What's new

Another w/s vs. p&s thread (split off from "Universal addresses and fixes BTTF") (1 Viewer)

Robert Floto

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 27, 1999
Messages
739
Ryan, whether you think of film as "art" or not, the truth of the matter is that film-making is an artform, and I know you don't have a degree in film, but either way you should be aware that film classes are listed at universities under "visual arts. I'd also like to say that I do have a degree in film, and have never met a film-maker yet who did not consider themselves an artist...
I don't know how long you've been here at the HTF, but if you are new I would like to take this opportunity to say welcome...and warn you that the forum is an OAR only club. This is something I agree with highly. As far as I'm concerned, if a movie is not available in it's original theatrical aspct ratio...then it's not on DVD.
Good luck! This may get messy...
 

Ryan Patterson

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Nov 11, 1999
Messages
105
Perhaps you should reconsider the mission statement of this forum... Posting here that you don't think that film is art is akin to posting "Pepsi rules" on CocaColaTalk.com.
I have no preference between Coke and Pepsi, much like I have no preference between a widesreen and well-done open matte film. If you see that as a violation of the forum's mission statement, fine. However, I have tried to my best abilities to keep this discussion objective. I have stated in previous posts that there's nothing wrong with the OAR versions of open matte films. However, I feel I should have the freedom to choose, and I don't think that freedom should be taken away simply because I may not be adhering to part of the mission statement that specifies artistic intent. If that were the case, moderators would have kicked off every single user who posted "Why can't such and such movie be released in full screen?"

I have respected your replies in determining why a widescreen movie would be outright superior to a well-done open matte 4:3 version, but unfortunately I haven't been able to understand your replies enough to obtain any kind of concrete answer. I'm sorry, but your abstract 'artistic' reasons are lost on me.
 

Damin J Toell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
3,762
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Real Name
Damin J. Toell
but unfortunately I haven't been able to understand your replies enough to obtain any kind of concrete answer. I have respected your replies in determining why a widescreen movie would be outright superior to a well-done open matte 4:3 version, but unfortunately I haven't been able to understand your replies enough to obtain any kind of concrete answer. I'm sorry, but your abstract 'artistic' reasons are lost on me.
I'm not sure what's so esoteric about my position such that you don't find it impossible to understand. For whatever it's worth, I'll try it again in as few words as possible:

Film is art. Like all art, it's integrity should be respected and it should not be modified at will by third parties who don't respect that integrity, whether that modification involves removing visual information or adding extraneous visual information that was not meant to be part of the visual composition.

If you can't understand this, I must confess that I can't make it any clearer than that. Further, the problem is that your position is so opposite to the inherent basic position of this forum that it's the sort of argument that, seemingly, can simply never be resolved. If you don't respect the integrity of film as an art form, I would presume there's not much more that I can say to sway you. We can't even truly have a debate on the topic because we end up simply talking past one another, since you do not accept the basic premises on which this forum (and, indeed, my view of film) is based.

DJ
 

Ken Chan

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 11, 1999
Messages
3,302
Real Name
Ken
the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced
How about this: are books and music art? Certainly musicians are called artists, and there's the art of writing. What about plays and stage actors?

Art can be, and often is, entertaining or pleasing. Conversely, anyone can do an oil painting by numbers, just like anyone can pick up a camera and film schlock. You could say there's good art and bad art; you could even say that bad art is not art. But to say that great oil paintings are art but great movies are not -- to quote Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not
think it means what you think it means.

//Ken
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
The point I was trying to make for the BTTF movies is that possibly Zemeckis had the same feelings, considering that in the 80's all we had were NTSC interlaced displays (and most people only owned a 20" set at the time).
And most people still saw films in theaters. It wasn't until the 90s that home video replaced movie theaters as the primary viewing venue. Cameron was one of the first to make a conscious effort to address this point. I doubt that many filmmakers were thinking about it in the 80s to the extent you're trying to suggest.

