WARNING - new DVD is NOT widescreen
-
good_and_evil — 19 years ago(March 21, 2007 06:20 PM)
Yes, that was it. I could never remember his name, but I couldn't forget about the crucifix. Many people were offended, but I didn't know what to think of it when I first saw it at Wikipedia.
MY METAL BOY!
-
walkingf00l — 18 years ago(April 13, 2007 08:02 PM)
Yeah, the full-screen is annoying, but at least the dvd doesn't have the extremely painful digital PAN AND SCAN. My copy of Starman has that and it is so distracting it looks like the movie has entered another dimension every time they pan.
Fortunately, 95% of the new releases are given in widescreen, so it's hard to really complain. -
grambax — 17 years ago(May 16, 2008 09:59 PM)
Hi,
Can you give me any further advice on the DVDs walkingf001 (or anyone else)?
I do understand that they are full screen (boo) but there are two ways to achieve this - one is Pan and Scan (or just cropping the edges without scanning), and the other is an open matte, where we actually get more (irrelevant) picture at the top and bottom than we were intended to see, thus filling the screen. The latter isn't as good as widescreen but is at least the more livable. Your comments above seem to suggest that this might be the case here.
I'm in the UK so would actually have to import them and I'm reluctant to do so if they are missing the edges of the picture. I'd be grateful for any advice. -
walkingf00l — 17 years ago(January 19, 2009 02:28 PM)
I believe they just cropped the left and right sides. Only instance where i remember where an open matte was used was in an early release of Willy Wonka. I could be wrong. But GOM doesn't suffer much by losing the edges.
-
-
kronosq — 17 years ago(March 10, 2009 12:01 AM)
For those who prefer fullscreen, I understand that when you have a smaller, 4:3 TV. I appreciate the few discs that are made with both versions of a film, so you can have some choice depending upon your hardware.
But for the many of us who now have or soon plan to purchase 16:9 televisions, not being given the choice of filling our screen properly in this day and age is simply inexcusable if the original print was widescreen.
If this DVD edition was released ten years ago I could accept the format, but it's insane to produce a disc like that at this point in time - something that will essentially be obsolete for you the day you purchase a new TV. 16:9 is no longer the future of television in our homes; it is now. DVD's and Blu Rays produced since around 2004 or so have no reason not to offer the original aspect ratio of a film, regardless of whether it's an art film or just a simple comedy like this one. So I suppose what I am saying is that I am on the whole just fine with having this film in fullscreen from the standpoint of what manner of film it is, but from a technical standpoint my 16:9 TV doesn't get to display a full picture.
And to my friend who simply said "widescreen sucks," I'll have you know that widescreen is far closer to our own sight than a square picture. So the joke is on you unless you choose to have your vision altered to suit that statement.
My opinion of some of the things said here is rather that I'm saddened to see anyone deny that film is, like any other medium, a means of producing both art and entertainment. There is nothing pretentious or boring about art itself; nor about many of the world's greatest artists. Allowing those few dudheaded art snobs of the world to undo the meaningful and vast modes of original thoughtful expression is a crime unto itself.
Not to mention the fact that art is purely subjective. I personally find Pollock's bird droppings to be just that - bird droppings. But when I watch films where the photography is part of the full experience, I find it essential that I get to see these images in their intended appearance. As a hobbyist photographer I pay very careful attention to the way I frame and crop my shots. These are part of the composition.
Same goes for sound. Sure, you can enjoy music in mono on a small system, but for those of us who truly love our music, there is simply no substitute for proper stereo or surround sound coming from a large, quality system. The more lifelike the better. -
-
kronosq — 16 years ago(December 22, 2009 04:59 AM)
"I hope this widescreen fad goes away soon. I'm perfectly happy with my 1977 floor model T.V. I've only had to call the T.V. repairman three times in the 30+ years that I've had it."
Don't worry - just like sound and color didn't last long in film, nor will this widescreen trend. After all, it's only been around for fifty years or so. How much longer can it possibly last? I'm sure that by the time filmmakers stop wasting their time on it and move back to 4:3, so will TVs move back to that aspect ratio as well. After that it shouldn't be long until they go back to black and white and then silent. -
mam13143 — 11 years ago(November 11, 2014 07:22 AM)
Sometimes full screen isnt bad but this film really looks awful in full screen. There are many shots of just the face of Lemmon or Mathau and in some scenes you see half of each of them - like the counter scenes. I too was waiting for widescreen and disappointed but glad I checked here first before ordering today.
And I do tend to watch it on an old tv in my bedroom so widescreen can be a detriment, but at least you see the full image. A real shame. -
mam13143 — 10 years ago(November 19, 2015 05:23 PM)
I thought I had a widescreen dvd but noticed right away when the faces of the actors took up the entire screen. AWFUL. for those who think widescreen really makes no difference have to see a movie in both versions and they will see the difference.