TV shows and TV movies gone W I D E (2 Viewers)

[Hollywoodaholic]

"If you compose a shot for a wider 16:9 screen, then you are, by definition, failing to optimize the composition of the 4:3 image. Choose to serve one construct and at times you must impair the other."We all focus on different aspects of what Simon said, but I will say that his involvement in this process is the one positive thing. That said if the 4x3 version is not being made available, then this is hardly an "alternative."

The 4:3 version has been available for years on DVD, and any fan already has it. But I am intrigued about watching the series again in HD 16:9, also as an excuse to watch a great series again.

 

[Simon Massey]

How predictable a response - u know I meant having a HD version in 4x3 as an alternative

 

[AndyMcKinney]

How predictable a response - u know I meant having a HD version in 4x3 as an alternative

Exactly. If the original 4:3 version isn't being done in HD, then it's not an alternate, it's a replacement. I know Star Trek: Next Generation fans like myself would have been up in arms if the studio had decided to make the blu-rays 16:9 and then had the nerve to say "those that want the original 4:3 verision already have the (crappy) DVDs".

Universal (sort of) got it right with Battlestar Galactica by making both versions available in HD (though I disagree with their tactic of only making the original 4:3 version exclusive to a more-expensive set that includes both versions).

 

[TravisR]

Universal (sort of) got it right with Battlestar Galactica by making both versions available in HD...

In the comments section of David Simon's site, he basically says it would be nice if both the 4x3 and the 16x9 versions of The Wire were made available. I doubt he has the clout to needed to force that to happen but hopefully he's suggested it for a Blu-ray release.

 

[Harry-N]

Early in this thread I mentioned the pilot movie for BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, which had come to Blu-ray in 16:9 widescreen. Now the whole series will get a Blu-ray release in both widescreen and normal 4:3.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/11/25/the-original-battlestar-galactica-gets-blu-ray-release

Harry

 

[DVDvision]

Added The Wire and Battlestar Galactica series to the list. Yeah!

 

[HenryDuBrow]

You must have a very small TV set David, when all you want is it filled out at all cost. If you have a big screen, then the 4:3 aspect ratio shouldn't be a problem for anyone to enjoy.

 

[Simon Massey]

Im a little disappointed in Simon for this release given his previous statements but I suppose reaching a wider audience is his justification and I can't deny the reality that most people don't give a damn about framing and just want their TV screens filled. I think Simon actually summed it up pretty well. With all the faux justifications of - well they really would have done it in widescreen anyway if they could have - or - well the negative has more image to the sides so we aren't cropping - it all comes down to this

"Still, being equally honest here, there can be no denying that an ever-greater portion of the television audience has HD widescreen televisions staring at them from across the living room, and that they feel notably oppressed if all of their entertainments do not advantage themselves of the new hardware. It vexes them in the same way that many with color television sets were long ago bothered by the anachronism of black-and-white films, even carefully conceived black-and-white films."

 

[TravisR]

^ The way I look at it is that The Wire was going widescreen with Simon or without him so at least he and people that he trusts were able to guide it. That's certainly better than Chris Carter and The X-Files where he apparently has no idea what they've done to the framing or how it may be released on Blu-ray.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

This whole attitude that people want their television screens filled up is condescending horseshit, especially on this Forum, or with shows as complex and impenetrable to the masses as The Wire. It just gets a little tiring to read that snobbish claptrap. Larger home screens and dense black sidebars make 4:3 a non-issue for viewing. I'll gladly wave my snob flag saying I prefer to see films in their glorious B&W OAR, even though I may have first been turned on to them in less than ideal presentations, but, imo, television framing just ain't that sacred and was basically a compromise to the specs of the medium rather than a choice.

 

[TravisR]

...imo, television framing just ain't that sacred and was basically a compromise to the specs of the medium rather than a choice.

That either assumes that directors and DOPs of TV shows just aren't as concerned about framing as people working on a movie or that the medium of TV is less important than films and the AR can be changed whenever a new frame becomes standard. I don't think either of those things is true.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

That either assumes that directors and DOPs of TV shows just aren't as concerned about framing as people working on a movie or that the medium of TV is less important than films and the AR can be changed whenever a new frame becomes standard. I don't think either of those things is true.

Admittedly feeling a bit ornery after being called "predictable" and also after recently entering my 7th decade. You can always tell a codger by the use of the word 'claptrap.'

As a feature screenwriter (who also wrote for an HBO series), I am definitely claiming television was always a bit more of a disposable medium than film (and so did the studios, btw - often rerecording over shows), and the majority of television DPs I've met and worked with held no love for the 4:3. That position seems more likely to be held by intractable engineer-type mindsets rather than by those who revere characters and stories over borders and don't quibble over a little extra elbow room. My teenage son is watching LOST through Netflix on his iPhone 6 and would just look at me weird if I looked down upon him not preferring looking up to a big screen 16x9 HD presentation. Characters. Story. The ONLY intractable timeless elements. My job is done here. (Puts away the gasoline can)

 

[LeoA]

While we have an older audience in this sub-forum, the same sort of nonsense happens in the world of videogames.

More videos on YouTube of games created before the widescreen age are stretched to 16:9 proportions probably than those that respect the original 4:3 (Or sometimes, 3:4 since some arcade classics had a rotated monitor with a vertical orientation instead of horizontal... which really looks strange when stretched to 16:9).

