What we are up against... (1 Viewer)

[David Susilo]

Go Britain! That's why I've been wanting to live there for ages. The government got balls and the people are much less whiny and even much less xenophobic.

 

[Matt_Marlow]

I think people are underestimating how many 16:9 TVs are being sold in the US. If you go to Best Buy (or Circuit City or HH Gregg, for example) and look at the projection TVs, the majority of them, probably at least 75%, are 16:9. Widescreen TVs are making less headway into the direct view market, but even there more are starting to show up. Of course, the installed base is still mainly 4:3, but that's gradually changing.

The reason that 16:9 TVs are starting to sell is because they're finally becoming somewhat affordable, DVDs are selling well, and HD programming is finally starting to become available for a significant amount of people.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but a few people have seemed to imply that US citizens are somehow dumb or inferior to people in Europe or Asia for not owning a 16:9 TV already. That is nonsense. Until recently, they were hardly even available, and the ones that were weren't exactly affordable.

As for Europe's superiority when it comes to their large user base of 16:9 TVs...what about high definition programming? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no such thing as 1080i or 720p (or a PAL equivalent) currently available, or even planned, in Europe. While 16:9 market penetration may be taking a while to take hold in the US--and for good reason, the fault of which lies with the manufacturers and cable providers, not the "J6P" consumers--in the long run we may be better off since we'll actually have high definition programming. And that would explain at least partially why 16:9 TVs have cost so much, since they're capable of much higher resolution than their European counterparts.

Rather than taking a common sense view on subjects like pan & scan and 16:9 TVs, a lot of people here seem to approach it with some kind of religious fervor. It's disturbing to me that Jim A. Banville's comments--which are completely reasonable--are largely taken as some form of "heresy" around here.

 

[David Susilo]

you don't get the point do you?

IF North American started the 16:9 conversion 10 years ago, then there will be much less whining about p/s.

There is NO small 16:9 TV in North America which makes penetration of 16:9 materials even slower. Yes, most projection TVs are 16:9. But who in hell going to put projection TV in every bedroom?

I have 6 TVs in the house, but I'll be damned to put projection TV in every room. 34" 16:9 or larger are NOT for bedrooms and studies.

And what about those 4:3 tube HDTV? What the hell are those?

Xenophobic is xenophobic, clear and simple, no defending that. North Americans are (generally) stupid? yes! have the guts to say it! Why anybody needs explanation that OAR is better? You hardly can find non-OAR releases in Asia, Australia and Europe. That's NOT from studio's education. That's common sense.

Also, we are NOT talking about HD programming at all here, we are talking about OAR. Get with the program. Nobody's talking about HD programming.

 

[Jack Briggs]

"It's disturbing to me that Jim A. Banville's comments--which are completely reasonable--are largely taken as some form of 'heresy' around here."

Matt, it's precisely because pan-and-scan transfers are themselves viewed as heresy here at HTF that tempers are being aroused. What makes Mr. Banville's posts difficult to ignore, however, is how well-worded and intelligent they are--despite the forum rules which state that this is not the place to make the case for P&S.

The entire P&S issue is the home-theater equivalent of the abortion-rights issue: opposing viewpoints are not going to be changed.

 

[Sean Conklin]

Well the fact is that 99% of us have 1 goal: PRESERVE OAR.

I believe even Mr. Banville agree's with this. I would like to see Mr. Banville focus his intelligence(which he obviously has) on our goal of preserving OAR instead of focusing so much on the rights of the "average consumer". It shouldn't be allright to desecrate art just to please the "average consumer".

Mr. Crawford's and Mr. Knapp's remarks are right on! I wish we could "help" the studio's stick to their guns and supply OAR ONLY presentations. I guess the best we can do is educate "AC", lobby, petition, and write to studio's and fight the good fight!

 

[Justin Lane]

What makes Mr. Banville's posts difficult to ignore, however, is how well-worded and intelligent they are--despite the forum rules which state that this is not the place to make the case for P&S.

I have not taken this from Jim's posts, but instead the absolute opposite. From everything he has typed he is as staunch an OAR supporter as the next guy here.

What he is saying is some people do not have the same views on OAR as we do, even when educated. As has been noted before, Americans are afraid of change. As far as home video goes P&S has been the overwhelming presentation since the VHS and early LD days. Whoever made the decision to crop films to fit TV is the one to ultimately blame. If OAR was the only choice from the get go, we would not be having these debates/comments right now. We understand OAR but the non-enthusiast has over 20 years of TV and VHS history in P&S. Remeber people used to think the world was flat.

Education efforts are needed and the directors/studios are the where it has to start. We can make some difference, but in the grand scheme of things we are just a drop in the bucket.

J

 

[Matt_Marlow]

And what about those 4:3 tube HDTV? What the hell are those?
Xenophobic is xenophobic, clear and simple, no defending that. North Americans are (generally) stupid? yes! have the guts to say it! Why anybody needs explanation that OAR is better? You hardly can find non-OAR releases in Asia, Australia and Europe. That's NOT from studio's education. That's common sense.
Also, we are NOT talking about HD programming at all here, we are talking about OAR. Get with the program. Nobody's talking about HD programming.

