Joe Six-Pack came to my garage sale today (1 Viewer)

[Bhagi Katbamna]

The following words have no business being mentioned in a widescreen debate:
Choice
Option
Taste
The film makers had the option to select their aspect ratio of choice (1.85, 2.35) and frame their shots according to THEIR tastes.

And the studio(which owns the content) had a choice in releasing the movie in pan&scan. By-the-way, I watch movies in letterbox format whenever possible even when I had a 27 inch TV. People that are so militant about this should remember that movie watching is a hobby and is not life and death for most people.

 

[Mark-W]

I gotta agree with Brian W on this one:
I bet the guy saw some DVDs where one side
was open matte, and the other side is widescreen.
Technically, the guy would be right in those instances,
where the top and bottom of the frame are masked off.

Someone should show guys like this the screen shots
at widscreen.org and some of the informational things
on aspect ratios on the following DVDs:
Die Hard: Five Star Edition
Star Trek: The Voyage Home
The Underneath
These all show TRUE pan and scan compared
to a 2.35:1 film element, which really is hardcore
butchery of a film makers vision.
Mark

 

[Captain Spaulding]

Actually,I'm glad these stubborn "OAR Haters" exist. You see, back when we collected laser discs, part of the attraction was the "snob appeal". We enjoyed knowing that we had a superior technology; that the picture on our TV's were better than almost everyone else's picture. But with DVD becoming mainstream,there is very little to be snobbish about. Everyone can get the same great picture we do. So you see, the "OAR Haters" do serve a purpose. They are someone we can feel superior to

[Edited last by Jay Friedman on August 10, 2001 at 04:38 PM]

 

[Brian_J]

Folks, the reason people hate widescreen movies is because they have little televisions so they end up with a picture thats about seven to ten inches high. I know, I was one of them. Everyone's initial reaction is that they are getting a smaller picture. And to some degree they are because the characters go from say 17" high to 10" high. We perceive changes in height as a smaller picture even though the horizontal is increased. But dont worry folks, as widescreen projection tv's and widescreen direct view tv's become more prevalent this will all take care of itself.
Brian
------------------
Zed's Dead Baby...

 

[Mark-W]

Brian J-
Funny thing is, I was in the DVD section of a store,
and this woman was shopping and I overheard her
bitching about movies not filling up her television
set, and she had a HUGE, HUGE...television.
Her response to my explanation was,
I bought a big screen so I could have a big
picture...not stupid black bars covering the whole
damn thing up."
Needless to say, it took all of my composure not
to call this woman a complete idiot.

Mark

 

[Jon D]

Okay, my comment on Darwinism was a little far, I grant that. I think I'd just come from the Wonka thread. If somebody was used to P&S and KNEW the difference between the formats, it wouldn't bother me one bit if they chose P&S. However, the dead-set P&S'ers who vehemently attack widescreen (those black bars cut off my picture!!!!) out of ignorance and refuse to aknowledge the difference, even when shown, really tick me off. America has a reputation as being apathetic and every time I hear these stories of narrow minded P&S'ers I see where that reputation comes from. Also these same people who are set in their P&S universe are the ones that are causing it to become more common on DVD, at the expense of OAR. That's what really turns my crank. That's what causes the scorn of 'J6P' on this forum. They are a threat to OAR.
------------------
Women are often attracted to men with money and power. I have neither, and they know it.

 

[Jon_Are]

Cripes! I started this thread only to relay an anecdote that left me shaking my head about a stranger's ignorance, knowing that virtually everyone here at HTF would be able to relate to my (mild) exasperation; I didn't mean to incite anything more than friendly empathy. A few thoughts of mine regarding this:
1. What frustrated me primarily was that the customer was opinionated; he was stating his misconceptions as fact and was not interested in hearing my input. In fact, he interrupted me repeatedly to spout his misinformation. It is his ignorance and his indignation that I object to, Not his preferences.
2. I don't care for the "Joe Six Pack" tag; I used it in the heading only to get attention, which was a mistake. Labeling someone J6P, while it may sound witty, is a stark form of snobbery. I think some folks around here feel a tad superior to those who may not have state-of-the-art equipment or ambitions. Think about this: we're all just common folk in any number of hobbies or pursuits, be it gourmet cooking, jazz, photography, physical fitness, etc. In other words, we're all Joe Six Packs, relative to the issue at hand.
3. The militant stances taken by some are open to interpretation. The cutting of spleen, the serving of fava beans and chianti, the stuffing of body parts into garbage bags were clearly tongue-in-cheek (and, in fact, very amusing to me). The ripping of a stranger's dollar bill is a cute story, but anyone who believes that the writer actually did this must also believe that drug addicts are luring unsuspecting tourists into hotel rooms, sedating them, and harvesting their kidneys for drug money. It's a Legend of the Urban variety.
4. My receiver's still for sale . Anyone wanna buy it?
------------------
"This one goes to eleven." (Nigel Tufnel)
Jon
[Edited last by Jon_Are on August 10, 2001 at 08:07 PM]

