I remember watching Pulp Fiction on VHS thinking there was something missing in many of the scenes. Then I got the widescreen version on laserdisc and was absolutely blown away. My friends couldn’t believe the difference either. After that I collected movies only in their original aspect ratio, black bars be dammed.
I felt the same. I originally watched the film on VHS back in 2014, but when I saw it on DVD in 2017 or 2018, I was blown away too. I knew something was not right while I watched it on VHS.
@@DannyCosmos in America, not very at all. It was a niche since the players and the discs were expensive and you couldn’t record over them. In other parts of the world, such as Japan, they were much more popular.
@@DannyCosmosNot very. Super expensive. Though....I finally wised up to what widescreen was in 1996 and was a hair away from buying a laserdisc player when DVD was first released. Timing couldn't have been better..
The gentlemen are, of course, right. They never predicted that the aspect ratios of televisions would change though. We've come a long way! I still miss the genius of these two.
But the aspect ratios are still not the same as movie theaters. They are 16:9. Theaters are some weird thing. We can put a man on the moon but we can't get these things synced up!
@@BookClubDisaster There actually is not one standard for films. Both 1.85:1 and 2.4:1 are common ratios today, but there have been many others throughout history. VistaVision was an ultra-wide 2:1. The widest was 4:1, which required three simultaneous strips of film synchronized in three projectors. It was used for Abel Gance's epic silent film, NAPOLEAN. (I had the privilege of seeing a restored version of this nearly 4-hour film around 1980 at the Fabulous Fox Theatre in Atlanta accompanied by the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and using the three-projector process. It was an unforgettable experience.) The 16:9 ratio of modern televisions is a "video" standard that not only is intended to perfectly match most consumer video recording formats, but also accomodates a variety of film formats; not too wide for showing older 4:3 ratio TV and film, (black on the left and right sides) and not to narrow for Super 35 (black on top and bottom sides).
@@BookClubDisaster There's a LOT of different ratios out there. 16x9 was kinda decided upon as the best middle ground between them all, so that be it a movie that's in 2.35:1 scope ratio, or an old movie in Academy 1.33:1 that's pretty much the same as 4:3 for all old television shows... there's also wider ones like Ben Hur in 2.55:1, or weird ones like 1.66:1 for European flat film ratio, or 2:1 for the modern "Netflix ratio". They all fit relatively well on a 16x9 screen. It's all kinda ironic in the end... the reason that television was originally 4:3 was because this was the same as the 1.33:1 Academy ratio of movies. But then when they feared that television was cutting in on cinema's action, they made movies wider in order to offer something grander than television could offer. So movie screens got bigger in order to get wider, while the height was supposed to remain the same. But now, since movies have found their longest life on home video, we've started moving to a paradigm where the "wider" scope movies are now most commonly being fitted onto screens in which they actually get smaller in height than the 4:3 or 16x9 ratios. And not only has this become the common way to view movies on home video... but even most new movie theaters, it seems, are now using constant-width set-ups with 16x9 screens that they don't even mask for scope movies the majority of the time. We just get a big television with black bars for a movie theater screen nowadays, and scope movies aren't bigger and wider like they're supposed to be, so the scope ratio has lost its entire point. I still personally think it's the most cinematic and artistic looking ratio, but it is kinda annoying to me that it's not the grandest one anymore like it's supposed to be.
@@BookClubDisasterYou can't make a TV that's EXACTLY like a theater screen. So 1.78 ratio televisions are a compromise ratio to accommodate all movie frame ratios. If you haven't noticed, your theater changes its screen's ratio depending on the movie playing. TV can't do that. Yet..
No, it didn't. Widescreen home video releases never became common until DVDs became common in the late 1990s / early 2000s, 10+ years after this episode aired. That mostly had to do with TVs being bigger by that time, as well as many of the newer ones being widescreen, plus, DVDs were much higher resolution than VHS. Plus, both a widescreen and a fullframe version could be included on a one double-sided disc, which was common with early DVD releases.
Oh really? One Brain Tumored film critic with a no-lower jawed film critic ranting, roaring, reviewing and thumbing wherever they choose what was right for them [Yes, I noticed, in a family entertainment TV distribution (FCC prohibits 7 dirty words)]. Talking about Home Video], When these dummies ever become purists/anti-censors? [Act your age, "Eborsisk"] Pffffff.... Anamorphic, Spherical (if it's 35mm the projectionist can add mattes to mask the Top and Bottom) [depending what shots are eligible for Open Matte, for example if VFX shots fx. Jurassic Park (1993) is shown, the shot in for most films is very difficult to Open Mattes or in this case dosen't seem to be present if indeed they are present] One Tip for you guys thinking "Inchon" (1981) is an Anamorphic 35mm (2.35:1/2.39:1) Please think twice and notice how much room there is on the top and bottom to crop? [16:10, 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 (intended ratio)] before you making edits to technical specs on "IMDb" (Incorrect Movie Database)]
I've noticed that Murder She Wrote on UK TV is now cropped at the top and bottom to make it fit widescreen TVs, so the problem has begun again in a different part of the frame. Characters stand up, and the tops of their heads are out of the frame.
The crazy thing is that letterbox widescreen format was totally possible in the VHS era of the 1980s, it's just that the manufacturers were unbelievably lazy when it came to implementing that process and stuck with pan-and-scan for far longer than they should've. The first movie I ever saw get the letterbox treatment was Innerspace in its 1987 VHS release.
That’s crazy! That’s the first one I saw too. I remember my mom and I wondering if we were gonna be able to see the picture any bigger. Weird how you get so used to junk formats that the good version seems odd.
It wasn’t even laziness, letterboxing was always possible. It’s just consumers didn’t want black bars on the screen. Most back then wouldn’t understand if you try to tell them that the image is being cut off, most today still don’t. I’m glad it’s a trend that went away.
"The crazy thing is that letterbox widescreen format was totally possible in the VHS era of the 1980s, it's just that the manufacturers were unbelievably lazy when it came to implementing that process and stuck with pan-and-scan for far longer than they should've." It had nothing to do with laziness since it takes no extra effort at all, unlike pan & scan, which requires someone to manually do it during the telecine process, based on their judgment of which portions of each scene are the most important. The reason it wasn't commonly done during the VHS era is because people instinctively don't like the idea of the picture not filling the screen like TV broadcasts always had, and there hadn't yet been any campaigns to convince the public to want it. Also, VHS is already a very low resolution format, so when you letterbox a movie, especially a 2.35:1 movie, you lose about half of that already low resolution which will be watched on a small TV (27" was about as big as direct-view TVs got in the '80s). "The first movie I ever saw get the letterbox treatment was Innerspace in its 1987 VHS release." Same here, and I didn't like it. My older brother watched it at the same time and argued that it was a good thing (apparently the disclaimer at the beginning of the movie explaining what the black bars were all about made sense to him). I was only 12 at the time and had never even seen a movie in the theater before. In any case, in hindsight, it probably wasn't even a good idea for Innerspace, because that was a 1.85:1 movie shot with a spherical lens, so it didn't need pan & scan to make it 4:3, provided that whoever shot the movie in the first place had the good sense to protect for 4:3 (nearly all 1.85:1 movies were protected for 4:3, even before home video existed, because it made it easy to broadcast them on TV after their theatrical run). All they have to do is transfer it to video as "open matte," which means little or nothing gets cropped off the sides, but you see more on the top and bottom. It's a common misconception, one that is perpetuated by this Siskel & Ebert episode no less, that you _always_ lose some of the picture when transferring a widescreen movie to 4:3. In reality, sometimes you get _more_ picture with the 4:3 version, and sometimes that extra picture contains a nice bonus, for example, in the widescreen version of Terminator 3 you don't see Kristanna Loken's boobs when she arrives from the future naked, but in the 4:3 DVD version, you do. The funny thing about that misconception is that it arose as the "in the know" rebuttal to the earlier intuition-based misconception that you're always losing some of the picture with letterboxing. A general rule of thumb is: if it's a 2.35:1 movie, a 4:3 version will have the sides cut off, usually with a pan & scan treatment on top of that. In that case, the 4:3 version has lost picture content. If it's a 1.85:1 movie, a 4:3 version will be open matte. In that case, the 4:3 version has gained picture content, though it doesn't have the same framing that the director originally intended. There are exceptions to both cases of course.
