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

Why do studios release pan and scan DVDs in 2007?


This topic has been archived.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

#61 of 77 OFFLINE   Mathew B

Mathew B

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 146 posts
  • Join Date: May 28 2005

Posted August 22 2007 - 07:11 AM

What about those who have no choice? Europe, in particular, only gets remixes if they're available (Jaws, Duel, The Terminator all stand out from my collection as examples). I don't mind a remix as long as they don't go tinkering with any of the actual effects, but I dislike I have no choice of what to listen to.

#62 of 77 OFFLINE   CraigF

CraigF

    Screenwriter



  • 2,367 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 20 2002
  • Real Name:Craig
  • LocationToronto area, Canada

Posted August 22 2007 - 09:29 AM

Aaron, I understand your point, bit of an audio junkie here. But, it's a difference between an opinion and a fact:

there is no question that MAR (P&S etc.) is inferior, it's an undeniable fact that picture info is missing,

it is only an opinion whether a 5.1 remix sounds inferior to the original mono etc., there is not necessarily any sound info "missing".

So it's not really a question of original or purity we're talking here, after all we aren't watching the original filmstock with a period sound system etc. so we've totally blown that deal.

Many people here do get upset if the original soundtrack isn't provided. Not nearly as many as when the AR is messed with.

I still think it's a matter of education. And there will always be people who choose an "inferior" product in any market just because they like it better, even if they know better and the price is the same.

#63 of 77 OFFLINE   WillG

WillG

    Producer



  • 5,220 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2003

Posted August 22 2007 - 09:58 AM

Duplicate
STOP HIM! He's supposed to die!

#64 of 77 OFFLINE   WillG

WillG

    Producer



  • 5,220 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2003

Posted August 22 2007 - 09:56 AM

Duplicate
STOP HIM! He's supposed to die!

#65 of 77 OFFLINE   WillG

WillG

    Producer



  • 5,220 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2003

Posted August 22 2007 - 09:50 AM

Quote:
How is it any different from those who insist on 5.1 remixes so that all of their speakers are filled? I'm always disappointed when a 5.1 remix is the only option on a film that was not originally presented in a multichannel sound format, but when I complain about that I'm a kook or a luddite.

Anyone who picks the 5.1 remix over the original mono mix when both are available is every bit as "ignorant" or "uninformed" as those who prefer 4:3 presentations. There is no difference -- "it's only the sound" is as weak as "it's only the picture -- the story and acting are still intact".

Well, I do think sound is a slighly different animal than AR. While AR is fixed and is a delibarate choice of the filmmaker. Sound continues to evolve over the years and in many cases a film can benefit from a properely done multichannel mix.

Whereas AR is a chosen metric (and filmmakes can even have different attitudes regarding ARs based on changing technology. James Cameron has suggested in retrospect that he would have filmed "Aliens" in 2.35 instead of 1.85 had Super35 been more of an option back then) I think ound has pretty much revolved around what was available (economically for most films) at the time. It would be pretty rare today for a new film not to have a multichannel mix (excluding Woody Allen)

I doubt you would hear a director back then say, "Who cares what the future may hold, this film is mono and will change over my dead body" (exculding Woody Allen) You don't see too many directors protest the practice of multi channel remixes. And a remix generally does not cause you to lose audio information as a P&S transfer causes you to lose the cinematography.

Of course I also would prefer the original audio mix available on the disc as well.
STOP HIM! He's supposed to die!

#66 of 77 OFFLINE   WillG

WillG

    Producer



  • 5,220 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2003

Posted August 22 2007 - 10:02 AM

Duplicate
STOP HIM! He's supposed to die!

#67 of 77 OFFLINE   WillG

WillG

    Producer



  • 5,220 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2003

Posted August 22 2007 - 09:59 AM

Duplicate
STOP HIM! He's supposed to die!

#68 of 77 OFFLINE   WillG

WillG

    Producer



  • 5,220 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2003

Posted August 22 2007 - 10:02 AM

Duplicate
STOP HIM! He's supposed to die!

#69 of 77 OFFLINE   WillG

WillG

    Producer



  • 5,220 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2003

Posted August 22 2007 - 09:53 AM

Sorry, for some reason my post got copied multiple times
STOP HIM! He's supposed to die!

#70 of 77 OFFLINE   WillG

WillG

    Producer



  • 5,220 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2003

Posted August 22 2007 - 09:59 AM

Duplicate
STOP HIM! He's supposed to die!

#71 of 77 OFFLINE   WillG

WillG

    Producer



  • 5,220 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2003

Posted August 22 2007 - 10:53 AM

Duplicate....Sorry!
STOP HIM! He's supposed to die!

#72 of 77 OFFLINE   cafink

cafink

    Producer



  • 3,041 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999

Posted August 22 2007 - 11:40 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigF
Aaron, I understand your point, bit of an audio junkie here. But, it's a difference between an opinion and a fact:

there is no question that MAR (P&S etc.) is inferior, it's an undeniable fact that picture info is missing,

it is only an opinion whether a 5.1 remix sounds inferior to the original mono etc., there is not necessarily any sound info "missing".

This is simply not true.

First of all, many MAR transfers are not missing any visual information. Many such films are presented open-matte on DVD.

And even those that are missing visual information are not "unquestionably inferior." You and I and even the film's director or cinematographer might prefer the original widescreen composition, but that doesn't make it intrinsically superior, and indeed, many people prefer the cropped version.

Further, many 5.1 remixes of mono soundtracks are indeed missing audio elements from the original track.
 

