|
|
Posted by Lloyd Parsons on 06/01/07 18:34
In article <unov53tj0vs847dm79t0nn82behlrs4bk2@4ax.com>,
JackShephard <SomewhereOnTheLOSTIsland@Sumplaceintime.org> wrote:
> 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.
Absolutely! Just watched it again in HD. Wouldn't change a thing about
the aspect ratio.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|