PDA

View Full Version : *SIGH* Fox Announces Pan & Scan Episode I



Beast
08-08-2002, 06:42 PM
I predicted it in the E2 DVD thread, and I hate to say that I was right. Fox announced this morning that streeting the same day as the E2 DVD release will be a Pan & Scan release of Episode I. Other then the basterdized Fullframe version of the film, the 2-disc set will contain the same extras as the original Widescreen release of the film. OAR takes another hit. :cry: :(

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

LTBasker
08-08-2002, 06:51 PM
Err...why? I can't understand releasing it then, but now it's just overkill. That's gonna sit badly. Everybody who wanted the E1 DVD already got it for the widescreen wether they liked it or not, now maybe if it had some new extras on it, but not with them just stretching the picture.

Pendo
08-09-2002, 09:14 AM
What's the POINT?!?!?! :confused:
I HATE Pan & Scan :mad:
Why can't DVD users just learn to cope with Widescreen, why do Pan & Scan versions have to start coming out? There was a time when DVDs were mostly Widescreen, but now Pan & Scan are trying to take over :cry:

PENDO!

billfremore
08-09-2002, 09:25 AM
"oh I don't like the black bars, they distract me"

{enter billfremore with NERF™ bat}

WHAMMO!


The only person who could remotely possibly justify buying pan & scan is someone who owns a 13" TV, and it better be black and white.

But that does raise the question...
Why are you buying DVDs when you own a 13" Black and White TV!?!

Beast
08-09-2002, 12:07 PM
Hell, I currently watch my DVD's on a 19" TV. Unless you are sitting a mile away from the screen even 2.35:1 films look fine on that size TV. :rolleyes: :p It's times like this I miss laserdiscs, the format may have been expensive...but it catered to people that wanted the movie as it was presented in the theaters. Ever since DVD got cheaper, the people that want Pan & Scan crap have been increasing. And the studios are starting to listen. :cry: :(

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

billfremore
08-09-2002, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Ever since DVD got cheaper, the people that want Pan & Scan crap have been increasing. And the studios are starting to listen. :cry: :(


People suck!:D
Why can't they just give people both options?
Is it too expensive for them to produce?

icatch9
08-09-2002, 12:16 PM
I see both sides of the topic. I never used to like widescreen becasue I didn't understand the difference. This was a while ago when I was younger. My brother loved widescreen and I'd make fun of him (I made fun of him a lot, so it wasn't anything out of the ordinary). Now I understand the benifits of a widscreen. Still most people aren't freaks about thier moives. They don't care what the 3 Ork on the left looks like when he's stabbed. The black bars arnt so distracting as they are annoying. It makes the picture so small ever on a good size TV. Clearly you disagree with this Jar Jar, but remember people are stupid and they don't have to make sense. It seems to me ath most major movies are offered on both WS and P & S. Wich I think is great. I don't know why on Earth anyone would buy the P & S of TPM, but some people may be freaks about it, just the way you guys are freaks about WS. The more choices we get I think the better for the fans.

2-1B
08-10-2002, 04:32 AM
Nicely said icatch :)
I just ranted in the AOTC thread, but I have another point - does anybody really think they will stop releasing WS versions of DVDs?
If your answer is no (like me), then WHO CARES if they release a P&S version?

What bugs me is those old 2 sided discs, with WS on one side, and P&S on the other. Austin Powers comes to mind.
Myself, I just want WS, so instead of having a 2 sided disc like that, I'm GLAD they are now releasing separate versions. I just have to be careful, like when I bought LOTR. ;)

What damage will a P&S release do ? Yeah, we talk about the "ignorants" who prefer P&S, but they preferred it BEFORE DVD was a hit - so it's not like they are jeopardizing future releases. WS was fine all along, it's not going anywhere.

I'm coining a phrase right now, "DVD snobbery" :D

Beast
08-10-2002, 04:49 AM
Actually Caesar, there already have been a few cases of P&S only versions of movie releases. That's the big fear that P&S releases are causing. That the studios will start considering P&S releases the norm, and WS releases will slow.

Originally "Willy Wonka and the Choclate Factory" was a P&S only release, until the DVD community started boycotts and petitions against Warner Bros. "The Goonies" DVD release was going to be a P&S only release, until the DVD community threatened the same, and Richard Donner, the films director said that he wouldn't participate in a butchering of his film. Same thing almost happened with "Watership Down", and a few other titles that slip my mind.

Disney just recently released "Snow Dogs" as a P&S only release, and there have been other releases from not just them that have ignored WS, because it wasn't considered necissary. A few classic movies, including some horror movies were recently released in P&S only. Seriously, I prefer that they do a seperate P&S release also, then sticking the P&S version on the same disc. I just worry that it will lead to more movies being released P&S only, because the studio considers it "not necissary". :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

2-1B
08-10-2002, 04:59 AM
Exactly. People voiced their desire for Wonka and Goonies in WS, and they got it. :) The studios recognized the "necessity" of this matter, and obliged. Why worry about them finding it unnecessary when we've seen the results of those discs?

Snow Dogs? I'll let that one slip - can't say I noticed the buzz around it's P&S release. :D

Beast
08-10-2002, 05:03 AM
Sorry, Snow Dogs was one of the only films that I could pull out of my brain this early in the morning to get a P&S only release. Again, seriously I don't have a problem with dual P&S/WS releases. Better that and keep the P&S off my discs, since I won't watch it anyway. But I and alot of people are watching this really closely, because it could lead down a path where more releases are P&S only. I hope you understand what I mean. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Jek Porky 2002
08-10-2002, 10:17 AM
I watch mine on a 14' TV in my room, and it's fine, I also have a 32' TV down stairs and I find that the smaller the screen, the better the quality.

Anyway, looks like I'll have to buy 5 Star Wars DVD'S/Videos on November the 11th.

Please god, make Lucasfilm put something new on the P&S version, please!

