Discussion on the HTF article on studios dumbing down the DVD format (1 Viewer)

[Rain]

The whole argument about not having clout doesn't seem very likely to me. There are a lot of powerfull directors, producers and actors in Hollywood. Besides, these people aren't exactly known for being shy and "pro-establishment" either.

True. And those filmmakers' movies have generally been released in widescreen since the emergence of DVD.

How much say do you figure director David Jones had in the decision to release 84 Charing Cross Road in full frame only? I would guess zilch.

I do have to agree, though, that perhaps fighting for OAR-only may not be the best approach. So long as an OAR version is made available, I'm happy.

But I do see Ron's point, too. It's like my dad used to say, "If you offer a finger, they'll want the whole hand." Offering up P&S DVDs will only encourage more people to accept that as the norm and continue to wallow in their ignorance and/or apathy.

Michael makes an excellent bottom-line point as well. There may be financial advantages to giving consumers a choice, but there is absolutely no financial advantage to offering "formatted to fit" versions only. This is what we have to convince the studios of.

 

[Marc Colella]

I find it funny that we knock J6P for wanting to have their screens "filled" and ignoring OAR - and yet most of us (myself included) with widescreen TV's wind up expanding the picture of a television show to avoid the black bars on the sides of the screen.
Yep, call me a hypocrite.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I think the best issue to fight with is one that is yet to be addressed due to the new technology...
OAR for 1.37, 1.33, 1.66 stuff on 1.78 TVs.
That problem is already out there, yet not mainstream at this point. The Black Bar complaint will still be there with that one.
AND, it already has a solution, or rather people are already watching 4:3 material on 16:9 sets. These sets even have the ability to zoom and distort 4:3 pictures enough to satisfy the Joe6's that buy them.
So WTF is the problem then? We already have an OAR solution BEING USED NOW!!
If studio's ARE NOT RECEIVING DEMANDS FOR CITIZEN KANE IN 16x9, then I say the studios are full of shit regarding the demand for P&S.
Sure the demand will be less as 16x9 sets aren't a major part of the TV market yet, BUT there are plenty of Joe6's that have already bought these sets.
My point is that if 4x3 sets had a zoom function just like 16x9 sets do, the problem would already be solved.
You put the proper software out there (OAR) and let the hardware these people buy destroy it in whatever manner they choose.
Rich's push for P&S on the fly is just one part of that.
Heck, for 1.85 material these people can leave the player in anamorphic mode and the picture WILL FILL their screen. THEY ARE ALREADY DOING THIS WITH 4:3 material on their widescreen sets...heck, even at the stores the TVs are being setup like this much of the time.
My main point is that OAR is NOT a Widescreen fight. It is a "my picture doesn't fit my screen" fight, and the fight has yet to fire up on the future battlegrounds of the new high-end 16x9 sets. Think these people are mad now, wait till their $3500 TV doesn't have a picture covering the whole screen (2.35 AND 1.33 stuff at the same time).
If you can get studios to admit that they have no problems with 1.33 OAR stuff, then you can point out that it's the same scenario as the current 1.85/2.35 stuff on 4:3 sets. Gives them something to think about with proof counter to what they are telling us.

 

[Rain]

...and yet most of us (myself included) with widescreen TV's wind up expanding the picture of a television show to avoid the black bars on the sides of the screen.

I seriously doubt that applies to "most of us." I know I wouldn't do it. The 16x9 TV owners I know don't do it.
Does anyone here do this?

 

[Andrew_Sch]

I find it funny that we knock J6P for wanting to have their screens "filled" and ignoring OAR - and yet most of us (myself included) with widescreen TV's wind up expanding the picture of a television show to avoid the black bars on the sides of the screen.

Hey, speak for yourself . While I find the grey bars somewhat distracting, I just can't stand unnaturally stretching the image.

 

[Karl Englebright]

True. And those filmmakers' movies have generally been released in widescreen since the emergence of DVD.

How much say do you figure director David Jones had in the decision to release 84 Charing Cross Road in full frame only? I would guess zilch.

You are right. But you would think that those same powerful people that do have the clout would be a little more active in getting the whole industry as a whole to see it "their way". The Steven Spielbergs of the industry should be a LOT more vocal about all movies, not just their own.

I think it's more like Spielberg(he's just an example)just calls a head honcho at the studio and tells him in a private conversation, "My movie WILL be out there in OAR, do you understand?" It's almost like they are afraid that if they get too public with this, they will raise the fury of the masses and their new source of income somehow will decrease.

I'm sorry I keep harping on these guys but they are the creative forces behind these movies we love and it seems pretty weird to me that they are not jumping up and down in a very public manner.

 

[Martin Rendall]

I seriously doubt that applies to "most of us." I know I wouldn't do it. The 16x9 TV owners I know don't do it.

I do. I don't want burn in, and most of my daily content is 4:3. 4:3 dvd's, however, I don't stretch. But that's "critical viewing" time...

4:3 content on the HD channels can't be stretched (with my STB), so there's another exception.

