This is why some people ride the small bus... (1 Viewer)

[todd s]

I have said this before. My 8 & 5 year old asked me once what the black bars are. I gave them a simple explanation and I never heard about it again. They now ask for WS.

 

[Bryan X]

But to be like "You're going to watch it like this, and if you're not, you're leaving this room and going to sleep" is just--that makes no sense to me.

Agreed, that is silly and I would not agree with anyone who would do that.

If you read my post you will realize that I'm advocating exposing children to OAR from day one. If you do that you won't have an issue at all, because children will readily accept it.

Which is easier? Exposing a child to OAR from day one or trying to re-educate an adult?

 

[Robert Anthony]

I did read your post before I posted my response, and I wasn't really talking about you. Hopefully you didn't take it personally or anything, or thought I was crapping on you or whatever. If anything, I was agreeing with you in that if you just show them the movie, they're probably not gonna say anything one way or the other because they're happy to be watching the movie, period.

 

[Bryan X]

I was just trying to clarify that I wasn't advocating the "You're going to watch it like this, and if you're not, you're leaving this room and going to sleep" attitude. I thought perhaps my previous post didn't make that clear.

 

[Damin J Toell]

2. If the bugger whines about it, just tell him he can either watch the film the right way or he can go to bed. End of discussion.

3. If he continues to protest after presented with the choice, send him to bed and watch your movie in peace.

Sounds like a scene from an HTF remake of Mommie Dearest:

"NO...MAR...DVDS! What are you doing watching a MAR DVD when I told you: NO MAR DVDS...EVER!"

DJ

 

[Jon Robertson]

Way, way more important than getting kids interested in black bars (which the vast majority don't care about anyway), make sure you get their finer tastes going. If you want to be a really good film-going parent, start screening your kids black-and-white movies and films with subtitles as soon as they're ready (they're a phenomenal reading aid). Kids don't have the daft prejudices against "those fancy foreign pictures" or "slow old movies" like adults do; they can just latch onto a great story with interesting characters and away they go.

I'm not saying make your house a cartoon-free zone or anything, but at least have the common decency to show your kids the likes of Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin alongside the standard TV dreck. Show them movies like Stagecoach, Singin' in the Rain, My Favorite Year, Rio Bravo, The Devil & Daniel Webster, Lawrence of Arabia, The 400 Blows, The Great Escape, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, A Night to Remember, Paper Moon, The Adventures of Robin Hood, Seven Samurai, Silent Running, Walkabout, Once Upon A Time in the West, Spartacus, David Lean's Oliver Twist, Jean Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast and hundreds more - that'll do them more good than all the pan-and-scan demonstrations in the world.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Show them movies like ... that'll do them more good than all the pan-and-scan demonstrations in the world.

Or do both.

 

[RodneyT]

OAR!

I once heard a sales rep at our local electronics distributer tell a customer that he enjoyed the MAR DVD's more than OAR. I could have taken a blunt axe to his scrawny neck, but upon realising that homicidal tendencies do not alter peoples thinking, i left the store in absolute disgust.

Slightly off topic, but can i just say,

Once Upon A Time In the West - best Western ever made?

 

[Mick Wright]

Three incidents made me throw up my hands in defeat (and disgust) at educating people on the merits of OAR.

1) I gave my dad a tutorial on OAR vs. MAR with plenty of comparisons. Afterward he replied, "I understand that widescreen gives you more picture, but I want my tv screen filled up."

2) I did the same with my five year old nephew (a big full screen fan), thinking he'd be easier to convert. Afterward he calmly said "I do not like you."

3) A well-educated friend of mine invited me over to help calibrate his new 65 inch HDTV. I forgot to bring any demo discs so he pulled his out. They were all full screen, and he had been watching them in zoom mode, resulting in a double cropped picture. I tried explain why this was bad to him and his wife, but they just gave me a clueless look.