Stanley Kubrick dealt with the problem by filming each movie in a double format: a widescreen version for the cinemas, and a home video version that extended the picture upward and downward instead of cutting off the left and the right!
I remember the big debates between full screen and widescreen versions for VHS. A lot of people could not get pass the black bars on the widescreen versions. As a kid, I was one of those people because it always felt like the full vertical height of the screen wasn't being used, and the concept of losing the shot's original framing in full screen escaped me. In my teenage years, after spending so long watching movies like Jaws, Ghostbusters, and Raiders of the Lost Ark in full screen format, I watched the widescreen versions and was amazed at how much I had been missing. Also, I find it cool that Ebert listed three businesses that did Netflix before Netflix.
I used to watch Siskel & Ebert all the time. I remember when they talked about when DVD's were coming out and they had to replace their Laserdisc with DVDs.
These two are turning over in their graves that physical media is being ousted and there’s hardly any meaning to a night at the movies anymore. I didn’t start watching them until a couple of years ago before I moved to Chicago, but my God how fun it must’ve been to tune into their show and have these two argue over what was playing in theatres and was and wasn’t worth seeing. I love the gene Siskel film center!
@@ThePreciseClimberIf they're still selling records...it will last. It may become a niche thing but there will always be collectors. We're actually in a home video golden age of sorts believe it or not. More obscure movies are available in spectacular quality and easily acquirable if you're willing to seek them out than ever before. They sell out like crazy. Have faith. It'll all be around a while. They can ditch DVD as far as I'm concerned but I think and hope blu-ray and 4K have a lot of life yet..
I actually don't think that's entirely the case. Many video releases now seem to have the same or opposite problems. Tv shows that were originally intended to be seen in a square aspect ratio are now being cropped for widescreen streaming and releases. And some of these older shows and movies also suffer from poor restoration due to digital noise removal. Studio's don't seem to learn their lesson.
I watched this episode when it first aired- funny enough that same day I had rented "Can't Buy Me Love" on VHS and noted that it didn't look as terrible cropped for video as most of the pan and scan examples here. They should have explained that some movies were shot wider than others, and not all of them lost nearly half the picture. I eventually figured that out just by how bad the pan and scan was on some movies but not others, then when we finally got a good theater in town (which I ended up working at for several years) I saw that the screens were masked on the sides for 1.85 movies then the entire screen was revealed when showing 2.35.
"According to a recent survey, nearly twice as many people say they would rather see the same first-run movie at home rather than in a theatre even if the price were the same"
@@missioncodez Home video definitely seemed to come out at the right time in the '80s when there were a lot of older movies that people were still interested in seeing. It seemed like up through about 1975 movies were considered pretty disposable viewing and products that became dated pretty quickly. The few movies like Disney animation that retained a steady demand for decades could be handled with theatrical rereleases. But after 1975 movies became big brand names, "classics," "must-sees" and so forth. Meaning we really needed VHS and the increase in cable channels to give us more chances to see an ever-increasing back catalog of movies. I also think the output of movies being released went up in the '80s as studios were hoping to cash in on a blockbuster by throwing a lot of darts at the board. That made it harder for people to see everything they wanted to in theaters in time, letting home viewing extend the life of the movie for them. So even though some people back then may have waited for a movie they wanted to see to hit home video, I don't think it hurt the theatrical business because there were so many releases out there. A lot of the people watching VHS tapes probably wouldn't have gone out to many movies before VHS existed anyway, either because they didn't like to go out or there just weren't that many movies that interested them. I don't think things have changed that much, other than COVID shutting down theaters here, and totally unnecessarily judging by how China has absolutely mandated that their theaters stay open. TVs at home may have gotten better but movie theaters are better quality too. Business still seems highly dependent on whether the actual content of the movie interests people. The Downton Abbey movie made $100 million domestic and the same amount foreign in 2019. Obviously Avengers Endgame was a record-breaking blockbuster. It does not look to me like audiences are disinterested in the theatrical experience.
There's lots of films I'm so glad I saw at the cinema first with the great sound and huge screen. On the other hand watching at home you have more control and less distractions or risk of people around you behaving badly.
YEARS ago i bought a cheap foreign DVD of "The Hidden Fortress" and i always remember that exact scene they just showed as an example with the two guys walking and arguing. right here he said "they caught us then they forced us to burry the dead". the version i had they said "we were digging corpses all day" i didnt know what the hell they were talking about LOL, it had a lot of bad translation in it but for some reason thats the line that always stuck in my head. here in Oklahoma City we had a mom and pop VHS store named Kaleidoscope, it was the coolest Video store i have ever seen. it was just full of weird obscure movies going back to the beginning of VHS tapes, they never got rid of anything it even still had a small Beta section and this was all the way up until they went out of business in the late 90s. i went a bought a BUNCH of weird films i loved and had never seen a single other copy of when they were going out of business and selling them all. some of it i still think has never been on DVD or they are on hard to find quickly out of print DVD's that are really expensive second hand. or have just never had a even remotely decent done DVD transfer.
Stanley Kubrick composed his shots so they would work in both wide format and 4:3 (full 35mm frame). They could be shown on TV without cropping or pan-and-scan. The only exceptions were Spartacus and 2001.
Kubrick may have been the director of Spartacus, but it was hardly a "Kubrick film." It was very much a "director for hire" type gig with tons of studio control, but its success allowed him to go on and do a bunch of personal projects that he was passionate about.
I'm so incredibly happy that those days are long gone and that panning and scanning and open matting are now relics of the past. Back in the late 90's just after the launch of DVD I was neck deep in the fight for original aspect ratios to be presented, forums like The Home Theater Forum was populated with enthusiasts who actually had connections to studios who could directly influence them. One major instance of this is when Warner Bros was preparing their release of 'The Goonie's' on DVD, they were originally going to release it in pan and scan because, in their words, "it's just a kids movie". HTF stepped in and spread the word about this, flooding Warner Bros with angry letters and, more importantly, legitimate reasons why it was important to respect that films OAR, we got them to reverse that decision and we got 'The Goonie's' in it's correct 2.35:1 Panavision aspect ratio.
Watching a 1080p or higher resolution on a 6" screen that's at most a foot or two away from your face is basically the same as sitting in the back row of a movie theater.
My first widescreen home video release experience was Innerspace and in the early 90's I bought a laserdisc player and i bought nothing but widescreen films. I bought a 31 inch tv which was considered big and i only did that for laserdisc widescreen films only and it was amazing during that time
The most shocking part, for me, was when they mentioned that E.T. (which came out in 1982) hadn't been released on home video yet. I can't imagine waiting 6 years until I could watch a movie at home!
I remember watching Raiders of the Lost Ark for the first time in widescreen, after years of watching it in pan and scan. There were so many things missing that finally made sense and were better in the widescreen version that I vowed never to watch another movie in fullscreen again.
They're so right about this stuff...it was probably 8-10 years later before I was old enough to even notice letterboxing, was annoyed the first time I saw it for the first time for the reasons they gave, but within a couple of movies was so sold on how better the movies were that I would never go back. (And for at least the last 10 years, I've been hooked on subtitles, even for English-language movies that I can hear.)
I often wonder if Wes Anderson was influenced by watching "pan and scan" movies... he loves the "whip pan" where a character will suddenly be talking to a character off screen and when the second character responds, he will whip the camera over and it usually has a humorous effect because the second person will be doing something startling
Maybe that is what I was remembering in my comments above... it was certainly Siskel and Ebert that educated me on the subject -- I think they used the original Star Wars as one of their primary examples of the difference
@@bucksdiaryfan The little five minute video they used to play on TCM didn't have Siskel & Ebert in it. It had Sidney Pollack & Martin Scorsese & Curtis Hanson in it. I remember they used film clips from Ben Hur & Gigi & Seven Brides for Seven Brothers to show the difference between pan & scan & letterbox.