Martin.

 

[Paul J Anderson]

i'm with Karl. we are fighting as hard as we can and doing an admirable job. but, the fight would be so much easier if the people with the clout, like Spielberg, would lead the charge. the uninformed public is a massive and formidable army, but they aren't as well equipped as our small, but elite, commando forces. we just need powerful field generals to lead the battle. we need the public figures like Hanks, Cruise, Pitt, Roberts and the rest of the A-list actors to help us out. they always talk about taking artisitc roles and working with this great director because he is such an artist. then, we don't hear a peep when the artistic vision is butchered on a 4:3 TV. these are the people who can help us the most. these are the people the uninformed public listen to and worship, to an extant. has anyone ever thought of petitioning to the SAG or Director's Guild. i don't know how much it would help, but it certainly wouldn't hurt.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Often times they don't even tell filmmakers they are doing a DVD (and if they're doing a new transfer, by DGA rules they MUST tell them. Michael Moore was shocked when I told him that Canadian Bacon was coming out, and asked for MGM's contact info). So it's usually too late by the time the yfind out they've been Pan&Scammed

If you really want to do something about it. We need to set up our mall campaign NOW. I've talked to a local Phillips rep about possibly providing demo widescreen TVs. Then we try to hook up with the local Suncoast or other large retailer to make our case. BELIEVE ME, it will work. You have a TV RIGHT THERE to show them.

 

[ErichH]

The very first DVD I purchased was made exciting by the fact that I'd get to see it widescreen.

At the time it was on a Sony 27 inch TV, but that made no difference to me.

There have been times when I'd pick up a DVD at the local store and notice it was a new 4X3 version,

what a shock ! It's just another item I have to filter, like the 60 or so spams I get every day in

my email. If a DVD has stupid previews at the front or anything commercial, I return it.

I agree with Ron, Pan&Scan is a huge step back. It just the opposite of what DVDs are all about.

Eric

 

[Grady Hollums]

I am with you Ron! I bought my Widescreen TV for just the sole purpose that I will get the Directors fist intentions in the movie! I WILL NOT by any Pan& Scan movies, unless that was there original aspect ratio when shot.

Thank you! And please tell me where to sign to allow the Hollywood executives know that.

 

[Ryan Spaight]

A few random thoughts:

1) All the move to 16x9 will accomplish is the masses will want 1.33:1 and 2.35:1 stuff reformatted to 16x9. Same arguments, just shuffled around.

2) People aren't uninformed, they simply don't care. They're not interested in "artisitic intent," they just want to watch a movie.

3) Trust me, if there were more of us than there were of them, HBO and Showtime would be all OAR all the time.

4) You will never stop a business from selling something there is a market for, unless the law or political correctness is involved. If we can make MAR politically incorrect, we might have something to work with.

5) There is still far more OAR availablity on DVD than on any other home video format ever. OAR-only releases on LD were the exception, not the rule. Nearly every LD release was P&S-only (earlier) or dual releases (later). At the very end of LD's life there were some OAR-only titles, but still not nearly as many as on DVD.

The "good old days" of OAR-only DVD never existed. *Every studio* has released dual or P&S-only releases since day one. In fact, the current output of MAR releases is less than it was a couple of years ago.

Taking the long view, those who love OAR are still far, far better off today than at any time in the past. The current hand-wringing reminds me of someone who wins $100 million in the lottery and bitches about the taxes being taken out.

Ryan

 

[DaveF]

How to convert the P&S lovers:
Two identical video monitors, stacked, playing the same movie (synch'ed); one the OAR version and the other P&S. This is, of course, the most effective way to show what P&S is about.
Then appeal to the "more is better" attitude most of us have More picture! More spaceships, explosions, faces, characters, body parts, majestic scenery!
Use big screens, placed prominently in stores and rental shops.
On a more limited scale, a computer movie of the same thing. A five minute scene from "Titanic" would be excellent, with the top half of the image is the WS movie and the bottom half is P&S version. make it available for download on the web, or burn it to a CD or DVD for distribution. (Surely this would be covered by fair-use laws, if not done for profit.)
If such a thing was done and distributed via DVD, that we could play on a HT, then it would be so much easier to show friends and family why we're so obsessive about OAR.
Many people still won't care, but at least they will understand the sacrifice.

 

[GaryEA]

I have two points;

1) The mainstream movie consumers you want to convert will not be converted by a minority group of enthusiasts whose HT vocabulary has come to include terms like "Joe Six Pack". I'm all for OAR, but if I was new to the hobby, the last thing that would get me to want to dig deeper is to be told how much of an idiot you are.

Further, the education and promotion about OAR has to come from the studios for it to sink in. If it comes from us, with our dramatic tendencies, it'll get laughed at. If it comes from the studio that makes the film, the perceived "authority" on the subject, then they will pay attention and become receptive.

We can wage "war" on studios all we like. We cannot do it to other consumers. They do not have the same principles as we do, do not long for a front-projection system, or might not care. Some simply want to be entertained, and there is nothing wrong with that.

