Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

Another w/s vs. p&s thread (split off from "Universal addresses and fixes BTTF")


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
62 replies to this topic

#1 of 63 OFFLINE   Dan Hitchman

Dan Hitchman

    Screenwriter



  • 2,714 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 11 1999

Posted January 12 2003 - 05:12 AM

Do not, under any circumstance buy the FULL SCREEN VERSION!!

Some posters' replies that I've read which state they are leaning to-wards the open matte version (even when Universal may fix the problems with the WS version) seem to show that they don't seem to understand wide-screen framing and composition.

Even though you may see more of someone's legs or head (in a close up) in the full screen/open-matte version, does not mean the DP meant for you to see it that way.

In order to stop this confusion over wide-screen composition I think all 1.66:1 to 1.85:1 matted films and Super 35 (using spherical instead of anamorphic lenses) from now on should be hard matted in-camera (such as James Cameron's Aliens was). That way the original composition is maintained (called "shoot and protect"). There would be very little chance of the telecine operator screwing things up then because the burned in matting would be the template for the film to video transfer composition.

Dan

#2 of 63 OFFLINE   Ryan Patterson

Ryan Patterson

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 105 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 1999

Posted January 16 2003 - 07:37 PM

Quote:
Do not, under any circumstance buy the FULL SCREEN VERSION!!
Dan Hitchman, after reading your post I tried hard for a few days to ignore it, but the truth is you had so much anger in your post that I had to come back and defend a point that people like Chris Baucom, John Co, and Christopher*KH were trying to get across. For everyone who's reading this thread, sorry about the fact that this post is a little off-topic, but I've got to get this off my chest.

While I am a fan of OAR, I am a fan of it for only one reason: missing information. When it comes to 2.39:1 scope films and 1.85:1 films that I know are hard masked, then it's a no-brainer, I will get the widescreen version. However, when the movie proves to be 'shot and protected' for an open-matte 4:3 screen, then things get a little more complicated. Notice how I said 'shot and protected' above, this refers to the director being fully aware that the film will be transfered to video soon after its theatrical release, so he makes sure that boom mikes and other props don't show up in the frame when the 4:3 transfer happens later. Keep in mind that most movies only last in theaters for a few weeks, and that the real lasting power is in home video. Robert Zemeckis even stated in the DVD archives that he didn't expect the original BTTF to last in theaters for very long. Should we really take to heart that a theatrical aspect ratio should be the be-all, end-all intent of the movie if the director is wary of the theatrical performance and thus ensures a serious shoot-and-protect scheme for a home video release?

Shooting & protecting is a better choice over always hard-matting, even for today, considering how many people still own 4:3 TVs and still scream for full screen movies. I don't think you should blame Zemeckis for not hard-matting his material back in '85, '89, and '90, simply because there was no real justification for it. Back then, nobody knew what a widescreen TV was, let alone owned one. Even laserdisc was just barely starting the OAR revolution at the time, so from Zemeckis' point of view, all home video releases would be released in 4:3. (Which was true... the first releases of all BTTF movies on LD were P&S). Still, considering that the WS releases that were released later on LD had good framing shows that this could've been done right, no matter if the movies were shot and protected instead of hard matted. (Also take note that at least BTTF1 was matted at 1.66:1 for the LD release, which tells me that the theatrical 1.85:1 has no real value to Zemeckis.)

I have to agree with the posters above who say that the original BTTF looked better in 4:3 because you get to see more of the people, sets, and everything else that went into this movie. The loss of some shots where special effects were used is very minor, as this was not really a special effects movie to begin with. (Considering the 1.66:1 framing on the LD release, the loss in these shots is really quite minimal). The same goes for BTTF 3, Pump Up the Volume, At First Sight, Untamed Heart, and a great number of movies that shoot and protect and have little or no special effects in the film.

I find it interesting when I check out some other threads where people complain that TV shows are being released on DVD in 4:3 even though they were supposedly shot on 16:9 capable equipment. Well, if you're asking for the 16:9 version, you're basically asking the same thing as asking for a film to be in 4:3 even though it was shot and protected at 1.85:1. Sure, for the 16:9 version of a TV show, you're getting more information on the sides, but is this really the director's intent, considering his primary audience would be watching it on a 4:3 screen? So, why are people demanding extra & unnessesary information for TV programs but not for movies?

