Yes...of course, now when you take this notion and transpose is to a 16x9 TV you have the same basic effect....sans the theater seating.

Let me ask a simple question of this forum.........what percentage of movies that you have rented in the past year have you "ejected" and never went back to?

I can tell you , that my wife and I have not been able to make it through probably 70 % of the movies that we have rented.......ALL of them being "Widescreen presentations" presented as the director intended to fully realize the film makers vision. Of the remaining 30%, probably 15% of them we watched with the ultimate conclusion ranging from "my God...I want that 2 HR's back"...to...just not much of an opinion. The remaining 15% ranged from good to outstanding....based on story and visual impact.

I think that movies have , in recent years, really thrown out the notion of the story.......with a few exceptions, the stories are formulaic and nothing more than a vehicle to pack as many special effects as possible to attract the masses (in the case of the "big blockbuster" movies).

I have been a huge fan of the big blockbuster and movies across the board, with movies tending to be spun out with the end result that it has in MY home.....I find it hard to defend altering the directors vision that has been debated "ad nauseum" in this forum.........even given this, I believe, for the sake of all, that if there is a single release for a given film, that it be the OAR version and not altered from the theatrical presentation.

It seems to me like it's going more towards 2.35:1, maybe to something like the 60% of that list. It seems like more and more comedies are using it, and that's a genre that often leaned heavily toward 1.85:1. I think a big factor is the popularity of Super 35.

But, another factor could be the greater presence of widescreen viewing in the home. Instead of moving towards 1.78:1 as some might think, it's made them more comfortable using 2.35:1, as they know it won't be butchered for TV viewing and the black bars won't be as intrusive as they used to be. Some directors like Clint Eastwood and Martin Scorsese have switched back to 2.35:1 in recent years after using 1.85:1 for a while.

too many movies too little time.

I watch a movie then move on to the next.

I have never decided not to watch a movie just because it's OAR been altered, or that I don't agree with the director's artistic intention

I was bascially bitching over the theatres not the directotr's intent blah blah blah... I'm just stating that I wish more theatres/auditoriums are outfitted for side masking, and that studios who decide which movies get released in IMAX format are Flat movies NOT widescreen scope, that's all I saying.

This is an interesting question, but more applicable to a separate thread in the "Movie Talk" forum. Why not create one?

I think this is the point you were making, correct me if I misunderstood.

To me, defending a director's vision has to do with the idea that if a film is going to either succeed or fail, it should be on the director's terms. If a director's cut of a film fails, at least the director's vision was delivered to the audience. When a studio takes a film away and changes it without approval, the vision is muddled, and almost never for the better.

As for aspect ratio specifically, I can't think of a single film where I ever thought "well, I would've liked that film a whole lot better if it was in a different aspect ratio." Often, I don't even consciously register the aspect ratio. For example, when researching the aspect ratios of last years top 10 grossing films, I found that I had completely forgotten that The Hangover was in scope.

Also, when altering an aspect ratio, you're more messing with the cinematographer's vision than the director's. The director probably decided on the aspect ratio (though likely after consultation with the cinematographer), but it's the cinematographer that composes and sets up the shots. So even if the film is complete shit in terms of plot and characters, it could still be beautifully shot, and you'd do those images, and their composer, a disservice by altering it for your convenience (IMO of course).

I can't think of a single 'studio cut' that's superior to what the director intended.

and let's not venture Storaro's wishy washy stance on altering all his films to 2.00:1 - ugh, why a cinematographer should have the power to alter his own film when he isn't the film's director is just WRONG - but I'm digressing.

See, like I said, more comedies. Animated movies are another group that used to be 1.85:1 (or even 1.66:1) much more often than 2.35:1, and that has changed.

I can only think of one comedy movie that was 2.55 and that was It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World

as for animated films, Pixar has been mostly 1.85, sans The Incrediblesand A Bug's Life. Disney films have been all over board from their classic films to newer films, where even Brother Bear had dual aspect ratios.

You've got the right idea but the wrong way to look at it. The major studios would love it if there continued to be sufficient demand for fullscreen titles that they could ship twice as many copies of 2012 and keep those pesky indpendent films off the Walmart and Best Buy shelves completely. They know that if they release 30 different versions of 2012, retailers will talk themselves into carrying all 30 versions. That's why Coke and Pepsi sell so many different brands. Coke isn't looking to make a fortune off Diet Vanilla Coke, but if the retailers keep it on the shelf, it means that RC and A&W will get forced off the shelf.

I never said that it was bad for the studios, I said that it was bad for consumers.

However, a lot of "independent" films are released by specialty divisions of the major studios (Miramax, Sony Pictures Classics, Warner Independent Pictures), so there's likely instances where multiple versions of a studio's big-budget film bumps a lower-budget film they financed off the shelves. Or it could bump a catalog title the studio is selling. So it's not a straight-up win for the studios either.

Also, as I pointed out, separate versions takes up space in a studio's budget that could've been used for releasing other titles, independent and/or catalog, so a studio's potential revenue for a given year goes down (assuming a big-budget film would sell as many, or more, OAR releases as they would with the combined sales of separate OAR and MAR releases).

KUDOS to Silverscreenvid for supporting my position in a different way.....as I said in an earlier post.....at the end of the day, movies are about generating income for the studios.........guaging from the releases of the last two years......the garbage movie count is "piling up" almost as fast as they can spit them out for the sake of generating revenue.