I give up.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Well, of course, I am a widescreen supporter. But I also do not like part of the large screen I have, 58" 16x9 RPTV, being wasted with black bars, I do prefer that my widescreen image fill my widescreen TV. So therefore, while I'd rather have a movie in OAR vs. P&S, I just wish they'd start making all/most movies in 1.85:1 ratio vs. 2.35:1. Especially since 16x9 (1.78:1) seems to be the new standard that we will have around for a long time to come. Then when I view them on my widescreen TV, due to overscan, they fill the screen and basically they are still the proper OAR. I don't see why so many studios, directors, producers, are so in love with 2.35.

 

[TonyD]

^ huh?

john look at this thread to address the issue you just brought up.


http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=166883

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Tony, huh?

Why would I want to matte that vs. just leaving it as is and having the black bars. Either way I'm still not getting as big a picture as my 58" RPTV (28.5" tall AND 50.5" wide), allows.

Again, I'm not saying I want to go to P&S, I just would rather see most movies start going with the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, as released, so when ported over to widscreen TV's, they still fill the screen.

 

[TonyD]

john did you read the thread.
sorry if i offend you but your being silly.

if you matte the bars with a black mask it virtually makes that part of the screen invisible, no bars at all. so it makes the screen 6 inches shorter big deal.
use the zoom feature on your tv if it is there.

a 58in diagonal tv is pretty big.

if it's not big enough why didnt you get a bigger tv.

also when you watch ota network shows there are bars on the side, this is also "wasted" area too right?

flame bait comment removed.
oh there is at least one movie reframed for tv widescreens, i think it was recruit. 2.35 in movies 1:85 at home on dvd.

 

[Robert Anthony]

"2) I did the same with my five year old nephew (a big full screen fan), thinking he'd be easier to convert. Afterward he calmly said "I do not like you."

That cracked me the hell up. God, kids are great.

John: Asking directors and cinematographers to compromise their artistic integrity just because you want a full screen is essentially the same thing as saying as supporting fullscreen. There's really no way around it, you can say you don't want things pan and scanned, but your solution is like a sideways step, not forward or backward.

Movie theaters are not 58 inch televisions. Directors compose their shots for movie theaters. Sometimes, in a movie theater, having your movie composed for 2.35:1 is just WAY more involving, immersive and aesthetically pleasing than having it shot in 1.85:1. And sometimes it's not, sometimes a movie works better in the tighter frame. But I'd rather a director and a cinematographer have the choice themselves, rather than be handcuffed by a person who bought a widescreen TV and doesn't really understand why movies are widescreen in the first place.

 

[Garrett Lundy]

I was at my GF's cousins house last month and they have a GIANT 4:3 RPTV (I didnt measure. but the biggest 4:3 i'd ever seen). While I was there they decided to watch Boat Trip.

I was honestly more concerned with the VERY BAD film (Which single handedly knocks gay/straight relations back to 1975) than I was with the Pan & Scan DVD. After a few years of attempting to educate the masses I've just given up. They are ignorant sheep and do not want to learn. So I lock myself in my apartment and watch my widescreen movies and wait for HDTV to become basic cable.....

For refrence:

*I watch OAR on a 27" JVC from 12+ feet away.

*If a small child ever commented on his hatred of widescreen, I would reply with a hearty "Here's a quarter, Go fetch!" and throw a quarter into the other room.

*Pre-DVD I thought "Edited for television" meant they cut-out all the nudity & gore. "Formatted to fit your screen" I thought had to do with the size of my TV (I was an idiot, ok).

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Asking directors and cinematographers to compromise their artistic integrity just because you want a full screen is essentially the same thing as saying as supporting fullscreen.

Robert: NOT REALLY!!!

I fully understand how, when they P&S, the 4:3 frame keeps moving around for each frame to show the part of the picture the director or video editor chooses to show.

But what I just don't get is this 'fad' of directors, et al, having to make the movies 2.35, when 1.85 is a nice widescreen which also just happens to port over to the new wave of 16x9 widescreen TV's, very nicely. And this 'fad' has gotten so bad I often see commercials with the picture only taking 1/3 of the screen. Granted, they're commercials and I could care less, but it's just that it so much displays their attitude like, "hey, if we make this commercial widescreen people will think it's very cool and trendy and buy the product". And saying I wish more movies were shot in 1.85 is NOT the same thing as saying I only want to view P&S at home.

