Look at the Man on the Moon crop. It's clearly anchored to the right because the focus of the scene is the guy on the right talking, and since the quiet guy on the left has nothing to contribute to a cropped frame but half a head or so, the sensible (if uninspiring) solution is to show just the one guy talking.
Overlooked in the outrage expressed is that movies are shot knowing that cropping will occur, and the scenes are often viewed with the cinematographer & director marking out which parts of the frame will be preserved for various formats. In the scene where Carrey is cropped out, he may very well have been positioned in the full frame such that if/when cropped to 16:9 he simply would not appear, rather than awkwardly have just his arm show while sensibly trying to preserve enough of the speaker within the frame.
http://library.creativecow.net/carlin_paul/35mm-evolution/5 describes a variant of this, presenting and addressing (as a deliberate process!) a little-discussed variant: the 2.39:1 and 16:9 versions may be the ones in fact guilty of cutting off part of the scene, with the 4:3 frame containing the whole scene, and the others preserving the full width but dropping top & bottom portions to make them fit the narrowed frames.
> Look at the Man on the Moon crop. It's clearly anchored to the right because the focus of the scene is the guy on the right talking, and since the quiet guy on the left has nothing to contribute to a cropped frame but half a head or so, the sensible (if uninspiring) solution is to show just the one guy talking.
That's etler's point: you seem to be disagreeing and correcting, but all you are doing is restating what he said. The idea is that "clearly" (and we now have this said twice): this is not just a blind crop, this is a crop that took into account something that Netflix wouldn't know (who is speaking), so it is thereby an unjustifiable stretch to believe that Netflix is modifying the movies themselves (which is the premise that etler was responding to, if you re-read mullingitover's comment).
You're right. I misread etler's wording. (As usual, if there's two ways to interpret something, one obvious and one obscure, my brain will seize the obscure.) Must...sleep...
Overlooked in the outrage expressed is that movies are shot knowing that cropping will occur, and the scenes are often viewed with the cinematographer & director marking out which parts of the frame will be preserved for various formats. In the scene where Carrey is cropped out, he may very well have been positioned in the full frame such that if/when cropped to 16:9 he simply would not appear, rather than awkwardly have just his arm show while sensibly trying to preserve enough of the speaker within the frame.
http://library.creativecow.net/carlin_paul/35mm-evolution/5 describes a variant of this, presenting and addressing (as a deliberate process!) a little-discussed variant: the 2.39:1 and 16:9 versions may be the ones in fact guilty of cutting off part of the scene, with the 4:3 frame containing the whole scene, and the others preserving the full width but dropping top & bottom portions to make them fit the narrowed frames.