To correct you, Aliens was not hard matted on Super35. As a matter of fact, I don't think it was even shot on Super35 (I read somewhere that The Abyss was Cameron's first delving into the special film stock). As far as I know, Aliens was shot and protected at 1.85:1 on standard 35mm film. Anyway, compare the full screen version of Aliens to the WS version during the scene where Hicks teaches Ripley how to work the pulse rifle. When Ripley says "You started this, show me everything!" Her watch is fully veiwable in the full screen version, but the WS version has most of it covered up below the frame. Now, Aliens has quite a few special effect shots, so I still prefer the WS version, but I respect the FS version for what it is and would never slam my friends for buying that copy. As for Super35 movies, James Cameron has stated that he prefers the P&S version of the Abyss, so as you can see, the theatrical aspect ratio is not always the biblical ratio that everyone should necessary follow.

My 2 cents,
Ryan

#3 of 63 OFFLINE   Damin J Toell

Damin J Toell

    Producer



  • 3,761 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 07 2001

Posted January 16 2003 - 07:51 PM

Quote:
While I am a fan of OAR, I am a fan of it for only one reason: missing information.


Then you're not a fan of OAR for the right reason. OAR is about showing the right visual information as desired by filmmakers, not showing more or less.

Quote:
Should we really take to heart that a theatrical aspect ratio should be the be-all, end-all intent of the movie if the director is wary of the theatrical performance and thus ensures a serious shoot-and-protect scheme for a home video release?


Unless we've got some clear indicator from the director that he or she has an intent other than the theatrical AR, yes. Protecting for 4x3 doesn't mean that a director doesn't carefully compose his shots for 1.85:1 (or whatever AR to which the film will be matted) or that the theatrical AR can be ignored.

Quote:
As for Super35 movies, James Cameron has stated that he prefers the P&S version of the Abyss, so as you can see, the theatrical aspect ratio is not always the biblical ratio that everyone should necessary follow.

Cameron never stated that. And, given that The Abyss was only released in widescreen on DVD, it's clear which version Cameron prefers.


DJ

#4 of 63 OFFLINE   Ryan Patterson

Ryan Patterson

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 105 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 1999

Posted January 16 2003 - 08:26 PM

Quote:
OAR is about showing the right visual information as desired by filmmakers, not showing more or less.
I'm sorry Damin, but I just don't see this as a big deal. You're making it sound like that if the top half of a tree or the actors' feet get into a shot, that's a big no-no and really goes against the director's artistic intent. I think the story itself, the sets, the acting, etc. go way beyond how a movie is framed. The only exception is when the film is being severly cut, as is in the case of 2.39:1 movies or 1.85:1 hard masked movies. A deliberate pan&scan is distracting to the movie. However, an open frame that still shows everything that the director wants you to see without any distracting artifacts still preserves the director's artistic intent in my mind.

Quote:
(Abyss P&S) Cameron never stated that.

Check the LD linear notes for The Abyss SE or Terminator 2 SE. I can't remember which one it's in, but he states that because of how much room he had to work with in Super35, he prefered the P&S version of the Abyss. (I even remember an internet article talking about how widescreen enthusisasts were dumbfounded by Cameron's statement... I'll have to see if I can find it somewhere).

*Update - I found a reference, right at the Digital Bits, no less. Just search for James Cameron or 'prefers'.

Here's another one at digieffects. Use the same search criteria.

I like the article at DVDTalk, as it goes into the philosophy that there are no rules when it comes to sticking with a theatrical OAR vs. going with a newly framed release for video.

Quote:
given that The Abyss was only released in widescreen on DVD, it's clear which version Cameron prefers.

Sorry, but The Abyss is available in fullscreen on DVD.

#5 of 63 OFFLINE   Damin J Toell

Damin J Toell

    Producer



  • 3,761 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 07 2001

Posted January 16 2003 - 08:42 PM

Quote:
You're making it sound like that if the top half of a tree or the actors' feet get into a shot, that's a big no-no and really goes against the director's artistic intent.

