Widescreen DVD or Full Screen??

VP

Moderator Emeritus
Usually I don't care, if the movie is fullscreen or widescreen, but this time I'll buy <big><b>W I D E S C R E E N</b></big>
 

Patrick

New member
WHO CARES IF YOU CAN'T SEE A TREE THAT WAS CUT OUT TO NOT GIVE THAT ANNOYING FEELING OF THAT YOU ARE WATCHING THE FILM THOUGH A BOX!?!?!? I personally prefer the standard because it doesn't accidently show equipment and it also seems like they didn't change anything in the movie for when it comes to video and makes it seem like the movie wasn't any good that it didn't even come out on video it was just taped on T.V. eventhough I don't care about watching a W I D E S C R E E N film I don't like how people say " Oh no I can only see 20 trees or you can't see the window on the window that you can see on widescreen editions even though those things are irrelevant and you won't even notice those things. The black screen however, you have to be so into the film to not notice it ( Which isn't a problem with Indy) and mostly it takes more than 5 minutes to become focused back into the film. Hey all disney films which we saw when we were little (for me littler) were in fullscreen and you get so used to that then this stuff bothers you.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Self-educate yourself...this is why the original aspect ratio is superior to "pan & scan" or "fullscreen."

http://www.widescreen.org/index.shtml

However, the single-most important reason is that you are getting the director's original vision for the film when you see it in the original aspect ratio. Let it also be known that not all films are made in "widescreen," namely those before a certain year in the mid-1950's, and still some films (animated, in particular) may not be made in "widescreen."
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
I always prefer the directors vision. Imagine reading a poem where the last line is missing, or viewing a painting in a frame that is one size to small. If it's the black area on your screen that bothers you, invest in a screen that has the right ratio.
 

Kumba

Guest
Canyon said:
That's interesting.

I remember I bought my first copies of the trilogy between August 1989 and August 1990 and managed to get hold of a box set of the films in widescreen (with the making of Raiders tape) in about 95'. I think it's a real shame that there are so many people who are unaware that they are missing out by watching films in fullscreen. :( [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, Canyon, you are definetly right. I was tempted to do a speech on how widescreen is better for my final speech in speech class, but instead I did it on forgery. Oh, thanks for posting that website; it will help prove my point to those full-screen activist friends of mine.....
 

Patrick

New member
I think it's really dumb how you guy's treat widescreen as some amazing product that makes watching any movie overwhelmingly great than watching it in a T.V. show format. I saw the pictures of the Last Crusade being in widescreen and personally I can't see myself enjoying the widescreen anymore than standard. I'm wasting my breath, but not to offend anyone, but this annoys me greatly. All you see is a branch on the tree when you see the first picture of Indy on the train which makes it a totally stupid and irrelevant reason to say clamitousily whoever thought of the standard format should be killed. That is something again that annoys me for being something that was said so boldly about how W I D E S C R E E N is better. I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings or point them out it's just that saying Pan and Scam is truly a very big exageration. If the movies were worth buying before they were on widescreen I think you should rethink your opinions. I don't mind watching widescreen cause it takes 60 seconds to forget the black line and it takes 10 seconds to make you forget that you are seeing more than you would in standard. I don't care whether I buy Standard or widescreen, And it shouldn't even advertise it that you can get in W I D E S C R E E N, it should just say on the top of the box which type it is. If this subject came up without being a new thread I'd say you guy's are acting stupid but since this thread asked for opinions, I won't. I'm not on either side of this ( If I was on the Standard side I'd be the only one)but I'm just saying that arguing; actually not even arguing but by saying things like standard is terrible and the person who made it should be killed, and calling it "Pan and Scam" is really unneeded. Just say what you want to get, say why you want it, and ask what "Indy 4 ever" (?) thinks he would prefer. Don't go bashing and making fun of a creation made for people who didn't like the way the black lines filled 2/3rds of the screen. Remember they didn't have widescreen T.V.s around when it was created. So just place your opinion. If people don't like people bashing Lara Croft or Vin Diesil, Then the least of all this should be bashed.
 

Patrick

New member
And oh yeah, I prefer the square t.v.s. I don't know, I just find that it feels weird. Actually though if that is the way televisions are going to be made I wouldn't care at all which type I got even moreso then I don't care now... For some reason I think I might prefer the standard...hmmm... What about just watching television? Like T.V. shows. How do they appear? Do they have the black or blue lines on the side or do they have a streched look or what?
 

spohlso

New member
Well, for the few people on this board who actually argue IN FAVOR of Pan and Scan (the only arguments I have seen so far are along the lines of, "I don't like bars" and "The only extra thing you're going to see is a tree") I actually saw a Pan and Scan movie yesterday where it made a real difference. The movie was a light piece of fluff called "Valley Girl" One of my wife's favorite 80's movies (I'm more of a Repo Man fan myself, but what the heck.) In this Pan and Scan movie there's a scene where the main character is in driving class with some friends and a driving instructor is in the passenger seat. She and her freinds are so busy gossiping about boys that she isn't paying any attention to the road. Eventually you hear a car door slam. Because the movie was Pan and scan, they could only focus on one thing at a time. You never get to see the driving instructor get so scared of her driving that he jumps out of the moving car. An entire joke wiped away by the fact that you can't see the entire image in Pan and Scan.
 

