PAN & SCAN RELEASES SHOULD STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Joseph S. Powell, III, Nov 18, 2003.

  1. Gosh dang it, when are the big companies going to learn that the default
    aspect ratio for a new movie is NEVER pan & scan!!!!
    I went to Blockbuster because it was 3 minutes away from my house, and
    purchased T3 - the clerk grabbed the copy for me.
    I went home, fixed a steak, popped in the disc and it was the Pan & Scan
    version.
    I paid $23.00 for this disc, while I'm sure Wal-Mart is selling it for
    around $15-17.00.
    I am accustomed to DVD's being WIDESCREEN as that is the way all DVD's ought
    to be.
    Almost every single gosh-darned DVD I own is widescreen, so I am not
    accustomed to having to make certain that a new movie is widescreen or not.
    The future is WIDESCREEN, five years from now no 4:3 TV's will even be
    manufactured, so why are these studios making all these damn pan & scan
    versions for all those Joe Sixpacks out there?
    Blockbuster WILL give me a refund or order me a Widecreen version tomorrow
    since when I called the clerk he said they don't have any in stock.
    I paid MORE than what a widescreen version would have cost me just about
    anywhere else, so opened case or not, I will get a refund or a widescreen
    version.
    I realize there are many people out there who will say, "Hey, dumbass, why
    didn't you read the cover?"
    Simple - because ususally the only thing I notice on the cover is the title,
    and I am not used to having to look out for pan & scan versions since the
    VAST majority of DVD's are widescreen.
    If they don't take it back I guess I can always give the P & S version to my
    brother for Christmas, but, damn, Warners should have just marketed the film
    in widescreen only - I am quite certain that it would not have hurt sales!
     
    Joseph S. Powell, III, Nov 18, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Jason Ash Guest

    "Joseph S. Powell, III" <> waxed eloquent in
    news::

    > Gosh dang it, when are the big companies going to learn that the
    > default aspect ratio for a new movie is NEVER pan & scan!!!!
    > I went to Blockbuster because it was 3 minutes away from my house, and
    > purchased T3 - the clerk grabbed the copy for me.
    > I went home, fixed a steak, popped in the disc and it was the Pan &
    > Scan version.
    > I paid $23.00 for this disc, while I'm sure Wal-Mart is selling it for
    > around $15-17.00.
    > I am accustomed to DVD's being WIDESCREEN as that is the way all DVD's
    > ought to be.
    > Almost every single gosh-darned DVD I own is widescreen, so I am not
    > accustomed to having to make certain that a new movie is widescreen or
    > not. The future is WIDESCREEN, five years from now no 4:3 TV's will
    > even be manufactured, so why are these studios making all these damn
    > pan & scan versions for all those Joe Sixpacks out there?


    [Some ranting snipped]

    Some months back, my wife went into Circuit City to pick up a movie for
    me. I much prefer widescreen, even on a plain old 27" TV, as that is the
    way the movie should look. The salesperson said that they were suprised
    we wanted widescreen, most everyone wants fullscreen.

    Thinking about it, I can sort of see why. Most people *want* the movie
    to fill the whole screen, and not have those annoying black bars at the
    top and bottom of the screen. Joe Six-Pack doesn't want the movie to
    only cover 1/2 his 19" TV that hes' had for the last 9 years, he wants it
    to cover the whole gosh darned thing!

    So what that he's missing stuff on the edges, it must not have been
    important to the movie anyway! It doesn't help that most people also
    don't know WHY a 16x9 TV will show the movie better, they look at the
    cost difference between a 4x3 27" TV, and a 16x9 19" TV, and figure
    bigger has to be better, doesn't it?

    As long as there's people with 4x3 TVs, the studios will make and
    market full screen DVDs. Eventually, once widescreen TVs are the norm,
    full screen DVDs will go away, but even if everyone had a 16x9 TV in 4
    years, you'll still have people who will for some odd reason or another,
    buy full screen....

    Just my 2c

    And yes, I would much rather not have to worry about accidently grabbing
    a pan & scan DVD off the rack, and not realizing it until I've gottne
    home. And having to drive 15-20 minutes BACK to the store to exchange
    it. And maybe having to pay a RESTOCKING fee if I opened the plastic
    BEFORE I found out it was P&S.

    Jason A.
     
