A Battle Has Been Won In The War Against MAR! (1 Viewer)

[Lloyd White]

HBOHD frequently shows 2.35 ratio movies in 16x9, like Terminator 3. The battle over MAR is far from over and is likely to get even worst than the odd MAR titles of today. That's not being pessimistic, that's being realistic.

 

[TedD]

And thats why I canceled my HBO subscription, both HD and SD.

Vote with your money, it's the only language that big business understands.

Ted

 

[Bryan X]

I completely agree. Once 16:9 TVs are the 'standard' in most people's homes, I see the studios releasing only one version of many films - in 16:9 regardless the actual OAR.

If we think it's difficult convincing J6P that widescreen (read OAR) is better than square foolscreen, imagine the difficulty in convincing him that a movie released in 2.35:1 is better in widerscreen OAR than his widescreen foolscreen. Say that ten times fast.

 

[Joshua Clinard]

Forgive my ignorance, but what are these cable cards you guys are talking about?

And while HBO has shown some 2.35:1 in 16x9 mode, I have yet to see a DVD do that. And I doubt they ever will. No, the sky is not falling. We have been over this ad nauseum.

 

[WillG]

"The Recruit", "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" Although they were sancioned by the directors, it was done because of the view that 1.78:1 is more "Home Theater Friendly" At least that was the case with Roger Donaldson and "The Recruit"

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Once Upon a Time in Mexico and The Recruit have already done this.

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

The size and shape of the screen isn't going to matter. People who buy Fullscreen DVDs are going to want their 16x9 screens filled up as well. HBO is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, premium content provider. They have the influence to help further the cause of OAR, but they're only giving the fullscreen crowd a new direction in the battle. The sky may not have fallen but the sun isn't shining through it very well, either.

EDIT: I did stop in at Wal-Mart tonight and they do indeed have a HDTV display set up here. While it was certainly a step forward, I was disappointed that there were no side by side comparisons.
Bruce

 

[Jonathan Carter]

That's fine for some but not all of us can afford a widescreen display so we have to buy a 4:3 when we upgrade or buy our 1st set, much like I'm going to have to do when I go from my 27" to my 32" for my new apt. I'd love to go larger but I can't afford it and don't have room either.

If they are going to make 16x9 mandatory, they better make them equally affordable.

 

[Bryan X]

I understand they can be expensive now, but I'm speaking of the future when 16:9 is standard and no more pricey than 4:3s are now. That day will come.

 

[Lars Vermundsberget]

The good thing about 16:9 is that it's a better compromise for the average movie than 4:3. But if or when 16:9 becomes standard in the US (or elsewhere), that's still no end-all solution. The important thing is still to make sure people understand that some movies are quite legitimately going to have an aspect ratio different from that of a (16:9 or 4:3) TV screen.

 

[Bryan X]

We'll be battling MAR until the day we have TVs that can physically morph their aspect ratio at the touch of a button.

And don't think it won't happen. Some guy from the future came back in a time machine and told me all about it.

 

[Yohan Pamudji]

... or until we all have projection screens with auto-adjustable masking to display the proper width of the material being shown.

If anything 16x9 TV sets will make MAR even more widespread. Sure you're not cutting off as much as with 4:3 foolscreen, but that's exactly the rationale that studios will be using to issue MAR-only releases in 1.78:1 ratio to fill people's widescreen TVs, and that's exactly what most people will think is ideal. "I paid for all 65 inches of this widescreen TV, so the picture better well fill up the entire screen!" 16x9 TV sets won't make that mentality go away.