Poll: Should companies stop selling a separte Widescreen & Fullscreen versions of DVD (1 Viewer)

[Glenn Overholt]

If a store doesn't have the OAR versions, it just might be because they have already sold all of them. This would be especially true if they were put out before the release date.

If I could I'd have Congress outlaw them completely, and have the DVD players chop off the sides. That way they can get their fools screen.

Glenn

 

[Holadem]

Well, where are we now?

Isn't this fullscreen/widescreen business getting obsolete by now? Methinks we're doing much better than the doomsayers said we would a couple of years ago. Widescreen TVs are flying off the shelves, (do they even make 4:3 RPTVs anymore?!), widescreen copies are consistently outselling fullscreen ones...

In a couple of years it won't be an issue. I think we won...

--
H

 

[Jesse Skeen]

Well, a couple years ago there WEREN'T any separate foolscreen releases. If they couldn't fit both versions on the same disc, or just didn't want to include a foolscreen version, then there wouldn't be one. It's only gotten common in the last couple years, and supposedly because of complaints from Wal-Mart customers about "dem black bars".

 

[DaveGTP]

And personally I don't like the DVD-18s. Too easy to scratch. Make sure you've got the right side. Sometimes special features are split to opposite sides of the disc (PITA).

No thanks. I like my seperate wide and full releases, or perhaps both discs in the case at the best (then I could give away the FS copy - but then, companies know this, that's probably why they don't do it).

 

[Chad A Wright]

If they did it without compromising image quality, then fine, put it on the same disc. Otherwise, I'll live with having a fullscreen version available in stores. Now, I also haven't been unable to find a widescreen version of anything I was looking for. If that were the case, I would probably be a lot more upset.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Well, a couple of years ago, standards weren't as high. I mean, in 1997, it was amazing just to have a 16x9 enhanced widescreen DVD... even if it had a ton of noise and didn't even have a trailer.

Also, do we really know if widescreen gets so many complaints? I think it has to do more with the thought that having both editions makes a release more successful. It's saturation.

Too many of the most successful DVD's are OAR-only, so it looks more like consumers will buy whatever is on the shelf. Do notice, though... how many of the P&S-only DVD's become top sellers?

 

[Lev-S]

Companies shouldn't spend money on producing a Pan and Scan version. Instead, if people want a "Full Screen" version, they can always buy one of the 100s of DVD players that have a "Letterbox Eliminator" feature or at very least a "zoom". There. Problem solved.

 

[Kyle_D]

One day I want to see a studio release a separate MAR version of a film with a special director's commentary where they discuss nothing else but just how badly their work has been compromised. Then instead of real extras, (if the customer makes the choice to watch the film MAR, they obviously don't have any real respect for the work that went into making it) load the disc with examples of Pan and Scan butchery. The real extras would go on the proper OAR version of the disc.

But back the poll-I'm fine with separate full screen releases, as long as there is an OAR release and the MAR version is clearly marked as such. I never minded taking a fool's money honestly; why should the studios? The more money they make on DVD, the more they're willing to spend creating great DVD releases.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Kyle, I'd love to see that commentary!

What does bother me about the FF on the new films is that someone(s) has to FF them before they are put on DVD - an additional cost! Why don't the studios charge more for this extra work - or give the OAR people a discount?

 

[Matthew Brown]

I don't like seperate releases because it makes it difficult at Christmas time when people ask which DVD's you want. I was very excited to get the Indiana Jone box set last year only to find out it was the fullscreen one. It's not enough to emphasize widescreen because most people don't even think of looking to see if it is.

I really don't know why they even released this in full screen. It is popular enough title that if Walmart wouldn't carry a widescreen only release there would be plenty of other stores that would. Spielberg should have taken a stand, as should have Lucas with Star Wars.

These would have been perfect titles to release widescreen only.

I agree that the pan and scan feature on the DVD players should be utilized. If all people want is no black bars, how picky could they be about framing? Just zoom in on the picture. They won't even notice.

Matt

 

[JoSAN]

.

 

[BrentWW]

Some good points being made in this thread. I'm finding myself agreeing with a lot of the posts.

Kyle, I'd like to hear that commentary too. Problem is, as far as I know, most of the consumers who purchase a fullscreen version of a movie are probably not even going to bother with a commentary. "Yeah in this scene you WOULD have seen Paul Newman doing a cameo standing in the background, but they cropped off the sides! Anyway, this day of shooting was especially rainy..."

As far as the zoom thing, again I agree..just hit zoom once on my player and I get instant fullscreen! Sometimes I like to mess around with this on TV show releases and pretend I'm watching it on TNT.

As far as studios release OAR, I'm just as happy as everyone else. You'd think that producing extra versions would deter the studios from doing both full and wide, but with the money that is being made on dvd these days I suppose they can do so. I still stick by my 2 disc set idea with one disc having the widescreen with some features, then the second disc with fullscreen and all the other features. but hey, that's just me.

