It would be easy to support the integrity of the "widescreen" version of any film. In DIE HARD there's a key scene in which the cop, Lincoln, enters the building for the first time. He has no idea terrorists are in the building. Only in the widescreen version do you notice that a terrorist is waiting right around the corner he's about to turn, ready to blow him away. Yes, tension lost in pan-and-scan. There's another scene I recall in THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT, with Michael Douglas and Annette Bening, when they have their first conversation in the Oval Office. In the original "widescreen" version they are seen at extreme opposite ends of the frame, with the emblem of the U.S. between them -- obviously illustrating the vast gulf of their separation because of the responsibilities of government (if ones dares a reading). Subliminal message gone in pan-and-scan. But these examples only show-up a handful of times in a 2-hour movie -- not enough to have a noticable impact on a first-time viewer. Yes, John Carpenter and others like to shoot in 2.35:1 ratio. But they rarely bother to take full advantage of the frame. More often than not (as with the above mentioned films) scenes are framed with throw-away content. Look at a standard conversation scene. It never breaks the 180-degree rule: the person on the left is always shot over-the-shoulder from the right, with them framed slightly to the left. Vice-versa for the person on the right. Other action is either kept to the right, left or centre. Almost never is there more than one action in a scene. Very TV. That's why De Palma continually runs into trouble. He loves using split-screen and split- focus, which only works in widescreen. The recent pan-and-scan release of SNAKE EYES had to resort to "letterbox" for one sequence because the problem was so obvious. Earlier someone had mentioned that Galaxy Quest went to the trouble of going from something like 1.33:1 for the first 15 minutes, then switches to 2.35:1 for the rest. Intrigued, I went to a $3 matinee at a local theatre... I have no idea why they bothered. Again, the filmmakers continued the late 20th century tradition of shooting for TV. Keeping the action to one area of the screen, and building in throw-away areas of the frame. I highlighted films like LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, THE WILD BUNCH and 2001 not so much because they were "better" films (that's way too subjective) but because these films -- scene-after-scene, shot-after-shot -- always try to use the whole frame for dramatic effect. Sometimes its filled with information. Sometimes its filled with nothing. 2001 uses a lot of nothing. But these films were made for theatres. Today's filmmakers don't have that luxury. They have to consider the TV, satellite and video market (though that may change again if wide-screen TVs take off). Look at the films of Robert Altman, for example. The 70s NASHVILLE and M*A*S*H are impossible to watch in pan-and-scan because too much action is lost. But the 90s THE PLAYER, SHORT CUTS and PRET-A-PORTER look fine on TV. That's because he, like many filmmakers of his era, consciously changed his visual style to better suit the TV frame. You can blame the video revolution of the early 80s for that. Someone else asked why EYES WIDE SHUT was projected in widescreen in theatres. I'm not sure. Leo can better address that question. It may be that modern projectors can only show prints in certain aspect ratios. But I do know that the original camera negative is 1.37:1, and that's what Kubrick concentrated on in his framings. Personally, I thought the video version has much better than the theatrical I saw. The print looked awful and muddy, but the video was much crisper and bright. The colours were more vibrant. As for the pacing argument, most filmmakers (if they care) monitor the pan- and-scan transfer. I once interviewed Canadian cinematographer Paul Sarossy about this topic (widescreen on TV) and he talked about THE ADJUSTER, which he shot for Atom Egoyan. At the last minute, before shooting, Egoyan discovered he could get his hands on an anamorphic lens (not very popular here in Canada) and he was thrilled about the prospect of shooting 2.35:1. But when it came time for the video release, Egoyan was equally gleeful about the pan-and-scan process. According to Sarossy, Egoyan felt like he was getting a second chance in the editing room. He could recompose scenes and even create visual jokes. He loved it... then again, I've never heard Egoyan say anything negative. dw ---- For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives: http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html