Mr. JabbaJohnL
08-10-2002, 02:00 PM
The P&S version of TPM really sucks. In one scene, when Panaka and Sio are talking, they can't decide who to show, so they show a quarter inch of each of their heads and the frickin wall is the centerpiece of the scene! Also, in the Jedi Council, Eeth Koth looks at Depa Billaba. They cut off Eethy boy! My favorite damn Jedi on the Council!!! GRRRR damn you pan & scan!

Hasbro'sBountyHunter
08-10-2002, 02:04 PM
Pan & scan?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!:dead:

Jek Porky 2002
08-10-2002, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by Mr. JabbaJohnL
Also, in the Jedi Council, Eeth Koth looks at Depa Billaba. They cut off Eethy boy! My favorite damn Jedi on the Council!!!

I hated that too, all you get is Depa nodding at nothing.

JON9000
08-10-2002, 05:44 PM
I like Widescreen, but there are plenty of people who want a fullscreen version for whatever reason. I'm sure Fox did its market research and determined there are enough people who want it to warrant releasing it. Who are we to dis fox for giving people the movie in the format they want it in?

Jek Porky 2002
08-10-2002, 06:32 PM
You've got a point I suppose, but is it going to be a low key release or are they going to publisize it?

RooJay
08-12-2002, 07:31 PM
Every time I hear someone using the "annoying" or "distracting" nature of "the black bars" to argue against widescreen I'm always left dumbfounded. First of all, they are not "black bars", they are an absence of image; much the same as the black border seen all the way around every television screen that is formed by the black plastic box that holds the picture tube in place. Nobody ever complains of being distracted by the tube housing (sometimes it's not even black?! What about televisions with grey or silver housings?!). If a small strip of nothing on the top and bottom of the screen disturbs or distracts you, then how do you manage to keep from being distracted by the rest of the room your television is in?!
I too, am concerned about this news. It means that enough people have demanded a pan and scan version to convince Fox to proceed with what amounts to a complete rerelease of the movie to accomodate them. I remember a time when widescreen was at best neglected by the video industry, and we were, in most cases, forced to watch movies only in the cropped version and never in their originally intended form. I remember the day that the Star Wars trilogy was finally released in widescreen on VHS (never having owned a Laserdisc player). Finally, we were able to experience Star Wars in it's original form once again! I watched both the pan and scan AND widescreen versions that day in order to get a better comparison. Since that day, I have never gone back to pan and scan (it's even gotten to the point that I will avoid watching movies on television, as most often they are shown chopped and cropped!). It wasn't just that I could now see the little details on the sides that I hadn't been able to see on video before either; the images just seemed to flow much better on screen. This time, instead of seeing the Millenium Falcon in the center of the screen with stars whipping by behind it, the ship actually whizzed right across my television screen from one corner to another. I was able to see not only the speaker on screen, but also the listener's reaction!
I have a lot of big dreams for my life. One of them is to one day become a major filmmaker. When I manage to make that dream a reality I fully intend to take whatever steps necessary to ensure that my films are never presented in any form other than that which I originally film them in. I intend to do whatever is needed to make that a stipulation in all of my contracts. If my films trn out to be good enough, then people will learn to live with widescreen. Nobody ever goes to a museum to see just the centers of the paintings.

JON9000
08-12-2002, 08:30 PM
Good point about the Trilogy coming out on widescreen in VHS- that was indeed a great day! I think what really brought on the Widescreen revolution was the fact that large screen TVs became affordable. My folks bought a 27 inch Sony Console in 1981 (the same model that ate Carol Anne in Poltergeist) and the darn thing cost $2,000 (a lot in '81 dollars). It was the only tube on our block that came with a remote and a digital tuner.

RooJay
08-12-2002, 09:09 PM
I's much rather watch a widescreen movie on a 13 inch screen than a pan and scan movie on a 39 inch screen.

scruffziller
08-13-2002, 06:07 AM
What exactly is Pan and Scan? I've got somewhat of an impression by reading this, but would like it spelled out.

billfremore
08-13-2002, 08:50 AM
To find out exactly what pan & sacn is please check out any of Jar Jar's posts and you'll find a link the botton called "widescreen tutorial" and all will be explained. :)

scruffziller
08-14-2002, 10:38 AM
Wow thanx billfreemore for directing me to the site and thanx Jar for illustrating that to me. I did not realize the difference between widescreen and non-widescreen. I think I'll go with the widescreen from now on!!! The pan and scan version I had no idea that that is what it would be.

Pendo
08-18-2002, 12:07 PM
I've posted the cover art for the Fullscreen DVD here (http://www.sirstevesguide.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=159654#post159654), so those interested can check it out.

PENDO!

RooJay
08-19-2002, 12:46 PM
I have a better idea...

Beast
08-19-2002, 01:23 PM
That's funny RooJay. Yes, that's what it should look like. Or they should slap a sticker on it that says: "Fullscreen: Now with about 45% less picture then before" :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

billfremore
08-19-2002, 01:35 PM
You say you don't like widescreen? Try covering up both sides of your TV with duct tape, that should keep you from seeing the evill hidden messages in the widescreen version.

mini-rock
09-02-2002, 03:53 PM
Who had the final decision on this matter? Fox or Lucas? If it was Lucas is P&S part of Lucas vision? If it was Fox how can someone like Lucas let his "vision" get chopped & hacked!

I used to be one of those "I want my screen filled" people, and it's not a matter of preference, it's ignorance.

