View Full Version : Angel Season 1: To buy, or not to buy?
Dxfatass
11-12-2001, 22:54
OK I'm having problems deciding which way to go on this one.
First thing, I LOVE Angel Season 1. I know a lot of you don't, and I agree it wasn't on Buffy level during Season 1 but I still enjoy Angel.
So the only problem I have is down to the aspect ratio. Ignoring the fact that I don't actually have a widescreen TV (yet), should I surcome to temptation and buy the damn set (or at least put it on my Xmas list :D ).
I was fairly active on the "Get Angel in widescreen" campaign, and told myself not to bother getting it, but its easier said then done.
Con: They've gone and released it in pan and scam.
Pro: Its uncut, got decent special features, and can help me bridge the gap between watching Buffy Season 3 DVD and Sky showing Season 6, and I really like the show!!!
No DLT in widescreen has been created. R4 and R2 are already released without it. Fox plan to release Buffy 4+ and Angel 2+ in widescreen, so presumably they don't hate widescreen.
R1 is still to come in a few years (anybody know exactly how many years?) Might get additional features (like Buffy 1 will have), and by this point in the future a widescreen DLT could magically appear.
BUT Americans don't like widescreen, so that begs the question of whether Fox would bother mastering the DVDs with a lesser popular ratio.
Decisions, decisions, decisions......
So any help? Should I or shouldn't I? Could always sell the R2 on ebay for £500 if the R1 does turn out to be better....
Originally posted by Dxfatass
BUT Americans don't like widescreen, so that begs the question of whether Fox would bother mastering the DVDs with a lesser popular ratio.
Fox US have said that where a TV show was made in widescreen for HDTV the DVD release would be widescreen.
Jimmyboy
12-12-2001, 01:44
Well im a big buffy fan and think that Angel is generally tosh with occasional strong episodes.
Series 1 is far worse than Series 2, but if you already like Angel then I guess the only concern is the possible WS release in the future.
I cant see a WS release of Angel ever happening to be honest.
If Fox were gonna put in out in WS, they would have done so now.
So go for it.
A few weeks back, when Fox held up their hands and said they would release future versions in W/S, I seem to recall some bod at Fox saying that there were no masters for a widescreen version of Angel. :(
_IF_ that is true, we'll simply never get W/S versions of season 1 - ever. However, I've been waiting to hear some word from Joss Whedon directly. I'll trust whatever he says.
If he tells the fans that there ARE W/S masters out there, then Fox will just have to wait for my money until they can be ar*ed to do the proper version...
I'm going to buy Buffy S4 and Angel S2 in W/S though, and I'll just leave some space on the shelf until there is final confirmation one way or the other. Heck, for the 4:3 versions just record it off the TV while you wait...
Ross.
MikeToone
12-12-2001, 06:35
Personally I loved the first season and have bought the R4 version (£56.00 cannot quibble).
IF a W/S version is eventually released, I'll just e-bay the version I have and get the new version.
For those bemoaning the lack of widescreen -- it was framed principally with 4:3 in mind. 16:9 was an afterthought, future-proofing in preperation for HDTV. The 40% picture lost is almost certain to be redundent space -- as evidenced with season 4 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Okay, I like widescreen; having it framed at 16:9 benefited the show quite a bit with regards to a more spacious and cinematic feel to shots, and I certainly wouldn't pay for a full-frame release of that (which Fox have already confirmed won't be happening) as perfectly good widescreen master is with the BBC folks.
But that said, I'm not fixated with getting everything in widescreen that I possibly can if it's "loss" isn't a serious detriment to the media. Earlier Buffy seasons aren't in widescreen (along with all TV made before the mid-to-late 1990s); they're perfectly good framed at 4:3. It's a welcome addition as I like the ratio, but if it plain well isn't available, not much you can do really. Do you discount the show because of it?
The shots in Angel aren't butchered like cinematic pan-and-scam jobs; they are almost certainly shot in widescreen with markers in the centre denoting the full-frame screen area, and appropriate space left for widescreen shots round the sides. You can tell when something's been panned and scanned -- absolutely nothing I've seen in Angel's first season seems to indicate this; it looks absolutely fine in 4:3.
Yes widescreen would be nice, but all indications show the masters simply weren't there; nothing shows this to be "short changing" anyone. "Best available product should be put on DVD": definately -- every indication shows it has been. And Fox have already stated future seasons will be 16:9, so that "battle's" won already ...
... basically, get over it would be my advice -- this has definitely become a case of widescreen for the sheer sake of it. Even for us DVD loving types, this is getting obsessive!
RBT - it's true that there are CURRENTLY no widescreen masters of S1. Then again, there weren't any for S2, so they must be preparing them especially for the DVD release.
US audiences have now got a taste for Angel in widescreen, with S3 of the show being broadcast in this format. Given Fox US' announcement that it would release TV material in widescreen where available, I don't think it's impossible they might produce a new 16x9 version of S1 for the American market.
