Jay G.

Interestingly enough, the LOTR films had all their digital effects rendered in 1.78:1, which was cropped for the 2.35:1 theatrical. So the 1.78:1 showing was possibly an "open matte" transfer. As for why it was shown that way, obviously a 1.78:1 film is going to have less "black bars" than a 2.35:1 film. I guess WB thought that it was enough of a difference to defer some complaints. Also, 1.78:1 is standard letterboxing for some TV shows, so maybe they thought people were more used to that type of letterboxing.

It's dissapointing, although not surprising, that the letterboxing debate didn't get eliminated with the advent of HDTV and WS TVs.

Jay G.

That is a shame, I didn't know about this, since I stopped buying X-Files on DVD at Season 3. Too expensive.

I have had similar arguments regarding Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV show on DVD though. In that case, I think petitions were created, but for getting the 16:9 versions released on DVD in R1. In that case the series creator and executive producer actually released a statement saying that the 4:3 versions were the way the show was intended to be seen, but there's still some that think the 16:9 open-matted version "looks better" to them, and that's what should matter. Of course, the "looks better" argument is old, as has been used by people prefering the 4:3 version of films for years.

I think part of the problem is that the argument for OAR has often been simplified over the years to "WS is better" which is often explained as "WS shows more, and more is better." Thus you get people like the class action suit against MGM for their WS DVDs that cut off stuff in the open-matte 4:3 versions of the films, despite the WS aspect ration being correct and OAR. When getting into 4:3 shows shot on 16:9, the WS does show more, but is not necessarily better.

Also, part of the confusion comes from the pushing of WS sets, which often is oversimplified as explaining "WS sets will show WS films without black bars." Of course, that's true of some WS films, but not all. People end up getting upset that the sets don't do what they were sold as doing, and they may complain either to the manufacturers, or the content providers. Sadly, these companies are sometimes more eager to roll over to the demands of these consumers rather than try to educate them.

Finally, there are always going to be some who just want their screens filled, whether that screen be 16:9 or 4:3. Thus the stretch mode in most WS sets, and modifying films and shows to fill a 16:9 screen.

Back to the X-Files, figuring out OAR gets complicated when certain shows are shown in different aspect ratios on standard TV versus Digital TV. Later seasons of X-Files may have been broadcast in 16:9 simultatiously with it's 4:3 broadcasts, so both, technically, are OAR. In most cases like this it's best to defer to the creators, although sometimes they may make the wrong choice, going away from their originally preferred aspect ratio to one that more appeals to the masses, or to the studio.

C_Fletch

I hope the studio knuckleheads read these threads. As myself and others are NOT going to buy a reframed movie

OAR or NO SALE!!

Jay G.

Hopefully he just forgot to put "some" (or maybe "most") before "Standard TV viewers." It's important to remember that some people can't afford to upgrade to a WS TV as of yet, or maybe just haven't gotten around to it. Everyone was a 4:3 TV viewer at one point, and letterboxing existed for a long time before WS TVs. It's not the shape of the screen that matters, but the mindset of the viewer.

Peep

I have a friend with a WS TV who only buy FS DVD's (if possible) who then stretches or zooms them so they fill his entire TV without any of those annoying black bars. He can't even stand watching 1.85:1 films on his TV. To each his/her own.

Personally, I'd be OK if they reformat 1.85:1 films (only) to 1.78:1

Jay G.

Doesn't overscan take care of the black bars on 1.85:1 films?

Academy Format films have often been cropped from 1.37:1 to 1.33:1, with little to no complaints. Reformatting 1.85:1 to 1.78:1 is only slightly more extreme.

Qui Gon Jim

I think he is referring to the hypocracy of many WS TV owners who look down their nose at anyone without a WS set and also at those that buy at places like WalMart.

Somone's sig line says it best: It's all about the correct image.

darkside

It does on my TV. I'm still pissed that 2.35:1 films are being reformated for 1.78:1 though to satisfy the joe six packs that bought HDTVs. Lions Gate needs their asses kicked for that one.

digitalfreaknyc

Obviously, my copy of The Recruit was opened when i returned it to KoreanDVD's. It plainly said 2.35:1 on the box. I believe after that, they started placing stickers over that with the proper aspect ratio. This whole thing is utter bullshit.

Add Life As A House to the list as another movie where the AR was changed.

Easy

My thanks to whoever brought this to light. I am aware that some television has been modified (Kung Fu for example) but this is the first movie I have heard about. I guess I'll now have to check IMDB on each and every purchase. Is there any other resource to check?

fmian

All I can say is thank god for the internet allowing us to buy international dvd's. Still gotta check, but at least we get a wider range of options than we would without the net.

Slowpc

Next thing we know .. LGF will announce Lord Of War ... 2-disc "Old Potatoes" edition with no new extras but in OAR... and the SAW II "a finger more on each side" edition.... for those that know the difference

DonnachaOne

Joe 16:9-Pack?

Drexl

It's a fine compromise for showing varying aspect ratios. With 1.33:1, you have side bars. With 2.35:1, you have bars on the top and bottom. In both cases, the bars are relatively small. If you go to either extreme (1.33:1 or 2.35:1), some material will have a lot of blank space.

Jay G.

I think he meant why even own a WS TV if you're going to mess with the aspect ratio by cropping 2.35:1 films or stretching 4:3 films to fill the screen. If you have that kind of attitude, you may as well stick with 4:3 and buy the FF releases.

Nick Martin

If all I could ever own was a 9" standard TV, I would still choose the OAR...not all standard TV owners are ignorant on this issue.

Jah-Wren Ryel

Friends don't let friends modify aspect ratios.

Qui Gon Jim

The thing that puzzles me is this:

Is there any WS TV set that doesn't stretch/zoom? Release the thing in OAR and let the ignorant fill their screens by zooming. Honestly, if the 2.35:1 bars bother you that much, you need help. My future brother-in-law's future wife was bitching about black bars and I asked her if she watches the movie or the bars.

Jay G.

Just a word of warning, but the CD-Wow link for the R3 looks like the information posted about it is circumstantial at best. All the information is TBC, including cover art, so the information about it being in 2.35:1 is likely based on information about the film, and not the DVD. Now, it's still possible the DVD will be 2.35:1, but I wouldn't rush to buy it quite yet.

Jay G.

Most WS HDTVs will not allow for zooming of HD content, so your solution will only work for DVDs. With stations like HBO-HD, the only way to zoom is for the network to do it, which is why I guess HBO-HD crops everything to 1.78:1.

fmian

Yeah, my WS HDTV will not let me zoom when I have a dvd player attached via component for progressive scan. I have a second dvd player for divx stuff which is connected via composite and that lets me zoom how I want. I would imagine most sets operate in this manner.

bunkaroo

So I wonder if she goes nuts when a theater pulls the curtains to show a 1.85:1 film on a screen meant to accomodate 2.35:1.

"Dammit I'm paying for my ticket, I want the whole screen used!!!"

I'll never understand that mentality with a TV. Like it's a conspiracy. These are the people I hope and pray are not doctors or scientists, etc., because if they have that little attention to details, we're in trouble.

Josh Z

Saw II was 1.85:1 theatrically, according to IMDb (didn't see it myself). Opening 1.85:1 to 1.78:1 is a negligible difference. Not quite the same thing as altering a 2.35:1 movie.

HGN2001

CROP = CRAP

And zooming should be against the law.

Harry

Duality

Hear, hear!