yeah right. just like HDTV is a fad?

Is this topic still being discussed? Some people prefer their movies to fill their TV. Simple as that. They're not dumber necessarily, or anything else. They just don't care about OAR and all that jazz. When 16:9 becomes the standard in 10 years or whatever, they'll still want full screen, cept fullscreen will be 16:9, and we'll be bitching about cropped versions of Casablanca that people buy to fit their 16:9 TVs.

So, who cares. All I know is, DVD gives me widescreen, whereas VHS rarely did, and OAR is here to stay. If I had any concern about widescreen not being available, then I'd say something. Otherwise, I dont' care. Neither should we. We're movie aficianados...I'd venture to say anyone who doesn't want OAR is not a real movie buff, but I don't expect everyone should be.

Gullible, gullible, gullible. I'm starting to wonder who's really stupid around here.

Thanks for the realism, DJ. At least there's one spot of light in this thread.

i currently dont have a widescreen tv - which is why i usually prefer fullscreen - maybe if my tv was the size of my wall, the widescreen wouldnt bother me - but it's not that big and some widescreen movies look like this small banner using 30 percent of the screen, and its very annoying

so until i have a giant widescreen tv, i will stick with fullscreen - when i switch tvs, i'll switch formats - until then, i dont want to suffer from trying to watch widescreen - fullscreen doesnt seem so bad to me - i mean, when you watch it, u don't know if there's a little extra picture on the side cuz you never see it - and i've never watched any movies where a character was completely cut out or anything weird like that - it's usually not that bad, and doesnt take away from your enjoyment of the movie.

Isn't it funny how the people who are WRONG usually post with no/incorrect capitalization, punctuation and spelling errors?

Now that you mention it, you're right. I think it's a simple lack of intellect really. Both academically, and in cinemaphotography. But then again, I can't convince my soon-to-be retired teacher aunt about widescreen and she goes to the movies all the time. You'd think she'd realize that she's looking at a wide rectangular screen.

But, I think we are all missing something here. FULLSCREEN 1.33:1, although never the OAR can be 'acceptable' if the movie is presented BOTH in an open-matte and OAR (1.85:1) version on the same DVD. That way, those with smaller sets 1:33.1 sets (< 32") can watch the movie and "fill the screen" with the open-matte movie. All this adds is more picture information at the top and bottom of the frame, while leaving the sides of the picture intact.

CROPPED 1:33:1 presentations of 185 or 235 material is an abomination and I completely agree with all the OAR fanatics that that panning and scanning is of the devil...

But, who supports my view that open-matte presentations can be quite enjoyable on a smaller 1.33:1 set? You aren't MISSING any picture; you're gaining (perhaps at the expense of "artistic vision").

As long as there is a copy of Ray or any other DVD for me to purchase in Widescreen, all the ignorant nimrods can purchase whatever they want.

It's funny though to see Walmart carrying Widescreen HDTV's with fullscreen dvd's right next to them. Who's the stupid one here?

Yes and no, you don't lose any of the information that is in the WS presentation, but you do lose the deliberate framing of a scene by the director, cinematographer, etc. In some cases, it doesn't make much of a difference, but in others, (e.g., Janusz Kaminski, Caleb Deschanel, Quentin Tarantino, David Gordon Green, etc.) that change can throw off the effect of very carefully planned scenes, as badly as pan-and-scanning a movie with a WS OAR.

get closer to the damn tv, or turn the lights all the way out, and you will have no problem with the black bars, i mean shit i even like the black bars with a nice 60 inch tv our family room, and a 27 inch flat screen tv in my room

I don't really understand the argument about willingly buying fullscreen because their TV is too small, and ergo, watching a widescreen film will give them an even smaller picture than they already have. That's never been an issue with me in the past. I used to watch widescreen VHS films on my 12-inch Sony TV.

Do you by any chance have bad eyes from doing that? I love WS but I don't know if I could watch it on a 12-inch TV!

Through out the day they have a commercial running on their HDTV network explaning the difference in aspect ratios.

