|
|
Posted by Nick Macpherson on 10/21/05 14:02
Joseph S. Powell, III wrote:
> "Nick Macpherson" <NMacphe421@AOL.com> wrote in message
> news:1129811625.445058.73920@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Derek Janssen wrote:
> > > moviePig wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jay G. wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Black Locust <bl2112@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Widescreen DVDs spread - Along with wider TV sets
> > > >>> By Susanne Ault
> > > >>>
> > > >>> A representative of specialty retailer Tower reports noting an
> uptick
> > > >>> of about 5% in widescreen purchases over the past year, though the
> > > >>> broadest releases such as Buena Vista Home Entertainment's Oct. 4
> > > >>> Cinderella still sell 75% in fullscreen versions.
> > > >>
> > > >> Actually, in the speicifc case of Cinderella, 100% of the purchases
> are
> > > >> "fullscreen", as the 4:3 ratio is the original movie ratio of the
> > > >> film, and
> > > >> thus the only option available on DVD.
> > > >
> > > > Not at all. For us "connoiseurs", there's a version with *four* black
> > > > bars...
> > >
> > > Yes, but the article citing was to be meant in the traditional a.v.d
> > > spirit of "Why won't Warner release the widescreen 'Gone With the
> > > Wind'?--Sign my petition!" ;)
> > >
> > Stanley Kubrick preferred 4:3 to widescreen but if he was alive today
> > he'd realize he was wrong so we need the Kubrick DVDs re-released in
> > widescreen no matter what his family says.
> >
>
> But Kubrick shot his films (with the exception of 2001) in 4:3 ratio, so if
> these were to be re-released in Widescreen, we really WOULD be missing
> material that the director intended to be seen.
> That's not to say that I don't wish Kubrick would have embraced Widescreen
> at the time he filmed them, it's just that in this case it really would be
> slapping black bars over the screen - we wouldn't be gaining anything, and
> Widescreen advocacy has always been about gaining the missing material on
> the sides that's missing with Pan & Scan.
> But Kubricks 4:3 films are 4:3 matted, not pan & scan.
I was being sarcastic but some DVD geeks have suggested letter-boxing
Kubrick's films regardles of his wishes or his family's wishes so I'm
not making that part up.
I just think it's funny that the DVD geeks drew this line in the sand
between them and the "Joe Six Packs" of the world who preferred full
frame to widescreen, and now the Joe Six Packs of the world are
embracing letterboxing because of cheap widescreen tvs, and that was
going to happen all along, everyone knew that, the DVD geeks have lost
the one thing that made them superior to the rabble, because while the
DVD geeks wanted to see something like Day After Tomorrow in the OAR,
dammit, poor old Joe Six Pack, who's watching movies for a couple hours
of escapism every now and then, wanted to watch Day After Tomorrow in
full frame. But the war is won and now the geeks (who aren't seeing
the films as "the director intended" no matter what they say because
they're not seeing them in theaters) don't know how else to feel smug
now they don't have that widescreen vs. full frame thing going on
anymore.
And I'm sympathetic to Kubrick's 4:3 preference (which some people have
said comes from his experience as a photographer). It worked fine
during Hollywood's golden age. Like George Stevens said, widescreen is
only good for shooting the Last Supper. That's an overstatement but
the automatic assumption that there's something wrong with 4:3 is just
as simplistic.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|