Sure . . . if a director filmed a movie with full frame in mind, then matting it would be "losing some of the picture" the same way that a P&S does with a film intended to be WS. Kubrick's movies are the most well known (and referenced) example of this.

In that case why not see the whole sound stage as well? You could watch the scene plus see all the equipment, the crew, the craft service tables...

So, open-matte should only be displayed when listening to the commentary tracks.

Pesonally, if I had to choose between open-matte and pan-n-scam, I'll take open-matte everytime. Worst case, I can always matte it myself. Note for those with poor reading comprehension - the hypothesized choice does not allow for OAR, it is a "rock and hard place" decision.

Ahh..

Yes, if one has to compare open-matte with pan-and-scan, open-matte will win.

But that WAS NOT the original question. The original question was whether or not open-matte is better than OAR in some cases.

The only movie I can ever remember being difficult to watch in OAR was Searching for Bibby Fischer. The heads seemed way too cramped on my letterboxed laserdisc.

Agreed. If I had to chose between a pan & scan or open matte version of a widescreen film, then I would definitely prefer open matte. Pan & scan usually looks horrible and in modern action movies with a lot of quick cuts, close-ups, and hand-held photography it can induce motion sickness (try watching any Michael Bay film for proof). If a film was originally shot 1.33:1 then I want to see it that way on home video. I certainly would not want to watch Gone With the Wind or Casablanca matted to widescreen. But when it was originally shot widescreen, or composed specifically for widescreen projection by the Director during production (as would be the case with open matte), then watching it in some fullscreen format is not an accurate representation. I have no problem with people who like to see the open matte version for fun's sake (to hunt for mistakes, extra nudity, etc.), but to say that you accept it over OAR as the preferred viewing method is not respectful to the vision of the artist. My comment about "seeing the whole sound stage" was in reference to the poster's idea that seeing more info should be preferred over the Director's intended composition. I'll take the open matte as a bonus for extra naughty bits, funny unintended mistakes, etc., but definitely not as the preferred viewing format. OAR is the only way to go. In the strange case of Kubrick, where no one can seem to agree what aspect ratio was originally intended, then they should solve the problem by giving us both.

I never said open-matte is my *preferred* format, only that it is sometimes enjoyable to see the extra info that an open-matte film contains. I definitely prefer OAR and respect that the Director is creating a work of art, and framing it any other way detracts from the vision that is being created.

Ideally, both versions should be included, but I would never want open-matte as the only version.

There is also the unfortunate case where the film is released to DVD misframed (ie, matted incorrectly) and not rectified, or worse, "forgotten" about. BTTF trilogy which was shot open-matte is of course the ubiquitous example. But other films (such as Paddy Chanofsky's THE HOSPITAL) are released to DVD misframed and we, the fans, are left to "piss in the wind", to use the famous line from that film.

How often does the much vaunted "director's vision as an artist" actually deserve respect. Answer, not very often. People keep repeating that like a mantra as if every film out there was a masterpiece and every director was a master of shot composition. That statement has more to do with some form of blinded religious zeal than reality.

That said, I prefer OAR. Carry on.

If they filmed everything in 70mm, like they should, there wouldn't be an argument about open matte vs OAR.

That being said OAR of course.

Nobody said that all films are masterpieces or that all directors were masters of shot composition, but if we get to the point that we care about the framing of a movie, then I would imagine that it is of some decent level of quality and that the director managed to do a pretty good job. To use my favorite "example movie", I could care less how well Dude, Where's My Car? is framed, but I take the issue of the framing of Full Metal Jacket (or lack there of) a tad more seriously.

Likewise, a poor film that is well framed, can be better received than if it had not been, just as a good film that is poorly framed, can be less enjoyable than if it had not been.

That being said, I prefer OAR, too.

A painting of Elvis on velvet however well framed it might be, woudn't get a better reception from me but on the whole I agree with you talemyn.

I don't think there's any question that open matte is better than P&S. Since I have a widescreen TV, I can zoom in on an open matte disc and get something approximating OAR.

Also, as has been pointed out, sometimes there is "interesting" material in the parts that would have been matted out. For instance, I broke down and bought Doc Hollywood from the $5.88 bin at Wal-Mart. I zoomed it in as if it were a non-anamorphic widescreen disc and the framing seemed fine. There is one scene, however, that will become much lest "interesting" when they finally release this OAR. When I first saw the movie in full screen (on my old 4x3 set), I thought the amount of nudity shown to be surprising considering the romantic comedy nature of the movie. When I watched it zoomed in, a good amount of this is cut out and is probably closer to what was intended.

Now, I will always support OAR. Even in the case I pointed out, I think the matting makes the movie better. The extra nudity shown is actually out of place in the context of the film. However, I can't say I exactly mind that I got to see the full framed version.

OAR > Modified Aspect Ratio
Unless Modified Aspected Ratio = More female nudity