Lman316
09-13-2002, 01:43 AM
Oh, wow......I really don't know whether to laugh right now, or to be seriously offended by this. Do not call me ignorant, if I prefer non-widescreen to widescreen.
Let me tell you: ignorance is driving your car while talking on a cell phone. Ignorance is running with scissors. Ignorance is what happened on September 11th 2001. Having a full screen movie is hardly...let me emphasise that... hardly ignorance.
The arrogance and pomposity...I mean, I'm arrogant, don't get me wrong, but calling someone actually stupid for buying full screen instead of wide? Now, that's stupid.
The only widescreen movie I own is Highlander (25th, I think, Anniversary Special Edition) VHS and that's because it didn't come in full screen. I don't mind it, I can watch it without being "full of complete and total ignorace by possibly being distracted or annoyed by the "abscence of picture", but I normally went with full screen movies. Hell, I watched LOTR (not a great movie, IMO, anyway) in full screen and I really don't think that watching it widescreen is really going to save it for me...
I really don't even know what to say right now....to be called actually stupid over something so small when there are actual real...total acts of stupidity being commited. I can't even come up with a decent argument because I'm dumbfounded.
I really love when people tell me what I should like and "just love". I have my own preference, and that's exactly what it is...a preference! I'm not an idiot, I think I know what I like. If I want to watch widescreen, I'll watch it, and if I want to watch full, you can bet across the board I'll be watching full. I don't really have a problem with either. But just don't....don't call me ignorant because I might choose a full screen over a widescreen...

Ignorance? Ha.

End.

Beast
09-13-2002, 01:48 AM
Yes, but would you drive your car with around 45% of the windshield blacked out so you couldn't see everything that was coming. I doubt that you would do that, and it's the same with P&S. People need to realize exactly how much picture they are loosing when they watch a movie that has been 90% of the time butched by someone that has no involvement with the creation of that movie. If you want to watch a movie with blinders on, poke out one of your eyes as well so you don't have to see so much in real life. But most people that know the difference prefer seeing movies as they were meant to be seen by their makers. :rolleyes: :p

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Lord Malakite
09-13-2002, 01:57 AM
There is only one way you are going to satisfy everyone with the wide screen format. Start making rectangle T.V.s. :crazed:

Beast
09-13-2002, 02:02 AM
They are, just wait until those people that hate "them black bars" get a widescreen TV set. There are still smaller black bars at the top and bottom because the Widescreen sets are 16.9, which if I recall correctly is either 1.85:1 or 1.78:1. And just wait until they toss a fullscreen movie into one of those and complain about the huge black bars on the sides of the picture. ;) :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Lman316
09-13-2002, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Yes, but would you drive your car with around 45% of the windshield blacked out so you couldn't see everything that was coming. I doubt that you would do that, and it's the same with P&S. People need to realize exactly how much picture they are loosing when they watch a movie that has been 90% of the time butched by someone that has no involvement with the creation of that movie. If you want to watch a movie with blinders on, poke out one of your eyes as well so you don't have to see so much in real life. But most people that know the difference prefer seeing movies as they were meant to be seen by their makers. :rolleyes: :p

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

I think there is a significant difference between driving a car, and watching a movie... I mean, it is afterall, just a movie.
Again, I'm not going to even try to present much argument here, but why should anyone realize how much picture they're losing? I think they know they're losing something. And what if they didn't know but found out? What if they found out and still wanted to watch a full screen? Again....not that hard to understand....it would be a matter of preference.
Why shouldn't people buy full screen? Because you and others here don't like it? Because that seems to be the massive argument on your side. "Well, I don't like it, so neither should you."
And don't roll your eyes at me. I'm making a vaild point. They're just movies, afterall :rolleyes:...
Okay, I'll throw in one decent argument here....without widescreen, you're not getting the full effect of the movie, right? It's just not the same experience right?
*Insert high chest, arrogant tone of voice here* "Well, I say, and think that you can't have the full experience of a movie unless you're watching it at the theater. Anyone who watches movies on their own television is stupid." And that's not apples and oranges. Clearly you can see that watching a movie on the big screen and watching one on your own television is different...right?
Or...
"Well, you can't have the full, complete experience of the movie unless you own surround sound speakers, a full entertainment center, flatscreen television, the works! I mean, if you're watching the movie on just a regular television, you're plain stupid!"
Would you like someone telling you that you were stupid if you watch movies on a regular television? You have the option to get all that junk to put with your television, but you may choose not to. You may not like it...and that's what it comes down to. Whether or not you like something. And, like I said, no one should tell someone else what to like...
And you can fit that argument with anything that comes down to a matter of taste. "What? You don't like tap water? You'd rather drink spring? Oh, you have no idea what's being cut out of your water! You're dumb!" "What? You don't eat your vegetables right from the ground? The dirt annoys you? Well, you have no idea what's been taken out of your veggies, man. You're stupid if you don't like them right from the ground..."

And now a word from the other side :dead:....

Beast
09-13-2002, 02:22 AM
Most people actually don't know, trust me. I have opened the eyes of alot of formarly lost people when it comes to widescreen. All you have to do is actually show them how much of the movie is butchered and they get the drift. If you don't understand that, then you should stick with VHS and never go to movies.

Seriously, it all comes down to the fact. Would you cut off the edges of the Mona Lisa to fit her into a frame that was to small? Cut the arms off priceless statues to fit them in a box that was to small. It's all art my friend, and the modification of art is somthing that should never be considered o.k. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

RooJay
09-16-2002, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Lman316
Okay, I'll throw in one decent argument here....without widescreen, you're not getting the full effect of the movie, right? It's just not the same experience right?

For those of us who truly understand and appreciate what widescreen means, this is certainly not the argument we are making (although, certainly reason enough). The real issue at hand, as my friend JJB points out, is the compromise made to the original artistic vision and intent of the movie. By the way, a JJB also points out, it is all art; even the most poorly made direct to video trash (admittedly, there are some filmmakers whose only interest in the medium is exploitative at best, and couldn't really care less about the integrity of their film vision). Even the, arguably, worst director of all time, Ed Wood, believed he was making art.


