Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Archives › Archived Threads 2001-2004 › Widescreen War Won!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Widescreen War Won!

post #1 of 52
3/20/03 at 4:16pm
Thread Starter 
Widescreen War Won, but many battles to be fought.

Not uncommon for major network TV shows to now be in HD 16:9, and released on DVD in anamorphic transfers.
Commercials, both for products & networks, are letterboxed.
Direct to Video releases, are anamorphic widescreen (from Disney, no less).
Sales of widescreen DVD titles far out pace P&S of the same title (if not at first release, than in the weeks after initial release). [Exceptions for a 'children only' title.]
A few, not enough, movies on cable are letterboxed.
Pay-per-view movies in HD & SD are in OAR.

So, P&S is finally fading off into the sunset!

However, many battles are still too be won as well;

Disney, releasing catalog title in P&S only.
HBO showing HD movies in non-OAR.
Many more movies on cable still in P&S.
Sell though B&B's, still catering to J6P & the Pan and Scanners [sounds like a bad band]).
Rental, can you say Blockbuster, B&B's still promoting non-OAR releases.
And you can add your rant, to whatever else needs too be addressed in the 'last days of the war' clean-up of the dreaded P&S!

Great to see widescreen monitor/TV sales up, up, up!
Reply
post #2 of 52
3/20/03 at 4:46pm
If there are many battles still to be fought, then by definition the war has not been won.
Reply
post #3 of 52
3/20/03 at 4:56pm
I agree but we're at least making a little progress. I think when the studios quit releasing seperate fullscreen versions alongside the superior widescreen versions that will be a major victory.

Love that Joe Six Pack and the Pan and Scanners bit .
Reply
post #4 of 52
3/20/03 at 5:07pm
I'm an advocate of widescreen but until there aren't any TV's in the world smaller than say, 32 inches, there should at least be a P&S option available. IMO you can't really enjoy or take full advantage of a widescreen presentation on anything smaller than a 32 or 27 inch TV. You get the entire frame but lose a lot of the detail as opposed to P&S which sacrifices the original framing for greater detail.

I'm hoping this will all be a moot point one day when technology allows us to switch between P&S and widescreen versions of a movie at the press of a button.
Reply
post #5 of 52
3/20/03 at 5:09pm
If all studios finally adopt the "dual versions in one SKU" strategy, then the war will have been won Well, not "won" per se, since P&S will still exist, but it'll certainly be a very agreeable compromise
Reply
post #6 of 52
3/20/03 at 5:12pm
I don't think I'd declare it won just yet.

Paramount, a studio which had been OAR only since DVD started, began to release separate P&S versions last fall.

Artisan continues to release P&S only catalog titles as well.

Quote:
Disney, releasing catalog title in P&S only.

Disney is so schizophrenic when it comes to DVD release aspect ratios. Either the head of BVHV has multiple personality disorder, or there are multiple "little chiefs" making decisions on various titles. You get one release like Snow Dogs that's released P&S only, now we get Tuck Everlasting released in 2.35 widescreen only. Bizarre.
Reply
post #7 of 52
3/20/03 at 5:17pm
But now we have DVDs like "Peter Gabriel: Secret World Live" with a widescreen picture achieved by chopping off the top and bottom of the original 4:3 frame. The studios are getting the wrong message. It's not widescreen we want -- it's OAR.
Reply
post #8 of 52
3/20/03 at 10:16pm
Not unlike the dual LP releases of the 1960's when mono was the norm and stereo was the new kid on the block...mono was eventually phased out.

It will happen.
Reply
post #9 of 52
3/21/03 at 3:23am
Pan & Scan
Reply
post #10 of 52
3/21/03 at 5:03am
What is "SKU"?
Reply
post #11 of 52
3/21/03 at 5:05am
Why do people say that? I enjoyed watching WIDESCREEN movies on a 13" tv. At the time I was 15, and didn't even notice it was widescreen.

I think no matter what size certain people's TV is they'll think "I paid so much for this large tv, and it's not being used!"
Reply
post #12 of 52
3/21/03 at 5:53am
Hei på deg Lars

SKU explained @ Amazon

I also agree about television sizes, I watched my widescreen DVD's on a 13" TV as well, before upgrading to a 32" WS - now of course I prefer the 32" and would not go back, but I still prefered widescreen even on my small screen.
Reply
post #13 of 52
3/21/03 at 7:18am
I disagree. It won't be over until the fat lady sings, and the TV manufactures have duct-taped her month closed. So there!