M.
 

Ryan Patterson

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Nov 11, 1999
Messages
105
Thanks Ken for the definition of Art, I was confusing Art in General with Abstract Art. :frowning:
I need to sort stuff out. Let's go back to the original statement from Dan Hitchman that got my attention:
For the same reason that the version of a work of art as intended by the artist is always superior to a modification by some random outside party.
I agree with you, if some sort of modification was being done by some random outside party. However, there seem to be pretty clear indications that the director normally shoots and protects both the 1.85:1 and 1.33:1 areas at the same time. It's pretty obvious he was saying on the set "Could you please raise the boom mike? I'm seeing it in my 4:3 frame." or else you would see boom mikes and other props everywhere. Obviously, there are exceptions (eg. the much talked about Pee-Wee Herman's Big Adventure) but if the director has full control of both ratios, his intent is still being kept intact.
 

Cees Alons

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 31, 1997
Messages
19,789
Real Name
Cees Alons
May I add a new viewpoint here? :)
If a movie was shot open matted while intended for a wider screen format, then authoring it on DVD in widescreen will bring the intended-for-viewing part of the film in a higher resolution than if it's authored fully and for 4:3.
Cees
 

Chad R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 14, 1999
Messages
2,183
Real Name
Chad Rouch


Framing is the language of the filmmaker. If it were as unimportant as you assert, than every filmmaker would simply place a camera in the corner of the room and just film the entire scene from this one angle. Boring, huh?

No, they move the camera around, cut between angles to illicit certain emotions--not just showcase the best parts of the scene. At what angle a camera is placed will affect you unconsciously as to how you should feel. Placing it up high gives you a feeling of superiority (since you're looking down on them), down low will make you feel inferior.

To rob a director of this tool, even in the slightest way, can disturb the flow of the movie. Sure it seems innocuous to just have a little extra headroom, but the director and his DP hit the frame line for the theater for a reason, regardless of how slight it may seem.

Many directors might 'protect' for video, but they understand that's the compromise. So long as the film can be presented at home without that compromise, why wouldn't you choose it?
 

Ryan Patterson

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Nov 11, 1999
Messages
105
If it were as unimportant as you assert, than every filmmaker would simply place a camera in the corner of the room and just film the entire scene from this one angle. Boring, huh?
Although you addressed my point later in your post, you're really exaggerating your view by involving this stuff. When I say 'framing', I don't mean how the camera moves or where it's placed in a shot. That's a completely different aspect that's not the issue here.
Whatever, people. That's the last time I stick up and defend a few people who have an alternative idea, such as for the Back to the Future problem. I just hope that everyone around the world can get replacement WS discs from Universal.
End of Line.
 

Damin J Toell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
3,762
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Real Name
Damin J. Toell
I agree with you, if some sort of modification was being done by some random outside party. However, there seem to be pretty clear indications that the director normally shoots and protects both the 1.85:1 and 1.33:1 areas at the same time. It's pretty obvious he was saying on the set "Could you please raise the boom mike? I'm seeing it in my 4:3 frame." or else you would see boom mikes and other props everywhere. Obviously, there are exceptions (eg. the much talked about Pee-Wee Herman's Big Adventure) but if the director has full control of both ratios, his intent is still being kept intact.
You're presuming that, as a result of protecting for 4x3, a director believes that the 4x3 framing is just as acceptable as the intended theatrical framing. And I think that's a big mistake. Just because a director protects for 4x3, it doesn't mean that director finds the 4x3 framing as acceptable as the theatrical framing. Protecting for 4x3 is generally done out of convenience, not artistic intent. Thus, an open matte transfer does not necessarily keep intact the intent of the director at all.

