Hi all, this is my first post so bear with me!

In all of the discussion regarding OAR why does everyone say "If it's what the director wants"?

Why does nobody mention the cinematographer or director of photography?

Shouldn't they at least get some recognition for the job they do?

Just curious.....

It's the director's vision and the director's film. He collaborates with the DP, but the director is the top guy and ultimatley, it's his say.

I listen to Joe Six-Pack and his 13" b&w tv.

oar? like in boats. man boats are cool. if a director is with me on a boat, you know i'll be all about the oars.

As has been said, the DP, regardless of his qualifications, stature and command of craft, is in service to the director's dictates, sensibilities and aesthetics; ergo, what the director says is law, except in the sad cases where a director just shows up and collects his paycheck, while the qualified personnel, such as the DP, for all intents and purposes, direct the film for him, but even in such a scenario, the director's after-the-fact word is still law...

Besides how often do you think the DP and the director disagree about the OAR?

Well ... by Filmmaker's argument, you could say they should listen to the producer, since the director is in service to him. What the producer says is law. (If you disagree, tell it to Jerry Bruckheimer.) Or that you should listen to the studio, since what the studio says is law to the producer. Or to Joe Six Pack, since Joe Six Pack's dollars are law to the studio.

Who has the most power isn't relevant: it's who has the best-informed opinion. If (hypothetical example) Roger Deakins said one thing about the presentation of A Beautiful Mind and Ron Howard said something different, I know who I'd listen to. It ain't Opie. (A perfectly capable director, but he hasn't half the visual sense of Deakins.)

Why not listen to the key grippers or the lighting crew? I'm sure they might feel the film needs to be in a different aspect ratio....

In all fairness, the film industry needs chains of commands. They hire directors for the sole reason of making the film with the tools at hand, those tools are DP's and the music scorer, etc. they report to him. he is the reason why it's the way it is. so in all, It's ratio it is because the director wants it that way and in a film, we should just listen to the director. nuff said.

"As the director intended" or "the director's vision" always makes me laugh.

As far as OAR is concerned, somewhere along the way, someone made a decision which aspect ration to shoot. That aspect ratio dictates every composition decision no matter who actually chooses the lens, camera position and framing.

I prefer, "OAR the way the movie was made to be seen".

It’s not always as simple as that—see for example the never-ending discussion surrounding The Shining. Plus, lots of European movies are shot 1.66 but shown 1.85 in the US—it’s difficult to believe that some directors do not take the US market into account when composing a shot.

Well, there's Vittorio Storaro and Francis Ford Coppola on "Apocalypse Now." Unfortunately, Coppola yeilded to Storaro's change in mind on OAR,which is why AN is only available in 2:1 instead of 2.4:1.

Some directors are right on and some are bleeding way off like director of The Shining, he forgot to include a minimum Stereo sound instead of crappy monaural that stinks. The song played in "The Shining" was by Ray Noble Band, vocalist Al Bowly "Midnight The Stars and You" was recorded on February 16, *1934*.

The picture of Johnny at 4th of July party at the overlook was dated back in the *1920's*. Didn't the director know this, if the director is in charge he should have known this and it's in crappy monaural. I have it in Dolby Surround on CD fron Silva screen records just like I have TDTESStill in Dolby Surround yet they released the 1951 movie in crappy monaural. TTFN

"The director" was Stanley Kubrick, and you're right, he was resoundingly incompentent. I don't know why anyone let that hack make movies.

And what, again, does this have to do with the topic at hand?

I concur and your argument is well founded.

In movies, it's the director whose responsibility it is to make all the artistic decisions. Sure, you have incompetent directors, and you have micromanaging producers sometimes and overbearing studio executives -- which means that in practice sometimes, the director is the boss in name only and can be sometimes ineffectual. But in typical organizational structure, the director is the top dog on the artistic side. Hence, the standard reference to the director's vision.

In television, it's different. TV is more a writer's medium, and the chief artistic decision maker is the creator or the head writer or whatever title he might have in a particular production company. The director is usually a hired hand, and the creator/head writer/whatever is the person whose vision is paramount.

