For me it wasn't any movie, just a rationale. I don't read abridged novels because they weren't intended to be read that way so why watch films in a manner they weren't intended to be watched.

I remember reading a letter in Starlog magazine around 1990 or 1991 where someone wrote in praising letterboxed films on home video and explained it in laymen's terms. And from that point on, I decided that was how I wanted to watch movies at home. Siskel & Ebert would also regularly talk and demonstrate it. Seeing Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade played on S-VHS at a video store (1992) pretty much confirmed to me why OAR was so important.

There was a time where I didn't understand aspect ratios, or how films were shot. But I did notice whenever I watched certain films on TV, something seemed to be missing or different than what I remembered from the theatrical showing. For instance, when Star Wars aired on HBO for the very first time, I remember that it seemed to take much longer to read the prologue scroll. You had to wait and wait until it came up around the middle of the screen before it was fully readable. I thought it was because the TV screen was smaller, rather than the sides were cut off. Along those lines, when I taped a copy off the CBS airing in 1983, I didn't understand why my version seemed to show certain things that the HBO version didn't have. Much later, I knew it was a matter of how each version was panned and scanned.

I was a bit of a late convert after being stubborn about it for years, but the movie that made me realize that I was wrong was Rush Hour, when I watched it on VHS. The one scene where Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker hold their guns at each other's head at arm's length and you can only see the tips of their noses, that was the scene that did it.

Once I got my DVD player years later, it was widescreen (OAR) from there on out.

I watched Independence Day on VHS and was wondering why it didn't seem to feel as "big" as it was at the theater. I was watching it on a huge TV too, but something felt off...

Sound of Music

I saw the movie numerous times on TV when I was a kid. Then in 1990 I went to see it at a revival theatre at my college campus and saw it in widescreen (OAR) for the first time. Blown away at how much scenery was missing esp. the outdoor shots of Salzburg. The movie just played differently as well. All the grandeur and the BIGNESS of the movie was missing all those times I saw the movie previously. I felt cheated watching those "formatted to fit your TV" versions.

Then I saw other movies I was very familiar with like Lawrence of Arabia, Bladerunner, and the Star Wars Trilogy in OAR in subsequent years . I also saw a documentary called "Visions of Light" and it further confirmed for me that cinematography is integral to the look, atmosphere, and the actual storytelling itself.

It was a pain finding "Widescreen" movies on VHS. The Dark Ages.

Ok, I'm confused... Doesn't OAR stand for "Original Aspect Ratio"? Aren't some full screen shows/movies, OAR? (like the Simpsons, Family Guy, Buffy)

Seeing 2.35:1 movies presented P&S on television in the 1970s, and learning why the opening and closing credits were always so darn skinny and elongated. Unfortunately it was another decade or more before home video even presented to us the ability to buy and view letterboxed versions.

the widescreen VHS of Scream,sometime around 1996 or 1997.i was at blockbuster and my dad explained to me the difference between whackscreen and widescreen and since then,ive been hooked on widescreen

Yes. For most movies made before 1955, full screen is the original aspect ratio, and for most television shows, full screen is the original aspect ratio as well. There are hundreds of exceptions to this, but that's the general rule.

Yes, but the implication of the question is in terms of movies that don't have a "fullscreen" OAR. There's no "light" to see in terms of OAR for 1.33 movies and television shows.

The Sci-Fi Channel aired the Star Wars Trilogy in widescreen around Thanksgiving of 1995, and I saw all kinds of things that I had no idea about (and didn't remember from seeing the originals in the theatres). I got the widescreen THX VHS set for Christmas that year, and it's been pretty much all-widescreen, ever since.

East of Eden. This has always been one of my favorite flicks & I noticed that sometimes the P&S versions would be scanned differently & nothing seemed to fit properly on the screen. I remember the first time I saw an OAR version thinking that it was a shame that 1/2 of the performances in this film had been scanned out all those years on TV. And this thing was shot w-i-d-e so it seems like you could only see about 40% of what was shot in P&S.

