Any rumors about Buffy the Vampire Slayer show coming out on Blu-ray?

[NL197]

There has been a long history of the Buffy/Angel widescreen debate going back to the initial DVD releases in 2000/2001. The primary reason for so many screencaps over the years (I have also made many of them in my time about it) is because often the debate went from "widescreen is better but full screen is proper" to "widescreen is better and was always meant to be that way and Joss Whedon and Co. are wrong!"

So...the images were always there to show that, 1) the framing may be more interesting but it isn't correct (and I personally LOVE watching both in widescreen while acknowledging that fact) and 2) they are proof positive that widescreen was never the intention (for Buffy at least), despite what some say...the people who made the show would know better than anonymous internet users bickering about it and the images are evidence enough to back the showrunners up.

The other reason is that the images of goofs are just plain funny.

[blahsi]

Originally Posted by NL197

There has been a long history of the Buffy/Angel widescreen debate going back to the initial DVD releases in 2000/2001. The primary reason for so many screencaps over the years (I have also made many of them in my time about it) is because often the debate went from "widescreen is better but full screen is proper" to "widescreen is better and was always meant to be that way and Joss Whedon and Co. are wrong!"

So...the images were always there to show that, 1) the framing may be more interesting but it isn't correct (and I personally LOVE watching both in widescreen while acknowledging that fact) and 2) they are proof positive that widescreen was never the intention (for Buffy at least), despite what some say...the people who made the show would know better than anonymous internet users bickering about it and the images are evidence enough to back the showrunners up.

The other reason is that the images of goofs are just plain funny.

That's what I was trying to say as well. I prefer the widescreen look and feel despite knowing that wasn't the intention and seeing the goofs. I wasn't intending to ignite another debate. I'll still buy the Blu-rays if they're 4x3, I'm not picky. I just want Buffy in HD since I lost my Chosen Collection years ago.

[simonynwa]

Originally Posted by theprestige85

Hang on a sec, mate, no need to get shirty, yeah?

Would I prefer Buffy release in 4:3? Yes, I already said so. But it's also not exactly a travesty to have on 16:9, is it? I think that we are likely to get seasons 1-3 in 4:3 and there rest in 16:9. I'm just happy that the show has gotten a high definition upgrade when everybody else said it was unlikely to happen.

Not being shirty at all. Im just stating that your arguments run counter to a claim that you are a purist Im afraid.

The point is it isn't actually anything to do with 4x3, 16x9 or otherwise. Widescreen is a phrase dreamed up in the 90s to sell DVDs when people didnt like the black lines at the top and bottom of their screens and not its a case of people not wanting black lines at the sides. Im fine with that - its not even a debate really. Some people like their screens filled some don't. Its the same with the X Files too. But it isn't a debate over how cinematic it looks, how much better it looks or anything. All subjective and a personal preference.

What is frustrating to whose who are purists and who do support OAR is that the arguments put forth by people who really just want their TVs filled (which I would add is fine) are always couched in the argument in some sort of its better/more cinematic/its protected/nothing bad is shown as if its some sort of debate. Not having boom mics or mistakes around the edges is not a reason to suggest that there was some sort of intent to shoot widescreen. What does being cinematic actually mean ? Why is 4x3 not cinematic ? - it worked for Gone with the Wind and Casablanca and The Wizard of Oz. It's like people are searching for a rational argument to make them feel better.

There is no debate really or there shouldn't be. OAR is OAR whether it's 4x3, 16x9 or 2.35:1. The only thing that matters is what the filmmakers / creators / director intended whatever the limitations they were working under at the time. They made a choice to compose a shot based on whatever environment they were working in and composed accordingly. Protection is not the same thing as composition - its a reality that creators have to deal with in that they work in an environment where they are making a product that has to sell and if the financiers want to be able to sell it in widescreen as well as full screen they know they have to compromise. Time and time again though what you hear is we composed in 4x3 and protected for widescreen and the only relevant part to a purist is "we composed in 4x3", In any event in the case of Buffy, the creator has actually stated a preference for Buffy in 4x3. If they come out and state they prefer the shots in 16 x9 fine, thought they would have a pretty hard job now given the history of Buffy. As someone else mentioned in another thread which I wasn't aware of, Stargate was composed 16x9 and protected 4x3. The other way round and therefore any future release I would hope would be 16x9.