 

[LARUE]

Well I was at Circuit City with my wife, uh... Morgan Fairchild.
Yeah that's the ticket!
And a Joe Six Pack... noooo... a Hank Half Rack was complaining about the tiny long picture!
And me being a member of the Home Thea... I mean, the "President!" of the Home Theater Forum.
I snatched a $50 bill from his wallet and tore it up!!!
LARUE
member founder of "pathological liars anonymous"
[Edited last by LARUE on August 11, 2001 at 04:35 AM]

 

[Mitty]

The best thing to do with Joe is just to explain it all by talking to him using your butt cheeks, a la Jim Carrey.
He won't retain any of it (we won't anyway), but he will feel ridiculous and probably a little embarrassed to have someone talk to him that way. And given Joe's willful ignorance, he should feel a little ridiculous and embarassed from time to time.
If Joe is a testosterone-laden alpha male, I don't recommend this approach. Social discomfort of such magnitute will most certainly result in violence with this specimen.

 

[Samuel Des]

The ripping of a stranger's dollar bill is a cute story, but anyone who believes that the writer actually did this must also believe that drug addicts are luring unsuspecting tourists into hotel rooms, sedating them, and harvesting their kidneys for drug money. It's a Legend of the Urban variety.

Are you referring to me? What does the first -- something perfectly credible given some of the attitudes here -- have to do with the second, a Campbell pass-off? This is precisely the same kind of rank generalization and snobbery you shed in part two of your statement!
The quotations I chose were meant to illustrate an attitude that I wanted to bring to mutual attention. Some are understood to be posturing. And we all know which of the two you describe is more likely. I didn't know if the guy actually did it or not. But whether or not he did, wasn't the point of my post. Or do you always read so literally?
------------------
SAM

 

[Jon_Are]

Sam...I went back and re-read all your posts in this thread, and I'm not sure why your dander is up with regard to my own thoughts. In fact, I agree with everything you've written here (with one exception: I don't believe that tearing a stranger's money is "perfectly credible" at all).
Of course I don't "always read so literally"; that is why I pointed out that many of the posts were clearly tongue-in-cheek.
I don't know what a "Campbell pass-off" is, so I can't really comment on that remark.
In any case, without regard to parsimony, I repeat: you and I agree.
Thanks for your input.
Jon
------------------
"This one goes to eleven." (Nigel Tufnel)

 

[Scott Strang]

Clinton from Plumerville, AR USA Sez

I don't know if he ever got the point of the lesson, but it cost him a dollar nonetheless.

Scotch tape works wonders. He can add 5 more dollars to that dollar and buy a worn-out previously viewed VHS from Blockbuster.

------------------

Recently, we sneaked into the Klingon's engine and replaced dilithium crystals with new Folger's Crystals.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I remember reading that the median IQ in the United States is 100.

Holy shit, is this true!?!
If so then I should go shoot myself now. I really thought it was more like 120.
See, we always have threads discussing HOW to convince people, to teach them, what examples will work, etc.
The problem is that IQ is not some lame, made-up measurement, but a real measurement of a person's ability to learn from evidence. People try to debunk it by saying it doesn't meaure how much you know, which is true of course. Just how quickly your brain responds to new evidence/situations.
So if you are running into low-IQ types it doesn't matter how good your examples are, it just isn't going to sink in. Seriously, not trying to be insulting here, but some people will require YEARS of training and teaching, which is what they have already had thanks to TV for the last 40+ years.
I mean aspect ratios are geometry. Think about how many people find geometry to be both confusing and STUPID. You can't expect to change those people with 3-4 good examples.
And, yes, it sucks.
This is not to be confused with smart people who just have never thought about it or had it explained. We shouldn't mix the 2 very real and different groups. Smart people understand their limits or are aware that they have them, they know that others might have some knowledge that they don't.
If you try to explain and the person is resistive or has a bunch of "junk" logic/beliefs, then you have to understand what you are up against and walk away. That was the smartest thing Jon did, as that debate was headed nowhere fast.
I think the future of DVD will be duality, with a VHS version and the current LD version coexisting. Everything is new now, but the next push is deep into Joe-6 world and I think the studios will be forced into P&S releases to get the market penetration that they want.
I don't care as long as "good" version of DVDs exist for me to own. And studios know there is money in that market as well. I would guess that more SALES will exist with the "niche" version than the Joe-6 rental-pricing P&S version.

