Anybody else notice HBO going fullscreen then widescreen?

Now, granted, I'm still watching on an old TV, but....
I've noticed that most of the time, all the shows have now been 'full-screen'...BUT,
then, I watched a few minutes of "Kong: Skull Island" and, I noticed them switching back and forth, from 'wide-screen' to 'full-screen'!
Very weird!

 

Maybe, that was when the scenes switched from standard format to IMAX? There have ben several features who up-converted only specific scenes for the larger system, either by agreement, or out of time and budget limitations.

 

I also saw it happen with the opening credits to "X-men Origins: Wolverine"; once the director credits were done, right back to 'full-screen'....

 

As a kid, it wasn't until dvd came out that I better understood widescreen framing. The few times vhs would have 'black bars' I assumed there was something wrong with the tape.

 

Wow, I guess vacation really adds some pounds to ya...!

 

Things changed when we went from the pan/scan world of 4x3 broadcast standard-def to 16x9 HD.

Since that also happened right around the time features & shows stopped being shot on celluloid and started being shot digitally, there was a push for "textless" elements where we could move around the main and end titles to position them optimally for a 16x9 presentation. Basically, we'd reduce or squeeze just the letters themselves to make them fit the frame to avoid the "ography eather tland" problem. The background would stay the same, and in some cases, you actually saw more information top and bottom (assuming it was shot in Super 35mm or 16x9 full-ap). Our goal in mastering was to try to still produce a semblance of balanced framing under those circumstances.

Disney Channel, HD Net, and AXS generally try to skew away from 2.40 letterboxed films and go for 16x9 framing. For whatever reason, they feel this works better for their viewers. I'd always rather stick with the original aspect ratio, but too often, we don't get to make that decision.

 

I wouldn't have brought it up until I saw them going back and forth with it during the 'helicopters-meet-the-Kong' scene in "Skull Island".
I was so weird, I had to tell you all about it...
My wife was like, "So what?".

 

There's an interesting trend for some shows -- I think Preacher, Legion, and Westworld are some of them -- to bop back and forth between 2.40 letterbox framing and normal 16x9 (1.78) framing, which they do purely for style. The way they do it in Legion actually makes me laugh out loud.

Quite a few shows are shooting in 2.00, which I think kind of started with House of Cards. It used to be there were only three aspect ratios: 1.33 (normal 4x3), 1.85 or 1.78 (pretty close to 16x9 HD), and 2.39 (normal Panavision widescreen, 2.40 for home video and 2.35 for theaters). And there was 2.66 Cinerama, though that was pretty rare. Nowadays, there's a lot of different aspect ratios to choose from, and Netflix & Amazon will generally approve it if you ask before shooting. Me, I think it's silly: I think for new shows, 1.78 is a wise choice. I get that classic films should stay in the format in which they were originally released.

 

Westworld almost seems anamorphic in those letterboxed scenes; I swear I see the "unsqueezed" artifacts in the background, but of course I am probably on some level looking for them.

I don't understand the need for letterboxing (as an artistic choice) these days; it's like I'm watching a Laserdisc from the 90's.


Dan

 

There are quite a few TV shows that shoot on anamorphic lenses but then frame the image for 1.78 (16x9); I believe Legion, Jessica Jones, and Fear the Walking Dead are among those shows, judging by the anamorphic lens flares I see. (But I concede that there are ways of introducing faux lens flares into normal shots, so it's not automatically a guarantee.)

Is there a need to understand any artistic choice? That's all it is: somebody wants the audience to see a frame in that shape. It doesn't mean anything more than that. Why does an artist choose to create a square frame, a rectangular frame, or a trapezoid frame for a painting? Because they like it that way.

 

I guess what I'm saying at this point is that the letterbox approach is overused and pretentious, like the producers are trying to lend some faux-importance to the image. Westworld is all over the place anyway, so I wouldn't be surprised to see pillarboxing! I guess I wouldn't be surprised to see reverse anamorphic next.



Dan

 

All I can say is, next time you're working with a $50,000/week producer on a big HBO show, you tell him (or her) that you think their use of widescreen is pretentious, and let's see how well that conversation goes.

 

Aye. I could never make my feelings known. I'm even careful if I compliment someone in TV.


Dan

 

I see your point, though -- and I agree that for some people, it is pretentious to throw in widescreen shots. I have tried to argue with music video people (in particular) that when they go to pseudo-scope, they're actually making the artist smaller in the frame and making the picture harder to see... which is the last thing you want for an audience largely watching on YouTube, via cellphones, laptops, and other small screens.

I did successfully talk a producer/director out of making their 1.85 film 2.40, and finally convinced him when I showed him a few shots where we needed to see both the very top of the frame and the very bottom of the frame. In 2.40, that would've been a nightmare. I'm of the opinion that generally, only films with a lot of horizontal action -- sci-fi films, action films, chase films, period Westerns with lots of desert horizons -- really need widescreen. I'm not convinced it's necessary in a conventional comedy, romance, historical film, documentary, or human drama. (There are always exceptions.)

 

I watched It last night on HBO, and it was full screen. At least, I think it was full screen. It filled the screen, no black bars on the top and bottom of the screen.

 

Yup...
and YET,
"Blade Runner 2049" is 'wide-screen' for the entire movie!!
..so weird....

 

....and then!...
"Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World" is all full-screen until that "KO" kick to the head, where it's wide-screen for, like, a second!

 

Funny you mention Disney Channel, as I’ve seen The Incredibles and Ratatouille play on there recently in the original 2.40:1 ratio. It’s possible that’s a contract stipulation with Pixar or Brad Bird in particular though

 

Full screen is now in. All widescreens are now obsolete. Now finally we can see the full top and bottoms of all the shows.
Time to replace all TV sets.

 

It could well be. Although I have been told that some Pixar movies have been shot twice, once in 1.78 (for TV) and again for the theatrical 2.39 presentation. Basically, they move the characters slightly closer and rearrange the backgrounds... but it's the same story, same dialogue, same everything, and you don't miss too much since it's optimized either way. But I haven't seen the other versions so I don't know the details.

 

Kong: Skull Island had its own controversy with the director when it was broadcast on HBO with switching aspect ratios.

Director Jordan Vogt-Roberts Isn’t Happy HBO is Airing the Airplane Edit of ‘Kong: Skull Island’

Why The Kong: Skull Island Director Is Unhappy With HBO

Apparently when a film is broadcast on HBO/Cinemax and Starz in its original aspect ratio (2.35:1, etc.) it has been specified contractually. If not then they choose the available version which most fills a 16:9 TV.

 

...so, I'm NOT crazy!

 

Revisiting this thread. I've noticed in the last six months or so since HBO changed leadership and vowed to compete with Netflix and other streaming services that they're broadcasting mostly in OAR. There have been some nights where I channel surf through the 12 or so HBO/Cinemax channels and almost every film is 2.35:1. This pretty much leaves STARZ/Encore as the only premium movie channels broadcasting films commercial-free non-OAR.