I agree with OAF and partially with OIC (depends on the situation: Colorizing a B&W film? No. Restoring the color of an old color film? Yes.), but OFC is still an artist intent thing. If they wanted to put the scenes in, but, for whatever reason were unable to, it was still their original intent. I have no problem with that (e.g., director's cuts).

There are some exceptions, in particular "Brazil"... but stuff like newly shot footage added to "Night of the Living Dead" and "Star Wars" crosses the line of "their original intent".

This poll has nothing to do with OAR! Can't you people read!

That being said I do prefer a WS image. 2.35:1 is more cinematic looking and allows for sweeping vistas. I think Casablanca would look nicer if it was shot and presented in widescreen. Lawrence Of Arabia would look worse if it was shot and presented in 4:3.

If people did not have a preference, everything would be shot in a single ratio. Obviously directors and cinematographers have a preference and so do I.

I think widescreen is better.

When it comes to this debate, it's not always accurate to say "it's just personal preference - whatever you like is fine" because so many of the OAR haters' opinions are based on total ignorance. If someone fully underastands what they're talking about and knows the differences between OAR and non-OAR, then the "personal preference" argument works. But unfortunatley, most people who buy fullscreen (non-OAR) DVDs do so because they're clueless.

I disagree. Then everyone who has an opinion about anything would have to know in detail how everything they have an opinion on works or else you could just call them stupid because they don't know everything.

If it's someone's personal opinion about something and they don't give a shit to learn more because they are happy now, more power to them.

It's a preference, there's no absolute. My preference is OAR (and I have kind of a condescending attitude towards people who prefer P & S, but they don't usually know it).

As far as the other (OFC, OAC, OIC):

OIC = Colorization always bad;
OAC = I am ok with remixes if they still keep the original;
OFC = more is not always better, but I do enjoy seeing other versions of movies. In the ideal world, movies are released both ways (either in one release, or two separate releases--I like getting the extended version free with the theatrical, but it's not really unfair to ask me to pay extra to get extra).

But you just can't give the same amount of credibility to an ignorant opinion as you can an informed one. Let's say you want an opinion on a movie you haven't seen yet. You ask two people, and both say the movie sucks. But only one of the two guys has actually seen it. Which opinion would you be more likely to listen to?

And that's the issue here with the OAR debate. I feel that a person who prefers non-OAR simply because they want their screen filled up, and who knows nothing about the differences between OAR and non-OAR does NOT deserve to hold that opinion. Do they still have a right to hold it? Unfortunately, yes. And it's due in large part to these idiots that non-OAR DVDs are still being produced.

I think it's hard to really judge if a film was shot differently.

For example, if Citizen Kane was made 15 years into the future (in, let's say, CinemaScope), it would probably be a great movie, still, but adapt what works in 1.33:1 for 2.55:1.

One example of comparing is to look at the 1925 silent version of Ben-Hur and then the 1959 version.

You'll notice that the chariot sequence in both films are very similar, but the '25 version uses more angles and cutting to convey intensity. The '59 version uses the width of the frame and slower cutting to convey intensity. To be honest, in both versions, the chariot race sequence is a perfect piece of cinema.

Depends on who you believe.

Not a question of better.

It is a question of which presentation is correct and true to the original film.

Pass it on!

OGC - "Original Greedo Content" (smuggler shoots first)

Thanks for the link marty888! Reading this thread this morning and recently watching James Burke's Connections series made me wonder just what the inventive evolution process went through. Fascinating to see the old movie posters where the Aspect Ratio gets top billing, is in bigger letters than the stars and sometimes even the title of the movie itself.

Yay.

Sheesh. I prefer OAR, but still no need for all these DVD fascist types to raise arms about how one should only watch widescreen or OAR. The buyer should be able to choose-- informed or not. THere are many more important crusades out there.

The correct answer is not listed there.
I want OAR whether it be wide or full screen.

I voted for "choice" Nothing is best except what you like.

That's when you turn your 16x9 TV sideways (or vertically) to make it a 9x16 TV.

Everyone has an opinion as to what is better. Its only fair to offer both wide and full screen to the consumers. Just as long as the companies dont turn stupid and think that everyone likes full screen and only release full screen movies.

OAR here,if they intended it to be Full Screen then thats what I wanna see,if they want it 2:35 thats the way I wanna see it.

This would describe me pretty well actually and I don't try to deny it. However, I'm not an OAR nazi. I actually think it's possible that a given aspect ratio may be the best presentation for the cinema and a different one may in some cases make for a better presentation in the home. Like how some movies that were shown in theatres at 2:35:1 were opened up to 1:85:1 on their DVD release and were originally shot with this intention in mind (I think maybe Hulk and Spiderman were done this way?). As long as it's framed well and looks good, I don't mind this practice very much. In some cases I think it's actually a good idea. In other cases it would be a horrible idea but that's why I think it should always be left up to the director.

I've long been of the opinion that there are tons of modern films shown in the 2:35:1 aspect ratio that don't make great use of it anyway. I've seen quite a few comedies that just make me wonder why the hell the director went that wide. Then I saw The Ring in theatres which was the first time I'd seen a 1:85:1 presentation in a theatre in a long time and it just completely didn't look right to me but it looks fine on my widescreen TV. That got me thinking. I believe a lot of directors use 2:35:1 simply because that's what looks best in most theatres. Not always because they really needed to go that wide. In these cases, I think opening it up for the DVD release is a good idea and can make for a better home presentation in the same way that 2:35:1 made sense in the theatre even though it may not have been needed. Something like Braveheart on the other hand, no.

So basically, I want what makes for the best presentation in the environment I'll be watching it in. Sometimes that's going to be OAR (like Braveheart because that's a movie that made great use of that space and opening it up or cropping it would probably throw it off considerably). In other cases it might not be OAR. As long as the original director is the one that decides and it's done well, I'm ok with it and the same goes for the soundtracks.

And before someone goes there, this is not an endorsement of full screen DVDs. I think the 4:3 full screen argument will soon be a moot point as the coming transition to the 16x9 HDTV standard will do away with 4:3 full screen releases anyway. The scenario I described above will probably be fairly common when it's appropriate though and the OAR police are gonna go nuts. I DON'T think it's ok when the studio decides what the best ratio is for the DVD release and goes over the directors head which is probably how the majority of full screen release come into being in the first place.

I expect this will get some negative responses but that's the way I look at it so

I'm not claiming to make it up. I read it many times before in many different "which is better" threads and well.. it's the first thing to come to mind when this thread topic is talked about because it speaks the truth.

It is all a personal preference. Nothing is best except what you like THIS IS A FACT !!!

Every thing in life is personal preference. I won't tell anybody cars are better than trucks because I hate trucks so don't tell people wide or full is better when people should be able to buy what they prefer.

OK! Who's the one nimrod who voted 4:3? Come on speak up... so we can rip you mercilessly! : )

But you can say that a certain type of car is faster then another type of car and you will be correct. Personal Preference doesn't magiclly make a clunker faster then a sports car.

Well, IMO you shouldn't get any negative responses. You gave an honest, solid answer. I can appreciate the logic in your argument and agree some of the points you made.