Steven Soderbergh Calls Out Aspect Ratio Offenders

[Attebery]

He made the 'Oceans' films for Warner Brothers, but says Warner's HBO is one of the worst offenders:

http://www.dgaquarterly.org/BACKISSU...0/Default.aspx

[Sarang]

Nice to hear this from someone whose voice is big and may actually manage to shame HBO.
Now if we could get some of these premium providers that air Anime product as well to give a subtitle option.

[Sooner1Kid]

I am to the point that I will only watch movies on blu-ray at my house for 3 reasons: 1. I have a front projector 2. I have 7.1 surround sound (set up properly not just 7 speakers and a sub sitting up by the tv) 3. I can watch it in the aspect ratio it was meant to be.
My friends usually stretch or zoom just to fill the screen. That is like buying a bathing suit that is too big then binge eating so that you can fit in it properly. You may fill it up, but you look like crap.
What is the best way to explain aspect ratios to my neanderthal friends?

[Sarang]

Ewww Sooner. That sucks man.

Pick films where it's blatantly obvious you're losing picture compared to the pan and scan. Like show them the OAR version then the other. Ben-Hur is an excellent example of one. I mean Scorsese cites some easy one's on TCM.

[vancouver]

IM am surprised it has taken this long for someone to say something. There should be a law against taking art, changing it then using it to make money. Cant the owners of the films dictate how it must be shown? Arnt they to blame?

[Brodieb]

Amen Mr. Soderbergh! Cropping movies for TV is like cutting the canvas of the Mona Lisa to make it fit in a fancy new modern frame. Art is art and should not be altered in ANY way!

[ivan_fred]

If all directors were to use aspect ratios of 1:85:1, all of their movies would be broadcast on TV properly.

[dukebauer007]

If all directors were to use aspect ratios of 1:85:1, all of their movies would be broadcast on TV properly.

You have a point and I used to think I was being cheated when I couldn't get a 4:3 DVD back when I first started buying DVD's until I realized what I was missing. As an artist I can appreciate the need to shoot in whatever aspect ratio you decide suits your needs. I hardly think it's fair to mandate that directors should stick with a format that makes a film indistinguishable from say Lost or 24, otherwise they won't get the scale necessarily they are looking to display. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Soderburgh, TV outlets should show proper respect to the works in question.

BTW this argument has been around much longer than 16:9 TV has. There used to be a policy with certain studios whereby they would not produce anamorphic DVD's and therefore to see these on a widescreen TV we'd have to suffer clarity and resolution loss or get a tiny windowed picture.

[AvengingN00b]

I don't want to get killed for saying this here but even though I hate it when they mess with the originally intended aspect ratio I can see why they would do it, I know a bunch of stupid people that buy the "Full Screen" DVDs over the Widescreen version and bitch when they see anything letterboxed on TV, providers are just trying to avoid the thousands of calls these retards are making, mostly 'cause they don't want to upgrade to widescreen TVs and they're holding the rest of us back.
The whole thing really pisses me off, I think art should be left alone and people should experience it the way the artist intended, but like I said before there will always be retards around who hold everybody else back, that's the sad reality.

[ivan_fred]

Originally Posted by AvengingN00b

I don't want to get killed for saying this here but even though I hate it when they mess with the originally intended aspect ratio I can see why they would do it, I know a bunch of stupid people that buy the "Full Screen" DVDs over the Widescreen version and bitch when they see anything letterboxed on TV, providers are just trying to avoid the thousands of calls these retards are making, mostly 'cause they don't want to upgrade to widescreen TVs and they're holding the rest of us back.
The whole thing really pisses me off, I think art should be left alone and people should experience it the way the artist intended, but like I said before there will always be retards around who hold everybody else back, that's the sad reality.

I agree 100%. The women in my family are among the retards who just don't get it. They zoom in for dvd movies framed at 2:35:1 and don't mind the loss of picture quality. They also don't understand the need to connect the player to a receiver. As long as they can hear what the actors are saying, they are satisfied.

[Sooner1Kid]

Originally Posted by ivan_fred

I agree 100%. The women in my family are among the retards who just don't get it. They zoom in for dvd movies framed at 2:35:1 and don't mind the loss of picture quality. They also don't understand the need to connect the player to a receiver. As long as they can hear what the actors are saying, they are satisfied.

Yeah, that sucks man. Have they seen a movie that really takes advantage of the surround? I just don't get how girls can watch a movie with poor quality. Show them a good blu-ray on a 1080p set with 7.1 surround and I'm sure they'll want to take you on a shopping spree at Best Buy

[ivan_fred]

Originally Posted by Sooner1Kid

Yeah, that sucks man. Have they seen a movie that really takes advantage of the surround? I just don't get how girls can watch a movie with poor quality. Show them a good blu-ray on a 1080p set with 7.1 surround and I'm sure they'll want to take you on a shopping spree at Best Buy

They have seen a movie that takes advantage of the surround, but prefer the TV's audio, go figure.