Also, in his online chat Peter Staddon was asked about the possiblity of Angel's release onto R1 DVD. He pointed out the usual problem about pre-empting syndication, but said he might have some good news on that shortly. A bit cryptic, but it might suggest that Fox are preparing to release TV material onto DVD in the US before it enters syndication.
I'm prepared to skip Angel R2 S1 just now and wait to see what develops. After all, it's always going to be available.
Desk
Here's an interesting excerpt from Peter Staddon's July 31st chat...
[JeffKleist] What can you tell us about the current status of the long-delayed Buffy sets? Will there be more extras than the UK discs? Will the scratching problem with Season 2 be fixed? Will we get an accelerated release to catch us up with the rest of the world? Finally, what's the scoop on Angel's US release, and will it be 4:3 or 16:9?
[PeterStaddon] Wow, lets start with Buffy. It will be the same as the region 2 release. I am not aware of the season 2 problem but will look into it now. If it is a problem we will fix it. As far as the other series we are suffering from eseries going to syndication before we can release them. But I hope to have some good news for you soon.
Desk
jonathan.e
12-12-2001, 11:01
Fox were too cheap to spring for a W/S master for series one and it’s only the long and loud protesting by fans that got series two confirmed for W/S. Perhaps the folks condemning others for holding out for 16x9 would also be happy owning any of James Cameron’s later movies in full frame. These were shot on Super35 and were composed for both widescreen and in anticipation of full frame broadcasts and home video releases.
It’s important to realise that this is a "money" issue. Masters were already done for TV so it was cheaper to use those. Artistically and aesthetically a widescreen image is preferable - surely I don’t have to preach to the converted here? Fox could have, and should have gone back to the original negative and created new 16x9 enhanced transfers, just as they are doing with series 2. If it’s important enough for that and for future proof HDTV broadcasts, then it’s important enough for these series 1 DVDs.
Fox UK will not be getting my hard earned for this. Hopefully Fox US will do the right thing - I can wait.
SqueakyG
13-12-2001, 00:02
I don't really mind that this DVD set is in full-screen. No TV station in the world ever showed the widescreen version... it's not like you're LOSING anything. And the season was filmed with both aspect ratios in mind, but with priority on the 4:3 framing... all you'd get in a widescreen version are extra bits of an actor's shoulder, or background space, at the far sides of the screen.
Yes, it's a ****** that Fox have done this. The widescreen master SHOULD have been found, kept, and used. It's pretty poor to have done this.
But the fact remains... full-screen season 1 is normal and fine. It doesn't get "panned and scanned", since there is no panning... just the absence of extraneous visual information at each side of the screen. The full-screen version is the only version anybody has ever seen on television and video. The season was filmed with the 4:3 framing taking priority over the 16:9 framing.
If you love the season, I don't think there's anything wrong with owning the full-screen version.
I'm not buying it personally, due to being broke and in debt, and thinking season 1 is *slightly* not quite worth owning.
Jimmyboy
13-12-2001, 01:02
Exactly,
People need to get away from the idea that Angel series 1 is in WS, it isnt and was never meant to be.
The fact that Angel was shot with the extra width doesnt matter because it was always the directors intention to crop the image back to 4:3.
Having said that, I seem to remember some differculties during the start of Angel where things had to be put on hold. Maybe they started out with the idea of using WS & then went back to 4:3 because of cost issue's ?.
Wierd but true: I was watching one of the documentaries (I think it was the 'I'm Cordelia' one) and one of the scenes shown (a conversation between Angel & Cordelia at the office) was in 16:9. Haven't checked to see if this is actually the 4:3 image having been cropped (can't see why it would be) or if it is actualy a wider angle.
But doesn't that mean that Fox are lying about not having a 16:9 master?
I can understand the attempts to convince yourselves that there's no great loss - I'd love to have Angel on DVD too.
However, the simple fact is that the series' co-executive producer Tim Minear has stated that Angel has always been filmed in 16x9 anamorphic widescreen anticipating the arrival of HDTV and DVD.
To release it in any other format on DVD is a nonsense.
I'm quite happy to wait for the US S1 release - how many times am I liable to watch the series on DVD before then? I'd feel like a right mug if I got the UK version, only to see the US one come out in widescreen a little bit down the line, but will derive a great amount of satisfaction if my patience pays off.
Desk
jonathan.e
13-12-2001, 11:12
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
The fact that Angel was shot with the extra width doesnt matter because it was always the directors intention to crop the image back to 4:3.
Not true. The decision to crop to 4:3 is purely because the vast majority of TV sets in North America are 4:3 and is a decision made by the TV networks and by Fox, not the director(s). That this flawed thinking has followed through to the European release speaks volumes about Fox’s marketing strategy for different regions. Let’s bear in mind that they were pretty much the last major company to embrace anamorphic transfers, yet another tardy decision that cost them sales. All this business with Angel is just a continuance of that same short term thinking. By recycling previously commissioned transfers they think they’re saving money but what they don’t seem to realise is that this is at the expense of sales to the more discerning punter. For a glimpse of what I believe we can expect with Angel witness the already scheduled Apes re-releases for 2003 in anamorphic widescreen designed to sell the same movies all over again and render the previous non-anamorphic versions obsolete.
