It’s not bad enough that the morons are winning and every goddamn movie now comes in a fullscreen “all of my TV” version, so I have to be extra-careful every time I go shopping. Come on, people, you’re using all of your TV to get 60% of the fucking movie!
No, some genius had to go invent the Letterbox Eliminator. Just in case John Q. Mouthbreather accidentally picked up the letterbox version of the movie, now he can engage the Letterbox Eliminator and sit back, enjoying all of his TV.
Are none of these people aware that, bad as pan & scan is, at LEAST then you have someone trying to catch the right part of the movie in the frame? With the Letterbox Eliminator, you just get the center of the movie. All of the time. Regardless of where the focus of the scene is.
There is one and only one good reason to buy movies in fullscreen format: if you are watching them on a tiny little TV, where the letterbox version would be too small to see. That said, my advice for those in that circumstance is to quit buying movies for a couple of months and get a new goddamn TV.
And before anyone jumps in to point out that they can’t afford to buy movies or a new TV, let me head you off with this: you’re not part of the problem. If you’re not spending money in the market, then the market isn’t trying to please you. The ones who deserve vilification are those who are participating and are buying fullscreen movies… so they “get to use all of their TV.”
Have you ever talked to one of these people? Heaven forfend, are you one of these people? PLEASE explain to me in some way I can understand why do this?
Praise this rant. I did not spend several thousand dollars on a neato home entertainment system, including 16:9 aspect HDTV monitor, just so that I can watch a chopped and oddly distorted movie, because some simpleton is bothered by ‘those black bars’.
Those black bars deliver salvation, not damnation! Learn to love the wider aspect, so that one day, I will not accidently buy the wrong version (‘fullscreen’, as opposed to ‘widescreen’) of Scarface.
Do not fear the coming of “Letterbox Eliminator”-enabled DVD players.
They are a good thing.
When they are widely accepted, (by the people who accept pan&scan) there will be much less pressure on DVD distributors to put out full screen editions. A huge waste of industry will be obviated. That can obly be good for consumers.
That would be a good thing. It still gives me a fingernails-on-the-chalkboard feeling to contemplate the chopping of a movie to fit the frame. It’s as though you went and bought a painting and then said “hey, it’s a little big for the space I have – I’ll just trim it down a bit.”
The people who will use this probably don’t even know why full-screen movies suck ass. They think nothing of watching a movie with people talking to people and looking at things that aren’t there. They won’t even notice when letterbox eliminator eliminates half of the movie.
(Larry, I sure hope you’re right, so my brother-in-law can stop buying us fullscreen movies because he can’t tell any difference.)
Thank you Mr. Gadget boy. Has it ever occurred to you that it’s not that the consumers are stupid, but only uninformed as to how this works? Why such venomous attacks on people who are merely uninformed about how a product works?
Now, if they are STILL doing it after having researched and found out how it all really works (luckily I have my very own geekboy best friend from whom I can ask all these gadget questions), and they STILL don’t get it, then yeah, I can see some contempt.
But for folks to merely commit the crime of not knowing it in the first place? sheesh.
Do you think that this is info that’s just passed on through the gene’s or something, and that not to automatically know it is to be considered as a “moron”?
Mostly, however, I am reacting to the people who, aware of the fact that there are two versions of the movie – one with black bars at the top and the bottom and one without, which also has correspondingly less of the original move – prefer the one that “uses all of my TV.”
Yes, I have actually heard this from more than one person.
So while my attack may be venomous, it’s not directed at those who have no idea which version is which – it’s directed at those who understand the difference and choose the wrong one. Much like low-income folks voting for Bush because “I’ll get to keep more of my paycheck,” it’s superficially logical but intrinsically stupid.
Whoa, almost hijacked my own thread.
And in closing, yes, I am Mr. Gadget Boy, and proud of it.
See, this is what puzzles me. It’s pretty obvious to me from looking at the screens in movie theaters and the screens on TVs that movies, in their original format, are wider*. It’s visual observation, not technological know-how, which led me to realize that letterboxing is required to get 100% of the movie’s scene onto a TV. In fact, I was rather puzzled by the term “fullscreen” at first, because, well, 60% does not equal full.
I’m not even a movie buff – I’ve gone entire years without seeing a movie. Are people just not paying attention?
Not counting the old-old movies made in 4:3, that is.
My sister asked me one time while I was watching a movie (Brazil, no less) why I got the “one with black bars instead of the one that you could see.” This is all the while I am 5 feet away from a 27 inch flatscreen. Anyways, I explained to her that the full screen cuts way to much of such a beautiful film.
She preceded to argue with me about how the people who make DVDs just strech out the fullscreen version and shrink it so that it has black lines.
If she was right, why the hell would they bother?!
Anyways, the average consumer has no idea. I would be willing to bet that they see no black lines at a movie theatre so they expect to not see them on a DVD version of the same movie.
I think it may have to do with what sorts of movies people are watching. Someone mentioned (paraphrased), something about "just watching people talk in the middle of the screen, and not noticing any of the “action”.
Well, now that you’ve asked your very excellent question, I’d have to say “yes and no”. If the person in question is more interested in the types of movies that are more analytical, in other words, the movie’s story moves along based on relationships and the conversations and such involved in that, then yeah, it’s possible that they weren’t “paying attention” in the way that someone used to say buddy cop movies is used to seeing the “whole” screen probably would notice it more quickly.