    Jason Ash, Nov 18, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Joseph S. Powell, III wrote:
    > I realize there are many people out there who will say, "Hey, dumbass, why
    > didn't you read the cover?"
    > Simple - because ususally the only thing I notice on the cover is the title,
    > and I am not used to having to look out for pan & scan versions since the
    > VAST majority of DVD's are widescreen.
    > If they don't take it back I guess I can always give the P & S version to my
    > brother for Christmas, but, damn, Warners should have just marketed the film
    > in widescreen only - I am quite certain that it would not have hurt sales!
    >
    >


    First off, is your name for real? Joseph S. Powell, III? I imagine you
    as living in some huge New England mansion, reading something by George
    Plimpton while watching a tennis match on your tv. Preconceptions,
    ain't they wonderful? Seriously though, most major studio releases get
    dual-releases, otherwise the Wal-Marts of the world wouldn't do business
    with them.

    Read this: > http://www.widescreen.org/commentaries/2002_10_oct.shtml

    Read it all, but pay close attention once he starts talking about Attack
    of the Clones. Then read all of his other commentaries, and browse
    around the site. It's a great resource for OAR stuff.

    --
    "Get rid of the Range Rover. You are not responsible for patrolling
    Australia's Dingo Barrier Fence, nor do you work the Savannah, capturing
    and tagging wildebeests."
    --Michael J. Nelson

    Grand Inquisitor
    http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost
     
    Grand Inquisitor, Nov 18, 2003
    #3
  4. Jason Ash wrote:
    > And yes, I would much rather not have to worry about accidently grabbing
    > a pan & scan DVD off the rack, and not realizing it until I've gottne
    > home. And having to drive 15-20 minutes BACK to the store to exchange
    > it. And maybe having to pay a RESTOCKING fee if I opened the plastic
    > BEFORE I found out it was P&S.
    >
    > Jason A.


    Happened to me when I bought a gift, during the Christmas rush. It was
    the Mummy and Mummy Returns set, the tech specs were on the bottom of
    the package, in grey-on-brown lettering. You had to be looking for it
    to know it was there.

    --
    "Get rid of the Range Rover. You are not responsible for patrolling
    Australia's Dingo Barrier Fence, nor do you work the Savannah, capturing
    and tagging wildebeests."
    --Michael J. Nelson

    Grand Inquisitor
    http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost
     
    Grand Inquisitor, Nov 18, 2003
    #4
  5. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Brian Guest

    "Joseph S. Powell, III" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > I am accustomed to DVD's being WIDESCREEN as that is the way all DVD's

    ought
    > to be.


    That's a matter of opinion. I see nothing inherently "superior" about
    widescreen aspect ratios, except that it's easier to make high quality DivX
    copies...
     
    Brian, Nov 18, 2003
    #5
  6. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Scot Gardner Guest

    "Jason Ash" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9436DA9814701jash7165wideopenwest@216.196.97.132...
    <<Eventually, once widescreen TVs are the norm, full screen DVDs will go
    away, but even if everyone had a 16x9 TV in 4 years, you'll still have
    people who will for some odd reason or another, buy full screen....>>

    The problem will become reversed once 16:9 TVs become commonplace. The
    same people who intensely disliked those horrible black bars on the top
    and bottom of their 4:3 screens will now intensely dislike the horrible
    black bars on the sides of their 16:9 screens.

    This will prompt movie studios to produce 16:9 versions of pre-1953
    Academy Ratio 1.37:1 movies. Just imagine how _Citizen Kane_, _Robin
    Hood_, _Casablanca_, _Gone With The Wind_, _Pinocchio_ etc. will look
    with 25% of the top and bottom of their images chopped off to make them
    fit into a 16:9 frame.

    As a matter of fact, this type of destructive matting has already been
    done to a 4:3 image. Take a look at _Yellow Submarine_:

    _Yellow Submarine_ was originally created in the 1.37:1 academy ratio.
    Minimal cropping of only 3% from the sides would be needed to create a
    1.33:1 presentation. This is standard procedure on most academy ratio
    DVDs and the loss of picture detail is considered negligible. On the
    other hand, converting a 1.37:1 aspect ratio film to 1.66:1 results in
    the loss of 18% of the top and bottom of the image. The resulting black
    bars at the top and bottom of the DVD picture are definitely hiding
    critical parts of the original cartoon artwork contained in _Yellow
    Submarine_.