It's really a shame to see how little respect the art of cinematography gets sometimes. Adding in extraneous visual information can, indeed, ruin a film's composition and go director against the director's artistic intent.

Quote:
However, an open frame that still shows everything that the director wants you to see without any distracting artifacts still preserves the director's artistic intent in my mind.


Your mind, of course, is not the mind of the director. Just because you think an unmatted transfer doesn't affect the intent of the director doesn't make it the case. I'll trust what the director actually released as an indicator of his intent over guesswork on your part any day.

Quote:
Check the LD linear notes for The Abyss SE or Terminator 2 SE. I can't remember which one it's in, but he states that because of how much room he had to work with in Super35, he prefered the P&S version of the Abyss. (I even remember an internet article talking about how widescreen enthusisasts were dumbfounded by Cameron's statement... I'll have to see if I can find it somewhere).


His statements with regard to the 4x3 version were quite limited in scope and had to do with the limitations in video quality at that time. He did not state that he absolutely prefers the 4x3 framing. Even if he did state that, it wouldn't matter; I'm quite willing to accept a director's statements about his preferred AR for his film. What I'm not willing to accept, however, are third parties unrelated to the film claiming that open-matte transfers don't harm artistic intent.

Quote:
Oh, and yes, the Abyss has been available in fullscreen on DVD.

Yes, you're right, I forgot that Fox later released it. For about a year and a half, however, only the widescreen version was available. That would be an odd choice from a director who didn't prefer that version.

DJ

#6 of 63 OFFLINE   Ryan Patterson

Ryan Patterson

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 105 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 1999

Posted January 16 2003 - 08:54 PM

Quote:
It's really a shame to see how little respect the art of cinematography gets sometimes.
Is it a requirement to have a degree in the art of cinematography before one can post his thoughts about widescreen and framing? Geez, this is getting way too hardcore for me. I thought the Home Theater Forum was welcome to all enthusiasts; beginner, intermediate, and advanced.

Quote:
Your mind, of course, is not the mind of the director.
And exactly what is on the mind of the director? Sure, some directors may place severe importance on the way a movie is framed, but we're talking about Back to the Future here. It was framed at 1.66:1 on LD and Zemeckis didn't complain? No, it's obvious that Zemeckis doesn't consider the theatrical ratio to be the biblical final framing ratio.

#7 of 63 OFFLINE   Damin J Toell

Damin J Toell

    Producer



  • 3,761 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 07 2001

Posted January 16 2003 - 09:02 PM

Quote:
Is it a requirement to have a degree in the art of cinematography before one can post his thoughts about widescreen and framing?

Not at all, and I'm unsure how you extract such an implication from my post. One need not have a "degree in the art of cinematography" to respect it.

Quote:
Geez, this is getting way too hardcore for me. I thought the Home Theater Forum was welcome to all enthusiasts; beginner, intermediate, and advanced.


It is. It's also for those who respect the integrity of filmmakers.

Quote:
And exactly what is on the mind of the director?

I don't know, I'm not psychic. Which is why I can only trust either what they say and/or what they choose to put on film. Guesswork doesn't really go anywhere.

Quote:
It was framed at 1.66:1 on LD and Zemeckis didn't complain?

Assuming the disc was indeed framed at 1.66:1, how do you know Zemeckis never complained?

DJ

#8 of 63 OFFLINE   Ryan Patterson

Ryan Patterson

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 105 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 1999

Posted January 16 2003 - 09:20 PM

Quote:
Not at all, and I'm unsure how you extract such an implication from my post.
Considering you said "It's really a shame to see how little respect the art of cinematography gets sometimes.", it makes me wonder just how I'm supposed to respect it if I haven't taken a multiple-year course in learning how this is all supposedly comes together. I watch movies for enjoyment, not to learn the art of cinematography.

