***Official "Is OAR Doomed?" Discussion Thread*** (1 Viewer)

[Rob T]

Hey, Swiss Family is 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen, and The Parent Trap is 1.66:1 anamorphic widescreen. Which is good news for you.

Sweet!
April and May is just gonna wipe out my wallet.

 

[LukeB]

Max Keeble's Big Move is also gonna be released in "an & Sca" Only. Not that I care about that particular film, but it should still be OAR for those who do.

Actually, Max Keeble's Big Move will be 1.33:1 & 1.85:1. Possibly two versions, but there should be a 16:9 widescreen version because even Disney's site (which by default lists only 1.33:1) has 1.33:1 and 1.85:1 aspect ratios listed for that. Maybe it will be on the same disc.

 

[Martin Fontaine]

Actually, Max Keeble's Big Move will be 1.33:1 & 1.85:1. Possibly two versions, but there should be a 16:9 widescreen version because even Disney's site (which by default lists only 1.33:1) has 1.33:1 and 1.85:1 aspect ratios listed for that. Maybe it will be on the same disc.

***Disarming Petition Warheads.***
Good, kinda like Tomcats or The One... That's allright, so that one might be safe to rent (I might depending on reviews)

 

[Lars Vermundsberget]

Please note: Like some of you say, a larger "population" of 16:9 sets is NOT in itself a solution to this problem.

We still must make people grasp the concept that not every movie is going to fit nicely in a fixed TV screen without black bars on top and bottom (or the sides).

(I have a 4:3 myself, and it suits my needs quite well now, since the bigger part of my collection consists of titles from 1920-1955. I really don't feel the urge to get a 16:9 set any day soon...)

If a majority of American "J6Ps" get 16:9 TVs and still demand their screens filled (16:9 P&S), that would be just as bad as what we're witnessing today.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Larry B makes a good point. In fact I would go so far as to say that besides true, always OAR afficionados and true J6P'ers there is another class of viewer, and I probably fall in there. I much prefer to watch a movie in it's OAR. That said, on smaller size screens, I tend to prefer P&S, since a little 4" high, horizontal strip of a picture is not very apealling to watch. Towards this end I went out and bought a 58" 16x9 RPTV, so now if I view a movie in OAR and get some small bars, it's not so bad. My picture is still like 30" high or more. Except for non-anamorphic 2.35:1 which are still irritating, even on my big set. I will never buy such a DVD, instead I'll hold out for any such title to be re-released in anamorphic, or I'll do without it.
I hope the industry always puts out OAR product and also gives that the anamorphic treatment.

 

[JoeDeM]

I think one of the things that we over look is there are a lot of Closet Joe Sixpacks, I say this because I caught a friend red handed with non-oar stuff in his collection, when pressed he admitted it, my brother is also a Closet Joe Sixpack(or is that a Frank Sixpack), they both never admitted it before, because they knew I would disapprove. They both have extensive collections of OAR, but secretly prefer MAR.:frowning:
They are both well aware of what they are missing, they just prefer MAR, but this doesn't stop them from buying OAR, if that's the only thing available.
The really funny thing, is my wife also prefers MAR, but would never admit it to anyone, and would even argue in favor of OAR, and she always picks OAR when buying to please me.
All I can say is their out there, and some may be your friends. :frowning:

 

[Jack Briggs]

Though we will always have the pan-and-scan philistines among us, the technological tide is against them. Now, with the advent of a prerecorded high-definition medium, JVC's D-VHS D-Theater system, the ball is once again in the widescreen court.

These recent developments, most notably Columbia-Tristar's misguided decision, may probably be bumps in the road. Possibly.

Every ounce of me believes the future belongs to the OAR crowd. We're in a classic scenario of two steps forward, one step back. We'll move forward again.

 

[Artur Meinild]

U-571 R2

I read somewhere that this version is not cropped, but open-matte. Can't find the source.

Sleepers R2 is also 1.85:1, and I don't know if this is cropped or open, I don't remember it looking too cropped.