Glenn
Reply
post #14 of 52
3/21/03 at 9:04am
The war ain't won.
Reply
post #15 of 52
3/21/03 at 9:53am
TV production in 16:9 vs. 4:3 has nothing to do with it. I don't particularly care how they compose and frame it as long as it is well done. There is nothing inherently better about one versus the other.

The argument occasionally put forth that 16:9 is "more cinematic" is one that I don't get, either. Citizen Kane looks pretty darn cinematic to me at 4:3.

All I want is to be able to see high quality releases of great films and TV shows in their proper aspect ratio whether it fills my 16:9/4:3 screen or not.

Regards,
Reply
post #16 of 52
3/21/03 at 9:57am
Quote:
But now we have DVDs like "Peter Gabriel: Secret World Live" with a widescreen picture achieved by chopping off the top and bottom of the original 4:3 frame. The studios are getting the wrong message. It's not widescreen we want -- it's OAR.
Also the recent It DVD, which forced me to seek out the properly 4:3-framed LD. This type of thing makes me equally as angry as P&S releases, though there seems to be much less concern about the growing "tilt & scan" problem as there is for the someday-non-existant-because-everyone-will-have-16:9-TVs P&S problem.

Sigh. Clearly, the war will never be won. Circa 2010, the new JP6 will be demanding the tops and bottoms chopped off of his HD-DVD version of Snow White so it'll "fill his widescreen."
Reply
post #17 of 52
3/21/03 at 10:35am
"Also the recent It DVD, which forced me to seek out the properly 4:3-framed LD"

I thought I read somewhere that the AR that was intended by the director was indeed 1.85:1. If fact, I think he originally wanted to do full blown 2.35:1 which would have made it easier to get all the characters in frame at the same time, if the shot necessitated that. ABC did not want that and 1.85:1 was the compromise. Even though it was ultimately shown 4:3 in the US, wasn't there intentions for "IT" to be shown theatrically in foreign countries? So it could have been composed for 1.85:1

I Guess in the US it is technically not OAR, but wouldn't the director's intent with AR supercede how it was originally shown? (I dub this the "Kubrick Effect")
Reply
post #18 of 52
3/21/03 at 10:38am
From the point of view of the the content providers, the war won't be won until the market settles on a single resolution, aspect ratio, delivery mechanism (with copy protection so everything can be pay-per-view) and quality (half-way decent) so that any movie or TV show can be delivered interchagably and cheaply to millions of non-discriminating consumers in a standard package. Then they can spend all their marketing resources on meaningless brand differences among otherwise homogeneous "product".

They may never win that war but it won't stop them from whittling away at it a little bit at a time, aided when possibly by the coercive power of the US Government. Us OAR geeks are just clinging to the old order where there are "artists" trying to impose their choices on how the product is packaged. If everything is chopped or padded to the same aspect ratio, the "artists" will just have to learn to adjust. There'll be plenty of money to make it all better in the end.
Reply
post #19 of 52
3/21/03 at 1:18pm
Quote:
I thought I read somewhere that the AR that was intended by the director was indeed 1.85:1. If fact, I think he originally wanted to do full blown 2.35:1 which would have made it easier to get all the characters in frame at the same time, if the shot necessitated that. ABC did not want that and 1.85:1 was the compromise.
Director Tommy Lee Wallace mentions something about this on the DVD's commentary, I've read, though I think he was complaining about fitting 7 characters into a small 4:3 frame and wished he could've done it in 1.85:1. I doubt Wallace was delusional enough to ask a 1990 American network to broadcast a show in 2:35:1. ABC's "what's with them black bars?" phone calls would've skyrocketed at the time.
Reply
post #20 of 52
3/21/03 at 1:53pm
Quote:
IMO you can't really enjoy or take full advantage of a widescreen presentation on anything smaller than a 32 or 27 inch TV.

I disagree, completely. If a WS VHS tape was available, I bought it and watched it on my 27" TV years before DVD.


Peace Out~
Reply
post #21 of 52
3/21/03 at 1:54pm
", I've read, though I think he was complaining about fitting 7 characters into a small 4:3 frame and wished he could've done it in 1.85:1. I doubt Wallace was delusional enough to ask a 1990 American network to broadcast a show in 2:35:1."

So, I guess the question is, even though he may have shot in 4:3, did he actually shoot with 1.85:1 framing in mind.

