constarkel Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Tonight, as I was watching Magnificent Obsession, I noticed that my 4:3 TV screen was completely filled...top to bottom and side-to-side. It had evidently been formatted to fit my screen. On the schedule, the aspect ratio is said to be 2:00/1. Why is there no disclaimer that the movie was edited at the beginning like the other channels do? Does TCM think we don't notice...or care? I recorded the movie, but once I saw that it had been edited, the DVD went straight into the trash. TCM should disclose that they will be showing an edited, Pan & Scan version of a film. That way, those of us who would like to see the real movie can avoid them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CineSage Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 You may want to retrieve the DVD: MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION isn't a widescreen film (the TCM guide is in error -- hardly a surprise); it was photographed in standard Academy ratio of 4:3 (subsequent releases may have cropped it to a hard-matted widescreen ratio but, rest assured, the [o]original[/u] release was "flat," and only way you're going to see the whole frame as photographed is to have the 4:3 transfer). In any case, outside companies from which TCM leases films, such as Universal, owner of MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION, provide films in whatever format they choose. TCM can request widescreen transfers, but if the other company declines to do a letterboxed transfer, there's nothing TCM can do about it, other than refrain from telecasting it. Had MAGNIFICENT OBESESSION actually been shot widescreen, the rather scrupulous TCM would've run a notice before the film that it had been "reformatted" to 4:3, but didn't for the above reason, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mm1968 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 I checked imdb and the ratio for Magnificent Obsession is 200:1. Movies were starting to be filmed in that ratio around 1954. I've tried taping this movie several times from TCM hoping they'll get the correct copy. That also happened with I Never Sang With My Father. It was on several times until the distributor sent the widescreen copy. I was also disappointed Come Blow Your Horn was shown in P&S. It was filmed in Panavision (2.35:1). I taped to watch it at a later time, but I'll wait in hope that TCM will get a widescreen version. Thankfully, TCM usually gets it right with most of the films they show in their proper ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarhfive Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 CineSage, Your subject line was a particularly good 'play on words'. I laughed. Rusty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lzcutter Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Just because IMDB has it listed as 200:1, doesn't mean that is correct. IMDB has been known to make a mistake or two. "All that Heaven, the next Sirk film that he did with Wyman and Hudson was 1:85 and I concur with Cinesage that "MObsession" is 1:85 as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constarkel Posted March 12, 2006 Author Share Posted March 12, 2006 1:85 is a widescreen format. "Magnificent Obsession" and apparently "Come Blow Your Horn" was shown in 4:3 which means that the ends were hacked off. It sure looked like pan and scan to me. The framing was awful. Did either you or CineSage actually watch these two movies? I don't recall seeing any disclaimer at the beginning of either of those two movies by TCM though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamTherapy Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 //IMDB has been known to make a mistake or two// I, for one, cannot see what the affinity is for IMDB, which some appear to have for it. I regard it as distinctly inferior to AllMovieGuide which is far more oriented toward film historians and afficionados. I regard IMDB as being oriented more towards the masses. For me, IMDB is the AMC, and AMG is the TCM of film reference websites. And actually, of late, I'm starting to find TCM's new database here quite useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CineSage Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 IMDb is like the much (and justifiably) criticized Wikipedia: written by "fans" who have no expertise, and without any attribution or reputation to fall back on. Much of what's found on the Internet is of suspect veracity (including this post, to be perfectly honest), and there's an immense danger in that. I went back to listings of all widescreen films made in the 1950s, and could find no reference to MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION's being shot in any widescreen process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamTherapy Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Maginificent Obsession was not reformatted per se. The cinematic process of the film was not of any widescreen process; although, it was likely done in the non-widescreen standard of the period which was 1.66:1, and therefore would have been improved through minimal letterboxing. However, as the transition from 1.37:1 to 1.33:1 loses nominal image content, films transited from 1.66:1 to 1.33:1 also don't suffer too badly, visually, and panning & scanning is typically not even required, only some frame cropping. Come Blow Your Horn, on the other hand was filmed in a widescreen cinematic process, Panavision. The aspect ratio of Panavision was, in 1954, 2.35:1. Therefore, the reformatting of that results (as described in the TCM pro-letterboxing promotionals) in a blurry and bland, severely-cropped and/or panned&scanned visual experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts