Tell me if I was out-of-line...

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Jack Gilvey, Jun 3, 2001.

  1. Jack Gilvey

    Jack Gilvey Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 1999
    Messages:
    4,948
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. TimS

    TimS Extra

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 1999
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well that's typical mass market Joe six pack mentality for you. I of course wanting to see the movie like the director made it totally advocate letterboxing. It is interesting to see how you cant argue to people who aren't going to change there already set minds. Hopefully you presented that info to some people who haden't made a decision. When I get into information expounding like that, it's not a debate because the other side of the argument really has no point other then to see there own words and get a pat on the back from another like minded person, I remember this one phrase. Stupidity like water seeks its own level.
    Happy viewing and listening.
    ------------------
    All the worlds a stage some of us just have better seats.
     
  3. KeithA

    KeithA Extra

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hmm... I didn't read it with any sort of meticulous detail (and I really have no desire to argue for pan and scan here), but I don't think they were disagreeing with you. They just didn't like the implied condescension (ie. implying, perhaps unintentionally, that those who dislike letterboxing don't know any better). The debate seems to have been sparked by the comment that Americans were screwed up, but the rest of the world wasn't, because some Americans prefer pan n scan. This isn't statement of technical merit. This is a statement judging the intelligence of Americans based on a widely-held personal preference. Sure, some don't know any better or have never considered the artistic and/or technical merits of letterboxing, but some HAVE considered them and have knowingly opted for a chopped version. Most of us make such decisions/compromises all the time, and I'm sure we'd prefer not to be frowned upon or classified as ignorant newbies for each one.
    I think prefering pan n scan is like eating a meal from a master chef and deciding to add some salt... sure, it's not what the chef intended, but you paid for it, you're the one eating it and, dammit, you like salty food!
    Of course on this forum, we're mostly striving for technical accuracy. But just because I like my subwoofer 5dB hot, my colors a little too saturated, and don't mind my blacks a little gray doesn't mean I don't know any better, that I'm stupid, or that I stubbornly believe that my way is the right way. That's just how I like it.
    Before you start flaming me, I DO prefer letterbox (esp on my 100" fp screen [​IMG] ) and I'd prefer my blacks more black, but I WILL add salt.
     
  4. RyanDinan

    RyanDinan Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2000
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jack,
    No, I don't think you were out of line. I do think that the one guy who was opposed to watching letterbox movies on a 4:3 TV, was actually agreeing with you - However, he just didn't like it on his wee 19". I would still prefer a widescreen movie on a 19", but I must admit, it is small.
    I bet he would change his mind if he had a nice 53-61" HS10 that did the 16x9 anamorphic squeeze [​IMG] I think that would be big enough.
    I think SIZE was his basic defense of letterboxed movies....Given a big enough 4:3 TV, I think he wouldnt mide watching a widescreen movie in the O.A.R...But on his 19"er, he have to squint to see it, if he weren't 2' away [​IMG].
    He did seem a little thick headed (like that A&W Root Beer commercial, with that guy interviewing with Mr Dumass [​IMG] )
    I don't think his priority was movies....He was more of an "audio" and diving person. He was defending the position that he wanted to watch a movie casually - Obviously, he wasn't big on movies. If he were, then this wouldn't even be an issue. That's his personal preference.
    I agree though, the hardest thing to do is explain/convince people why those black areas are necessary for 4:3 aspect TV's...... [​IMG] fun, fun!
    -Ryan Dinan
    ------------------
    [​IMG]
     
  5. Adam Tyner

    Adam Tyner Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A closer analogy might be ordering a meal from a master chef and having spices removed from the recipe.
    FWIW, I agree with those who didn't find the letterbox-repulsed poster to be out of line. At least he'd evaluated both and came to a conclusion, even if it's a conclusion that doesn't make much sense to me.
    ------------------
    My DVD list | My personal site
     
  6. Jack Gilvey

    Jack Gilvey Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 1999
    Messages:
    4,948
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for the input, everyone. What irked me most was that his position was precisely the opposite of Ryan's take. He innsisted that he would never watch a letterboxed movie on a 4:3 screen because it was the wrong aspect ration, regardless of size (which I pointed out to him, of course). He said he would watch widescreen movies only on a widescreen set. When I pointed out that, even on a 16:9 set, movies wider than 16:9 (most?) would still nneed letterboxing, he failed to address it. His main point was that it was annoying.
     
  7. KeithA

    KeithA Extra

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Eh, I still put felt blinders up to frame my screen when I'm watching letterboxed movies. I mean it IS annoying to most of us, at least a little. We all just tolerate the annoyance (or spend large sums of money to avoid the annoyance). People watch movies for different reasons. If he finds letterboxing on a 65" screen annoying even though he's aware of why letterboxing is considered a good thing, then so what? Just don't watch the movie with him. [​IMG]
     
  8. Han

    Han Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2001
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I like using the analogy of music CDs. Imagine if your favorite CDs were formatted so that for every three seconds of music, one second is cut out. You get the songs, but not the entirety of those songs.
     