 


#73 of 77 OFFLINE   CraigF

CraigF

    Screenwriter



  • 2,367 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 20 2002
  • Real Name:Craig
  • LocationToronto area, Canada

Posted August 22 2007 - 12:55 PM

^ You are sure being nit-picky. But I think you now what I meant in the context of THIS thread and THAT post! Posted Image I was being general, not specific about any PARTICULAR film transfer...

#74 of 77 OFFLINE   Aaron Reynolds

Aaron Reynolds

    Screenwriter



  • 1,709 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 06 2001

Posted August 22 2007 - 01:37 PM

I think you guys are pretty strongly making my point for me -- you're supporting alterations to the film for home video viewing without the original being available because it's an alteration that you prefer. Is that not the very opposite of purism?

Quote:
Well, I do think sound is a slighly different animal than AR. While AR is fixed and is a delibarate choice of the filmmaker. Sound continues to evolve over the years and in many cases a film can benefit from a properely done multichannel mix.

So are you a supporter of the colourization of black and white films? Photography has continued to evolve over the years and in many cases a film can benefit from properly done colourization. I doubt that you'd hear a director in 1930 say "Who cares what the future may hold, this film is black and white and will change over my dead body".

It's not a difference between opinion and fact -- it's a difference between opinion and other opinion. There is no wrong choice when it comes to what you prefer! They're your preferences, and preferring a remixed film, or one where the mattes have been opened up to fill up your TV, or one where some of the sides of the picture have been cut off, or one where colour has been added where it was not present before does not make you stupid or ignorant.

That is my point. People like what they like. They're not bad people for liking something that you don't like. I can't stand Justin Timberlake, but that doesn't make the 50,000 who packed the Air Canada Centre the last couple of nights to see him stupid or ignorant or lesser than me in any way.

#75 of 77 OFFLINE   Mike Frezon

Mike Frezon

    Studio Mogul



  • 29,835 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 09 2001
  • LocationRensselaer, NY

Posted August 22 2007 - 03:40 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Reynolds
I can't stand Justin Timberlake, but that doesn't make the 50,000 who packed the Air Canada Centre the last couple of nights to see him stupid or ignorant or lesser than me in any way.

Sure it does. Posted Image


Posted Image j/k



Aaron: I'm not seeing many posters in this thread renounce the purism of the HTF mission statement. In fact, I believe everyone on this page agrees with you that tampered soundtracks are inferior.

It would be incorrect (read: impolite) to say someone is stupid for preferring an MAR film presentation. It would NOT be incorrect for a member of this forum to say they're wrong for preferring that MAR'd film. In fact, it would be expected. And in thousands of separate posts over the years this forum has been in existence, members have told their stories of trying to educate those who don't "get" OAR.

But I don't think that's the issue in this thread.

I also think the members of this forum should support original soundtrack presentations and oppose colorization.

But those aren't really the issues of this thread either.

Who can convincingly make the case that P&S discs are sold in 2007 because "people like them better?" THAT is what I see as the issue of this thread.

There's Jessie the yodeling cowgirl. Bullseye, he's Woody's horse. Pete the old prospector. And, Woody, the man himself.Of course, it's time for Woody's RoundUp. He's the very best! He's the rootinest, tootinest cowboy in the wild, wild west!


HTF Rules | HTF Mission Statement | Father of the Bride

Dieting with my Dog & Heart to Heart/Hand in Paw by Peggy Frezon


#76 of 77 OFFLINE   MielR

MielR

    Supporting Actor



  • 989 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 14 2006
  • Real Name:MielR

Posted August 22 2007 - 05:15 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by bradleybruns
A picture is worth a thousand words.

Long ago, I had seen the pan-and-scan VHS version of Star Wars (A New Hope) countless times. Since I was too young (5) to remember seeing it in the theater, pan-and-scan was my only reference for Star Wars.

One day I happened upon a wide-screen VHS. From start to finish, it was a revelation. Nobody had to explain OAR or 2.35:1 to me. I will never forget the scene where Luke looks through his binoculars at the Banthas. "There's sandpeople alright...I can see one of them now." Finally, I saw what he was talking about. Needless to say, I choose widescreen (or OAR) from then on.
A similar thing happened to me when I received my first P&S VHS copy of The Empire Strikes Back in 1984 (I was about 13 then, & had seen the film theatrically in 1982). I remember during the scene where Leia kisses Luke to piss off Han, Luke's head disappeared off the screen afterwards when he leans back, thus obliterating his facial expression. That was the first time I recall wondering "why aren't TV screens shaped like movie screens?" and I guess it was at that moment I became a videophile & started getting curious about letterboxed LDs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradleybruns
To quickest way to OAR "awareness" (in my opinion) would be a short, simple "commercial", using examples from well-known movies. This would be included on DVDs and even shown in theaters. If people simply learned that widescreen = more picture, it would be a victory.
Like the featurette they show on TCM now and then. Unfortunately, they're preaching to the choir.
SAVE STAR WARS! BOYCOTT THE BLU-RAYS! "Like" us here:

http://www.facebook....ycotttheblurays


#77 of 77 OFFLINE   MielR

MielR

    Supporting Actor



  • 989 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 14 2006
  • Real Name:MielR

Posted August 22 2007 - 05:29 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathew B
Well, in Europe, as many of you already know, it's widescreen only for nearly everything. Like it or lump it.
You're lucky- and hopefully it will be more like that in the states soon (It seems like it will, based on the amount of 16:9 vs 4:3 sets I see on store shelves nowadays). The one downside, of course, is when 4:3 material is cropped to make it 16:9, like the QUEEN videos volumes 1 & 2.
SAVE STAR WARS! BOYCOTT THE BLU-RAYS! "Like" us here:

http://www.facebook....ycotttheblurays



Back to DVD



Forum Nav Content I Follow