Another fullscreen disaster: Iceman (1 Viewer)

[Bradley-E]

Yep! It is FULL SCREEN. DVD EMPIRE has the artwork posted both front and back. UNIVER$AL REALLY SUCKS!!!! By the way, Charley Varrick and Tank are FULL SCREEN also. But hey, at least DARKMAN III will be Anamorphic widescreen!

 

[Mike_Richardson]

John, please don't come under the impression that I PREFER full-screen. I don't. However, while I do understand your opinion (as much as we may disagree that there's a distinction between these two things we're debating), there are many times directors will intentionally shoot movies in 1.85 so they can be opened up for 1.33 on TV. (At least in the past this was true). Therefore, not EVERY full-screen composition is a "crime".

If that was true, how do you justify the fact that many filmmakers in the past made the choice to shoot in 1.85 (and not 2.35) so their movies would translate better to TV? How do you justify James Cameron's Super 35 movies, which he shot intentionally so that the alternate, full-screen version framing is as "valid" as the 2.35 theatrical release? (And he's said this in the past on the record).

I'm just trying to say there are definitely instances of open matting being valid. I'm NOT saying I'd prefer it over OAR, but rather, they are not the same as a 2.35 movie like ICEMAN being cropped. There's no other way of presenting that film.

And we're definitely not fighting. It's an impassioned debate, though I do agree, if you want to get word to the studios, it's best to say "give us OAR" and not draw any distinction between the two. I just think there a lot of people who COULD live with an open matte transfer as opposed to nothing at all, but the problem is when we get cropped full-screen versions of widescreen films and STUDIOS don't differentiate between them.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Mike,
thought you'd given up their my friend.

As for filmmakers filming in flat 1.85:1 in order to open it up later to give a better 1.33:1 presentation, I know all of this, and yes it still goes on.

But that's just it, don't you see, the mere ACT of opening up said film for a 1.33:1 screen is where I have a huge problem. And Super 35 films are even worse, especially if they have alot of visual effects in them like Titanic for instance. The visual effects shots in that film were done in ONLY the 2.35:1 AR because of the expense (they'd have to create two version of a CGI shot), so those have to be panned and scanned.

My point is very simple, whether it be pan and scan or open matting, they are both in fact changing what was composed for, I can't put it simpler than that. A change is a change, and composition is very important to me. When the composition is screwed with and opened up, that hurts my experience every bit as much as watching a panned and scanned film. Therfore, I hate them both equally, resulting in my "no distinction" policy.

And Mike, I assume your referring to James Camerons remarks on the liner notes from the old Abyss laserdisc jacket? If you are, I must tell you, that argument is older than mummy shit.

He made that statement only because LD was a realatively low resolution medium, and he only said he preferred the full screen version because you get more resolution and are able to see more detail in the image, that's all.

Now that we have dvd, still not a high resolution format I give you, but high enough for a faithful translation of his film as intended (at 2.35:1).

I can guarentee you, now that we have HD, D-Theater and DVD, he would never have said that now. Of course he as a filmmaker wants us to watch his films as composed (wouldn't you?), but he also wants us to be able to actually SEE the details, and that was his ONLY motivation for making that statement on those liner notes.

Another thing that makes me different from pretty much everyone else, your right, Mike, their are people who would buy an open matte dvd because they love the movie and it's better than nothing. But for me, love is PRECISELY the reason I won't buy said dvd in open matte form, because I love that movie. I love it enough to wait until it's given the proper treatment. I'm a very patient guy.

This is quite invigorating! This is the first real OAR debate i've been involved in in about a year and a half, it feels great to get my juices flowing again!

 

[Jerry Gracia]

This brings back memories, John.

Years ago, on this very forum, going at it with the full-screen sympathizers. LOL!

I see not much has changed. You'd think that by now (2004), we'd at least start getting 16:9 full-screen/pan and scan...not that this paractice would be any better/different.

I'd agree that the level of destruction to a movie open-matted as opposed to a movie literally hacked in half is lower...but it's still a violation of the original composition if said film was originally composed with a theatrical 'widescreen' format in mind, which is usually the case.

I basically agree with Jon 100% on this issue.

Open-matte...pan and scan...they both alter the original artistic framing...in short, both methods "suck!"...period.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Jerry,
thanks for answering the call my brother! It truly does feel like old times now.

When it comes to this subject, you and I are about as battle-hardened as they come.