That fact has to be embraced by the HT community.

2) We need DVD to go back to basics. We have become addicted to special editions, deluxe editions, ultimate editions, two, three, even four disc editions. We have sold the studio on the idea that more is better, but the product, with some exceptions, has become diluted.

DVD should go back to the days of movie only, or discs with limited supplementary material. Save the space and price point for the quality presentation of the film.

The best idea I have seen is the release of "Matrix Revisited", a separate release that was specifically about the making of the film. If studios did more of these, or committed themselves to let choice be a priority, then simple editions would succeed.

The biggest risk in shoving wide screen down the public's throat is the chance that they will choke on it, and that is what is happening.

Take care,

Gary

 

[Michael St. Clair]

The current hand-wringing reminds me of someone who

wins $100 million in the lottery and bitches about the taxes being taken out.

Let us know how you really feel.

 

[Jack Keck]

I do not consider myself to be much of an enthusiast. I bought a cheap DVD player and refrubished surround sound receiver simply for the convidnce of watching movies. Yes, I had a VCR, but when I saw the DVDs in the Hollywood Video, I figured that the tapes would eventually not be available. I am using a cheap 27 inch tv. If anyone would want pan & scan, it would have to be me.

NOT!

Once I saw the one member's sig line that had the widescreen & pan & scan versions of the same movie scene, I knew that widescreen is the way to go.

 

[Rain]

we just need powerful field generals to lead the battle. we need the public figures like Hanks, Cruise, Pitt, Roberts and the rest of the A-list actors to help us out. they always talk about taking artisitc roles and working with this great director because he is such an artist.

Our own Mr. David Lambert came up with the idea of taking out a full page ad in Variety about this issue. It is being discussed in this thread.
We've also been discussing whether or not it might be a good idea to contact some more high-profile individuals to see if they will lend support.
I completely agree that having some "powerful generals" in our corner would help, but we have to be prepared to fight this battle on all fronts: By petitioning the studios and the retailers, by helping to educate the masses and by bringing as much attention to the matter as we possibly can. At the same time it is essential that we present ourselves professionally, intelligently and diplomatically.
I'm so disappointed that so many people are saying things like we will never make a difference, so why bother trying?. If that is your attitude, I suggest getting out of the way of those of us who don't want to go down without a fight.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

What about Ernie Hudson from "Ghostbusters"? He's often been referred to as a true "victim" of pan and scan since his character is cut out of the picture most of the time in pan and scan versions!

 

[Rich Malloy]

I hope you don't mean me, Rain!
My only point is that "OAR-only" is a loser for mainstream releases. The sooner this is understood, the sooner a real compromise can be put forward.
"Education" is silly. You may win over a small percentage of those who are responsive to appeals relating to "preserving artistic vision", but most people will still prefer their screens filled even when they understand exactly what this means.
And who exactly would be doin' all this "educating" anyway? The studios? The federal government? Variety magazine? You and I? With what resources? With whose time? Shall we post an "OAR-guard" in every Blockbuster and Best Buy to inform the public at the point of purchase? Shall we lobby locally to make "OAR-competency" part of the public school curriculum?
We need to recognize that we are a niche market and work to preserve our niche. I haven't read a good reason why "P&S-on-the-fly" isn't the cheapest, best option, but I'm sure there are reasons why it might not work. But aside from dual releases (with the extra expense to the studios and the ever-feared "customer confusion"*), what other options do we have?
*(And this customer confusion is real - how many times have you read about one of us accidentally purchasing the P&S version?)

 

[Patrick McCart]

I think it's very important that DVD's are released with correct aspect ratio and visual composition (Turning a 2.55:1 print into a fake 2.76:1 transfer like Ben-Hur is NOT OAR.) I will not buy a title unless it shows the correct image. Warner went out of their way to use VistaVision elements for North By Northwest just to keep the sides from getting cropped. Columbia transferred Lawrence of Arabia from 65mm to keep the correct 2.21:1 aspect ratio. Disney frequently uses 1.66:1 for titles to keep the image from being too tight.

The problem is that most of the P&S only DVD's are not widely wanted. Nearly all of the reformatted DVD's are from 1.85:1 films or Super-35.

Most campaigns fail to show how pan & scan for 1.85:1 REALLY works and simply show centered cropping. You wouldn't show a CinemaScope frame as an unsqueezed 2.35:1 image on 35mm film, so why not show open matte films how they look on film?

Even worse is the general belief that when widescreen movies came out in 1953 (mainstream..of course, there were all kinds of wide formats even at the turn of the century.) all films were widescreen. Even up to the late 1950's, many filmmakers disliked using the wider frame of 1.66:1, all the way to 2.76:1.

ADD:

Also, nearly every "pan & scan" or open matte transfer out there is simply a laserdisc repackage. They didn't do it just to infuriate movie buffs...it's just a product of DVD growing so rapidly.

Besides the information stuff...the studios need to put the THEATER back in Home Theater.