OAR vs. Pan&Scan EXAMPLES used to educate

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Sam R. Aucoin, Nov 8, 2001.

  1. Sam R. Aucoin

    Sam R. Aucoin Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 1999
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First, I want to make clear: I only purchase(d) OAR movies on VHS, LD, and DVD (now, of course, it is primarily DVD, with a few LD purchases here and there).
    Second, I abhor the idea of a studio releasing a movie to the home video market that does NOT give the consumer a chance to watch the movie EXACTLY as it was originally presented in its wide-area theatrical release.
    Finally, as course and uncaring as this may sound to people with eye-problems or those people who can only afford small television sets (I certainly understand their plight and have no ill-will towards them), I would (if such an election were held) vote to release a movie in OAR IF the only choices in the election were EITHER OAR or Pan&Scan.
    Now, with the above in mind, on to my point [​IMG]
    I have found numerous instances on both this forum and on the internet where people have "signature boxes", or give examples on their websites, of how Pan&Scan changes the picture when contrasted with an OAR shot of that same frame from the movie, AND YET THEY SHOW THE OAR PICTURE CONTAINING ITEMS AND PEOPLE AS BEING THE SAME SIZE (I.E., HEIGHT, WIDTH, DEPTH - WHATEVER) AS THOSE IN THE PAN&SCAN FRAME.
    [If I am mistaken in my assumptions and conclusions contained in this post, I humbly and sincerely apologize - those assumptions and conclusion are due to ignorance and are not intentional.]
    I think this is not only an unfair representation, but it is one that, in my opinion, will sooner or later come back to haunt the OAR cause (of which I consider myself a part).
    At least on my TV (not a huge one by some HTFer's standards, but still the largest I could aesthetically "fit" in my family room - a 36" Sony WEGA), when an OAR movie is played (such as Ben-Hur, to give an extreme example, because I believe it is still the largest widescreen movie ever shot and distributed at the ration of 2.40:1.), WHATEVER APPEARS IN THE FRAMING AT ANY GIVEN TIME (BE IT PEOPLE, BUILDINGS, ANIMALS, ETC.) IS SMALLER THAN WHAT APPEARS IN A PAN&SCAN COMPARABLE FRAME.
    I respectfully suggest that if one is going to educate the public HONESTLY and COMPLETELY, then one MUST explain that showing a very large widescreen movie (2.35:1 ratio or above) WILL result in a greatly reduced size of things portrayed in the movie on any television set. Obviously, the lower the aspect ratio (1.78:1, 1.85:1), the smaller the difference.
    Once that is done (I suppose one can put this piece of information either at the beginning or at the end of the OAR/P&S discussion - it is probably a matter of style where to mention it), THEN make sure that the person, who prefers the OAR, PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDS that there is a trade-off in watching a movie in Pan&Scan - the loss of picture on the sides of the movie in exchange for seeing a larger face of Judah Ben-Hur.
    As an aside: I cannot recall where I saw the example given, but it was done as I suggested in this post, and the movie used was Ben-Hur. There was a shot where Judah and Messala were fairly close to one another. With the OAR frame, the heads of BOTH men appeared in the picture, whereas in the Pan&Scan version, one man's head was shown, and then in an instant (that is, after panning and scanning), the other man's head was shown. I wish I could remember where I saw this, as it was a perfect illustration of this topic. In fact, I used it to explain to my 70 year old parents why "black bars" appear in some movies, and they then completely understood and no longer minded them, as they realized that although the objects in the frame may be a bit smaller in a widescreen presentation (unfortunately, with age, their eyesights are failing too), they would nevertheless see the entire frame of the movie as it was shot and intended to be seen, and seeing the entire frame WAS more important to them.
    Respectfully,
    Sam
     
  2. Lars Vermundsberget

    Lars Vermundsberget Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2000
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're striving for a more balanced argument, which is a very good thing, really. When educating "the unwashed masses" on OAR one should not cover up the fact that the small size of things on screen might be seen as a trade-off (which, if a problem, can be corrected by shorter viewing distance). Then one should make clear, of course, that P&S is a MUCH bigger trade-off and why.
     
