For those who DIDN'T get WideSceen LOTR... see what you're missing out.

[Goosemaster]

I love widescreen too...


The reason that Pan & Scan always seems to focus on the right spot is precisly because the editor can choice what part of the scene to focus on...Rarely would a plain shot in the middle suffice

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: kami

My wife preferred Pan & Scan, before she realized what Widescreen gives.

Good! cause every time someone buys P&S, a child somewhere cries

You mean God kills a kitten?

 

[Yzzim]

Originally posted by: kami

how? widescreen cuts off the top and bottom of the film, and pan and scan cuts off the sides... its just what youd rather see... a wider picture or taller...

Who gives a sh!t? The importance isn't what you can see, but what the goddamn director intended you to see. When thye made the film, they framed it for 2.35:1, not 1.33:1....Andrew Lesnie didn't win an Oscar for cinematography for how he framed his shots in pan & scan.

Please, beast...don't even think about defending pan and scan at all :disgust:

ummm....are you even looking at the pictures on the website? Beast wasn't defending pan and scan, he's just telling you what he sees.
It does look as if Widescreen cuts of the top and bottom, but there's more on the side. Just take a look at the friggin pictures for a sec. On the first set of pictures, you can see more of their heads in Pan and Scan then in Widescreen.

BTW, Widescreen does own all. Just kinda weird how they show it.

 

[kami]

Yzzim, yes I looked at the pics. Hell I even posted the pics before IGN had it up The point of my post was original aspect ratio...maybe Beast wasn't "defending" P&S (i could've misunderstoof) but P&S deserves no justifaction, and I just despise it so much that I get a bit testy

 

[ShadowDJ]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: kami

My wife preferred Pan & Scan, before she realized what Widescreen gives.

Good! cause every time someone buys P&S, a child somewhere cries

You mean God kills a kitten?

Beat me to it!

I go for widescreen every time.

 

[kami]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: kami

My wife preferred Pan & Scan, before she realized what Widescreen gives.

Good! cause every time someone buys P&S, a child somewhere cries

You mean God kills a kitten?

that too

 

[Yzzim]

Originally posted by: kami
Yzzim, yes I looked at the pics. Hell I even posted the pics before IGN had it up The point of my post was original aspect ratio...maybe Beast wasn't "defending" P&S (i could've misunderstoof) but P&S deserves no justifaction, and I just despise it so much that I get a bit testy

I agree.

went to about 4-5 different stores today and they all had Fullscreen LOTR DVDs. Not a single store had Widescreen. Had to drive to Wal-Mart 30 minutes away to get the damned thing. :|

 

[goog40]

ummm....are you even looking at the pictures on the website? Beast wasn't defending pan and scan, he's just telling you what he sees.
It does look as if Widescreen cuts of the top and bottom, but there's more on the side. Just take a look at the friggin pictures for a sec. On the first set of pictures, you can see more of their heads in Pan and Scan then in Widescreen.

BTW, Widescreen does own all. Just kinda weird how they show it.

The article explains that the FS version includes parts of the top and bottom of the picture that were never intended to be in the film, and as a result, you can see the telephone pole in one of the shots.

But chopping off information from the sides or squishing an image to fit in the frame isn't the only problem with a fullscreen release such as this. Since sometimes you'll get more image at the top or bottom of the screen, occasionally something that wasn't supposed to be there will appear.

A good example of this comes late in The Fellowship of the Ring, right before the Fellowship spots the Argonath. As they head down the river canyon, you can spot a telephone pole at the top of the screen. This isn't seen in the widescreen version as it wasn't part of the frame, but it's there in the fullscreen transfer.

 

[bUnMaNGo]

Originally posted by: aphexII
Glad i got the widescreen. Id be nice to see it if the damn USPS was so goddamn slow

same here. got in on that best buy pre-order deal back in may.

 

[Sepen]

Originally posted by: Beast1284

Originally posted by: OmegaNauce

Originally posted by: Beast1284

Originally posted by: FrogDog
Ah, thank you, this will make for excellent material for convincing my dad as to why widescreen is better.

how? widescreen cuts off the top and bottom of the film, and pan and scan cuts off the sides... its just what youd rather see... a wider picture or taller...

uh, it doesnt cut it off...there is nothing there. You need to go research the subject.

actually if you compare the images on that page, pan and scan cuts the image off horizontally, but is a taller image... in the same respect, widescreen cuts off the top and bottom and is a wider picture...

Ummm, no, no it doesn't.

 

[Whitecloak]

Originally posted by: SSP
Pan & Scan rule!!! To hell with Wide screen!! Stupid black bars. you die now!

 

[mpitts]

Pan & Scan is weak. I would rather watch a movie unaltered and as the director intended.

 

[Nefrodite]

just watch ms doubtfire dvd commentary. the director keeps pointing out why he choose animorphic widescreen and how it would get butchered on video

 

[Antisocial Virge]

The bad thing is that even with a widescreen tv the blackbars are still there. Not near as bad as a 4:3 TV but they are still freaking there.

 

[kami]

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge
The bad thing is that even with a widescreen tv the blackbars are still there. Not near as bad as a 4:3 TV but they are still freaking there.