But, that’s just a guess on my part. I remember seeing some techie geek show (the Screensavers?? one of those types), where they showed the difference between the wide screen and full screen. To me? I didn’t think that there was such a HUGE unacceptable difference. Though I could definitely understand how action buffs would want the whole screen.
I think that a lot of it has to do with how people prefer to view things rather than them being “stupid” or whatever. And this is just an IMHO/guess on my part. Some people prefer the “fullscreen” version because the “black bars” do tend to make it look “unfinished” or out of balance or something.
At least this was the sensation I got upon seeing one for the first time. I noticed that I quickly got used to it, and really don’t notice it that much anymore (though BELIEVE Me, technogeek best friend/former boyfriend expounded extensively on why it was better :D), but I can understand why aesthetically, some people might prefer the whole screen to be “even” and filled up.
Glad you didn’t take that wrong, I happen to be quite partial to the geekboys among men.
Aha, well, in that case see my answer to earthling, I honestly don’t think it’s stupidity to prefer one “look” over another, anymore than it’s “stupid” to prefer beige over blue (though perhaps horrible taste in decorating :D).
See? Not dumb, just different taste than yours. It’s an aesthetic thing. IMHO of course.
Some movies do have scenes that are done this way. Occasionally a scene is originally framed at 4:3, then cropped to 16:9 for the final theatrical cut. That way they can use the 4:3 version of the scene for the TV cut. But it’s not for the whole movie, and it’s still relatively rare.
I hate “full” screen with the fire of a thousand suns. I think I’ve accidentally bought the cropped version because I was tired and thought, “mm. Full good. elfbabe like to see FULL movie.” Maybe if the availability of “letterbox eliminator” becomes the norm, then morons will buy more unchopped movies and fewer movies will BE chopped at all.
good rant, but look at the bright side - because of the letterbox eliminator there will be more letterbox tittles on the shelves and who cares about the morons who will actually use it.
Isn’t this rant a little five years ago? I buy several movies a month, and I almost never even see full screen movies being offered for sale. And this is in major chain stores: Tower Records, Circuit City, Best Buy. Just about everything is widescreen these days. As near as I can tell, this battle has already been fought and won.
Quite the opposite, sadly. The initial flush of titles on DVD was for the enthusiast market, and were almost always widescreen. As the penetration of DVD players into households has increased, the market has changed. Studios are now releasing most titles in both P&S and Widescreen versions.
The battle is being lost.
And in case you’re wondering, the basis for my knowledge is professional. I spent most of the last 4 years sitting within a few feet of the movies team for the online store of a Major Retailer.
Who cares with an action movie? Nuances aren’t huge. Explosions are explosions. I do, however, care that Donald O’Connors reaction shot to Gene Kelly talking to the gossip reporter is cut from pan and scan in Singing in the Rain. A lot of really great acting happens on the edges of the screen in reaction shots. I think that someone more analytical is going to notice cut edges a lot faster. And they make a much bigger difference.
Plus, there is the composition aspect of it. Kurosawa or Rodriguez or Scorsese isn’t composing a shot to have half of it cut off. They compose it for the aspect ratio they are filming in. The image of Antonio Bandaras in black leaving a streak of red blood against a whitewashed wall is haunting to me - and completely different when you cut off the edges. I’d prefer to see a film the way the director meant it to be seen. For me, its also a matter of respect. I’d hate to see my own work chopped up to fit someone elses convienience.
However, I will say that there is one nice thing about the full screen/wide screen debate. Once in a while, rather than packaging two versions of the movie, they put two DVDs in the same case. That gives me an extra copy of the movie that I will never watch, but perhaps one of my friends will.
(Disclaimer…1) I majored in Film Studies in college, so I’ve actually taken single frames from movies and done in depth composition analysis - tends to turn you into a little bit of a film snob. 2) Brainiac4 is my husband.)
Gosh, I have no idea, I’m not those people. I wasn’t stating fact, just making guesses (which I made quite clear in my post) as to why people might prefer the “full screen”.
I still stand by my opinion though, that however poor taste the person who prefers full screen has, it still doesn’t make them “morons”. Just people with poor taste, or less cinematic knowledge and appreciation as “true believers”.
I think you may have missed the point (or I may have not expressed it clearly enough). I’m not objecting to someone preferring one format over another as a matter of taste. I am objecting to the “they’re cheating me by not using all of my TV” argument. If someone says “I just prefer the fullscreen version” then I need to treat them like anyone else I disagree with on a matter of taste – politely agree to disagree. But when someone follows that up with a basis from which their conclusion proceeds apart from personal opinion, then I can (and will) argue with them about that factual basis.
What’s being presented is not, to repeat, “I prefer this as a matter of personal taste.” Instead, I am told “that version cheats me by not using all of my TV.” To which I feel free to respond “you’re choosing all of your TV over all of the movie. The TV is a sunk cost, the movie is the same cost for all of it or 60% of it. Your argument is not logical.”
From this, I proceed to clearly implying that those who hold that position are stupid. Yeah, that makes me kind of intolerant. But not, I hasten to add, of those who have different taste than me.
You realize, of course, that you’re asking people who’ve no idea why there’s black bars on the top and bottom of their screen, to figure out how to “correctly” operate their DVD player to remove those items. If these drooling slackjawed idiots are unable to comprehend the importance of widescreen, what on Earth makes you think that they’re going to be able to get their minds wrapped around the concept of pushing a button on the “clicker” to get that danged ol’ video machine to show the purty pitchers in the way they’s like’s 'em? These are the same kind of folks who prefer it when Ted Turner rubs his crayons over some beautiful B&W movie!
