 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Apparently, no one is intelligent enough... posted by Carl Eber on December 18, 2001 at 17:53:17:
As an inmate who tried to shed a little light on the subject by stating a neutral fact, I feel personally offended by the tone of voice in this last post of yours, CarlEber.Anyhow I will try to answer your question, and yes, these are my personal speculations. Please feel free to dismiss/not read them.
I can not speak for the majority of DVD releases but will stick with the specific case, The Phantom Menace (TPM). You claim to have seen TPM in the aspect ratio 1.85:1 in a movie theater. AFAIK this may be true or it may not be. Either way, the fact that IMDb lists the aspect ratio to be 2.35:1 AND the fact that the DVD release is 2.35:1, strongly indicate that 2.35:1 is the "original" aspect ratio of the movie. By "original" I mean "as intended by the director". We do presume that George Lucas has approved the aspect ratio of the DVD release, right?
It is not downright impossible, however, that you may have seen more top/bottom footage in a movie theater - but in the light of beforementioned facts, this might as well as anything else be due to a fault on the theater's account.
Best,
Thom
Follow Ups:
"As an inmate who tried to shed a little light on the subject by stating a neutral fact, I feel personally offended by the tone of voice in this last post of yours, CarlEber."-Technically there's no "tone of voice" with text, but I take your meaning (it’s a shame you only remember the 5% of the post that reflected my frustration, rather than the point of the post).
You did provide a succinct and relevant reply that was neutral. I thank you. However, I feel under attack here for no justifiable reason, and it does appear to be a concerted effort. Also, um, this last post wasn’t directed specifically at you (and yet you somehow still felt the need to respond as if it was, and indeed even took personal offense to it, even though you weren’t mentioned by name in this particular post…or indeed in any of them by name…so you taking personal offense to it has me wondering if such a thing is justified in your case…if it had been directed specifically at you, it would have been a reply to your first response, and not a reply to my own initial thread posting).
I realize I used the words "no one"...they should have read, "no one but Thom P". And in any case, again it is me who feels offended here, and that above post merely reflects my own justifiable sense of frustration. Perhaps you mean to suggest that you or others are allowed to offend me, but that I cannot defend myself? I hope not.
And exactly what part of “I stand by what I have said, so there's obviously an error on the part of IMDb...” offends you, sir? Do you own that organization? I see no implied offensive tone in that statement, and since that’s the only time I’ve spoken to you in this thread (other than now), I have to wonder why you’re offended to such a personal degree, by anything I’ve said at all?
I retract (for now) any implication of you in my above post that you cite, and you need not have personalized it.
Since I see no personal attack on you here by me, I see no reason to apologize in a technical sense, to you. However, if you are offended by THIS reply, then I DO apologize. Again, your first reply was relevant information, so again I thank you, but my response to it wasn’t offensive, it was merely my thoughts as they related to the subject (which was obvious, I believe).
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
