Instead he said that at one point he was a film critic!The key words are "at one point." This guy obviously sucked at the job, otherwise he'd still be doing it. You'd hope that he was at least smart enough to figure that out....
Instead he said that at one point he was a film critic!The key words are "at one point." This guy obviously sucked at the job, otherwise he'd still be doing it. You'd hope that he was at least smart enough to figure that out....
You people still obsessed with this P&S vs. WS "debate"? Sheesh...I thought this entire forum was mainly for HT Enthusiasts? Which means that they (we) all enjoy widescreen to the point that Pan and Scan is considered "evil".
Disagreeing with the pro-widescreen view isn't what I thought this forum was all about.
Disagreeing with the pro-widescreen view isn't what I thought this forum was all about.While I may agree with someone's view, I may disagree with the way in which people conduct themselves in presenting that point of view.
Does the mission statement say that members of this forum should cram our WS preference down other people's thoats (like the original poster was doing)?After re-reading the orignal posting, I'm not getting this impression. He tried to do his job and educate the guy and only turned nasty after the guy lost it. Obviously I wasn't there, but that's how I read things.
As for his boss, I think it's great that someone is willing to pay an employee to stand there and help people choose the version that meets their needs (even if they prefer full screen). That's way more helpful than some printed out photos. If handled properly, I think it's cool. If I was a customer, I wouldn't be offended if an employee asked me if I need help picking out a version. I'd be upset if they're tried to talk me out of my decision once it's made however.
I say let them educate, just not get preachy about it.
"Informing" someone as to what WS is, is one thing, but getting all "high and mighty" about it is something else entirelyAs someone once posted, If it is seen as "snobbery" to like WS to the point that we must ridicule the P&S lovers, then I am proud to be a "Snob"
And I don't think anyone is calling the uniformed, "idiots". But when you are talking about a guy who is supposed to have a true appreciation for a film and despizes true AOR, then what else is he besides and an ignorant idiot?
True, some of us may have harsher views toward these people than you, but this forum is pro-OAR and if you think our passion for DVD's is "over-the-top" than you are truly in the wrong place.
The key words are "at one point." This guy obviously sucked at the job, otherwise he'd still be doing it.I think what Lev meant was that at one point during their argument, he said that he was a film critic. Not that he was a film critic at one point in his life.
I don't understand why many of you on this forum can't accept the fact that there are some people out there that just don't like the widescreen format.Just like there are people out there who don't like Chevy's, but if there was a web site that was dedicated to Chevy talk, you wouldn't DARE try to tell them that Chevy Sucks and Ford is better.
Again, This forum is dedicated to those who want OAR at any cost, so please don't be surprised when you hear Pan and Scan bashing. It comes with the territory.
[ And they definitely shouldn't be called an idiot because their preference for a film format is different from someone else's.True, they should not be termed an idiot. The accurate term would be ‘ignorant’ or ‘ignoramus’. Meaning, roughly, ‘uninformed’ or ‘not aware’. I would suggest that in any case ‘preference’ (in this case) is not the choice of a critic, though it most certainly is for a layperson.
As has been said before, people left with full screen DVD's will likely just stretch them in a 16:9 set. Better hardware does not necessarily mean the apathy towards OAR will be changed...
And also, I'd actually be surprised if there were over 350 full screen only DVD titles out there.
Well, there are hundreds of films that are in 4x3 aspect ratio. Some of them, like Citizen Kane, aren't too shabby. How many people that claim to be die-hard pro-OAR, secretly stretch or zoom 4x3 films or "TV programming" to fit their 16x9 display? I'd bet many . I'm pro-OAR and I'll admit that I've played with stretching and zooming 4x3 material on my 16x9 front projection setup, my Formula 1 Season 2000 review DVD being one example
What this means is that a critic cannot perform their most basic function in a P&S version, as they are unable to accurately assess the film.That's funny, as most reviewers I read (Ebert, for one) rarely mention framing, camera movement, etc. Seems they concentrate on the plot and acting.