum. You keep making these obnoxiously arrogant, holier-than-thou claims, and when called on it, you say, "I'm not acting superior, I'm just telling it like it is." That's such sanctimonious bullshit that it didn't dignify a real response.

Daniel

[Kaitlyn]

When you resort to personal accusations without including any substantive reasoning, you've pretty much conceded the argument.

This is the exact statement to which you refer as "obnoxiously arrogant, holier-than-thou claims":

I object only when the sole version offered is the butchered one. Sure, offer people who lack the understanding or aesthetics or proper equipment a circumcised version, but let those of us who truly respect the artistic vision of the creators a version as close the original as possible.

Let's see which part of that is arrogant and holier-than-thou.

I identify three groups that prefer full screen:

1. People who lack understanding: There are people who simply don't understand that a full-screen version of a widescreen movie usually shows less, not more, of the picture. It's fairly obvious that doesn't apply to anyone posting this thread.

2. Several posters, including you, have expressed apathy or even downright hostility towards the idea of appreciating the "art" involved in a movie. I paraphrase that as a lack of aesthetics. Dictonary.com's first defenition for aesthetics is: The branch of philosophy that deals with the nature and expression of beauty, as in the fine arts.

A person who is apathetic about or hostile to the artistic merit of a work of art by their own description lacks an aesthetic appreciation of it. Substitute "rap music" in the above, and you have me. Substitute "movies", and you have several people in this thread.

3. People who lack the proper equipment: Your own post indicates that widescreen movies don't look right on your screen because the picture is so small that you lose details. Equipment that is inadequate for or not designed for a particular task, whatever that task may be, can fairly be described as improper. A heavy wrench will drive a nail, but that doesn't make it the proper tool for the job.

I describe PnS movies as "circumcised". That seems a perfect metaphor to describe something that has had a portion of it's end cut off.

Finally, I characterize those who prefer widescreen as respecting the creators' vision. The vast majority of directors and cinematographers prefer that their movies be seen widescreen. Viewing a work of art the way it's creator wants it to be viewed is respecting it. Ignoring the creator's wishes isn't.

Beyond that, if you read my posts for their content rather than looking for something to slam, you might see that I agree with you. I think the best solution is to provide both versions on a single dvd so that the consumer can choose the version that is best for their enjoyment. Two in one is far better than seperate releases, because it allows those who get it for the full screen version to display the widescreen when they eventually upgrade to the widescreen tv's that will become standard in the foreseeable future.

[Dunderman]

Ghostbusters is the only pan & scan movie I can think of offhand where it really looks awful.
Why hasn't anyone mentioned Star Trek IV yet? Kirk and Spock in the back of a car with a woman between them, talking. There's not time to pan from one to the other between lines, so you end up looking at a shaky picture of a silent woman while hearing Kirk and Spock speak.

[Philster]

And who would we blame for that upsetting scene in Star Trek IV?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

When you resort to personal accusations without including any substantive reasoning, you've pretty much conceded the argument.

Except that's not what I've done.

This is the exact statement to which you refer as "obnoxiously arrogant, holier-than-thou claims":

Incorrect. I'd elaborate, but i assume your computer has a scroll bar, and you can verify for yourself that this is incorrect.


2. Several posters, including you, have expressed apathy or even downright hostility towards the idea of appreciating the "art" involved in a movie.

Kindly quote where I've expressed this. Because I absolutely don't feel this way.

3. People who lack the proper equipment: Your own post indicates that widescreen movies don't look right on your screen because the picture is so small that you lose details. Equipment that is inadequate for or not designed for a particular task, whatever that task may be, can fairly be described as improper. A heavy wrench will drive a nail, but that doesn't make it the proper tool for the job.

Wrong. My television is designed for watching moving visual images with accompanying sound. It performs this function properly. It displays full-screen versions of movies in a way I find more appealing than the way it displays wide-screen movies. This doesn't make it inadequate for watching movies, just inadequate for watching widescreen movies.

I describe PnS movies as "circumcised". That seems a perfect metaphor to describe something that has had a portion of it's end cut off.

