In the 1970s? No. Freaking. Way.

Nope, no way, no.

On its very surface, this is illogical. Why would anyone, anywhere, anywhy shoot a 1970s TELEVISION series with anything other than a 1.33:1 ratio in mind?

Don't have a coronary. I'm wondering why you didn't jump all over the other people when they started the "rumor" then. Regardless, the creators of Kung Fu were involved and even discuss the cinematic feel in their commentaries or interviews for the DVD, so my point still stands. If that's the way they want it, take it up with Stanley Kubrick.

However, I have just gone back and read all the posts on Kung Fu I could find. It's quite possible I misread -- or at least didn't remember correctly -- what I had read. The idea of it being filmed in widescreen originally was total speculation and the real facts are that the show was remastered for high definition broadcast and that is the reason it was converted to 16:9.

Does that satisfy you EPKJ, and can I come out of the corner now?

First, I didn't see the other threads. Second, all you needed to do was acknowledge that you were spreading a rumor. Instead, you chose to be sarcastic, so, you can stay in the corner.

Ughhh,how many tv shows from back then do you know were shot 'open matte'??????

Seems to be yet another excuse to justify cropping 1:33 material to fit their 16.9 screens.

Just like how people will make up any excuse to justify a 5.1 remix of a mono film. "But this is how they would have wanted it,had the technology existed at the time".

Also just because some shots 'may' have a 'cinematic feel' to them,does not make the cropping ok. Since for every 'tolerable' cropped shot,their is plenty of other badly framed portions. Which most likely points out that they were not aiming for a matted release.

TV shows up until recently,were always filmed in 1:33,they were intended for 1:33,the directors never filmed them with the intent of matting them.

So just because 16.9 may be the 'norm' soon. Does NOT make cropping all 1:33 to 16.9 'ok'. Does'nt matter if it 'crops more or less' of the image. It is still unneeded & never intended(when filmed/broadcast....who cares if the creators changed their minds decades later) + hurts the composition in the long run.

Respecting OAR is respecting ALL OAR presentations! So if a movie or tv show was filmed & intended or 1:33. That IS the OAR.

Should we go crop all the classic pre-WS films to 16.9?


I bet that is not far around the corner.

The clueless nature of J6P continues

It is silly to think that a 70's TV production would spend the money to film this open matte with a WS presentation in mind. Where would they present this in WS?

To me it's OAR or nothing. I don't care if that means Alice in Wonderland has black bars on the sides, or Sopranos is Anamorphic. Anyone that says "Foolscreen" and then thinks butchering a 4:3 presentation to 16x9 is OK is a hypocrite and turns in their ability to complain that films are not released WS.

I'm skeptical that it would have actually cost them much if anything at all. Surely the only difference would be some extra horizontal lines on the camera display? (I don't know much about the filming process, so feel free to call me an ignorant fool if it would actually have cost a fortune )

Yes, this is what I was saying in my earlier post. It simply does not make sense that the show's producers would go to the expense and trouble of filming a TV show in a format that was inappropriate for broadcast TV.

Doesn't composing a scene for WS necessitate that many of the shots are framed so that the major action in a scene is compressed into the center of the frame vertically, and spread across a frame horizontally (to take advantage of the WS vista) ? Obviously, such a process lends itself well to the aesthetics of a cinema presentation, but for broadcast on what were (mostly at the time) 30" or smaller TV screens ? If the show was actually broadcast open matte, the action in any large or medium scene would be reduced to miniscule dimensions on a home TV screen.

It does seem pretty unlikely to me that network programming execs at the time when Kung Fu was in production (1973-1975 ?) would allow the show's producers to do any kind of presentation that was as avant-garde and peculiar (and just plain expensive and unnecessary) as filming a TV show with a cinematic AR (and one that might be problematic for TV viewers at that time, no less).

I'm not saying that it is impossible for that to be the case. Randy Salas and other intelligent people on this forum seem to believe it's at least possible. It just seems very odd to me, given the typical mindset involved in TV production.

Although, thinking about it, to crop a full frame TV show from the 1970's for WS presentation, knowing that the majority of people buying DVD's are either a) resistant to anything that isn't OAR, or b) resistant to WS in general, is also a mighty peculiar thing to do, unless there is some really good reason for it. I mean you are basically alienating nearly everyone in your target market.

I also find it odd that a 1973 television series would have been filmed in widescreen. However, I am open to evidence if anyone can provide it.

Don't take my comments the wrong way, I could be wrong. I just don't think that a studio producing a TV show would pony up the dough to back a director who wants to shoot a TV series with two framings in mind. The producers would have called the director crazy.

