What we are up against... (1 Viewer)

[jeff peterson]

Cut from the forum mission statement: Note, the 3 periods at the beginning indicate this is a P&S mission statement
...that the vast majority of members here are avid supporters of original aspect ratio (OAR), which presents films as they were originally shown in theaters. The Forum's mission statement even declares,
We believe that the purpose of Home Theater is not only to provide entertainment, but to preserve the artistic integrity of film in the video format as well. We stress the need for accurate reproduction of film and strive to create, as closely as possible, the theater experience in our homes.
While we respect your desire to watch movies in the format of your choice, we ask that you do not post any messages advocating P&S or full-framed movies in anyway , as doing this will only stir up trouble. It would be like going to the Star Wars forums at TheForce.Net and declaring that Star Trek is better. You're not likely to win many friends this way.

 

[MikeF]

We believe that the purpose of Home Theater is not only to provide entertainment, but to preserve the artistic integrity of film in the video format as well. We stress the need for accurate reproduction of film and strive to create, as closely as possible, the theater experience in our homes.

While we respect your desire to watch movies in the format of your choice, we ask that you do not post any messages advocating P&S or full-framed movies in anyway , as doing this will only stir up trouble. It would be like going to the Star Wars forums at TheForce.Net and declaring that Star Trek is better. You're not likely to win many friends this way.

No one is advocating watching films in pan & scan. I am as rabid a fan of OAR as anyone else. However, how many fucking posts do we need on the subject?

 

[RogerB]

If you're not part of the solution....

 

[Butch C]

Isnt it enough that you have superior equipment?

Now you want the entire world to have the same equipment as you?

No other hobby on earth has such pushy enthusiasts.

 

[jeff peterson]

Perhaps, Mike, I should have hightlighted this part of the forum mission statement:
doing this will only stir up trouble.
I think you would be in agreement with that

 

[Peter D]

Isnt it enough that you have superior equipment?

Now you want the entire world to have the same equipment as you?

No other hobby on earth has such pushy enthusiasts.

I don't think that people get all riled up about OAR because of equipment issues. I think it's because the folks here are true movie lovers, and it hurts them when people are indifferent to these artistic works being altered.

 

[Ryan Wright]

acomplishes nothing except to give the high and mighty OAR zealots here somewhere to make derogatory comments about "Joe Sixpack".

Yes, exactly. Where else are we supposed to go to feel all high and mighty and poke fun at Joe and Jane Sixpack? Only in the company of other zealots can zealots such as myself really thrive.

Long live the OAR zealots!

 

[Jay Taylor]

I know what some newbies are going through when deciding between Widescreen & P&S. I can remember my own thoughts from about 4 years ago before I had a DVD player or discovered this forum.

I had two VHS tapes of the fourth Star Trek movie. One was P&S and the new copy was letterboxed. I can remember trying to decide which version to play.

Let’s see… I want the largest image of my favorite Star Trek movie on this 35” TV as possible. With the letterboxed version I’ll get less square inches of display but all of the movie. Which one shall I play? When finally deciding on the letterboxed version I felt deprived that the images were smaller.

I believe numerous people feel the same way while watching a widescreen DVD on their 4:3 TV. This feeling of “deprivation” may go away after the purchase of a 16:9 television. Then the advantage of widescreen over P&S will be a no-brainer for just about everyone.

The main goal to achieve in my opinion is to encourage more people to purchase 16:9 television sets instead of 4:3 sets. Then we’ll win this battle!

I realize that if the majority of your viewing time is spent watching television broadcasts that are 4:3 then a 16:9 set may not be the right choice. But if there aren’t enough people with 16:9 digital ready sets when 2006(?) arrives don’t be surprised if congress is persuaded to delay the scheduled termination of our current 4:3 broadcast frequencies. This would encourage the P&S crowd and jeopardize our future with OAR DVDs.

Jay Taylor

 

[Bill Catherall]

However, how many f****** posts do we need on the subject?

Counting all the posts from the past 5 days I see 21 out 245 that are about OAR vs. P&S. That's about 8.5%. Look out...we've got an epidemic!
Half of those posts are about specific DVDs and whether or not they're available in OAR. The other half are what I would call "generic" OAR vs. P&S. One of which was actually started by somebody that finds them "boring." Another for that one. If you don't like them, skip them.
I find it very ironic that those who come in here bashing us for being zealots are visiting and posting in every OAR vs. P&S thread just to call everybody zealots. Now who's the demeaning, "self-righteous," zealous one?

 

[Jim A. Banville]

No. That's their preference. But it doesn't infringe on the ability to get the optimal steak at your local restaurant.