*Insert high chest, arrogant tone of voice here* "Well, I say, and think that you can't have the full experience of a movie unless you're watching it at the theater. Anyone who watches movies on their own television is stupid." And that's not apples and oranges. Clearly you can see that watching a movie on the big screen and watching one on your own television is different...right?
Or...
"Well, you can't have the full, complete experience of the movie unless you own surround sound speakers, a full entertainment center, flatscreen television, the works! I mean, if you're watching the movie on just a regular television, you're plain stupid!"
Would you like someone telling you that you were stupid if you watch movies on a regular television? You have the option to get all that junk to put with your television, but you may choose not to. You may not like it...and that's what it comes down to. Whether or not you like something. And, like I said, no one should tell someone else what to like...

Ok, maybe I missed something, but I haven't seen where anyone on either side of the issue has called anyone else "stupid". Uninformed, definitely, but not stupid at all, and certainly not at all disallowed their own preference.
Aside from that, I agree with this last statement wholeheartedly! If it were at all possible (meaning, if I had the kind of cash needed) I would not even own a television OR DVD player, but would instead have my own little private theater attached to my house complete with an honest-to-goodness film projector, platter system, THX digital surround sound with a full array of speakers, standard front projection screen, and probably even a complete, full-service concession stand, and all the movies I own would be original film prints. That would then be the ONLY way I would ever view films in my own home (at least until digital projection becomes the standard!). That truthfully is the only way films should ever be viewed in the home. However, since I lack the funds (and the connections) necessary to make this possible, I will make do with the next best thing I can afford - WIDESCREEN DVD's. Anything else is, honestly, just a waste of my time.


And you can fit that argument with anything that comes down to a matter of taste. "What? You don't like tap water? You'd rather drink spring? Oh, you have no idea what's being cut out of your water! You're dumb!" "What? You don't eat your vegetables right from the ground? The dirt annoys you? Well, you have no idea what's been taken out of your veggies, man. You're stupid if you don't like them right from the ground..."

Many of the chemicals put into tapwater nowadays are bad for you. Eating dirt is bad for you. Watching a film without having part of the image cropped off can have only a positive effect on you. Apples and oranges.

Again, the main argument (and often the final word, be-all-end-all for the argument for these people) I hear from opponents of the widescreen format (and by the way, widescreen should be the rule and not the exception; as has been the case in the past with the video industry) is that they are distracted by the "black bars". This is a point I have brought up before in these discussions, and for me this really sums it all up. How anybody can be distracted by an absence of image on the screen (that is what those "black bars" are, by the way; not some governent conspiracy to make your picture smaller, or to cover up something "they" don't want you to see, but merely a space where no image exists) and not be distracted by the "black bars" of the picture tube housing that surrounds the entire image on even Pan & Scan formatted films, or the wall behind the television, or any of the stuff that normally surrounds the television in most people's homes (flowers in vases, photos on the wall, windows to the outside world [filled with potentially distracting crap, I might add!], candles, knick-knacks, what have you...) is truthfully beyond me. I for one would much prefer the absence of an image that was never there in the first place to an absence of image from the whole!
To those people who refuse to ever watch movies in widescreen I say this - Give it a try. There is much more to experience in film than just the expressions of the speaker and the dialogue. In just about every shot of just about every film there is much more going on than just the main action and the words of the speaker. From shot composition to set decoration - there is always much more going on that helps to tell and enrich the story. Don't look at those black bars; keep your eyes and attention where they belong - on those images, the complete images. What's the point of even watching a film if you're going to focus on other things outside of the bounds of that film? sidenote: I just had an interesting thought! What if some of those people who do get distracted by the "black bars" are those same people that go to the movie theaters with their babies, make and receive cell phone calls, and talk out loud througout the movie?! No offense intended to anyone who does find the "black bars" distracting. Sometimes the story may even depend on us noticing those little things happening on the edges of the widescreen image. There's certainly more to this idea than even I have time to get into right now, but the main point is that those little bits of picture that get cut off of the edges are there for a reason, however slight, and they do add something to the experience and to the story the viewer is attempting understand and enjoy.

My dream is to become a filmmaker, and God-willing, it will happen. When I do manage to see my dream come true, I intend to make only good movies. I want to make movies that everyone will want to see and enjoy; movies that will inspire people, movies that will make people think, movies that will change the world for the better even (as corny as that sounds! What filmmaker wouldn't want that to be the case with his movies?). Hopefully, I will be more than just talk, and all of this will actually happen. If and when it does, my films will never, EVER be viewed in any other format than that which I originally create them in. I fully intend to someday make it part of every one of my contracts, that my films never be edited or altered in any way; including and especially being cropped into Pan & Scan format. I am an artist. Film is my chosen medium. Like my friend JJB has also pointed out - no one in their right mind would dare to trim the Mona Lisa to fit into a smaller frame. Every artist should be granted that same respect regardless of their popularity, ability, competence, or importance. (This might be a good time to point out that most movies are cropped and re-edited in instances such as these by someone other than the original director; usually someone who has probably never even met the original director.

Now, are you wrong for preferring Pan & Scan? Absolutely not. To each his own. If you see no importance to being able to view the entire image then that's your choice. If you prefer to watch movies upside down and backwards then, by all means, do so. Knock yourself out! It's the fact that someone else has decided to compromise and alter the original filmmaker's vision that's the problem. I honestly don't believe that Pan & Scan should ever have been an option. If the only way anyone could have ever viewed films in their homes was to watch them in widescreen, it really wouldn't make much difference and no one would have a problem with that. Those "black bars" would've ceased being a distraction to anyone a long time ago.

Lman316
09-17-2002, 12:51 AM
I don't truly want to get into a real argument. I do like debating, but with my "short fuse", it's probably best that I just stay away from this post from now on :p.
I will admit that I may have been hasty in my posting to say that everyone was calling Pan&Scan viewers stupid. But here is where I got it from:


Originally posted by mini-rock
Who had the final decision on this matter? Fox or Lucas? If it was Lucas is P&S part of Lucas vision? If it was Fox how can someone like Lucas let his "vision" get chopped & hacked!

