just to get it out of the way, a big warm STFU to the new idiots in advance.

Now, fullscreen DVD or Widescreen dvd?
The post was brought up earlier and I wanted to rehash.

Most so-called experts in the home-cinema department will tell you that it boils down to two groups of viewers: the purists, who feel every angle and part of a picture should be preserved, which is what the widescreen format does, and the practical, the ones who watch far more tv at home than movies at the theatres, cant stand the black bars and have a dinky sized tv.

But most of us true movie fans arent in those categories.

ITs all very subjective. For me it really boils down to what kind of movie I'm watching. Some movies carry with it the aura of a "movie-going experience" so much so that it compels you to make sure your home-viewing experience provides as much of that same aura as possible. When that"experience recreation" is a necessity you want to be reminded as little as possible that this simulation is emitting from the same equipment that you grew up watching family sitcoms and saturday morning cartoons on. So widescreen might seem like more of the answer.

However, SOME movies carry with it a different aura. An in-the-moment, STage-Like, real-time aura. These are movies that usually have minimal sweep and scale, rely heavily on dialogue and provide a constant intimacy with the viewer. The kind of movies that people tend to watch by themselves rather than with a big movie crowd. Independent films, foreign films and documentaries carry this aura that actually plays better with the reminder of domesticity and familiarity that full-screen "tv" format has to offer.

But it gets even more subjective. Most of us have lived long enough to experience the transition from videotape to DVD. And since we've probably seen more movies growing up on TV than in the theatre for obvious reasons, some of the most important films that helped define our appreciation and taste were experienced in TV fullscreen land. As a result more than half of our first loves with films were forever imprinted in our memories in that particular format and any deviation from it will reflect in an underpar movie watching experience even if it is in fact returning the movie to its original intended viewing circumstances.

The debate of widescreen and fullscreen to me is only crucial if it concerns a dvd one intends to purchase and view many times over. For a rental the point is moot. There's no reference point for a movie you've never seen so it won't be ruined by any residual memories of what exactly the movie looked like, and as a result felt like, the first time around. For a dvd that one buys for their collection, a widescreen version is always a good idea simply because a large widescreen tv might just come along into your living room at some point eventually.

The other big difference is picture quality. With a small tv you wont really notice the difference because the picture is too small for your eyes to catch but with a bigger screen it is noticeable. The "anamorphic widescreen" is a picture that utilizes the widescreen format to enhance the picture quality. Something the fullscreen versions don't have. This is of course most noticeable on a 16 x 9 television for which the widescreen dvd was intended for.

I'm actually kinda glad you re-addressed this. As I just realized that it's not entirely something that has to be 'all or nothing'. That is, because I've seen 90% of what is out there (and no, I'm not some androgynous 300 lbs. Finnish guy, sorry) I ALWAYS tend to pick out DVDs that are widescreen, because I don't want to miss anything. So I looked over some I own:

'OldSchool'; 'Clerks'; 'Caddyshack'. I hate when I say this, but Meboss is right. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to search for movies like these in widescreen. What am I gonna miss? A shot of Will Ferrell's ass? Jay and Silent Bob not acting well in the corner? Pass.

But - for the 'pro' widescreen argument, I cannot think of a better film to make an example of, than 'Victory'. Wha? Yea.. that World War II Soccer movie with Stallone and Michael Caine. The flick is over 25 years old, so I don't think I am spoiling anything, but the climax near the end is horribly wasted on my shitty VHS copy. In the last scene, Stallone plays a goalkeeper (for the Allies) and with no time remaining on the clock, he has a penalty kick thrown at him (which I am not entirely sure is legal). The kicker (a Nazi) fires the ball at the goal and Stallone makes an impressive save.

In the widescreen version, you see the kicker approach the ball, loft it into the air, all in slow motion. And it's a pretty cool scene. In the fullscreen version, all you see is a ball coming out of nowhere from the right hand of the screen. All the emotion it lost completely.

But I'm glad this topic came up again, an ex-girlfriend gave me 'Lost in Translation' last year, and I never really enjoyed it because I thought I was missing 'something' - but that's the kind of movie where you're not. Hmm, I wonder if I could have picked a more obscure example.

MD just for no reason... That movie is great a host of great players back in the day Pele about 1 million other notable european soccer players. oh and if the player was taken down with any time left at all he'd be allowed to take the kick the game can't end when the ball is out of play and is usually called when the second player touches the ball. IE. PK kicked goalie blocked end game, throw in player touched the ball call game...