It's a terrible metaphor. Movies have no neurological system. Widescreen movies have a different part of the frame chopped off from what fullscreen movies have chopped off -- remember that the director frames each shot from the larger frame of film. Fullscreen movies don't have a better chance of getting blowjobs than widescreen movies. Widescreen movies don't produce smegma. And circumcised penes are not inferior to circumcised penes, which seems to be the point of your metaphor.

Finally, I characterize those who prefer widescreen as respecting the creators' vision. The vast majority of directors and cinematographers prefer that their movies be seen widescreen. Viewing a work of art the way it's creator wants it to be viewed is respecting it. Ignoring the creator's wishes isn't.

Show me some stats, and I'll give you this one. You're wrong so often in this post that it ain't gonna be a freebee, though. Even if I give it to you, I suspect that most directors also prefer that their movies be seen fullscreen if the alternative is that their movies aren't seen at all; directors have to eat too, you know. The issue is more complicated than film school is teaching you.

Beyond that, if you read my posts for their content rather than looking for something to slam, you might see that I agree with you.

Practically, sure, you agree with me. Your sanctimonious attitude is downright nauseating.

Daniel

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Incorrect. I'd elaborate, but i assume your computer has a scroll bar, and you can verify for yourself that this is incorrect.

In this case, I will elaborate: this wasn't the latest statement of yours that pissed me off, not your latest sanctimonious tripe. It was, however, one of your earlier snarky comments. In this instance, you were half-right.

Daniel

[Kaitlyn]

Except that's not what I've done.

"You keep making these obnoxiously arrogant, holier-than-thou claims, and when called on it, you say, "I'm not acting superior, I'm just telling it like it is." That's such sanctimonious bullshit that it didn't dignify a real response."

There are the personal accusations to which I referred, accompanied by an admission by you that you'd provided no "real response."

Incorrect. I'd elaborate, but i assume your computer has a scroll bar, and you can verify for yourself that this is incorrect.

Here's the problem. I've said nothing that I intended to indicate that I feel superior in some way to those who prefer PnS. If you're reading them that way, either you're being thin-skinned and overreacting, or I've made an error in how I'm presenting my argument. Though I believe it's more likely the former, I'm willing to consider the latter, so that I might avoid doing it again in future discussions. To do that, you'd have to be specific about which statements you feel contain this attitude.

Kindly quote where I've expressed this. Because I absolutely don't feel this way.

I inferred from "There is no morality involved, no paean to the sanctity of artwork (remember, directors: if you don't want your movie whored out, don't finance it through a whorish studio). " and "I'm just an ignorant ass, incapable of appreciating the true grandeur of an artiste's vision!" that you didn't generally view movies as an art form or respect the artists desires. Given the content of your current post, I see I was mistaken in that belief, and I apologize for including you in that group.

There are others, however, who have expressed exactly the sentiment I described.

Wrong. My television is designed for watching moving visual images with accompanying sound. It performs this function properly. It displays full-screen versions of movies in a way I find more appealing than the way it displays wide-screen movies. This doesn't make it inadequate for watching movies, just inadequate for watching widescreen movies.

My statement was, "Sure, offer people who lack . . . proper equipment". I thought it would be clear that this was referring to the proper equipment for displaying widescreen movies. You say in this post that your equipment is inadequate for that purpose. I don't thing theres a big jump from inadequate to improper, but if that is what was bothering you about that statement, I will happily amend it to, "offer those who lack . . . adequate equipment."

It's a terrible metaphor. Movies have no neurological system. Widescreen movies have a different part of the frame chopped off from what fullscreen movies have chopped off -- remember that the director frames each shot from the larger frame of film. Fullscreen movies don't have a better chance of getting blowjobs than widescreen movies. Widescreen movies don't produce smegma. And circumcised penes are not inferior to circumcised penes, which seems to be the point of your metaphor.

Nope. My point, which I elaborated already, was that both have a portion removed from the end. A metaphor needn't be an exact parallel in every detail. And it's poor form to attribute to me motives that clearly aren't there, as I've already explained the intent of that statement once, quite clearly.

Show me some stats, and I'll give you this one. You're wrong so often in this post that it ain't gonna be a freebee, though.

