Full Screen vs. Widescreen vs. HD

[JaseSF]

Well in an earlier thread, I asked for folks' opinion on whether they'd rather have Willy Wonka in full frame or matted widescreen? Apparently DVDs of EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS, IT CAME FROM BENEATH THE SEA and 20 MILLION MILES TO EARTH were done in an open matte process too which transfers the 1:33:1 original to a 1:85:1 widescreen too and I've seen others complain about these films being done in such a way, cutting off the bottom and top of the picture frame.

Now I also know of others who wanted to have anamorphic widescreen of those films so they would fit their HDTVs and didn't care about the changes to the original film. Me, I think I'd rather have as much of the film as I can see but some here ma feel differently on that? So what's more important to you personally? Having a film in widescreen even if it means altering the original version (someday we may well see classic old films and TV series re-edited in this fashion to fit on to HDTVs who knows)? There are others who want films to be available more widely no doubt in full frame/pan and scan so as to fit their TVs and in the case of most classic black and white films prior to the late 1950s and even many in the 1960s, they were filmed to be seen that way in the first place. TV series filmed from the 50s-90s were likely originally filmed to be seen in that format too. So which do you prefer? Me, I like a full frame 1:33:1 aspect ratio for items that were originally filmed and intended to be seen in that format. I do not like pan and scan which zooms in on certain elements from an originally widescreen film. I prefer films and TV series were presented in their original form or at least remain an available option for consumers. I do not like the modern updating done on the classic FX from the classic "Star Trek" series..I want my original cheesy FX dagnabbit! Also I want to be able to see the classic STAR WARS trilogy of film in their original pre-special edition forms. How do you feel?

[Psycho Circus]

FULLSCREEN!

[fortunato]

I like whatever form a film is meant to be shown in.  Which means I tend to seek out widescreen films most of the time.  As you say, not every film was made in widescreen format, so I have a few fullscreeners, too.

[hellbilly]

I like whatever form a film is meant to be shown in.  Which means I tend to seek out widescreen films most of the time.  As you say, not every film was made in widescreen format, so I have a few fullscreeners, too.

Pretty much my opinion.
I do have a new "appreciation" for fullscreen movies though, as most of them now look simply stunning upscaled on my new HD LCD. But then again, almost everything does 
Sadly there are still lots of movies in fullscreen on DVD even though they were meant to be shown in widescreen.
I watched I, Madman (1989) last night and MGM's fullscreen transfer is near perfect. Director Tibor Takács however is quoted saying in an interview that I, Madman was shot with a widescreen presentation in mind. Same goes for Lionsgate's Slaughter High (1986). Thankfully its hitting DVD in widescreen in Germany soon.

[The Burgomaster]

I'm a fan of whatever format it was filmed in.  The Season One DVD boxed set of the KUNG FU television series was released in widescreen.  But they came to their senses and released Season Two and Season Three in full frame. 

[JaseSF]

How about when a director/producer/production studio goes back and changes a film and makes a newer edition? Do you prefer to have a movie/TV presentation in its original theatrical/television form or upgraded with new modern effects and director/producer/etc. edits. Personally I don't mind if directors sometime go back and make director's cuts of films but I really wish the theatrical version would remain available and preferably even get re-released with the new version to allow for comparison. Personally I didn't care for Lucas's changes to the original Star Wars Trilogy nor do I care to see modern FX updates done on classic Star Trek and Doctor Who (although thankfully with the Doctor Who DVDs the original are still intact). Also didn't care for the changes done to THX-1138 for another example.

[WilliamWeird1313]

Getting as much as the movie as possible is the most important to me. I used to be a real hardcore completist when it came to getting the best version available of every movie I bought, most discs, most commentaries, most special features, etc. Nowadays, all I care about is having the movie, as uncut as possible, with as much of the frame intact as possible. I hate DVD's that offer us what I've come to call "poor man's widescreen." I know Media Blasters has been guilty of this on several occasions, claiming to offer a true widescreen print, but really just taking a full screen one and chopping off the top and bottom sections of the screen with black banners. Ugh. Having to settle for full screen usually sucks enough, because pan-and-scan already deprives you of the "whole picture." But "faux widescreen" DVD's only make it worse.

Bah humbug!

