The Shield: The Complete Series (2002-2008)

[GiorgioV]

Originally Posted by gap

Believe me, I'm not trying to tell anyone what to think, merely highlighting the (to me, and many others) absurdity of demanding widescreen presentations when they are unnecessary. And it's not my opinion; it's the opinion of the show's creators. They may be reframing everything for widescreen now, but that was never their intent as any number of interviews will attest.

What I am trying to convey, is that I do not paricularly care about the opinion/intent of the show's creators (or anyone else, for that matter).
I'm just interested in what I like better. And, when I do like a certain framing better, it's not like my sense of artistic integrity prevents me from enjoying it.

Besides, in this case it's not like they've cropped a 4:3 image to fill a 16:9 screen (that is something entirely different, and stupid: we have the zoom for that purpose).

[Dailyan]

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by GiorgioV

What I am trying to convey, is that I do not paricularly care about the opinion/intent of the show's creators (or anyone else, for that matter).
I'm just interested in what I like better. And, when I do like a certain framing better, it's not like my sense of artistic integrity prevents me from enjoying it.

Besides, in this case it's not like they've cropped a 4:3 image to fill a 16:9 screen (that is something entirely different, and stupid: we have the zoom for that purpose).

Except they likely will have for some shots or scenes. Again, there are instances of crew members and equipment being visible in the SD widescreen versions. For them to keep these cut out this time, and present at 16:9, they will have had to crop the original 4:3 area.

Some shots/scenes on the Blu-rays may be more cramped than you're expecting.

[LPMA]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

Except they likely will have for some shots or scenes. Again, there are instances of crew members and equipment being visible in the SD widescreen versions. For them to keep these cut out this time, and present at 16:9, they will have had to crop the original 4:3 area.

Some shots/scenes on the Blu-rays may be more cramped than you're expecting.

Or they could digitally remove them like they did on The Wire.

[Hoke Moseley]

Lots of great reunion pics on Michael Chiklis' instagram.

Great to see the gang back together.

[mca213]

Originally Posted by Hoke Moseley

Lots of great reunion pics on Michael Chiklis' instagram.

Great to see the gang back together.

Awesome... only missing one guy who’s behind bars.

[bradenklune]

Originally Posted by mca213

Awesome... only missing one guy who’s behind bars.

Is that the guy who wanted OAR?

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by GiorgioV

What I am trying to convey, is that I do not paricularly care about the opinion/intent of the show's creators (or anyone else, for that matter).
I'm just interested in what I like better. And, when I do like a certain framing better, it's not like my sense of artistic integrity prevents me from enjoying it.

Besides, in this case it's not like they've cropped a 4:3 image to fill a 16:9 screen (that is something entirely different, and stupid: we have the zoom for that purpose).

So you don't care about what the creators made and originally wanted you to see. Makes perfect sense.

"What you like better" is the problem with today's society, thinking they have the right to impose what THEY want over how things should be. Its really a toxic way of thinking. It's very sad when people don't care about integrity of art they claim to love, but only love it if its altered THEIR way.

There's a scary, selfish, entitled future ahead of us.

[GiorgioV]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

So you don't care about what the creators made and originally wanted you to see. Makes perfect sense.

"What you like better" is the problem with today's society, thinking they have the right to impose what THEY want over how things should be. Its really a toxic way of thinking. It's very sad when people don't care about integrity of art they claim to love, but only love it if its altered THEIR way.

There's a scary, selfish, entitled future ahead of us.

As I've said, if the result of the reframing (which, btw, has probably been realized with the supervision of your beloved creators) taking advantage of a portion of picture that was there to begin with, is of my linking, I reserve the right to, well, like it, I guess.

About the "how things should be": you mean, according to YOUR way of thinking. Now, if I wanted to get philosophical too, THAT is a very sad, and common, limitation in human beings, so typical: each and every one is so damnn sure to be the one that holds the truth.

You see, I'm not the one doing the imposing.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by GiorgioV

As I've said, if the result of the reframing (which, btw, has probably been realized with the supervision of your beloved creators) taking advantage of a portion of picture that was there to begin with, is of my linking, I reserve the right to, well, like it, I guess.