Widescreen TVs have yet to take off in quite the same way in the US as they have done in Europe. Clearly a wider image better mimics the way we see and is more satisfying visually and aesthetically. JimmyBoy, your post seems to imply you would be perfectly fine with the second series in full frame - perhaps you intend to boycott Fox’s release of this as it has now been made clear it is in widescreen?
SqueakyG, based on your post, presuambly you would be happy to have full frame versions of T2, True Lies and Titanic? These were shot on Super35 with "TV Safe" areas. I can’t help but be amused by the description of what you’re losing by having Angel in full frame. These sound like exactly the kinds of justifications for pan & scan that I’ve been hearing and reading throughout the 80s and 90s.
If widescreen material is available then this is what should always be used. Anyways - just how crap is the first season going to look when the second comes out in anamorphic widescreen? Can you seriously tell me that’s not going to bother you?
Finally to reiterate - this is a business decision by Fox to save them money by not going back to the original uncropped negative and striking a new widescreen transfer. Until such a time as they enter the 21st Century and decide to do just that, I’m afraid that I and others will just have to do without Angel series 1.
I will not be buying this because it is simply too expensive.
I'd be curious to know whther the people who are holding out would be able to resist it if it were to be mispriced xomwhere at around £35-£40?
Jimmyboy
13-12-2001, 14:52
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jonathan.e
Not true. The decision to crop to 4:3 is purely because the vast majority of TV sets in North America are 4:3 and is a decision made by the TV networks and by Fox, not the director(s).
Not true.
Most TV shows made within the last 3 years are in some form of WS ratio.
Surely all series of Buffy & Angel would be in 4:3 if what you claim is true.
For a glimpse of what I believe we can expect with Angel witness the already scheduled Apes re-releases for 2003 in anamorphic widescreen designed to sell the same movies all over again and render the previous non-anamorphic versions obsolete.
But re-issues of SE's have nothing to do with the release of Angel or the ratio decision.
There is no way that Fox will re-release Angel in WS.
A re-release wont make a profit (the 1st series of Angel aint gonna sell that well when compared to mainstream release's as it is).
Widescreen TVs have yet to take off in quite the same way in the US as they have done in Europe. Clearly a wider image better mimics the way we see and is more satisfying visually and aesthetically.
Why is a Widescreen image better ?.
Its just another aspect ratio, its not better or worse than 4:3, which is why Americans tend to stick with large 4:3 sets.
The idea that Widescreen is always better is a myth started by the commet salesman to sell (usually) a more expensive TV set.
JimmyBoy, your post seems to imply you would be perfectly fine with the second series in full frame - perhaps you intend to boycott Fox’s release of this as it has now been made clear it is in widescreen?
Where do you get this idea from ?.
SqueakyG, based on your post, presuambly you would be happy to have full frame versions of T2, True Lies and Titanic?
I'd guess he wouldnt be at all happy with that, but you've misread his point, mine too it seems.
These were shot on Super35 with "TV Safe" areas.
Yes for when there shown on tv for free, but thats still not the intended aspect ratio of the movie so your point is meaningless.
I can’t help but be amused by the description of what you’re losing by having Angel in full frame.
Nothing I'd guess considering it was always intended to be shown in 4:3 anyway.
These sound like exactly the kinds of justifications for pan & scan that I’ve been hearing and reading throughout the 80s and 90s.
:nuts:
If widescreen material is available then this is what should always be used.
Not if the material was never intended to be seen in WS.
Anyways - just how crap is the first season going to look when the second comes out in anamorphic widescreen?
No different than the first 2 seasons of Buffy.
Can you seriously tell me that’s not going to bother you?
Yes.
Until such a time as they enter the 21st Century and decide to do just that, I’m afraid that I and others will just have to do without Angel series 1. [/b]
So your never gonna buy Angel series 1 on DVD then ?.
Gosh,
I suppose there are really three issues here:-
1. if you want if enough you will buy it.
2. it isn't pan and scam (sic) per se but a cropped image
3. am I right in saying we have never seen the widescreen image anyway? Sky presumably broadcast the 4:3 version so in fact we are getting a true reproduction of the TV series as seen. (Now I disagree with this myself, if it was done in w/s I would want it in that but it is a point nevertheless). Also I wonder what would be "outside" the image. If the intention was always that it would be broadcast in 4:3 it may be that the scene setup was such that only scenery would be outside the main shot anyway. (Again I would have liked to have seen this).
Jimmyboy
13-12-2001, 15:05
Originally posted by CLH
Also I wonder what would be "outside" the image. If the intention was always that it would be broadcast in 4:3 it may be that the scene setup was such that only scenery would be outside the main shot anyway. (Again I would have liked to have seen this).
Yep your right.
