|
|
Posted by JackShephard on 06/01/07 09:13
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 01:38:08 -0400, "Jay G." <Jay@tmbg.org> wrote:
>On 31 May 2007 07:44:27 -0700, elrous0@pop.uky.edu wrote:
>
>> I've said it once, I've said it 100 times: Widescreen TV's should have
>> been 2.35:1 instead of 16:9.
>>
>> But seriously, 16:9 TV's have had the unintended nasty side effect of
>> prompting EVERYONE to start making their movies 2.35:1, even when it's
>> not appropriate. 2.35:1 is for EPIC films, for films with scale over
>> close-up (great for westerns, terrible for character pieces). Yet now,
>> everyone and his brother thinks they have to make their film 2.35:1.
>>
>> Tell me, does "Beerfest" REALLY need a 2.35:1 scope presentation?
>> Really?
>
>You posted pretty much the same post about a month ago:
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.video.dvd/msg/3f1edc10c890d2d2?
>
>Nobody agreed with you then either.
>
>I mean, do any of these films REALLY need a 2.35:1 scope presentation?
>Really?
>
>ABBA: The Movie (1977)
>Ask Any Girl (1959)
>The Apartment (1960)
>The Adventures of Ford Fairlane (1990)
>Bank Shot (1974)
>Bedazzled (1967)
>Big Trouble (1986)
>Blazing Saddles (1974)
>Born in East L.A. (1987)
>Career Opportunities (1991)
>Casino Royale (1967)
>Come Blow Your Horn (1963)
>Condorman (1981)
>Crocodile Dundee (1986)
>
>-Jay
Blazing Saddles? Most certainly should have been just like it was.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|