About the "how things should be": you mean, according to YOUR way of thinking. Now, if I wanted to get philosophical too, THAT is a very sad, and common, limitation in human beings, so typical: each and every one is so damnn sure to be the one that holds the truth.

You see, I'm not the one doing the imposing.

100% incorrect. The Shield was composed and shot for 1.33. Period. That's how it was made, it's not an opinion, and it's certainly not a way of thinking. They don't crop pre-1953 4x3 films to widescreen, so they shouldn't be doing that to TV shows. It doesn't need to be reframed, because it was framed a certain way to begin with.

If people actually knew what "composition" meant, and had any inkling about framing, and the effects of certain compositions on the viewer, then no one would want anything altered just to "fill their screen." Original composition are done that way for a reason. Just like the Mona Lisa was painted a certain size. You don't impose your will on art, especially art you didn't make, you take it as it was made and accept it. Everything else is blatant entitlement.

Again, you fail to understand the basic tenets of art, and try to turn it around so you get YOUR way, when its counter to the way the art was made. I can't help that the studios force the creators to chop up their creations to fit a TV; that's just sad, and doesn't preserve the integrity of the art. But it's worse having sheep go along with it, just so their precious TV screens are filled with now off-center and cropped compositions.

I can go on all day, especially when so-called "movie lovers" don't even care about the movies themselves, or respect how they were carefully planned, composed, and shot. It's obviously there are a lot of people who think they know all about filmmaking, yet have no clue, or else they wouldn't stand for revisionism that actually changes the content of the art.

It's sad that people just don't get it, or understand, or even want to understand. Or even care about what they claim to "love." Like I said, it's an entitled, selfish future.

[GiorgioV]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

100% incorrect. The Shield was composed and shot for 1.33. Period. That's how it was made, it's not an opinion, and it's certainly not a way of thinking. They don't crop pre-1953 4x3 films to widescreen, so they shouldn't be doing that to TV shows. It doesn't need to be reframed, because it was framed a certain way to begin with.

If people actually knew what "composition" meant, and had any inkling about framing, and the effects of certain compositions on the viewer, then no one would want anything altered just to "fill their screen." Original composition are done that way for a reason. Just like the Mona Lisa was painted a certain size. You don't impose your will on art, especially art you didn't make, you take it as it was made and accept it. Everything else is blatant entitlement.

Again, you fail to understand the basic tenets of art, and try to turn it around so you get YOUR way, when its counter to the way the art was made. I can't help that the studios force the creators to chop up their creations to fit a TV; that's just sad, and doesn't preserve the integrity of the art. But it's worse having sheep go along with it, just so their precious TV screens are filled with now off-center and cropped compositions.

I can go on all day, especially when so-called "movie lovers" don't even care about the movies themselves, or respect how they were carefully planned, composed, and shot. It's obviously there are a lot of people who think they know all about filmmaking, yet have no clue, or else they wouldn't stand for revisionism that actually changes the content of the art.

It's sad that people just don't get it, or understand, or even want to understand. Or even care about what they claim to "love." Like I said, it's an entitled, selfish future.

Let me ask you this: how did you find the restoration performed on the Star Trek The Next Generation/The Original Series boxsets? You know, with all those replaced graphics and so forth.
What was your reaction: "Sacrilege!", "The horror... the horror..."? Or was it something more along the lines of "Sh#t, that looks good"?

Where were your principles then? Your "don't impose your will on art"? Your "just like the Mona Lisa", "preserve the integrity of the art" arguments?
So, is it a matter of not changing an iota, or is it more a question of how those changes are done? But if that is the case, who's to say where it starts and when to stop?

Lucky us, that's what we have all the keepers of the flame such as yourself for. To help us small minded, ignorant sheeps, who fail to understand the basic tenets of art, and try to guide us to the light.

Still, I'm sorry, pal. But I'm still getting this.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by GiorgioV

Let me ask you this: how did you find the restoration performed on the Star Trek The Next Generation/The Original Series boxsets? You know, with all those replaced graphics and so forth.
What was your reaction: "Sacrilege!", "The horror... the horror..."? Or was it something more along the lines of "Sh#t, that looks good"?

Where were your principles then? Your "don't impose your will on art"? Your "just like the Mona Lisa", "preserve the integrity of the art" arguments?
So, is it a matter of not changing an iota, or is it more a question of how those changes are done? But if that is the case, who's to say where it starts and when to stop?