With all due respect to the "directors vision" that Jay G. speaks so galantly and with such reverence in defense of, his arguments hold weight in the (in my estimation) case of the truly worthy films that get put out once in a blue moon. But, to me, on a massive scale, the artistic vision is lost in a sea of garbage............from my perspective as a movie fan, and it's getting real slim pickins' nowadays. Watching another OAR presentation as it insults my intelligence to the point of sickening my stomach.....then, finally deciding to eject the movie with the intention of never desiring to finish it....or own it.....is hardly grounds for defense of "directors vision" over availability of aspect ratios. The idea of offering the prospective consumer ,yet, another alternative to buy just makes good business sense......as stated so eloquently in Silverscreenvids post #158 Coke/Pepsi analogy.

My belief is that....if I am looking for "Full-Widescreen 16x9 " version of my favorite 2.35:1 scope movie......chances are , that other people are looking for the same thing.....given the opportunity to buy it.

What about the consumer that wants to buy the FS version? Does his opinion/dollars not count?

(That is bigtime devil's advocate there, but it did occur to me)

I'd much rather see the scenario of one version, OAR, and more new titles across the board. But if the studios are still making FS versions, and the stores are carrying FS alongside the WS/OAR/MAR, it's probably selling. The consumer made a choice (which many of us don't agree with, myself included) to buy the FS...they are consumers. Shouldn't they count as well?

In most OAR fans eyes: No, their opinion doesn't count.

Seriously though, if a consumer values having a film pre-modified to fit their personal preference of aspect ratio over having a wider variety of films available, then MAR releases are good for them. Of course, this doesn't apply to samre5, who stated that he'd rather have more films on home video than a separate MAR release.

However, for OAR fans, studios releasing a separate MAR release is almost always a bad move.

As far as studios are concerned, MAR fans should only count if they will otherwise not buy a film on home video. However, I'm not convinced that separate MAR and OAR releases actually sell significantly more than OAR-only releases.

Name a movie you hated that you would've liked had it been in MAR. Either you think that altering the aspect ratio so it fit your screen would've made you enjoy these films you think were otherwise "garbage," or you have no point.

it's the Jay G. samre5 show

...

Overall, the ratio is still about 50/50. I was talking about the big action, sci-fi, and "epic" movies that get released in the summer with the intent of being the year's big blockbusters. Those are mostly 2.35:1.

How does this have anything to do with what we're discussing here? Do you believe that those movies that you claim had bad stories would have miraculously gotten better stories if only they'd filled your TV screen?

If you don't like movies and have no respect for the people who make them, why do you watch them, and why are you here in a movie discussion forum?

Furthermore, have you ever considered the possibility that you may just have bad taste? Or, at the very least, an inability to pick decent movies to watch?

Yes, many crap movies with bad scripts get made every year. But a lot of good movies do too. Either you're only renting/buying the bad ones to the complete exclusion of the good ones, or your taste in movies is so lousy that you can't tell the difference.

In either case, I have very little sympathy for your predicament.

Haha, I have to admit from my own personal standpoint...their opinions don't count for much.

For my own work experience though, I have to ignore my personal preferences. My job had a fair assortment of FS DVDs when I took over buying duties for it. I simply assumed the last guy wasn't as discerning as I. Lo and behold when I replaced FS with WS versions whenever possible, and avoided FS altogether, I got complaint after complaint. I'm thinking "what is wrong with these people?"...don't they know they are getting an inferior version? Well they didn't want the "superior" or "correct" version...they wanted the one that filled their old fashioned TVs.

Then I remembered the old chestnut "the customer is always right". So while I hate to do it, I do bring FS movies just for these customers. Granted my customers are an older crowd (which explains why they care less about OAR I think, and why they still don't have HD 16:9 sets) but it does seem to be the same concept...I wouldn't carry the stuff if people weren't demanding it and I imagine it's the same at wallyworld? I dunno.

Anyway, I can certainly agree with your sentence "However, for OAR fans, studios releasing a separate MAR release is almost always a bad move" and from a personal standpoint that's all I care about.

^ there use to be a time, when it was amusing to stand around at Best Buy on 'new release' Tuesday at noon and listen to the folk complain about "where's the full screen DVD version" "I don't want no black bars"" - it seems to become less prevailent.

You missed the point, they were made OAR and they got ejected....not because they were OAR, but, because they sucked. So, why fight so hard to not have an alternate version for the other guy who might want it and may actually like the film. P.S....It was "Full-screen" when I ejected it.


I am making a point about the absurd nature of not allowing an option of alternate aspect ratio. I have seen many great movies over the years....in recent years I haven't, with the exception of a few....I'm just being honest. It seems a little sensitive for you to be upset that I am telling the truth of my experience with recent movies. I'm sure that "YOU never" ejected a movie without finishing it....right??

How can I determine the content of something I have not attempted to watch ??


Well,........ who's not showing respect for the men and women who make movies now.....HMMMMMMM ????

Figured it out.................finally. I'm 2 weeks in.

it's

pretty

easy

actually
.
Dont get
too
mad
over it.

You are a genius !!!!. No, seriously....how do get the sentence right inside the frame of the quote.........me really want do this !!

YEEEEEEEEESSSS ........I FINALLY DID IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Practice, practice, practice.

Absolutely none of them Jay G., the scope of the film had nothing to do with bailing on it since I zoom everything to full-screen anyway....it's a moot point.

Jay G., I will not protest the sale of original formula Coke.......just let me have Diet Coke as a choice...............Thanks for the "tip-in" Silverscreenvid !!! P.S. Jay G., What's a beautiful looking movie if you can't get through it......regardless of the aspect ratio?