Posted by Lucifer Lyndon Razoodock at spider-tl082.proxy.aol.com on May 14, 2000 at 09:50:54:
In Reply to: Also in the Dogma full-screen... posted by Alferd Packer on May 14, 2000 at 02:54:04:
: Shit, what ALSO. I have no clue what the two of you are talking about.
I don't know, cat.
That still sounds like a front to me.
I look at you and a I see a fella who's been swimming in laser discs throughout the 90s.
Correct me if I'm in err...
Dude, anyone who pre-empted DvD with the 12" "eight-track of the 90s...and part of the late 80s.
Why did we go out of our way like that for unwieldly, record-sized movies if not for what Terry Moore called "obscenely-clear widescreen transfers."
*I assume it was Moore...though I may be mixing him up with "Hepcats"' Martin Wagner*
You've never defended a film, pristinely mashed between two monolithic black-bars, from non-believers and nay-sayers?
Pshaw!
What about DvD? Which options do you chooses when presented with a widescreen/fullscreen option?
Why?
Personally, I'm just plying Vince on aspects of ViewAskew (and filmmaking, in general) that auteur-Kev' seems reticent to discuss...
Be that as it may, I refuse to believe that Kevin Smith doesn't understand ANY of this...as he cops to again and again...
I hail from the school that spartan-visuals represent a bona fide visual choice on the part of a filmmaker and that any cat of the trade who pleads ignorance is perhaps more afraid of coming off a certain way...
C'mon, man. You don't think this is semi-facinating shit?
: I just noticed that good ol' Ming is completely hidden in the full-screen transfer.
Make a recording...point it out to a friend...
--tom
squeeze someone's Mom today . . .