DJ
 

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
Ryan,
I must say that many of your views regarding what OAR means are misguided to say the least.
Here is a very easy way to understand this concept...
Get about 15 of your friends and relatives to gather around for a group photo that you will take, now, before you snap the picture what do you do? Yep, you COMPOSE the picture, you tell the guy on the end to move in closer, or tell the short people to get in front and the taller people in back, you make sure that unwanted objects such as cars or other people are left out of the frame and make sure that any tree limbs that may be hanging above are left out.
After all of this, you finally snap your COMPOSED photo that turns out just how you wanted it.
Now let me ask you this, would you be happy if suddenly your picture had all that extranious and unwanted stuff, the stuff you took great care to leave out, were back in? I would hope you'de be upset that your composition is now destroyed.
Corruption of ORIGINAL and INTENDED composition is NEVER a good thing, ever. And also, if i'm getting your drift, you can't intend and compose for TWO ratios and claim that both are what you wanted in the first place. You compose and shoot for one, and merely protect the other. Or as I like to say, your HEART is on one, while your EYE is on the other. :)
Art, and it is art, has no time limit Ryan, simply because a film has a short theatrical run and will be seen more at home means nothing, a film is made first and foremost to be seen theatrically, the home video presentation is secondary.
If hundreds of people can pull their efforts into one great big orchestrated production that involves thousands of hours of work by countless crafts people, simply to tell a story while they themselves remain hidden behind the scenes, if that isn't art, tell me Ryan...what is?
 

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
I used to scribble nonsense on craft paper in the 1st grade and call it art, it was aweful but it was indeed a crude form of art nontheless.
PA5 rocks BTW. :D
 

Qui-Gon John

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Messages
3,532
Real Name
John Co
First, Ryan, thanks for sticking up for some of us. I hadn't been in this thread since it split off.

Second, setting aside pure interpretatiions of film as an art and this mission statement, in practical discussions the emphasis has always been that WS is better because P&S (the usual full screen) cuts of 1/3 of the picture from either side or both sides, depending on the frame. Most talk of open-matte in these discussions were nil. I have a big problem with P&S and will always avoid it. I almost always avoid FS as well. But from what I'm hearing and what I know of BTTF, this may be the rare exception where the FS (open-matte) version is a more enjoyable viewing experience than the WS.
 

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
Widescreen is NOT about getting more picture, it's about the proper composition, composition..composition! And the BTTF trilogy open matted is not the right composition, there are no exceptions.
If Zemeckis wanted them to be 4x3 he would have composed them that way to begin with for theatrical exhibition but he didn't, he composed for 1.85:1.
What more is there to discuss outside of this immovable fact?
I am also of the opinion that EVERY film, even one as aweful as Freddy Got Fingered deserves to be presented the way it was intended. I mean if it's going to suck, it may as well suck in it's OAR am I right? :)
I apologize if I tend to repeat myself, but i've always been the type to cut right through all the bullshit and get right to what matters. I do not allow myself to entertain thoughts of "well maybe this is an exception." or "4x3 does look better than it's 1.85:1 AR.".
 

Qui-Gon John

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Messages
3,532
Real Name
John Co
JW, notice I said, "may be a more enjoyable movie experience". Let's equate this with food. Let's say you really like Big Mac's, except without pickles. But McDonalds intends for you to have pickles on it. But you eat it without pickles anyway. You don't care what McDonalds intentions are, you enjoy the sandwich much more without pickles, that's really waht matters most. :D
 

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
Your referring to OCC (Original Condement Content) :D
John,
I know where your coming from, however your analogy just doesn't hold water, I mean it's a hamburger for God's sake. But i'll bite, if there are any hamburger purists here who would eat a burger without pickles when they were intended to have them, i'll be quiet.
Hamburger's are not art. (Unless of course I cook them) ;)
Films are a more serious issue than Big Macs, if Picasso wanted me to see one of his paintings a certain way, that's how i'll view it without question.
Now, do you want fries with that? ;)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,710
Messages
5,121,138
Members
144,146
Latest member
SaladinNagasawa
Recent bookmarks
0
Top