 

[Ira Siegel]

Original sound remixed-Good
Original film restored to better than original (e.g. WB's Ultra-Res™)-Good
Edited scenes (like Solo & Greedo in SW Ep.IV)-Apparently acceptable.
New inserts and/or extended scenes-Good
TV shows originally composed for 4:3 transferred at 16:9-Good
Bobbing heads from original viewing venue completely absent-Good
Ability to stop movie for refrigerator raids-Good
Open matte transfer regardless of what we ACTUALLY know of the director, producer and/or actors' preferences-
OH MY, HEAVENS TO BETSY, THE WHOLE EXPERIENCE IS DEVESTATED

For a view of how an open matte tranfer can make a movie more dramatic, see the Raging Bull screen caps on HTF member Gary Tooze's dvdbeaver website.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Ira,
i'm so thankful that you didn't finish that last part, you had me pertified that you were going to say "Good".

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Ira,
I see you've added something to your last post, something quite disturbing I might add.

So, you feel that open matte can make a film more dramatic!? You have now crossed the barrier, you're a full-screen supporter.

One can gather no other conclusion from your above statement. And no thanks, I don't need to see those screen shots.

Plus, your referring to a Martin Scorsese film! He is an enormous open supporter of the preservation of original artistic intent, their's no chance in hell he would have composed that film for one ratio if he intended another.

 

[Ira Siegel]

John,
There is a debating technique where someone who opposes "A" associates it with something "B" which everyone agrees is bad. Like some opponents of Bush compared him to Hitler, and like you compare open matte transfer to pan & scan.
I don't care what YOU label me.
On the other hand, I would like the studios to know that my preference for open matte, widescreen or OAR transfers depends on the movie, and I would like to have multiple options available so that all consumers can choose what they want. I particularly like the DVDs with OAR on one side and open matte (or, perhaps in the future, a window-boxed real full frame) on the other.
Two other things.
1. I left off of my list:
Criticize director for allegedly poor story, bad editing, bad lighting-Good.
Criticize director's choice of compositon- OH NOOOOOO.
2. John, don't check out the Raging Bull screen caps at dvdbeaver. It might shake your faith.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

We do know, it is what was projected in the theater. In the case of when we are not sure, see the Cameron quote above (LD is NOT anamorphic DVD) and the "Kubrick Wars", which are so old the membership has ceased to argue them (just like this topic, except someone new always keeps bringing it up!).

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Ira,

in referrance to point #1 on your list, comparing the framing of a film to poor story, bad editing and bad lighting just isn't valid. Once an aspect ratio is chosen, it remains a constant throughout the film in a very non-intrusive way, unless of course the DP didn't do his or her job correctly and let boom mikes, cables and dolly tracks into the shot, only then does the chosen framing become a perceptible problem.

Their are simply too many variables in regards to the other problem items you mentioned.

Saying that you are an open-matte supporter was not a slam against you, simply an observation. Of course you are free to watch dvd's any way you choose, however it is part of this forums mission statement that it's members support OAR, your view on open-matte vs pan and scan is in the very small minority here to say the least.

My faith will remain intact.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Yeah, I remember the "Buffy Wars", Jeff, i'm a veteren of them. And oh boy were you right, they got pretty heated. It was a blast though!

I never went anywhere near a discussion of a Kubrick film, I may be crazy, but i'm not reckless.

 

[Ira Siegel]

Is holding a minority view a problem here, John? Is the "jury" never swayed by a one or two voices?

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Nope, never.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Well, Ira, I can't speak for every man and woman in this vast and wonderful forum of ours, but I can speak for myself...

I am never swayed on this issue.

But hey, that's cool, I mean it's Christmas time and this isn't a life or death issue, it's just a friendly discussion of preferrance and devotion.

So with that, i'll close by saying, Ira, I wish you and yours a sincere happy holiday's.

 

[Ira Siegel]

Thanks. Same to you, John, and to everyone at HTF!

 

[walter o]

without sounding like a "pervert" but there are some movies in which open matte presentation, if you like eye candy, is preferable, like MISCHIEF, PUMP UP THE VOLUME, SFW, SHOWGIRLS, HOTS, DOC HOLLYWOOD, etc.

 

[ScottCor]

Cool!!..this was kind of like 12 Angry Men, though a supporter of OAR for the most part(Walter points out some nice benefits..lol)..I give Ira points for sounding like Henry Fonda vs. Lee J. Cobb and E.G. Marshall..

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Yes, except for that it has all been argued many, many times before and always to the same couple of conclusions - The MAR poster realizes this is an OAR forum or the thread gets closed. (yawn...)

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

quote...
"this was kind of like 12 Angry Men,"

Na, Scott, more like that film's little known sequel, 3 or 4 Mildly Irritated Men.

So, who exactly would that make me, Lee Cobb or E.G. Marshall?