Widescreen Movie that don't fit right on the screen. (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Gatie]

Nope. Most movie screens are 2.35:1 and use side curtains to change the shape from 2.35:1 to 1.85:1 and back. Some are 1.85:1 and use a top curtain to change to 2.35:1, but these are less prevalent.

 

[Martin Teller]

Nick
Member
Join Date: Dec 1969

 

[King Jeff]

I got some DVDs from Netflix that were labeled Widescreen but were in fact fullscreen, such as Bonnie and Clyde.

 

[Ric Easton]

Neil, I'm a little surprised you've never seen the curtains open up and make the screen wider.

BTW, the second time I saw Fellowship of the Ring they had the curtains set at 1.85. Until I finally went out at told them they better open up the curtains more.

 

[ChristianB]

I believe the Bonnie & Clyde DVD has one side in Widescreen (non-anamorphic) and the other in Full Screen.

 

[MarkHastings]

just to add to what people have already mentioned...

With a movie screen, the height is always the same - it's the sides that get bigger (i.e. the curtains open up to reveal more screen) with wider movies.

On a TV, the width is always the same and it's the height that gets smaller as the movie gets wider.

Back to Nick's issue - it does sound like an improperly flagged non-anamorphic DVD. Most newer widescreen sets (and DVD players) will know to zoom into a non-anamorphic movie, but not all of them are properly flagged to invoke the zoom.

 

[DeathStar1]

At the Stadium Seating one that we go to, I dont' remember curtains around the screen at all. Are you sure NJ still has this technology?

 

[cafink]

This isn't always the case. While it's typically true of the larger theaters, many smaller theaters use masking on the top and/or bottom instead of the sides. Scope films become shorter than their flat counterparts instead of wider, exactly as they do on a television screen.

 

[David Deeb]

Before I bought my widescreen 2 years ago, I wondered about this. But I watch 4x3 stuff on my 50" plasma and I don't zoom or stretch it, and its fine. The black bars are no more a problem than bars on a widescreen film. Its the aspect ratio you want to preserve.

There is simply no way to make every film ever produced the same aspect ratio. One just needs to understand this and enjoy the show.

 

[Dennis*G]

I'm with you neil, it has been awhile since I have been to our local theaters, but I dont think either one of them has any curtains to the side, nor any curtains at the top. It's just plain 16*9 screens and I think they crop all the movies to that size!!

 

[Douglas R]

Many modern theaters may not necessarily have curtains but they still have masking which widens for 2.35:1 films (what used to be known as CinemaScope). I'm surprised to hear that there are theaters which mask the screen to reduce the height when showing such wide films. Frankly I wouldn't patronise such establishments.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

In my city, we've had a couple of new multiplexes open in the last five years, and both of them reduce the height for 2.35:1.

And in some ways, it does make sense. Yes, you do lose the exciting feel of seeing the screen expand. But the fact is, it does maximise the screen size for all movies, both 2.35:1 and 1.85:1. The screen goes to the very edge fot the cinema, so it's not like there is any way you could make the 2.35:1 screen any wider. But adjusting the height does allow a (much) larger 1.85:1 screen than would otherwise have been available. And I can understand the decision of the cinema owners to do that.

 

[JediFonger]

the multiplexes here in boston have 2.35 as their 'native' aspect ratio but shrink the left and right sides with a motorized curtain when showing 1.85 and more square ratio.

 

[nolesrule]

And usually, this masking looks identical to the surrounding walls so it's noticeable.

I remember one time when I went to the theater to watch Fellowship of the Ring, I noticed the screen was at 1.85:1. At the end of the previews, the mask moved to make the screen wider. If I hadn't seen it for myself (and to this day that is still the only time I have ever seen it), I never would have known that there were motorized masks.

On the other hand, Tampa Theatre, which is a 1920s-era theater, uses curtains, but those are closed completely until the previews begin.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

I've reported that problem over in the thread for reporting forum software problems.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Not true. Most newer theatres have constant width rather than constant height. I worked as a projectionist for Cineplex Odeon from 2003 to 2005, and all 14 screens in my theatre were equipped with top and bottom curtains for the screen size change from 1.85 to 2.35:1.

 

[Douglas R]

I find that quite extraordinary. It defeats the whole point of widescreen films which is to give the audience a bigger picture - not a smaller one!

 

[MarkHastings]

Yeah, I find that odd as well, but I guess that's the sign of the times - i.e. Theaters finding ways to cheap out (by saving space) by not having to install 2.35:1 screens.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

All the new screens I've been to in my area have fixed width and side curtains. It's the old independents that have the 1.85:1 and the top curtains. But I still have a deep nostalgia for my local theater (The Cameo in Columbian Sq., Weymouth). A few very important highlights of my youth happened during (or after) a trip to The Cameo.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

And in some ways I agree with you. But I can see the logic - fixed-width, if the screen goes to the edge of the cinema, does logically make the screen as large as possible for any movie. And, aren't you getting a smaller picture when you watch a 2.35:1 film on DVD?