@@lynnturman8157 That's why I was telling you about it and now you'll get the complete widescreen edition on all your favorite movies on TCM such as The Color Purple. Same thing goes for television, too.
@@lynnturman8157 lol and now Tom Cruise yells about how to set your smart tv 📺 so it’s not ultra realistic (for sports), which makes movies look like crap
Never understood the decision to go pan and scan when they could’ve just gone letterbox on these old rentals. I guess at the time Home Screen sizes were a consideration.
People were buying projection screen TVs, which is what they used for movie nights on campus in ~1990, but the movies were still cropped! There was a proper auditorium for film projector movies one night a week. I'm thinking it took the switch to digital TV broadcasts in widescreen and people buying wide-screen TVs to make the change.
"The following film has been modified from its original version. It has been formatted to fit your screen." - The always present message before movies on VHS back in the day. Growing up I never knew what it meant. Once I learned, I always looked for widescreen versions of movies.
If I'm not mistaken, Philo T. Farnsworth himself came out with a widescreen format TV that people found interesting but was not taken seriously. Who came up with 4:3 and why didn't they all start out at 16:9?
That was how I could see rare movies. Sometimes they'd have to send it from across the country though, which took longer. Netflix digital streaming has a lot fewer movie choices.
I'm interested to find out what year S&E got into laserdisc. Looks like they were promoting them in the late 80s but the technology had been available since the 70s
My worst experience with Pan & Scan VHS was with one of Blake Edrwards' Pink Panther movies (the one from 1975), zoomed in from 2.35 to 4:3, with excessive panning and scanning. I really got sea-sick.
13:14 That's how anime subtitles used to be on VHS. With DVD having better picture quality, this practice started dying out, but I believe yellow subs were still used until HD Widescreen anime started showing up and became the standard, at which point, white subs became the norm ever since.
They were pushing for widescreen/ letterbox for several years, but I think Laserdisc didn't take off, nor did letterbox VHS. What changed is that people bought widescreen TVs, I think. Also, the change to digital broadcast occurred at the same time, I think. I also remember going to college and seeing projection TV's but they had the same aspect ratio as regular TVs so weren't that much better for movies, although perhaps letterbox VHS tapes looked better.
Disney still has not released the proper, I cropped version of a good deal of their animated films such as The Sword in the Stone or Aristocats. They still have the top and bottom chopped off, along with an ugly smoothing filter on top of it. Though for the most part, companies like Criterion and BFI release marvelous HD and UHD versions of many great films so you can always have a fantastic version to watch at home. It doesn’t match watching in a theater, let alone on film but still a great experience.
still have never truly seen the original star wars trilogy since i had the fullscreen vhs boxset as a kid and the only versions available on dvd or streaming are the "special" editions. one these days i'll break down and get the laserdisc (and a player)
I have the original theatrical trilogy. Someone took the Laserdisc and digitally cleaned it up. It's not quite DVD quality but it's far far better than VHS. They're out there if you look hard enough.
Boy, if they were only able to see where we are at now! They’d probably be bummed because of the slow death movie theaters are experiencing. But it dosen’t take much nowadays to make your home movie experience far better than the theatre.
There is a great symbolic moment early in Lawrence of Arabia in which Peter O'Toole holds a lit match in front of his face and blows it out. In pan and scan you either see his face or the match, but not both. Letterbox, you see the entire image.
Funny how nowadays broadcasters are guilty of the opposite: taking 4:3 footage and cropping it to 16:9, thus losing picture. I guess black bars were offensive then and are offensive now
Some companies STILL cannot get their subtitles right when they release foreign media in the states and it drives me crazy. Dear, distribution companies, make sure you can read the subtitles! Ffs.
The battle for understanding and respecting proper aspect ratio is FAR from over. We now have TVs that by default stretch or zoom the picture until all the "black bars" on the screen are covered up with something. We have viewers who think there's something wrong with their cable when there are "black bars" on the sides of a TV show. We have networks and streaming services that think reformatting a TV show for HD means you have to stretch and crop the picture until all the "black bars" are gone to the point where jokes are literally cut out of certain shows like The Simpsons. If you buy a movie on disc, you have a better shot of getting original aspect ratio now, but we're getting to the point where nothing may ever be sold on disc again. At which point we will be at the whims of networks and streamers who have clearly shown they care nothing about original aspect ratio and dumb their broadcasting down for the lowest common denominator of viewer who thinks grotesquely stretched funhouse mirror people on their TV is preferable to "black bars."
The mention that in other reviews. particularly the Disney reissues. When Snow White and Peter Pan were re-released they said they weren't happy the 4'3 image was cropped to fit the theater screens. Thankfully by the time Fantasia was released they finally listened.
Several Universal releases such as Dune. Several Warner/Turner releases such as Blade Runner, Misery, When Harry Met Sally, The Color Purple, Papillon, Silk Stockings, The Man Who Would Be King, The Wind and the Lion among others were available in both letterbox/widescreen formats on video, laserdisc, DVD and Blu-ray were now available from the Criterion Collection.
VHS was a terrible format, only partly because the televisions of the era sucked too. Betamax was not significantly better, and the tapes were certainly shorter. You can see all the problems with analog video on this video, which was obviously recorded from television on VHS. The original professional Betacam (not to be confused with Betamax) tapes were probably MUCH better. I hope they got digitized somewhere. I know someone who works in film preservation at the Library of Congress...hope recordings of _Siskel & Ebert_ are on her list! Laserdisc was better for those who could afford it, but it was still analog video. We sure have come a long way. DVD was a huge leap forward. Blu-ray is better still. Now we have streaming and UHD Blu-ray with high dynamic range for an even more cinematic experience.
They even did chopping with widescreen in the early 2000s. Terminator 3. A shot of Kristana Loken walking naked in wide screen you could not see her breasts. But in 4:3 you could see them. For some reason. They still didn't know how to adust then I guess.
Blu-Ray dvd was a big important step in normalizing letterboxing to the masses .. it used to be something only OAR enthusiasts (like me) cared for, but with blu-ray it became a common practice and I think people just got used to it. Now HBO has gone OAR too!!
I hate streaming. I hate blu-ray. I even hate DVD (although the special features were nice). VHS was a less fragile & way more reliable technology. That's probably why they got rid of it.
@@lynnturman8157 That couldn't be further from the truth. VHS was by far the least reliable and most fragile home video format ever created. Every time a VHS was watched the tape would get worn with each successive viewing, thus degrading the life-span of the tape, not to mention the low resolution of the tape which again only gets worse each time the tape is used. There was practically nothing reliable about it.
how much culture has changed within these 25 years. And for the worst.... Siskel and Ebert were my favorites and now, they are probably turning in their graves
Oh, I do believe that they are saying to one another, "We are certainly lucky not to be there now.... There doesn't seem to be any intelligent life on Earth, anymore! " They would be right, giving a laughingly two thumbs down. 😱🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Nah, there's still loads of excellent films being made and home media has never been so good either with 4K TVs and blu ray discs or HD Streaming. What's a shame is how little cinema gets taken seriously these days on TV or radio, it's relegated mostly to the Internet now to discuss snd review. Also annoyingly films now are judged more now by some over its political message and diversity quotas than by its artistic merit.
would they had sold more Laserdisc players if places rented Laserdiscs? Laserdiscs seem to be aimed at collectors rather than people who mostly rented movies
They DID rent Laserdiscs. By 1992 Laserdisc gained popularity and video stores were putting them in select areas. However when DVDs gained momentum 5 years later they were selling LDs out for cheap.
