Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

It must be Full-Screen night on TCM


Recommended Posts

Unlike a 2.35:1 movie shot anamorphically (and which would be panned-and-scanned for a full-screen/"Academy" ratio), MAN'S FAVORITE SPORT? was shot in a matted 1.85:1 ratio, so aside from the fact it was not shown matted (cropped) down the a 1.85 ratio, you simply got to see the entire full frame as it was shot. Nothing was actually LOST, as with pan-and-scan.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I say it was panned-and-scanned?

 

Yes, sometimes you get the image as shot - as in the case of yesterday's PHANTOM OF THE RUE MORGUE which just had plenty of headroom, but no chopping off of the sides. That wasn't the case with today's film where the framing made it obvious that we were supposed to see all of both characters on the opposite side of the screen.

 

Even the credits showed some lobbing off of the sides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No you didn't say so....and that's beside the point. Your comment was it not being shown in its intended theatrical aspect ratio.

 

If, as you said, the movie showed some lopping (not lobbing) off the sides, it's also likely the film and negative itself was filmed with the matting already in place...and hence the reason some was actually cut off the sides for the full-screen showing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No you didn't say so....and that's beside the point. Your comment was it not being shown in its intended theatrical aspect ratio.

 

Well, it was supposed to be seen in the 1.85:1 ratio and it was aired in the 4:3 format. Thus, it wasn't in the intended theatrical aspect ratio and my comment was not invalid.

 

When two figures are on the opposite sides of the screen, and are chopped in half, it's obvious that it wasn't going through and panning and scanning and no self-respecting cinematographer would frame a shot that way.

 

I'd be glad to see a film shot in full frame for masking in the projector presented in full frame. I can always zoom in to get it closer to what was intended. It's a compromise, but if it happens, I wouldn't even mention it here. I did that for both PHANTOM OF THE RUE MORGUE and THE STRANGER WORE A GUN this week.

 

As for lobbing vs. lopping, yes, you caught me. I used the wrong phrase.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}

> > Does TCM place ads in certain mags or on Internet sites?

> I don't know about magazines but I've seen ads for TCM (usually for *31 Days of Oscar* and *SUTS* as well as the Film Festival and Cruise on sites as varied as the HuffPost to LAObserved.

 

I realize the question wasn't about cable, but I have seen *31 Days of Oscar* advertised many times on CNN. Nice ad, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a theory on this problem of pan and scan versions that occasionally pop up on TCM. Note that if the title is on pressed DVD or is not the property of TCM's parent company, Warner Brothers, that the film will be shown in the original aspect ratio. However, if the film is slated for or has already been added to the Warner Archive, you'll get pan and scan every time:

 

The DI

-30-

Green Slime

Susan Slept Here

 

These are ones that come to my mind that are not 1.33:1 yet are televised on TCM that way. This is a business decision by WB because they know full well that if you can make a DVD-R for under a dollar why should you pay them 20 bucks for a cheap burn job that will only last a couple of years and then quit working...if it ever worked in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you are very critical of TCM in terms of this issue. Now I can see why they started airing that recent disclaimer before movies. I wonder why so many folks over-analyze this when it is much easier to just get widescreen copies on Netflix. Maybe I am missing something...? LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote}Some of you are very critical of TCM in terms of this issue. Now I can see why they started airing that recent disclaimer before movies. I wonder why so many folks over-analyze this when it is much easier to just get widescreen copies on Netflix. Maybe I am missing something...? LOL

It would be less of an issue for me if it weren't for the promo that's been running constantly for nearly a decade. It would be a similar issue if suddenly we started getting edited versions of movies more frequently. We're barraged by the butcher and the little girl who know how to cut and the claim there is that we get films uncut. Thus when REACH FOR THE SKY shows up in the Academy ratio and cut of a half-hour, it does violate the so-called mission statement.

 

As for Netflix, well I'm on a fixed income, I don't have the hardware to put it on my TV via downloads and I don't want to have to subscribe to yet another form of delivery be it online or by mail.

 

Eventually it's going to be a dead issue for me as with the way things are going, I'm going to have to drop cable anyway.

 

I'm glad that they put up the disclaimer, it shows that they noticed that we notice. It's a step in the right direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply clore. I do like this thread a lot, but I am a bit flabbergasted why people are spending so much time beating it to death. Obviously, TCM is not going to do everything perfectly or to each individual viewer's satisfaction.

 

I think you are right about the mission statement. If they continue to violate it or enact a change in policy, then they will have to either drop the old statement or reword it. They do have to be fair about that, especially since they advertise themselves that way.

 

My biggest issue with the TCM currently, as I have gone over in the Karl Malden SOTM thread, is that they neglect titles that would promote their programming themes. Instead, it is the same batch of oft-played (translation: over-played) titles from the Turner library. One gets the impression they are just using certain actors or cultural issues (like race in Hollywood) to trot out the same catalogue and replay it endlessly with a new monthly gimmick. It's wearing out fast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=calvinnme wrote:}{quote}I have a theory on this problem of pan and scan versions that occasionally pop up on TCM. Note that if the title is on pressed DVD or is not the property of TCM's parent company, Warner Brothers, that the film will be shown in the original aspect ratio. However, if the film is slated for or has already been added to the Warner Archive, you'll get pan and scan every time:

>

> The DI

> -30-

> Green Slime

> Susan Slept Here

>

> These are ones that come to my mind that are not 1.33:1 yet are televised on TCM that way. This is a business decision by WB because they know full well that if you can make a DVD-R for under a dollar why should you pay them 20 bucks for a cheap burn job that will only last a couple of years and then quit working...if it ever worked in the first place.