 

[Marty M]

Sadly, I have some good friends that are very adamantly opposed to OAR presentations. They just think the picture is too small. One friend can except the 1:1.85 image, but hates the 1:2.35. I have tried every explanation I can think of, but have finally decided it is not worth it and we just avoid those discussions, now.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Whoever disagrees with me is ruining the cow's true vision

Jeff, this would be 100% correct if someone were selling Ice Cream AS MILK. Ice Cream is clearly NOT milk, but rather a new, different product. But you were just having some fun, I understand.
I agree that TASTE does not enter into it. Your taste makes you not eat the foods you don't like, not listen to the music you don't like, nor watch the films you don't like.
The OPTION here is to NOT BUY THE DVD. But to demand that SOMEONE ELSE DO WHAT YOU WANT, ie "you better make YOUR film the way I WANT" is not about your taste. That is a selfish, egotistical statement with no consideration for the artist.
Warming up the ice cream is NOT THE SAME as demanding that ALL ICE CREAM be served after being heated.
Buy the DVD and watch it out of order, repeat one chapter all day, distort the picture, whatever, but the FILM on DVD should be presented how the CREATOR wanted to make it. After you buy it, do what you would like with it.
No one is making anyone buy anything. If they were, then this "I don't like it that way" complaint would be valid.
But what is the point of going into McDonalds and demanding a Whopper?? Sounds like a power-trip to me.

 

[Jan Strnad]

Seth, I'm afraid you're right.
While it's hard to understand aspect ratios with numbers, it's easy to explain letterboxing with a graphic.
Once someone understands letterboxing, they're still free to say "the picture is now too small." At least they're making an informed choice.
------------------
http://www.mindspring.com/~atombrain/risenintro.html
Jan Strnad
author of Risen and
"The AtomBrain Guide to Letterboxing"

 

[Samuel Des]

I don't believe that tearing a stranger's money is "perfectly credible" at all

"Credible," is meant as in a credible account; i.e., believable. You were comparing something that seemed credible (but is now apocryphal) with an incredible account (the "Urban Legend"). So, "something perfectly credible," means something "believable." Just a clarification, as I do not want to be perceived as saying that tearing up a stranger's money is legitimate.
[Edited last by Samuel Des on August 11, 2001 at 01:26 PM]

 

[AaronMK]

But to demand that SOMEONE ELSE DO WHAT YOU WANT, ie "you better make YOUR film the way I WANT" is not about your taste.

This is just like saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to go into Burger King and order a Whopper without onions.
It is one thing to be upset because someone else's preference is intruding on the ability to have things as you prefer. It is another thing to believe that it is not okay for them to have that preference.
Let the people who want P&S have it, just don't let it come at the expense features and tranfer quality on an OAR release.
Why is it such a big deal for studios to have two seperate releases, even for a Gladiator calibur package? Manual and automatic transmission is avaialable for car models. Both light and regular ice cream, and Coke and Diet Coke are available. Their a variations in other products to cater to different preferences. Why can't it be like that for DVD?

 

[cafink]

quote: Let the people who want P&S have it, just don't let it come at the expense features and tranfer quality on an OAR release … Their a variations in other products to cater to different preferences. Why can't it be like that for DVD?[/quote]
The studios and the audience have a responsibility to the artist. The artist has the right to have his film presented in a manner consistent with that in which he made it. "Gladiator" is not a hamburger.
It's one thing to like a modified version of a film. But for the studio to invest time and money to sanction that version as a valid, "official" version of the film is a very different issue. Once you buy the "Gladiator" DVD (which features the movie in its proper theatrical aspect ratio only), you are free to bring it home and watch it however you like — in black and white, zoomed in, upside down, under water, on its side, through a mirror, et cetera. But I'd have to take issue if the studio decided to include any of these as viewing options on the actual DVD.
You don't have to like everything about a movie, but that doesn't mean that the studio has to cater to your own taste. I happen to enjoy the film "The Matrix," but I'm not a fan of Keanu Reeves' acting ability. Imagine if, for the sake of people like myself, Warner released a digitally-altered version of "The Matrix" with Keanu replaced by Jar-Jar Binks in every scene. Now imagine if that was the only version available in many stores, or the only version made available at all (as with "Wonka").
There are many things that many people don't like about many movies. Usually, the choice is to either live with those flaws or simply not watch the movie. Why, when it comes to aspect ratios, do the studios go out of their way to cater to the dissenters?
[Edited last by Carl Fink on August 11, 2001 at 09:05 PM]

 

[DaveF]

quote: I remember reading that the median IQ in the United States is 100.
...is this true!?!
If so then I should go shoot myself now. I really thought it was more like 120.[/quote]
This is true, because 100 I.Q. is median by definition. http://www.geocities.com/rnseitz/Definition_of_IQ.html .
I don't think I.Q. and OAR preference have any correlation, personally.
[Edited last by DaveF on August 11, 2001 at 05:04 PM]