  3. Bjorn Olav Nyberg

    Bjorn Olav Nyberg Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 1999
    Messages:
    945
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just to make things more complicated, this would also depend on the filming method. Without being an expert, I think when things are filmed anamorphic or with hard mattes, the things you say are true. However for open matte/full frame, they would still be the same size, the intended projected area would be the same size, but in the open matte/full frame version you would get redundant picture information in the upper and lower part of the screen as well.
    ------------------
    Click here if you want to see Looney Tunes on DVD!
    "You're 10 seconds away from the most embarrassing moment of your life!"
    Click here to admit you want to see Ford Fairlane on DVD!
    DVD List LD List
     
  4. george kaplan

    george kaplan Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,063
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just to complicate things a bit more, it also depends on your television. I have a widescreen tv, and a p&s would show up with black bars on the sides which has a considerable effect on what your talking about (for 1.85, the p&s would be absolutely no bigger). And for open-matte on such a tv, you could actually end up with a smaller picture!
    I'm all for accurate education, but as someone who has taught statistics at the university level for a long time, let me tell you that you often have to start out teaching a simplified (and hence, technically incorrect) version of stuff, otherwise people will never understand it. You teach little kids that you can't take the square root of negative numbers, you don't start out teaching them about imaginary numbers.
    I think at this point, showing people what they're missing from the picture is the key thing, without worrying about the 'possible' reduction in screen size.
    ------------------
    13-time NBA world champion Lakers: 1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1972, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988, 2000, 2001
     
  5. Marc Deslauriers

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2001
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Move your couch a couple of feet closer to the TV.
     
  6. Neil Joseph

    Neil Joseph Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 1998
    Messages:
    8,332
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Real Name:
    Neil Joseph
  7. Bjorn Olav Nyberg

    Bjorn Olav Nyberg Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 1999
    Messages:
    945
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Neil
    I think what Sam was trying to point out, that on a 4:3 TV, the widescreen image you posted would seem smaller than the 4:3 image. He already knew the widescreen image held more picture information, but that fact might be lost on many people because it uses less screen space.
    I've tried reformatting using HTML, but the proportions are a little wrong

    vs

    ------------------
    Click here if you want to see Looney Tunes on DVD!
    "You're 10 seconds away from the most embarrassing moment of your life!"
    Click here to admit you want to see Ford Fairlane on DVD!
    DVD List LD List
     
  8. Sam R. Aucoin

    Sam R. Aucoin Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 1999
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No - not end of discussion (based on examples posted).
    Bjorn - exactly. I would have thought that our own membership would think I had enough sense to realize that a 2.40:1 picture on a 19" screen makes PEOPLE APPEAR SMALLER THAN ON A WIDESCREEN TELEVISION vs. showing the same frame of picture in full screen on the same two televisions.
    I think THAT is the end of the discussion on that particular point . . .
     
  9. DarrenA

    DarrenA Second Unit

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2000
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This may be a better example of Sam's point, which is a good point...but I would still take the sharper (smaller height) letterbox image over the often times softer looking Pan & Scan version...
    2.35:1 widescreen on a 1.33:1 display
    [​IMG]
    vs
    1.33:1 Pan & Scan on a 1.33:1 display
    [​IMG]
    ...or better still...
    2.35:1 widescreen on a 16:9 display
    [​IMG]
    vs
    1.33:1 Pan and Scan on a 16:9 display
    [​IMG]
    ------------------
    DarrenA
    The Academy Home Theater
    [Edited last by DarrenA on November 08, 2001 at 03:44 PM]
     
  10. AaronMK

    AaronMK Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 1999
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Real Name:
    Aaron Karp
    I think this comparison would be more appropriate. Since 16x9 will someday be the norm, here is a size comparison for that screen ratio using The Neverending Story.
    [​IMG]
    vs.
    [​IMG]
    ------------------
    My DVD's
    If a movie is not available in OAR, than it might as well not be available at all.
     
  11. Sam R. Aucoin

    Sam R. Aucoin Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 1999
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Aaron and Darren:
    Thank you. Both of your picture-posts illustrate my point exactly.
    And note that I SPECIFICALLY stated in my first post: If a vote were taken, I WOULD vote for OAR if the only choices were OAR vs. P&S.
    I simply want people who advocate OAR (a group in which I include myself) to FULLY explain what happens when OAR is shown on ALL television sets (whether 19" tubes or 101" 16x9 high-gain screens). If the truth is that smaller pictures result on smaller TV screens when OAR of exceptionally widescreen movies are presented when contrasted with full screen presentations of that same picture on smaller TV screens (which IS, in fact, the truth), then so be it.
    What next? We then try to convince people that seeing the ENTIRE picture (as theatrically presented) MUST BE THE NORM, IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN IT ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE MOVIE-MAKER'S DESIRE. The additional reason, of course, is that WE get to see everything that was shot when the movie was being made.
    Finally? It then becomes a matter of relativity from individual to individual. Some people, no matter how convincingly you argue the above in favor of OAR, will prefer a "larger picture" vs. "more of a picture". So be it.
    Nevertheless, we should always demand that OAR be given to us.
     
