Movies that do not look good in full screen format

[The Burgomaster]

First of all, let me say that I am a WIDESCREEN fan all the way.

I can tolerate some movies in full screen format (if I must), but some movies MUST be viewed in widescreen because too many important or interesting images get chopped off when the movie is "formatted to fit your screen."

Some examples are:

* DIE HARD - The part near the beginning where Bruce Willis is in the limousine talking to the limo driver is very aggravating when you watch it in full screen because most of the time all you can see is Bruce Willis' nose . . . about 85% of his face is off screen. (Maybe that's really a GOOD thing).

* PLAY IT AGAIN, SAM - There is a scene where Woody Allen is sitting on a sofa with Diane Keaton. The ghost of Humphrey Bogart is sitting beside Woody coaching him on how to be romantic. In the full screen version, you can't always see Bogey's ghost . . . and some of the expressions on his face are priceless.

* BLOOD OF GHASTLY HORROR - The entire movie seems like all you can see are peoples chins, noses, etc., at the very edges of the frame.

I mentioned the above movies because they are ones you might not think of. (Obviously, sweeping epics like THE TEN COMMANDMENTS and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA suffer greatly when they are not viewed in widescreen).

Feel free to name some others . . .



Post Edited (10-23-03 14:15)

[Mr_Vindictive]

NO film is good in full screen.

None.

Period.

[Andrew]

Skaboi wrote:

> NO film is good in full screen.
>
> None.
>
> Period.


I don't know about that.  "Seven Samurai" looks great at 1.37:1.

I think the original "Planet of the Apes" looks terrible in full screen.

[-=NiGHTS=-]

Miyazaki films are horrendous in fullscreen.

...That's all I've got to say.

[kriegerg69]

First of all, let me say that I am a WIDESCREEN fan all the way.

Same here....with very few exceptions.

I can tolerate some movies in full screen format (if I must), but some movies MUST be viewed in widescreen because too many important or interesting images get chopped off when the movie is "formatted to fit your screen."

Well, that actually depends on the widescreen ratio (and the particular process) that a movie was filmed in. More to come further down...

Some examples are:

* DIE HARD - The part near the beginning where Bruce Willis is in the limousine talking to the limo driver is very aggravating when you watch it in full screen because most of the time all you can see is Bruce Willis' nose . . . about 85% of his face is off screen. (Maybe that's really a GOOD thing).

DIE HARD was filmed in 2.35:1 Panavision....so it would naturally be cropped on the sides...."panned & scanned", as it were.....to fit the dimensions of a 4 x 3 television screen.

* BLOOD OF GHASTLY HORROR - The entire movie seems like all you can see are peoples chins, noses, etc., at the very edges of the frame.

That's been a big complaint, and one which I asked producer Sam Sherman about two years ago when I started my . BOGH started back in 1965 as PSYCHO A GO-GO, and a few years later Adamson and Sherman used some footage from it in BOGH, so they naturally had to film the new footage in the same 2.35:1 Techniscope process. Sam Sherman told me that when he made the licensing deal with Troma Video to release it on DVD, Sam said he simply wanted to get the film out asap for the fans (and I also guess to judge how popular it would be), so Sam simply provided Troma with a full-screen digital master had already had prepared. Technically, the film is not "panned & scanned" because the image never moves back and forth to center on whatever is important...Sam told me the transfer was a "center scan" transfer.

HOWEVER...Sam has also told me that not only might they eventually release a widescreen BOGH, but that he has worked out a deal (with Troma, I believe) to release the original PSYCHO A GO-GO in its original widescreen version.

I mentioned the above movies because they are ones you might not think of. (Obviously, sweeping epics like THE TEN COMMANDMENTS and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA suffer greatly when they are not viewed in widescreen).

Naturally.....ANY film done in a 2.35:1 "scope" ratio suffers from panning & scanning.

Feel free to name some others....

First one I thought of when I read this thread were two Ted Mikels DVDs I watched again recently, ASTRO-ZOMBIES and CORPSE GRINDERS. Both are on DVD in 1.78:1 widescreen.....a matted format.....and although others have told me that's how the films were released theatrically, to me both (especially ASTRO-ZOMBIES) look horribly overcropped/overmatted, especially ASTRO-ZOMBIES. Tops of actors' heads get cut off all the time throughout the film, and on occasion entire heads seem to get lopped off. This is one film I would prefer to see full-frame without the widescreen matting, because you wouldn't have that overmatting.

