How Widescreen Won - New Artcile on Slate (1 Viewer)

[Dan Rudolph]

Both the local Wal-Marts here carry full-screen and widescreen.

 

[WillG]

Decent article, but I don't think that statement is true. Sometimes it happens, but it is less frequent then it used to be.

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

Wal-Mart is a pretty sizable DVD outlet. I don't visit Wal-Mart that often, but the last time I was there, when there was a choice between Fullscreen and Widescreen, Wal-Mart was stocking the Fullscreen only. That might only be locally but Wal-Mart is pretty strict on policy so if something is occurring at one store, it's probably happening at the majority of stores. And that's the problem. Wal-Mart has such a huge customer base that unless these people buy their DVD's elsewhere, they are not even given the choice to purchase a Widescreen disc. If Wal-Mart could be persuaded to become an OAR advocate, this "war" would be over very quickly.

Bruce

 

[Jeff Swindoll]

What I was saying is that they've had a speciality product made via Columbia/Tri-Star to remove the WS version of the film (on the titles that used to have both WS and FS). All of the titles I've seen like this have been from Columbia/Tri-Star. I've only seen FS only titles like this at Walmart and have no idea if any other retailer has them. The ones I see available online have both WS and FS on the same disc.

For the most part, when a release (for example, LOTR) has both Fullscreen and Widescreen releases Walmart carries both of them. Though sometimes not in equal amounts.

Columbia titles I've seen in Fullscreen only at Walmart:
Moscow on the Hudson
Suspect
Last Action Hero
Sheena

 

[WillG]

What I was saying is that they've had a speciality product made via Columbia/Tri-Star to remove the WS version of the film (on the titles that used to have both WS and FS).

Actually, CTHE is just doing this, period. It's not a Wal*Mart exclusive thing. Online stores may still have discs that have both versions, so get what you want while you still can.

 

[Porfirio]

If a new DVD title has two versions available, my local Wal-Mart will stock both, some times in equal numbers, during the release week. But once they run out of WS, they will only restock FS. According to what a Wal-mart employee told my buddy, it is a company policy.

 

[DouglasRobert]

Well what I meant is the following.

The Full Screen Only editions in the bargain bins and that after the initial offering of the Widescreen amd Full Screen versions that after all the Widescreens are sold out and all that is left on the shelf is the Full Screen versions - They never restock the Widescreen versions. So if you are trying to find a title after the initial week of release, lets say about a month or two after release, then you will probably only find the Full Screen versions on Wal-Mart shelves. So most un-informed consumers who shop at Wal-Mart will probably just buy the Full Screen version.

Does anybody know if there is an address, something like a customer feedback, that we could send our opinion on this matter?

 

[Devin_C]

Dan Rudolph wrote: Same here - and they tend to restock WS too; they don't seem to run out of them, even for the more catalog titles. Perhaps it varies by region/country?

 

[Todd H]

When a movie has a dual release, my local Wal-Mart continues to carry only the fullscreen version. For a while, I thought that maybe the only reason I couldn't find widescreen versions was because they sold out quickly. But after talking to many of the clerks there, they told me that fullscreen is all they get.

On the bright side, I've developed a pretty good relationship with the manager of the local video store. She knows of my love for OAR and prefers OAR herself. So I pay a little more for my DVD's buying from her. But at least I know I'll get the right version.

 

[Joshua Clinard]

Douglass, I have started a Letter-Writing Campaign. You can find all the information for contacting retailers and studio's there.

 

[Robert_eb]

Does the writers (Bryan Curtis) use of negative stereotyping bother anyone else or is it just me?

"In the fight for the hearts and minds of viewers, widescreen and its film-geek adherents..."

"...a sign that DVD was still primarily the toy of the geek."

"How did the geeks win.."

"It wasn't until DVDs appeared in the late-1990s that film nerds tipped the balance..."

"But what is surprising is that when you call up films that aren't the province of geeks.."

 

[Joshua Clinard]

I don't think those terms were used in a negative way, so no, I don't take offense. I think he just used those terms to illustrate people who are passionate about movies, and home theater. And he also pointed out that we are making people passionate about home theater who never were before DVD became mainstream.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

He's right. Until the advent of DVD, film geeks were rpetty much the only ones who understood or cared about widescreen.

 

[Eric_B_C]

I remember hyping the virtues of widescreen to people around the time the directors cut of Blade Runner came out on VHS in England.

Walmart never cease to amaze me. The last one I was in, if they had a choice, they'd stock pan'n'suck over the widescreen version every time. I've lost count of the number of movies I wanted that they did that with.

And then they go and stock something obscure like the Panic Room special edition which, let's face it, isn't going to sell like hot cakes.

One thing that has always intrigued me: Walmart claim the consumer are idiots and want pan'n'scan, and yet when a movie is released in both pns and widescreen, a check of Amazon's top sellers will ALWAYS put the widescreen higher than the other one.

Incidentally, this OAR argument, I'm all for that. However, is this a case where a movie was shot and then matted down for the big screen? Like Titanic which I think was shot at Super35 and Cameron has said he hates the letterboxed version because it loses a lot of the image.

 

[WillG]

That does not make much sense to me. If the DVD is at the same Aspect Ratio that went up on movie screens, why would he complain about loss of image? Might he be refering to the disc out in the US being non-anamorphic and the loss of resolution?

 

[Eric_B_C]

The story I remember is the movie was shot in Super 35 which I think means it was matted down for the big screen to fit the 1.85 or 2.35 AR, and that Cameron doesn't like the widescreen Titanic as it's actually cropped, and what he feels is the best vision is the fullscreen, which actually IS fullscreen, as it was shot 4:3, and it's not pan'n'scanned.

Hope that makes sense I have no idea how much truth there is to it but I remember reading it on some widescreen advocacy article or somewhere like that.

 

[Mark Bendiksen]

I've heard the James Cameron reportedly said he preferred the full-frame version of The Abyss, but I've never heard that he said the same about Titanic. Perhaps he did, though.

 

[WillG]

Eric, I can see that you are new to this forum so you probably have not seen the numerous debates on the interpretations of James Cameron's statements of "preference" for full screen presentations of his films on home video.

What I have gathered of it is that Cameron had a statement on the liner notes of "The Abyss" laserdisc that said that he was "proud" of the full screen version. This is what has sparked the debate. Many here conclude that Cameron made this statement in reference to the days of VHS where the resolution lost to a letterboxed transfer greatly compromised image quality on that format. This loss of resolution (on a non-anamorphic DVD, which three of his major titles are non-anamorphic) does not have as much of a severe effect on DVD (This is also one of the reasons theorized for Stanley Kubrick's preference for full frame presentations) So the comments were based on the technical limitations of the time. And even though Cameron expressed satisfaction with the Full frame version of The Abyss did not mean he necessairly prefers it, especially now that we have DVD.

Cameron has shot all his major motion pictures in Super35 for 2.35:1 presentations since "The Abyss." He shoots in Super35 because he likes the 2.35:1 AR but does not prefer to work with anamorphic lenses. So, there should be no reason that he would be complaining that the DVD of "Titanic" is missing information. Very few of his films are even available in an MAR presentation on DVD anyway which is another reason this could not be a huge concern for him anymore. If he really wanted his films to be shown Full Frame, I'm sure the studios would have been happy to oblige.

Also, with Titanic, with all the effects, it would be hard to believe that there wouldn't have been any cropping in the Full Frame version anyway. There would certainly be compromises

 

[Dan Rudolph]

That strikes me as wrong as well. If Cameron didn't like the way the frame was cropped on Titanic, he could have released it 1.85 and cropped it less.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]