Maybe someone will prove us wrong, but I doubt it.

Also about the 'those bad shots were a fraction of a second' & 'all films have heads cut off' nonesense.


Do you know anything about framing?

Yes if a scene calls for an upclose shot of a persons face,or a facial feature(eyes,mouth). A portion of the head will be 'cut off'..but that is intentional.

Meanwhile most other instances of 'heads' or 'parts of the body being cut off' are from someone walking into frame,or out of the frame,or the camera panning somewhere. But duh,that is intentional & normal.

You see that all the time in any film you see.

So trying to use that as an excuse to justfy cutting the heads off of 1:33 framed material is ridiculous.

Also the whole 'talk it up with Kubrick' line is tired by now.

First of all,Kubrick planned ahead of time,to only release his later films in 1:33 on all home viewing formats all the while framining them in 1:33,but with matting theatrically in mind. So that all the important visual information,is still in the frame whether matted or not.

Meanwhile a director of a 30+ year old show did not do that & may have decided(if it was his choice) to matte it years after the fact. He did not 'plan' to originally,but years later thought "what the hell,16,9 is in!". The point being,it was filmed in 1:33 with no thought of matting,or other aspect ratios. Which leads to misframing big time since some vital information may be missing.

That is all hypothetical if it was his decisions & not pushed upon soiley by the studio(but I am sure they had a larger part in it).

Have a look at the reviews on Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...l/-/B00013F38K

So basically they zoomed the 4:3

I did loved this show when I was a kid. But Warner can forget my cash on this boxet.

I am seriously wondering what the guys at Warner had in mind when they decided to release such crap.....

Perhaps Moe Six-Pack, Joe's equally-clueless widescreen-owning brother, has begun to make his voice heard


(although - bad pun coming - it is somewhat appropriate that KUNG FU has been CHOPPED)

No, they didn't. The original 4:3 image is cropped at the top and bottom on the DVD. It has not been zoomed.

This is semantics. I think what he was saying is the effect would be the same as zooming a 4:3 presentation until it fills a 16x9 frame. On a WS set, you'll lose info on the top and bottom. Of course this was done in the mastering process so no actual zooming was done, the picture was matted.

Well, it is not crap. It is a transfer which looks better than the series ever did on television. Just because you don't like the fact that it has an altered aspect ratio, does not mean it is crap.

Yes it does. Anything with an altered aspect ratio is crap. You can try to rationalize it any way you wish but it is still crap. Unfortunately, I suspect we'll see more of this and I consider it just as despicable as pan & scan. I love vintage TV on dvd but I'll be avoiding bastardized releases like this one.

Not when it leads to misinformation, which is why I corrected it. "Matted" and "zoomed" mean different things.

I don't think that most fans who never thought they would be able to own this series with such great transfers would call it crap. This nonsensical hyperbole makes no sense. This is not the equivalent of pan and scan. One third of the viewing area is not being removed. I am very glad the series is available on DVD at all.

Not one third, but 25%. If the widths of the screen image are constant, here is what is being removed:

4:3 = 16:12

Total area = 192 units

16:9

Total area = 144 units

192 - 144 = 48

48/192 = .25

What is being cut? Have you seen the DVD? I have. The episodes look great. This was a television series. There is not much to miss. Throwing up numbers does not really tell the story. Only watching the DVD will do that.

Obscurelabel just pointed out what was cut. Now, it might still look great, and you may not care. However, I'm going to go stand over there while the OAR-heads come and jump on you.

No, he did not point out what was cut. He posted numbers. Get your facts straight.

Fine, fine. I'll do this step by step.

So, assuming this is correct, some of the image is missing from the OAR.

Then you said:

Which, in a way, was correct. Obscurelabel adjusted your number a bit:

He showed the math, which I agree with. I grant you that he didn't say which 25% will be matted off, but I'm willing to give him a pass on that. I then pointed out your disconnected argument, at which point you challenged me to:

Which I have above.

So, I appear to have my facts straight. You implied nothing important was being cut, while the facts appear to indicate otherwise, at least to those people to whom OAR matters (the 'OAR-heads' that I referred to). I make no subjective claims as to what's "correct" or "sucks" or "looks great", I'm just pointing out "facts".

My point is that what is cut is not necessarily vital. Do you know the specifics? I have viewed a few episodes and they looked great to me.

You are welcome to your opinion, but you need to understand this is EXACTLY equivalent to 4:3ing a ws film.