I’ve watched this movie two or three times on TV in the last year or so, and I have noticed that it’s perhaps the worst Pan and Scan job I’ve ever seen. All you have to do is watch a few minutes of one scene and you’ll see what I mean.
So, why is it so bad? It’s not like this is some Kubrick film with tons of action all over the widescreen format requiring lots of panning. Was there some new Pan and Scan computerized standard which they were the first to use, and has gotten better? Although, I’ve seen other movies Pan and Scan from 1992 and they all look fine.
Having seen this film a few times on tv, I agree totally that it is the worst Pan & Scan I’ve ever watched. I’d be curious as well to hear if anyone knows why it’s so bad.
You still need some sort of human to pan to where the action is taking place on the screen. The film was probably in cinemascope and being both an ensamble pictures (lots of characters talking in an image) and a baseball pictue (wide open spaces being filmed with action at either end) you could get a lot of problems.
For instance in a Cinemascope picture you could have a shot of the pitcher and the hitter from the side. A pan and scan may set look at the pitcher and then pan over as the pitch goes by. But a bad job might just look at the middle and all you see is a white blur and then hear a hit.
Or you might have three or four people talking and with fast banter or a lazy pan and scan you might not see who is talking.
In Desperatly Seeking Susan once I saw a bad pan and scan where you didn’t see either person but heard voices talking off screen for most of a scene.
I’m pretty sure that a PERSON must do the ‘panning and scanning’ and however well they do their job is the deciding factor.
Really? I had no idea a person was in charge of that. In that case, that person did a horrific job. It happens all throughout the movie in unexpected ways even in scenes that don’t involve any action at all. For example, Jimmy goes and gets a drink of water while talking to another character who is two feet away in the center of the screen, and the entire screen darts over to the right to center his drinking action, then darts back over to the left again when he’s finished. I don’t remember noticing during a baseball scene or when many characters are around - it’s mostly completely random places in smaller scenes.
Ghostbusters is the one that always caught my attention for being bad. It give the impression that they are constantly moving the camera, which almost makes you seasick.
I’ve noticed this about A League of Their Own. The original seems to have had a few scenes where there are three people on screen, evenly spaced. In the original you could see them all, but in the TV version, when one of the people on the ends speaks, they have to shift left or right. In particular, check out the scenes in the charm school.
I HATE PAN AND SCAN HATE HATE HATE IT!!!
I submit anything done in PAN and SCAN and not in the original ratio Sucks! Every shot is set up by the director and if that director is worth their salt there is no bit of the screen that isn’t being used for a purpose. damn you blockbuster for having only Full Screen Versions and Damn you JOE Public for demanding an inferior presentation to be transfered to a superior medium. DVD was designed for those who love movies, why else would it have superior sound, picture, director commentaries, and all those extras.
You want Pan and Scan, you don’t need extras stay with Fricken’ VHS!!!
I’ve always loved it when movies are in the original aspect ratio (letterbox) and have only recently noticed how awkward certain scenes look in TV format. I can’t say I’ve ever noticed an editing pan or scan though I’ll start looking for it now. My assumption (and correct me if im wrong) is that the editor cuts the film frames from left to right or vice versa over time to scan the what the original aspect ratio would have shown.