I used to be one of those "I want my screen filled" people, and it's not a matter of preference, it's ignorance.

Granted, not everyone's opinion on here, but this was in agreement with everyone else and it just looked as though everyone else was rallying around that point as well. Just the attitude I got was people who like full screen were being, in a sense "laughed at" by those with a more sophisticated taste...

I'll try to clear things up about my arguments. My little quips about the "veggies with dirt" and "tap water" weren't meant as serious arguments. I thought I had made it clear that I wasn't going for that - it was way too late that night. I only put that in because those do add up with some of what is being said. That people do not know what they are missing. And just because they're missing something, it doesn't neccessarily mean that that is a bad thing...

On the point of movies being art, you're walking a fine line. Half the movies ever created couldn't be considered "art". For examples, Snow Dogs, Kung Pow, Little Nicky (even though I found some of it funny :p) and other assorted gems are to be noted as works of art? This is getting a little off topic, but most movies made (it seems) aren't made to be insightful, witty, intelligent. But rather, how much skin can be shown, how much stuff can be blown up and how much money can be made. Now, don't get me wrong (sorry for this tangent, I'll get back on track in a second...), I'm all for blowing stuff up in movies, but not at the sacrifice of the film and its story line - because sometimes, it can just be too much and get stupid... That, RooJay, you mentioned. But there are a lot who seem not to consider it art - that's not at all what they want or what they're going for, but rather a cash cow, and nothing more...
Okay....back on track, now, here I go: you consider it art. Okay, I can go along with that. And JJB even went as far to bring up the analogy of tampering with the Mona Lisa. My argument: there is only one Mona Lisa. You don't tamper with one of a kind items. However, there are many...many copies of a movie being produced, both widescreen and full screen. I heard complaints in this thread about people losing widescreen, but that's never going to happen. There are enough people who like it to keep it around. So...you've got what you want, so why even bother to complain? You're not going to buy it, it doesn't affect you. Let the others who like it, buy it.

I don't really see where you get off calling people "uninformed" though. I know that you're not getting the full picture when you're watching Pan&Scan. It says so at the beginning of every movie: "This film has been edited to fit this screen..." Everyone that I asked said they knew there was a difference, and it really doesn't bother them....
And please, please, don't talk to me like I'm a child or a backward, unintelligent person... I do not like to be talked down to:


How anybody can be distracted by an absence of image on the screen (that is what those "black bars" are, by the way; not some governent conspiracy to make your picture smaller, or to cover up something "they" don't want you to see, but merely a space where no image exists)

I don't know if you were referring to me directly on that (because it seems that I'm the only "other side" here), but I did mention that in my posts, that it is abscence of image (because you mentioned it in an earlier post - even if I was being slightly sarcastic with it). But let's face it, it's more commonly referred to as the "black bars".
Again, I really don't want to get into this too much, and I'm going to try to keep this short, but you say that people, that if distracted by that, should be distracted by other things. Well, people are used to seeing that. They are used to seeing the edge of the television, it's something they see everyday. And they're used to seeing the full screen. When more is added to that and the picture is smaller, well, that is (even if you don't think so) somewhat annoying. You say that widescreen should have been the norm, in the first place, and then this would not be a problem. But, that is nothing more than your opinion. And again you're telling people how things should be done. And you (serious advocates of widescreen) keep saying: "Oh, I wish that more people knew about widescreen!" Why? Again, the only reason you would want people to know is for the hope that it would phase Pan&Scan out, because, ultimately, you don't like it. Tell me I'm wrong. What other reason? Because you're sincerely upset that they're not seeing the full vision of the director? Doubt it. But what it comes down to is this: You still have your widescreen. The director's vision is still intact with that version. They just have extras with different ways of viewing them. A different perspective...be it a cut version or not.

I hope I tied up all of my loose ends here, but if I didn't, I guess I'll try to better next time. Unless, of course, I actually follow my own advice and just stay the heck out of here...

End...

Beast
09-17-2002, 01:09 AM
It's all art. Would you chop the sides off your son's/daughter's pre-school fingerpaint picture, just so that it would fit in a frame. Even if it's not high brow art, it deserves to be kept as was originally made. If your comfortable chopping up a picture your daughter or son put their time and love into, like every film maker does with their movies, then I can see you having a valid reason for your anti OAR statements. Even whats considered trash can really be art, remeber that Van Gogh's paintings were mocked and ridiculed until after he died. :)

Sure there are copies of the Mona Lisa, you still don't hack the sides off of the picture unless you have no respect at all for the original artists work. Same way for any movie that is produced. They should be preserved as the filmmaker intended, not butchered because someone don't like "dem black bars". Let's chop the sides off the last supper, so it fits in the frame better. :p

Trust me, as I said many people actually don't know. I have spent time in video stores and places like Media Play, Suncoast and other places that sell Widescreen DVD's. People complain about the black bars, but if you show them pictures of exactly what they are missing their eyes become open to what they really are missing. It always is refreshing to see those people get what they are missing. It brings warm feeling, to my heart. :D

P&S does threaten Widescreen on occassion. There have been a few basterdized Pan and Scam releases of movies that have appeared over the last year. That is a direct result of people that have no clue about the proper aspect ratio of movies being vocal about hating widescreen. I wish sometimes that DVD would have remained a nich market like Laserdisc, atleast we didn't have to worry about widescreen haters entering the format due to the price of the players and discs. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Beast
09-18-2002, 04:46 AM
There are no comparison pictures of E1 PS & WS that I could find online. But this should give you some of the idea what you are missing, since all the Star Wars movies are in the same or similar aspect ratio. I tossed in some other movies as well, like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, LOTR's and Star Trek: First Contact. :)

http://www.widescreen.org/examples/starwars/index.shtml

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/6781/EmpireCompare.html

http://www.widescreen.org/examples/last_crusade/index.shtml

http://www.widescreen.org/examples/lord_rings_fellowship/index.shtml

http://www.widescreen.org/examples/stfc/index.shtml

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

mini-rock
09-18-2002, 01:08 PM
Lman316, First off if my statement offended I apologize. That statement was directed at me, that "I" was ignorant, and I was ignorant 'cause I wasn't educated on the benefits of widescreen. Now that I know of the benefits I do have a preference and it's widescreen. I worded my thoughts wrong, and I apologize. I'm not good at putting my thoughts into words without sometimes coming out looking like a jackass.