[Jim H]

Getting as much as the movie as possible is the most important to me. I used to be a real hardcore completist when it came to getting the best version available of every movie I bought, most discs, most commentaries, most special features, etc. Nowadays, all I care about is having the movie, as uncut as possible, with as much of the frame intact as possible. I hate DVD's that offer us what I've come to call "poor man's widescreen." I know Media Blasters has been guilty of this on several occasions, claiming to offer a true widescreen print, but really just taking a full screen one and chopping off the top and bottom sections of the screen with black banners. Ugh. Having to settle for full screen usually sucks enough, because pan-and-scan already deprives you of the "whole picture." But "faux widescreen" DVD's only make it worse.

Do you prefer the opened up 4:3 versions of films shot for 1:85 or wider ratios?  Sometimes you'll end up seeing boom mics and other such nonsense that - best example are the shots of jeans visible when John Cleese is meant to be naked in some shots of the 4:3 version of A Fish Called Wanda.

Sounds to me like you prefer the original aspect ratio, though - whatever the director intended.  If so, I agree. I have a couple films that are matted to widescreen that are originally at 4:3 (Evil Dead: Book of the Dead edition, for instance) and it bugs me.  I want films as they were originally intended.  Period.

Anyone with a widescreen TV shouldn't mind if a film comes in a 4:3 DVD - if it REALLY bothers you, I've yet to see a 16:9 TV that doesn't let you zoom in the picture slightly to fill the TV up.  Why matte off part of the screen just to save you a button press?

[WilliamWeird1313]

Sounds to me like you prefer the original aspect ratio, though - whatever the director intended.  If so, I agree. I have a couple films that are matted to widescreen that are originally at 4:3 (Evil Dead: Book of the Dead edition, for instance) and it bugs me.  I want films as they were originally intended.  Period.

That's EXACTLY what I meant when I said "get as much as possible." I didn't mean as much as possible in terms of actual surface area, just as much as possible in terms of what I'm SUPPOSED to be able to see.

I know what you mean about the Evil Dead DVD's buggin' ya. I'm the same way. The more recently released Ultimate Edition has the original full screen version on it, but I'm takin' my sweet ol' time replacing the "widescreen" copy in my collection simply because I hate to double-dip, especially because of something as silly as this. In the end, I'll end up buying it, but for now I'm fighting my OCD for the sake of saving money on a movie I technically already own.

[Jim H]

Evil Dead in particular bugged me because I HAD the original full frame release and gave it away before even watching the Book of the Dead edition.  Didn't even realize they'd done it til I watched the damn thing!

[Criswell]

whatever the directors intent is

[JaseSF]

I  used to think that way until George Lucas started changing all his old films....The original STAR WARS trilogy and THX-1138 in particular I prefer in their original theatrical forms. Also I often haven't cared for some of the changes Steven Spielberg went back and did with some of his films too.

[WilliamWeird1313]

I  used to think that way until George Lucas started changing all his old films....The original STAR WARS trilogy and THX-1138 in particular I prefer in their original theatrical forms. Also I often haven't cared for some of the changes Steven Spielberg went back and did with some of his films too.

That's a good point. I have to say, I don't think there's any solid cut-and-dry across-the-board rule for what I want to see. Typically, I want to see the director's vision presented as it ought to be. When it comes to the Star Wars movie, I care more about his ORIGINAL vision, you know, the visions without all the C.G.I. and that "Greedo shooting first" business. It's subjective, what version of a movie is important to have, and changes from movie to movie. For some, it's not important at all. For me it is. When a director goes back years after the film was made and begins making drastic changes, that alters the equilibrium and makes you rethink what you place your emphasis on.

[Jim H]

I  used to think that way until George Lucas started changing all his old films....The original STAR WARS trilogy and THX-1138 in particular I prefer in their original theatrical forms. Also I often haven't cared for some of the changes Steven Spielberg went back and did with some of his films too.

An interesting point, but I don't think Lucas or Spielberg altered the aspect ratio of these films.  

Other Director's Cuts that are in fact not as good as the theatrical/alternate cuts...  One example is Last of the Mohicans.  The "director's cut" is widely thought to be inferior.  I also feel the soundtrack alterations made on the English dub of A Better Tomorrow (use of the synthesized score over a couple pop songs) are better than John Woo's original version.  I also hear Apocalypse Now Redux is not as good as the original.  I haven't seen the original, but all the scenes added to Redux just slow the film down needlessly.  

[JaseSF]

Maybe I should have titled this Special Edition vs. Theatrical Release too. Anyways getting back to aspect ratios, to me a few rare films actually look better in pan and scan 1:33:1 which is really quite different from films/TV shows that were originally filmed at 1:33:1. The one that most immediately comes to my mind is SOYLENT GREEN - the zoom effect of pan and scan I find makes the mass of humanity in tight close quarters seem more plausible somehow.