Joss has stated on a number of occasions that the extra WS width contains shots of mics, cables & other crap.
He decided to shoot in WS then crop to 4:3 so that he wouldnt have to worry about things appearing on the screen which shouldnt be there, such as mics cables & other crap.
Maybe one day Fox will release the WS transfers and then you can play spot the overhead mic. :nuts: :D
I always thought the point of buying a film/Series was because you liked it not the way its shown on the screen.
jonathan.e
13-12-2001, 15:44
Desk:
However, the simple fact is that the series' co-executive producer Tim Minear has stated that Angel has always been filmed in 16x9 anamorphic widescreen anticipating the arrival of HDTV and DVD.
The show has been shot from the outset in a wider ratio than has been shown on TV. JimmyBoy, you seem totally oblivious to the fact that pressure brought to bear on Fox has resulted in a promise to release the second season in W/S and yet you seem quite content that the first will not be, despite it also being filmed 16x9. To release anything but 16x9 is an unacceptable compromise or do you disagree with the exec producer?
Just because we’ve had to tolerate a 4:3 TV broadcast does not mean that we have to accept a 4:3 DVD. The show was obviously deemed important enough to film in 16x9 and that is what I want and nothing else.
Joss has stated on a number of occasions that the extra WS width contains shots of mics, cables & other crap. He decided to shoot in WS then crop to 4:3 so that he wouldnt have to worry about things appearing on the screen which shouldnt be there, such as mics cables & other crap.
Point me toward where he said this because I don’t believe it. Composing in 16x9 for future HiDef broadcasts does not equate to simply unmasking the frame and exposing booms and extraneous studio equipment. These people are all skilled craftsmen and the extra picture info does not consist of some gaffer or BestBoy wiring the rigging.
Why is a Widescreen image better ?.
Widescreen is better and preferable (where available) because it more closely equates to how our vision works. Why do you think widescreen was invented in the first place? It’s so that the picture area occupies as much of our field of vision as possible immersing the viewer more totally in the filmed experience.
Most TV shows made within the last 3 years are in some form of WS ratio. Surely all series of Buffy & Angel would be in 4:3 if what you claim is true.
As has been pointed out endlessly before (and illustrated in Desk’s quote) filming shows in widescreen future proofs them for the eventual takeover by 16x9 HiDef TVs and also for home video release on DVD. Presumably when you settle down to watch Angel in 2010 on your widescreen set you’ll be masking off the left and right of the picture so you can view it in 4:3 "just as the director (sic) intended".
But re-issues of SE's have nothing to do with the release of Angel or the ratio decision. There is no way that Fox will re-release Angel in WS. A re-release wont make a profit (the 1st series of Angel aint gonna sell that well when compared to mainstream release's as it is).
Now you’re missing my point. I was comparing the Angel situation to that of Apes in that Fox chose to use existing transfers rather than going back and doing the sensible (and asked for) thing and retransferring in 16x9. Please also enlighten us as to source of your inside knowledge of potential sales of this and other DVD releases. Angel is a very popular show and will sell regardless but would sell even better if offering something people have not seen already, ie a widescreen image.
The 2nd series was always intended for WS (which kinda screws up your argument that TV networks choose 4:3 over WS).
Angel was filmed in 16x9 from the very first show of the first season and to my knowledge no TV channel showed series one in W/S.
Yes for when there shown on tv for free, but thats still not the intended aspect ratio of the movie so your point is meaningless.
Once again you miss the point. Networks *******ize and bowlderise movies every day by cropping and pan & scan, all that the TV safe areas do is allow a little more control on the part of the programme makers as to how it will be shown on lowest common demoniator TV. Filmmakers and studios took this decision in order to avoid the dogs dinner that TV stations made of widescreen movies. Angel is exactly the same - widescreen is the preferred ratio and one day (can’t come soon enough) will be the only way it can be viewed. All they have done by composing for 4:3 is to prevent a hack and slash job perpetrated by idiotic TV companies pandering to morons who don’t like black bars top and bottom of their screen.
Not if the material was never intended to be seen in WS.
So let us know why it was filmed in widescreen then?
No different than the first 2 seasons of Buffy.
Not filmed in widescreen.
So your never gonna buy Angel series 1 on DVD then ?.
Widescreen or nothing.
:brickwall
Oh, and this just posted about Angel S1 UK DVDs by Christian Prieschl on the uk.media.dvd newsgroup...
"
yup, you've guessed it. FOX did it once again, they've chopped off the
episode recaps from the beginning of the episodes. As with Buffy
Season 2 this isn't noticable on all episodes, but some have the score
chopped off in the beginning very badly. I guess chopping off the
sides of the picture wasn't enough. I should have followed my first
impulse and not buy the set because of the whole P&S thing. That's
what you get for throwing your principles overboard, I guess.
"
Desk
Jimmyboy
13-12-2001, 19:23
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jonathan.e
The show has been shot from the outset in a wider ratio than has been shown on TV.
Irrelevant as it was always intended to be see in 4:3.