Because all 16:9 TVs being sold in North America are high definition, it's hard not to mention the current HD issue when discussing them. The lack of high-definition widescreen programming, rather than the stupidity of North American citizens, is the reason for the relatively small number of 16:9 TVs currently in use on this continent. If DVDs weren't so popular, there would probably be far fewer widescreen TVs being sold, but I still believe the main hurdle standing in the way of 16:9 TV popularity is the lack of available programming.
Other than the fact that the 16:9 screen more closely resembles the shape of a theater screen, is it necessarily better? I prefer it, & you obviously do--I'll bet even the infamous Jim A. Banville would, too--but not everyone would agree with that. That doesn't make them "xenophobic" or "stupid", but merely people who prefer a TV which most closely matches the vast majority of available programming.
Like a previous post mentioned, the few dissenters here are not anti-OAR; they just disagree that all-or-nothing thinking is the correct way to go about things. In my opinion, there would be nothing wrong with making both the OAR and pan & scan versions available on each disc. As long as the OAR version is available, I'm happy. The more popular DVDs become, the more obscure releases we'll see. And look at how much more affordable DVD players and home theater receivers are now than during the days of laserdisc. That's just one more benefit that we're seeing from its popularity.
A common argument against a non-OAR version existing at all is that the movie in question is a work of art and therefore not to be tampered with. Often the movie is compared with a painting or a novel. The problem with that is that, in general, a painting or a novel is created by one individual (obviously there are some exceptions), but a movie is created by far more people than just the director. Since a movie is (usually) financed by a studio, is a collaborative effort, and not the work of a single individual, who decides whether or not it can be tampered with. Obviously a lot of people's livelihoods depend on a movie being profitable, so the studios are going to attempt to maximize those profits whether you agree with it or not. That's why I disagree with the "work of art" argument; movies are big business. Obviously when you're talking about a novel, a lot of collaborative work goes into it, too, when you think of the editor, the advertising, and the cost of actually producing the book, but in general I think the comparison between a big budget film and a novel or painting is invalid for the reasons just stated.

 

[Sean Conklin]

What he is saying is some people do not have the same views on OAR as we do, even when educated. As has been noted before, Americans are afraid of change.

Well change is good! And Americans that want to step up to DVD should get used to viewing a superior presentation, namely OAR! They should be damn happy to enjoy their favorite films as they were intended to be viewed!

 

[Rachael B]

I wanna be like Mike K. , except prettier! To all the people posting on these thread, STOP! Compose an e-mail to the FCC and demand 16 x 9 digital broadcasting. I have. 16 x 9 broadcasts simply need to be imposed on the public. They can buy new wider TV's if they want to, or they can whine and complain about black bars, ooouh chagrin! The buck has to stop somewhere!

 

[Jim A. Banville]

Thanks for all the kind words folks I really am a pro-OAR home theater enthusiast, even by the elistist bastard's definition The last few posters have hit the nail on the head as far as my position. Anyway, I think we can all do without the anti-American sentiment :frowning: I'm glad I don't live in a country that is so oppresive that it would impose something like a completely new television standard overnight, rendering millions of TV's "obsolete". I'm as axious to get HDTV as the next guy, but I think the several-year transition here in the US is very reasonable. As for the 4:3 HDTV's, guess what? I've got one! Yep, I can enjoy the catalog of the past 50 years of 4:3 TV programming, including current 4:3 programming (which is what the TV gets used for 90% of the time), and I can enjoy widescreen HDTV and DVD's using the anamorphic squeeze mode. The best of both worlds! I too find it ironic that some folks here seem to fight to the bloody end for preservation of artist's works when it comes to film, but have no problem sretching or chopping up 4:3 TV shows for display on their 16:9 TV's. Apparently the "artists" who create award winning TV shows aren't as important :frowning:

 

[Sean Conklin]

I too find it ironic that some folks here seem to fight to the bloody end for preservation of artist's works when it comes to film, but have no problem sretching or chopping up 4:3 TV shows for display on their 16:9 TV's.

Jim, I would NEVER do that! When I get my 16:9(I don't have one yet:b ) I WILL watch with the black bars on the side I promise you that! I'm not just saying that, I MEAN it! OAR is OAR whether it be 4:3 or 16:9, I want to watch all presentations as was intended.

 

[Peter Kim]

I don't have anything to add to this affair, either--except to make the observation that this is the longest-running contentious thread in my experience here at HTF. The "heavy artillery" has been unleashed (i.e., Mr. Knapp), and we're still going back to a circular argument.

