|
|
Posted by JackShephard on 06/02/07 00:00
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:41:13 -0700, elrous0@pop.uky.edu wrote:
>On May 31, 8:52 pm, JackShephard
>> Your perception as well as your assertion is fucking bent.
>
>2.35:1 used to be the exception not the rule.
Wrong. There were hundreds of films made in that aspect before VHS even
hit the market, much less DVDs.
Your statistical analysis is as flawed as your viewpoint about
displays. ie 100%.
> Now it's actually rare
>for me to even see a 1.87:1 film.
You're an idiot. There are plenty.
> In the last few years, it seems even
>independent and low-budget films have gone to 2.35:1.
They have ALSO been around for decades and have had different ARs the
whole way through. NOTHING about DVD every influenced them at all, at
any time along the way, or now.
> Of the wide
>spectrum of films I've rented over the last year (a good mix of indy
>and studio films), I'd say over 85% of them were 2.35:1,
Whoopie fuckin' doo.
> even when it
>made no damn sense.
Who the fuck are you to say when it made sense or not? The DIRECTOR
makes the film, not you. He doesn't take votes first, and you are too
dumb to know which or when a film should be one way or another.
> That most definitely WOULD NOT have been the case
>ten years ago.
Big dope... you... big dope.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|