I'm affraid that the people who got DVD off the ground (early adopters) may get the short end of the stick, and sometimes I feel thats where we are headed. IMO, P&S should not be an option and should be done away with. Thats all it is, my opinion. :)

RooJay
09-18-2002, 07:44 PM
Wow JJB, looking at those comparison photos I noticed something I hadn't really thought about in a long time (I haven't watched any movie in both P&S and widescreen in quite a long time, thus no means of comparison) - the way that cropping and blowing up the image to fill the screen for P&S really distorts the images and damages the sharpness and quality of the picture. Almost like looking at a magazine photo up close. Yet another reason why P&S should never have existed.

RooJay
09-18-2002, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Lman316
I'll try to clear things up about my arguments. My little quips about the "veggies with dirt" and "tap water" weren't meant as serious arguments. I thought I had made it clear that I wasn't going for that - it was way too late that night. I only put that in because those do add up with some of what is being said. That people do not know what they are missing. And just because they're missing something, it doesn't neccessarily mean that that is a bad thing...

I understood what you meant by this, but I do, in all honesty, believe that in this case what people are missing is a bad thing bvy virtue of the fact that a crpped image is not the image the filmmaker ever intended you to see.


On the point of movies being art, you're walking a fine line. Half the movies ever created couldn't be considered "art". For examples, Snow Dogs, Kung Pow, Little Nicky (even though I found some of it funny :p) and other assorted gems are to be noted as works of art? This is getting a little off topic, but most movies made (it seems) aren't made to be insightful, witty, intelligent. But rather, how much skin can be shown, how much stuff can be blown up and how much money can be made. Now, don't get me wrong (sorry for this tangent, I'll get back on track in a second...), I'm all for blowing stuff up in movies, but not at the sacrifice of the film and its story line - because sometimes, it can just be too much and get stupid... That, RooJay, you mentioned. But there are a lot who seem not to consider it art - that's not at all what they want or what they're going for, but rather a cash cow, and nothing more...

Art, by it's very nature, is subjective. I'm sure you've heard this before. Yes, even movies like Snow Dogs, Kung Pow, and Little Nicky can be seen as art. It all comes down to the the perceptions of the viewer. Even those movies aren't considered by 99.9% of the world as "insightful, witty, [and] intelligent", and do seem to focus on effects, the skin-factor, and how much money can be made can still be considered art by someone. Especially in the case of that person being the filmmaker, producer, writer, cinematographer, whomever is the cropping (or even the editing of a film's content for television!) a bad thing.

Okay....back on track, now, here I go: you consider it art. Okay, I can go along with that. And JJB even went as far to bring up the analogy of tampering with the Mona Lisa. My argument: there is only one Mona Lisa. You don't tamper with one of a kind items. However, there are many...many copies of a movie being produced, both widescreen and full screen.[/B][/QUOTE]

There are many, many copies being made of the Mona Lisa as well. However, no one buying a copy of the Mona Lisa does so in order to only view part of that painting. Perhaps using such a revered work of art as an example in this case is not such a good choice, but this can be said of any item representing visual media. Take movie posters for example (LOTS of people collect those - some consider them art, many others consider them simply as disposable advertisement), no one buys a copy of a movie poster just so that they can view one portion of it, but instead to view te entire image. The same should (in a perfect world) be true of films as well. This is not to say that there are not some people who buy movie posters only to cut them up for various reasons (typically for the purposes of creating new art), but that comes down to a form of personal expression; just as one (not necessarily all) might prefer to watch a cropped version of a movie. It's when this type of alteration is implied to be representative of, and accepted as, the original vision of the makers that there is a problem.


I heard complaints in this thread about people losing widescreen, but that's never going to happen. There are enough people who like it to keep it around. So...you've got what you want, so why even bother to complain? You're not going to buy it, it doesn't affect you. Let the others who like it, buy it.

Taking into account my above comments, there is indeed a very real danger to the integrity of the original format of movies, and to the continued production of widescreen DVD's. Take Star Wars figures for instance (something we all here experience) - there has been a perception by the powers that be at Hasbro that the majority of their target consumers prefer pre-posed figures with action features. It is exactly because of this perception that these kinds of figures have become the norm, and not the exception to the rule. Granted, we still do see neutrally posed, action feature-less figures from time to time, but they have become far fewer, and uch farther between. In regards to widescreen versions of movies, there was a time before the advent of DVD that widescreen formatted films were perceived by the video production industry to be unwanted, and pan & scan was perceived to be the prefered means of watching films in the home. Consequently, there were many films, which, to this da, have not been released in widescreen format on VHS. In fact, in those days it was often years before even the obvious candidates for release in widescreen format were even considered, and even instances where these films only saw very limited release as widescreen presentations, effectively keeping these vesions out of the hands of those who wanted it. It was perceived that widescreen was a financial gamble that most often resulted in a loss for the video production companies, and that pan & scan formatting was the best way to turn a profit on videos. To those of us who see and appreciate the benefits of widescreen DVD's, this is quite alarming when one notes the increasing numbers of films that are being released in ONLY pan & scan versions.Even a classic like Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory almost saw release in only pan & scan! The only reason the widescreen version was released at all is that the pro-widescreen community was very vocal in complaining aout the lack of a widescreen version. The same for The Wizard of Oz DVD, though I suspect this example may have more to do with the lack of a surviving original aspect ratio print of the movie. In that particular example the importance of transferring films to DVD in widescreen format is made even more evident.