While hard masked movies require a widescreen version to enjoy, I still feel that open masked movies can go either way. Whether or not you bought a WS version or FS of BTTF1 makes no difference to me. I can see if you own a 16:9 TV that the WS will obviously have an advantage. Heck, even my 43" 4:3 supports the vertical squeeze that eliminates scanlines that I can sometimes see from 8 1/2 feet away. However, if the director was willing to shoot and protect the movie in the first place, this tells me that framing was not his most important artistic aspect.

#9 of 63 OFFLINE   Damin J Toell

Damin J Toell

    Producer



  • 3,761 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 07 2001

Posted January 16 2003 - 09:33 PM

Quote:
Considering you said "It's really a shame to see how little respect the art of cinematography gets sometimes.", it makes me wonder just how I'm supposed to respect it if I haven't taken a multiple-year course in learning how this is all supposedly comes together.


So you also don't think it's possible to show respect for the integrity of the works of oil painters unless you go to art school for multiple years to learn oil painting? Come on. Respect for artistic integrity doesn't take any courses at all. I've taken no courses in oil painting in my life and yet I have a great deal of respect for maintainence of the integrity works of oil painters. This forum's mission statement, for example, is the respect of the integrity of filmmakers, yet no education in filmmaking is required to join. You must think this an impossible combination.

Quote:
However, if the director was willing to shoot and protect the movie in the first place, this tells me that framing was not his most important artistic aspect.

A given director may well have been willing to protect for 4x3 such that his film doesn't have to be panned and scanned for the eventual 4x3 TV broadcast. Such a concession to reality doesn't mean that framing isn't artistically important. I find it troubling to see artistic integrity so readily disposed of based upon such abritrary criteria.

DJ

#10 of 63 OFFLINE   Ryan Patterson

Ryan Patterson

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 105 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 1999

Posted January 16 2003 - 10:42 PM

Quote:
So you also don't think it's possible to show respect for the integrity of the works of oil painters unless you go to art school for multiple years to learn oil painting?

You've lost me. Totally. You're comparing apples to cars at this point. Oil painting is a form of pure art, whereas movies (at least to me) are a form of entertainment. 'Artistic' movies have always turned me off, as I really don't want to spend time trying figuring out some abstract plot when all I really wanted to do was take a load off and have some fun. As a matter of fact, I never considered film making to be an artistic form of expression until I started coming here. Clearly, this has gone way beyond the scope of what I'll ever understand, let alone figure out what you're trying to say about 'artistic integrity' when it comes to what I consider a simple case of an open masked film.

Ah well, I guess I'll always have one foot in the puddle of Joe Six Pack. I have nothing more to say.

Ryan

#11 of 63 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul



  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted January 17 2003 - 01:16 AM

Re: James Cameron's supposed "preference" for 4:3 versions of his Super35 films.

This is an internet urban legend perpetuated by careless commentators like some of those cited by Mr. Patterson above. Most of the people who parrot this canard have never even seen the single statement by Cameron, in 1993, on which it is based. Well, I still have my original LD box of The Abyss Special Edition, and here's what Cameron actually said in the liner notes (this is at least the third time I've typed this out for HTF):

Quote:
I am quite proud of the pan&scan transfer of the film, and believe it to be superior in many ways to the letterbox, due to the poor resolving power of NTSC video. The film was shot in the Super-35 process to allow for improved video transfer, and the result is that the pan&scan transfer does not suffer from many of the horrible cropping losses normally associated with a widescreen film. I feel it is the most dramatically involving and effective version of the film in the current low-res video medium. However, for those interested in the original framing and composition as it appeared on the big screen, the letterbox version is offered as well.
Note the qualifiers. Note how carefully Cameron restricts his observations to this particular film, presentation and era. That was before DVD (with its dramatically improved clarity and resolution), before affordable widescreen displays, and at a time when many video transfers were still being done with analog equipment. Those comments simply don't apply today.

M.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#12 of 63 OFFLINE   Chris Baucom

Chris Baucom

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 103 posts
  • Join Date: May 17 2002

Posted January 17 2003 - 02:06 AM

Cameron is definitely a Super-35 advocate (or was recently) and is somewhat skeptical about anamorphic. I wonder if that is still the case. I remember reading an article concerning Titanic and his desire to provide both full and widescreen versions, though I don't think he said which he preferred.

