Gilmore Girls aspect ratio
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gilmore Girls aspect ratio
I watched GG regularly when it was aired on tv, and I'm pretty sure I remember watching the later seasons (5, 6, & 7 at least) in widescreen. But I just purchased seasons 5 & 6 on dvd, and like seasons 1 - 4 which I already own, the boxes say "standard version -- shown in the original aspect ratio of their television airing."
So is my memory hazy and these seasons were not broadcast in widescreen? Or did the dvd releases screw up by giving us standard versions? Or is the dvd box labeling just wrong?
Thanks,
Mike
So is my memory hazy and these seasons were not broadcast in widescreen? Or did the dvd releases screw up by giving us standard versions? Or is the dvd box labeling just wrong?
Thanks,
Mike
#2
DVD Talk Legend
Found this on answers.com:
The first season was released on DVD on May 4 2004; the second season was released on December 7 2004, the third on May 3 2005, the fourth season was released on September 27 2005 and the fifth season was released on December 13 2005. All five seasons are formatted in the traditional NTSC 4:3 format on the DVD box sets, despite the series transitioning to the widescreen, HDTV 16:9 format in the fourth season; this was an artistic decision made by Sherman-Palladino to present the program as she envisioned it.
The sixth season of the series was released on DVD on September 19 2006 one week before the season premiere for the seventh season on September 26.[9] and also framed in 4:3.
The sixth season of the series was released on DVD on September 19 2006 one week before the season premiere for the seventh season on September 26.[9] and also framed in 4:3.
#4
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Socal
Posts: 4,137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, I remember reading somewhere that the 16:9 HD broadcasts were a matted widescreen (a la "ER"). Which means it was filmed for 4:3 and the top/bottom were trimmed with black lines to represent Widescreen.
#6
Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is as annoying as Warner releasing fullscreen only dvds of things that had been widescreen on laser. Artistic vision or not, these discs should be formatted for 16x9 televisions if the HD broadcast is 16x9. It's shot on 35mm, of course it's going to be matted.
#7
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by compulsive dvd
This is as annoying as Warner releasing fullscreen only dvds of things that had been widescreen on laser. Artistic vision or not, these discs should be formatted for 16x9 televisions if the HD broadcast is 16x9.
It's shot on 35mm, of course it's going to be matted.
#8
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by Jay G.
Artistic vision trumps filling the screen. In this case, the 16:9 image is the same as an open-matte fullscreen image of a WS film: Sure, it shows more image, but just because it exists doesn't mean you were meant to see it.
Not true. A lot of TV shows nowadays shoot on 3-perf Super 35 film, which has an aspect ratio of 16:9. The 4:3 image frame is centered in the 16:9 film frame, and the image to the sides of the 4:3 frame is protected for "open-matte" WS presentations.
Not true. A lot of TV shows nowadays shoot on 3-perf Super 35 film, which has an aspect ratio of 16:9. The 4:3 image frame is centered in the 16:9 film frame, and the image to the sides of the 4:3 frame is protected for "open-matte" WS presentations.
#9
Senior Member
The same thing happened to Frasier. Later seasons were HD, and they were not simpy matted. The HD versions showed more. Click here to see a comparo.
It's infuriating in an age where HD masters are clearly available, and most new TVs are 16x9, that 4x3 crap still gets shoveled onto discs, through director interpretation or not. Stanley Kubrick's films are much better in OAR than his preferred 4x3. If that means disagreeing with an artistic vision, it suits me fine.
It's infuriating in an age where HD masters are clearly available, and most new TVs are 16x9, that 4x3 crap still gets shoveled onto discs, through director interpretation or not. Stanley Kubrick's films are much better in OAR than his preferred 4x3. If that means disagreeing with an artistic vision, it suits me fine.
#10
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by typecase
The same thing happened to Frasier. Later seasons were HD, and they were not simpy matted. The HD versions showed more. Click here to see a comparo.
It's infuriating in an age where HD masters are clearly available, and most new TVs are 16x9, that 4x3 crap still gets shoveled onto discs, through director interpretation or not.
Stanley Kubrick's films are much better in OAR than his preferred 4x3. If that means disagreeing with an artistic vision, it suits me fine.
#11
Senior Member
Originally Posted by Jay G.
That Fraiser comparison illustrates exactly what Rypro 525 was stating about Gilmore Girls, the 16:9 version just adds empty space. The framing looks better on the 4:3 version of that pic.
Originally Posted by Jay G.
So you're taking the stance of "I don't care what the director intended, I just want my screen filled"? You do realize that was the same argument P&S supporters used, right?
Originally Posted by Jay G.
You're a few years behind the times. WB "discovered" that Kubrick actually preferred and composed for the WS OAR of most of his films just in time for the HD disc and DVD SE releases of some of them.
#12
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by typecase
That is clearly your opinion. I prefer the wider version.
I'm all for the directors intent in most every situation. This is one of few instances in which I disagree.
But even just arguing personal preference, you don't seem able to defend your preference that well. I pointed out that the WS Fraiser shot doesn't add any relevant image, just empty space. I can also point out that in the 4:3 shot, Laura Linney is composed to one side of the frame, while in the WS shot she's far more centered, which isn't as aesthetically pleasing. If you're going to ignore the creators' intentions and base your decisions on personal preferences, you should be able to justify your preferences beyond just "I like it better."
I also disagree that the home video framing of Life is a House, which looked glorious in 2.35:1 at the theater and is unfortunately cropped at approx. 2.05:1, again at artistic intent.
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...69#post1622969
In that case, the original intent was compromised for home video. In the case of Gilmore Girls, however, the original intent was for 4:3, which was compromised for the HD broadcast. The DVD set retains the original intent, instead of altering it. It's akin to the R1 DVDs of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV show, which retain the proper 4:3 aspect ratio despite an open-matte 16:9 version being created against the creators' wishes for other markets.
A few years from now, the studios may "discover" that these same directors who currently prefer their content 4x3, prefer a wider format when HD becomes the defacto standard.
Directors and studios may change their minds.
Finally, if a director does "change their mind," then that change of heart doesn't reflect original intent, but rather a form of artistic revisionism. Now, creative revisionism has its place, but original intent is still very important. In the case of Gilmore Girls, if such a change of heart occurred, one would have to wonder if it wasn't a compromise being made for the WS home video ratio, much like how Life as a House was compromised for the 4:3 home video ratio.