JimmyBoy, you seem totally oblivious to the fact that pressure brought to bear on Fox has resulted in a promise to release the second season in W/S and yet you seem quite content that the first will not be, despite it also being filmed 16x9.
When you say pressure brought to bear on Fox, I assume you mean the petition signed by a few thousand people ?.
A drop in the ocean to Fox. Fox made the decision to release series 2 in WS, this pressure you speak of would have very little to do with their final decision one way or the other.
Point me toward where he said this because I don’t believe it. Composing in 16x9 for future HiDef broadcasts does not equate to simply unmasking the frame and exposing booms and extraneous studio equipment.
Joss's comments on cropping the WS image was made very public, somebody else on this thread mentioned it before me so I can hardly be accused of making it up.
Off the top of my head, I can think of Dreamwatch magazine & an article for TWW where he stated this.
These people are all skilled craftsmen and the extra picture info does not consist of some gaffer or BestBoy wiring the rigging.
Well if you paid attention to the fiasco last year where the buffy stunt expert spoke of how lack things were on set, the constant bitching between a certain star of the show who now seems to own just as much of a stake in it (no pun intended) as the shirt & tie guys, you'd probably change your mind about how skilled some of these people are.
Widescreen is better and preferable (where available) because it more closely equates to how our vision works. Why do you think widescreen was invented in the first place?.
Very good but you miss my point.
Which is, why is Widescreen better ?.
It isnt better, its just one of many aspect ratios.
As has been pointed out endlessly before (and illustrated in Desk’s quote) filming shows in widescreen future proofs them for the eventual takeover by 16x9 HiDef TVs and also for home video release on DVD.
Yes, thats why I said -
Most TV shows made within the last 3 years are in some form of WS ratio.
Presumably when you settle down to watch Angel in 2010 on your widescreen set you’ll be masking off the left and right of the picture so you can view it in 4:3 "just as the director (sic) intended".
Is that what you plan to do to the top and bottom of the picture when watching 2.35:1 films ?.
Angel is a very popular show and will sell regardless but would sell even better if offering something people have not seen already, ie a widescreen image.
Yeah because people will rush out and spend £75 again on another boxset. :rolleyes:
Once again you miss the point. Networks *******ize and bowlderise movies every day by cropping and pan & scan,
No you miss the point.
You were trying to suggest that a cropped 2.35:1 picture to suit the TV set, was somehow the same as a cropped TV show even though it was always intended to be cropped.
So let us know why it was filmed in widescreen then?
Joss himself has answered that for you.
Not filmed in widescreen.
and was never meant to be seen in WS.
and either way im confused as to how it makes your collection look stupid.
Widescreen or nothing.
Nothing then.
There's always VHS on the cheap ?.
Davester
13-12-2001, 20:37
I'm quite tempted! Still should I buy that or save for DUE SOUTH!?!?!
jonathan.e
13-12-2001, 21:13
Irrelevant as it was always intended to be see in 4:3.
Irrelevant to full frame fans such as yourself, but not the rest of us.
When you say pressure brought to bear on Fox, I assume you mean the petition signed by a few thousand people ?. A drop in the ocean to Fox. Fox made the decision to release series 2 in WS, this pressure you speak of would have very little to do with their final decision one way or the other.
Absolute nonsense. That’s a significant amount of people and coupled with the phone calls, web coverage and physical mail they received you can be damn sure they took notice precisely because of this feedback. But let‘s go with your explanation for series two in widescreen where series one is not. Oh, that’s right - you don’t have any reason why they should choose to do this, especially if the God-like Joss disapproves.
Which is, why is Widescreen better ?.
It isnt better, its just one of many aspect ratios.
I just explained why it’s better and it isn’t "one of many aspect ratios". You either have "Widescreen" or "Academy/Full frame". Within the umbrella term of "widescreen' there are differing ratios of wideness.
Is that what you plan to do to the top and bottom of the picture when watching 2.35:1 films ?.
If you mean super35 movies filmed with a TV safe area, then I wouldn’t be watching them anyway. I would always choose the widescreen option. If you were trying to say something else then you’ll have to make yourself a little clearer.
Yeah because people will rush out and spend £75 again on another boxset.
What planet do you live on. Have you ever met a Trekkie/trekker? Ask them how many times they’ve bought that show: VHS, Laser, remastered VHS, Box sets, DVD etc, ad infinitum. Reality check: sci fi and cult cinema/TV fans are well known for re-purchasing the same material over and over if a few extra bells and whistles are added so you can bet your bottom dollar that when this series is released in widescreen a good proportion of the revenue will come from people upgrading. And the rest from people who had the good sense to wait and are laughing their asses off at those shortsighted enough not to.
You were trying to suggest that a cropped 2.35:1 picture to suit the TV set, was somehow the same as a cropped TV show even though it was always intended to be cropped.
