Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chorn" data-source="post: 2101476" data-attributes="member: 11849">Why?&nbsp; Seriously, why do it?&nbsp; It's already bad enough that there are recomposed versions just so Joe Sixpack can have the movie &quot;fill mu teevee screen&quot; and alter the original framing of a scene.&nbsp; Why introduce yet another &quot;version&quot; of the movie which would needlessly cost more money and time for such little return?&nbsp; If you're suggesting that the widescreen home release should have been one recomposed to fill a 16:9 screen then that's a boneheaded move since you would lose the option of seeing it as it was screened in the movie theatres.Messing with the frame can change the way a scene plays out or is percieved.&nbsp; Here's a quickie ASCII drawing.[code] _____________________&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; _________|&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; *|&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; |&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; *||&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; |&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; |&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; ||&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; @&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; |&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; |&nbsp; &nbsp; @&nbsp; &nbsp; ||X____________________|&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; |X________|&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (A)&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (B)[/code]Sample A shows a wide view of the three elements.&nbsp; There's a lot of empty space throughout the frame seperating each element which can convey a sense of isolation.&nbsp; Sample B has the elements recomposed to fit the smaller frame.&nbsp; Now everything is much more cramped and crowded.&nbsp; The * and X are much more closer to each other and there isn't as great a sense of isolation as in the wider sample.&nbsp; Now translate this to something like a movie and you can see how an artist's intent can be ruined by having to recompose a scene to fit the smaller frame.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chorn, post: 2101476, member: 11849"] Why? Seriously, why do it? It's already bad enough that there are recomposed versions just so Joe Sixpack can have the movie "fill mu teevee screen" and alter the original framing of a scene. Why introduce yet another "version" of the movie which would needlessly cost more money and time for such little return? If you're suggesting that the widescreen home release should have been one recomposed to fill a 16:9 screen then that's a boneheaded move since you would lose the option of seeing it as it was screened in the movie theatres. Messing with the frame can change the way a scene plays out or is percieved. Here's a quickie ASCII drawing. [code] _____________________ _________ | *| | *| | | | | | @ | | @ | |X____________________| |X________| (A) (B)[/code] Sample A shows a wide view of the three elements. There's a lot of empty space throughout the frame seperating each element which can convey a sense of isolation. Sample B has the elements recomposed to fit the smaller frame. Now everything is much more cramped and crowded. The * and X are much more closer to each other and there isn't as great a sense of isolation as in the wider sample. Now translate this to something like a movie and you can see how an artist's intent can be ruined by having to recompose a scene to fit the smaller frame. [/QUOTE]

Verification