 

Not sure about the others, but *The Green Slime* is an MGM film. It was available on DVD in its OAR of 2.35:1 for a few years. Then in 2010, it was "remastered" and released, by MGM, at 1.78:1. Both are commercially pressed discs, not burned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason that I recall the distributor was because the Warner folks sent me an email when it came out. It was one of the first in their overpriced line to claim that it was remastered. At first they were charging five bucks more than the usual WB Archive title but I thought that they must have figured it to be sell-worthy to go through the extra trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*"It would be less of an issue for me if it weren't for the promo that's been running constantly for nearly a decade."* - clore

 

I think the "Letterboxing" promo has been running even longer than that. I would guess it (or something similar) has been seen on TCM from day one.

 

It is difficult to remember that 15 years ago, seeing a film in a letterbox format anywhere was rare. No cable channel was regularly running films in a widescreen format. (Maybe AMC? But infrequently, I think.) TCM debuted in 1994. DVDs were introduced in 1996. It was only after these developments that viewers became exposed to the "concept" of "letterboxing" and experienced it for themselves.

 

Some viewers were unfamiliar with the concept ("Why are these black bands on my TV?"). To me the purpose of the promo was to clear up that misunderstanding. I never interpreted it to be a statement of an inviolable principle on TCM's part.

 

Funny how quickly one's expectations can evolve. In the early 1990s, AMC would present a "Widescreen Festival" as a major programming event. TCM went a step further by presenting as many films as possible in that format. The first DVDs were often issued in "dual format" editions. (Full screen on one side, widescreen on the other.) Letterboxing was just not the ubiquitous presentation that it is today.

 

Now that the populace has become educated over the past 15 years, some viewers feel cheated if a film is shown in what some would call a bastardized format. Understandable, I guess but not truly reasonable when TCM doesn't own or control the films they show. And I think TCM has said it would (most) always choose to show a film under less-than-perfect circumstances than not show it at all. That's the choice I hope they would always make.

 

Now for the latest conundrum. How should TCM present the Cinerama film How The West Was Won? Flat or "Curved?

 

HTWWW_smilebox

 

Have at it, you purists.

 

I am saddened to hear you may have to drop cable, 'clore'. I can empathize. Truly, I can.

 

Kyle In Hollywood

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a one (1) year moritorium for all new Warner Archive remasters. TCM can't access the new master until one (1) full year after the new version has been available through the Warner Archive Collection. This is mandated by Warner Home Video. That is why TCM continues to run the old masters.

 

Edited by: MGMWBRKO on Feb 6, 2012 11:31 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

> There is a one year moritorium for all new Warner Archive remasters. TCM can't access the new master until 1 full year after the new version has been available through the Warner Archive Collection. This is madated by Warner Home Video. That is why TCM continues to run the old masters.

 

MGM,

 

If ever a post cried out to become a stickey so that the information was accessible every time the Warner Archive vs TCM debate comes up, it is this one.

 

Thanks so much!

 

ps- It's great to see posting here again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am saddened to hear you may have to drop cable, 'clore'. I can empathize. Truly, I can.

 

Thanks for the thought. I'm going to stave that day off for as long as I can, maybe I'll learn to eat less.

 

As for HOW THE WEST WAS WON, I did watch the DVD in that Smilebox format over a friend's house on his 50-inch set. I'll put it this way, the Cinerama version was meant to be seen on a curved screen. On a flat screen, that image shape is most disconcerting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> As for Joel McCrea, why not add to the existing McCrea thread instead of starting a whole new thread? By your own words, it is a popular thread.

 

You don't know?

 

It is quite obvious. TB wants to have yet another thread started up if only so that he can see his name up on the marque yet once again.

 

And also, why not start another thread about the same subject anyhow? He has done this before when he was known as someone else on the message boards.

 

Some things never change around here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> I am going to start a new Joel McCrea thread in a few days, devoted to his DVD releases. I have a lot more cards to play...my sleeves (both of them) have several aces tucked in under my shirt. LOL

 

Its so funny and sad at the same time.

 

You wrote this earlier today when evee1210 started a thread about Comcast today at 7:39PM.

 

*There's a thread about this subject over on the Hot Topics forum.*

 

And now you have decided that yet another thread about Joel McCrea needs to be started up.

 

The following thread was started up for Joel McCrea for Star of the Month by lzcutter on March 28, 2010. The last posting on this thread was January 21, 2012.

 

Now I know that you have indicated that you want to start up a thread about Joel McCrea's DVD releases, but why do that if he still has not been given a STOM, and to me it would make more sense to add your views about McCrea on a thread that specifically is all about him to begin with.

 

I mean, don't you agree that starting a new thread about a favorite actor who has had a major thread already started up about the lack of his being given a STOM treatment, isn't that sort of redundant?

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=MGMWBRKO wrote:}{quote}FYI - Joel McCrea is the SOTM in May.

Thanks for the word. Did you pick May because it rhymes with McCrea so his biggest fan here, misswonderley. can make up a new poem? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...