    For example, the introductory Pepperland sequences show characters with
    the tops of their hats and heads cut off (when compared with the 1.33:1
    LaserDisc) and this culminates with the top of a tower cut off at 10min.
    50sec. into the disk. During the Eleanor Rigby sequence at 11min.
    34sec., there is a tombstone which says, "Here Lie Buried." The
    LaserDisc also says "Here Lie Buried", but under that it shows "William
    McMillen." This information is totally matted out at the bottom of the
    DVD.

    This top and bottom matting continues to obscure heads, hats, ceilings,
    feet, dorsal fins on fish, the tops and bottoms of doors and so on. I
    realize the DVD box says that this widescreen version is done in the
    original theatrical release format. But, so what? This is a home video
    edition. The artists who created _Yellow Submarine_ painstakingly drew
    these highly-detailed cells and now much of their highly-detailed work
    is blotted out.

    Matting is done to bring the aspect ratio of a film into the perspective
    intended by the director and it also often covers hanging boom mikes and
    other things which were never meant to be included in the final release
    version of the film. However, _Yellow Submarine_ is animated, so there
    are no boom mikes hanging down from the tops of any frames. Why would
    artists waste their time drawing elements of an animated movie if parts
    of these drawings are only going to be matted out?
     
    Scot Gardner, Nov 18, 2003
    #6
  7. Joseph S. Powell, III

    kyle. Guest

    > why are these studios making all these damn pan & scan
    >versions for all those Joe Sixpacks out there?


    Because all of those people are buying theM????
    kyle.
    Porn Star Quote Of The Week
    "It's impossible. I have done some R Rated stuff late night crap on..Cinemax.
    It's good money but nothing that I consider acting. I would like to do
    something that takes some actual acting ability."
    -Marilyn Chambers
     
    kyle., Nov 18, 2003
    #7
  8. "Grand Inquisitor" <> wrote in message
    news:tHfub.18340$...
    > Joseph S. Powell, III wrote:
    > > I realize there are many people out there who will say, "Hey, dumbass,

    why
    > > didn't you read the cover?"
    > > Simple - because ususally the only thing I notice on the cover is the

    title,
    > > and I am not used to having to look out for pan & scan versions since

    the
    > > VAST majority of DVD's are widescreen.
    > > If they don't take it back I guess I can always give the P & S version

    to my
    > > brother for Christmas, but, damn, Warners should have just marketed the

    film
    > > in widescreen only - I am quite certain that it would not have hurt

    sales!
    > >
    > >

    >
    > First off, is your name for real? Joseph S. Powell, III? I imagine you
    > as living in some huge New England mansion, reading something by George
    > Plimpton while watching a tennis match on your tv. Preconceptions,
    > ain't they wonderful? Seriously though, most major studio releases get
    > dual-releases, otherwise the Wal-Marts of the world wouldn't do business
    > with them.
    >


    LOL! Yes, it's my real name and, I'm in Alabama instead of New England, and
    live in a slighly smallish house on a mountain (but only 3 min away from the
    grocery store & Blockbuster, and only 8 min from the Galleria mall :)
    (BTW, also unlike George Plimpton, I had an ATARI in the 80's instead of an
    Intellevision system).
     
    Joseph S. Powell, III, Nov 18, 2003
    #8
  9. "kyle." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > why are these studios making all these damn pan & scan
    > >versions for all those Joe Sixpacks out there?

    >
    > Because all of those people are buying theM????
    > kyle.


    LOL, they won't be within 5-7 years when all TV's are 16:9.
    Either way, not to give any spoilers, but I went ahead & saw T3 before my
    steak got too cold, and was somewhat disappointed - but every cloud has a
    silver lining, I can always give it to my Brother & sis-in-law for
    Christmas - she prefers pan & scan because she doesn't understand
    widescreen.
     
    Joseph S. Powell, III, Nov 18, 2003
    #9
  10. P&S sucks supreme, but a large segment of the consumer marketplace still
    gobbles 'em up. until ordinary tv viewers get educated, there will always be
    a strong demand. just take a look at VHS-- 30 year old shithouse technology,
    but only now is DVD replacing it throughout the industry. your average
    consumer can't even adjust their tv, much less appreciate top quality home
    theater. the $40,000 laserdisc archive in my basement attests to this fact,
    yet i replace these only when the dvd is better, i would say perhaps half of
    the time, at best---
    reminds me of my grandmother when my father got his first VCR in 1986---
    "how do you wind it up????"
    enjoy---:)*
    "Joseph S. Powell, III" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Gosh dang it, when are the big companies going to learn that the default
    > aspect ratio for a new movie is NEVER pan & scan!!!!
    > I went to Blockbuster because it was 3 minutes away from my house, and
    > purchased T3 - the clerk grabbed the copy for me.
    > I went home, fixed a steak, popped in the disc and it was the Pan & Scan
    > version.
    > I paid $23.00 for this disc, while I'm sure Wal-Mart is selling it for
    > around $15-17.00.
    > I am accustomed to DVD's being WIDESCREEN as that is the way all DVD's

