"J. P. Gilliver"  wrote in message 
news:4804f09c_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> the dog from that film you saw wrote:
> []
>>>>> I bet if you took a poll, 95% of viewers would prefer films to be
>>>>> shown in 4:3-safe 16:9 pan and scan, both for SD DVB and DVD.
>>>>
>>>> 95% of viewers are stupid though - and uninformed.
>>>
>>> Define "uninformed" in this context.
>>>
>>
>> they don't appreciate that the film was made to be viewed in such a
>> way and that cropping the sides will compromise many compositions and
>> despite ' filling my widescreen tv' they will see not more picture
>> but less.
> []
> I have given up trying to explain/convince (many) people of anything like 
> that. Even if I can get them to admit that the picture is either distorted 
> or missing bits (or, probably, both), they insist on filling the 
> (wide)screen with the original image, regardless. (Actually, I'm thinking 
> more of 4:3 material than 2.31:1.)
> -- 
> J. P. Gilliver                  |  Tel. +44 1634 203298
>
> Essex home for sale, £59,950: see http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/home/
>

The trouble with the "as originally intended" argument is that most films 
were also meant to be seen on a 50 foot wide screen in a darkened cinema. 
As soon as you move it to ANY form or format of television, you're not 
seeing it as it was intended.

As I write this, I'm watching "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" on TCM. 
Although I'm watching on a 50 inch 16x9 plasma screen, TCM is sending it in 
4:3 letterbox.  Yes, I'm seeing the framing "as the director intended" but 
I'm pretty sure he didn't mean it to be seen using less than 50% of the 
screen area with thick black bars all around it.  In this case, although not 
the "purist" answer, I daresay some of the other techniques listed above 
would come closer to giving me the "original" experience.

Bob

"Bob Howes"  wrote in message 
news:2BdQj.4825$ko5.1748@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>


> As I write this, I'm watching "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" on TCM. 
> Although I'm watching on a 50 inch 16x9 plasma screen, TCM is sending it 
> in 4:3 letterbox.  Yes, I'm seeing the framing "as the director intended" 
> but I'm pretty sure he didn't mean it to be seen using less than 50% of 
> the screen area with thick black bars all around it.  In this case, 
> although not the "purist" answer, I daresay some of the other techniques 
> listed above would come closer to giving me the "original" experience.
>



the director didnt want you to see it on tv at all - he wanted you to see it 
at the cinema/
having said that, it's hardly the directors fault that you didnt put your 
set into zoom mode which would have been the correct thing to do.



-- 
Gareth.

That fly, is your magic wand.....

"The dog from that film you saw"  wrote in 
message news:67efpnF2l2l2tU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Bob Howes"  wrote in message 
> news:2BdQj.4825$ko5.1748@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>
>
>> As I write this, I'm watching "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" on TCM. 
>> Although I'm watching on a 50 inch 16x9 plasma screen, TCM is sending it 
>> in 4:3 letterbox.  Yes, I'm seeing the framing "as the director intended" 
>> but I'm pretty sure he didn't mean it to be seen using less than 50% of 
>> the screen area with thick black bars all around it.  In this case, 
>> although not the "purist" answer, I daresay some of the other techniques 
>> listed above would come closer to giving me the "original" experience.
>>
>
>
>
> the director didnt want you to see it on tv at all - he wanted you to see 
> it at the cinema/
> having said that, it's hardly the directors fault that you didnt put your 
> set into zoom mode which would have been the correct thing to do.
> >
>

The first half of your reply is exactly what I was saying.  Films were never 
meant to be seen on television at all, they were designed for cinema 
projection which makes the "as the director intended" argument completely 
specious.

As for your second comment, please don't patronise me.  The problem with 
"zoom" mode is that by the time the appalling resolution of the 4:3 
letterbox satelite image is blown up by using zoom it is practically 
unwatchable, at least to anyone who has seen and appreciates true broadcast 
quality...which you apparently know nothing about.