Originally posted by Inverse:
Well ... by Filmmaker's argument, you could say they should listen to the producer, since the director is in service to him. What the producer says is law. (If you disagree, tell it to Jerry Bruckheimer.) Or that you should listen to the studio, since what the studio says is law to the producer. Or to Joe Six Pack, since Joe Six Pack's dollars are law to the studio.

As otmetrud picked up on, you're missing the truism that the director is only in service to the producer in terms of bring in the film on time and on budget; only in service to the studio to create a film that is competent in some minimum required level of quality for exhibition that, with any luck, will recoup expenditures and add on additional profit; only in service to Joe 6-pack to either entertain or enlighten. The producer, studio and Joe 6-pack have no artistic clout vs. the director, and in the vast majority of cases, do not attempt to persuade the artistic production personnel otherwise; ergo, from the position of command of artistic expertise, the director is the final authority.

I will not buy a monaural sisc of "The Shining" I have a good Vhs copy of the above movie. Maybe Kubrick was so used to monaural that when TS came along he said record it in mono. Yawn

Give me what I want and I'll buy it, don't, then let some purest have it for their monaural collection.

I have a sound system that is *dedicated* to Dolby Surround both in DVD and CD. I thought *mono* would go out like the old computers with handles that would 'stick' and you had to kick or *boot* them to start. Out with the old mono and in with 5.1 DD Surround, or the *cheap* directors who choose to use monaural sound!

Who would you prefer oversee a major restoration of the Sistine Chapel - Michaelangelo or the Pope? The person who holds creative license ought to maintain carte blanche.

When a video transfer is made, you must think "How would Hitchcock/Fellini/Wilder/etc want this film to look on video?"

I think it's great to have filmmakers choose how DVD images are to be exhibited...it's like having George Martin coming over to your house and fine tuning your stereo before you listen to a Beatles album.

And I have a home theater dedicated to giving me the very best presentation of a film possible. If the movie was made in mono, black and white, 1.33:1, it makes no matter. By demanding only surround sound simply so you can hear stuff whizzing past your head shuts you out of an awful lot of great movies that are much more than 20 years old.

Oh, and a remixed version of "The Shining" is coming out next month.

And I'll ask again, what does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

What does this have to with this thread you ask? I am being told the director is the Iron clad ruler of how the OAR and the sound will be. If 20,000 Leagues could have color and a stereo soundtrack, in 1954. Why do these slacker of directors have to retain they're liking of monaural sound in the 21st century?


20,000 Leagues will be 50 years old next year. They are not changing a monaural track to 5.1 they're changing a stereo track to a 5.1 DD. 50 years ago they had stereo next year, our dear directors with something caught or shoved up their orifice, are still making movies with less sound *quality* than movies made nearly 50 years ago!

There's another remixed ver. of The Shining beyond the current one? Do you have any specs?

Why ask about a remix of "The Shining" why of all people should you ask about a sound remix? You and your friends helped trash my post on monaural sound, I will say what I feel no matter what you or your friends are into. I will not violate forum rules, yet I will not be stepped on by users to make me out a laughing stock.

I already get that from able people (18 years) who say that's where our tax dollars go to! I don't need to be pushed around by younger members, who don't realize that even disabled men and women have a choice. I choose Dolby Surrond, like it or choose your own.

Audrey,

Sorry, I guess this is the same version that's out now. DVD Empire has a May 6 release date on it, but it doesn't even seem to be a price reduction.

For the same reason a director might decide to make a movie in black and white, such as "Schindler's List." It's a valid artistic choice.

The history of sound in movies is an interesting one, and that history is important to perspective when considering an issue like this.

In 1980, when Kubrick made "The Shining," not all movies were made in surround sound. It was the exception rather than the norm. Also, most movie theaters were a lot worse than they are now, so more than one director decided the safest thing to do was mix everything into mono rather than risk the poorly-maintained sound systems found in most mall multiplexes.

It had little to do with laziness or having anything shoved in an orifice.

While it is true that I prefer to have an original audio track, I made no disrespectful comments to you. I did not trash your thread; I merely expressed my opinion which differed from yours.

WRT The Shining the current release includes a 5.1 remix only; the original audio track is not included. I’m interested because I am a fan of Kubrick’s work and I was not aware another release is in the pipeline.