Ironically, now watching classic TV shows like Seinfeld and white screen have the same problem, the effect of the comedy isn't designed for that perspective
They were pretty smart men (especially Ebert). I guess they'd ponder the pros and cons of the platform and give us the chance to come up with a decision by ourselves.
At this point they would be scrambling to review anything that wasn't a super hero movie or franchise sequel so....yes, IMO they would've adapted and started reviewing product for Netflix and other streaming services. The diverse array of filmmaking from the 70s-90s is gone from theaters.
@@TheAisleSeatcom2013 They rarely reviewed anything on TV even though there were critically-acclaimed mini-series, HBO and other cable programming, etc. during the run of their shows. Obviously they did do home video-focused episodes sometimes. I don't think they would've EVER devoted time to reviewing streaming "series." The whole point of their show was telling people if they should spend their bucks going to see or renting a specific movie. There's no point to reviewing something on TV, cable or a streaming service because you're either already subscribed to it or you're not. If you are, you can just watch it yourself and see if you like it without paying for it. I could see them reviewing "on-demand" movies for purchase individually that are not exclusive to a service. Because that gets back to their core mission of deciding if a single movie is worth the price of purchase or not. I don't think they cared much for TV or the TV-series format in general. You have to dig pretty deep to see them make any comment, but especially a positive comment about a TV show. Usually TV was used as the point of comparison in a review against a movie. A movie was deemed worthy if it was better than what you could see on TV.
@@jedijones It's a whole different world today though. Even before covid, there weren't enough major releases in theaters going out nationally in 2020 for Siskel & Ebert to even do a weekly show of 4-5 movies if they were still around. And I am quite positive they would be utterly bored by what DOES go out to theaters now -- the endless super-hero movies and sequels. They bemoaned that kind of purely commercial filmmaking back in the '80s, and those movies are mostly a hell of a lot better than what we see today! Most of the "adult" films you see in a typical S&E episode are now streaming projects. It's just reality. Mid-budget, middle-tier films were dying before covid, and they may be totally gone once the pandemic ends. I just think S&E would've adapted with the times, honestly, had they not passed prematurely. Whether it meant they still only reviewed single movies or they devoted an occasional segment to a series -- who knows, but it wouldn't surprise me if they looked beyond to what interested adult audiences today in particular. I can't even envision Gene sitting there, pondering his thoughts on Fast and the Furious 15 or whatever number it's at. They'd be desperate for something else! Besides, many streaming series are more like movies or long-form films -- even Stranger Things is more like a film than your typical 24-episode network TV series from decades back, which is what S&E criticized when they'd disparage TV back at the time. The level of talent and money that's being poured into "small screen", non-theatrical product is vast and it's happening to a degree it never did in their lifetimes. Since the future of the cinema itself, really, is bleak right now, I just feel they would adjust accordingly.
I remember my Dad paying almost $100 for The Empire Strikes Back on VHS in early 80's. It would still be worth $100 if we kept it in the original shrink-wrap.
Love the movies through the mail recs. One is conspicuously absent..... Netflix wouldn't start for another year or so. Proving most successful companies are just copycats who figure out how to implement others' ideas better.
Now you can enjoy this Oscar nominated romantic classic in its beautifully widescreen edition with Cary Grant, Doris Day, Gig Young, Audrey Meadows and John Astin on both video and DVD from Paramount Home Entertainment in 2004.
I will always be happy I live in an age where I don't have to deal with pan and scan or chopping the edges off a widescreen picture. I can't even imagine watching Blade Runner, my favorite movie, on an old non widescreen VHS. Or Seven Samurai with virtually non-existent subtitles. Yuck!
there was nothing worse than letterboxing on a tube television. when we watched movies in school back in the 90s i hated it. the late 90s early 2000s seemed to be a long transitional period for everyone. i could kick myself for not owning a crt or widescreen television all those years. what's truly funny but sad is i'd spend an extra $20 on an r/f switch for my video game consoles instead of investing in a television that used audio and video cables. i was a teenager and didn't know any better!!
The only thing is now the “fill mUh screen” people are bitching about pillar-boxing on native 4:3 shows and movies. They haven’t learned a damned thing.
These guys seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that many 4:3 home video releases weren't pan & scan at all, and that you actually got a little more content than with their widescreen theatrical counterparts. Most movies that were shown theatrically in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio were filmed with a spherical lens (as opposed to an anamorphic lens) and framed primarily for 1.85:1 when they were filmed, but also "protected" for 4:3, which means they made sure there were no boom mics, etc., visible in the 4:3 area that extended above and below the primary 1.85:1 framing. This was commonly done even before home video existed, because it made it easy to broadcast the movie on TV after its theatrical run. 4:3 versions created this way are known as "open matte." Here's an example from the 4:3 and 1.85:1 home video releases of Revenge of the Ninja (1983): i.imgur.com/i1LOcUi.png There's no pan & scan in the 4:3 version because it isn't necessary, due to very little being cropped from the sides. In modern usage, "open matte" often refers to a 16:9 version of a 2.35:1 movie; it's the exact same concept, i.e., a movie that was primarily framed for a 2.35:1 theatrical showing, but which was also protected for 16:9, which has been the standard TV aspect ratio for quite a few years now.
I remember watching Pulp Fiction on VHS thinking there was something missing in many of the scenes. Then I got the widescreen version on laserdisc and was absolutely blown away. My friends couldn’t believe the difference either. After that I collected movies only in their original aspect ratio, black bars be dammed.
I felt the same. I originally watched the film on VHS back in 2014, but when I saw it on DVD in 2017 or 2018, I was blown away too. I knew something was not right while I watched it on VHS.
I had the widescreen VHS
if your old how popular was laserdisc?
@@DannyCosmos in America, not very at all. It was a niche since the players and the discs were expensive and you couldn’t record over them. In other parts of the world, such as Japan, they were much more popular.
@@DannyCosmosNot very. Super expensive. Though....I finally wised up to what widescreen was in 1996 and was a hair away from buying a laserdisc player when DVD was first released. Timing couldn't have been better..
The gentlemen are, of course, right. They never predicted that the aspect ratios of televisions would change though. We've come a long way! I still miss the genius of these two.
But the aspect ratios are still not the same as movie theaters. They are 16:9. Theaters are some weird thing. We can put a man on the moon but we can't get these things synced up!
@@BookClubDisaster There actually is not one standard for films. Both 1.85:1 and 2.4:1 are common ratios today, but there have been many others throughout history. VistaVision was an ultra-wide 2:1. The widest was 4:1, which required three simultaneous strips of film synchronized in three projectors. It was used for Abel Gance's epic silent film, NAPOLEAN. (I had the privilege of seeing a restored version of this nearly 4-hour film around 1980 at the Fabulous Fox Theatre in Atlanta accompanied by the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and using the three-projector process. It was an unforgettable experience.) The 16:9 ratio of modern televisions is a "video" standard that not only is intended to perfectly match most consumer video recording formats, but also accomodates a variety of film formats; not too wide for showing older 4:3 ratio TV and film, (black on the left and right sides) and not to narrow for Super 35 (black on top and bottom sides).
They did predict it in another special on the future of cinema.
@@BookClubDisaster There's a LOT of different ratios out there. 16x9 was kinda decided upon as the best middle ground between them all, so that be it a movie that's in 2.35:1 scope ratio, or an old movie in Academy 1.33:1 that's pretty much the same as 4:3 for all old television shows... there's also wider ones like Ben Hur in 2.55:1, or weird ones like 1.66:1 for European flat film ratio, or 2:1 for the modern "Netflix ratio". They all fit relatively well on a 16x9 screen.
