No, you are conflating two completely separate arguments here. Whether you like the movie or not has nothing to do with the discussion we're having about aspect ratio.

Your main argument (which is not particularly original) boils down to: "Movie directors are idiots and all their movies suck anyway, so why should I care what aspect ratio they want?"

If you have no respect for the process of filmmaking, you're not likely to drum up a lot of sympathy for your cause in a forum like this.

Why is it so important to me that something is OAR if I'm ejecting it because I feel like it's a waste of my time. Squashing the release of an alternate aspect ratio of a given film will not stop that film from sucking. It will suck in any aspect ratio.

I never said what you infer in this statement......I fully support your right to the OAR presentation........I would like to see an option......regardless if it still sucked.

Have you read any of the other posts? My desire to see "full-widescreen 16x9" versions on DVD or Blu-ray doesn't interfere with your choice to view or own the OAR presentation......nor have I implied what you are inferring in your generalized statement above about the process of filmmaking.

If a person likes a film, they should want to watch it the way it was originally meant to be seen. If they don't like the film, no amount of fiddling with the aspect ratio is likely to fix that. Either way, OAR wins.

Trailers, reviews, comments from friends or from people on this forum and other sites...

I'm really unlikely to watch a film without doing a little research on it beforehand. I no longer go into a rental store and browse until I find an interesting title/cover/description for a film. Now I have a Netflix queue based on movies I've read positive reviews on, have been recommended by friends, or have read about on forums like this.

I knew that you could!

I believe that Giles just "may" be an actual person with me in this crazy joint.

When they made the original Chevy Impala, it was a thing of beauty....an atristic vision of the people who created it.... look around today ....you see that they still exist in their original forms unaltered from their original state......exactly as they were intended by the artists and visionaries that created it. Contrary to the people who demand that the car remain in it's original state , there are many who choose to own the car in a different and altered version of the original........you would deny them the choice ...given the opportunity, to own the vehicle in the manner that they see fit........without affecting the choice that you have made. My personal opinion of this particular scenario....is that I side with keeping the car in it's original state and it sickens me when I see it hacked up with air shocks and bizarre paint schemes...........but, it is not my place to decide for others the manner in which they see fit to own it. That's it in a nutshell.

It's not your place to decide, but you can still voice an opinion. I can't physically stop anyone from zooming their films on their TV, and I can't stop any studios from releasing what it wants. I can voice my personal opinion that I don't like it, and I'd rather it didn't happen. Which is what I'm doing in this thread.

Jay G., You are a genius of movies and far superior to me in this forum on all issues.......I merely want the opportunity to select an alternate method of viewing DVD's and Blu-ray....I do not want theaters to conform to ....what in my estimation...... is simply an alternative aspect ratio available for optimized image quality on 16x9 TV's. Nothing more

And I disagree with your desire for MAR releases, as it detracts from the variety of titles available to all, and sometimes are released instead of an OAR release instead of just in addition to.

Actually, you did suggest that studios should conform to producing all films as 1.78:1, which would predicate all theaters showing films as 1.78:1.

Well, that would not be beneficial to everybody in the case of release in something other than the theatrical presentation.

Did I really ??......must have been in the fog of war........what post? In any event, you guys have beaten me into submission ....at least to the point of fully supporting the notion that, if only one aspect ratio is released on DVD, that it be the theatrical presentation. Wow, you guys are WAY too resourceful to joust with..........I'm not some film guru......I'm just the average Joe looking for something........apparently in the wrong place.

I think I accidentally called PETA for white rats to feed my Boa constrictor.

This part of one of your posts:
Although framed as speculation, you seem to be making the case that 1.78:1 films would be more profitable and more creative.

PLEASE JAY G.........Now your reaching.

OK, maybe I misinterpreted it. If you don't think that 1.78:1 movies are more commercially viable than scope films, or are a more viable means of creative expression, then that's my mistake.

Jay G. is just picking the bones of my corpse in search of any residual flesh.

I have to ask you.......what did you do (or do) in your life that is the source of your instantaneous recall of every fascet of the movie industry? Without specifics of course, that would compromise your privacy.

I've been arguing on the internet for over a decade. I do tend to be persistent, but hopefully you've found this discussion to be reasonable.