I don't really see where you get off calling people "uninformed" though. I know that you're not getting the full picture when you're watching Pan&Scan. It says so at the beginning of every movie: "This film has been edited to fit this screen..." Everyone that I asked said they knew there was a difference, and it really doesn't bother them....

I never said that you or anyone else who prefers a cropped format is uninformed that the movie has been altered; only that you are obviously uninformed of the importance of presenting films unaltered from their original formats.


And please, please, don't talk to me like I'm a child or a backward, unintelligent person... I do not like to be talked down to:

You have never once been spoken to like a child or as backwards, and unintelligent by me, or anyone else sharing my views in this discussion, and I resent the implication. I have, in all of my posts, acknowledged and accepted your personal preferences and views, and have not once "talked down to you". I also resent the implication that I, and those who share my views on his subject are, by nature of our views, arrogant or somehow preachy. Like I've said before, however you choose to view a movie is you're choice; nobody here is seeking to deny you that. You have a preferrence for pan & scan; good for you. That doesn't change the fact that altering a movie from it's original form in any way, and for any purpose, especially by parties other than the original maker (and this is including either of the director, producer, cinematographer, whomever) is wrong. It IS under any circumstances a bad thing. That having been said, I realize (as I thought I had implied in earlier posts) that many people have gotten "used to" seeing movies in this format in their homes. Since most people don't own fancy editing equipment with which to reformat movies for themselves to suit their own (now conditioned) tastes, I see no problem with pan & scan version continuing to be included on DVD's (as has been the case with a good many DVD's to date) providing that this format is not presented as the preferred version by the producers the way that a separately released and promoted version can be perceived. In other words, pan & scan versions should always be presented as the alternative to the original format and not the other way around. Put them both on the same disc (they'll both fit!) - wouldn't bother me one bit! Certainly an effort should be made by the DVD industry to maintain the integrity of movies as they were originally created and meant to be viewed.


I don't know if you were referring to me directly on that (because it seems that I'm the only "other side" here), but I did mention that in my posts, that it is abscence of image (because you mentioned it in an earlier post - even if I was being slightly sarcastic with it). But let's face it, it's more commonly referred to as the "black bars".

Certainly, by no means, not! Just because you are the "only 'other side' here" does not mean that you are the only "other side". My statements have been, and always will be, in regards to the opposing argument in general. In fact, in the instance of this particular statement, I too was being sarcastic, and certainly didn't mean this to be taken as a blanket statement directed at everyone, or even anyone who prefers cropped, pan & scan movies. This statement was more or less intended as a jab at those types of people I specifically mentioned as being encountered often in movie audiences nowadays (those in these forums who know me, know how much I despise those types of people!). I do, in fact, I believe that I mentioned something to that effect in the original statement you quote me from (in fact, I stated it as sidenote, and not necesarily intended as officially part of the discussion at hand).


Again, I really don't want to get into this too much, and I'm going to try to keep this short, but you say that people, that if distracted by that, should be distracted by other things. Well, people are used to seeing that. They are used to seeing the edge of the television, it's something they see everyday. And they're used to seeing the full screen. When more is added to that and the picture is smaller, well, that is (even if you don't think so) somewhat annoying. You say that widescreen should have been the norm, in the first place, and then this would not be a problem. But, that is nothing more than your opinion. And again you're telling people how things should be done.

As another sidenote (and again, I mean no offense by this), using this logic, were I to devise and market a facade mimicking the edges of a television screen that would attach to the real edges of the screen (providing that it also magnifies and enlarges the image), effectively turning any television into a widescreen television, that the problem with widescreen movies would then be solved? Or perhaps, if these people were to become the owner of actual widescreen televisions (or even if widescreen tv sets became the standard) that they would all immediately take to watching movies only in widescreen format? I as you not to take offense to this question, but please take it seriously; I honestly am interested in hearing the answer.


And you (serious advocates of widescreen) keep saying: "Oh, I wish that more people knew about widescreen!" Why? Again, the only reason you would want people to know is for the hope that it would phase Pan&Scan out, because, ultimately, you don't like it. Tell me I'm wrong. What other reason? Because you're sincerely upset that they're not seeing the full vision of the director? Doubt it. But what it comes down to is this: You still have your widescreen. The director's vision is still intact with that version. They just have extras with different ways of viewing them. A different perspective...be it a cut version or not.

I have never, and will never tell anyone that they are wrong for watching any movie in pan & scan. What is wrong is the fact that the home video industry does crop and alter other people's films to begin with and then proceeds to present it as a true representation of the original intent and vision. We want people to know about widescreen because we don't like pan & scan? You are wrong. I may not speak for all, but I do honestly, and in all sincerity believe it's wrong that the filmmakers' original vision is comprised in this way. Doubt all you care to. I, for one, am a lover of film in all it's varied forms (for better or for worse), and I truly do hate to see this sort of thing seen as acceptable.

Lman316
09-23-2002, 10:01 PM
I kinda skipped over the other posts. I'm not trying to offend anyone - I'm not doing that because "I don't want to waste my time" or anything like that.....but I just didn't want to get into another argument :p. I did catch some of it, and I would like to offer my apologies if anything I said was offensive and/or "heated."

Okay, reason I'm here, and this will probably show up in another thread, because it's just that aggravating.
Tonight, my mom was watching some news show - I can't remember which, probably the one with Tom Brokaw. Anyway, they had a story about an organization that takes movies and edits them to their liking. They take out violence, obscene language, nudity, bullets, and they even replaced swords with lightsabers. They want to make movies suitable for all audiences.
Now, as I watched this, I thought right back to this thread, about destroying art. Now, stuff like that, I would agree is destroying the art of the director. And some of those directors are speaking out against this.
This gives me a better understanding to your arguments about taking away from the director's vision. Because, as I said: "you'd still have your version, what does it hurt to have an extra..." Well, it would be walking a fine line with this. "You'd still have the original version, so what does it matter if someone is changing an extra copy and taking out the bullets?" Well, of course, I could say that changing the size of the screen isn't changing content. And that full screen is of course done with permission, and yadda, yadda, yadda.
Anyway, I just wanted to bring this up to get anyone's thoughts about that. It really just kinda ticked me off to listen to these people. If you're that offended by a movie, then just don't watch it. You shouldn't have to change it like that...