  9. David Susilo

    David Susilo Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 8, 1999
    Messages:
    1,197
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nope, you are not out of line. However, it is a person's right love pan and scan.
    Oh well, I watch 2.35:1 movies using 13" Sony WEGA. Go figure!
     
  10. Jack Briggs

    Jack Briggs Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    16,738
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, you do so, David, because you cannot tolerate undermining the integrity of the director's vision--even if it means you have to squint. Because I love film, I can enjoy it no matter the challenges.
    ------------------
    [​IMG]
     
  11. GregoriusM

    GregoriusM Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, and for a long time I've enjoyed even 2:35 to 1 movies (Ben Hur) on my 11 year old 20" Magnavox . So, I pulled my La-Z-Boy chair 3 feet closer when I watched those movies.
    I still felt that especially in Epic style films and Sci-Fi films, you have to have the total width to get the appreciation of the film that comes with the sound that supports that width. (I hope I'm making sense here.)
    Even on a small TV, if you let yourself, you'll get immersed in the movie (and the sound track has a lot to do with this as well) and will not notice any black bands.
    IMHO, as always!
    ... Greg
    Oh, yes, just bought a bigger TV. Love it!
    ------------------
    "It's like music to my ears, but it's like a hurricane to my wallet!!!"
     
  12. Seth Paxton

    Seth Paxton Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 1998
    Messages:
    7,585
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jack, I think you should have let it go long before they closed it. He wasn't being a big jerk about it and I think maybe you let yourself get too focused on it and probably ended up looking like the problem more than him since no one else wanted the thread to head down that path. Plus, he seemed clearly in the minority when it came to OAR appreciation and W/S setups/needs/facts.
    If you need OAR love, just come back here and read some threads. [​IMG] That'll get your heart rate down and help you let something like that go.
    However, I wish your first response to his "I can't stand that tiny little strip on my little TV" had been, "well, I can't even see a tiny little 4:3 picture as small as your set has, I refuse to buy a set that small as it's stupid and defeats the purpose of being able to actually see a 4:3 program without sitting 1' away from the set". Seemed like you didn't go to that card till the very end when it was really too late to pursue.
    Or something along that line. I can never understand the size argument against LBXing. I mean they say that LBXing makes the size intolerable, but they're the ones willing to buy a smaller set. It's not like the size is some incurable problem. A couple hundred bucks would have given them an LBX picture as big as the 4:3 they are watching now, and a larger 4:3 picture.
    But they usually act like their ONLY CHOICE is 20" or a freaking 65" w/s. I mean $500 might get them into a decent 32" when they probably just spent $300+ on a 25". [​IMG]
    IMHO, people like to create situations to complain about. It should tell you something when so many people here will make a go of it even if they only have a small TV, rather than complaining about everyone else making their picture small like we bought the small TV.
     
  13. Kevin Potts

    Kevin Potts Second Unit

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2001
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hmmm... You know I think this guy is a purist in the truest sense of the word. Why you ask, well if it is this guys perogative not to watch a letterboxed movie anywhere but in the theater, which is where the movie was originaly intended to be shown, not even sacraficing to watch it in the comfort of his own home. How pure is that. I doubt that very few people here, myself included, could abstain from watching any movie at home in lieu of seeing them only once in the theater. Granted this guy isn't into movies much at all, but think about it. Wow
    ------------------
    "Would you fly with him"? "I don't know. I just don't know"
     
  14. Yohan Pamudji

    Yohan Pamudji Second Unit

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2001
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Hmm... I probably would have stopped a long time before you did, Jack. He essentially agreed with you except for preference. After realizing that, I wouldn't have continued if I were you. You gotta admit that the constant "newbie" references seemed rather condescending, even if you didn't mean it that way.
    Educating the masses about the benefits of widescreen is fine and dandy, but at some point if the masses prefer to watch P&S even with all that knowledge then so be it. Educating is not the same as convincing. You can only tell them the facts. You can't make up their minds for them.
     
  15. Jack Gilvey

    Jack Gilvey Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 1999
    Messages:
    4,948
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for the input, folks. At some point, it became an excersize in turning the guys statements on himself, which he got very defensive about, people usually do. He claimed he was being misstated (so he'd have something to argue), but a careful reading will show that to be ridiculous, he just had no other counter. he stated that he will eventually watch widescreen movies on a widescreen set so there's no letterbox, which is silly, as we know. Simple geometry.
    I mentioned "newbie" once, not even calling him that. He then brought it up again. I then used the term to explain it to him.
    There's no condecension, but an effective argument will tend to make the other argument seem "belittled".
    What made him most angry was the inarguable nature of what is done to a pan 'n scan movie. There's only one way to fit a wide movie on a 4:3 set, as we all know. He didn't like that.
    Notice he was first in calling a letterboxed movie a "stupid little strip". When I stated that , if that's his experience, then his preference is predictable, he got defensive. I merely use his own words. Simple forensic tactic. I usually know better than to get into it with anonymous people.
    Fun stuff!
     

Share This Page