DrJones56

IndyFan
Patrick said:
I think it's really dumb how you guy's treat widescreen as some amazing product that makes watching any movie overwhelmingly great than watching it in a T.V. show format. I saw the pictures of the Last Crusade being in widescreen and personally I can't see myself enjoying the widescreen anymore than standard. I'm wasting my breath, but not to offend anyone, but this annoys me greatly. All you see is a branch on the tree when you see the first picture of Indy on the train which makes it a totally stupid and irrelevant reason to say clamitousily whoever thought of the standard format should be killed. That is something again that annoys me for being something that was said so boldly about how W I D E S C R E E N is better. I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings or point them out it's just that saying Pan and Scam is truly a very big exageration. If the movies were worth buying before they were on widescreen I think you should rethink your opinions. I don't mind watching widescreen cause it takes 60 seconds to forget the black line and it takes 10 seconds to make you forget that you are seeing more than you would in standard. I don't care whether I buy Standard or widescreen, And it shouldn't even advertise it that you can get in W I D E S C R E E N, it should just say on the top of the box which type it is. If this subject came up without being a new thread I'd say you guy's are acting stupid but since this thread asked for opinions, I won't. I'm not on either side of this ( If I was on the Standard side I'd be the only one)but I'm just saying that arguing; actually not even arguing but by saying things like standard is terrible and the person who made it should be killed, and calling it "Pan and Scam" is really unneeded. Just say what you want to get, say why you want it, and ask what "Indy 4 ever" (?) thinks he would prefer. Don't go bashing and making fun of a creation made for people who didn't like the way the black lines filled 2/3rds of the screen. Remember they didn't have widescreen T.V.s around when it was created. So just place your opinion. If people don't like people bashing Lara Croft or Vin Diesil, Then the least of all this should be bashed.

You just said don't go bashing fullscreen, when that's what you just did to widescreen. I guess you're right, no matter what your opinion is, it shouldn't be kept for being said, being heard is another thing...

Everyone has their own opinion, but making THAT big of a deal out of it is going a bit far. The facts are, you get more movie with widescreen, and full screen is just another way to get money from us, the movie goers, and it's unfair, Eric had every right to say 'Pan and Scam', because that's what it is. See? I just gave my opinion whithout being offensive.

C'mon guys, let's lighten up just a little bit, taking something like this so seriously won't bring any good, just hard feelings.
 

Patrick

New member
When did I bash widescreen? It must've slipped out there cause I didn't mean to say anything wrong. I think placing it on widescreen for the first time was trying to get more money out of us. I didn't say whoever created widescreen should be killed! Anyways it doesn't matter. If the new DVDs came out and the features were just Widescreen, There would be no way on earth I would buy it. I think going back to the store to buy the same video on widescreen is a waste of money. Not keeping the movie the same way it was when it first came out. Can you quote what was bashing widescreen? 'Cause I can't find anything. As I have said, I have not taken a side. I'm just going against how you guy's treat the Fullscreen as a evil, useless product. It can't ruin movies, it was created when videos first came out and if you are going to "praise" widescreen, you should give fullscreen a little respect too.
 

Patrick

New member
I'm not sure why people care too see a couple more inches of a person that isn't too important to the rest of the story. I don't think the director cares that much if a bit of the edges are cut off to fit the screen. You guy's are nut. I'm out of here.
 

Patrick

New member
What? Okay first of all I'm not trying to get everybody to buy fullscreen. This wasn't even an argument until you kept placing that I was in favour of it. I respect you, And you have gone through way more schooling than I have so I know you are smarter than me. I was simply placing that I think that you shouldn't go saying whoever invented should be killed. Okay sometimes it made me look kind of mean when I wrote it and that's basically I write this with little care. Have YOU read my posts? I've clearly stated that I just was wondering why you guy's hate Fullscreen. I don't know much about movie making so I can't argue. But I don't think I NEED to know anything about them to simply say that W I D E S C R E E N isn't that amazing as you guy's say it is and that Fullscreen isn't as bad as you say it is. I personally don't care about those 5 inches that are cut to satisfy about half of the owners of VCRs and I don't care about the black lines I see when I see a product invented to satisfy the other half. So instead of turning this into a mad conflict between us let's find something that we can agree on I can respect your opinion even though I don't totally agree with you and you can respect mine which you totally disagree on. I'll sum exactly what I wanted to say about this whole thing right now: I believe that there isn't too much of a difference between the two types of products, Which causes me to ask why you give the Standard, which many people prefer a hard time and you treat the product with much more kindness than it deserves. It annoys me how you guy's waste your time to write how you hate the fullscreen which many people demanded; and how it drives me to write this. I said I didn't want to write any more about this which I lied due to Your response, and I feel that you are exaggerating when you called me a "Stark raving lunatic". I wrote several times I didn't mean to hurt anybody's feelings , and I said "I don't know why" and I wasn't constantly saying that I hate the lines and you guy's are crazy and stuff and I meant to say "nuts" jokingly which did not seem that way to you. Of course I thought you guy's were overreacting when you were saying how you hate it and stuff so I was trying to calm it down. My first post was a little in the favour but I don't think it really matters anymore. Anyways I hope I didn't hurt anybody's feelings including you Fisk. Maybe my signature should say that.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
I don't know Paper Boy (I like the name, by the way), you'll have to wait for Fisk to show up, but I think that you were slightly more reasonable that time.

