purplehaze posted:
jcocktosten posted:
wineart 2 posted:
doubled posted:

Get Out - very entertaining 

One of the very best films of its year, if not the best. 

Still trying to get FKG to watch it

What is the source of her hesitation?  Other than a jump scare or two, it's pretty tame and thoughtful.  I've seen it 4 times, and keep getting more out of it each time.

PH

Nothing in particular lack of time mostly

jcocktosten posted:
purplehaze posted:
jcocktosten posted:
wineart 2 posted:
doubled posted:

Get Out - very entertaining 

One of the very best films of its year, if not the best. 

Still trying to get FKG to watch it

What is the source of her hesitation?  Other than a jump scare or two, it's pretty tame and thoughtful.  I've seen it 4 times, and keep getting more out of it each time.

PH

Nothing in particular lack of time mostly

Be sure to watch it in the correct aspect ratio. If there aren't black bars at the top of the bottom you're not watching the full movie.

The Old Man posted:

Be sure to watch it in the correct aspect ratio. If there aren't black bars at the top of the bottom you're not watching the full movie.

PH

purplehaze posted:
The Old Man posted:

Be sure to watch it in the correct aspect ratio. If there aren't black bars at the top of the bottom you're not watching the full movie.

PH

TOM, this isn't 1999. 

Knives Out

Fairly forgettable popcorn movie. Why did Daniel Craig do a dead ringer for Kevin Spacey's Frank Underwood accent?

sunnylea57 posted:

Knives Out

Fairly forgettable popcorn movie. Why did Daniel Craig do a dead ringer for Kevin Spacey's Frank Underwood accent?

My thoughts too. Craig was miscast I thought and the film was fun but not worthy of the accolades it's getting. 

sunnylea57 posted:
purplehaze posted:
The Old Man posted:

Be sure to watch it in the correct aspect ratio. If there aren't black bars at the top of the bottom you're not watching the full movie.

PH

TOM, this isn't 1999. 

I did a little thinking on this and realized if you're over 50 years old probably 50% of all movies you've seen where in the wrong aspect ratio. What this means, as my best estimate, you've missed between 20% to 25% of the movies you've watched. This was caused by all the widescreen movies you watched on your 4:3 ratio TV sets. The change to this finally occurred with the 16:9 ratio television. It seemed from this point out this would no longer be a problem and then I discovered major streaming sources like HBO showing 2.4:1 movies at 1.8:1. Meaning again you are missing around a fifth of the movie.

For those who care about film as art, this is an example of what Guernica would look like after slicing off 20%. I hope some of you get the point.

The original:

Guernica in the wrong "aspect ratio."

Not quite the same thing. If you see a movie in the incorrect ratio have you really seen the movie? Are you seeing the movie the way the director envisioned it? Good directors consider everything in the frame and for that matter the frame itself.

Attachments

Images (3)
Last edited by The Old Man
billhike posted:

Good explanation. But it’s still fun to bust your balls. 

I understand, but glad it was clear. What's going on with, especially if you care about artistic integrity, is really a travesty.

Last edited by The Old Man

My “1999” comment was because I think the whole aspect ratio discussion was relevant back then, but not so much these days.

I prosthelytized about it back in the day but have barely given it a thought in 15+ years. Most systems these days play movies in the correct aspect ratio. Besides, most people don’t care. And won’t listen if you try to convince them otherwise. 

sunnylea57 posted:

My “1999” comment was because I think the whole aspect ratio discussion was relevant back then, but not so much these days.

I prosthelytized about it back in the day but have barely given it a thought in 15+ years. Most systems these days play movies in the correct aspect ratio. Besides, most people don’t care. And won’t listen if you try to convince them otherwise. 

"Most systems these days play movies in the correct aspect ratio."

It has nothing to do with the system--I hope I haven't been giving anyone here that impression. It's a decision that's being made by the streaming, or cable, company showing the movie.

"Besides, most people don’t care."

I'm not interested in most people. I am only trying to reach people who might understand that film is an art form and and that the artist's decisions (which includes aspect ratio, the "frame of the artwork") be respected. HBO, of all companies, is one that often shows you only 80% of the movie. You're paying full price you might as well get all you paid for. 

BTW, this, and the broken movie streaming model (a discussion for another day), is why I own a lot of DVDs.

The Old Man posted:
sunnylea57 posted:

My “1999” comment was because I think the whole aspect ratio discussion was relevant back then, but not so much these days.

I prosthelytized about it back in the day but have barely given it a thought in 15+ years. Most systems these days play movies in the correct aspect ratio. Besides, most people don’t care. And won’t listen if you try to convince them otherwise. 

"Most systems these days play movies in the correct aspect ratio."