Bob

"Bob Howes"  wrote in message 
news:L5mRj.5818$ko5.5526@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>

> The first half of your reply is exactly what I was saying.  Films were 
> never meant to be seen on television at all, they were designed for cinema 
> projection which makes the "as the director intended" argument completely 
> specious.



only for films made before home video existed.



-- 
Gareth.

That fly, is your magic wand.....

In article <L5mRj.5818$ko5.5526@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Bob Howes wrote:
> > the director didnt want you to see it on tv at all - he wanted you to see 
> > it at the cinema/
> > having said that, it's hardly the directors fault that you didnt put your 
> > set into zoom mode which would have been the correct thing to do.
> > >
> >
> 
> The first half of your reply is exactly what I was saying.  Films were never 
> meant to be seen on television at all, they were designed for cinema 
> projection which makes the "as the director intended" argument completely 
> specious.

There's a perfectly reasonable argument for wanting to see the whole picture, 
rather than just part of it. At least the composition of the shots can then be 
seen as the director intended, even if we no longer have to sit in a big dark 
room with a bunch of strangers in order to see it, as we did 50 years ago.

Rod.

"The dog from that film you saw"  
wrote in message news:67mam1F2pb8s8U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Bob Howes"  wrote in message 
> news:L5mRj.5818$ko5.5526@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>
>> The first half of your reply is exactly what I was saying.  Films 
>> were never meant to be seen on television at all, they were 
>> designed for cinema projection which makes the "as the director 
>> intended" argument completely specious.
>
>
> only for films made before home video existed.
>

Rubbish, the box office still makes or breaks any film, home viewing 
is a bonus.

":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote in message 
news:fv4u81$5p6$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "The dog from that film you saw"  wrote 
> in message news:67mam1F2pb8s8U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Bob Howes"  wrote in message 
>> news:L5mRj.5818$ko5.5526@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>
>>> The first half of your reply is exactly what I was saying.  Films were 
>>> never meant to be seen on television at all, they were designed for 
>>> cinema projection which makes the "as the director intended" argument 
>>> completely specious.
>>
>>
>> only for films made before home video existed.
>>
>
> Rubbish, the box office still makes or breaks any film, home viewing is a 
> bonus.
>



i think you''ve rather missed the point - which is.....

with films made before the advent of home video, the director had no concern 
as to how his compositions might look on a tv screen.
after home video was established, the directors knew home viewing would 
happen.

who said anything about financial success or not of a film ?!



-- 
Gareth.

That fly, is your magic wand.....

"The dog from that film you saw"  
wrote in message news:67mfdaF2p7b17U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> ":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote in message 
> news:fv4u81$5p6$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "The dog from that film you saw"  
>> wrote in message news:67mam1F2pb8s8U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Bob Howes"  wrote in message 
>>> news:L5mRj.5818$ko5.5526@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>
>>>> The first half of your reply is exactly what I was saying.  Films 
>>>> were never meant to be seen on television at all, they were 
>>>> designed for cinema projection which makes the "as the director 
>>>> intended" argument completely specious.
>>>
>>>
>>> only for films made before home video existed.
>>>
>>
>> Rubbish, the box office still makes or breaks any film, home 
>> viewing is a bonus.
>>
>
>
>
> i think you''ve rather missed the point - which is.....

No, you have, and you are still digging...

>
> with films made before the advent of home video, the director had no 
> concern as to how his compositions might look on a tv screen.

...and still has none, a film framed for the small screen will look 
crap on the big screen.

> after home video was established, the directors knew home viewing 
> would happen.

But that is not the prime concern, the film is made or broken on the 
big screen, how ever you might wish differently.

>
> who said anything about financial success or not of a film ?!
>

The producer and the studio for starters, unless the film is likely to 
make a profit it simply won't be made.