No, No, NO. It was not always intended to be cropped. It’s only because the takeup of widescreen sets in the US is slow (due to the high cost) that we have the situation where programming shot in a wide ratio is cropped to fit a stupid square box. That’s it - that’s the only reason. There is no artisitc reason to shoot in 16x9 and crop to 4:3. If there was, then no extra picture info would be needed and they could have just saved a lot of time and expense by shooting square. It costs more money to dress and light for a wide frame so I don’t think they took the decision lightly.
Joss himself has answered that for you.
What, you mean the stuff that you posted that he said? Sorry I’m gonna need more than that and even then so what? He didn’t direct every episode so I don’t really care if he thinks the shows he shot should be cropped. If we’re subscribing to the auteur theory then I’d want to know what each individual director of each episode thought about W/S vs full frame.
and was never meant to be seen in WS.
D’uh - yes it is.
and either way im confused as to how it makes your collection look stupid.
Because all the extra picture area included with the second series, is also there for the first - it’s just that Fox won’t dig deep enough to toss out their crappy 4:3 TV masters and re-master in widescreen. Some consistency would also be nice and would also show they had a clue what the hell they were doing.
Nothing then.
Until the US (hopefully) has the good sense to do the right thing. And don’t even bother quoting me back the sales pitch from FoxUK about the US possibly using the same masters. Roughly translated that went "Please buy our full frame crap instead of waiting for the US to release it in W/S"
Already looking forward to your reply.
I bought it and i'm glad i did. Wasn't going too but seeing as it won't be in widescreen i thought what the hell. As long as buffy from now on is in widescreen and angel i don't mind. Got it for £60 from amazon.
Jimmyboy
14-12-2001, 17:00
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jonathan.e
Irrelevant to full frame fans such as yourself, but not the rest of us.
Im not a full frame fan, Im not a WS fan either.
I dont see how you can be a fan of either.
.....and try telling Kubrick that WS is always better.
Absolute nonsense. That’s a significant amount of people and coupled with the phone calls, web coverage and physical mail they received you can be damn sure they took notice precisely because of this feedback.
Dreeeeeeaam, dream dream dream.
But let‘s go with your explanation for series two in widescreen where series one is not. Oh, that’s right - you don’t have any reason why they should choose to do this, especially if the God-like Joss disapproves.
God-like Joss ?, are we talking about the same person ?.
Angel S2 was always intended to be show in WS, series 1 wasnt, thats the difference.
I just explained why it’s better and it isn’t "one of many aspect ratios".
How can WS be better ?.
As I said before Kubrick didnt think so.
Maybe all his films should be expanded to fit a 2.35:1 ratio ?.
Within the umbrella term of "widescreen' there are differing ratios of wideness.
If your aware of this, how come you have trouble understanding my point below ?.
If you mean super35 movies filmed with a TV safe area, then I wouldn’t be watching them anyway. I would always choose the widescreen option. If you were trying to say something else then you’ll have to make yourself a little clearer.
Its pretty obvious what I was saying in my pervious thread.
What planet do you live on. Have you ever met a Trekkie/trekker? Ask them how many times they’ve bought that show: VHS, Laser, remastered VHS, Box sets, DVD etc, ad infinitum.
Yes, comparing a show like Angel to the success of Star Trek, I agree with that logic. :nuts:
Star Trek is nearly on the same level as Star Wars for vulture-like fans lapping up everything with the brand name on.
And the rest from people who had the good sense to wait and are laughing their asses off at those shortsighted enough not to.
Dreeeeeam, Dream Dream Dream.
No, No, NO. It was not always intended to be cropped. It’s only because the takeup of widescreen sets in the US is slow (due to the high cost) that we have the situation where programming shot in a wide ratio is cropped to fit a stupid square box. That’s it - that’s the only reason.
Oh, that explains why all the seasons of Buffy are being released in WS where available.
And if Americans with their 4:3 sets are so anti WS, how on earth do you think DVD survived in the first place ?.
What, you mean the stuff that you posted that he said? Sorry I’m gonna need more than that and even then so what? He didn’t direct every episode so I don’t really care if he thinks the shows he shot should be cropped.
So you would rather see the spot the mic edition then ?.
Already looking forward to your reply.
Owww, what a big man you are !.
Let me buy you a pack of gum, I'll show you how to chew it !.
jonathan.e
14-12-2001, 17:58
Dreeeeeeaam, dream dream dream.
Yep, that’s about the level of response I expected. I’ll look to avoid your posts like the plague in future.
Bloody hell. :)
Angel and other US TV shows have been filmed in widescreen in preparation for HDTV so recent shows don't look instantly dated when shown on widescreen sets (suffering from the "short fat people" syndrome we did a couple of years ago with 16:9 sets' introduction). To state it's a matter of "artistic intergrity" is somewhat incongruous when it's been empthatically stated that either aspect ratio would be suitable for Angel. (It's not a case of "spot the boom mike" like Buffy's third season was incidentally, but neither is it an intergral part of the series like, say, the widescreen vistas of Once Upon a Time in the West and Dances With Wolves.)
