Quote:
Originally posted by DJRobX:
The reason that most are so passionate about watching widescreen versions is "because it's what the director intended". So why on earth would you want a matted version of EWS when full-frame is clearly what Kubrick intended? How is chopping the top and bottom off the image any better than chopping the left and right sides off?
|
Because for me, wider is better than skinnier. I guess I'm not in that "most" category because ...
... for me, it's not because of what any director intended. It may sound stuck-up, but I really don't care what the director intended in terms of aspect ratio (sorry to purists or artistic valuists). For me, seeing the image wider than a 4x3 ratio (unless it was made for TV) gives me the feeling of watching a movie/film rather than a TV program (I don't like much TV except for a few dramas - X-F, L&O). Anything wider than 1.85:1 (1.78:1) is what I like. For example, JOAN OF ARC is so much better widescreen than it was shown on TV.
Since I don't have a WS TV, the matting gives it a cinematic look. If I had a WS TV, I could blow it up to fit the screen but if the images were anamorphic, it would have slightly better picture quality, although in this case, the film images were grainy to begin with so who knows how this would look? In the case of EWS, it could be that the cinematography gives it a cinematic look, but my opinion on ratios stands.
And, on top of all of this, Kubrick could have shot this movie using the whole 4x3 frame so matting the movie might not have worked anyway. I can't recall when I saw this movie in the theater but the screen was not framed at a 1.33:1 aspect ratio.
Finally, regarding content, that's where I AM a purist. Keep in whatever the director intended. UR over R or put both in. So ... who's starting that campaign? I'll support it! DVDFile.com ... ??? This thread could be a mini-campaign.