It's all kinda ironic in the end... the reason that television was originally 4:3 was because this was the same as the 1.33:1 Academy ratio of movies. But then when they feared that television was cutting in on cinema's action, they made movies wider in order to offer something grander than television could offer. So movie screens got bigger in order to get wider, while the height was supposed to remain the same. But now, since movies have found their longest life on home video, we've started moving to a paradigm where the "wider" scope movies are now most commonly being fitted onto screens in which they actually get smaller in height than the 4:3 or 16x9 ratios. And not only has this become the common way to view movies on home video... but even most new movie theaters, it seems, are now using constant-width set-ups with 16x9 screens that they don't even mask for scope movies the majority of the time. We just get a big television with black bars for a movie theater screen nowadays, and scope movies aren't bigger and wider like they're supposed to be, so the scope ratio has lost its entire point. I still personally think it's the most cinematic and artistic looking ratio, but it is kinda annoying to me that it's not the grandest one anymore like it's supposed to be.
@@BookClubDisasterYou can't make a TV that's EXACTLY like a theater screen. So 1.78 ratio televisions are a compromise ratio to accommodate all movie frame ratios. If you haven't noticed, your theater changes its screen's ratio depending on the movie playing. TV can't do that. Yet..
This episode actually turned me on to widescreen format... thats all I bought after they showed me how badly cropped the scenes were
I seriously miss these two and this era of film. Can’t believe it’s been 26 years now since Siskel passed away.
The show that changed home videos forever.
No, it didn't. Widescreen home video releases never became common until DVDs became common in the late 1990s / early 2000s, 10+ years after this episode aired. That mostly had to do with TVs being bigger by that time, as well as many of the newer ones being widescreen, plus, DVDs were much higher resolution than VHS. Plus, both a widescreen and a fullframe version could be included on a one double-sided disc, which was common with early DVD releases.
@@MaximRecoilI couldn't agree with you more. Thanks!
Oh really?
One Brain Tumored film critic with a no-lower jawed film critic ranting, roaring, reviewing and thumbing wherever they choose what was right for them [Yes, I noticed, in a family entertainment TV distribution (FCC prohibits 7 dirty words)]. Talking about Home Video], When these dummies ever become purists/anti-censors? [Act your age, "Eborsisk"]
Pffffff.... Anamorphic, Spherical (if it's 35mm the projectionist can add mattes to mask the Top and Bottom) [depending what shots are eligible for Open Matte, for example if VFX shots fx. Jurassic Park (1993) is shown, the shot in for most films is very difficult to Open Mattes or in this case dosen't seem to be present if indeed they are present]
One Tip for you guys thinking "Inchon" (1981) is an Anamorphic 35mm (2.35:1/2.39:1) Please think twice and notice how much room there is on the top and bottom to crop? [16:10, 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 (intended ratio)] before you making edits to technical specs on "IMDb" (Incorrect Movie Database)]
I've noticed that Murder She Wrote on UK TV is now cropped at the top and bottom to make it fit widescreen TVs, so the problem has begun again in a different part of the frame. Characters stand up, and the tops of their heads are out of the frame.
The crazy thing is that letterbox widescreen format was totally possible in the VHS era of the 1980s, it's just that the manufacturers were unbelievably lazy when it came to implementing that process and stuck with pan-and-scan for far longer than they should've. The first movie I ever saw get the letterbox treatment was Innerspace in its 1987 VHS release.
That’s crazy! That’s the first one I saw too. I remember my mom and I wondering if we were gonna be able to see the picture any bigger. Weird how you get so used to junk formats that the good version seems odd.
It wasn’t even laziness, letterboxing was always possible. It’s just consumers didn’t want black bars on the screen. Most back then wouldn’t understand if you try to tell them that the image is being cut off, most today still don’t.
I’m glad it’s a trend that went away.
"The crazy thing is that letterbox widescreen format was totally possible in the VHS era of the 1980s, it's just that the manufacturers were unbelievably lazy when it came to implementing that process and stuck with pan-and-scan for far longer than they should've."
It had nothing to do with laziness since it takes no extra effort at all, unlike pan & scan, which requires someone to manually do it during the telecine process, based on their judgment of which portions of each scene are the most important.
The reason it wasn't commonly done during the VHS era is because people instinctively don't like the idea of the picture not filling the screen like TV broadcasts always had, and there hadn't yet been any campaigns to convince the public to want it. Also, VHS is already a very low resolution format, so when you letterbox a movie, especially a 2.35:1 movie, you lose about half of that already low resolution which will be watched on a small TV (27" was about as big as direct-view TVs got in the '80s).
"The first movie I ever saw get the letterbox treatment was Innerspace in its 1987 VHS release."
Same here, and I didn't like it. My older brother watched it at the same time and argued that it was a good thing (apparently the disclaimer at the beginning of the movie explaining what the black bars were all about made sense to him). I was only 12 at the time and had never even seen a movie in the theater before.
In any case, in hindsight, it probably wasn't even a good idea for Innerspace, because that was a 1.85:1 movie shot with a spherical lens, so it didn't need pan & scan to make it 4:3, provided that whoever shot the movie in the first place had the good sense to protect for 4:3 (nearly all 1.85:1 movies were protected for 4:3, even before home video existed, because it made it easy to broadcast them on TV after their theatrical run). All they have to do is transfer it to video as "open matte," which means little or nothing gets cropped off the sides, but you see more on the top and bottom.
It's a common misconception, one that is perpetuated by this Siskel & Ebert episode no less, that you _always_ lose some of the picture when transferring a widescreen movie to 4:3. In reality, sometimes you get _more_ picture with the 4:3 version, and sometimes that extra picture contains a nice bonus, for example, in the widescreen version of Terminator 3 you don't see Kristanna Loken's boobs when she arrives from the future naked, but in the 4:3 DVD version, you do.
The funny thing about that misconception is that it arose as the "in the know" rebuttal to the earlier intuition-based misconception that you're always losing some of the picture with letterboxing.
A general rule of thumb is: if it's a 2.35:1 movie, a 4:3 version will have the sides cut off, usually with a pan & scan treatment on top of that. In that case, the 4:3 version has lost picture content. If it's a 1.85:1 movie, a 4:3 version will be open matte. In that case, the 4:3 version has gained picture content, though it doesn't have the same framing that the director originally intended. There are exceptions to both cases of course.
Stanley Kubrick dealt with the problem by filming each movie in a double format: a widescreen version for the cinemas, and a home video version that extended the picture upward and downward instead of cutting off the left and the right!
Scorsese always personally oversaw the TV versions of his movies as well.
I remember the big debates between full screen and widescreen versions for VHS. A lot of people could not get pass the black bars on the widescreen versions. As a kid, I was one of those people because it always felt like the full vertical height of the screen wasn't being used, and the concept of losing the shot's original framing in full screen escaped me. In my teenage years, after spending so long watching movies like Jaws, Ghostbusters, and Raiders of the Lost Ark in full screen format, I watched the widescreen versions and was amazed at how much I had been missing.
Also, I find it cool that Ebert listed three businesses that did Netflix before Netflix.
I used to watch Siskel & Ebert all the time. I remember when they talked about when DVD's were coming out and they had to replace their Laserdisc with DVDs.
Interesting because Siskel died right when DVDs were really starting to takeoff
which episode was that?
@@octoman511 1997 ish i guess
These two are turning over in their graves that physical media is being ousted and there’s hardly any meaning to a night at the movies anymore. I didn’t start watching them until a couple of years ago before I moved to Chicago, but my God how fun it must’ve been to tune into their show and have these two argue over what was playing in theatres and was and wasn’t worth seeing. I love the gene Siskel film center!
Let's enjoy 4k Blu-ray while it lasts.
@@ThePreciseClimberIf they're still selling records...it will last. It may become a niche thing but there will always be collectors. We're actually in a home video golden age of sorts believe it or not. More obscure movies are available in spectacular quality and easily acquirable if you're willing to seek them out than ever before. They sell out like crazy. Have faith. It'll all be around a while. They can ditch DVD as far as I'm concerned but I think and hope blu-ray and 4K have a lot of life yet..
Yet another struggle kids today will never understand.
Home video sure did went through quite an evolution. I even grew up with Disney movies on home video.
@Mr. Chopsticks ok boomer
@@robbiefarabee6954 Sure did went? Went?