No statistics, just anecdotal. I've read and seen commentaries by many directors who hate it, including Steven Speilberg, George Lucas, Martin Scorsese, Richard Donner (all members of the Artists Rights Foundation), David Fincher, and only one, Stanley Kubrick, who prefers it. David Lean was somewhat on the fence; in a statement of his regarding Lawrence of Arabia he preferred the P n S version to the widescreen for smaller standard televisions for the same reasons you mentioned before.

It seems common sense to me that in the absense of contrary evidence, the AR in which the movie was created is the one preferred by the creators.

Even if I give it to you, I suspect that most directors also prefer that their movies be seen fullscreen if the alternative is that their movies aren't seen at all; directors have to eat too, you know.

I suspect you're right there.

Practically, sure, you agree with me. Your sanctimonious attitude is downright nauseating.

Daniel

Once again, you attribute to me an attitude I do not feel.

One more note: from a previous thread on this subject, I learned that widescreen folks aren't seeing the full frame, either: the full frame is always edited down by the director to get the final shot. IN some cases, the fullscreen version actually shows more information in a better shot than the widescreen version does.

This method is called "open matte". Movies filmed for a 1.85:1 ration are filmed on standard 35mm stock, with a standard ration lens, and hard matted in the theater to the proper ratio. This involves metal screens at the top and bottom of the projector that block those portions of the frame from being seen. When transferred to dvd, only the middle portion is transferred, with the top and bottom portions that are blocked in the theater left out. This is called "soft matte".

During the transitional period from Academy ratio to widescreen, there were movies that were filmed in 4:3, then matted down in theaters to create the impression that they were the widescreen movies. Chopping off the top and bottom of such a movie (The Searchers for example), is just as damaging to the film as chopping off the sides of a movie filmed in widescreen. For example, late in the film, John Wayne has located the tribe that has his neice. The younger guy (don't remember his name right now) is sent in to try to rescue her. He's dangled and dropped from a ledge to the ground below. In the proper, full frame version, you can see that the ground is about 15-20 feet below, making the jump dangerous but not rediculously so. The matted version blocks out the place where he lands, making it look as if he's being dropped a huge distance.

More modern examples include Robocop, and The Little Mermaid. These were created with the Europeaon standard of 1.66:1, but many theaters either didn't understand or didn't have the proper equipment to matte these for that ratio, so they had portions blotted out at the top and bottom of the screen to make them appear to be 1:85:1. I find this just as objectionable as pan n scan.

Most of the time, however, movies filmed for 1:85:1 are filmed using a full frame, but with the intent of showing only the top and bottom portions of the film. In my first post, I identify one example of how this can ruin the shot composition (in Pee Wee's Big Adventure). Here's another: In Body Heat, William Hurt is seen by a little girl approaching Kathleen Turner. He's later accused of rape. The little girl who saw him describes seeing his genetalia. In the matted version, Hurt can be seen nude from the waist up, it's easy to infer that he's completely naked. The open matte version indeed shows more; it shows that Hurt was wearing boxers during the scene. As this was clearly not the intent of the shot, based on the little girl's later statements, showing it ruins the shot just as much as cutting the sides from an anamorphic widescreen.

Directors often use a special camera that has the center area of the frame marked off so that they know where the "safe" filming area is. If you've ever been in a theater, and seen frequent shots of boom mikes or absent ceilings, it's most likely because the director disregarded these when filming because they were in the top area that would be matted in the theater, and the projectionist has misframed the film in such a way that too much shows at the top.

One more example. In the original, Back to the Future video release, an open matte print was used for all shots not having special effects. There are a lot of full body shots. Matted to 1:85:1, the figures have their feet relatively close to the bottom and heads relatively close to the top; ie the headroom and footroom in the shot is right. The open matte shots show more of the frame as filmed, but it's entirely dead space; what's more, it radically changes the depth of field; the figures appear much further away than was intended. The director, Robert Zemekis, hated this. The deluxe dvd set has only widescreen versions of the movies. But they screwed up on the first two movies, and the technician who was doing the transfer showed a few seconds from a few scenes too high, ruining at least a couple of visual jokes. This upset Zemekis enough that he pressured the studio to replace the faulty discs, which they eventually did, for free.

