Made for TV aspect ratios vs made for cinemas aspect ratios

[retablo]

What does it being made for TV have anything to do with it? Why do you and others keep using that as an "excuse", like one is more important than the other? As I've stated previously, MANY TV shows have episodic budgets larger than small indie films, but just because it's made for TV, it isn't as important or culturally valuable? That's a lame excuse to fit your needs to try and make a point.

Shooting for television is NO different than shooting a film... You pick a ratio and you shoot for it. How is that different? If you shoot a film in 1.85:1, you make it "fit in the hole they had to use." (your words) Same with TV. They made it fit 1.33:1. And YES, its specifically framed. Again, do you have any idea how composition works? Or the filmmaking process?

I work in Hollywood, and it's really sad that people like you want to change what I do to fit YOUR needs. Again, why don't YOU make something and them let me alter it how I want?

In regards to TV having multiple directors... yes, EACH director framed shots a specific way. And in many cases, the same cameramen shoot each episode. So even though there are different directors, the crews remain the same, and thus there is continuity throughout the series. Regardless, I fail to see how blocking actors/camera movements/framing is different between ANY medium. Because it's not. And its pretty asinine and baffling if anyone thinks it is. Maybe people should go work in TV and film THEN get back on here.

The irony is that, people have so little artistic integrity — if 21:9 TVs were the norm, then people would want it in THAT ratio. If TVs were still square, they'd want that. It has nothing to do with the art itself, or making it better, but with simply just filling up your TV. That's scary.