|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally published at Crap and Garbage in Violent Opposition. Adapted and edited for inclusion here.
_________________________________________________
I like to watch DVDs in widescreen. I can't imagine preferring to watch
them in pan-and-scan. In fact, I can't really imagine why any DVD company
would release a pan-and-scan version of a wide-screen film. Well, that's not
true, I can imagine that money plays a big role in these decisions.
Apparently there are vast numbers of people who won't buy anything other than
pan-and-scan, and the DVD companies want to cater to these folks. (I think
the reasoning pn-and-scan viewers use is something like, "Why, half my TV isn't being used with
these wide-screen things, and that cheats me out of the value of my TV.")
I can certainly understand catering, especially for a company that wants to
make money. Wouldn't it be cheaper though to release just wide-screen
versions? It must be easier during the DVD preparation stage. I mean, you just point the film at the encoder and you're done. With
pan-and-scan, you have to have someone there watching who can adjust the
image, to make sure the important stuff is centered on the screen. That
means you have to pay someone to make value judgments. That usually isn't
cheap.
I just wonder what the creators say about their films being released in
pan-and-scan. Some directors, like Steven Spielberg and James Cameron, are
very hands-on when pan-and-scan versions of their films are made. I guess they
want to make sure the pan-and-scan version is the best film it can be. But
why? Wouldn't the full wide-screen be the best the film can be? Isn't that the
image they decided on when they finished the film and readied it for the
theatre?
I guess there are two possible answers (that I can think of). 1. It doesn't
really matter (the wide-screen edges don't have anything important), and 2. it
makes no difference (the visuals are irrelevant either way--it's the talking
in the movie that's important).
"Pan-and-scan? Sure, why not. I don't really care what the image looks
like, honestly. I leave that to my DP. How much extra money will I get?"
"Pan-and-scan? Hey, go ahead. And you can change the ending if you want
to, too. I heard some people complained about that. Do I get extra money if
you do?"
"Pan-and-scan? Well, I don't know what that means, but if I get extra
money, go ahead."
So...why don't the studios release the films in theatres in both formats? Why are they catering to both markets on home video--doesn't the pan-and-scan audience deserve the same cottoning they get at the video store? Attendance at movies is down all over the country--perhaps, just perhaps it's because the vast majority of people prefer pan-and-scan, and since they're not getting it, they're just going to wait until the film is especially chopped to be served on home video?
Studios, you're missing a golden opportunity. In fact,
producers of other forms of entertainment might want to look into this.
Can you imagine the hue-and-cry if books were released in catered formats? Of
course, there are two versions of most books: hardback and
paperback. And, like a pan-and-scan DVD in relation to a film, the
paperback appears months after the hardback. After it has been
determined that the film/book warrants a further issue. So maybe movies are just taking their cues from
books. Perhaps the studios are also saying, hey, just like
paperbacks, it's not the content that's being changed, just the
format.
Well, it's true that changing the size of the book and the typeface and so forth doesn't alter the thoughts inside. But how can anyone say that about movies? Unless, of course, the imaginary quotes above are true.
And maybe very few people read books these days, so perhaps contents alteration happens all the time and I, as usual, am just unaware of it.
Compact disks are another area where several versions hit the market--the "uncensored" and the "censored." So perhaps movies are just following everyone else. Instead of presenting--
--let me digress for a just a moment and say that I consider referring to many films, recordings and books as "art" is ludicrous, but that's the term we have ("art" not "ludicrous"), and that is what they are--
--presenting art as the artist conceived it, it is instead
being tailored to fit the needs and desires of the consumer. To me, this
seems to dilute the very nature of art; rather than being a means of
communicating an expression, it' being used as a comfort and a reinforcement
of what the consumer already knows. It's no longer communication
of any kind.
It's a commodity.
March 21, 2005