16:9 aspect ratio for movies

"Tim923" wrote:
> It seems that movies are watched on TV screens far more than in the
> theater, at least for one's favorite movies. For example, I saw
> Forrest Gump and Rain Man 2-3 times in the theater, but at least 10-20
> times on the TV screen, and it's rare for me to see a movie more than
> once in the theater. For the Sound of Music, I think at least 20-30
> times on TV and none in the theater.
>
> Would it be a good strategy to make most movies in 16:9 (or 1.85 which
> is close enough) and not 2.35 anymore? I think 2.35 may be overkill
> anyways. Back to the Future, a big sci-fi adventure movie looked just
> fine in 1.85.

You are an absolute ****ing moron.

I'm too appalled by your stupidity to even think about saying anything more
than that.


--
/^\damnfine/^\
"God ain't said **** to me." - The Pope

damnfine

It seems that movies are watched on TV screens far more than in the
theater, at least for one's favorite movies. For example, I saw
Forrest Gump and Rain Man 2-3 times in the theater, but at least 10-20
times on the TV screen, and it's rare for me to see a movie more than
once in the theater. For the Sound of Music, I think at least 20-30
times on TV and none in the theater.

Would it be a good strategy to make most movies in 16:9 (or 1.85 which
is close enough) and not 2.35 anymore? I think 2.35 may be overkill
anyways. Back to the Future, a big sci-fi adventure movie looked just
fine in 1.85.

Tim923

Come on. Be fair. Just think of the original Star Wars trilogy. I
guess between 90-99% of the views have been on TV sets and not on
theater screens over the years.

Why not film in 16:9 friendly aspect ratios?

Is a movie in 1.85 less entertaining than if the same movie had been
originally filmed in 2.35? Isn't 2.35 beyond the human range of
vision (2:1 I think).

Tim923

"Tim923" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Come on. Be fair. Just think of the original Star Wars trilogy. I
> guess between 90-99% of the views have been on TV sets and not on
> theater screens over the years.
>
> Why not film in 16:9 friendly aspect ratios?
>
> Is a movie in 1.85 less entertaining than if the same movie had been
> originally filmed in 2.35? Isn't 2.35 beyond the human range of
> vision (2:1 I think).

You do make a valid point. People can only focus on the middle of the image
while the picture to either side is out of focus.

David Z

In article <>, Tim923 <> wrote:
>It seems that movies are watched on TV screens far more than in the
>theater, at least for one's favorite movies. For example, I saw
>Forrest Gump and Rain Man 2-3 times in the theater, but at least 10-20
>times on the TV screen, and it's rare for me to see a movie more than
>once in the theater. For the Sound of Music, I think at least 20-30
>times on TV and none in the theater.
>

Your not Timmy from Southpark Colorado are you?


>Would it be a good strategy to make most movies in 16:9 (or 1.85 which
>is close enough) and not 2.35 anymore? I think 2.35 may be overkill
>anyways. Back to the Future, a big sci-fi adventure movie looked just
>fine in 1.85.

GMAN

Tim923 wrote:
> It seems that movies are watched on TV screens far more than in the
> theater, at least for one's favorite movies. For example, I saw
> Forrest Gump and Rain Man 2-3 times in the theater, but at least 10-20
> times on the TV screen, and it's rare for me to see a movie more than
> once in the theater. For the Sound of Music, I think at least 20-30
> times on TV and none in the theater.
>
> Would it be a good strategy to make most movies in 16:9 (or 1.85 which
> is close enough) and not 2.35 anymore? I think 2.35 may be overkill
> anyways. Back to the Future, a big sci-fi adventure movie looked just
> fine in 1.85.

You're a funny guy.

Steve K.

Tim923 wrote on [Sat, 23 Apr 2005 09:00:07 -0400]:
> It seems that movies are watched on TV screens far more than in the
> theater, at least for one's favorite movies. For example, I saw
> Forrest Gump and Rain Man 2-3 times in the theater, but at least 10-20
> times on the TV screen, and it's rare for me to see a movie more than
> once in the theater. For the Sound of Music, I think at least 20-30
> times on TV and none in the theater.
>
> Would it be a good strategy to make most movies in 16:9 (or 1.85 which
> is close enough) and not 2.35 anymore? I think 2.35 may be overkill
> anyways. Back to the Future, a big sci-fi adventure movie looked just
> fine in 1.85.

No. Even 1.85 can feel cramped for some scenes.

Justin

In article <>, Tim923
<> wrote:

> Would it be a good strategy to make most movies in 16:9 (or 1.85 which
> is close enough) and not 2.35 anymore? I think 2.35 may be overkill
> anyways. Back to the Future, a big sci-fi adventure movie looked just
> fine in 1.85.

You release films in a non 16:9 ratio in theaters to get people to go
out and see it instead of waiting for the dvd. Personally, once
everyone has widescreen HDTV I hope some studios start releasing movies
in 4:3 just for the fun of it

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total ****. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS

Invid Fan

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:10:07 -0400, Tim923 <> wrote:

>Come on. Be fair. Just think of the original Star Wars trilogy. I
>guess between 90-99% of the views have been on TV sets and not on
>theater screens over the years.
>
>Why not film in 16:9 friendly aspect ratios?

Why not make TVs 2.35:1?
-Rich

RichA

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 19:56:55 GMT, Justin <> wrote:

>Tim923 wrote on [Sat, 23 Apr 2005 09:00:07 -0400]:
>> It seems that movies are watched on TV screens far more than in the
>> theater, at least for one's favorite movies. For example, I saw
>> Forrest Gump and Rain Man 2-3 times in the theater, but at least 10-20
>> times on the TV screen, and it's rare for me to see a movie more than
>> once in the theater. For the Sound of Music, I think at least 20-30
>> times on TV and none in the theater.
>>
>> Would it be a good strategy to make most movies in 16:9 (or 1.85 which
>> is close enough) and not 2.35 anymore? I think 2.35 may be overkill
>> anyways. Back to the Future, a big sci-fi adventure movie looked just
>> fine in 1.85.
>
>No. Even 1.85 can feel cramped for some scenes.

When I see this in the theatre, it says one thing to
me; CHEAP!
-Rich

RichA