Full-Screen

Those who make full-screen should die horrible deaths.

__________________
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" - Howard Beale

lol

Hear, hear!

In an age in which more and more people are buying widescreen TVs and more digital channels are broadcasting in widescreen everyday why do the film companies persist in releasing Full Screen Editions? Welcome to the 21st Century, DVD guys!

__________________
Lex Luthor: "I'd question your integrity, but you're a journalist."

I vote for that
whats the point of creating full screen dvds, who actually buys full screen dvds. It ruins the movie. They have to make artifical camera movements, ****ing up the original camera movements. It pisses me off. I have gone into places to buy tapes and dvds, and the person at the counter goes "you do no this is in widescreen dont you?" i once said not ****in ****, why do u think im buying.
It makes me sick, do any of u's buy fullscreen?

I buy full screen. I never looked at it to the fact of the different camera angles. I know some dvd's offer both the wide and full screen in one, which is more efficient. I don't like the black on the top and bottom when I am watching a movie on tv

__________________
Seek me, for comfort, call me, for Solace, I'll be waiting, for the end of my broken heart..

Plus a lady fan of PimpDaShizzle V2.0 and Most importantly JRS

Then you should definitely change your name from "moviefan", because it's woefully inaccurate.

Here are some examples of the kinds of visual and contextual information you're missing through your ignorance...





The Mummy (1999)






The Mask (1994)


Yeah, the panning and scanning is definitely MUCH better.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

I made the very unfortunate mistake of buying The Silence of the Lambs DVD in full screen. I still can't live with myself. I should have returned it. I can sorta live with it though... the special practically has clips from the whole movie, in widescreen, and I don't see much difference with that movie. It was shot so close up.

Jonathan Demme prefers to shoot in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, which doesn't lose nearly as much information as the 'true' widescren processes, which are roughly 2.40:1, or the frame is almost two and a half times as long as it is tall. A regular television screen is much closer to a true square than the movie screen. Even so, you'd be surprised how much picture can be lost when a 1.85:1 picture is cropped, though at least there's hardly any scanning.


For anyone who wants or needs a quick course in 'what is letterboxing?', check out THIS excellent site.

moviefan,most DVD players have an option that changes a widescreen presentation into a full screen. I think it's called the "zoom" option?

__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?

You guys are so smart! although I am not as intellegent as most of you are on the cinematics of movies, the name "moviefan" is what i chose to show my interets that i like or love to watch movies. It is what i enjoy doing most.
Thank you for that wonderful comparison on the WIDE screen and Full screen options, and you got me. I see the picture quality is much better. I do have some movies in wide screen, the only thing that bothers me is the black on the top and bottom. THAT IS IT.
And the zoom option, yes, yes, i can read my remote control and i know of that option. BUT there was an option, i am not sure of which movie it was, i believe it was The Friday After Next movie, gave you the option of either the full screen or the wide screen.

moviefan, I don't have a DVD player hooked up to my television. I watch movies on my laptop or I connect my laptop to my TV, so I wasn't sure about the "zoom" option on a standard DVD player. I was in no way implying that you couldn't read your remote. It was a genuine question, not a sarcastic statement. Sorry.

thanks for clearing that up, but on the dvd player that i have, there is a zoom option.

Hi everybody, I am George Braun. I just joined today. Anyway I agree. I hate full screen!

I love widescreen!

__________________
Who am I? I'm Spider-Man!

Wonderful comparison pictures, Holden. So rarely do people fully comprehend the difference until seeing something like that. In fact, just recently I had to show a friend the inside coverof my copy of Raging Bull for him to understand my DVD fetish.

Still, this might be a good time to bring it up, why not widescreen on VHS tapes? Who made the decision, and with the release of widescreen tv's, is there any hope for change?

__________________
"We are all worms, but I do believe I am a glow-worm."
--Winston Churchill

There was an attempt to release movies letterboxed on VHS. There was a pretty decent selection available at reatailers like Suncoast by the late '90s, but it was never, ever thought of for mainstreaming. Blockbuster and the other corperate fu*kers wouldn't allow it with their influence. As for why it never became the kind of niche market specialty LaserDiscs were before the advent of DVD, it's mainly because any serious film collector, like myself, converted to LD, which were indefinitely durable, had special features not even possible on VHS (like audio commentary tracks), and were addictively collectible (believe you me). It'd be difficult, even stupid, to get someone interested in collecting with a format as fragile as VHS. After you watch it five or ten or twenty times, the pitcure and sound start degrading so rapidly. And what do you do if your VCR eats it? Tough *****, I reckon.

This is what sucks about DVD taking over the market, from the film buff perspective. Yes, they're cheaper and better technology than LDs, but they're also mainstream, which means the Blockbusters have their wicked influence, and the oblivious public can keep decrying those little black bars at the top and the bottom of their screens (without even knowing what they're really there for).

Education would be fairly easy. Turner Classic Movies runs a good little five-minute tutorial, with directors such as Scorsese and Ron Howard laying out why letterboxing is so crucial for home viewing on standard sets. TCM has so beautifully been supporting widescreening in their braodcats for years now. AMC used to, but has pretty much abandoned the practice as a whole. The Sci-Fi Channel is the only of the other basic cable operators in The States to really push letterboxing.

I suppose ignorance is bliss, but I don't know how you can be a real film fan and not notice how discracting and artistically criminal panning & scanning is. Yeah, most of us grew up watching movies cropped for TV and not knowing the difference, but at some point you have to wake up and see the truth. Don't you?

Hopefuly the next generation, the one reared on DVD and HD-TV and the like, will break the cycle and one day this will all be moot. If we could all afford widescreen television sets, it already would be.

*END RANT NOW*

Yes, yes, letterbox is better. But heed the brother from High Fidelity and drop the "unappreciated scholar" persona. The great thing about movies is that you can be a fan without knowing much about them. Please, please, please do not infect cinema with the same stuck-up elitist bullsh*t that's already rampant in other art forms.

But if we treat them with respect, then who can us slightly more knowledgeable, and thusly more likely to spread our genes (or for me, demonseed), insult and spit upon?

Yeah, OK, whatever.

If the other art forms were being sold to the public truncated, maybe you'd better appreciate the venom and level of contempt I have for the process, thus my tone. If up to 40% of a finished book or song or painting were being passed off as 'normal' to the masses with only the smallest mention on the back of the product, wouldn't you find that outrageous? You could still "enjoy" a song or a novel that was incomplete, but isn't it retarded to do so intentionally, once you understand the difference?







Oh, and drop this. Thus endeth the lesson, Mr. Ness.

*URP*


wuv,
Professor Pike

Riveting retort. You win.

This "40% of a book" analogy is completely unequivalent, as anyone can follow a movie in full-screen format. Regardless, it doesn't matter if it's retarded, because it still doesn't justify this stuck-up "she raped the Priest's daughter!" level of outrage. The idea that she's some how affronted your aesthetic sensibilities by claiming to be a "fan" of movies that she watches in full screen is cinematic snobbery of heretofore unknown heights.

You'll note I'm not defending full-screen...just decrying condescension under the mild guise of education. Do they actually let you into the theater on that horse?


Methinks I hit a nerve.