You apparently miss my point entirely. You have some OAR advocates who want to watch their films in OAR, regardless to what others choose. Put me in that camp. You then have OAR zealots (call 'em Nazi's - like the soup nazi )who not only want to watch their films in OAR, but want to abolish P&S. They stereotype those who like P&S as close-minded and ignorant. They believe they are the high and mighty "teachers" of the uneducated masses. They are the self-appointed conniosseurs of film. Either you like it their way (rare) or something is wrong with you. You have no choice.
Now I understand your point that you are scared of losing OAR to the P&S crowd, but the liklihood of that happening is simply so small as to be insignificant. P&S viewers don't care about abolishing WS. Where's the benefit in that? If studios know, which they very well do, that they would LOOSE money by not only pandering to the OAR crowd as well as the P&S crowd, why would they choose NOT to provide OAR? But as stated earlier, in does all come down to economics and politics. As long as the numbers who want OAR are significant, which I believe they are, and as long as those OAR advocates lobby the studios and retailers for OAR, which they do, OAR will survive. If someone thinks endless, boring, repetative "me too" posts in this forum are more beneficial to that cause than are petitions and phone calls and letters, then they are sadly mistaken. That's my point, and as stated by one of "them", GET USED TO IT.
The mission statement about advocating P&S doesn't apply to this situation. I don't intend to stir up trouble for the sake of stirring up trouble as those types of posts would. I don't advocate P&S. I do wish someone would create a site where all the OAR zealots could vent within their own ranks though.

 

[Jim A. Banville]

I find it very ironic that those who come in here bashing us for being zealots are visiting and posting in every OAR vs. P&S thread just to call everybody zealots. Now who's the demeaning, "self-righteous," zealous one?

Do I not have the right under the rules of this group to voice my opinions as well as you? If I started threads about the numerous, boring and repetative threads about the OAR nazi's, I'd be a hypocrite as my wishes are to limit such threads, but not the number of posts in that thread. It would be great if all the OAR nazi's would post to a single thread and this whole issue about the numerous threads would end You could post, post, post, and pump, pump, pump, until you heart is content

 

[Dick]

They wouldn't even notice the difference.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I know it's a hot topic, but we don't need to get on one another. Jim B. brings up a very good point. If people are happy with P&S, they should get it. I am not above trying to convince people I know to try out OAR, but that's THEIR call in the end. I don't want to be forced to purchase a SUV because SUV lovers think cars shouldn't be available. Apply that argument here. We don't need to think for them. Blockbuster only cares about the cash. Hurt them there, and they'll listen. Make it pay to rent widescreen copies to people. I won't rent a P&S, and it hurts. So BB doesn't get my business until I can. But I won't rage at the consumer for that. I love movies. Most people don't feel that passion. Warner rolled the dice on C&D and WW and they paid the price. Lesson learned.
I'll continue to educate, but I won't force my passion on other people
Take care,
Chuck

 

[Jesse Skeen]

"People really get upset over television issues. A couple of years ago when the satelite services were forced to cut off local channels to like zillions of people, that event generated a record amount of mail to Senators and Congressmen. I think that speaks volumes!"

So how come I haven't heard much uproar over the networks putting logos onscreen all the time?

 

[jeff peterson]

With the numbers of posts, Jim is obviously an active forum member whose opinion should be respected (and I do). I think the reason this debate fires such passions is that OAR advocates really feel they have the moral high ground.

They believe that P&S is defacement of art. Now, whether chopping movies is on the same moral plane as book burning probably depends on the passion of the opinion holder.
I'd just like to know if the director of any movie has been involved in the P&S editing of their own movie.

 

[Adam Barratt]

Jim, I would appreciate it if you would cease calling other members zealots or Nazis.

The forum is officially pro-OAR; if you find the pro-OAR, anti-P&S threads boring or repetitive I suggest you simply avoid reading them in the future.

Adam Barratt

HTF Administrator

 

[Robert Crawford]

Jim,
You definitely need to cool it! You've said your piece in this thread and the one I just closed, so your position is well known in this matter. It's time to quit the name calling or better yet move on to another discussion.
Robert Crawford
HTF Administrator

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Adam and Robert,

In all fairness, Jim didn't utilize those terms on the thread first, and he said them facetiously. Also, he is pro-OAR. I agree that we can be pro-OAR without being insulting. The fact is: most people don't care. If we are arrogant about it, it won't help our position.

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Robert Crawford]

Chuck,
Whomever started the name calling doesn't matter, what does matter is it stops now!
Robert Crawford
HTF Administrator

 

[Jim A. Banville]

You definitely need to cool it! You've said your piece in this thread and the one I just closed, so your position is well known in this matter. It's time to quit the name calling or better yet move on to another discussion.

Just to clarify, are you saying that I'm no longer allowed to debate this topic here (without the name calling)? No offense, but I'm curious if anyone else has been singled out in this thread as having been deemed to have "said their piece"? I respect that you all make the rules and enforce them, but I don't want my "piece" to be treated differently than anyone else's "piece", as long as I stop the name calling and continue to follow the rules, which I thought I was doing
thanks