It has nothing to do with the system--I hope I haven't been giving anyone here that impression. It's a decision that's being made by the streaming, or cable, company showing the movie.

"Besides, most people don’t care."

I'm not interested in most people. I am only trying to reach people who might understand that film is an art form and and that the artist's decisions (which includes aspect ratio, the "frame of the artwork") be respected. HBO, of all companies, is one that often shows you only 80% of the movie. You're paying full price you might as well get all you paid for. 

BTW, this, and the broken movie streaming model (a discussion for another day), is why I own a lot of DVDs.

Perhaps I didn't explain my point well: the people who DO care ("people who might understand that film is an art form...") already know about aspect ratio; the people who DON'T care will glaze over when you try to tell them about it. And regardless, unless you plan to rally tens of thousands of people via something like change.org, you won't likely get HBO to rethink their policies.

Yelling at clouds on this forum might make you feel better, but it won't change anything. If people are watching films on a streaming service, they get what they get. If they're watching on Blu-ray or DVD or digital download on a current model 16:9 TV, they will likely be watching the films in their original aspect ratio (unless they've accidentally pressed the aspect button on their remote and are watching in "zoom" mode... in which case they deserve what they get).

"If people are watching films on a streaming service, they get what they get. If they're watching on Blu-ray or DVD or digital download on a current model 16:9 TV, they will likely be watching the films in their original aspect ratio "

I believe, without research, that most people are now getting their movies on various streaming services. Again besides the harm to the film, it's amusing about the money. What other product do you buy in which you get only 80% of what you paid for? What if your 750ml bottle gave you only 600ml?

"...the people who DON'T care will glaze over when you try to tell them about it..."

I've been telling people about this, originally in a retail setting, since 1982. (Though I was aware of pan and scan and other "transmission, editing for about a decade before.) I can't be sure about every interaction I had I never noticed any of them glazing over. The majority of them expressed surprise.

"Yelling at clouds on this forum might make you feel better, but it won't change anything."

I'm not yelling about anything, but am pointing out a fact. This began when I wanted to recommend a movie, but I'm warning people, if they choose the wrong viewing platform, they may be missing a fifth of the movie.  As me not changing anything, I have many people who now understand this film butchering and avoid watching films in the wrong aspect ratio. However it's clear there's no point debating this with you.

Last edited by The Old Man

Again I think I've misrepresented myself. I've always been a big believer in watching movies in their correct aspect ratio. I can't imagine watching a film and not seeing all of it. As I said, I prosthelytized about it all the time, but most people just didn't get it or just didn't care. Many HATED that the movie only took up half of their 4:3 cathode ray tube TV screen and genuinely preferred to watch the pan and scan version. I know the streaming services and networks can and do butcher films.

I gave up trying to educate others years ago.

While we're on the topic, though, I also was and am a big believer in accurately calibrating your TV so you're seeing as wide a gamut of tonal and colour range as possible. Most TVs are horrendously calibrated. Watch a golf game on them, and the fairway is always electric green. People would agree to let me calibrate their sets with my Blu-ray Disc, but more often than not they didn't like the results. Even though the colours and skin tones were perfectly natural and accurate, they preferred the over-saturated colours and compressed tonal range where the bottom 10% of the range (the near-blacks) was squished down to solid black. Same for the near-whites. Totally blown out.

I gave up trying to educate others about this, too.

Hey, sunny, don't get started me on how many displays are set in "soap opera" mode. I guessing it may be as high as 50% since they are often set that way as the default.

The Old Man posted:

This is not how music streaming works and it should not be the way movie distribution works.

Bad analogy, TOM.  Unless you're using TIDAL, you're getting "less" music than on a CD when streaming.

PH

purplehaze posted:
The Old Man posted:

This is not how music streaming works and it should not be the way movie distribution works.

Bad analogy, TOM.  Unless you're using TIDAL, you're getting "less" music than on a CD when streaming.

PH

To start off it's the only analogy that fits. Music, moves, and videos are the only entertainment (not counting regular cable service or video games) we stream into our home. There is nothing else to compare them to.

(I think) the vast majority of music that most people want is available on basic services like Spotify. In addition many (most?) albums that are thought of as "classics" are also available. In addition there is no music service that monthly removes standard fare and then brings it back years later. But we're supposed to get excited when the monthly Netflix list comes out and once again Goodwill Hunting is available again. While the music streaming model will always miss a number of important titles it's no where near the disaster that the movie streaming model is.

The good of the music streaming model is the access to millions of songs everyday--without regular deletions (except for occasional copyright disputes) and returns. This is not close to the movie streaming model.