    ought
    > to be.
    > Almost every single gosh-darned DVD I own is widescreen, so I am not
    > accustomed to having to make certain that a new movie is widescreen or

    not.
    > The future is WIDESCREEN, five years from now no 4:3 TV's will even be
    > manufactured, so why are these studios making all these damn pan & scan
    > versions for all those Joe Sixpacks out there?
    > Blockbuster WILL give me a refund or order me a Widecreen version tomorrow
    > since when I called the clerk he said they don't have any in stock.
    > I paid MORE than what a widescreen version would have cost me just about
    > anywhere else, so opened case or not, I will get a refund or a widescreen
    > version.
    > I realize there are many people out there who will say, "Hey, dumbass, why
    > didn't you read the cover?"
    > Simple - because ususally the only thing I notice on the cover is the

    title,
    > and I am not used to having to look out for pan & scan versions since the
    > VAST majority of DVD's are widescreen.
    > If they don't take it back I guess I can always give the P & S version to

    my
    > brother for Christmas, but, damn, Warners should have just marketed the

    film
    > in widescreen only - I am quite certain that it would not have hurt sales!
    >
    >
     
    douglas pratt, Nov 18, 2003
    #10
  11. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Impmon Guest

    On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:10:04 -0600, "Joseph S. Powell, III"
    <> typed:

    >Gosh dang it, when are the big companies going to learn that the default
    >aspect ratio for a new movie is NEVER pan & scan!!!!


    Except for older movies and most TV shows, I buy only in WS. If WS
    isn't available, I don't buy. There are still some ignorant people who
    thinks WS is really full screen with top and bottom cut off. They're
    going to cry when they get a new TV that are WS and find out the P&S
    movie looks warped and distorted or has black bars on the side.

    >I went to Blockbuster because it was 3 minutes away from my house, and
    >purchased T3 - the clerk grabbed the copy for me.


    Bad idea. Blockbuster sells at retail price with no discount of any
    kind and most Blockbuster don't carry WS at all.

    >I went home, fixed a steak, popped in the disc and it was the Pan & Scan
    >version.
    >I paid $23.00 for this disc, while I'm sure Wal-Mart is selling it for
    >around $15-17.00.


    Best Buy, Walmart, and sometimes Target will sell new movies *cheap* for
    the first week of its release.

    >I am accustomed to DVD's being WIDESCREEN as that is the way all DVD's ought
    >to be.


    Amen.
    --
    space for rent.
    To reply, change digi.mon to tds.net
     
    Impmon, Nov 18, 2003
    #11
  12. Re: PAN & SCAN RELEASES SHOULD STOP!!!!!!!!!!!

    In article <>,
    "Joseph S. Powell, III" <> wrote:

    > Gosh dang it, when are the big companies going to learn that the default
    > aspect ratio for a new movie is NEVER pan & scan!!!!


    When advocates learn that Joe Sixpack doesn't care? Just a thought.

    I think you need to bitch about this one is when the default TV that one
    can purchase is a widescreen TV. That day is coming. In the meantime,
    voting with your wallet is about all you can do.
     
    Reginald Dwight, Nov 18, 2003
    #12
  13. Re: PAN & SCAN RELEASES SHOULD STOP!!!!!!!!

    In article <>,
    "Joseph S. Powell, III" <> wrote:

    > I realize there are many people out there who will say, "Hey, dumbass, why
    > didn't you read the cover?"
    > Simple - because ususally the only thing I notice on the cover is the title,
    > and I am not used to having to look out for pan & scan versions since the
    > VAST majority of DVD's are widescreen.


    This is the best you can come up with?
     