This whole debate is no different than people who want to colourise black and white films.

[simonynwa]

Originally Posted by blahsi

Not an excuse, just an opinion.

Fair enough, my apologies I just disagree. And I would love to have Buffy in HD too. If you prefer the 16x9 image personally that's fine, but it's a shame that the creator's intentions are getting lost in all this and the implications this has for future releases of shows is getting worse. I await the first fully cropped widescreen release of a show that doesn't have any "protection" to offset the potential cropping.

[simonynwa]

Originally Posted by NL197

There has been a long history of the Buffy/Angel widescreen debate going back to the initial DVD releases in 2000/2001. The primary reason for so many screencaps over the years (I have also made many of them in my time about it) is because often the debate went from "widescreen is better but full screen is proper" to "widescreen is better and was always meant to be that way and Joss Whedon and Co. are wrong!"

So...the images were always there to show that, 1) the framing may be more interesting but it isn't correct (and I personally LOVE watching both in widescreen while acknowledging that fact) and 2) they are proof positive that widescreen was never the intention (for Buffy at least), despite what some say...the people who made the show would know better than anonymous internet users bickering about it and the images are evidence enough to back the showrunners up.

The other reason is that the images of goofs are just plain funny.

Completely agree unfortunately the debate is getting drowned out in favour of a mass move to "widescreen" and the reasons purist do get upset is because like the previous fight for OAR when DVD showed up, this is going to become the norm and a proper HD release that honours the filmmakers intentions will be forgotten. If there was a chance for a dual release I think the purists like myself wouldn't argue so vehemently against it.

[simonynwa]

Originally Posted by kngtmat

I keep hearing they intended it to be 4x3. It's done in 4x3 because they had to do it since they had no choice and not exactly because everyone wanted it that way.


That note was just placed in it in case people wondered why it's not in widescreen at the time when about everything was widescreen then. Even that note says he likes widescreen and that it was kept 4x3 because of traditional TV's. But I think when the release came out part of the reason is he just wanted to be consistent with the previous releases.

I do find it odd he changed his mind for Angel. I guess it was because only the first season was out already at the time in 4x3 so it wasn't as far into series DVD's as Buffy.

You keep hearing they intended it... from who ? They had no choice ?? Think about the implications of that for every film ever made and the limitations that every production has ever come across. Its justifying wholesale changes to any production of any value whatsoever on the basis that they would have done it this way had the opportunity had been there. I would bet King Kong in the 30s or Harryhausen films would have been done with the latest CGI if they had the choice then.

The note in the DVD case was placed by Whedon because he wanted an OAR release. Yes he likes widescreen....when its appropriate. He even went to the extent of illustrating a shot from Season 5 to show why he preferred 4x3 and it didnt have anything to do with having traditional TVs as far as I recall. That you say he wanted to be consistent with the previous releases...doesnt that suggest he would probably take the same approach when actually making the show itself?

And in relation to Angel, this is pure conjecture on my part but I suspect the reason for Angel in widescreen is threefold - to differentiate it from Buffy, the city setting that may well have lended itself better to a wider image than smaller scale Sunnydale setting (in terms of location) and that Whedon deferred some production decisions to the show runners whereas with Buffy he was far more hands on at the start. Again complete guesswork on my part and I have nothing to base this on. I don't even know offhand whether Angel was composed in widescreen but I think all US DVD releases were so given Whedon's involvement Im inclined to think it was.

[Deciazulado]

It's always interesting that some people always want to see more (more of empty spaces not intended to be seen). For Standard Widescreen (1.85) films to be shown in vertically open matte (1.33 to 1.66) versions showing more ceiling and floor, to 1.33 TV shows in horizontally open matte versions so they fill the current 1.78 widescreen TV sets. Instead of seeing them how they were filmed and composed to maximize the dramatics of the story.