For fun I pulled up the Hollywood Report top 100 films of all time. Though I don't agree with the list it's a typical list of film favs: GodfatherShawshankE.T., etc. Of ALL ten only one, Pulp Fiction is included in any subscription service. In this case Hulu. Mostly your movies services, Amazon and others are going to upcharge you an additional $4. Now go look at everyone's favorite music on our forum, or grab almost any "best of list" of jazz or rock or blues or country and you will find most is included in the basic streaming services. I think only classical is an exception and that's perhaps because much of it never even made to CD.

I assume you're going to still disagree with me, but I don't know what else to say.

Last edited by The Old Man

Multiple Maniacs

Something to offend just about everyone. I was shocked that Criterion restored this film.

They shall not grow old...figured it was a good prologue before watching 1917, which is in the queue.

The Old Man posted:
purplehaze posted:
The Old Man posted:

This is not how music streaming works and it should not be the way movie distribution works.

Bad analogy, TOM.  Unless you're using TIDAL, you're getting "less" music than on a CD when streaming.

PH

To start off it's the only analogy that fits.

I wasn't referring to the quantity of music available, TOM.  I was commenting on the loss of quality in streamed music content.  You are getting a compressed and incomplete audio file when streaming, analogous to your complaints of incomplete video when movies are not offered in the correct aspect ratio.  

PH

Last edited by purplehaze

I think it was clear that I was were talking about availability of titles and not sound equality. Now I have to go and find citations that most people can't hear the difference between lossless and compressed? It is not equivalent. However, it doesn't matter, there are services that offer lossless streaming. If a movie is being shown in the wrong aspect ratio (my other discussion) you have to get the film on a non-streaming format. (When Get Out was shown only on HBO your only choice to get in in 2:39 to 1 was to buy the DVD or pay the upcharge on sites like Amazon.) However, again my broken movie model is based on availability of titles.

Last edited by The Old Man

Stuber 

OK.  Love brow humor but I found it humorous nonetheless.  Sometimes you just need a simple good laugh.  If you pay really close attention to the dialog you'll hear a lot of funny quips, particularly referencing other movies and pop culture.  There are worst ways to 93 minutes of run time.

The Old Man posted:

We're not arguing and I think this is an OK place to have this discussion. 

Hey!!  At least we're being civil... at least for now. 

TOM, if there was equivalent availability of movies, all presented in the wrong aspect ratio, would that be an improvement in your opinion?

PH

Last edited by purplehaze

No. But I don't see the equivalent compared to compression technology, especially when there is a streaming service that offers what I guess is the highest sound quality.

wineismylife posted:

Stuber 

OK.  Love brow humor but I found it humorous nonetheless.  Sometimes you just need a simple good laugh.  If you pay really close attention to the dialog you'll hear a lot of funny quips, particularly referencing other movies and pop culture.  There are worst ways to 93 minutes of run time.

Was also a decent stupid airplane movie

Tolkien

Interesting. OK if you're a fan of his books.

Bad Lieutenant

Another OK film. Some over-acting from Harvey Keitel.

steve8 posted:

Tolkien

Interesting. OK if you're a fan of his books.

Bad Lieutenant

Another OK film. Some over-acting from Harvey Keitel.

Funny watched King of New York the other day

Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood

Not my favorite Tarantino film but it had enough good stuff in it that I enjoyed it. Definitely liked it better than The Hateful Eight.

funkyseefunkydoo posted:

Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood

Not my favorite Tarantino film but it had enough good stuff in it that I enjoyed it. Definitely liked it better than The Hateful Eight.

Strange film. Most people seem either to love it or hate it. I thought it was decent with a great performance by Brad Pitt. 

winetarelli posted:
funkyseefunkydoo posted:

Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood

Not my favorite Tarantino film but it had enough good stuff in it that I enjoyed it. Definitely liked it better than The Hateful Eight.

Strange film. Most people seem either to love it or hate it. I thought it was decent with a great performance by Brad Pitt. 

I actually thought DeCaprio's performance was stronger. But I enjoyed Pitts acting as well.

My wife really enjoyed the "Brad Pitt with no shirt on " scene.

funkyseefunkydoo posted:

Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood

Not my favorite Tarantino film but it had enough good stuff in it that I enjoyed it. Definitely liked it better than The Hateful Eight.

I happen to work with someone from a prominent Chinese family, who's family was very close to Lee's. (Not that I would doubt his word, but he has pics to prove it.) He's seen the scene with Pitt, and he says that he could see Bruce acting like that.  He said Lee was once beaten pretty badly, and ended up in the hospital in San Francisco. I can't confirm that, but there is so much hype that's grown over the decades, it's hard to find any real facts.

Last edited by mneeley490

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×