Thoughts?

End...

2-1B
09-24-2002, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by Lman316
Anyway, I just wanted to bring this up to get anyone's thoughts about that. It really just kinda ticked me off to listen to these people. If you're that offended by a movie, then just don't watch it. You shouldn't have to change it like that...


I completely agree. :D What a bunch of quacks, hacking up movies like that. If they're concerned with making films "good for the family", they should finance their own.
How silly - if a movie is riddled with such "questionable" :rolleyes: content, then why would you even want to pick through for the "good stuff" ? :confused: Shouldn't it be abstained from on principle alone? :confused:

I wonder if any of those anti-Harry Potter idiots tried to punch up the movie with some religious content or something . . .

Beast
09-24-2002, 01:49 AM
Check out TheDigitalbits.com's opinion of this hacking of a movie, to make it family safe. I have to agree with them one hundred percent. Note that I'm reposting it here, so you don't have to go there if you don't want to, but it's a wonderful site. Note that a particular word was grabbed by the auto censor in the repost. I also had to alter the F word to damn so that it wouldn't get turned into idiot. :rolleyes: I particularly like the very last paragraph, you may see that in my signature in the not to distant future. :)

Also today, we at The Digital Bits feel it's time we weighed in on another hotly-debated issue that's cropped up related to the home video industry. There are a number of companies that are trying to promote the use of special digital software packages to "clean up" or "mask" certain portions of Hollywood movies that are deemed "offensive". MovieMask (http://www.moviemask.com/index.php) has a technology that allows you to watch any movie on your PC "without exposing you and your family to the objectionable content contained in that film". So, for example, instead of blood splattering when people get hit by gunfire in The Matrix, you see a shower of sparks instead. Don't want your kids seeing Kate Winslet's "assets" in Titanic? No problem - this software will put a dress on her. Oh, but it's not all about censorship. No... this software can also insert clickable hyperlinks to retail stores into movies. Really like that dress Meg Ryan's wearing? Click here to order online now. There are also online stores (click here (http://www.cleancutcinemas.com/index.html) and here (http://www.mycleanflicks.com/)) that offer "edited" movies for rent. And the Arizona Republic recently did a story (http://www.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0915cleanfilms15.html) on the growing trend.

We side firmly with the Directors Guild of America (http://www.dga.org/) on this one folks. Editing a movie without the filmmaker's knowledge, permission and supervision is absolutely, unconditionally and completely wrong. This is every bit as bad as colorizing a black and white film, or showing a 2.35 film in pan & scan. You don't like the violence or sex in a film? Then don't watch it! Read a book, for God's sake! I frankly can't believe this is even an issue.

At a recent DVD event, someone came up to me and said, "Gee... you know, I'm a parent and I love movies. And there are just tons of films I'd love to start exposing my kids too, like The Godfather and Saving Private Ryan, if only I didn't have to worry about them seeing all the sex and violence and swearing. What can I do?" Well... I do have an answer to that question, and I'll say it right out in plain language: You have absolutely no damn business showing a film like The Godfather to your kids until they're old enough to see it (and understand it) the way it was originally meant by the director to be seen. Period. There are PLENTY of films out there to watch with your kids. But altering a film just to conform to your own personal tastes and morality is absurd and wrong. You wouldn't pull a pair of Fruit of the Loom boxers over Michaelangelo's David and then say, "Look kids... that's a Renaissance sculpture! Isn't that great art?" Why not just paint dresses on all of Picasso's nudes? How about we just let everyone rewrite sections of classic books to take out whatever they find personally offensive? Maybe Harry Potter would read better to religious conservatives if Harry were simply a "boy scout" rather than a "wizard"? Maybe every reference to the character of Jim in Huck Finn should read "disadvantaged African American" rather than "******"? Where does this stuff stop?

People might argue, "But this is a movie! It's NOT the same thing as a Picasso or a Mark Twain novel!" But it IS exactly the same thing. Movies are one of the dominant art forms of our time. Some are good and some are bad. And yes... some depict sex and violence. But that doesn't give ANYONE (other the creators) the right to change them. 'Nuff said.
MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

2-1B
09-24-2002, 02:04 AM
Good points, but if I had a son he'd be watching The Godfather at a very early age. Very early, like I did when I was a kid. :)

mini-rock
09-24-2002, 04:00 AM
Originally posted by Caesar
but if I had a son he'd be watching The Godfather at a very early age. Very early, like I did when I was a kid. :)

Agreed. My mom explained movies to me when I was very young. She has always been kind of a film buff, but she always said movies are NOT REAL, it's entertainment. I remember going to see Friday the 13th part IV in the theater when I was 12. I saw Cat People when I was 9 or 10 I think. I remember watching the first Friday the 13th, I forget how old I was, but saw it from behind the livingroom couch in an almost completely dark room, and my step father said to turn it off if I was too scared, but I didn't. That was the whole point of watching a scary movie, to be scared! I guess my point is what happened to talking to kids. Instead, these people would rather go to any other extreme instead of sitting down and talking to their child or just waiting till their kids are old enough. My kids know if they are not comfortable watching something, then don't watch it, and whatever I'm not comfortable with them watching stays locked in my room.

RooJay
09-25-2002, 06:20 PM
Human society seems to have lost nearly all concept of common sense. That is the real problem with the world today. Not drugs. Not violent entertainment. Not sexual content on TV. Lack of common sense - plain and simple.