I actually don't think that's entirely the case. Many video releases now seem to have the same or opposite problems. Tv shows that were originally intended to be seen in a square aspect ratio are now being cropped for widescreen streaming and releases. And some of these older shows and movies also suffer from poor restoration due to digital noise removal.
Studio's don't seem to learn their lesson.
Martin Scorsese is a particular fan of the widescreen format.
I watched this episode when it first aired- funny enough that same day I had rented "Can't Buy Me Love" on VHS and noted that it didn't look as terrible cropped for video as most of the pan and scan examples here. They should have explained that some movies were shot wider than others, and not all of them lost nearly half the picture. I eventually figured that out just by how bad the pan and scan was on some movies but not others, then when we finally got a good theater in town (which I ended up working at for several years) I saw that the screens were masked on the sides for 1.85 movies then the entire screen was revealed when showing 2.35.
"According to a recent survey, nearly twice as many people say they would rather see the same first-run movie at home rather than in a theatre even if the price were the same"
@@missioncodez Home video definitely seemed to come out at the right time in the '80s when there were a lot of older movies that people were still interested in seeing. It seemed like up through about 1975 movies were considered pretty disposable viewing and products that became dated pretty quickly. The few movies like Disney animation that retained a steady demand for decades could be handled with theatrical rereleases. But after 1975 movies became big brand names, "classics," "must-sees" and so forth. Meaning we really needed VHS and the increase in cable channels to give us more chances to see an ever-increasing back catalog of movies.
I also think the output of movies being released went up in the '80s as studios were hoping to cash in on a blockbuster by throwing a lot of darts at the board. That made it harder for people to see everything they wanted to in theaters in time, letting home viewing extend the life of the movie for them. So even though some people back then may have waited for a movie they wanted to see to hit home video, I don't think it hurt the theatrical business because there were so many releases out there. A lot of the people watching VHS tapes probably wouldn't have gone out to many movies before VHS existed anyway, either because they didn't like to go out or there just weren't that many movies that interested them.
I don't think things have changed that much, other than COVID shutting down theaters here, and totally unnecessarily judging by how China has absolutely mandated that their theaters stay open. TVs at home may have gotten better but movie theaters are better quality too. Business still seems highly dependent on whether the actual content of the movie interests people. The Downton Abbey movie made $100 million domestic and the same amount foreign in 2019. Obviously Avengers Endgame was a record-breaking blockbuster. It does not look to me like audiences are disinterested in the theatrical experience.
There's lots of films I'm so glad I saw at the cinema first with the great sound and huge screen.
On the other hand watching at home you have more control and less distractions or risk of people around you behaving badly.
YEARS ago i bought a cheap foreign DVD of "The Hidden Fortress" and i always remember that exact scene they just showed as an example with the two guys walking and arguing. right here he said "they caught us then they forced us to burry the dead". the version i had they said "we were digging corpses all day" i didnt know what the hell they were talking about LOL, it had a lot of bad translation in it but for some reason thats the line that always stuck in my head.
here in Oklahoma City we had a mom and pop VHS store named Kaleidoscope, it was the coolest Video store i have ever seen. it was just full of weird obscure movies going back to the beginning of VHS tapes, they never got rid of anything it even still had a small Beta section and this was all the way up until they went out of business in the late 90s. i went a bought a BUNCH of weird films i loved and had never seen a single other copy of when they were going out of business and selling them all. some of it i still think has never been on DVD or they are on hard to find quickly out of print DVD's that are really expensive second hand. or have just never had a even remotely decent done DVD transfer.
Stanley Kubrick composed his shots so they would work in both wide format and 4:3 (full 35mm frame). They could be shown on TV without cropping or pan-and-scan. The only exceptions were Spartacus and 2001.
I am Spartacus
Kubrick may have been the director of Spartacus, but it was hardly a "Kubrick film." It was very much a "director for hire" type gig with tons of studio control, but its success allowed him to go on and do a bunch of personal projects that he was passionate about.
I'm so incredibly happy that those days are long gone and that panning and scanning and open matting are now relics of the past. Back in the late 90's just after the launch of DVD I was neck deep in the fight for original aspect ratios to be presented, forums like The Home Theater Forum was populated with enthusiasts who actually had connections to studios who could directly influence them. One major instance of this is when Warner Bros was preparing their release of 'The Goonie's' on DVD, they were originally going to release it in pan and scan because, in their words, "it's just a kids movie". HTF stepped in and spread the word about this, flooding Warner Bros with angry letters and, more importantly, legitimate reasons why it was important to respect that films OAR, we got them to reverse that decision and we got 'The Goonie's' in it's correct 2.35:1 Panavision aspect ratio.
I used to hate widescreen because tvs were too damn small back then, now I watch movies on my 6" phone
Watching a 1080p or higher resolution on a 6" screen that's at most a foot or two away from your face is basically the same as sitting in the back row of a movie theater.
I have the same trouble now trying to find the blu ray and dvds for certain classic films on Amazon. Even films oscar nominated.
My first widescreen home video release experience was Innerspace and in the early 90's I bought a laserdisc player and i bought nothing but widescreen films. I bought a 31 inch tv which was considered big and i only did that for laserdisc widescreen films only and it was amazing during that time
Great video... the tracking control screen at beginning is perfect!
The most shocking part, for me, was when they mentioned that E.T. (which came out in 1982) hadn't been released on home video yet. I can't imagine waiting 6 years until I could watch a movie at home!
Fantastic video.
To think I’m watching this on my 16x9 phone with black bars on either sides with theaters all but shut down
and i thought the cameras were doing the panning. now i realize it was the pan and scan that made it move a lot more.
13:50 example of good subtitling. Subtitles are cropped off on this you tube video 😮
In reality, I had an wide-range of classics such as "That Touch of Mink" in widescreen on DVD since the early 2000s. So I won't get seasick anymore!
Wonder what they would think of streaming
I remember watching Raiders of the Lost Ark for the first time in widescreen, after years of watching it in pan and scan. There were so many things missing that finally made sense and were better in the widescreen version that I vowed never to watch another movie in fullscreen again.
They're so right about this stuff...it was probably 8-10 years later before I was old enough to even notice letterboxing, was annoyed the first time I saw it for the first time for the reasons they gave, but within a couple of movies was so sold on how better the movies were that I would never go back. (And for at least the last 10 years, I've been hooked on subtitles, even for English-language movies that I can hear.)
We're spoiled now with all the easy ways to see a movie.
I often wonder if Wes Anderson was influenced by watching "pan and scan" movies... he loves the "whip pan" where a character will suddenly be talking to a character off screen and when the second character responds, he will whip the camera over and it usually has a humorous effect because the second person will be doing something startling
Anybody else remember the letterbox short they used to play on TCM 20 times a day?
Maybe that is what I was remembering in my comments above... it was certainly Siskel and Ebert that educated me on the subject -- I think they used the original Star Wars as one of their primary examples of the difference
@@bucksdiaryfan The little five minute video they used to play on TCM didn't have Siskel & Ebert in it. It had Sidney Pollack & Martin Scorsese & Curtis Hanson in it. I remember they used film clips from Ben Hur & Gigi & Seven Brides for Seven Brothers to show the difference between pan & scan & letterbox.
@@lynnturman8157 That's why I was telling you about it and now you'll get the complete widescreen
edition on all your favorite movies on TCM such as The Color Purple.
Same thing goes for television, too.
@@lynnturman8157 lol and now Tom Cruise yells about how to set your smart tv 📺 so it’s not ultra realistic (for sports), which makes movies look like crap
@@sahej6939 it doesn't bothered me at all.
It’s funny how people used to hate so-called ‘letter-boxing’ because I love the black bars. Makes the film feel more cinematic.
Never understood the decision to go pan and scan when they could’ve just gone letterbox on these old rentals. I guess at the time Home Screen sizes were a consideration.
My grandma would scream If the vhs was letterbox!