    Reginald Dwight, Nov 18, 2003
    #13
  14. Jason Ash confirmed an ongong trend with:

    > Some months back, my wife went into Circuit City to pick up a movie for
    > me. I much prefer widescreen, even on a plain old 27" TV, as that is the
    > way the movie should look. The salesperson said that they were
    > suprised we wanted widescreen, most everyone wants fullscreen.


    DVD is a mainstream format with mainstream tastes.

    Why is anyone surprised?

    The USA has never lead consumer demand in WS display devices why
    should it suddenly do so in its software?

    Where's Wimpner when I need him....


    Max Christoffersen
     
    max christoffersen, Nov 18, 2003
    #14
  15. Relax. They should get in the habit of releasing films in widescreen,
    of course, but P&S shouldn't stop. I have no problem if they release
    big films on DVD in P&S also - there are people who prefer it and the
    company wants to make it's money.

    They shouldn't release films in only pan & scan though, I agree with
    that.

    On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:10:04 -0600, "Joseph S. Powell, III"
    <> wrote:

    >Gosh dang it, when are the big companies going to learn that the default
    >aspect ratio for a new movie is NEVER pan & scan!!!!
     
    Hitman of Las Vegas, Nov 18, 2003
    #15
  16. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Richard C. Guest

    "max christoffersen" <> farted in message
    news:...
    :
    : DVD is a mainstream format with mainstream tastes.

    ================
    Mainstream tastes usually aim at the LCD*.
    ================
    :
    : Why is anyone surprised?
    :
    : The USA has never lead consumer demand in WS display devices why
    : should it suddenly do so in its software?

    =====================
    But it is WAY ahead in HD devices.
    =====================
    :
    : Where's Wimpner when I need him....

    =====================
    You never needed Norm........but you do need help.
    ======================
    :
    :
    : Max Christoffersen
    ======================
    * For max, this means "Lowest Common Denominator"
     
    Richard C., Nov 18, 2003
    #16
  17. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Black Locust Guest

    In article <bpc4n2$1mjchm$-berlin.de>,
    "Brian" <> wrote:

    > That's a matter of opinion. I see nothing inherently "superior" about
    > widescreen aspect ratios, except that it's easier to make high quality DivX
    > copies...


    Man, I hope for your sake that you're trolling because the shit is about
    hit the fan for that stupid ass comment you just made.

    www.widescreen.org, idiot.
    --
    BL
     
    Black Locust, Nov 18, 2003
    #17
  18. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Jordan Lund Guest

    "Joseph S. Powell, III" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > Gosh dang it, when are the big companies going to learn that the default
    > aspect ratio for a new movie is NEVER pan & scan!!!!


    You know I was going to slam you, first for wanting a movie that
    sucks, then for willingly paying too much just because the store was
    close, then for not looking at what version you were being handed.

    But your post actually got me thinking about the whole WS vs. PS
    thing. When "The Matrix: Reloaded" came out I picked up a copy at Best
    Buy, looked at the PS version and thought "Why are they even
    bothering?" Well, it turns out that those crappy versions sell!

    Check this out:

    Billboard's Top Video Sales for week ending November 15th

    http://hometheaterinfo.com/topvideo.htm

    Chart DVD Sales: Title Label Rating
    1 - 1 The Hulk (Widescreen Special Edition) Universal Studios Home
    Video PG-13
    2 - 1 The Hulk (Pan & Scan Special Edition) Universal Studios Home
    Video PG-13
    3 5 4 The Lion King (Platinum Edition) Walt Disney Home Entertainment
    G
    4 3 3 The Matrix Reloaded (Widescreen) Warner Home Video R
    5 4 3 The Matrix Reloaded (Pan & Scan) Warner Home Video R
    6 2 2 Charlie's Angeles - Full Throttle (Special Unrated Widescreen
    Edition) Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment PG-13
    7 1 2 The Adventures of Indiana Jones (Widescreen) Paramount Home
    Entertainment PG-13
    8 - 1 The Sopranos: The Complete Fourth Season HBO Home Video NR
    9 7 2 The Adventures of Indiana Jones (Pan & Scan) Paramount Home
    Entertainment PG-13
    10 6 2 28 Days Later (Widescreen) FoxVideo R

    Out of the top 10 titles 3 of them are pan and scan and selling
    slightly less than their widescreen counterparts.

    The point where PS goes away is when the plebes stop buying them.
    Until then... well, the studios are only providing the supply for the
    demand.

