SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Sep 05 2006 04:41 pm

There should be a law against fullscreen DVDs. I am sick of seeing a cool movie on sale and then having to double check to make sure it's not the fucking pan and scan version. Like a few days, I was in Target and they had Batman Begins for $10. I was psyched at first, but I quickly discovered that only the FS version was on sale. Fuck that shit.

There also some movies which I have ONLY seen for sale in fullscreen. Idle Hands and My Blue Heaven immediately spring to mind as DVDs that Best Buy might have sold me, had they been widescreen.

Joined: Feb 24 2006 Posts: 2578

Syd, I really couldn't agree more.

There are exceptions of course. I dislike it when they fake widescreen releases with movies that were originally shot in full frame. This most commonly occurs with animation (Transformers: The Movie comes to mind), but occasionally with live action, too. Back to the Future was shot 1.33:1, and virtually every release of it has a different aspect ratio.

What infuriates me are the people who think they're getting ripped off by widescreen. I was at a video store and heard an exchange that involved the sentence "I'm not paying to have black bars put on the top and bottom of my screen!"

Wal-Mart is also notorious for having only fullscreen versions of some films, and it's a little disturbing, especially since they're selling widescreen plasma TVs seven feet away from the DVD racks.

I don't mind if both versions are included on the DVD, but I think consumers ought to be savvy enough now to understand that you're actually getting the WHOLE movie this way. And with some movies, fullscreen omits more than fifty percent of the film. Ridiculous.

Posted: Sep 05 2006 05:01 pm

DarkMaze wrote:

And with some movies, fullscreen omits more than fifty percent of the film. Ridiculous.

It really does ruin films. There are often times when a filmmaker will deliberately use a wide shot and it gets ruined by a crop. Conversely though, I've heard that Pixar deliberately animates its movies so that nothing important is lost in the fullscreen conversion. That is, everything important takes place towards the center of the scrren.

Posted: Sep 05 2006 05:08 pm

The fullscreen version of Pulp Fiction makes me vomit blood.

Posted: Sep 05 2006 05:23 pm

Cutting the frame just to fit a specific television size is retarded.

I'm not spending $1000 on a widescreen TV, though.

Posted: Sep 05 2006 05:37 pm

DarkMaze wrote:

Back to the Future was shot 1.33:1, and virtually every release of it has a different aspect ratio.

But that opens the Super-35 argument (note: BTTF is not a Super-35 film) where a film is shot with a full frame, but is intended to be cropped to widescreen. Super-35 helps transfering movies to P&S without losing as much picture, but more importantly it helps with special effects.

Just because BTTF was shot in 1.33:1 doesn't mean it was intended to be shown that way. Not to mention bloopers above and below the screen that would normally be cut out (Pee-Wee's bike chain, anyone?) Wink

As for widescreen vs. P&S, I'm a hardcore widescreen fan. But, while working at Best Buy I met a lot of people over 40 who liked fullscreen better. Most of these people are aware that they're losing the sides, but they just like that it takes up the entire screen. Little kids, same reaction.

However, with new widescreen TVs, I think this preference will decline.

And I really don't mind having a fullscreen over a widescreen for 1.85:1 films sometimes. I have the full frame versions of "Vegas Vacation", "Problem Child", and "Kindergarden Cop" but none of those transfers really bug me, nothing is clearly omitted.

I really love watching movies I grew up with in widescreen and realizing it feels like a new movie. "Ghostbusters" I and II are notable, because they were cropped to shit in the tapes I had. Bless widescreen. Bless it indeed.

It's a little known fact, but P&S movies hurt Wes Anderson like kryptonite.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

Syd Lexia wrote:

I was in Target and they had Batman Begins for $10. I was psyched at first, but I quickly discovered that only the FS version was on sale.

That's why you should have done what I did, buy the limited edition version the day of the release. Got the widescreen version, a second disc of extras, and a mini comic book with pages from the issues that were the basis of the film. I love that movie, it's pretty much my favorite right now - Screw Donnie Darko, The 13th Floor, and the Butterfly Effect, Director's Cut.