When you watch a film with the matte opened, you lose this cus you're seeing a version where all the shots are loosened up. Meaning the careful precise compositions chosen to tell the story are now loose. In vertically open matted transfers, dramatic close-ups become less dramatic medium shots, medium shots become long shots, and long shots become "what am I looking at?" shots:

>

In horizontally open matted transfers, the tight action and carefully thought blocking and actor positioning is now surrounded by nothingness or clutter, hanging loose in the middle of the frame like if the action and the people couldn't move from center (trapped by an invisible force field?) and shot by shot, it's all centered. Each time you look at a new shot your eyes have to scan all the clutter to find what is importnat and carefully planned action from left to right, etc. is gone as everything is now always happening in the center of the image.

Like reading a book where all the pages had its text put in a column in the middle of the page either with blank page areas left and right or with random words with no real meaning cluttering around the text on each side.

So instead of concentrating on the action you're strolling down the set.

originalvsloose.jpg

[EddieLarkin]

Adding space to the sides simply for the sake of trying to look more cinematic would betray the very exact mise-en-scene I was trying to create ~ Joss Whedon (speaking about this very issue).

[NL197]

Originally Posted by simonynwa

I don't even know offhand whether Angel was composed in widescreen but I think all US DVD releases were so given Whedon's involvement Im inclined to think it was.

I had read that the official decision to present ANGEL in 16:9 (4:3 letterbox) occurred after they filmed the first episode of season 3, which was "Heartthrob". There's mention of it here on Wikipedia from the long defunct "City Of Angel" website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartth...uction_details

[Drewbee87]

I didn't even realize there were mistakes like the reflections in Angel(even in the Widescreen versions) until I looked up "Angel Mistakes" a few years ago. And I didn't notice them because I'm always focused on the action, more so in the 16:9 versions. I've become used to the new TV standard, which unfortunately is 1.78:1. If they had a TV that could change sizes depending on what ratio the movie/tv show you're watching is in, I wouldn't care what ratio these old TV shows are released in. Becoming used to the new standard has made me want all my favorite TV shows in that aspect ratio and IMO if something can be opened up, without major cropping, to fit the new standard it should. Sorry if that bothers so many here.

[Panemlights]

Originally Posted by Drewbee87

I didn't even realize there were mistakes like the reflections in Angel(even in the Widescreen versions) until I looked up "Angel Mistakes" a few years ago. And I didn't notice them because I'm always focused on the action, more so in the 16:9 versions. I've become used to the new TV standard, which unfortunately is 1.78:1. If they had a TV that could change sizes depending on what ratio the movie/tv show you're watching is in, I wouldn't care what ratio these old TV shows are released in. Becoming used to the new standard has made me want all my favorite TV shows in that aspect ratio and IMO if something can be opened up, without major cropping, to fit the new standard it should. Sorry if that bothers so many here.

+1
I think we should all just remain glad that Buffy has been remastered in HD

[willbfree]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

Adding space to the sides simply for the sake of trying to look more cinematic would betray the very exact mise-en-scene I was trying to create ~ Joss Whedon (speaking about this very issue).

So apparently Joss Whedon knows what the term "cinematic" means, and it means widescreen - because movies haven't been in square-o-vision since the early 20th century.

But please, let's drop the stupid widescreen vs 4:3 debate, please - no one cares, and no one's preferences are going to be changed by the debate.

The show needs a visual upgrade, and we're getting it - in one shape or another.

[EddieLarkin]

Joss Whedon's quote isn't at odds with your own sentence. He isn't saying the 4:3 version IS cinematic, he's saying that trying to make it cinematic would ruin the look of the show.