On the OAR thing, yes if you are an OAR purist, the you can't back down on it. Back to the Future is one of those movies that can stir the pot a little here given it's filming technique and previous video release history.

#13 of 63 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul



  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted January 17 2003 - 02:28 AM

Quote:
Cameron is definitely a Super-35 advocate (or was recently)

So what? Or have you bought into the mistaken notion that Super35 is all about framing for home video? It isn't, and the topic has been covered so many times that there's no need to rehash it, especially in a thread about BTTF.

M.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#14 of 63 OFFLINE   Chris Baucom

Chris Baucom

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 103 posts
  • Join Date: May 17 2002

Posted January 17 2003 - 02:39 AM

I was just making a comment, Michael, and was not trying to stir anything up. I agree that we don't need to get into it further in a BTTF thread.

#15 of 63 OFFLINE   Dan Hitchman

Dan Hitchman

    Screenwriter



  • 2,714 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 11 1999

Posted January 17 2003 - 04:39 AM

Ryan,

I know Aliens wasn't shot in Super35, but it was hard-matted in-camera to protect the 1.85:1 framing Cameron and his DP wanted (that's what I mean by using the term "shoot and protect"). It says as much in the liner notes of the CAV laserdisc boxed set of Aliens. They probably wanted to make sure framing problems, such as those made at the theater by unskilled high schoolers and those cropping up in the Back to the Future discs didn't occur.

With the kinds of statements that some "OAR-sometimes" consumers are making, I can see my point of the DP using in-camera hard-matting to the intended aspect ratio for widescreen movies using spherical lenses (the use of anamorphic lenses are a different matter, of course) is a valid one. Currently, it seems to me the only way to safe guard the composition of the frame.

Dan

#16 of 63 OFFLINE   Seth_S

Seth_S

    Second Unit



  • 335 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 12 2001

Posted January 17 2003 - 07:14 AM

Quote:
'Artistic' movies have always turned me off, as I really don't want to spend time trying figuring out some abstract plot when all I really wanted to do was take a load off and have some fun.


Ryan,

In a true "art" film, you should be paying attention to what's going on visually, not the plot (plot is an element of narrative films). In fact, must art films don't even have plots of any kind. All the director is trying to do in them is communicate something (feeling, emotion or experience) visually.

#17 of 63 OFFLINE   Grant H

Grant H

    Screenwriter



  • 2,844 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 24 2002

Posted January 17 2003 - 07:38 AM

Oil painting is a form of pure art, whereas movies (at least to me) are a form of entertainment


All movies are art, period. Sure, they're entertainment (or most of them are supposed to be, anwyay), but filmmaking is an art. Look at all that has to come together to make a film, all those credits, sound, music, costumes, art, lighting, etc. etc. and someone is in charge of making all that come together, the director (and producers). If it weren't art, we'd have robots making the movies; it would be cheaper for the studios.
Most people listen to music as entertainment too. It's still art. Whtether each work is good or bad, film and music are both art forms.
The cinematography is just one aspect of the art, but an important one we like to see presented properly. For the audience film IS simpler: it's sound and picture, boom, boom. If they'd had a physicist shoot BTF, even one who did know how to travel through time, it's doubtful the film would look as good as if it was shot by a talented DP and director. Not to mention no one of any caliber would want to be in the movie because all the actors (who are artists too) wouldn't want to waste their time with someone who knew nothing about the ART of film-making.
My midis bring all the Force to the yard; my midis are better than yours!

#18 of 63 OFFLINE   Ryan Patterson

Ryan Patterson

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 105 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 1999

Posted January 17 2003 - 09:34 AM

Hey Michael,

Thanks for moving this to a new thread. If I had known this would've grown so fast, I would've created a new thread myself.

Thanks for quoting the original line from Cameron. Although it clarifies things up, you must realize how easily the quote could've been misread. Cameron states that the P&S version was meant for assisting in the low resolution of NTSC video, but North American DVD is also NTSC. Yes, HDTVs and progressive scan players provide a very effective extension on NTSC, but you can see how even DVD enthusiasts can misread his statement.