As I presaged, this has swiftly descended into a case of "widescreen for the sheer sake of it, dammit". I'd say the chance of a US widescreen release is remote to say the least -- it appears the widescreen masters have never even been created, and if I was Fox's product manager, I'd certainly have serious doubts about the economic viability of going back and creating masters from the original negatives offset against the likely number of DVD sales.
The 16:9 ratio does indeed match the human field of vision closer than 4:3, and I've already said I prefer this and other widescreen ratios over full-frame. But full-frame was the mainstay of television for years, and I certainly don't recall any problems watching on my old set! Unless we plan to disregard all television history prior to the late 1990s, you have to accept full-frame. And also accept that Angel was one of the very last mainstream dramas where widescreen apparently just isn't a viable option.
Jimmyboy
14-12-2001, 21:39
jonathan.e if for some bizarre reason the US release of Angel is in WS, I reconmend you pick it up from Absound.
Cheap price's & good customer service.
Just keep an eye out for customs. :clap:
Likewise with the post avoiding btw.
Jimmyboy
14-12-2001, 21:48
Originally posted by Byron
Bloody hell. :)
As I presaged, this has swiftly descended into a case of "widescreen for the sheer sake of it, dammit". I'd say the chance of a US widescreen release is remote to say the least -- it appears the widescreen masters have never even been created, and if I was Fox's product manager, I'd certainly have serious doubts about the economic viability of going back and creating masters from the original negatives offset against the likely number of DVD sales.
The 16:9 ratio does indeed match the human field of vision closer than 4:3, and I've already said I prefer this and other widescreen ratios over full-frame. But full-frame was the mainstay of television for years, and I certainly don't recall any problems watching on my old set! Unless we plan to disregard all television history prior to the late 1990s, you have to accept full-frame. And also accept that Angel was one of the very last mainstream dramas where widescreen apparently just isn't a viable option.
Bryon I agree 100% with what you've said.
Well done mate,
When you cut through all the bickering and mud throwing on this thread, it basicly boils down to as you've said here -
this has swiftly descended into a case of "widescreen for the sheer sake of it, dammit".
jonathan.e
14-12-2001, 22:44
Ignoring the white noise above it would seem I’m not the only one who believes that the correct aspect ratio is something other than full frame.
http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0162065
No mention of 4:3 there.
And just for the sake of comparison:
http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0118276
where you can clearly see the delineation between the earlier shows in full frame and the period from 1999 onward.
Jimmyboy
14-12-2001, 23:03
Originally posted by jonathan.e
Ignoring the white noise above it would seem I’m not the only one who believes that the correct aspect ratio is something other than full frame.
http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0162065
No mention of 4:3 there.
And just for the sake of comparison:
http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0118276
where you can clearly see the delineation between the earlier shows in full frame and the period from 1999 onward.
Good to see you refuse to drop the school playground mentality.
The only problem with your genious efforts to gather hard evidence is that the IMDB isnt an official source.
Information is added by internet users, So in theory you could have added that information yourself and then tried to pass it off as 100% proof, but im sure you'd never consider doing something like that.
Also, nobody has actually claimed the show wasnt filmed in WS so I fail to see your point.
jonathan.e
14-12-2001, 23:16
Easy enough to dismiss your previous posts as ill-informed but now you’re paranoid enough to insinuate I planted the information on IMDB??!! Your ridiculous, and frankly desperate, assertion speaks volumes about you.
All the info at IMDB is checked as thoroughly as possible before it’s posted up and I fail to see what they have to gain, other than making you look foolish, by listing an incorrect aspect ratio.
The point, once again for those in the cheap seats, is that the show is filmed in widescreen (1.78:1 as Buffy is) and that that is the correct ratio not full frame.
Give it up dude, you lose.
Jimmyboy
15-12-2001, 00:25
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jonathan.e
Easy enough to dismiss your previous posts as ill-informed but now you’re paranoid enough to insinuate I planted the information on IMDB??!! [b]Your ridiculous, and frankly desperate, assertion speaks volumes about you.
Oh Grow up,
Nothing I have posted so far can be past off as ill-informed & as for desperate, your the one desperatly leaching the internet to (unsuccessfully) prove a point.
All the info at IMDB is checked as thoroughly as possible before it’s posted up and I fail to see what they have to gain, other than making you look foolish, by listing an incorrect aspect ratio.
The only person looking foolish with that statement is you !.
I've lost count of the amount of wrong information on IMDB & no doubt dozens of forum members could back me up.
I guess you were ill-informed about how thoroughly the submitted information is checked at IMDB.
.....Or maybe your just frankly desperate and as a result your acting in a ridiculous fashion.
The point, once again for those in the cheap seats, is that the show is filmed in widescreen (1.78:1)
Very observent, but nobody as of yet has argued otherwise.
and that that is the correct ratio not full frame.
If a program is filmed in WS, with the intention to be cropped back to 4:3 then WS is not the correct ratio.
Give it up dude, you lose.
My dads bigger than your dad.