People were buying projection screen TVs, which is what they used for movie nights on campus in ~1990, but the movies were still cropped! There was a proper auditorium for film projector movies one night a week. I'm thinking it took the switch to digital TV broadcasts in widescreen and people buying wide-screen TVs to make the change.
"The following film has been modified from its original version. It has been formatted to fit your screen." - The always present message before movies on VHS back in the day. Growing up I never knew what it meant. Once I learned, I always looked for widescreen versions of movies.
That was spring/summer 1994. But I'll choose widescreen versions of movies instead.
21:00 was that like a Netflix mail preview
If I'm not mistaken, Philo T. Farnsworth himself came out with a widescreen format TV that people found interesting but was not taken seriously.
Who came up with 4:3 and why didn't they all start out at 16:9?
I used to collect laser discs long ago and most of them were letterboxed widescreen format.
20:20 renting movies by mail before netflix??? guess they never caught on...sometimes it really sucks being ahead of your time
That was how I could see rare movies. Sometimes they'd have to send it from across the country though, which took longer. Netflix digital streaming has a lot fewer movie choices.
I can accept some letterboxing but why are the boxes sometimes so HUGE where they take half the screen?
Some movies were made REALLY wide back in the day.
@@sandal_thong the cure is worse than the disease
I'm interested to find out what year S&E got into laserdisc. Looks like they were promoting them in the late 80s but the technology had been available since the 70s
Those hard to find titles are still hard to find today. But where there's a will there's a way...😉
My worst experience with Pan & Scan VHS was with one of Blake Edrwards' Pink Panther movies (the one from 1975), zoomed in from 2.35 to 4:3, with excessive panning and scanning. I really got sea-sick.
a leauge of their own got my to vomit...for real
That's fine with me!
16:35 and 17:38 Again both these men have predicted the future back then itself...
Benny Hill performed a sketch made fun the panning and scanning of widescreen movies.
Since the early 1990's.
13:14 That's how anime subtitles used to be on VHS. With DVD having better picture quality, this practice started dying out, but I believe yellow subs were still used until HD Widescreen anime started showing up and became the standard, at which point, white subs became the norm ever since.
They were pushing for widescreen/ letterbox for several years, but I think Laserdisc didn't take off, nor did letterbox VHS. What changed is that people bought widescreen TVs, I think. Also, the change to digital broadcast occurred at the same time, I think.
I also remember going to college and seeing projection TV's but they had the same aspect ratio as regular TVs so weren't that much better for movies, although perhaps letterbox VHS tapes looked better.
Disney still has not released the proper, I cropped version of a good deal of their animated films such as The Sword in the Stone or Aristocats. They still have the top and bottom chopped off, along with an ugly smoothing filter on top of it.
Though for the most part, companies like Criterion and BFI release marvelous HD and UHD versions of many great films so you can always have a fantastic version to watch at home. It doesn’t match watching in a theater, let alone on film but still a great experience.
This is why we no longer have VCR tapes lol or regular Square screen TV's nowadays.
#progress
You both made intelligent arguments.
still have never truly seen the original star wars trilogy since i had the fullscreen vhs boxset as a kid and the only versions available on dvd or streaming are the "special" editions. one these days i'll break down and get the laserdisc (and a player)
I have the original theatrical trilogy. Someone took the Laserdisc and digitally cleaned it up. It's not quite DVD quality but it's far far better than VHS. They're out there if you look hard enough.
VHS cropping the sides of 16:9 movies and disney + cropping the top and bottom of 4:3 tv shows. We've come full circle folks.
Boy, if they were only able to see where we are at now! They’d probably be bummed because of the slow death movie theaters are experiencing. But it dosen’t take much nowadays to make your home movie experience far better than the theatre.
There is a great symbolic moment early in Lawrence of Arabia in which Peter O'Toole holds a lit match in front of his face and blows it out. In pan and scan you either see his face or the match, but not both. Letterbox, you see the entire image.
That's the moment just before they cut to the desert vista!
damn this wasnt it fixed untill early 2000s with wide screen tvs became popular
Yes but now we crop 4:3 TV shows from the 1990s to make them 16:9 rather than showing the full picture like it should be shown.
@@lw3646 they did that with some Disney rereleases in the theaters like Peter Pan, Disney+ plus has the preHD Simpsons episodes in both formats
20:12 All the video stores saw this and said "Yeah, right. We are REALLY worried! Who wants to rent movies by mail!"
6:29 You can see the backstage where the set ends haha
20:48 Early Netflix
Funny how nowadays broadcasters are guilty of the opposite: taking 4:3 footage and cropping it to 16:9, thus losing picture.
I guess black bars were offensive then and are offensive now
Some companies STILL cannot get their subtitles right when they release foreign media in the states and it drives me crazy. Dear, distribution companies, make sure you can read the subtitles! Ffs.
"What's wrong with home video?" - 0:12 Exhibit A
The battle for understanding and respecting proper aspect ratio is FAR from over. We now have TVs that by default stretch or zoom the picture until all the "black bars" on the screen are covered up with something. We have viewers who think there's something wrong with their cable when there are "black bars" on the sides of a TV show. We have networks and streaming services that think reformatting a TV show for HD means you have to stretch and crop the picture until all the "black bars" are gone to the point where jokes are literally cut out of certain shows like The Simpsons. If you buy a movie on disc, you have a better shot of getting original aspect ratio now, but we're getting to the point where nothing may ever be sold on disc again. At which point we will be at the whims of networks and streamers who have clearly shown they care nothing about original aspect ratio and dumb their broadcasting down for the lowest common denominator of viewer who thinks grotesquely stretched funhouse mirror people on their TV is preferable to "black bars."
The mention that in other reviews. particularly the Disney reissues. When Snow White and Peter Pan were re-released they said they weren't happy the 4'3 image was cropped to fit the theater screens. Thankfully by the time Fantasia was released they finally listened.
@@acholl980 their show was distributed by Disney, maybe they had some influence on Eisner
What the hell? The criterion collection was around all the way back then?
Several Universal releases such as Dune. Several Warner/Turner releases such as Blade Runner,
Misery, When Harry Met Sally, The Color Purple, Papillon, Silk Stockings, The Man Who Would Be King, The Wind and the Lion among others were available in both letterbox/widescreen formats on video, laserdisc,
DVD and Blu-ray were now available from the Criterion Collection.
freaky pre-netflix and streamin' here...
VHS was a terrible format, only partly because the televisions of the era sucked too. Betamax was not significantly better, and the tapes were certainly shorter. You can see all the problems with analog video on this video, which was obviously recorded from television on VHS. The original professional Betacam (not to be confused with Betamax) tapes were probably MUCH better. I hope they got digitized somewhere. I know someone who works in film preservation at the Library of Congress...hope recordings of _Siskel & Ebert_ are on her list!
Laserdisc was better for those who could afford it, but it was still analog video.
We sure have come a long way. DVD was a huge leap forward. Blu-ray is better still. Now we have streaming and UHD Blu-ray with high dynamic range for an even more cinematic experience.
They should have letterboxed movies all the time period
I am stilled that some titles on dvd are in full screen. The Grumpy old Men Movies come to mind- yet they are wide screen on bluray
Ah...the days of Blockbuster on Friday nights.
they used in clout in 1988? also criterion was already a thing? also letterboxing was already an issue in 1988? lol
The great unwashed was more upset w blk boxes above and below the screen than missing information! Finally lay people accepted the widescreen
I think the TVs are what changed, along with broadcast format.
Yes
I like wide-screen movies. Always did.
Letterboxing seemed right, right from the start.
What's funny is, I instinctually knew something was off as a kid. No wonder I became a photographer.
Same here.
They even did chopping with widescreen in the early 2000s. Terminator 3.
A shot of Kristana Loken walking naked in wide screen you could not see her breasts. But in 4:3 you could see them. For some reason. They still didn't know how to adust then I guess.
in an age when TV's were 30 inches max, are they really surprised no one wanted their screen shrunk even more?