Cameron makes a point in which he shot the film in Super35 so that he could make a decent video transfer that he was "quite proud" of. This suggests that he feels changing the aspect ratio of the film to suit standard NTSC does not affect his 'artistic intent' enough to destroy the movie for a video release. The point I was trying to make for the BTTF movies is that possibly Zemeckis had the same feelings, considering that in the 80's all we had were NTSC interlaced displays (and most people only owned a 20" set at the time).

My point is not that the OAR is inferior to any 4:3 version that comes out, but that sometimes the 4:3 version isn't bad enough to dismiss in certain situations. At least 3 people in the BTTF forum were commenting that the 4:3 versions might be a good buy considering the current problems with the widescreen versions of the films. Considering the overall uncertainty of the situation (ie. The return situation for any country other than the US, not to mention people phoning Universal and getting the "um, what?" treatment), this could be the only alternative for some people who want to get decent versions of the problematic scenes. Trust me, if it weren't for the current framing problem with the movies, I would never have posted this debate as I would've just bought the WS version without question. (As it was, I got the set for Christmas and will have to either risk sending in the defective Canadian discs or contemplate exchanging the set for the fullscreen versions).

My point was that if that people like Chris Baucom, John Co, and Christopher*KH want to buy the fullscreen versions, more power to them. They've done their homework; ie. they realize that at least BTTF 1&3 do not suffer from major cropping on the sides and they don't feel that extra information on the top and bottom ruins the movie for them. I agree with them, and I only choose the WS versions at this point because I get more resolution with my HDTV in 16:9 enhanced mode than if I went with the FS versions. You don't know if these guys have NTSC interlaced displays, and thus I question Dan Hitchman's statement that under no circumstances should you buy the fullscreen versions.

Quote:
In fact, most art films don't even have plots of any kind. All the director is trying to do in them is communicate something (feeling, emotion or experience) visually.
Yuck. No thanks, that's not for me. Let me tell you my feelings about art... whenever I hear the word 'art', I think of abstract paintings in some guy's loft. You won't see much for painted art on the walls on my home, as I simply don't get the whole concept. That's not to say I don't read comic books or have pictures of say, an ocean, but I look for realism when people draw or paint pictures. I can't explain it, but I don't really consider this 'art'.

Quote:
All movies are art, period.
I strongly disagree with your statement. See my definition of 'art' above.

Quote:
Look at all that has to come together to make a film, all those credits, sound, music, costumes, art, lighting, etc.
Do you work at a company? How many people are in it? Could you list each person's duties in the form of film credits? You bet you can. Do you consider your company a form of art? I don't. Companies provide a service, but as a Help Center attendant in the medical field, I don't consider it an 'artistic' service. It's no secret that Hollywood runs its industry like a business. When it comes to commecial-oriented movies, they look for scripts that can appeal to the most people, and then they look for directors, producers, etc that can translate the script into a form that appeals to most people. This is not how I define art. This is how I define entertainment, and I like the movie industry that way. Sure, some of the material they produce is predictable and utter trash, but it beats every artistic director taking over the industry and making hundreds of "Mulholland Drive" movies or whatever.

#19 of 63 OFFLINE   Damin J Toell

Damin J Toell

    Producer



  • 3,761 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 07 2001

Posted January 17 2003 - 10:12 AM

Quote:
I strongly disagree with your statement. See my definition of 'art' above.


Perhaps you should reconsider the mission statement of this forum (with emphasis added by me):

Quote:
We the members of the forum are interested in the film product to be recorded and reproduced as closely as possible to the way the original creator(s) of that particular film intended. We respect the integrity of all artists involved in creating the original film as well as those who helped bringing the product to a form suited to be used in a home theater environment.

Posting here that you don't think that film is art is akin to posting "Pepsi rules" on CocaColaTalk.com.

DJ

#20 of 63 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor



  • 7,474 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted January 17 2003 - 10:22 AM

Hard-matte all you want. That doesn't fix anything at all.


Back to Archived Threads 2001-2004



Forum Nav Content I Follow