690555, it's not condescending at all. it's realistic|
Posted by Mynoriti, Sun Dec-28-14 08:29 PM
this is probably hbo's lowest rated long running show ever. they're not doing this for wire purists. they'll have less success drawing new viewers releasing something that looks like its from 1995. plus it's not like the original versions are unavailable.
plus "callously cropping" is a bit much. they put some work in here, and it shows. i get wanting to see this done in it's original 4:3, but i'm personally digging this.
there's a pretty good discussion in that Simon blog post above. I usually avoid 'comments sections' like the plague, but Simon's a big part of the discussion. he's pretty balanced because he knows HBO's been so good to him despite making shows with shit ratings. plus his goal among all else is to draw people to the storytelling, regardless of the format.
>I'm strongly opposed to them callously cropping this shit.
>It's equally as egregious as the "full screen" DVDs that were
>popular in when people had square TVs. I want to watch the
>shit as its creators intended. It's actually condescending on
>HBO's part to think that audiences wouldn't watch something
>shot in a 4:3 aspect ratio. (Ironically, Grand Budapest Hotel
>is HBO's marquee movie now, and they're showing it in the
>proper format, without cropping.) I would have been fine with
>the HD remasters if the "square" format (which was a conscious
>aesthetic choice) was left intact.