Well, I used to work at Target in the Electronics department, so I have some first-hand knowledge of how retailers and consumers deal with DVDs.

However, aside from an intro to film class I took once, the rest of my knowledge comes from too much free time and spending a lot of it on this forums and others, learning about various filmmaking details. I've also watched my fair share of making-of docs on DVD, and have read a few filmmaking-related books.

Also, I'm apparently really good at internet searches. If there's details I'm fuzzy on, I'll often search online for a reliable source to fill in the details. I'm also occasionally wrong on certain points, but since I typically search for confirmation before posting, I can correct my post before exposing my mistake to the world.

Well, I'm just some guy who,2 or 3 weeks ago, went to a forum looking for a T2 Blu-ray "full-screen 16x9" version ........imagine my shock when I ran into this "buzzsaw" of opposition to what I was looking for.

It has made me a better arguer......I think......I started out shakey, but I got callused over time......you maniacs beat the hell out of me.

I'm reminded of a twilight zone episode where a woman and all the medical staff are all in shadows in an operatory through the entire episode.....only to reveal that the womans surgery has failed (yet again) to make her normal....like everyone else..........( the metaphor doesn't imply that you are all hideous and grotesque freaks....and that I am ironically beautiful in my ugliness)....only that we have our places amongst our own kind...........could you send me to a place, Jay G. ,where I would be accepted by people of my own kind and communicate productively with them? Where I would be looked upon.....finally,.....as normal?.....................................

On the internet? Not too likely. The "full-screen" proponents have never been that organized, and at least on the internet in terms of discussion, have been horribly outnumbered.

For example, compared these two online petitions, the first requesting Blockbuster to carry WS DVDs, the second requesting that Blockbuster carry all DVDs in fullscreen:
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_pe...ed.cgi?widedvd
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_pe...d.cgi?mamf4488

However, while most of the people who responded to you have a different opinion on what's an appropriate aspect ratio, this site is primarily a discussion on movies and DVDs, of which aspect ratio is only a small part. Also, even with that difference of opinion, people have still provided the info you requested, such as Josh Z providing the info on the Canadian MAR releases.

So if you want to discuss the latest movie/TV show you watched, or get info and discuss upcoming DVD/Blu-ray releases, this site is the place for you. Just don't bring up your preference for MAR without expecting an argument.

Please tell me that you at least recognize the "tongue in cheek" nature of my last post. P.S,, I wanted T2 full-widescreen........my choice would be to buy or rent movies in this fashion at home......if I rented the full-widescreen version and it became a HUGE favorite of mine.....ironically, I would have to go out and rent or own the scope 2.35:1 version of that movie and watch or own it........figure that one out !!!

Maybe he couldn't recognize it because it was colored blue.

That's fuckin' funny

samre: I'm trying to get a handle on exactly what you mean by a "full-widescreen" version of a movie.

Is this what you're thinking? With the sides of the frame cut off (blue areas)...



...so the remaining picture information fills your TV?



(Credit should be given where it's due. The screenshot came from the review of Terminator 2 Skynet Edition at High Def Disc News.)

--THX

FINALLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Someone understands me !!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, that's it exactly !!!!

P.S.>>> Nice screenshots !!!!!!!!!

I think his point is that "full widescreen" is the wrong term. 2.35:1 would be full widescreen. What you want is cropped widescreen.

So, the correct term.....for the sake of everybody here......would be "cropped widescreen 16x9". Correct me if I'm wrong.

I clipped this from another forum.......I've posted it earlier.....here it is again, since it applies to my reasons for starting this thread.>>>> When they "crop" the film to 1.78:1 (16:9) the entire image fills the screen at the proper high resolution (ie. no loss in quality unlike when one tries to zoom in on a 2.35:1 scope film in order to fill their screen).

I want the highest quality image to fill a 16x9 HDTV. Zooming degrades the image.

This is as an option on DVD and Blu-ray releases and has nothing to do with the OAR theatrical presentation in theaters or the OAR releases on DVD/Blu-ray.

Whoever wrote that is wrong, although I suspect it's because they worded their sentence poorly.

By definition, when you crop an image the "entire image" cannot fill the screen. You're only getting part of the image. What they meant to write is "When they "crop" the film to 16:9 the image fills the entire screen."

Cropping also degrades the image. But I've given up hope that you will understand that.