#1 ·
Anyone else notice how crappy this movie looks on TV? It’s so obvious half the screen is missing most of the time...
Antitrust Lawsuits
Started by David Castillo2 · · 👁 4 views · 12 replies
Participants
#2 ·
Oh, absolutely, especially since most movies on TV tend to be broadcast in Pan&Scan rather than letterboxed.
The standard TV aspect ratio is 4:3, which means you just can't fit those 16:9 widescreen cinematic formats onto the screen without either losing a massive chunk of the visual information—we're talking about roughly 40% of the frame getting chopped off the sides—or leaving all that wasted space with those black bars sitting at the top and bottom.
The standard TV aspect ratio is 4:3, which means you just can't fit those 16:9 widescreen cinematic formats onto the screen without either losing a massive chunk of the visual information—we're talking about roughly 40% of the frame getting chopped off the sides—or leaving all that wasted space with those black bars sitting at the top and bottom.
#3 ·
I’ve already got all those details down pat. What’s actually killing me is how garbage the Pan & Scan version of this movie is. Usually, the camera pans left to right to catch as much of the action as possible. But here? It feels like they just locked the camera dead center for the whole damn thing. Like, when Tim Robbins is talking to his two lawyers, you can barely even see their faces—just their shoulders. A total disaster...
#4 ·
I didn't even notice, honestly. I was too busy staring at Rachel Leigh Cook—I’ve been head over heels for her for a long time now. 😍 😍 😍 🙂
#5 ·
David Castillo2 said:I’ve got all those details you mentioned memorized. What’s actually killing me is how absolutely terrible the Pan & Scan version of this movie is. Usually, the camera pans left to right to make sure you catch all the important stuff on screen. But here? It felt like the camera was just stuck dead center for the entire runtime. Like, take that scene where Tim Robbins is talking to his two lawyers—when they actually show up on screen, you can barely see more than their shoulders. You don't even get their faces. It’s a total disaster.
It was most obvious during that part where he's searching for names on the computer. The camera zooms in on the monitor, and suddenly you can only see a tiny fraction of the names. 😂 😕 😕 🙄
ehhh shit.
#6 ·
Claire Forlani.
God, she is just stunning...
Oh, and honestly, the movie isn't half bad either...
God, she is just stunning...
Oh, and honestly, the movie isn't half bad either...
#7 ·
jadegull48 said:Claire Forlani.
God, she is stunning.
Oh, and honestly? The movie isn't half bad either.
Yeah, she’s pretty, but Rachel 😍 is way more my type... just totally cutiiiieee
#8 ·
David Castillo2 said:Typically, you’d expect the camera to pan from left to right to really capture all the important details in the frame, but I honestly felt like the camera just stayed stuck right in the center for the entire movie. Like, take that scene where Tim Robbins is talking to his two lawyers—when they actually show up on screen, you can barely see anything past their shoulders instead of their faces. It was a total mess
Maybe it wasn't even a Pan & Scan issue, but maybe they just cropped the whole thing over to a 4:3 aspect ratio.
Was that playing on FOX or PBS?
#10 ·
Such a great movie, especially if you’re an open-source dev or one of those "fans" of micro $ ofta... 😬 😁
#11 ·
This movie is just weak... I actually sat down to watch it because of Peter Howitt, mostly since his work on Sliding Doors was so incredibly good.
Antitrust feels way too formulaic, though—nothing great about it, but nothing uniquely terrible either. Just standard stuff. It looks like Howitt is just another director struggling to find his footing in Hollywood, probably feeling the squeeze from those ruthless producers.
Antitrust feels way too formulaic, though—nothing great about it, but nothing uniquely terrible either. Just standard stuff. It looks like Howitt is just another director struggling to find his footing in Hollywood, probably feeling the squeeze from those ruthless producers.
#12 ·
Elizabeth Garcia2 said:The movie is just weak.
Weak?
Honestly, this film is total garbage, squared.
They could have easily just named the main villain Gill Bates—that way, even the most clueless viewer would actually grasp who they’re dealing with, especially since the movie fails so miserably at using those other "subtle clues" (I mean, the guy looks exactly like Bill Gates, shares all the same hobbies as Bill Gates, lives in a house just like Bill Gates, and does everything Bill Gates does).
#13 ·
The movie is just a bunch of clichés, basically a digital Pearl Harbor. And don't even get me started on the soundtrack—it’s a total miss. Dropping "Yellow Submarine" by Radiohead into a flick like this at the wrong damn moment is just absurd. Just look at how they handled "Pulp Fiction"; it was spot on—fire>"Yellow Submarine", a fight>"Yellow Submarine". 🙂