Blu-Ray dvd was a big important step in normalizing letterboxing to the masses .. it used to be something only OAR enthusiasts (like me) cared for, but with blu-ray it became a common practice and I think people just got used to it. Now HBO has gone OAR too!!
I hate streaming. I hate blu-ray. I even hate DVD (although the special features were nice). VHS was a less fragile & way more reliable technology. That's probably why they got rid of it.
@@lynnturman8157 That couldn't be further from the truth. VHS was by far the least reliable and most fragile home video format ever created. Every time a VHS was watched the tape would get worn with each successive viewing, thus degrading the life-span of the tape, not to mention the low resolution of the tape which again only gets worse each time the tape is used. There was practically nothing reliable about it.
These problems resolved themselves.
Or did "they" fix it?
Wow Barry pepper was perfect as Roger Maris lol
Pre RUclips you had to actually go and find a good video, it did feel unique. There was a process for it
how much culture has changed within these 25 years. And for the worst.... Siskel and Ebert were my favorites and now, they are probably turning in their graves
Oh, I do believe that they are saying to one another, "We are certainly lucky not to be there now.... There doesn't seem to be any intelligent life on Earth, anymore! " They would be right, giving a laughingly two thumbs down. 😱🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Nah, there's still loads of excellent films being made and home media has never been so good either with 4K TVs and blu ray discs or HD Streaming. What's a shame is how little cinema gets taken seriously these days on TV or radio, it's relegated mostly to the Internet now to discuss snd review. Also annoyingly films now are judged more now by some over its political message and diversity quotas than by its artistic merit.
would they had sold more Laserdisc players if places rented Laserdiscs? Laserdiscs seem to be aimed at collectors rather than people who mostly rented movies
They DID rent Laserdiscs. By 1992 Laserdisc gained popularity and video stores were putting them in select areas. However when DVDs gained momentum 5 years later they were selling LDs out for cheap.
I never saw them at Blockbuster or any indie stores around here@@acholl980
Another problem with home video was shitty VCRs with crappy mono sound like the one used to record this show.
Pan And Scan.
On video, films were never presented in their proper Aspect Ratio.
Ironically, now watching classic TV shows like Seinfeld and white screen have the same problem, the effect of the comedy isn't designed for that perspective
Would these guys be cool with Netflix or not?
They were pretty smart men (especially Ebert). I guess they'd ponder the pros and cons of the platform and give us the chance to come up with a decision by ourselves.
At this point they would be scrambling to review anything that wasn't a super hero movie or franchise sequel so....yes, IMO they would've adapted and started reviewing product for Netflix and other streaming services. The diverse array of filmmaking from the 70s-90s is gone from theaters.
I doubt it'd matter either way.
@@TheAisleSeatcom2013 They rarely reviewed anything on TV even though there were critically-acclaimed mini-series, HBO and other cable programming, etc. during the run of their shows. Obviously they did do home video-focused episodes sometimes. I don't think they would've EVER devoted time to reviewing streaming "series." The whole point of their show was telling people if they should spend their bucks going to see or renting a specific movie. There's no point to reviewing something on TV, cable or a streaming service because you're either already subscribed to it or you're not. If you are, you can just watch it yourself and see if you like it without paying for it. I could see them reviewing "on-demand" movies for purchase individually that are not exclusive to a service. Because that gets back to their core mission of deciding if a single movie is worth the price of purchase or not. I don't think they cared much for TV or the TV-series format in general. You have to dig pretty deep to see them make any comment, but especially a positive comment about a TV show. Usually TV was used as the point of comparison in a review against a movie. A movie was deemed worthy if it was better than what you could see on TV.
@@jedijones It's a whole different world today though. Even before covid, there weren't enough major releases in theaters going out nationally in 2020 for Siskel & Ebert to even do a weekly show of 4-5 movies if they were still around. And I am quite positive they would be utterly bored by what DOES go out to theaters now -- the endless super-hero movies and sequels. They bemoaned that kind of purely commercial filmmaking back in the '80s, and those movies are mostly a hell of a lot better than what we see today!
Most of the "adult" films you see in a typical S&E episode are now streaming projects. It's just reality. Mid-budget, middle-tier films were dying before covid, and they may be totally gone once the pandemic ends.
I just think S&E would've adapted with the times, honestly, had they not passed prematurely. Whether it meant they still only reviewed single movies or they devoted an occasional segment to a series -- who knows, but it wouldn't surprise me if they looked beyond to what interested adult audiences today in particular. I can't even envision Gene sitting there, pondering his thoughts on Fast and the Furious 15 or whatever number it's at. They'd be desperate for something else!
Besides, many streaming series are more like movies or long-form films -- even Stranger Things is more like a film than your typical 24-episode network TV series from decades back, which is what S&E criticized when they'd disparage TV back at the time.
The level of talent and money that's being poured into "small screen", non-theatrical product is vast and it's happening to a degree it never did in their lifetimes. Since the future of the cinema itself, really, is bleak right now, I just feel they would adjust accordingly.
This is no longer an issue. They sold us home theatres then want us to go to the theatre.
I remember my Dad paying almost $100 for The Empire Strikes Back on VHS in early 80's. It would still be worth $100 if we kept it in the original shrink-wrap.
Love the movies through the mail recs. One is conspicuously absent..... Netflix wouldn't start for another year or so. Proving most successful companies are just copycats who figure out how to implement others' ideas better.
UFOria desperately needs a DVD release.
Wow, the pan and scan technician for Touch Of Mink was really lazy.
Now you can enjoy this Oscar nominated
romantic classic in its beautifully widescreen
edition with Cary Grant, Doris Day,
Gig Young, Audrey Meadows and
John Astin on both video and DVD from
Paramount Home Entertainment
in 2004.
@@markelijio6012 actually got the blu ray
@@mego73 Agreed.
I will always be happy I live in an age where I don't have to deal with pan and scan or chopping the edges off a widescreen picture. I can't even imagine watching Blade Runner, my favorite movie, on an old non widescreen VHS. Or Seven Samurai with virtually non-existent subtitles. Yuck!
there was nothing worse than letterboxing on a tube television. when we watched movies in school back in the 90s i hated it. the late 90s early 2000s seemed to be a long transitional period for everyone. i could kick myself for not owning a crt or widescreen television all those years. what's truly funny but sad is i'd spend an extra $20 on an r/f switch for my video game consoles instead of investing in a television that used audio and video cables.
i was a teenager and didn't know any better!!
Funny i always got sea sick because ebert kept moving around in frame
The letterbox took away like 40% of our small tv lol
Exactly. It annoys me even on my 65 inch TV!
10:06 offensive 😊
The only thing is now the “fill mUh screen” people are bitching about pillar-boxing on native 4:3 shows and movies. They haven’t learned a damned thing.
most TVs can fill the full screen if you want
pan and scan was the worst
240p
Lol
Now people get their wish. It sucks.
These guys seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that many 4:3 home video releases weren't pan & scan at all, and that you actually got a little more content than with their widescreen theatrical counterparts.
Most movies that were shown theatrically in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio were filmed with a spherical lens (as opposed to an anamorphic lens) and framed primarily for 1.85:1 when they were filmed, but also "protected" for 4:3, which means they made sure there were no boom mics, etc., visible in the 4:3 area that extended above and below the primary 1.85:1 framing. This was commonly done even before home video existed, because it made it easy to broadcast the movie on TV after its theatrical run. 4:3 versions created this way are known as "open matte." Here's an example from the 4:3 and 1.85:1 home video releases of Revenge of the Ninja (1983):
i.imgur.com/i1LOcUi.png
There's no pan & scan in the 4:3 version because it isn't necessary, due to very little being cropped from the sides.
In modern usage, "open matte" often refers to a 16:9 version of a 2.35:1 movie; it's the exact same concept, i.e., a movie that was primarily framed for a 2.35:1 theatrical showing, but which was also protected for 16:9, which has been the standard TV aspect ratio for quite a few years now.