 

[RichP]

No, the line will simply have shifted. We are already seeing this even amongst so-called OAR enthusiasts who watch 4:3 formatted films in stretch mode on their 16:9 set, to, you know, get rid of the black bars. There are even posts on forums such as these where owners of new 16:9 sets pine for all DVDs to be 1.78:1 so that they will "fill their new screen."

The only thing that 16:9 sets will do is move "Full Screen" from meaning 4:3 to now meaning 16:9. This means any film with an aspect ratio of greater than or less than 16:9 would be subject to the same "butchery" that any non 4:3 film is subject to today. Of course 2.35:1 films will be cropped and 4:3 films may be stretched to accomodate this new definition of "Full Screen."

The issue isn't with the sets or the technology, it's with the people who either simply do not understand or do not care. No amount of new TVs or new technology is going to change Human apathy.

 

[WillG]

I'm someone who is not too fond of the separate releases. It's just another example of the studios caving into the big retailers and I would love it if the studios would stand up to the Wal*Marts and Targets of the world and say that this (OAR) is what we are selling. Why should studios have to alter the presentation of a film just because there are people who want to see it altered because that is they way they think it should be. After enough time, even the most ardent haters of Widescreen would probably get used to it. Didn't people like us have to get used to almost universal MAR on home video in the days of VHS? (Yes you could get Widescreen editions of VHS tapes, but mostly, only upper tiered titles got a WS version and even after that you almost certainly had to buy the tape instead of being able to just rent it) But when the tables are turned, all of a sudden, it is unacceptable to some people which is hypocracy. I think if studios must have a pan and scan version out there, they should do what they can to get it in the same package as the WS version even if it means making the release a 3 disc set to prevent degredation in image quality and extras. I would even pay a couple of bucks more for this to have the assurance that when I want to rent a DVD instead of buying it, I will be able to get the widescreen version at my video store or that when a coveted catalog title is announced from Universal, Columbia, Disney or Lion's Gate it won't be MAR only.


Well, people need to be educated more on cinematography and framing. The black bars, for most films, do cover up information that is available on the original negative and is restored to Full Frame transfers and with true anamorphic scope becoming more and more abandoned these days by filmmakers, the lines will be blurred for people who don't get it.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

What's going to be funny to me is when those same complainers buy a widescreen TV one day, and then begin to complain that all their existing 4:3 DVDs will now "cut off the picture on the SIDES, and I don't like dem black bars on the left and right"!

 

[Chris Brock]

I agree with this totally. I have had people aske me when they look at my movies why I would buy a film that that wasnt fullscreen because they believed that this meant it was the entire picture.

I also like the idea of renaming the widecreen version as Original Theatrical Presentation.

Then maybe call the other version the "CUPOS" version for cut-up-piece-of-shit

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Yes -- THE PROPER LABEL OF "half screen" would put an end to foolscreen releases!

 

[Jonathan Carter]

Because, at least using the zoom on my DVD players to check random stuff out, the zoomed picture looks grainier and less sharp than the regular, unzoomed. Leave the fullscreen people alone. They have their own seperate releases so who gives a damn. If your store is out of widescreen or doesn't carry it, go somewhere else or order it online. Punish the retailer, not the people who shop there to get what they want.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

I've always wondered why they bother to put commentaries on foolscreen versions- the first DVD I got that included one was "I Know What You Did Last Summer", and there's one shot where the director talks about something that's cut off in the pan & scan version! I noticed the separate pan & scan release of "Mrs. Doubtfire" includes the commentary also; he spends some time explaining why he shot it in 2.35, at least on my laserdisc copy. Most of the extras on discs are shown in widescreen too, do they re-do those in pan and scan for the separate releases? (And again, most of these deal with stuff that people who choose to watch pan and scan wouldn't care about anyways.)
New Line has released a few titles on DVD-14 (where side 2 is single-layer), where the dual-layer side gets everything a widescreen-only release would get like commentary, DTS, etc, and the side with the foolscreen version only includes the movie in Dolby Digital. If DVD-18s are still difficult to make this seems like a good compromise, as it still delivers everything in one package and at least gives you the idea of which version you SHOULD be watching.
The pan&scan on the fly feature should be used more also- this was one of the mainly-hyped features of DVD when it was introduced. At the very least they should just enable it so if the player is set to 4:3 pan and scan it will show a cropped image. That would at least shut some of the black-bar-haters up for a while.

 

[RyanAn]

Well, is it true that when you have a flipper it lowers the quality? If so, then I suppose it is a bad idea. I think that having both version on one disc is a good idea, especially with a side by side comparison. Just look at the Usual Suspects DVD, where on the Widescreen side, you see all five guys and a few feet on either side, and then on the full screen, you see 3 of the guys. Does anyone have a image of this?

Ryan