DarkMaze wrote:

I don't mind if both versions are included on the DVD, but I think consumers ought to be savvy enough now to understand that you're actually getting the WHOLE movie this way

The problem with those then is that the double sided dvds always have problems working because of the bonding process involved in making them. Ninety percent of the time I have to exchange those until I find one that actually works right.

Posted: Sep 05 2006 10:14 pm

Cattivo wrote:

DarkMaze wrote:

I don't mind if both versions are included on the DVD, but I think consumers ought to be savvy enough now to understand that you're actually getting the WHOLE movie this way

The problem with those then is that the double sided dvds always have problems working because of the bonding process involved in making them. Ninety percent of the time I have to exchange those until I find one that actually works right.

Some movies also offer both versions on one side. I know it lowers video resolution, but I like it simple like that. Smile

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

Never seen those before. That would solve the problem.

Posted: Sep 06 2006 01:50 pm

not everybody has wide angle televisions Rolling Eyes

Joined: Feb 24 2006 Posts: 2578

B.B.King wrote:

not everybody has wide angle televisions Rolling Eyes

It's not about widescreen televisions. It's about the ability to see the whole damn movie, no matter what kind of TV you own.

A pet project of mine I've never had the patience to do involved taking a popular movie, cropping the frame down to about 20% and blowing that up to fill the screen. Then I'd force fullscreen advocates to watch it and ask them if they felt like they really watched the movie.

Posted: Sep 06 2006 08:57 pm

DarkMaze wrote:

A pet project of mine I've never had the patience to do involved taking a popular movie, cropping the frame down to about 20% and blowing that up to fill the screen. Then I'd force fullscreen advocates to watch it and ask them if they felt like they really watched the movie.

With a good zoom feature on the DVD player, that's highly possible, but I think 20% is overkill. Most ignorant people would reject that experiment immediately and claim it proved nothing.

Joined: Aug 25 2005 Posts: 287

A (big) part of the problem is that a lot of people see movies as just tossed-off entertainment. The idea that there may be art present in even the silliest of films doesn't really occur to them and, because of that, they don't care if they're not seeing a film in the intended aspect ratio. Even when a film looks like utter, absolute shit in P&S ("Ghostbusters", for one), it's okay because it "fills the screen and I know what's going on". To them the point of a film is get from plot point A to plot point B and then have the credits roll. The idea that there maybe more for them to digest than just linear storytelling doesn't click.

Now, I'm not advocating everyone turn into a quasi-intellectual prick about movies (please, God, no.. I've dealt with enough of those), but I DO get bugged by people who see all entertainment as imminently disposable.

Oh well.

Joined: Aug 25 2005 Posts: 287

And let me add, as a counterpoint (and this did make me think at the time), that I had a VERY snobbish film professor who HATED widescreen formatting on home video and DVD. He felt that a TV screen deserved to be filled and that pan and scan added an extra layer of meaning to films because whoever did/approved the P&S had to actively decide what they felt was important to show in a limited frame.

I also think that man did a lot of drugs.

But hey.

Posted: Sep 07 2006 04:49 pm

All of that stuff you just said is also true about video games (except the widescreen things). And your teacher sounds like he's on crack.

Posted: Sep 07 2006 05:41 pm

greeneyedzeke wrote:

He felt that a TV screen deserved to be filled and that pan and scan added an extra layer of meaning to films because whoever did/approved the P&S had to actively decide what they felt was important to show in a limited frame.

Yeah, that's completely untrue. Rarely do the P&Sers care about making art. Some films they barely do any work on. Not to mention the actual filmmaker had nothing to do with the P&S process.

One P&S that's always bugged me: In "Superman II" right before Zod throws a concrete wall at the Man of Steel, Sups takes a look at the street below. In the P&S all we see is one construction worker, chewing gum, and casually looking up. When I finally saw the film in widescreen, to his right are a bunch of civilians who actually look scared that they'll be hurt by any falling debris. Why the hell did the P&Ser feel the lone construction worker was more important than several innocent bystanders? No idea.
Fun fact: Same thing happened in "Superman IV". Check out the scene where Nuclear Man drops the Statue of Liberty on a Metropolis street. P&S: We see a woman who screams and stands still. Widescreen: a couple dozen people running for their lives.