MY OAR Advertisement (1 Viewer)

[William Waits]

After reading many of the OAR postings, I feel that it is a trajedy that Hollywood would allow their works to be so freely butchered, and not even care. As I have stated many times before, Hollywoood is the only segment in a free market economy where the producers of goods/services are given direct feedback by potential consumers as to what they want, and even are told that the consumers are willing to spend a premium for their goods (when compared to similar goods also produced by the same suppliers) and are litterally given the finger. It amazes me that we allow ourselves to be treated like this as a consumer. If we were treated in similar fashion by any retail store that I am aware of, or of makers of clothing or makers of computers, or house painters, or what have not, then they would either change or start preparing their bankruptcy proceedings. With this in mind, and with the OAR vs Pan&Scam travesty heading our way, I quickly threw together my version of an Ad that might possibly be run in Variety. I think that it should be in letter format. I think that this can be both more "personable" and more powerful than merely throwing arguments against a wall (i.e. blank page) and see what sticks, and where it should stick.
Let me know what you think...
It can be found here:
http://members.aol.com/heathen/ad.pdf

 

[LukeB]

It's nice, but it's a shame that the majority of our world doesn't give a crap about aspect ratios and will buy whatever is in the stores, even if that's Pan & Scan.

 

[William Waits]

This is really just a self inflicted wound by the studios. I am not in movie production, but from my understanding, it actually takes more resources to "convert" a widescreen movie to Pan&Scam because they have to pay someone/people to actually re-frame each frame.

If they had only done a little bit of education in the beginning, and to boot, even save money, this could have all been avoided...

I know we are all clamoring about choice, but right is right, and I feel that we (i.e. the studios) should just shove it (OAR) down their collective throats for awhile. As most have indicated, there will be some slight turbulation in the short turn, but once the dust settles, all will be back to normal.

It is similar to when cars had gas nozzles in the back. MUCH MORE convienent to pull into a gas station, but for whatever reason they changed all that so that they are either on the left side, or on the right side (actually, I think the reason has to do with safety in collisions). Guess what? We have become used to it now. Not only that, but when we enter a new car for the first time and need gas, if it is on the other side of the car than was the last car you drove for a while, most will find that they pull into the service station on the wrong side... Again, a little bit of turbulence, but in the end, right is right (for safety reason...).

 

[Reginald Trent]

I think we should be fighting to have a video explanation of OAR/widescreen played in ALL commercial theaters/cinemas before the feature film begins.

We should also be fighting to have a video explanation of OAR/widescreen during the Academy Awards Ceremony.

 

[Adam_S]

Sixth Paragraph, final sentance, "we enhusiasts", not "us enthusiasts."

also you should probably delete the parenthetical statement in paragraph seven. its current position makes it seem as though it only applies to that question, when it applies to each rhetorical question. Also its wording suggests that we are collecting signatures because there is no pan and scan release. If you want it there, perhaps add in, "we enthusiasts have been actively pursuing all these avenues demanding widescreeen, while those that prefer pan and scan prefer to endure the occasional widescreen than actively campaign against it."

 

[David Lambert]

I'm sorry, but I have to say I dislike the entire direction of the statement.

I'm not saying this because "mine was better"...mine was a wordy, unreadable mess and needs to be simplified. But the message I gave was the direction that, in my opinion, is the path to take.

This "Do not forsake us" direction, this begging/pleading/threatening direction: who in Hollywood cares? Why should anybody lift a finger to help us based on this kind of plea?

We're just the early adopters, long forgotten after mass acceptance of the product, and no longer where the big bucks lie. Victims of the success of the products we bought.

We should NOT be asking for OAR from studios to support those of us who helped the format be a success.

We should be asking for OAR because it is the right way to show a movie! Because it is the way to not have to buy and re-buy a product! Because it is the best VALUE for our dollars, and the studios are cheating us of that value with every MAR disc they release.

Period.

In my opinion, of course. I apologize to the ad's writer and supporters for the "flame", but that's my take on this issue.

 

[William Waits]

In my opinion, of course. I apologize to the ad's writer and supporters for the "flame", but that's my take on this issue.

No need to apologize. I think that it is great that we can all share our ideas and takes on issues and not let them stand in the way of anything. I appreciate the input.

 

[William Waits]

Sixth Paragraph, final sentance, "we enhusiasts", not "us enthusiasts."

also you should probably delete the parenthetical statement in paragraph seven. its current position makes it seem as though it only applies to that question, when it applies to each rhetorical question. Also its wording suggests that we are collecting signatures because there is no pan and scan release. If you want it there, perhaps add in, "we enthusiasts have been actively pursuing all these avenues demanding widescreeen, while those that prefer pan and scan prefer to endure the occasional widescreen than actively campaign against it."

Thanks for the input. I shall be taking your suggestions and making those changes over the course of the next day or so....

 

[Micah Cohen]

Single space after periods. Punctuation inside quotes ("art." not "art".). Left justify the text.
All these small things will help your presentation.
Sorry, I'm an editor. It's a habit.

MC

 

[William Waits]

Sorry, I'm an editor. It's a habit.

Sorry... I'm an antagonist... It's a habit.

 

[Micah Cohen]

Let's fight!
Single space after punctuation when using a computer or word processor because it automatically kerns the characters correctly, whereas those of us who learned to type on a typewriter know that a typewriter does no kerning on its own. Double-spaces say, "I'm typing this on an old typewriter!" Look modern, single space.
Punctuation always appears within quotes, except for semi-colons or colons (which appear outside of quotes), or exclamation and question marks that end a sentence in which there is a quoted phrase (where the quoted phrase does not end the sentence). Otherwise, punctuation always appears within quotes (and without parentheses).
Left justifing the text makes it easier to read in any full-page presentation. Magazines and newspapers full-justify and get away with it because they use narrow columns of text, in which full-justification is easier to read.
Seriously. Look at any serious document and you will see these rules working to make the docs more readable and more professional-looking.
One of my other peeves is the word "which," which should never appear where "that" could suffice. And when it does, it must appear only after a comma, which is the punctuation that sets it off correctly. But your doc doesn't fall into that trap.
I'm actually just joshing with ya. I want your document to be taken seriously and look as professional as it can look, so I offer these pointless points. In real life, I guess, no one takes this stuff so seriously anymore.
Ugh, I'm so stupidly anal about this stuff. Sorry.
MC

 

[Rain]

I have to say that I agree with David.

The cause is just, but also don't think the "Don't forsake us" path is the wrong one to take.