[Neville]

I'm with Skaboi, any film altered to fit in a 4:3 screen is crap. One of the things I like of DVDs is that most of times the original aspect ratio is respected.

I couldn't tell what are the films that I've seen more butchered in a TV screen. I guess they would be the Clint Eastwood - Sergio Leone trilogy or some Eastwood directed flicks. Eastwood is one of the best directors, when it comes to use the widescreen format. I heard that in his later films, he deliberately uses extremely dark cinematography and widescreen so his films are better seen on a big screen, and I believe it. The dark house scenes at the beginning of "Absolute power" looked superb on a theatre screen, and only OK in a TV, even with DVD quality and the right aspect ratio.

[The Burgomaster]

Kriegerg69 wrote:

"Naturally.....ANY film done in a 2.35:1 "scope" ratio suffers from panning & scanning."

This is obvious from a purely geometric standpoint (i.e. trying to fit a wide figure a narrow space). However, if you film 2 people sitting in a forest in 2.35:1, and both of the people are in the frame, and there is nothing special about the forest, then a full screen version of the shot isn't so bad. What I'm talking about is important action or visuals that get cut out, which actually changes the mood or tone or grandeur of the scene.



Post Edited (10-24-03 17:07)

[JohnL]

I know a couple people who *HATE* widescreen DVD's with a passion. They'll actuallu go out of their way to buy the full-screen versions. And if the only version available is the widescreen one, they will use the player's zoom feature to enlarge the picture so that it eliminates as much of the top/bottom borders as possible... :(

I keep hoping that they'll buy a movie where the full-screen version is absolutely terrible and they finally realize how much they're missing.

[Evan3]

I must say that I am a victim of not paying attention. Now I am the proud(?) accidental owner of full screen versions of Minority Report and the Ring (sigh).

[Fearless Freep]

I sorta like Magnificent Seven in full screen because there's a scene in that that makes Jamed Coburn look like Lupin ":)

[Grumpy Guy]

Generally, I think that most movies are best in wide screen.  It's easier to site the exceptions rather than trying to list all the movies that are better in widescreen.

I actually think the Ring could be improved in one respect in the full screen format:  Did anyone besides me notice that the video was only viewed on standard (3:4) televisions, but when the audience sees it, it takes up the whole wide screen?  At first, I thought hey, maybe the video is widescreen... but no, you get to see it distinctly taking up the whole monitor in some scenes.  So what gives?  Are we magically getting to see more than the characters in the film?  Or are we missing the top and bottom of the actual image?

Sorry.  Not exactly 100% on topic... but then, how often am I?

[Neon Noodle]

I honestly can't think of any movies that look good in pan & scan.

Best example of bad cropping? Rocky 2 had a scene where Micky says, "What are we waiting for? Hold this!" For YEARS, I had no idea he was holding a champagne glass in his hand and gave it to Paulie, because it was cropped in the pan & scan version.

2nd best example? Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (I know some of you still have it on vhs). The scene where Paul Winfield was describing the attack on the station by Khan? the pan & scan version splits his face directly in half.

3rd best? Mission Impossible, when Ethan Hunt keeps Kreiger from killing the fireman, the shot was designed to keep the knife in frame. In pan & scan, they focus on the knife for about a 1/2 second - it doesn't have the same impact.

Lately, gotta mention the differences in the pan & scan of Fists of Fury and the widescreen version. At the icehouse, Bruce Lee is fighting the Big Boss's son and they are squaring off. There's a faraway shot where the blue-shirted ex-foreman is sneaking up on Bruce in the widescreen version that makes MUCH more sense. You don't even see this guy in the pan & scan version, and for years I thought Bruce had Spider-Sense to know that guy was behind him!

[raj]

2001.  Actually, this movie needs to be seen on the Big Screen.

[kriegerg69]

raj wrote:

> 2001.  Actually, this movie needs to be seen on the Big Screen.

Absolutely! I had the chance to see 2001 in 70mm on a huge screen over 20 years ago, and that's still the ONLY way to see it properly.