 

[Eric M Jones]

16x9 will not be an end all fix to this growing problem!
Since all aspect ratios are not the same average folks (non-enthusiast) with 16x9 sets are going to be confused as to why there is still letterboxing with the wider ratios (like 2.35:1). Not to mention the fact that windowboxing will become an issue. All those who hated widescreen because it doesn't fill up their TV will all of a sudden do a 180 and hate all non-16x9 material. Then they'll begin streching 4:3 OAR to fill the side bars on thier new widescreen set.
I firmly believe that the majority of consumers out there (those who we refer to a J6P) have no clue when it comes to OAR. The averge person I've talked to is ignorant of the fact that there are even a wide range of film formats, let alone what those formats mean when it comes to watching them on video at home.
Most J6P's believe that letterboxing actually takes away film information. They are always surprised to find it's exactly the opposite. In fact, at one time, I was also among this group of thought :frowning:
OAR is doomed in the short future. Studio's will continue to release non-OAR ONLY titles as long as it saves them production costs (of not creating 16x9 transfers) and there is a large enough buying group who will purchase said titles.
I truly believe education is the key to this mess. That's why along with another forum member we started Widescreen Advocate. We can't rely on the studio's to educate! They don't care about OAR! All they care about is selling as many titles as possible.
-EJ

 

[John Berggren]

OAR would be doomed if we were not so willing to fight tooth and nail for it's survival. We are a rabid customer base, and for the studios to spite us would be foolish.

Tell me of any MAR fan that buys one title every week. Now take someone like me who thinks a light week has been had if there are only 2 single disc releases.

I will never buy MAR releases. I know that I _CAN_ Have my movies presented in their OAR. If any given studio is unwilling to give it to me, they unfortunately will not get my money.

I do fear Columbia's recent announcements. There are titles within it that are not appealing to Joe Average. There is no good reason for these titles to be MARred.

The only way for MAR to be defeated is to fight the good fight. We need to turn the tide around and doom MAR before it tries to doom OAR.

 

[Joshua Clinard]

I don't think OAR is doomed, as long as we keep telling our friends about OAR. Go to our site, and download the brochures, print out 100 of them and hand them out to people you know. I will work on getting the studios to use our materials, but I don't know if they will go for it. We need to keep on fighting!

 

[Lars Vermundsberget]

I find it hard to see that OAR would actually be "doomed". Has OAR in the home ever been stronger than what it is today?? Still no reason to stop fighting the good fight, though.

 

[AaronMK]

I have a fear of OAR being limited to "high-end" formats (like D-Theater and HD-DVD) and expensive collector's editions, much like it was mostly limited to Laserdisc and expensive collector's editions when VHS was the big format.

While I feel these collector's editions are worth it for many movies, and will probably get HD-DVD once it is well supported, I would hate to be limited to more expensive editions or formats in order to get OAR.

Remember how expensive Laserdiscs were?

 

[James Miller]

Generally speaking, MAR-fans RENT DVDs whereas OAR-fans BUY DVDs, and we buy as many-or more- titles as they rent.

Moreso, OAR-fans buy more expensive editions... Criterion, SEs, box sets, TV by the season, etc.

It is irrational for the studios not to release both MAR and OAR, be it on the same disc or as separate SKUs.

That way they will make $100 for the 100 MARers that rent a title, and $100 for the 10 OARers that buy the title.

Ignoring either segment is not good business, so I can't imagine that it will spread or last. Then again, I can't believe that we even need to be discussing this in the first place.

 

[WoodyH]

I'm still living with my 32" Wega.... When the family's huddled around the TV to watch a movie, I'll usually pick the pan and scan version if there's an option.... Why? Because we've got too little screen real estate to start out with without reducing it further with non-utilized space.

First off - your TV and family, you're certainly free to do as you wish.
That said...
(shudder)
I've got a 27" Wega, and won't do P&S. Nothing against full-frame if it's TV or Academy ratio product, but I (personally) hardly think 27" is 'too small' to avoid OAR, let alone 32"!
Of course, at one point when I had a 46" RPTV, one of the circuit boards died. While I was getting it repaired, the only replacement TV I had was a 13"! And since that was my pre-DVD days...wow. I distinctly remember watching the widescreen Anastasia VHS on that little 13" TV......talk about tiny!
Anyway, count me in among the OAR fanatics (disclaimer: the one non-OAR disc I own is Transformers, but 1> nostalgia factor and 2> the company repeatedly stated that they'd tried to find an OAR print and were not able to, so I figured it was worth it).
PS. - I hope this isn't seen as taking the 'flame bait' - merely stating that I don't think 32" is that small of a set. But then, I guess size really does matter...

 

[Sean Oneil]

Is OAR doomed?
Not In My House!

 

[AaronMK]

Generally speaking, MAR-fans RENT DVDs whereas OAR-fans BUY DVDs, and we buy as many-or more titles as they rent.

Moreso, OAR-fans buy more expensive editions

I rent more titles than I buy.

I wouldn't want to have to pay a "collector's" premium on every title I buy, or have to buy it in the first place to see the film in its OAR.

I would feel really screwed if studios took this route.

Not everyone who demands OAR is a collector or someone who primarily buys instead of rents.