  12. Patrick Sun

    Patrick Sun Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    38,766
    Likes Received:
    488
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Another way to explain OAR vs. P/S to J6P (in case you don't have any pictures to use):
    P/S is like having to sit in the front row seat of an overcrowded theater, and all you got to see was the center area of the screen, not much fun, was it?
    OAR is like having to sit in the middle of the theater and getting to see all the action on the screen with no cricked neck to worry about because you have the perspective to take in all of the film's framing as displayed at the theaters.
    ------------------
    PatCave; HT Pix; Gear; DIY Mains; DIY CC; Sunosub I + II + III; DVDs; LDs
     
  13. John_Berger

    John_Berger Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,489
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The problem with your argument is that you are assuming that the people who are pro-pan-and-scan (or "anti-widescreen" as I feel is more accurate most of the time) are open to the notion that the film makers' intentions are important.
    I can tell you for a fact based on the numerous amount of anti-widescreen e-mail that I receive every year that the anti-widescreen crowd doesn't give a rat's rear end about the intention of the film makers. These people figure that they have a big TV so they should have a big picture -- end of discussion. These people feel that they have the right to second-guess the film makers and supercede the film makers' judgements (and extremely hard work) just because they're plunking down $20 for a DVD. [​IMG]
    In fairness, I have to admit that I've probably received more e-mail from people who said, "Wow! I never realized how much I was missing" compared to those who say "I don't give a #%*@!" But the simple fact is that there are a hell of a lot of people who simply don't care. They want a full TV and there is nothing that you or I can do about it.
    Just putting in my $.02.
    Now, speaking of people who think that theirs is the only valid point ... if one more person tries to use the argument that showing widescreen and pan-and-scan in the same scale is the "only appropriate" method for comparing, I'm going to go ballistic...but that's another story. [​IMG]
    ------------------
    The Letterbox and Widescreen Advocacy Page
    A Member of the Artists Rights Foundation
    http://www.widescreen.org
     
  14. Sam R. Aucoin

    Sam R. Aucoin Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 1999
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    John:
    I am assuming no such thing. With this post, I have simply pleaded with people that support OAR (such as myself) to FULLY explain what occurs when an exceptionally widescreen movie is shown on a small TV tube when contrasted with that same movie shown P&S. After thinking over the issue more today, I think it is physically/geometically impossible to NOT "shrink" the size of people in a picture when you show Ben-Hur in widescreen on a 19" TV tube vs. showing a P&S version of the same movie on that same 19" tube (provided, of course, that the P&S version fills the entire screen).
    If I am incorrect in this conclusion, I would like someone to please explain where I am wrong in my assumption/conclusion.
    Next, I never thought that my original post could really be construed as an "argument". I was simply pleading with people to ACCURATELY portray WS movies for what they really are and what they really represent.
    You said that I am "assuming that the people who are pro-pan-and-scan (or "anti-widescreen" as I feel is more accurate most of the time) are open to the notion that the film makers' intentions are important." I said no such thing. In fact, I SPECIFICALLY acknowledged that people who prefer P&S movies need to be convinced by us "that seeing the ENTIRE picture (as theatrically presented) MUST BE THE NORM, IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN IT ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE MOVIE-MAKER'S DESIRE." Is that statement not an assumption that pro-P&S people probably do NOT care about the filmaker's intent? I truly do not see how it can be reasonably intepreted in any other way.
    You also said: "Now, speaking of people who think that theirs is the only valid point ... if one more person tries to use the argument that showing widescreen and pan-and-scan in the same scale is the "only appropriate" method for comparing, I'm going to go ballistic...but that's another story."
    Am I missing something in this thread? I re-read every post three times and I never saw ANY post that said a particular method of demonstrating the advantage of WS over P&S was the "only appropriate" method for comparing the two presentations. In fact, Aaron specifically stated that his picture-contrasts were "MORE appropriate." You may deem my analysis picky, but I am a firm believer in the correct interpretation of the English language, and based on my education, "only" and "more" do not mean the same thing. "Only" is absolute; "more" is relative.
    Finally, you said: "These people feel that they have the right to second-guess the film makers and supercede the film makers' judgements (and extremely hard work) just because they're plunking down $20 for a DVD." Well that is an interesting point. But you completely ignore the economics of the situation. Do you really believe that the majority of people, when they purchase something, are conciously thinking, "You know, with my $20, I am second-guessing the film maker's judgment?"
    In my humble opinion, the equation is as simple as this: as long as ENOUGH (read: sufficient to justify the cost of doing so) people continue to demand P&S movies, studios and retailers will continue to manufacture P&S DVDs. Likewise, as long as ENOUGH people continue to demand WS movies, studios and retailers will continue to manufacture WS DVDs.
    I find the argument that "studios should stop making P&S DVDs - period - regardless of the demand", as absurd as arguing that "Alex Rodriguez should not have been paid $250 million to play baseball". Why (to both questions)? Each (studio/team owner(s)) has the RIGHT to do what they do, and both purchasers and spectators have the RIGHT to speak their mind through their purchasing power (don't buy P&S DVDs; don't attend Texas Rangers baseball games). Sooner or later, when enough people stop economically supporting these things, the studios and the Texas Rangers's owner(s) will stop doing these things (out of economic necessity).
    If you TRULY want to blame someone for the problem of P&S movies (and I know some people will argue with me on this), start blaming directors. Why don't THEY band together and make the following agreement to ALL stipulate in their contracts with the studios that NONE of their films, without their written permission, may be altered in any way, after they have given the "imprimatur" on the film.
    Would this be any different than Marlon Brando's stipulated fee of "$3 million + x% of the gross" (or whatever it is) of any movie in which he appears? What happens if the studio meets Brando's demand? He appears in the film. What happens if the studio does not meet Brando's demand? He either reduces his fee or he does not appear in the film.
    What happens if ALL directors agree to the above stipulation? NO MOVIES WILL BE MADE BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT ALL DIRECTORS HAVE AGREED TO THAT STIPULATION.
    It is really that simple (in terms of analysis).
    [Edited last by Sam R. Aucoin on November 08, 2001 at 10:29 PM]
    [Edited last by Sam R. Aucoin on November 08, 2001 at 10:38 PM]
    [Edited last by Sam R. Aucoin on November 08, 2001 at 10:39 PM]
     