Wal-Mart would carry more WS movies if their customers wanted it. Most times they just want FS. I've given up on explaining the difference to each customer. If they ask I'll explain otherwise I let them buy whatever they want.

Because not everyone gives a shit, and it's not a big deal if they do.

What is an incorrect spelling error?


What I think is funny is how widescreen people think it's an intelligence issue. Wow.

wow - four pages. (who knew?)

Um, it IS an intelligence issue....

I HATE seeing titles that are released in Foolscreen only because the majority of buyers are of the Wal-Mart shoppers mentality; that mentality being that no matter what the director intended, their fucking 4:3 TV screen has to be filled up.

I know there's a list around here somewhere of films that have ONLY been released in 4:3 and no matter what the title, it's disturbing when this happens. It shows that someone, somewhere, made a decision to release a film based on sales numbers at "Wal-Mart". I don't want to see that happen.

There IS a correct aspect ratio to any piece of filmed art, whether it is 1.33:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1 or whatever because whoever created the art decided what the AR should be. This is the correct aspect ratio; this is the way the art should be viewed.

To crop the picture for the convenience of your 4:3 TV screen is stupid, offensive and insulting and there is no one that can make an an intelligent argument for its practice.

I sure wish my eyesight was as good as yours apparently is. If you can enjoy a widescreen movie on a 12" screen all the more power to you. Even on my old 19" tv I found it too frustrating to try watching a widescreen movie on it. So I would always look for the full screen version.

I know, simply amazing isn't it?

what a dumb and stupid question to ask by yet again, another DUMB dvdtalker! How stupid and DUMB can MOST DVDTALKERS be?

Then maybe you should blame the people who made 4:3 TVs.

If you are offended and insulted that Fullscreen DVDs exist, that is just hilarious. I feel for you. Go do something about it then instead of bitching about it on some online website and calling its advocates "stupid" and "unintelligent."

Fullscreen Is Taking Over The World Baby!!!

As is sometimes the case, those here who are arguing for the superiority of widescreen have lost the battle because they insist on demeaning others who have a different opinion or who simply do not worry about it either way. Once the discussion becomes about how idiotic, stupid or unintelligent people are in relation to those who "know better" the credibility of the argument is gone and the debate becomes yet another superiority complex issue.

There is no doubt that the people on this forum know a great deal about sound and video technology, and I certainly respect that knowledge. But to hear over and over again about how everybody else is an idiot or moron gets tiresome (this also extends to threads where new members are berated for asking "uninformed" questions).

You are right. Widescreen is a better format, and I do not like fullscreen movies. But I can also say that my two sons would rather watch their kids movies in fullscreen because they like the "big" picture. My 68 year old mother prefers fullscreen because her eyesight is poor. My 80 year old grandfather prefers fullscreen because he does not like the "black bars." Are these members of my family idiots and morons? Are the members of your families who prefer one picture format over another idiots and morons? Are those of you are who making these types of points really that petty?

By the way, please note the exceptional grammar and spelling in my post.

I also prefer to watch movies in their OAR. Ironically, most of my favorite movies are pre-1960 and many of them are in 4:3 aspect ratio. So when I watch them on my new widescreen tv I get bars on the sides. However the bars on the sides or on the top and bottom don't really bother me.
As you so rightly point out, it is too bad that many of the widescreen advocates here end up resorting to name-calling. Such tactics really undercut any good points they may be trying to make.
Gee, I hope I haven't made any spelling or grammatical errors in the above post that would indicate my lack of intelligence.

a guy at my work buys dvds (frmo walmart) EVERY week.. i asked him today during lunch "matt do you buy fullscreen or widescreen?" he says "FULLSCRENE ONLY!"

i asked "why? you know it cuts off half the picture"

he said "yea i've been told that.. but i don't have a bigscreen.. so those stupid lines at the top also cut off half the picture... i want to enjoy the movie that i watch, not squint because of those lines... and besides i don't care about what's going on in the background..."


that's his answer... and that's that