Only on 2.35:1 material. If they made widescreen TVs that size then half the widescreen movies out there would have black bars on the SIDE. Isn't that defeating the purpose?

 

[BD2003]

Widescreen is good. Given a choice, I'd always pick widescreen. But my god, pan and scan isnt the end of the world!

 

[StageLeft]

dayam! I got the wide It sucks on a 27" tv in a huge room but it had to be done.

 

[LikeLinus]

I used to hate Widescreen cause i had a 34" Trinitron XBR2 (one freaking beautiful picture for a tube tv) and widescreen always made the picture so small and i just hated the black bars. So i wasn't really always happy about the widescreen DVD's, but i still watched them.

Cut to May 2002, I got this wild hair to build a home theater and i purchased a Mitsubishi Widescreen HDTV, progressive scan DVD player, (misc.) 6.1 klipsch speakers . OMG Widescreen rules. To watch a movie on how the director intended us to watch it, it does make the movie better. Plus using a widescreen it's almost like sitting there watching a movie from a theater at your own home.

I moved the Trinitron into my bedroom and we still watch it latenights before bed and i still love it. But for true cinematic pleasure, widescreen just rules.

 

[aphex]

If i EVER get mine, i'll let cha know how it looks on my new Sony 32" HDTV (32HS500)

 

[bmacd]

is the movie even worth renting? I never seemed to have any interest in the movie, and i'm not too big on sci-fi's.

-=bmacd=-

 

[kami]

Originally posted by: bmacd
is the movie even worth renting? I never seemed to have any interest in the movie, and i'm not too big on sci-fi's.

-=bmacd=-

It's not sci-fi. It's fantasy/adventure. But i guess that doesn't make much of a difference in your case

 

[deftron]

For those that didn't get LOTR at all, you're not missing out.

Bought the DVD yesterday (widescreen ofcourse)

This was me second attempt at watching the movie..

Missed it in theaters, but got the SVCD screener. I fell asleep about 30 minutes into the movie, during the Shire scene.
Instead of finishing it then, I decided to wait for the real DVD.

Suprisingly, I fell asleep last night at exactly the same spot that I did before.

I woke up this morning with intent to finish the film.. which proved very hard to do.

It got semi-interesting after the introduction, but soon my mind was wondering off..had to take many breaks to get through it

I have never read any of the books, so the story was fresh to me.

The character development in the film was extreemely lacking, along with a lack of smoth transitions from one scene to the
next. I often found myself asking "what's going on now ?"

The cinemetography is really poor, especially in action scenes. Sure the background scenery looks great, but that as more to do with location.
During fight scenes, the cuts are extrememly fast closeups..hard to tell what going on, whos hitting who.

The score was nice at first, but eventually distracting, and repetitive sounding.. it plays through almost every scene.

A lot of things happened that just made no sense to me... [SPOILERS] Why couldn't the ring just be destroyed (thankfully expained later..took an hour and 1/2 though).
Why did the black rider stop on the dock? How can a powerful wizard not pull himself up from a ledge ? Why was Frodo let go on his own ?

The whole time I was just hoping it would be over soon ..

And when the end did finally arrive.. great, an anticlimax .. figures

 

[kami]

Too bad deftron Not everyone can like it, but I'll be honest...I'm surprised you had that much trouble comprehending it. Oh yeah, it's anti-climactic because it's one story seperated into 3 films. Bad cinematography? it won the oscar for that. You're probbaly in the minority though since it had $850million box office, good reviews, 13 oscar nominations, AFI awards, etc. Makes me sad when someone doesn't like LOTR but I get over it in about a second

 

[WhiteKnight]

I think that pan and scan is just fine. It's great even. I love it! Pan and scan may just very well be God's gift to movies. It really is the best... FOR ME TO POOP ON!!!!

 

[deftron]

Kami-

I wouldn't say that I didn't comprehend the movie (I got the story as a whole)..
I just think that the lack of momentum driving each scene into
the next made my mind wonder, and I was picking aprt each scene to much.
But we are presented with each scenelike it is supposed to stand on it's own

The cinenatography is excellent at times, but like I said.. that is mainly due to location. The battle scenes are editited
way too quiclky ala an MTV video or Gladiator style .. and also throughout we are given closeup after closeup of
each characters face while someone else is talking.

I really wanted to like this move.. I thought it would be right up my alley. (Long.. epic ..lots of characters)

I love films like that.. some of my favorite films clock in at over 3 hours and they seem like 1

(Seven Samauri, Magnolia, Short Cuts, Spartacus, The Deer Hunter, Godfather, Casino)

Those movies are driven by the characters, not just 30 or so 10 minute scenes pasted together.

LOTR reminded me a lot of A.I. .. a very long movie that draged on. No love for the characters..
At least in A.I. .. I sorta hoped the robot would become a "real boy" .. In LOTR, i started to not care
whether Frodo got rid of the ring or not, I just wished he would do something and soon.

I saw some review that said something along the lines of:
"The only thing worse than a bad movie is a three hour long bad move that thinks it's good"