However, the fact of the matter is that to really be able to say you've seen the film, as opposed to the movie (there is a definite distinction), you must see it how the director (or the director, in addition to the studio/censors/etc.) wanted you to see it. This is called the original aspect ratio, when you see it that way. It's the same as having some 20 minutes cut out of a 2 hour film...that's what you're missing.

I should mention that the term "widescreen" is somewhat misleading...most films made before the 1950's, and yes, a fair number afterwards, weren't filmed in widescreen, and as such, the original aspect ratio was not one that is considered widescreen. So if you watch Citizen Kane and think you are missing something because they're aren't black bars, then you are mistaken. Still, most people (including movie buffs) just call it "widescreen," but it is more accurate to refer to them as "the original aspect ratio" and "a mockery of the auteur's vision."

(Yes, in most cases, I do subscribe to the auteur theory.)
 

Canyon

Well-known member
Posted by DrJones56 in response to Patrick's post.

You just said don't go bashing fullscreen, when that's what you just did to widescreen. I guess you're right, no matter what your opinion is, it shouldn't be kept for being said, being heard is another thing...

Everyone has their own opinion, but making THAT big of a deal out of it is going a bit far. The facts are, you get more movie with widescreen, and full screen is just another way to get money from us, the movie goers, and it's unfair, Eric had every right to say 'Pan and Scam', because that's what it is. See? I just gave my opinion whithout being offensive.

C'mon guys, let's lighten up just a little bit, taking something like this so seriously won't bring any good, just hard feelings.



I totally agree with Aaron here (and its NOT just because I write for The Indy Experience) ;)
 

Canyon

Well-known member
I would also like to add something.

When I originally bought the trilogy, it hadn't yet come out on widescreen. I was in a record store once and whilst queuing up, I saw someone with a box in their hands. That box contained Raiders, Temple of Doom and Last Crusade on widescreen VHS, PLUS a bonus tape of the Making of Raiders! I knew I had to have it...

When I did eventually get these films on widescreen, it made a great difference to how the films look, and that was before I was lucky enough to own a widescreen television.

Please understand that it's not just a case of a side of a building or a tree getting cut off, its about a whole scene being played around with to fit onto a 'normal' tv.

There are a couple of small things in Temple of Doom on 'widescreen' I noticed that get cut off on the 'fullscreen' edition. The part where Indy is just about to introduce Willie to Captain Blumburt, Indy smiles and gives the Captain a look as if to say (let's just leave her to it huh?) and at the end when Willie says "No more adventures with you Dr. Jones", Harrison smiles in his usual Indylike way *sigh*, which you don't get to see on the 'fullscreen' edition. Okay, this sort of thing might just seem small and insigfincant, but sometimes it's little things like that which are vital to the character. That's the great thing about Ford playing Indy; it can sometimes just be a look that he gives, that kind of thing.

A couple of nights ago, I borrowed Pearl Harbour (on VHS) from a friend, and was pleased to see the word 'Widescreen' on the side of the box. Can you imagine viewing an epic film like this, or films like Gladiator, Braveheart or Titanic, where at least 40% of the action is cut off, and it's fair to say that the Indiana Jones trilogy is epic in itself.

Now, I'm not ripping into people who'd rather have the Indy DVD's in 'fullscreen' format, I'm simply stating that by buying 'fullscreen' you are really missing out on a significant part of the directors 'dream'. If I was a director, I would be extremely upset to see my vision cut up, just so it can fit on a square tv.
 

Yolegoman

New member
BWHAHAAAAHAHAHA! WAY LESS THEN 2 MONTHS TO GO!

*Yolego gets off his lazy backside and preorders off Amazon.com*

I'm gonna skip school that day, and just make oodles of popcorn for when the things arrive. :D

Yolegoman
 

00Kevin

Indyfan
what if at the last minute, GL decides the indy DVDs aren't needed and has them all recalled befor they hit shelves.......BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA




Wider is better
 

Canyon

Well-known member
00Kevin said:
what if at the last minute, GL decides the indy DVDs aren't needed and has them all recalled befor they hit shelves.......BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

<big>Nooooooooooooo</big><Small>oooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</small>

[Edited by Canyon on 09-10-2003 at 12:05 am]
 
Top