  15. george kaplan

    george kaplan Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,063
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  16. Sam R. Aucoin

    Sam R. Aucoin Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 1999
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    George:
    Do you REALLY believe that explaining the difference between WS vs. P&S (as was so plainly and, in my opinion, expertly done with the pictures I singled out above) is as difficult as quantum physics?
    With all due respect, quantum physics and the effects that P&S has on WS movies are not even on the same planet (pardon the pun), much less the same league.
    What is wrong with the simple examples given by Darren? To me, they perfectly illustrate what happens when you P&S a widescreen movie on a 4:3 set so that it fills the entire screen: larger people/objects in each frame, but quite a bit of picture loss. Simple, easy to understand, and VERY easy to see.
    In your first post in this thread, you said: "I think at this point, showing people what they're missing from the picture is the key thing, without worrying about the 'possible' reduction in screen size."
    What you claim we should not "worry about" is EXACTLY WHAT MANY PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT - THE PICTURE (when shown in WS) LOOKS TOO SMALL ON THEIR TV!!!
    George, you asked: "And why should we have to focus on the extreme case of a super wide movie on a super small tv? Why not focus on the side bars of a 1.33 movie on the widescreen tv they'll eventually get?" Why? BECAUSE (1)MANY CLASSIC MOVIES WERE 2.20:1 OR "WIDER" (BEN-HUR, THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD, CLEOPATRA, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, DR. ZHIVAGO, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, ALIEN, AMADEUS, etc.) AND (2) THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE U.S. PUBLIC OWN TELEVISIONS THAT YOU WOULD PROBABLY CONSIDER "SUPER SMALL".
    And how, pray tell, do you remove the side bars of a 1.37:1 movie on a 16x9 TV? Citizen Kane and Gone with the Wind look just fine on my 4:3 TV for one simple reason: THEY WERE SHOT IN AN OAR THAT IS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THE ASPECT RATIO OF A 4:3 TV. Does that mean they DON'T look fine on 16x9 TVs?
    As with almost EVERY other OAR vs. P&S thread on this board, some OAR supporters begin attacking OTHER OAR SUPPORTERS, simply because they want to fully educate the public on what occurs when OAR is presented instead of P&S.
    To me, this smacks of fear - are OAR supporters THAT scared to tell people the truth?
    Like you with respect to me, I don't know you. So I cannot accurately pass judgment on how you feel about the issue (other than based on what you write in this and other threads). But I AM left with the impression (and I do not mean to offend you in saying this) that many OAR supporters on this board are SO worried about the loss of OAR with future DVD releases, that they will not say ANYTHING that could POSSIBLY be construed as "negative" (whether it is really negative or not) about OAR.
    Not explaining to the public the very basics of our beloved "hobby" (and I am not suggesting that EVERYTHING be discussed in one conversation or in one thread, as you imply above) is, in my opinion, a disservice to what we want to achieve in the end.
    Do you people (and this question is NOT directed to you George) REALLY believe that telling someone to "push your seat closer to the TV" will help the OAR cause? If you do, you had better get accustomed to watching P&S movies until WS TVs are in the majority of homes (which I don't foresee happening for at least another 5-7 years - hell, from what I have read, they haven't even worked out all of the standards yet for uniform broadcasts, and the government has already recently pushed back the compliance deadline and that deadline was not due for at least another 5 years).
    Until the Earth was proven to be round, were ALL people who thought it flat a bunch of dumb, self-centered, idiots? The same goes for the majority of people who currently prefer P&S movies - they simply do not understand.
    And I am not about to be so self-righteous as to claim that I have a RIGHT (I am not kidding - I saw one poster said he had a RIGHT to watch/buy WS movies) in the home theater arena.