The Die Hard Movies. Always favorites of mine...then i picked up the Widescreen VHS set, and saw them for the first time all over again (wipes tears)

For me it was The Matrix which was coincidentally my 1st ever DVD. I was so into the movie that I didn't even realize the bars were there until I was 2/3rds into the movie. This was on my old 25" TV circa 1985.

Then I happened to be at a friends house who had the fullscreen VHS and a much larger TV set. I felt that it was just "missing something" because I was not as into it there and realized that it was not as engulfing.

That single point in time converted me and since then I had to upgrade everything to enhance my moviewatching experiences (DTS/5.1, 65" HDTV, etc). -biggrin-

Ditto.

I really don't know <i>when</i> it occurred. Growing up, I watched all movies in pan-and-scan, but the size difference never occurred to me. If I watched a film in widescreen, I didn't complain about the black bars, either. Honestly, I never put a lot of thought into it because it wasn't an important issue for me. That's primarily because I was never a film fan until DVD, and owned only a handful of VHS tapes until then. (I now own nearly 400 DVDs.) I know that I have never bought a non-OAR DVD when an OAR alternative is available, though, so it must have occurred at some point prior to June 2000 (when I got my DVD player).

I more clearly remember <i>Princess Mononoke</i> as being the disc that piqued my OSL interest, after watching the Japanese track out of curiosity and enjoying it immensely. I immediately brought it over to a friend's place to share my discovery. He bitched about "reading the movie," but against his will we did, indeed, watch it in Japanese and he commented afterward that he "totally forgot that he was reading."

For me it was a matter of logic. Widscreen TV's are coming down in price and a Foolscreen version wouldn't look that great. And after a fews years of collecting I was able to get a good deal on an Akai Widscreen TV. I only made the foolscreen mistake on every few DVDs. I don't remember the first widescreen DVD, bummer.

I think it was Army of Darkness. It was the first DVD I bought and incidentally it had both widescreen and fullscreen. I did a few comparisons and I'll be damned if you didn't see more in the widescreen version. So I've been OAR since 1999.

Star Wars SE trilogy. I always understood what WS was, I just avoided it because of our 25" screen. Finally I went ahead and purchased that glorious platinum VHS set, and I haven't looked back since.

The Color Purple. It was released on VHS in letterbox only, I remember Entertainment Tonight talking about that. When we rented it, after a minute it made absolute sense.
I thought, why aren't all the movies done this way?

SE7EN on VHS. The Letterboxed Version had some behind-the-scenes stuff and a trailer (which also sold me on having theatrical trailers included, along with Fox's widescreen VHS series), while the modified version had nada. I bought it for the extra stuff, but it sold me on widescreen immediately. At first, I flirted with the idea of getting the "regular" version, as well. But, along with Mission: Impossible (which I also considered owning two versions of), I never went back. And not just cuz I was broke.

K

It's gotta be Die Hard and A Few Good Men. Die Hard just looks really funny (the movie looked so zoomed in that it didn't make sense) and A Few Good Men absolutely drove me nuts. The camera kept moving back and forth focusing on certain objects and going back to other objects (why is only Jack in this shot when Demi and Tom should be there to?). The one good thing about A Few Good Men's incredible hack job is it is a great example to show to friends who aren't widescreen fans. If that doesn't show them the beauty of OAR, nothing will.

I buy widescreen 'cause it's the cool thing to do.

i remember when i was like 11 or 12 i was watching Multiplicity on TV and they had this really weird looking camera movements all the time(because of the 4 Keatons) and it always looked reaaaaaally weird to me. Then after that i saw Batman on DVD i think one day in a store and saw the "black bars" and everything made sense right.

You are right, but I knew if I compared WS to "Fullscreen" there would be lots of people that say (rightly so) that sometimes fullscreen is the OAR. Back in the early 90's when I discovered all I was missing from the SW films, I converted not really to "widescreen" but more to OAR. Understand?