Lucky us, that's what we have all the keepers of the flame such as yourself for. To help us small minded, ignorant sheeps, who fail to understand the basic tenets of art, and try to guide us to the light.

Still, I'm sorry, pal. But I'm still getting this.

Yeah that’s the problem, you don’t get it.

How did I find Star Trek? Well it shouldn’t have been messed with. But at least TOS also had the original SFX as well as the revisionist ones. That’s what you can’t seem to grasp. All you care about is whether or not it looks bright and shiny on your TV.

It’s very telling you choose to ignore my points, which tells me you actually don’t understand composition, what is or what it does. That’s ok, lots of people don’t know how to make art, but then again, those people shouldn’t be the champions of trying to change it either. You need to understand it first.

I’m glad you’re getting it. But it’s a shame you don’t “get” it.

[spanky87]

Originally Posted by hidefjunkie

Fully agree, it`s beyond me why anyone would want to watch this or any other show for that matter in 4:3 these days. It`s a lousy aspect ratio from the very beginning and i am very glad that they opted for 16:9 and that we don`t don`t have to look at those ugly fat bars on the sides.

But you don't have to look at the black bars. Your eyes should be drawn to what's inside the frame. Like when I watch a blu ray that's in 1.78.1 ratio I'm not looking at my bare walls that are on either side of the screen.

[GiorgioV]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Yeah that’s the problem, you don’t get it.

How did I find Star Trek? Well it shouldn’t have been messed with. But at least TOS also had the original SFX as well as the revisionist ones. That’s what you can’t seem to grasp. All you care about is whether or not it looks bright and shiny on your TV.

It’s very telling you choose to ignore my points, which tells me you actually don’t understand composition, what is or what it does. That’s ok, lots of people don’t know how to make art, but then again, those people shouldn’t be the champions of trying to change it either. You need to understand it first.

I’m glad you’re getting it. But it’s a shame you don’t “get” it.

Boy, talking about art, you sure make endless arguing an art form.
You should know that to keep repeating the same thing over and over, and then some more, though a simple rhetoric expedient, does not really make your argument any truer.
Anyway, this is getting tiresome, most of all for the unfortunate readers who inadvertently stumble onto this.

You should definitely work on your comedic skills, though. You sure have it in you

[gap]

Originally Posted by GiorgioV

Let me ask you this: how did you find the restoration performed on the Star Trek The Next Generation/The Original Series boxsets? You know, with all those replaced graphics and so forth.
What was your reaction: "Sacrilege!", "The horror... the horror..."? Or was it something more along the lines of "Sh#t, that looks good"?

Where were your principles then? Your "don't impose your will on art"? Your "just like the Mona Lisa", "preserve the integrity of the art" arguments?
So, is it a matter of not changing an iota, or is it more a question of how those changes are done? But if that is the case, who's to say where it starts and when to stop?

Lucky us, that's what we have all the keepers of the flame such as yourself for. To help us small minded, ignorant sheeps, who fail to understand the basic tenets of art, and try to guide us to the light.

Still, I'm sorry, pal. But I'm still getting this.

The plural of sheep is sheep. Pedantic, yes, but grammar is important.

[GiorgioV]

Originally Posted by gap

The plural of sheep is sheep. Pedantic, yes, but grammar is important.

... seriously? Now we're shifting to grammar checking mode?
I'm not even gonna dignify that with a response.

[gap]

Originally Posted by GiorgioV

... seriously? Now we're shifting to grammar checking mode?
I'm not even gonna dignify that with a response.

And yet you did.

Grammar IS important, especially if you want your argument to be taken seriously.

[CouncilSpectre]

Originally Posted by Hoke Moseley

Lots of great reunion pics on Michael Chiklis' instagram.

Great to see the gang back together.

Oh wow, looks like they got pretty much everyone! Except the obvious.

[GiorgioV]

Originally Posted by gap

And yet you did.

Grammar IS important, especially if you want your argument to be taken seriously.

What are you? Six?
Have you ever heard of something called "typo"? It happens more often than you night think, especially when an adult is writing on a smartphone screen.
But you are right, I shouldn't have bothered.

[thg]

This is getting ridiculous. Just agree to disagree and move on.