Though open matte is less problematic than pan n scan, I still believe that it damages any film not specifically filmed and framed for 4:3 ratio. Many of disney's live action movies from the 70's (which usually starred Kurt Russel) fit this description. They were intended to play for a short period of time in the theaters, where they were matted to appear widescreen, then very quickly appeared on tv in open matte full frame versions. Nobody I know of has a problem with this, as it was the intent from the beginning.

So yes, I agree that widescreen isn't always superior to full screen. But to my eye, Pan n scan nearly always looks awful compared to widescreen.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

I had the wonderful opportunity to talk to film director Milos Forman tonight before a screening of his film "Hair" at the San Francisco Film Festival.

Because of my views on the letterbox/fullscreen debate (firmy in the letterbox camp), I wanted to ask how he felt about it in general. His first comment was, "Ahh, there is nothing I can do about which way people watch films so I don't worry about it."

I asked more specifically how he felt personally about his films not being seen by some viewers in the way that he shot them. He responded in a way I found surprising and unexpected. He said (something to the effect of), as long as the format of the picture doesn't interfere with the pace, content, and story; and the meaning of the film is still conveyed, then he didn't really have a problem with it.

I told him I was involved in a discussion (this thread) about the differences and that some people (myself included) felt quite strongly about the fact that people were mssing parts of the movie.

"Twenty years ago I too would have really been bothered by this, but I am much mellower now." he told me.

This opened my eyes a bit. Forman is one of my favorite directors; I have a lot of respect for him. I still maintain that seeing these films in their intended format provides a richer viewing experience, but I took his point about "as long as the meaning is still conveyed" to heart, and I must say I for one am willing to back down from my earlier "holier-than-thou" approach.

Hey... just enjoy the movie! Any way you like!

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I asked more specifically how he felt personally about his films not being seen by some viewers in the way that he shot them. He responded in a way I found surprising and unexpected. He said (something to the effect of), as long as the format of the picture doesn't interfere with the pace, content, and story; and the meaning of the film is still conveyed, then he didn't really have a problem with it.

I told him I was involved in a discussion (this thread) about the differences and that some people (myself included) felt quite strongly about the fact that people were mssing parts of the movie.

"Twenty years ago I too would have really been bothered by this, but I am much mellower now." he told me.

:D A man after my own heart! As I've said before (in this or another thread), while visuals in movies can be wonderful and moving, they're not my primary concern. I'm far more interested in exactly the same things as Forman: pace, content, and story. Well, I'm also very interested in dialogue. But the point is that the visuals are not my primary concern.

Number Six, I'm not going to engage in a duelling-quote battle with you; those are tiresome and petty. If you're genuinely not saying that P&S fans are owners of inadequate aesthetics, equipment, or dicks, then I got no problem with you. That's sure not the impression you gave through your earlier posts.

Daniel

[Kaitlyn]

The only person's penis adequacy I made reference to was my own. I made no reference to having inadequate aesthetics, only to having aesthetics to appreciate widescreen films, in other words, different.

I am saying that if your equipment is inadequate to the task of displaying widescreen movies in a pleasing way, you might be better off with a full screen version of the film, which I believe is the same point you made in an earlier post.

I believe that PnS movies are badly damaged, and the only derogatory language I used was aimed at the product, not the people who buy it. That is a judgement regarding the art, not the people who choose to view it that way. I'm annoyed by the people who produce and release only full-screen movies, or with video stores that stock only full screen when there are widescren versions available, because I think they're being short-sighted and ignoring part of their core consumer group, and because I think doing so disrespects the artists that create the product in the first place.

But I make no judgements about the people who are viewing them; doing so would be foolish, as someone else watching full screen in no way diminishes my ability to watch and enjoy movies the way they were intended to be seen.

[Dunderman]

But I make no judgements about the people who are viewing them; doing so would be foolish, as someone else watching full screen in no way diminishes my ability to watch and enjoy movies the way they were intended to be seen.
Well, it can. Kinda. If full screen movies sell, there'll be more of them. Which means an increased risk of there not being widescreen available. The same kind of phenomenon prevents me from watching Finding Nemo in English. It's only available here dubbed to Swedish.

[Kaitlyn]

I see what you mean, but in such cases I blame the production companies and retailers who create the self-fulfilling prophecy, not the consumers who prefer pan n scan.