Babylon 5 was originally aired in a 4:3 aspect ration, but was since this was just before the advent of 16:9 televisions some shows were filmed with that aspect ratio in mind, Babylon 5 included. The 4:3 broadcast version is a cropped version of what was supposed to be shown on screen.

I’d expect 4:3.

The remaster wasn’t pan and scan as such, it was the original 4:3 edit of the show that was done for its original release in 1993-98.

That’s never been a problem during my (extensive) research into the topic. The only episode that has that problem is the original pilot, where the original master tapes were apparently kept in a warehouse that was flooded and then invaded by rats, and some of the original elements were reportedly lost when they did…

The main problem was that they did not carry on from TNG into DS9. Fully 50% of the cost of doing TNG’s famously expensive HD remaster (over $25 million) was setting up the pipelines, the software, the processes and hiring the right people and shaking the gremlins out of the system. Once the actual system was in full…

B5 was 100% shot and intended to be in widescreen. It was a selling point for the show even in 1994. Unfortunately (see my reply elsewhere) there was a screw-up which led to the show’s live-action-only footage all being in widescreen but the CGI and composites only being delivered in 4:3 and not actually existing in…

(HBO) Max removed it about a year ago.

Whilst this would be a normal analysis for shows of that era, not for B5. The show’s pilot was a surprise success when it was released on Laserdisc (not long after it aired), so for the show itself they decided to film and protect for widescreen, on the understanding that that format would be coming down the pipe for…

One presumes it will NOT have a Harlan Ellison comment or two him not only being dead and all, but WB wouldn’t pay him for the onscreen appearance. How I wish he was here for the WGA strike now.

All anyone wants is a reverse chronological timeline of posts from people they follow and none of these Twitter replacements want to deliver that.

Yeah but it’s not if, it’s when.  I really want to leave Twitter for something better, once that something better comes along.  I’m not impatient about it.  Just like I really want an electric car but the right one for me hasn’t hit the market yet and I can wait.

I tried to watch TMP again, and weird is a great way to describe it.  It’s like they gave someone a vague idea of what Star Trek is and, aside from the ship’s design, were told to just go with whatever they wanted.  I am probably wrong given how self-referential Star Trek is in general between the shows and various…

It does the opposite of the things Crystal Skull did, but Crystal Skull didn’t get ripped for doing them: it got ripped for doing them in a facile manner with bizarrely poor writing, direction and editing, especially for the people involved. And functionally, there’s barely a difference between treating Indy’s age…

I like this explanation, because Search for Spock is a genuinely good heist/rescue movie.

I think this is a misunderstanding of how the Trek thing works. It’s not that even films are all good and odd all suck. It’s that any given odd film will be lesser than the even films adjacent to it and vice versa. So... 3 is good but less than 2 or 4. 10 is weak but better than 9. Etc.

why should they be beholden to the critical response of a movie that came out 14 years ago?

no it was inspired by b-level action movies, reinterpreted by a-level talent. if you’re saying spielberg’s work on the indiana jones franchise didn’t have ‘great film-making’ you’re flat-out wrong.

Counterpoint: Fun Action for the Family can ALSO be great film-making! In fact, it should be! Look at Jurassic Park, Jaws, the 1st and 3rd Indiana Jones Movies, Wall-E, Mad Max: Fury Road, etc...

and they were right!

Indy, Jones Sr., Marcus and Sullah riding into the sunset at the end of Crusade was just such a perfect bow on the original run.