What a mockery this thread has become, the guy only wanted advise on whether or not to buy the angel set.
Bet he wishes he'd never asked now. :D
My advise would be, buy Angel S1 now if you like it.
Fox wont re-release it unless pigs start flying.
jonathan.e
15-12-2001, 07:55
Oh Grow up, Nothing I have posted so far can be past off as ill-informed & as for desperate, your the one desperatly leaching the internet to (unsuccessfully) prove a point.
So, insinuating I planted the information on IMDB doesn’t equate to desperation on your part? Get real. You are not only attempting to discredit my opinion but also that of an independent source just because it disagrees with yours. I prefer to think of it not as "leaching the internet", but backing up my argument with corroborating evidence and independent facts instead of spurious opinion without accurate reference to any other sources eg, your posts.
I've lost count of the amount of wrong information on IMDB & no doubt dozens of forum members could back me up.
So let’s get this straight - you’re attacking the veracity of the info at IMDB? But then you try and make out it doesn’t matter anyway:
Very observent, but nobody as of yet has argued otherwise.
Which is it? Are they wrong or are they right but you don’t care anyway?
If a program is filmed in WS, with the intention to be cropped back to 4:3 then WS is not the correct ratio.
To repeat, the only reason it is cropped back to 4:3 when broadcast is because the majority of TV sets in North America are still 4:3. The US Joe6P’s prefer the picture to fill their (square) screens so the picture is cropped for this reason and this reason alone. The only reason it is cropped back to 4:3 for the DVD is because Fox cheaped out and used existing full frame masters instead of going back to neg and mastering in widescreen. These are not good enough reasons for the more discerning amongst us therefore it is not acceptable to release the DVDs in this way when there is a widescreen version in existence.
Why don’t you try injecting some independent facts into your next post - give us some links to check out your assertion that 4:3 is the preferred ratio. I would also like to know how you justify the second season being scheduled to be released in W/S when the first is not? They didn’t change the 1.78:1 aspect ratio between season 1 & 2 so I don’t understand why it’s suddenly acceptable to you for them to abandon your beloved 4:3 for season 2 onward.
Fox wont re-release it unless pigs start flying.
And you know this for a fact, how?
Peter Staddon - 20th C Fox: when asked about full frame vs W/S
You will see a strong commitment to OAR... OAR in Angel’s case being 1.78:1 not 4:3
and in regard to X Files in W/S from season 5:
Yes, we will launch X Files in widescreen as soon as it is available (Season 5 I think as well)
All of which leaves me more than hopeful that Fox US will do the right thing and release the show in 16x9.
Edited to add: As if anyone needed another reason not to buy this: http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/index.cgi?page=News&id=2484
Just to clear up a bit of the 'stuff you might see when in widescreen' debate, I believe this may provide some clues:
From: Tim Minear (timminear@aol.com)
Subject: Re: ANOTHER Question for Tim Minear...
Newsgroups: uk.media.tv.angel
View this article only
Date: 2001-06-27 09:49:40 PST
From what I understand, we do allow for letterboxing (this for when TV goes
high def). Greenwalt and I have been having conversations with the network
about possibly running Angel in widescreen, but I don't see it happening this
season anyway. Dunno about for DVD.
Also, don't be surprised if when the frames go wider for some of our eps you
see grips and teamsters scratching themselves unappetizingly on the frame's
edge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see they obviously 'have' always filmed in widescreen, which is not open to question. However, he does talk about how 'when' they go to widescreen (subsequently season 3 in the US) you 'might' see stuff inside the frame that you are not supposed to. I think he's being somewhat sarcastic here as the post below will show....
If they've been filmed in widescreen then that's what i want to see. There might be the odd mistake inside the frame but is it any different from season 1? Watch one of the first episodes in the masters lair and you'll spot a few of the crew in the shadows! It's no different from this and i'm certainly happy to wait for these in widescreen in Region 1. Bear in mind i've bought all the Buffy DVD's 'after' buying all the VHS's, so i'm a fairly big fan of both series. I was quite happy to buy Season3 of Buffy because i was satisfied that it will never be released like that anywhere and the show was then filmed with 4:3 in mind.
----------------------------------------------------
And for those of you looking forward to watching Angel season 3 in glorious Sky One 4:3 in January!.................
From: Tim Minear (timminear@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Sky reply re: S3 in widescreen
Newsgroups: uk.media.tv.angel
View this article only
Date: 2001-11-25 19:42:05 PST
Yikes. I know that in my last ep, for example, I had characters so far on the
edges of the screen that if they don't show it letterboxed, the audience will
be asking themselves, "where're those voices coming from?"
The aspect ratio doesn't worry me: the episodes have only been broadcast in 4:3, so this seems to be the intended viewing ratio , regardless of what was actually filmed.
Picture quality on this release is pretty good.
However, I was disappointed with the continued use of such impractical packaging.
Also, I can't get my first two discs to play normally, as detailed in another thread, so I'm afraid my advice to anybody would have to be "Don't buy it."
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.