"Dom Robinson"  wrote in message 
news:ea81646c-ee7c-4f29-aaf7-81c459c810b4@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 28 Apr, 17:32, ":Jerry:" <INVA...@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
>> "The dog from that film you saw" 
>> wrote in messagenews:67mam1F2pb8s8U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Bob Howes"  wrote in message
>> >news:L5mRj.5818$ko5.5526@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> >> The first half of your reply is exactly what I was saying. 
>> >> Films
>> >> were never meant to be seen on television at all, they were
>> >> designed for cinema projection which makes the "as the director
>> >> intended" argument completely specious.
>>
>> > only for films made before home video existed.
>>
>> Rubbish, the box office still makes or breaks any film, home 
>> viewing
>> is a bonus.
>
> That's not actually true. There are a number of films that don't do
> well at the box office but later go on to become cult films and make
> their money back on home viewing (DVD, PPV, etc).

They are the exception, otherwise they would not be released first in 
the Cinema.

>
> As for whether films should ALWAYS be seen at the cinema, if I was 
> to
> watch the Die Hard films tonight, would I be able to do that on DVD
> (yes) or convince the manager at the multiplex to show them all? 
> (no)

It's not were or when you watch them but how.

":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote in message 
news:fv58bm$j7$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>

>>
>> who said anything about financial success or not of a film ?!
>>
>
> The producer and the studio for starters, unless the film is likely to 
> make a profit it simply won't be made.
>
>



you're mental.
the discussion was on whether a film should be aired in it's OAR or not on 
television.

for you to counter with 'the cinema is where the money is made' is of no 
relevance.
you might as well have discussed the casting process as to the relevance.

DIRTY SPASTIC.



-- 
Gareth.

That fly, is your magic wand.....

"The dog from that film you saw"  
wrote in message news:67mtjhF2p6eknU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> ":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote in message 
> news:fv58bm$j7$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>
>>>
>>> who said anything about financial success or not of a film ?!
>>>
>>
>> The producer and the studio for starters, unless the film is likely 
>> to make a profit it simply won't be made.
>>
>
> you're mental.

Stop looking in the mirror whilst using your computer!

> the discussion was on whether a film should be aired in it's OAR or 
> not on television.
<snip the rest of your abuse that only proves that you have lost the 
argument>

I was simply answering *your* question, so if anyone is a head case 
it's you for asking the question!

"Dom Robinson"  wrote in message 
news:8e736f03-9b7d-4d6e-b2e3-236b03764311@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 28 Apr, 21:58, ":Jerry:" <INVA...@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
>> "Dom Robinson"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:ea81646c-ee7c-4f29-aaf7-81c459c810b4@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 28 Apr, 17:32, ":Jerry:" <INVA...@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
>> >> "The dog from that film you saw" 
>> >> 
>> >> wrote in messagenews:67mam1F2pb8s8U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> >> > "Bob Howes"  wrote in message
>> >> >news:L5mRj.5818$ko5.5526@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> >> >> The first half of your reply is exactly what I was saying.
>> >> >> Films
>> >> >> were never meant to be seen on television at all, they were
>> >> >> designed for cinema projection which makes the "as the 
>> >> >> director
>> >> >> intended" argument completely specious.
>>
>> >> > only for films made before home video existed.
>>
>> >> Rubbish, the box office still makes or breaks any film, home
>> >> viewing
>> >> is a bonus.
>>
>> > That's not actually true. There are a number of films that don't 
>> > do
>> > well at the box office but later go on to become cult films and 
>> > make
>> > their money back on home viewing (DVD, PPV, etc).
>>
>> They are the exception, otherwise they would not be released first 
>> in
>> the Cinema.
>
> Not at all. You can often get big names appearing in films, and then
> if some of those don't do well, by the time they reach the home 
> market
> good word has spread and it gets a second lease of life later on, 
> just
> in time for that home market and it takes the money back.

Your point being what exactly (other than to agree with me!), or did 
you type that 'reply' without actually bothering to understand what 
you were replying too?...

In news:8e736f03-9b7d-4d6e-b2e3-236b03764311@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
Dom Robinson  typed, for some strange, 
unexplained reason:

[snip]

: Not at all. You can often get big names appearing in films, and then
: if some of those don't do well, by the time they reach the home market
: good word has spread and it gets a second lease of life later on, just
: in time for that home market and it takes the money back.

There was a time when films weren't shown on TV until 5 years after their 
cinema release. Now they're available on DVD in a matter of weeks.

Ivor