[simonynwa]

Originally Posted by Drewbee87

I didn't even realize there were mistakes like the reflections in Angel(even in the Widescreen versions) until I looked up "Angel Mistakes" a few years ago. And I didn't notice them because I'm always focused on the action, more so in the 16:9 versions. I've become used to the new TV standard, which unfortunately is 1.78:1. If they had a TV that could change sizes depending on what ratio the movie/tv show you're watching is in, I wouldn't care what ratio these old TV shows are released in. Becoming used to the new standard has made me want all my favorite TV shows in that aspect ratio and IMO if something can be opened up, without major cropping, to fit the new standard it should. Sorry if that bothers so many here.

Does this mean you would like films like Terminator 2 and Titanic opened up to fill your 16:9 frame at the top and bottom. It is possible since there is image above and below the frame shown.

1.78:1 is a standard because it's a fair compromise in the middle of 1.33:1 and 2.35:1. Some films/shows are filmed in other ARs. I don't think its unfortunate that it is the format of most TVs, I think it is a good middle ground to allow filmmakers the opportunity to have their compositions correctly shown no matter TV or cinema.

And some shows are also taking advantage by producing TV shows in the even wider 2:35:1 format. All episodes of Star Wars : The Clone Wars and two UK shows I have recently watched, Utopia and In The Flesh were all filmed with an even wider AR of 2:35:1 despite being TV productions not films. So if this eventually becomes the de facto standard of future productions are we going to crop older shows even further ? Clearly it won't be since filmmakers see the different aspect ratios as a specific choice to fit the needs of the story/production they are involved in. Spielberg sometimes chooses 2.35:1 or 1:85:1, Whedon sometimes chooses 1.85:1 or in Buffy's cases 1.33:1. In fact I think there is one episode intended for the wider AR - Once More With Feeling - though I could be wrong.

[simonynwa]

Originally Posted by willbfree

So apparently Joss Whedon knows what the term "cinematic" means, and it means widescreen - because movies haven't been in square-o-vision since the early 20th century.

Yes those stupid black and white films made before colour they were rubbish those..And how dare The Artist qualify for a Best Picture Oscar its not even cinema....Citizen Kane - what a load of crap who does Orson Welles think he is making that kind of crap in square-o-vision....

But please, let's drop the stupid widescreen vs 4:3 debate, please - no one cares, and no one's preferences are going to be changed by the debate.

The show needs a visual upgrade, and we're getting it - in one shape or another.

At least the debate is framed more accurately and some of us do care nor do we think it is stupid. Kind of the point of having a forum to discuss and debate it. I also like to think some people if they hear accurate POV and reasoning may take the time to consider the arguments. Not everyone is sat so clearly on one side of the debate.

The show would get a visual upgrade whether or not it was 16x9 and will look just as good visually in both ARs.

Perhaps when there is a debate on a film issue you personally do care about because you aren't getting your preferred version, you may reconsider dismissing other people's concerns because in this case you are.

[Drewbee87]

I would love to see the 1.78:1 version of Titanic, even though I already love it in it's OAR. But since I don't have a 3D TV, I can't. And I'm not a fan of the Terminator films...

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by simonynwa

In fact I think there is one episode intended for the wider AR - Once More With Feeling - though I could be wrong.

Correct. Even the opening title doesn't work in 4:3.

[simonynwa]

Originally Posted by Drewbee87

I would love to see the 1.78:1 version of Titanic, even though I already love it in it's OAR. But since I don't have a 3D TV, I can't. And I'm not a fan of the Terminator films...

Clearly no hope then but congrats on your screen being filled.

[Drewbee87]

I don't have to have my screen filled for everything I watch, there are plenty of films I love in their OAR. So sorry my personal preference isn't on par with yours.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Drewbee87

If they had a TV that could change sizes depending on what ratio the movie/tv show you're watching is in, I wouldn't care what ratio these old TV shows are released in.

All you'd need is this, in OLED (so the empty "space" never emits any light) in big enough size (78" or more), to get that. At the bigger sizes, like in the Cinema, you won't notice the "shapes" changing, just filling your vision like they should . Even the Academy/TV Show ratio would be enough. great taste, more filling: