Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“Careful pan-scanning can retain very nearly all of the main action shots, albeit nearer the screen edge than one would like, and sometimes right ON the edge.”
Yes, you can do that, but first, they didn't, and second, as you are conceding, it looks terrible (for the second example at least).
Assassin:
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f3...4/29023617.jpg
Two shot:
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f3...4/a2eb59df.jpg
The other more subtle thing of course is that it's not just about capturing action but about composition. If you look at the third example in my link it's a close up of Gary Sinise,
way off to the side of the frame. That's a lot of empty space, and
it matters. It's arresting and dynamic. The cropped version just looks ordinary at best, and to me a bit naff.
It's the same with all of them really. The two shot looks unbalanced and silly because they are too close to the edge, so the emphasis is on the blank space between them rather than the metaphorical distance that has just opened up between the two characters (with **SPOILER ALERT** Sinise just having been revealed as the bad guy rather than Cage's best mate). I think they were probably right not to try, though the shot is less meaningful as a result.
For the assassin falling through the window, yes, you can pan over to include it (though they didn't, even though it's a key moment so the shot becomes completely pointless--which shows professional p&s isn't to be trusted either). But even if you do that, the shooter now fills up a larger percentage of the screen, when the point is, in a film which is all about people (including the audience) not spotting things right in front of them, that he should actually be quite hard to spot--harder than in the cropped version-- the first time around.
The fact is that De Palma is an expert directory who uses the potential of widescreen to the full. Any cropping just messes up the creative decisions he's taken.
Of course there are films effectively shot 16:9 safe, by safe directors. For them who cares?--but not here. And of course there are super 35 films where the crop shows more information, but the issues of composition still affect those.
Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“In an extreme situation they could zoom briefly out a bit, to bring the action back into shot (which would of course look a bit odd but might be the least worst option in extremis)”
Actually, they do have to give in and switch to the scope ratio at one point in Snake Eyes. It's jarring.
Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“Zooming in at home doesn't get you pan-scan and is therefore the worst of all worlds as it loses you important action somewhat randomly..”
If someone is dvding cropped films because they look better to them, I think it's safe to assume they are not fussed about such matters.
Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“Many people do like to have their screen filled so whatever the TV people do, they will displease a section of their audience. I suspect that they will just continue to try and balance the two sets of interests as well as possible so nobody wins and nobody loses.
Myself? Mostly, I prefer to watch in original aspect ratio but I remain flexible.”
I see you are trying to find a middle way but IMHO when it comes down to it one set of people is right and one is wrong. I don't want the director's choices compromised (in both senses) to placate people who literally don't know how to watch films. So showing OAR and giving the zoom option to those who can't be bothered to learn is always the best solution.