This was done through a process known as pan and scan.
Ad content continues below
Even when done properly, it could spoil big moments of a film.
In the cinema, that was all done in one frame.
And thats an example of when people cared about what they were doing.
But still: pan and scan prevailed.
It saved a lot of time and expense come the video release.
So how did this, effectively a way of bastardising a movie, happen?
And how did widescreen viewing in the home finally take hold?
The early days of television were reflective of the early days of cinema itself.
CinemaScope itself was in part a response to the growing threat of television, of course.
Widescreen viewing was one such tactic, and cinemas duly started installing much wider screens.
When cinema changed screen size, television simply didnt: the sets themselves were expensive enough, after all.
Thus: pan and scan.
Not that television broadcasters didnt experiment with widescreen.
But the complaints quickly tumbled in.
This plan was to fill the black bars with and this really happened patterns and designs.
More complaints followed, with audiences not unreasonably suggesting that the patterns were distracting from the main feature.
This phenomenon, incidentally, made it to the UK, too.
The idea was quickly abandoned.
The majority of films would be screened in 4:3.
The complaints, on the whole, stopped.
Anyway, were slightly ahead of ourselves.
BBC Two followed the lead.
But the norm this was not.
These werent niche movies anymore: these were big hits.
), the widescreen releases (admittedly with smaller production runs) came with a premium price tag.
It should be noted that for some distributors, the choice to release in widescreen wasnt a luxury.
Oftentimes, this would be for cheap imports, rather than major blockbusters.
But the tide was still starting to turn.
Widescreen, however, remained a niche format still for nearly two more decades.
Yet laserdiscs were still niche, and the public werent ready to turn just yet.
And if you didnt know the difference, you could see their point.
But theres no such groundswell.
And he was right.
It would be remiss too to say that all movie buffs were in favour of widescreen releases and broadcasts.
Even the people who, in theory, should have craved widescreen the most werent unanimous in their support.
And then DVD entered the equation.
DVD swiftly became mainstream, whereas laserdisc remained niche.
That was the crucial difference.
Even then, there was no instant switchover to widescreen.
Studios were still grappling with the pan and scan/widescreen conundrum.
They would not phase them out for some time.
What ultimately changed things, though, was the increasing affordability of widescreen televisions.
As more and more people adopted the DVD format, so the benefits of widescreen became clear.
The old economic rules applied: if the customer demand is there, manufacturers tend to follow suit.
The more who demand a product, the cheaper it tends to get.
And all of a sudden, widescreen televisions were tumbling in price.
It wasnt just an affordable way to watch films, it was becoming a liftable one too!
But it seems a small price to pay for seeing all of the picture that you were intended to.
Even finding a 4:3 display for sale now requires some hefty Googling.
Yet it wasnt an easy victory for widescreen.
Now, theres just the small matter of the various widescreen aspect ratios to quibble over…
