Possibly the most inane reason for bumping a thread, ever.
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
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.
I totally agree with you, but just a minor nitpick: The OPs point was the latter rather than the former.
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? 
Ha! Not half as inane as bumping it to reply to that post!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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’. 
(Sorry, but I thought it was utter crap)
Shame on you, LHoD, for having the nerve to bring reason to this argument.
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.
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…
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.