I was watching the Goodfellas Blu-ray the other night on a 16:9 plasma screen. The movie filled the entire screen despite the box, and this webpapge, saying the aspect ratio is 1.85:1. If that's correct then there should have been letter boxing as that is wider than 16:9.
So I'm wondering if this release contains the whole movie or if it's some newfangled scan & pan for widescreen.
I suppose you don't a whole lot of the image, but still, Blu-ray should be exactly what the director printed. Who cares if it doesn't fill the screen. That's why we buy huge screens...
It was framed 1.78:1 widescreen, which is slightly opened up from the 1.85:1 aspect ratio of the film's theatrical presentation for this DVD/Bluray editions. I actually like the fact it "fills" the screen. Why waste the top and bottom space lol.
We should do this to all other works of art then. Let's re-size the Mona Lisa so that it can fit into a smaller frame. Who cares if it goes against what the original artist intended. In all seriousness, once a motion pictures is made into a DVD it should be in its original aspect ratio. The cinema in one of the only art forms that we know the entire history of. It would be nice if the studios could appreciate some of these details.
Get a life Canaan. who cares if they want the film to take up the whole screen. let people have their own opinions without talking down to them. You are probably a so called tolerant liberal who is actually only tolerant of people who think like you.
Wrong thinking Mr Brumley, I'm afraid. DVD and Blu-Ray are HOME media sources. We watch them in a 1.78:1 ratio, and more importantly, in a 1080i or p format.
A clever director (Cameron, for instance) will frame the film in that ratio for domestic release, and for theatrical release will give it a wider format with the extra panorama that this offers.
This has two advantages - firstly home-viewers see it in full definition, not 800 pixel or 3/4-height thus wearing their TV out, and secondly, theatre-goers get the benefit of the full immersive experience the director wants the viewer to have.
I personally don't the think the switch between 1.85.:1 to 1.78:1 is much of a compromise, but I would agree that it is a compromise nevertheless.
But while something like Avatar, may be much improved by open matting (as it was part of the plan all along), other recent 2.35:1 conversions to 16:9 like Narnia: Dawn Treader and Traitor most certainly are not.
None of these are the Mona Lisa, but the trend toward making it fit your screen is always alarming. Now that the screens are bigger and the bars are smaller it should be expected that absent strong intervention by the filmmaker, proper aspect ratios should be maintained always. And not just on Blu-ray but broadcast TV and cable as well.
Sadly, the only way to make sure that all future scope releases aren't matted for 16:9 televisions (as they already are on HBO, AMC, TNT etc.) is to crow about it and to crow loudly. Otherwise the Walmart crowd will always get their way.