I wouldn't have thought that He would ask the studio to broadcast in 2.35:1, but he may have wanted to film that way. TV would pan and scan but 2.35:1 could have been used for foreign theatrical presentations and possibly video/laserdisc. Considering that Tommy Lee Wallace was part of the Carpenter camp at one time, that theory doesn't seem too outlandish to me.
Reply
post #22 of 52
3/21/03 at 2:00pm
I agree, heck I used to watch WS tapes on a 20" TV and I never noticed the black bars. I guess I must be odd, I concentrated on the movie
Reply
post #23 of 52
3/21/03 at 2:04pm
I'm guessing the "artists" and "product" post is a joke. I'm hoping the "artists" and "product" post is a joke.
Reply
post #24 of 52
3/21/03 at 2:33pm
I'm hoping the "artists" and "product" post is a joke.

Well, I wasn't really joking. I don't necessarily think an outcome such as I described will come about but it's an extrapolation of the way things seem to evolve in our "consumer" society. I quite seriously believe that the people who own media companies would no doubt love to cut the "artists" out of the loop and be able to streamline movies and TV they way they can breakfast cereal or pop music.
Reply
post #25 of 52
3/21/03 at 2:45pm
WillG:
Quote:
So, I guess the question is, even though he may have shot in 4:3, did he actually shoot with 1.85:1 framing in mind.
In a way, I don't care if he shot the film widescreen-safe as this is a made-for-TV movie from 1990. Wallace knew that making it, and likely never suspected it would be shown in anything other than 4:3. As a 14-year-old kid, I watched this movie on TV and VHS many, many times. The 4:3 ("classic TV"?) ratio is a part of my fond memory of it. In addition, chopping the top and bottom off -- even if it's ok with the director in 2003 -- kinda strikes me as similar to the Star Wars SEs: mucking up film history. Greedo shooting first/It in 16:9... that ain't the way it happened in 1977/1990. Granted, this is very minor piece of film history... but one that's personally important to me for a variety of reasons.

This is all moot, though. The DVD version is missing several bits from the film. The only way to see the complete movie is with the LD, anyway.

John Berggren:
Quote:
Be a Widescreen Advocate
Hmm... I'd rather not. I'd gladly be an OAR Advocate, however.
Reply
post #26 of 52
3/21/03 at 2:49pm
Widescreen Advocate is a website. You might check it out. It favors OAR. However, OARAdvocate.com isn't quite as appealing or easy to advertise to non-OAR advocates.
Reply
post #27 of 52
3/21/03 at 4:02pm
The widescreen war has already been won in Europe... at least three years ago The only major DVD released in both widescreen and 4:3 was Harry Potter, and even my 12 year old brother wanted the widescreen version

And when I was a teenager I watched and enjoyed widescreen versions of the Star Wars trilogy on a 14" set...
Reply
post #28 of 52
3/21/03 at 4:15pm
Quote:
The widescreen war has already been won in Europe... at least three years ago The only major DVD released in both widescreen and 4:3 was Harry Potter, and even my 12 year old brother wanted the widescreen version


That's not quite true - all of Disney's 'scope titles have been released P&S (and Monsters, Inc. in Full Frame) although the modern films (Atlantis, Monsters, Inc) had 2 disc 'Collectors Editions' with the film's in OAR.

What is worrying is Disney UK promotes the single disc MAR releases, and does next to nothing to promote the 2 disc releases. And of course,"Joe" and "Jane Public" buy the single disc release off the shelves becuase they don't know about the "Collectors Editions" or if they do see the two side by side the single disc edition is cheaper.

It's also disturbing that the UK had to wait 10 months for their 2 disc Sleeping Beauty Deluxe Edition, and when it did arrive Disney UK didn't even issue a press release, let alone advertise it, resulting in a full 10 months of nothing more than speculation about a UK widescreen release.

Disney is clearly not commited to widescreen in the UK.

Lady and the Tramp (now one of Disney's Platinum collection titles) has never been released in the UK in widescreen.

Edit: Sorry forgot "The Black Cauldron" (who doesn't ) which was released in widescreen on a single disc in the UK.
Reply
post #29 of 52
3/21/03 at 6:39pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I'm an advocate of widescreen but until there aren't any TV's in the world smaller than say, 32 inches
I agree Gary.
I find it truly to be a waste of time & money, that the FCC forces manufacture do do any HD 'stuff' to under 36" screens.
Reply
post #30 of 52
3/21/03 at 6:48pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I don't think I'd declare it won just yet.
Well, it's NOT lost!
It wasn't that long ago that B&B's and 'other's' lay with the enemy (P&S).
I feel every good now about the future.
Come on, when even commercials 'see' the value of presentation from widescreen!
As opposed to J6P, you'd think if they are paying for the (typical) full screen size, they'd use it!
J6P would.

Oh yeah, forgot music video's as well in letterbox & widescreen. Too cool!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Archived Threads 2001-2004
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Archives › Archived Threads 2001-2004 › Widescreen War Won!