I agree, Jack. As a short time poster but long time lurker, it first struck me as odd that in this forum, OAR would be one of the most hotly contested issues. This, despite HTF's mandate and its reiteration by the admins, that supporters of the continuation of the P&S are not welcome here.
But after reviewing the last few pages of this thread, a few, and particularly one post, triggered a saying by a former professor that finds extreme relevance - Don't mistake eloquence for intelligence. The inflammatory words found in this post is what makes the fight against P&S not a circle but instead something much more amorphous.
When someone introduces nationalism into this thread, despite earlier attempts to quash it, the issue loses focus and transmogrifies into a choose-liberty-or-die litmus test which forces people into a battle of sides, neither of which ensure the viability of OAR. There is a term that EXACTLY describe this condition - it is called DEMAGOGUERY.
Let's get this straight, so that no one labels me as anti-American. I am a firm believer in the right to hold an opionion. I also firmly believe there is a wrong opinion vs. the truth.
The debate on abortion has been conjured as a basis for comparison with this forum's contentious discussion on the concern of P&S's breach as the preferred format. I believe the more proper and accurate analogy can be found in the current story on the book burning in New Mexico. To summarize, the Harry Potter books were burned by a church because they held an opinion that these books "were a masterpiece of satanic deception".
I think I can safely say that no one likes to side with the Devil, Lucifer, Satan, or whatever title it goes by these days. The church employs demagoguery by implicitly stating that you either choose their side or you must worship the Dark Lord.
Can you see how the church whips people up into an emotional frenzy so that they hit a dead-end? Well I don't want to be labelled a Devil worshipper (un-American), so I guess I'll let myself be badgered into burning books. To hell with the writer's creative vision, artistic intent. By the way, is this event beginning to sound familiar?
From this perspective, the issue suddenly becomes not so clear. For those that may not have yet been galvanized by the anti-P&S side, don't let this nationalistic battle cry confuse you.
Certainly, the church in New Mexico had the right to burn books. But since I adamantly find their action to be utterly abhorrent, am I an agent of Satan? Or just un-American?
P.S. More info on the book burning can be found at:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/book....ap/index.html

 

[Merconium]

I think Butch C's idea is a good start. I for one would be happy to support the cause. Maybe showing some $$ would help convince the studios and retailers of what we want to keep: OAR.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Any further posts about nationalism, book burning, or any other political topic will be deleted! Focus on the discussion at hand and stop bringing ancillary topics into this thread.
Crawdaddy

 

[Mike Knapp]

I too find it ironic that some folks here seem to fight to the bloody end for preservation of artist's works when it comes to film, but have no problem sretching or chopping up 4:3 TV shows for display on their 16:9 TV's.

Just to clarify:

I abhor that as much as pan-and-scanning a film. I dont do it, and have replaced a gun in my 16:9 set because of it. I still dont do it. A check of my history will reveal that I have fought this from the onset. If nothing else, I am consistant to my ideals.

Mike

 

[RogerB]

I find it ironic that Mr. Banville, in another thread, posted that he was tired of all the anti-pan&scan discussions and yet participates in one of the longest running discussions on the topic.
The problem is, Mr. Banville wants the OAR zealots to be "pro-choice" (or at least to stop stop posting pan&scan horror stories) while the OAR zealots want Mr. Banville to be anti-pan&scan. Not gonna happen.
Mr. Banville feels that OAR education will not help because he HAS educated countless pan&scan zombies and they continue to prefer pan&scan. I contend that he failed to educate. The first time one of these people try to watch a pan&scan DVD on their brand new widescreen TV they are going to slap their hand on their forehead and say, "So THAT'S what he meant!".
They think the black bars are bad now....JUST WAIT!

 

[Jim A. Banville]

Quote:

I'm glad that you are consistent If you recall, many 16:9 TV owners were VERY happy to get a 16:9 slash-job of a 4:3 OAR film called SuperSpeedway, recently. I wonder how many of those OAR advocates in that older thread are now preaching against changing a film's OAR to fit one's 4:3 TV when it comes to going the other way - 16:9 to 4:3

 

[RogerB]

Oh, for Pete's sake, Jim!

Quote:

Why does it have to involve the movie industry? Making up rules as you go along is cheating. I can make my point using any industry/government/social situation I choose.

 

[David James]

Jim:

I agree with your position but your are fighting both zealotry and the rules of the forum. When we signed up to post on this forum we agreed to give up the right to argue for choice in the OAR vs P&S debate. I will neither buy nor rent a P&S DVD and will complain to whoever does not provide me the option to view a movie in the OAR. I recognize others have differing opinions and, in this case, will not try and prevent others from having their choice.

There are many areas of debate which Robert Crawford rightful will not allow on this forum that invoke the level of zealotry shown in this discussion. Sadly the "my way or the highway" attitude shown here to often overshadows and prevents rational discussions in those areas in life that really do matter.

End of my involvement

 

[Jim A. Banville]

Quote:

Because that is what we are talking about! MOVIES on DVD! Would we even HAVE DVD if profits for someone weren't envloved? No. Does everything that goes on in the production of a DVD rely on profits for someone? Yep. I'm still waiting for you to name something in the movie industry that doesn't revolve around economics