Tony: my comments WERE NOT flame bait, just how I really feel about the situation. One reason I got my widescreen TV was to enjoy OAR movies with a full width & height picture. Before I knew that so many movies are shot in 2.35 and I'd still have the bars, albeit smaller. Granted, I'm in a lot better position than watching 2.35 on my old 27" TV. But I'd just like to have the max picture. And, I often zoom out 2.35 to reduce or eliminate the bars. But it would be nice not to have to, and still fill the widescreen TV. And this is accomplished with 1.85 Anamorphic discs.

 

[Malcolm R]

Sounds just like the argument of any J6P who wants their 4:3 screen filled regardless of the consequence.

Perhaps we need a new term...JWS (Joe Widescreen)...for those who want their widescreen TV's filled at any cost?

I can't believe a long term HTF member would even initiate such a discussion.

Home video and home theater may be an important part of the overall life cycle of movies in the modern age but, for the moment at least, movies are *still* filmed with the primary purpose of exhibition in a large screen format in the theater.

Watch the film, not the black bars.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Home video and home theater may be an important part of the overall life cycle of movies in the modern age but, for the moment at least, movies are *still* filmed with the primary purpose of exhibition in a large screen format in the theater.

You mean they can't be shown in the theater at 1.85:1?

Just because I would like to see all/most future movies made in 1.85:1, and express that preference and my reasons why, IS NOT the same thing as advocating P&S or even advocating MAR. I'm just stating my preference for what I would like to see become the norm for all/most future OAR. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, and if you don't see it, then you must be too closed-minded. Do you really like having to buy a TV larger than what you would like your final viewing area to be? To get the same size picture I get now on my full widescreen 58" RPTV, (28.5" by 50.5"), I'd probably had to have bought a 62" RPTV, to see 2.35:1, unzoomed, at that same size.

 

[Malcolm R]

You want film directors to "modify" their creative process and give up one of their long-established aspect ratios so that their films will fit your TV screen. It sounds *exactly* like advocating MAR to me.

And there is a difference between 1.85 and 2.35. You can't just squeeze everything in the shot closer together without compromising composition.

But who am I to argue. Apparently I'm closed-minded for wanting film directors to be able to continue to use all the creative tools at their disposal, including variable aspect ratios.

 

[Robert Anthony]

Why would you want all movies to be exhibited in the exact same aspect ratio?

So the director has it easier?
So the visual impact is strengthened/lessened?
So it saves money for the production?


...no, it's so you can get all of your screen filled. That's it.

Yes, 1.85 is a perfectly good aspect ratio--when the subject matter being dealt with calls for it--when the director finds that it suits his needs best for this picture, when the photography and the needs of the story won't possibly benefit from the expansion of the frame. But 2.35 isn't a FAD, and it's not being done just for the hell of it. 2.35 is an artistic choice made by the director and cinematographer and producer to ensure the best possible match between image and story so as to bring us the best possible movie. It's been around forever and is probably many of your favorite directors preferred choice. I see you call yourself Qui Gon John--I don't think Lucas has ever MADE a 1.85 movie. ever. You're proposing that his decisions on THX and American Graffiti were because of a fad?

You're basically saying a) that choice should be taken away from directors and b) all movies should then be forced to have the same shape and size to them.

From there, why not ask that all paintings be done on the same size canvas--all books printed on the same size paper with the same size font?

And your reasoning for asking these questions is this: I want it to fill my screen.

Once again, it seems as if you don't really understand WHY there's different forms of widescreen, and what they exist for. you're proposing that directors and cinematographers do without one of their tools and compromise their framing and their vision simply because you want it to fit on your screen without some black bars.

Tell me that doesn't sound EXACTLY like the same reasoning that goes into the Pan and Scan mindset.