    Recently, Ron, Parker, and the other administrators posted a warning about "attacking" others on the forum - especially those who are new to our beloved pastime. I am not attempting to usurp their power in saying this, but their warning was a good one: be fraternal in correcting someone. When people start talking about having a "right to watch WS movies" and make statements such as "push your seat closer to the TV", I would be willing to bet a couple of my mortgage payments that newcomers or potential newcomers are driven away from our forum.
    Just look at how this simple thread progressed - from a plea by me that we all try to fully explain how P&S works an evil on WS movies (which was followed up with two posts who agreed with me), to basically attacking me for even SUGGESTING that we use pictures to illustrate the point. I would LOVE for someone to prove to me that TALKING about P&S vs. WS is more effective at convincing someone that OAR should be favored than showing that same person the pictures that Darren posted.
    I am not affected by asinine statements directed towards me as others may be. I simply try to respond in a reasonable, logical manner, or I simply ignore the statement. Many others, however, fear that they may be made fun of in front of millions of people on a public forum if they even ask a simple question.
    I mean really - think about it. There exists disagreement with the basic plea that we should explain that P&S results in a picture of people and objects that are larger, but that also results in a showing of much less of the entire picture.
    I don't understand . . .
    [Edited last by Sam R. Aucoin on November 08, 2001 at 11:30 PM]
    [Edited last by Sam R. Aucoin on November 08, 2001 at 11:31 PM]
    [Edited last by Sam R. Aucoin on November 08, 2001 at 11:34 PM]
    [Edited last by Sam R. Aucoin on November 08, 2001 at 11:44 PM]
    [Edited last by Sam R. Aucoin on November 08, 2001 at 11:55 PM]
     
  17. Sam R. Aucoin

    Sam R. Aucoin Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 1999
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    John:
    I really had to laugh when I read this on what I consider to be an excellent (yours) website:
    "The widescreen transfer process actually shrinks a movie down so that the entire visual image fits on your television screen."
    Is this not what I have been saying in this post?
     
  18. Michael Harris

    Michael Harris Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Getting back on topic, the best example I have seen to explain OAR vs P&S is on disc 2 of the "Die Hard" Five Star Collection. In a few minutes of film, we were shown exactly what happens, and how pan and scan is done, and what is lost. FOX should make that clip available to every retailer, DVD and film website, and any other forum to educate the puplic.
     
  19. george kaplan

    george kaplan Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,063
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sam,
     
  20. AaronMK

    AaronMK Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 1999
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Real Name:
    Aaron Karp
    I think that the original idea brought up was very valid and has good intentions. I definetly agree with providing people with the whole truth. However, we are not just trying to educate. Our goals are also to pursuade poeple that OAR is a much better way to view movies, and that the disadvantages are more than compensated for by the advantages.
    I think that people who prefer P&S already very much aware that an OAR image is smaller and does not fill the screen on many occassions. Even if they don't know why the image is smaller and doesn't fill the screen, that is usually their objection of OAR presantations to begin with. This is why I am still more partial to emphasizing the benifits of OAR and the sacrifices made during the P&S process when educating/pursuading. It emphasizes what poople don't know and is a better pusuasive tool.
    You don't pursuade by showing the negative apsects first, but you do acknowledge them and put the positives against them to give your position that much more validity. I think Sam has made me realize that this is a step that we forget many times.
    ------------------
    My DVD's
    If a movie is not available in OAR, than it might as well not be available at all.
     

Share This Page