When Nintendo released the Wii U two years ago, all backwards compatible Wii software from the previous generation was stretched to 16:9 with no regard if the title in question was 4:3 or 16:9 anamorphic widescreen. And Nintendo fixed that a year ago finally, and now people complain when a 4:3 game from the 80's and 90's that they've downloaded doesn't fill their screen.

We even have our own version of pan & scan. An upcoming HD remaster of a decade old game that was 4:3 will be 16:9 when it's rereleased in HD. But rather than actually add picture where previously there was none, it's accomplishing this by cropping the screen vertically.

All just so it fills today's 16:9 tvs...

 

[TravisR]

Admittedly feeling a bit ornery after being called "predictable" and also after recently entering my 7th decade. You can always tell a codger by the use of the word 'claptrap.'

If you were really a codger, you wouldn't be watching all the great modern shows.

 

[Simon Massey]

but, imo, television framing just ain't that sacred and was basically a compromise to the specs of the medium rather than a choice.

You are right the responses may well have been condescending but the lack of respect afforded to the framing deserves it. I'm sure there are many filmmakers and DPs who didn't like the 4x3 framing or didn't care forIt but the fact is they still worked with it in the majority of cases and if they want to come forward and claim they approve when a release comes along they can do what Simon did. And in the case of The Wire, there was never any disgust or annoyance with the framing of 4x3 they embraced it - yet here we are and you are getting all excited over a 16x9 release on a forum that generally supports OAR and you expect what ???And yes story and character are paramount and I'm equally pleased that some may now be able to enjoy The Wire. But that doesn't mean the presentation of the show isn't a valid concern or why bother with Bluray at all in the first place ? So your response is to tell someone they can just buy the DVD? Frankly the response you got was mild. I'd be perfectly happy with a dual release but that's not happening.

 

[Simon Massey]

Characters. Story. The ONLY intractable timeless elements

I look forward then to the first colourised version of Casablanca, The Third Man or better yet the Kansas portions of The Wizard of Oz

 

[Simon Massey]

This whole attitude that people want their television screens filled up is condescending horseshit, especially on this Forum

Doesn't make it any less accurate though. I have yet to see ANY response that doesn't ultimately come down to this.

 

[McCrutchy]

I look forward then to the first colourised version of Casablanca, The Third Man or better yet the Kansas portions of The Wizard of Oz

Don't forget, they'll all be 16:9 with picture and sound mastered for your new 4K smartphone screen and earbud headphones.

I won't buy any BD release of The Wire that isn't OAR--period. TV is not second-class programming.

 

[HenryDuBrow]

While we have an older audience in this sub-forum, the same sort of nonsense happens in the world of videogames.

More videos on YouTube of games created before the widescreen age are stretched to 16:9 proportions probably than those that respect the original 4:3 (Or sometimes, 3:4 since some arcade classics had a rotated monitor with a vertical orientation instead of horizontal... which really looks strange when stretched to 16:9).

When Nintendo released the Wii U two years ago, all backwards compatible Wii software from the previous generation was stretched to 16:9 with no regard if the title in question was 4:3 or 16:9 anamorphic widescreen. And Nintendo fixed that a year ago finally, and now people complain when a 4:3 game from the 80's and 90's that they've downloaded doesn't fill their screen.

We even have our own version of pan & scan. An upcoming HD remaster of a decade old game that was 4:3 will be 16:9 when it's rereleased in HD. But rather than actually add picture where previously there was none, it's accomplishing this by cropping the screen vertically.

All just so it fills today's 16:9 tvs...

Disgusting YT trend, isn't it. Let the ratios stay original.

 

[DVDvision]

Interesting comments from David Simon regarding how much putting out the series in HD, is a violation of the original artistic intent.

Quote:
Have you thought about the notion that the filmmakers also did not intend an HD release and that our shot composition, in terms of depth and background, was optimized for SD? Or that our depiction of the environment in total relied on what SD achieves — or fails to achieve — in terms of focus and detail? It’s funny to me how presumed defenders of filmic purity are so strident in demanding that the film remain 4:3 while in the same breath clamoring for a different equation with regard to depth and focus. That’s not purity. That’s simply arguing for a re-edit of the film to your particular satisfaction. Quote:
I’m not reaching at all. We shot the film we shot — dressing background, doing wigs and makeup and blacking out teeth — with a certain degree of definition in mind. If HD was the intention of the filmmakers, then why did I just spend so many hours cleaning up things that were exposed in order to accomodate new technology. You want an example? The scenes of Bubbles touring the hell of Hamsterdam for the first time were over-lit in production and we were never entirely happy with how much you could see in background. More horror should have been implied rather than seen. The transfer to HD compounds the problem by making everything in background distinct and overt, so much so that we spent considerable time trying to darken every frame so we could go back to seeing less in HD, not more. The transfer to HD not only doesn’t serve the filmmaker’s original vision in that sequence, it confounds and inhibits our efforts to achieve that vision. But you consider HD to be technologically an enhancement to the existing film, whereas the change in aspect ratio is not. That is inconsistent, and your arguments are premised on your own predispositions, not on a consistent principle. If you want the filmmakers’ original intent, it’s right there in the SD, 4:3 DVDs. If you want to enhance the product beyond that, fine. But don’t claim a purity that ceases to exist once you decide to go back in and change stuff in a manner that you value, while savaging others who change stuff in a manner that you disdain. That’s kinda bullshit, no?