    - Jordan
     
    Jordan Lund, Nov 18, 2003
    #18
  19. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Peter Guest

    Your first mistake

    You went to blockbuster
    Your second Mistake, you let the staff help you
    Your third (and probably biggest Mistake) was that you did not make sure
    what you were purchasing was what you wanted.

    So after making three blunders, you're bitching about what some company
    did to screw you. Yep, blame everyone else. It was your mistake, or
    rather mistakes. Deal with it. Return the DVD and complain to the clerk
    who gave it to you.

    I agree, the future is widescreen, but companies don't make products for
    the fun of it, they make them because there is a market for them. Do you
    think Joe Schmoe, I bought a DVD player for $50 at K-Mart, knows what
    widescreen is, or the fact that TV's are going to be moving in that
    direction. Do you think he understands aspect ratios, or even that
    theatre=rectangle, tv = square ?
    NO! He see's "widescreen is tiny on my 28" tv, Fullscreen look bigger,
    nicer. Me like Fullscreen.

    There's a market.. Certain people like it... So get used to it.


    Joseph S. Powell, III wrote:
    > Gosh dang it, when are the big companies going to learn that the default
    > aspect ratio for a new movie is NEVER pan & scan!!!!
    > I went to Blockbuster because it was 3 minutes away from my house, and
    > purchased T3 - the clerk grabbed the copy for me.
    > I went home, fixed a steak, popped in the disc and it was the Pan & Scan
    > version.
    > I paid $23.00 for this disc, while I'm sure Wal-Mart is selling it for
    > around $15-17.00.
    > I am accustomed to DVD's being WIDESCREEN as that is the way all DVD's ought
    > to be.
    > Almost every single gosh-darned DVD I own is widescreen, so I am not
    > accustomed to having to make certain that a new movie is widescreen or not.
    > The future is WIDESCREEN, five years from now no 4:3 TV's will even be
    > manufactured, so why are these studios making all these damn pan & scan
    > versions for all those Joe Sixpacks out there?
    > Blockbuster WILL give me a refund or order me a Widecreen version tomorrow
    > since when I called the clerk he said they don't have any in stock.
    > I paid MORE than what a widescreen version would have cost me just about
    > anywhere else, so opened case or not, I will get a refund or a widescreen
    > version.
    > I realize there are many people out there who will say, "Hey, dumbass, why
    > didn't you read the cover?"
    > Simple - because ususally the only thing I notice on the cover is the title,
    > and I am not used to having to look out for pan & scan versions since the
    > VAST majority of DVD's are widescreen.
    > If they don't take it back I guess I can always give the P & S version to my
    > brother for Christmas, but, damn, Warners should have just marketed the film
    > in widescreen only - I am quite certain that it would not have hurt sales!
    >
    >


    --
    At the source of every error which is blamed on the
    computer you will find at least two human errors,
    including the error of blaming it on the computer.
    --
    Thats not funny!
    ---
    Signature generated by SillySigz!
    http://www.sturec.com/sillysigz.shtml
     
    Peter, Nov 19, 2003
    #19
  20. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Wade365 Guest

    I just wish they'd stop assuming that "Family" films should be offered in
    4:3... I went to buy "Sinbad" (recent animated thing with B. Pitt and C.Z.
    Jones voicing) and stopped short because it was 4:3. "Ororchi The Eight-Headed
    Dragon" is the same way, and I know it was a WS release originally because I
    have it on VHS.

    They did this (fullscreen only) when they released "Willy Wonka" and there was
    a lot of outcry... didn't they learn anything? And granted it made more money
    at the box office and was pretty well gauranteed to sell better on DVD, but
    they managed to put P&S and WS versions of "Nemo" in the same packaging... why
    not just double-side the disc with both versions?

    If people want to watch P&S, that's fine... to each his/her own... but I would
    like the choice... and when things come out in 4:3 only, that's far from a
    choice to me anymore.
     
    Wade365, Nov 19, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Michael Rogers

    Indy Temple of doom pan and scan question

    Michael Rogers, Oct 27, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    494
    ymenard
    Oct 28, 2003
  2. JMH

    pan and scan

    JMH, Jan 9, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    481
  3. Max Christoffersen

    Richard C watches Pan and Scan!

    Max Christoffersen, Feb 18, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    493
    Max Christoffersen
    Feb 18, 2004
  4. Arminio Grgic
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    648
    Arminio Grgic
    May 24, 2004
  5. Dave
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    442
Loading...

Share This Page